[Senate Hearing 111-22]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-22
JOHNSON, KOONIN, TRIAY, TOMPKINS, AND HARRIS NOMINATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF KRISTINA M. JOHNSON, TO BE THE UNDER
SECRETARY OF ENERGY, STEVEN ELLIOT KOONIN, TO BE THE UNDER SECRETARY
FOR SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, INES R. TRIAY, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF ENERGY (ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT), HILARY CHANDLER
TOMPKINS, TO BE SOLICITOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, SCOTT
BLAKE HARRIS, TO BE THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
__________
April 23, 2009
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-780 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
Harris, Scott Blake, Nominee to be General Counsel, Department of
Energy......................................................... 16
Johnson, Kristina M., Nominee to be Under Secretary of Energy.... 6
Koonin, Steven Elliot, Nominee to be the Under Secretary for
Science, Department of Energy.................................. 8
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 2
Tompkins, Hilary Chandler, Nominee to be Solicitor of the
Department of the Interior..................................... 14
Triay, Ines R., Nominee to be an Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management, Department of Energy................. 11
Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S Senator From New Mexico..................... 2
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 31
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 63
JOHNSON, KOONIN, TRIAY, TOMPKINS, AND HARRIS NOMINATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Senator Jeff
Bingaman, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. Ok. Why don't we get started here? The
committee meets this afternoon to consider five nominations for
offices in the Department of Energy and the Department of
Interior.
The 5 nominees are Kristina Johnson to be the Under
Secretary of Energy.
Steven Elliot Koonin to be the Under Secretary of Science
in the Department of Energy.
Ines Triay to be the Assistant Secretary of Energy for
Environmental Management.
Scott Blake Harris to be the General Counsel for the
Department of Energy.
Hilary Chandler Tompkins to be the Solicitor for the
Department of Interior.
These are 5 very important offices. I believe the President
has chosen well. He has presented us with very well qualified
and capable people for each of these positions.
I'm very impressed with the scientific credentials of both
Dr. Johnson and Dr. Koonin, of course. Believe that they, along
with Secretary Chu, will provide the Department of Energy
leadership worthy of the nation's premier science agency.
Dr. Triay has been the principle Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Environmental Management for the past 2 years and has been
the Acting Assistant Secretary since November. She brings to
the job over 10 years of experience in the Office of
Environmental Management and in the Carlsbad Field Office and
another 14 years of experience at Los Alamos National
Laboratory.
Mr. Harris and Ms. Tompkins are both very capable
experienced lawyers who will bring their skills and experience
to the top legal offices of their respective departments.
I note that Dr. Triay and Ms. Tompkins are from New Mexico.
My colleague, Senator Udall is here to make an endorsement of
each of them. We're very glad that we have all five nominees
before the committee.
Let me first, before I call on Senator Udall, let me call
on Senator Murkowski for any statement she would like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
welcome all the nominees before us and thank them for their
willingness to enter into, or in one case, to remain in
Government service.
I am gratified that the log jam of seems to have broken on
the nominees at the Department of the Interior and Energy as
well. We have before us today the folks who will be making a
large percentage of the day to day policy and the legal
decisions at these agencies. I think the importance of these
positions cannot be overestimated.
Today we have before us the person who is responsible for
overseeing the Department's nuclear waste program. In light of
the administration's recent decision to reject the Yucca
Mountain program before providing any alternative plan for
meeting the government's growing liabilities, I tell you this
is not a job that I envy.
The nominee for Solicitor General at Interior will also
have her plate full as she walks in the door. I think we would
agree that there never seems to be a shortage of issues or
legal issues at Interior. But it does seem that recent days
have brought an extra level of perhaps controversy in a whole
range of areas.
One court decision that concerns me greatly is the DC's
Circuit's recent decision to vacate and remand the 5-year OCS
Leasing Program. So whether this case is appealed again or if
the Department of Interior restructures the 5-year plan,
Interior must make advancing a responsible and efficient
program for our OCS resources in Alaska and elsewhere a
priority.
Mr. Chairman, as I have mentioned to you, I have another
hearing that I am ranking on and chairing this afternoon at
2:30. So I will have to leave. I will have a series of
questions that I would submit to the nominees.
But I do look forward to continuing our discussion on these
and other issues as the process moves forward. So thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Let me call on Senator
Udall to make some introductions of two of the witnesses as I
understand it or two of the nominees. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S SENATOR FROM
NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman and Ranking
Member Murkowski and other members of the committee. It's an
honor to introduce two constituents of mine and Chairman
Bingaman's, Hilary Tompkins, President Obama's nominee as
Solicitor General of the Department of Interior and Dr. Ines
Triay, President Obama's nominee for Assistant Secretary for
the Department of Energy.
Ms. Tompkins has already seen just about everything the law
has to offer from the Federal offices of Washington, DC, to the
court rooms of the Navajo Nation to the highest levels of New
Mexico State Government. As a law student she clerked for the
Navajo Nation Supreme Court giving her fluency in Indian law
that few lawyers have. After graduation she was accepted into
the prestigious Justice Department Honors Program. In that role
she helped to use the power of the Federal Government to hold
businesses accountable for violation of our nation's
environmental regulations.
She also gained experience navigating the complex world of
regulatory law as it is practiced at the highest levels. But
Ms. Tompkins was not content to spend her whole life serving in
Washington. After 2 years fighting crime in the Brooklyn United
States Attorney's Office, she returned to the land of her
birth.
As a practicing lawyer in Albuquerque, New Mexico, she
focused on environmental and water law, two areas that loom
large in the arid West. She also handled Federal and tribal law
for her law firm. Then Governor Richardson called. In January
2003, Ms. Tompkins joined the New Mexico Governor's Counsel
Office. She was the first Native American to be Chief Counsel
to a New Mexico Governor.
From that position she saw every legal controversy that a
State as diverse as New Mexico can produce. She advised on
legislation, oversaw litigation, provided the legal expertise
for an active State executive. She also managed a large staff
of talented attorneys gaining their trust and respect.
Now Ms. Tompkins has been nominated for a new job. The
Interior Department Solicitor General oversees 400 staff
lawyers including 400 staff including 300 lawyers. The job
demands a wide variety of legal knowledge ranging from water
and environmental regulation to complex property law to
constitutional doctrine.
It must be filled by a lawyer who has the skills, the
dedication and values to protect our Nation's priceless natural
legacy and pass it down to future generations. It requires a
lawyer who understands and appreciates this Nation's special
relationship with its Native American tribes. Ms. Tompkins is
that lawyer. I hope the committee agrees. I hope you all join
me in supporting her confirmation.
Dr. Triay is an extremely qualified scientist with a Ph.D.
in physical chemistry from the University of Miami. She spent
much of her successful career in New Mexico, first at Los
Alamos National Laboratory and next as the head of the Carlsbad
Field Office before serving in the Department's leadership in
Washington, DC. She's a strong role model. Her career is a
shining example for aspiring young scientists, particularly
women and Hispanics who are today under represented in the
scientific community.
She has devoted her career to a safe, cleanup of the
environmental legacy of the Nation's cold war nuclear weapon
production. This is the largest and complex environmental
cleanup program in history with more than 100 sites in 30
States. I have witnessed Dr. Triay's work in New Mexico and
attest to its quality.
Dr. Triay is able to handle both the difficult scientific
issues and the critical public health issues involved in these
cleanups. During her 10 years at DOE, Dr. Triay has tackled
some of the Nation's most difficult cleanup challenges
including completing cleanup at Rocky Flats in Colorado. She
also played an instrumental role in assuring that transeuranic
waste disposal operations at the Department's Waste Isolation
Pilot Project in New Mexico are safe and secure.
Mr. Chairman there is no scientist better qualified to be
Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management
at DOE. I hope you will join me in supporting Dr. Triay for
this position. I thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to
come and introduce these two very capable individuals.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for the strong
endorsement of both individuals. Let me mention that Senator
Barbara Mikulski was not able to be here today. But she has
provided testimony* which we'll include in the record strongly
endorsing Dr. Kristina Johnson's nomination by the President as
well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless there's a question of our colleague Senator Udall,
we'll allow him to leave. We will call forward the nominees.
Why don't you all come forward and just remain standing. I will
present this oath which we are required to do in our committee
by our committee rules.
If each of you would stand and raise your right hand,
please.
Ok, do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about
to give to the Senate committee on Energy and Natural Resources
shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Nominees. I do.
The Chairman. Please be seated. Before we begin to hear
your statement I will ask three questions that we address to
nominees that come before this committee.
The first question is will you be able to--will you be
available to appear before this committee and other
congressional committees to represent departmental positions
and to respond to any issues of concern to the Congress?
Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. I will.
The Chairman. Mr. Koonin.
Mr. Koonin. I will.
The Chairman. Ms. Triay.
Ms. Triay. I will.
The Chairman. Ms. Tompkins.
Ms. Tompkins. I will.
The Chairman. Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. I will.
The Chairman. Thank you. Here's the second question. Are
you aware of any personal holdings, investments or interests
that could constitute a conflict of interest or create the
appearance of such a conflict should you be confirmed and
assume the office to which you've been nominated by the
President?
Ms. Johnson, why don't you go first?
Ms. Johnson. All of my personal assets have been reviewed
by both myself and appropriate ethics counselors with the
Federal Government. I've taken every appropriate action to
avoid any conflicts of interest.
The Chairman. Alright. Mr. Koonin.
Mr. Koonin. All of my personal assets have been reviewed
both by myself and by appropriate ethics counselors within the
Federal Government. I've taken appropriate actions to avoid any
conflicts of interest.
The Chairman. Ms. Triay.
Ms. Triay. All of my personal assets have been reviewed
both by myself and by appropriate ethics counselors within the
Federal Government. I have taken appropriate action to avoid
any conflicts of interest.
The Chairman. Alright. Ms. Tompkins.
Ms. Tompkins. My investments, personal holdings and other
interests have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate
ethics counselor in the Federal Government. I have taken
appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. There
are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my
knowledge.
The Chairman. Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. All of my personal assets have been reviewed
both by myself and by the appropriate ethics counselors within
the Federal Government. I have taken appropriate action to
avoid any conflicts of interest.
The Chairman. Alright. Thank you all very much. The third
and final question is are you involved or do you have any
assets that are held in a blind trust?
Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. No.
Mr. Koonin. No.
Ms. Triay. No.
Ms. Tompkins. No.
Mr. Harris. No, sir.
The Chairman. Alright. Thank you all very much. Our
tradition here in the committee is for nominees to have the
opportunity at this point to introduce any family members that
are with them. If you'd like to do that, please go right ahead.
Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Please allow me to
introduce my sister, Jennifer Looney from Arizona. My sister
Sarah Cullin and her daughter, Hannah who's here with bring a
daughter to work day and my friends from West Virginia,
Colorado, North Carolina, Maryland and Ontario joining us
today. Thank you.
The Chairman. You've got a big crowd here. It's obvious.
Thank you. Mr. Koonin.
Mr. Koonin. With me this afternoon are my wife, Laurie, who
has been my companion, advisor and support for almost 39 years
and the second of our three children, Allison.
The Chairman. Very good. We welcome them.
Ms. Triay.
Ms. Triay. With me today is my husband of 24 years, Dr.
John Hull and his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Harvey Hull.
The Chairman. Good. We welcome them too. Ms. Tompkins.
Ms. Tompkins. With me today are my parents, Ken and Nancy
Tompkins from Southern New Jersey and my husband, Mike Prindle
and our daughter, Haley are back in New Mexico fighting a cold.
The Chairman. Alright.
Ms. Tompkins. So they apologize for not being here.
The Chairman. That's fine. Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Senator, I'd like to introduce my wife of 30
years, Barbara Harris. Also with me is my son, Colin, who is a
senior at the Sidwell Friend School and will soon become a
constituent of Senator Shaheen's as he enters Dartmouth next
fall. I'd also like to introduce my daughter, Margo, who is a
sophomore at the National Cathedral School. She has worked on
the Hill as an intern for Senator Cantwell.
The Chairman. It sounds like you have an inside track
around here.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Thank you all and we welcome all of your
family members. Why don't, at this point, why don't we hear
whatever statements you'd like to make, any opening statement.
Dr. Johnson, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF KRISTINA M. JOHNSON, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY
OF ENERGY
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
committee, it is an honor and privilege to appear here today as
President Obama's nominee for Under Secretary of Energy. I look
forward, if confirmed, to working with Secretary Chu and
members of the committee in serving our Nation in this
capacity. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and
also to have met with you or your staff prior to today.
I wish to thank President Obama for asking me to join his
administration as Under Secretary of Energy and Secretary Chu
for his confidence in this appointment. If confirmed I look
forward to being part of the stellar Department of Energy team
that Secretary Chu has assembled, some of which are here today
and some of which you will see in the future. I'm confident
that this team and many others working with us are up to the
challenges of achieving the goals of producing more jobs,
reducing greenhouse gases and achieving energy security.
Together we will work tirelessly to bridge the gap between
basic and applied research, technology development and
commercial deployment to advance our economy and energy
security through optimizing our electrical building
infrastructures. As I stated in my written testimony I am a
third generation engineer. My grandfather worked with George
Westinghouse at the first turn of the last century. My father,
Robert G. Johnson, was an electrical mechanical engineer also
working for Westinghouse.
After serving in the Umited States Army during World War
II, my dad rejoined Westinghouse. Developed most of the bid
packages for the large hydroelectric power plants including
Glen Canyon, Grand Coulee and Boulder Dam, to mention a few.
Their example, along with my mother's determination that all
seven of her children would have the opportunity for a college
education which she was not able to have as she grew up during
the depression has helped shape my own course and desire to
similarly serve society through educating others and through
the application of science and technology innovation to build
new products, processes and companies to make lives better.
I've been a professor, an inventor, an entrepreneur, a
small business owner and a senior university administrative
leader. My career has focused on improving each institution as
I have tried to make the whole greater than the sum of the
parts. If confirmed I pledge to you and members of this
committee that I will apply my knowledge, expertise and
experience to work with you to serve the President, Secretary
Chu and our country for the betterment of society. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kristina M. Johnson, Nominee to be Under
Secretary of Energy
Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and distinguished
Members of the Committee, it is an honor and a privilege to appear
before you today as President Obama's nominee for Under Secretary of
Energy.
I wish to thank President Obama for asking me to join his
administration as Under Secretary for Energy in the Department of
Energy (DOE), and Secretary Chu for his confidence in my appointment.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Department of Energy
team Secretary Chu is assembling to advance the President's plans to
restore our economy, secure our energy future and reduce our greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. I am confident that the team you see here today
will work together, tirelessly, to achieve these goals.
The Under Secretary for Energy has wide responsibilities in energy
technology including the DOE Offices of Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability, Environment Management, Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management and Legacy Management, and the DOE Laboratories associated
with energy technologies. While the duties are varied, one consistent
challenge is better integration of the work of the science and
technology offices and DOE laboratories. By bridging the gap between
basic research, development and commercial deployment, DOE can deliver
technologies that will help to improve our everyday lives and enable us
to achieve our long-term energy and climate change goals.
I believe my background and experience have helped equip me with
the skills and perseverance to tackle the challenges faced by the Under
Secretary for Energy.
I am a third generation engineer. My grandfather, Charles W.
Johnson, was a mechanical engineer and worked directly for George
Westinghouse as his engineering assistant, during the early days of
Westinghouse Corporation.
My father, Robert G. Johnson, was an electro-mechanical engineer,
and also worked for Westinghouse. After serving in the U.S. Army during
WWII, he rejoined the company, developing the bid packages for the
Boulder, Grand Coulee and Glen Canyon hydroelectric power generation
plants, to mention a few. I am inspired by my Grandfather's and
Father's desire to improve their communities through technology. Their
example, along with my Mother and Family's extraordinary support, has
helped shaped my own course and desire to similarly serve society
through the application of science and technology innovation.
After receiving my PhD in electrical engineering from Stanford
University, I served on the faculty of the University of Colorado at
Boulder for fourteen years, ultimately directing the cross-disciplinary
National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center (ERC) in
Optoelectronic Computing Systems. The NSF/ERC program emphasizes a
systems-focus and market pull for academic research. Our mission was to
create a new workforce and new industries for the 21st Century.
We succeeded in starting fourteen new companies, creating high
paying jobs and new technologies in the optics and photonics industry
sector. As an academic, I am most proud of the accomplishments of my 25
PhD students and postdoctoral fellows, and 48 bachelor and master
independent study students who contributed mightily to the success of
our research program and ERC.
After Colorado, I served as Dean of the Pratt Engineering School at
Duke University for eight years, where I started programs to transition
academic research and development into the commercial marketplace. I
established the Fitzpatrick Center for Interdisciplinary Engineering,
Medicine and Applied Sciences, an expanded professional master's of
engineering management program and a technology accelerator called
SouthEast Techinventures. Working with industry, academia and the state
and federal governments, we spun out over twenty-two companies,
creating jobs and an educated workforce in the biotech and photonic
industry sectors in North Carolina.
For the last two years I have been the Provost and Senior Vice-
President for Academic Affairs at Johns Hopkins University. Johns
Hopkins University is the largest research university in the country.
It is comprised of nine Schools, the Applied Physics Laboratory, and
numerous centers and institutes. In managing the academic affairs of a
university with 20,000 full and part-time students and approximately
2,500 faculty, I was responsible for building a strong management team
and launching university-wide strategic research and faculty hiring
initiatives.
My entire career has focused on improving each institution I have
served by making the whole ``greater than the sum of the parts.'' I
relish the opportunity to do this by working with the outstanding DOE
leadership and staff to develop an energy technology roadmap to
inspire, guide and measure our progress toward achieving President
Obama's clean energy, job creation, and climate change goals.
If confirmed as Under Secretary of Energy, I look forward to
working with members of this committee, and I pledge to you that I will
apply my knowledge, expertise and experience to solving our nation's
energy challenges. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Koonin, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN ELLIOT KOONIN, NOMINEE TO BE THE UNDER
SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Koonin. Chairman Bingaman, Senator Murkowski and
members of the committee, I am truly honored to appear before
you as President Obama's nominee for Under Secretary for
Science in the Department of Energy. To aid your consideration
of my nomination I'd like to say something about myself,
something about science in the Department and something about
what I hope to accomplish if my nomination is confirmed. I've
worked in science for almost four decades largely as a
Professor of Theoretical Physics at the California Institute of
Technology.
As a researcher I have several times been thrilled to
understand something new about nature. As a teacher I've had
the satisfaction of supervising some 25 Ph.D. theses and
educating hundreds of talented students. As Cal Tech's Provost
for 9 years, I gained a deeper understanding of the breadth of
technical cultures and shaped programs in biology, astronomy,
the earth sciences, the social sciences and information
science.
For the past 5 years as BP's chief scientist, I've help
guide that company's long range technology strategy and in
particular catalyzing a major business and research initiative
in biofuels. I also came to appreciate the dynamics, strengths
and weaknesses of the private sector as well as the global
context for United States. research and education efforts. In
diverse advisory roles for the past 25 years, including work
with the JASON Group, I've been exposed to many technical
problems facing the government, particularly in national
security and have even help solve some of them.
Throughout my career it's been a privilege and pleasure for
me to learn and understand deeply from many teachers, mentors
and colleagues. Over the decades my tastes have broadened from
the fascinating, but relatively circumscribed problems of basic
science to the richer and more difficult problems that
intertwined science, technology, economics and politics. My
involvement with the DOE began as a Los Alamos summer graduate
student in 1972. Since then more by inclination than design
I've worked significantly in the three major areas of DOE
technical activities, basic science, nuclear security and
energy technologies.
Let me offer a few observations about each. The basic
research supported by the Office of Science is one of the
jewels of the Federal research portfolio. The long tradition of
peer reviewed support for university and national laboratory
researchers and for forefront user facilities continues to
drive advances on many fronts.
We're at the cusp of understanding the origin of mass.
We're at the cusp of understanding what makes up most of the
universe and how quarks and gluons combine to form nuclei. New
instrumentation and new information technologies are enabling
better understanding of the changing climate and new
capabilities to predict, control and manipulate materials,
biological systems and plasma. The commitments from Congress
and from the administration to double support for these
activities over the next decade are more than justified.
In nuclear security the President has set ambitious goals
for reducing the United States stockpile of weapons while
maintaining confidence in their safety, security and
reliability in the absence of nuclear testing. But these goals
will not be achievable without a robust technical enterprise in
the NNSA. The ongoing stockpile stewardship program has been
effective for more than a decade but faces growing challenges
in maintaining technical capabilities. Strengthening those same
capabilities will also be essential to achieving the
President's non proliferation goals.
The President's energy goals are to enhance energy security
and reduce greenhouse gas emissions while creating new jobs.
Improvements in the technologies to produce, transmit, store
and use energy are essential to meeting them. But the scale,
duration, cost and complexity of energy matters poses
significant challenges.
Technical understanding and judgment are important in
making the right decisions. Novel forms of public, private and
international partnerships will be required to address these
global, societal problems. I have pledged to Secretary Chu that
I will work closely with the Under Secretary of Energy on these
matters. Indeed I'm confident that Dr. Johnson and I will be
very effective together should we both be confirmed.
What do I aspire to accomplish as Under Secretary for
Science? By statute the position has the dual responsibilities
of overseeing the Office of Science and of being the principle
scientific advisor to the Secretary. In the former capacity I
would look forward to working with this committee, Secretary
Chu, the Director of the Office of Science and the broader
scientific community to see that Office of Science funds are
wisely allocated and the programs are well executed.
As a scientific advisor I would hope to coordinate and
harmonize technical activities across the department and bring
the discipline of appropriate peer review, program management
and project management to all parts of DOE. I would also hope
to promote rigorous and unbiased technical assessments in all
matters facing the department as these necessarily underpin
good policy decisions. The tone that Secretary Chu has already
set and the team he is assembling are highly conducive to
achieving those goals.
In closing let me say that I am both humbled and energized
by the confidence President Obama has placed in me through this
nomination. If confirmed I will do my utmost to work with this
committee, Secretary Chu and others to sustain and enhance the
Department of Energy's basic research and to ensure quality
technical thinking across the entire spectrum of the
department's activities. Thank you for the opportunity to
address the committee. I'm happy to answer any questions that
you might have for me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Koonin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven Elliot Koonin, Nominee to be the Under
Secretary for Science, Department of Energy
Chairman Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, members of the Committee, I
am honored to appear before you as President Obama's nominee for Under
Secretary for Science in the Department of Energy. With me this
afternoon are my wife Laurie, who has been my companion and support for
39 years, and the second of our three children, Alyson, a junior at the
University of Richmond.
As you consider my nomination, I thought it would be useful for me
to say something about myself beyond the bare biographical facts,
something about my perceptions of Science in the Department of Energy,
and about what I hope to accomplish if my nomination is confirmed.
I have worked in Science for almost 4 decades, most of that time as
a professor of Theoretical Physics at the California Institute of
Technology. As a researcher, I have several times had the thrill of
understanding something new about Nature: in the Cosmos, in the atomic
and subatomic realms, and in the Earth's climate system. As a teacher,
I have had the satisfaction of supervising some 25 PhD theses and
educating hundreds of talented undergraduate and graduate students. And
as Caltech's Provost for nine years, I gained a deeper understanding of
the breadth of technical cultures, supervised the selection and hiring
of 1/3 of the Institute's professors, and shaped programs in the
biological sciences, astronomy, the earth sciences, the social
sciences, and information science.
For the past five years as BP's Chief Scientist, I've helped guide
that company's long-range technology strategy, in the process forming a
synthetic and synoptic understanding of energy and catalyzing a major
initiative in biofuels. I also came to appreciate the dynamics,
strengths, and weaknesses of the private sector, and to better
understand the global context for US research and education efforts.
And in diverse government advisory roles for the past 25 years,
including work with the JASON group, I've been exposed to the variety
of technical problems facing the government, particularly in National
Security, and have even occasionally contributed to their solution.
Throughout my career, it has been a privilege and pleasure for me
to learn and understand deeply from many teachers, mentors and
colleagues, to apply the substance and methods of Science toward
defining problems and seeking their solutions, to clearly communicate
those learnings, and then to be a part of their implementation. Over
the decades, my tastes have broadened from the fascinating, but
relatively circumscribed, problems of basic science to the richer, and
more difficult, problems that intertwine science, technology,
economics, and politics.
My involvement with the DOE began as a Los Alamos summer graduate
student in 1972. Since then, more by inclination than design, I've
worked significantly in the three major areas of DOE technical
activities--basic science, nuclear security, and energy technologies.
Let me offer a few observations about each.
The basic research supported by the Office of Science is one of the
jewels of the Federal research portfolio. The long tradition of peer-
reviewed support for university and national laboratory researchers and
forefront user facilities continues to drive advances on many fronts.
We are on the cusp of understanding the origin of mass, the nature of
most of what's in the universe, and how quarks and gluons combine to
form nuclei. New instrumentation and new information technologies are
enabling better understanding of the changing climate and new
capabilities to predict, manipulate, and control materials, biological
systems, and plasma. The commitments from Congress and the
Administration to double support for these activities over the next
decade are more than justified.
In nuclear security, the President has set ambitious goals for
reducing the US stockpile of weapons while maintaining confidence in
their safety, security, and reliability in the absence of nuclear
testing. But these will not be achievable without a robust technical
enterprise in the NNSA. The National Nuclear Security Administration's
ongoing Stockpile Stewardship program of simulation, non-nuclear
experimentation, and warhead surveillance and refurbishment has been
effective for more than a decade, but faces growing challenges in
maintaining technical capabilities. Strengthening these capabilities
will be essential to achieving the President's non-proliferation goals.
In Energy, President Obama has set ambitious goals to enhance
energy security and reduce GHG emissions while creating new jobs.
Improvements in the technologies to produce, transmit, store, and use
energy are essential to meeting these goals. But the scale, duration,
cost, and complexity of energy matters pose great challenges. Technical
understanding and judgement are important to making the right decisions
about which technologies to pursue and how each should be advanced from
research and development through demonstration and deployment. Novel
forms of public/private and international partnerships will be required
to address these global problems. I have pledged to Secretary Chu to
work closely with the Under Secretary of Energy on these matters, I am
confident that Dr. Johnson and I will work well together, should we
both be confirmed.
What might I aspire to accomplish in the position to which I've
been nominated? As you know, by statue the Under Secretary for Science
has the dual responsibilities of overseeing the basic research carried
out in the Office of Science, and of serving as the principal
scientific advisor to the Secretary. In the former capacity, I would
look forward to working with this Committee, Secretary Chu, the
Director of the Office of Science, and the broader scientific community
to see that the existing and planned incremental funds for basic
research are wisely allocated and the programs well-executed. In the
latter capacity, I would hope to coordinate and harmonize technical
activities across the department, looking for gaps and identifying
synergies, bringing the rigor of appropriate peer review, program and
project management to all parts of DOE. Indeed, the tone Secretary Chu
has already set, and the team he is assembling, are highly conducive to
achieving those goals. I would also hope to promote thorough and
unbiased technical assessments in all matters facing the Department, as
these necessarily underpin all good policy decisions.
In closing, let me say that I am both humbled and energized by the
confidence President Obama has placed in me through this nomination. If
confirmed, I will do my utmost to work with this Committee, Secretary
Chu, and others to sustain and enhance the Department of Energy's basic
research and to ensure quality technical thinking across the entire
spectrum of the Department's activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee and I am
happy to address any questions that you might have for me.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Triay.
STATEMENT OF INES R. TRIAY, NOMINEE TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Ms. Triay. Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, members of the
committee, it's a great honor to appear before you today as
President Obama's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management at the Department of Energy. I thank
President Obama and Secretary Chu for their confidence. I also
thank the committee for considering my nomination.
In 1961 when my parents fled Cuba's communist regime and
went into exile with a 3-year old daughter and nothing but
their dreams for a better life and their love for freedom, it
would have been impossible to believe that their daughter would
ever be nominated by the President of the United States to
serve this great country. My parents and I are proud to be
naturalized citizens of the United States and are humbled by
the honor of my being here today.
The pride that we feel has only served to deepen the great
love that we have for this country and the admiration and
respect that we have for the American people. That a girl born
in Cuba was welcome in Puerto Rico, encouraged to study math
and science, received a Ph.D. in chemistry from the University
of Miami was recruited by Los Alamos National Laboratory and
mentored by giants in the field of nuclear science was asked to
direct the beginning of the operational phase of the waste
isolation pilot plant, the only nuclear waste repository of its
kind in the world, was promoted to the top career position in
the Department of Energy's Environmental Management Program,
the most complex nuclear cleanup in the world. Is now being
nominated to direct cleanup is something that only happens in
America.
Mr. Chairman if I'm confirmed to this position I will work
closely with you and with all of Congress to address the many
local, State, regional and national issues that we face within
the environmental management program. I commit to informing and
consulting with Congress, the tribal nations, the States, our
regulators, our stakeholders and individual concerned citizens.
As I address you today I want to affirm my commitment to
safety, the safety of our workers, the safety of the public and
the safety of our environment. Safe operations and cleanup is
our ever present and ultimate goal.
I come before you today with a unique understanding of the
complexity and magnitude of the task that we face. I have
firsthand experience in every aspect of environmental
management. I have dedicated my life to the successful cleanup
of the environmental legacy of the cold war.
While we have made significant progress in environmental
management program I recognize the enormity of the remaining
effort and the technical challenges that we face. I am eager to
use science and technology, robust project management and our
intergovernmental partnerships to reduce the cost and schedule
of the remaining program. As the committee is aware the
Environmental Management Program has come under considerable
criticism for the execution of its projects. Under my
leadership as Acting Assistant Secretary aggressive efforts are
underway to transform the Environmental Management Program into
a best in class project management organization.
I commit to you that if I am confirmed I will work
tirelessly to make this effort successful and to continue to
improve the Environmental Management Program. I would like to
thank Congress for including $6 billion of funding in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for Environmental
Management. This funding will save and create jobs quickly for
shovel ready work that is essential to our strategic objectives
to reduce the footprint of the legacy cleanup complex. I
recognize that discipline management and oversight of these
funds will be critical to our success. I pledge to work with
other offices in the Energy Department and the Congress to
ensure that we meet this challenge.
I have a long history of demanding excellence from my team.
Nothing less than performance that results in delivering our
projects on time and within cost will be acceptable from the
Environmental Management Federal team and our contractors.
Should I be confirmed I will use every available tool to ensure
the successful performance of the Environmental Management
mission. Relentless focus on performance, utilization of
science and technology, hard work, staff professionalism and
competency, transparency and accountability, this will be the
cornerstones of my tenure if I am confirmed.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would be honored
to serve this country that I so deeply love. As a Latina I
embrace the responsibility of excelling. If confirmed I will do
everything in my power to meet your highest expectations. I
would be pleased to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Triay follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ines R. Triay, Nominee to be an Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Management, Department of Energy
It is a great honor to appear before you today as President Obama's
nominee to be the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management at
the United States Department of Energy. I thank Secretary Chu and
President Obama for their support and confidence in recommending and
nominating me. I also thank the Committee for considering my
nomination. I would like to introduce my husband of 24 years, Dr. John
Hall, and his parents Mr. and Mrs. Harvey Hall, who are with me here
today.
In 1961, when my parents fled Cuba's Communist regime and went into
exile with a three-year-old daughter and nothing but their dreams for a
better life and their love for freedom, it would have been impossible
to believe that their daughter would ever be nominated by the President
of the United States to serve this great country. My parents and I are
proud to be naturalized citizens of the United States of America and
are humbled by the honor of my being here today. The pride that we feel
has only served to deepen the great love that we have for this country
and the admiration and respect that we have for the American people.
That a girl born in Cuba was welcomed in Puerto Rico; encouraged to
study math and science; received a Ph.D. in Chemistry at the University
of Miami in Florida; was recruited by Los Alamos National Laboratory in
New Mexico and mentored by giants in the field of nuclear science; was
asked to direct the beginning of the operational phase of the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico, the only nuclear waste
repository of its kind in the world; was promoted to the top career
position in the Department of Energy's Environmental Management
program, the most complex nuclear cleanup in the world; and is now
being recommended by a Nobel laureate, Secretary Chu, and nominated by
President Obama to direct that cleanup is something that only happens
in the United States of America.
Mr. Chairman, if I am confirmed to this position, I will work
closely with you and with all of Congress to address the many local,
state, regional and national issues that we face within the
Environmental Management program.
As I address you today, I want to affirm my commitment to safety--
the safety of our workers, the safety of the public, the safety of our
site communities and our stakeholders and the safety of our
environment. Safe operations and cleanup is our ever present and
ultimate goal.
I come before you today with a unique understanding of the
complexity and magnitude of the task that we face in the Environmental
Management program. I have first-hand experience in every aspect of
environmental management and I have dedicated my life to the successful
cleanup of the environmental legacy of the Cold War.
While we have made significant progress in the Environmental
Management program, I recognize the enormity of the remaining effort
and the technical challenges that we face. I am eager to use science
and technology, robust project management, and our intergovernmental
partnerships to reduce the cost and schedule of the remaining program.
As the Committee is aware, the Environmental Management program has
come under considerable criticism over the years in the execution of
its projects. We must strengthen our project management capability and
improve the skill set of our project management teams. Under my
leadership as Acting Assistant Secretary, aggressive efforts are
underway to transform the Environmental Management program into a
``best-in-class'' project management organization. We are implementing
processes and procedures for quality assurance and for identifying and
managing project risks. I commit to you that if I am confirmed, I will
work tirelessly to make these efforts successful and to continue to
improve the Environmental Management program.
I would like to thank Congress for including $6 billion in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the Environmental Management
program. This funding will save and create jobs quickly for shovel-
ready work that is essential to our strategic objective to reduce the
footprint of the legacy cleanup complex. Footprint reduction can be
accomplished by focusing cleanup activities on decontamination and
demolition of excess contaminated facilities, soil and groundwater
remediation, and solid waste disposition, all of which have proven
technologies and an established regulatory framework. In addition to
creating jobs, the Recovery Act funding will accelerate protection of
human health and the environment at these sites. I recognize that
disciplined management and oversight of these funds will be critical to
our success. I pledge to work with other offices in the Energy
Department and the Congress to ensure that we meet this challenge.
I would like to end my testimony by reaffirming my commitment to
the safety of our staff and contractors, to the safety of the
communities and stakeholders at our sites and to the protection of our
environment. I commit to informing and consulting with Congress, the
tribal nations, the States, our regulators, our stakeholders and
individual concerned citizens.
I have a long history of demanding excellence from my team. Nothing
less than performance that results in delivering our projects on time
and within cost will be acceptable from the Environmental Management
federal team and our contractors. Should I be confirmed, I will use
every available tool to ensure the successful performance of the
Environmental Management mission, relentless focus on performance,
utilization of science and technology, hard work, staff professionalism
and competency, transparency, and accountability. These would be the
cornerstones of my tenure if I am confirmed.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I would be honored to serve
this country that I so deeply love. As a Latina executive and
scientist, I embrace the responsibility of excelling, and, if
confirmed, I will do everything in my power to meet your highest
expectations. It is an honor to testify before you today. I would be
pleased to answer your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Ms. Tompkins, go right
ahead.
STATEMENT OF HILARY CHANDLER TOMPKINS, NOMINEE TO BE SOLICITOR
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Tompkins. Chairman Bingaman and members of the
committee, I am honored to appear before you as President
Obama's nominee to be the Solicitor of the Department of the
Interior. I ask for your consent to his nomination. I thank you
for providing me with the opportunity to present to you my
background and qualifications for this position.
For the past year I've been a stay at home mom. I've taught
a seminar at the University of New Mexico School of Law. For
the majority of my career I have served in the public sector. I
have represented the United States and the State of New Mexico.
I also have represented various Indian tribes and pueblos.
I have expertise in the areas of environmental law, natural
resources, water and Indian law as well as experience in the
areas of constitutional law, administrative law and the
legislative process. I have considerable litigation experience
as well. I also have the experience of serving as a political
appointee at the highest levels of the State of New Mexico
government.
As Chief Counselor to Governor Bill Richardson of the State
of New Mexico I was responsible for advising the Governor on
all legal matters. As well as managing a legal team and
overseeing the general counsels in 31 State agencies. From this
experience I understand the importance of providing unbiased
and intellectually honest advice to a chief executive and to
governmental agencies.
I believe in working in a collaborative fashion and meeting
with the interested parties, affected communities, experts and
elected officials to learn the best solution to often difficult
and complex issues. If I am confirmed I will bring these
experiences and values to the position of Solicitor. I
understand that the Department of the Interior presents its own
unique set of challenges where the balancing of competing
interests is a frequent occurrence and the multitude of issues
can be staggering at times.
I am prepared to take on these challenges. I have and will
always have an open mind, a strong work ethic and a commitment
to providing the best legal advice to my client and to my
country. I also will have the benefit of working with the
exceptional attorneys in the Solicitor's Office.
On a personal note, I was born on the Navajo reservation
into a family that was burdened with the social ills of
alcoholism and poverty. When I met my birth mother she told me
that she did not want me to grow up in that situation and that
was why she gave me up for adoption as a baby. I was fortunate
to be placed with wonderful, caring parents who raised me in
Southern New Jersey. It was far from Indian Country, but I
never forgot where I came from.
At times it was difficult being a Native American without a
culture or a community. I distinctly remember visiting the
Natural History Museum here in Washington, DC, as a young child
and seeing a display of Navajo Indians behind a pane of glass.
I wanted to climb into the scene spread out before me and
become a part of it. But at the same time I felt like it was
foreign. It was the support and love and guidance of my parents
that allowed me to navigate this world and find my place it in.
I attended Dartmouth College in part to join their Native
American Student Program and learn more about my heritage. As a
young adult I reconnected with my roots and lived on the Navajo
Reservation. I learned about my Navajo culture which at its
core stresses the importance of living in harmony with the
Earth.
I went to law school after practicing in the Navajo Tribal
Courts as a lay practitioner an opportunity provided to tribal
members who pass the Navajo bar exam. It is because of these
experiences that I am able to adapt and exist in different
worlds. As a lawyer I am able to inhabit these worlds with a
duty and purpose.
It would be the greatest honor and a privilege to serve the
United States as Solicitor of the Department of the Interior.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before
you and all of the committee members today. I stand ready to
answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tompkins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hilary Chandler Tompkins, Nominee to be Solicitor
of the Department of the Interior
Chairman Bingaman and members of the Committee, I am honored to
appear before you as President Obama's nominee to be the Solicitor of
the Department of the Interior. I ask for your consent to the
President's nomination.
I thank you for providing me with the opportunity to present to you
my background and qualifications for this position. For the past year,
I have been a stay at home mom and taught a seminar at the University
of New Mexico law school.
For a majority of my career I have served in the public sector. I
have represented the United States and the State of New Mexico. I also
have represented various Indian tribes and pueblos. In this regard, I
have a broad and unique perspective. I am comfortable and conversant in
the culture of these various governmental entities, which I believe
gives me a valuable awareness of and sensitivity to their distinct
interests.
I have expertise in the areas of environmental, natural resources,
water, and Indian law, as well as experience in the areas of
constitutional law, administrative law, and the legislative process. I
have considerable litigation experience and have appeared on behalf of
my clients in tribal, state, and federal courts. I've witnessed the
challenges firsthand of bringing governmental entities and different
groups together to tackle the difficult and complex issues of water
management and compliance with laws such as NEPA and the Endangered
Species Act.
I also have the experience of serving as a political appointee at
the highest levels of the New Mexico state government. As chief counsel
to Governor Bill Richardson of the State of New Mexico, I was
responsible for advising the Governor on all legal matters as well as
managing a legal team and overseeing the general counsels in over
twenty agencies. From this experience, I understand the importance of
providing unbiased and intellectually honest advice to a chief
executive and to governmental agencies. I believe in working in a
collaborative fashion and meeting with the interested parties, affected
communities, experts, and elected officials to learn the best solution
to often difficult and complex issues.
If I am confirmed, I will bring all these experiences and values to
the position of Solicitor. I understand that the Department of the
Interior presents its own unique set of challenges, where the balancing
of competing interests is a frequent occurrence and the multitude of
issues can be staggering at times. I am prepared to take on these
challenges. I have and will always have an open mind, a strong work
ethic, and a commitment to providing the best legal advice to my client
and to my country. I also will have the benefit of working with the
exceptional attorneys in the Solicitor's Office.
I am humbled to be considered to serve in this capacity. As a young
Justice Department attorney, I received training from John Cruden--some
of you may know him. He is a well-respected, senior lawyer in the
Justice Department's Energy and Natural Resources Division. John told
us that we must never forget that it is the greatest honor and
privilege to stand before a court of law and state ``I represent the
United States of America.'' I have never forgotten his wise words and
have carried them with me all these years. I would represent the
Department of the Interior with great pride and with these words in
mind if given the opportunity.
On a personal note, I was born on the Navajo reservation to a
family that was burdened with the social ills of alcoholism and
poverty. When I met my birth mother, she told me that she did not want
me to grow up in that situation and that was why she gave me up for
adoption as a baby. I was fortunate to be placed with wonderful, caring
parents who raised me in Southern New Jersey. It was far from ``Indian
Country'' but I never forgot where I came from. At times it was
difficult being a Native American without any culture or community. I
distinctly remember visiting the Natural History Museum here in
Washington, D.C. as a young child and seeing a display of Navajo
Indians behind a pane of glass. I wanted to climb into the scene spread
out before me and become a part of it, but at the same time I felt like
it was foreign. It was the love, support, and guidance of my parents
that allowed me to navigate this world and find my place in it.
I attended Dartmouth College in part to join their Native American
student program and learn more about my heritage. As a young adult, I
reconnected with my roots and lived on the Navajo reservation. I
learned about my Navajo culture which at its core stresses the
importance of respecting and living in harmony with the earth. I went
to law school after practicing in the Navajo tribal courts as a lay
practitioner--an opportunity given to tribal members who pass the
Navajo bar exam. It is because of these experiences that I am able to
adapt and exist in different worlds. As a lawyer, I am able to inhabit
these worlds with a duty and purpose.
It would be the greatest honor and a privilege to serve the United
States as Solicitor of the Department of the Interior.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before you
today. I stand ready to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Harris, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT BLAKE HARRIS, NOMINEE TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
committee, thank you for considering my nomination and for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I'd also like to
express my sincere appreciation to President Obama for his
confidence in nominating me to be General Counsel of the
Department of Energy and to Secretary Chu for asking me to
serve as Counsel at the Department. I am most honored to be
here today.
Mr. Chairman I've practiced law in Washington for 33 years.
I've been a partner in three law firms. I've worked for a
Federal judge and for two Federal Government agencies.
I have more experience than I sometimes like to admit to my
younger colleagues with litigation, with administrative law,
with trade law and with national security law. I have earned
every gray hair that I possess.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Harris. But there are, I think, several benefits to
having practiced law as long as I have in as many different
substantive areas as I have and in so many different venues.
One benefit is that there are few problems I am likely to
encounter that I've not seen before in one guise or another.
While the words of the relevant statutes may vary the key
issues of statutory interpretation are remarkably alike.
A second benefit is that I've learned a deep respect for
Congress and the laws it has enacted including critically the
Administrative Procedure Act which provides the public with
important safeguards against arbitrary government action.
Third, I know from both inside and from outside the
government how important it is that agencies act within the law
at all times in all things whether large or small and how
important legal counsel is in assuring that happens. I long ago
learned that sometimes you have to tell clients what they might
not want to hear. A good general counsel needs more than a good
mind and good training. A general counsel must have the
experience, the wisdom and simply put, the backbone to provide
on occasion unwelcome advice.
Finally, I've learned how important it is for government
agencies to have open lines of communication with the Congress.
If confirmed I promise I will be available to you and your
staffs whenever and wherever you think I can be of assistance.
In summary, I hope to bring to the Department of Energy a
wide range of experience that will allow me to provide
informed, direct and clear advice. Above all, advice which is
faithful to the laws that Congress has enacted. Mr. Chairman, I
want to thank you and the committee once again for this
opportunity to appear before you. I'm prepared to answer any
questions you may have for me. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Blake Harris, Nominee to be General
Counsel, Department of Energy
Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, distinguished Members of the
Committee, thank you for considering my nomination and for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
Let me begin by expressing my sincere appreciation to President
Barack Obama for his confidence in asking me to be part of his
Administration as General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Energy. I
am honored to have been nominated.
I also want to thank Secretary Steven Chu for asking me to serve as
counsel to the Department of Energy. Secretary Chu is an extraordinary
scientist and an extraordinary man. I would be thrilled to have the
opportunity to advise him and his management team as they develop and
implement policies needed to make our country more energy secure while,
at the same time, preserving and protecting our environment.
As you know, the General Counsel is responsible for providing legal
advice and counsel to the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and all
operating DOE units (except for the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission), for effectively representing the Department as counsel
before other Federal governmental agencies, and for working with the
Department of Justice to represent the agency before the courts. Most
importantly, the General Counsel assures that the Department operates
in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Mr. Chairman, I
come before this Committee with what I believe is the experience
necessary to allow me to handle the challenges of the general counsel
position for which I have been nominated.
I have practiced law in Washington for thirty-three years, both in
the private sector and in the government.
I have been a partner at two large firms, Williams & Connolly and
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Eleven years ago I started my own law firm,
Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, and have been the managing partner since
its inception.
I have also spent several years--the most rewarding years of my
career--in the government. I worked for a federal judge, the Hon.
Gerhard A. Gesell, immediately after graduating from law school.
Following sixteen years in private practice, I served as Chief Counsel
for Export Administration at the U. S. Department of Commerce, and then
as the first Chief of the International Bureau at the Federal
Communications Commission.
In these various positions in both the private and public sectors,
I've had a great deal of experience with litigation, administrative
law, trade law and national security law. More importantly for the
position to which I have been nominated, I have spent the last sixteen
years working at the intersection of law, technology, and policy. The
core of my experience over the last decade and a half is in providing
legal advice to scientists, engineers and policy-makers. Additionally,
I have managed divisions of key federal agencies at moments when they
simply had to step up their game.
The result of practicing law as long as I have, in the public and
private sectors, in as many different areas as I have, is that there
are few issues I am likely to encounter that I have not seen before in
one guise or another.
While the words of the relevant statutes may vary, the key issues
of statutory interpretation are remarkably alike. And regardless of the
federal agency involved, I have learned that a deep respect for
Congress and the laws it creates, including, critically, the
Administrative Procedure Act, provides the public with important
safeguards against arbitrary government action. This means, as I long
ago learned, that to provide good counsel, sometimes you have to tell
clients--whether in the private sector or the public sector--what they
might not want to hear. I know from both inside the government and
outside the government how important it is that agencies act within the
law at all times in all things, large and small, and how important
legal counsel is in making that happen.
Simply put, a good general counsel needs more than a good mind and
good training. A good general counsel must have the experience, wisdom
and strength to provide unwelcome advice.
In summary, if confirmed, I will bring to the Department of Energy
a wide range of experience in a variety of legal disciplines, all of
which will allow me to provide the agency with informed, clear and
direct advice--and, above all, advice which is faithful to the laws
that Congress has enacted.
Finally, I understand how important it is for government agencies
to have open and honest lines of communication with the Congress. If
confirmed, I hope to have many opportunities to work closely with you
and members of your staffs over the next few years.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the committee once again for
this opportunity to appear before you and I am prepared to answer any
questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you all for your
excellent testimony. As I said in my opening statement, I
support each of your nominations.
I think the President has chosen well. Secretary Chu has
chosen well. Secretary Salazar has chosen well. So I commend
you for taking on these difficult jobs.
Let me call on my colleagues who may have questions at this
time. Senator Bennett?
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you to all of you for your willingness to serve in the Federal
Government which is not the most financially remunerative thing
you could do. But I'm impressed by the fact that you are all
excited about the challenge.
I have no particular questions for most of you. But I've
already warned the next Solicitor that I'm going to have a
conversation with her. So let's get to it.
I want to thank you again to coming in to see me this week
and giving me an opportunity to outline for you some of the
issues that we have. I'll submit some questions for the record.
But here today I want to focus my time on the very
controversial issue of wilderness in Utah, particularly the
wilderness settlement between the United States of America and
the State of Utah. Perhaps we are blessed in Utah with the most
beautiful wilderness available or we're cursed with the most
beautiful wilderness available because we seem to be ground
zero for the wilderness debates that are going on. So as a
consequence Utah public lands have been studied to death for
wilderness going all the way back to the Carter administration.
Environmental groups tell the story of wilderness quality
lands disappearing at record rates to OHVs and oil and gas
development and so on. While they say that their proposals for
wilderness have gone from 4.7 million acres which was a factor
in my Senate race in 1992 when my opponent introduced a bill in
the House of Representatives to create 4.7 million acres and as
the public responded to that back pedaled from that.
At one point in one of our debates said I never said 4.7
million was the right number. I had to remind him that he had
introduced a bill to that effect in the Congress of the United
States which he then tried to down pedal. Now their proposals
have gone from 4.7 to 5.7 to 8.4 to 9.1 and currently stand at
9.4 million acres in the latest proposal.
Now FLPMA has a 5 point process as to deal with wilderness.
Number 1, conduct an inventory.
Number 2, conduct a wilderness review of the inventory and
establish what are known as wilderness study areas.
Number 3, report the recommendation to the President.
Number 4, the President reports a recommendation to the
Congress.
The point that everyone must remember, No. 5, Congress is
the only entity that can designate wilderness, the only entity
under the law. All of the rest of this is advisory. Congress is
the only entity.
A wilderness study area, once it has been designated and
recommended is managed as if it were wilderness awaiting
Congressional activity. What we have seen out of subsequent
Departments of Interior is that they are willing to lock up BLM
land as study areas and thus create de facto wilderness. Then
the environmental groups block the Congress in every effort to
designate wilderness so they have created de facto wilderness
with WSAs. The Congress has been unable, for a variety of
reasons to designate wilderness.
We've finally broken through that after more than 15 years
with a designation of wilderness in the Washington County, one
area of Utah. It's very interesting that many of the
environmental groups that fought us tooth and nail up to 48
hours before the chairman ultimately submitted the bill that
included the solution of the wilderness area in Washington
County now claim credit for it. Say, isn't it wonderful that we
have done a great job of creating this wilderness.
They didn't want the bill passed because they want the WSAs
maintained as de facto wilderness forever. Previous Departments
of the Interior have designated WSAs and inventory that goes
beyond the FLPMA process. Now are managing those as wilderness.
Do you see where I'm going?
As a lawyer you should understand that this is a
significant way of getting around the law. The United States
and Utah, there's been a legal case. There's been a lawsuit. A
Federal judge has issued his opinions. The United States
Government and Utah have entered into a settlement agreement
with respect to that.
You are going to be the Solicitor that's going to have to
defend that agreement because the environmental groups are
trying to overcome it because of the history I've just
described. They're going to try to say, no, no, no. The
Secretary has the right to conduct an inventory outside of the
FLPMA process approved by Congress.
The key issue in that lawsuit was once the FLPMA process
approved in the Carter administration had expired could the
Secretary continue to designate WSAs? The Federal judge said
no. Once that it had expired Congress had acted. The Secretary
didn't have the right to go beyond the time period given him
for the inventory and the designation.
You're going to have to defend that lawsuit. You're going
to have to defend that judge's opinion. We need to know your
legal approach to this kind of thing.
My question is quickly, as my time is gone. But I'll just
run through them. Then you can respond as you wish.
Do you agree that the Department's authority to establish
new wilderness study areas under section 603 of FLPMA expired
on October 21, 1993, which is the period of that first
inventory conducted in the Carter administration?
Do you agree that the Department has no authority to
establish new WSAs post 603 WSAs under any provision of Federal
law?
Do you agree with Federal judge DeBenson that the
settlement agreement between the State of Utah and the United
States is consistent with FLPMA?
Finally, does the BLM have authority to apply the non-
impairment standard as enumerated in the interim management
plan for wilderness study areas to lands that are not
designated as WSAs under section 603?
These are the 4 core questions going to this issue. Again,
at the risk of taking too much time, I see a deliberate
strategy on the part of groups that are not satisfied with what
comes out of the inventory under FLPMA of saying we will get a
friendly Secretary to designate something as a WSA and then
recognizing that only Congress can resolve this issue. Once
it's designated and being managed as a WSA, we will do
everything we can to prevent Congress from acting so that we
can get de facto what we could never get under the legal
process as established by the Congress.
That's the issue. You can respond here now if you like or
you can respond in writing as you like. But I wanted to get all
of that on the record very clearly so that we understand where
we are on this most contentious issue and what I maintain is
the most beautiful state in the Union. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Tompkins. Chairman, Senator, I appreciate your
comments. It is a new area for me, this particular settlement
involving Utah and the Department and these wilderness issues.
So I do think it'd be premature for me today to respond to
them.
But I would, certainly will look at those issues carefully
if I were confirmed. Work with the Department and the Secretary
and analyze all the applicable legal requirements involving the
designation of wilderness areas. So I would look at the issue
closely if I were confirmed and in the position of Solicitor.
So thank you for your comments.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I look forward to working with
you.
The Chairman. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome all the
panelists. We very much appreciate your willingness to serve
the country in the positions for which you've been nominated.
I'd like to particularly thank Ms. Tompkins and Mr. Harris
for recognizing Dartmouth College. For all you young people in
the audience, think about Dartmouth as you're looking at
colleges. Certainly would disagree with Senator Bennett about
Utah being the most beautiful State in the country.
[Laughter.]
Senator Shaheen. We obviously vie for that position. But I
am going to give you a pass, Ms. Tompkins after those questions
from Senator Bennett. I think you need a rest to think about
those. I'm really going to focus first on the remaining members
of the--nominees because you're all going to be in the Energy
Department.
The energy issues that we're facing in the country are
going to be very complex. We're going to be looking at energy
from a variety of perspectives, new technologies. How it
affects our need to address climate change.
So I guess my question for all of you in the Energy
Department is how you see collaborating and cooperating around
the very complex issues you will be addressing in a way that
can make the Department as efficient and effective as possible.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Johnson. Senator, may I respond.
Senator Shaheen. Please.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much for that question. I
really think that is the key question in that the problems that
we face are very complex. They'll require a systems integrated
approach.
I think you heard from my colleague, the Under Secretary
for Science, that one of the things that both of us being
provosts or former provosts, that we understand is our job is
to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts. The way
you do that is to vigorously fund research and development
that's focused on the system, the outcome and the goals. Then
work back the kind of programs you need put in place so that
you can take the breakthroughs in research, in science, applied
technology into deployment and ultimately commercialization to
achieve the goals of providing for our energy security,
creating jobs and reducing greenhouse gases.
Without that system integration we can't do one or the
other because they are so interconnected. You can even see in
the programs that are within the technologies that we can
borrow things that are happening, for example, in nuclear
power, fossil fuel and apply them to energy efficiency and
renewable. We're already seeing that even though we are not yet
confirmed, but if confirmed, we will even explore that deeper.
Senator Shaheen. Ok. Would anyone else like to respond to
that?
Mr. Koonin. Energy technologies are really very different
than other technologies like bio-matter, IT. Energy is
everywhere in society. So the changes that you try to make
really affect many different folks, you need to worry about
that.
You need to worry about scale to solve the problems that
we're facing energy security, greenhouse gas emissions. We need
to look at technologies that can make a material difference.
It's not enough to just solve a small piece of the problem.
In addition because we already have sources of heat, light
and mobility, new technologies have to compete against existing
technologies. All of these factors make change relatively
slowly. But change will only happen if as we do the science and
technology, we pay attention to the economic, political and
social dimensions.
Senator Shaheen. Apropos that comment. Both Dr. Koonin and
Dr. Triay have extensive knowledge of nuclear energy. I would
like to ask both of you what role you see nuclear energy
playing in the future economy, in the country. How you see it
with respect to our need to address global warming and what you
think can be done with the waste.
I was particularly interested in your comments, Dr. Triay
about dealing with some of the technologies in a way that could
be helpful.
Ms. Triay. As Secretary Chu has said, Senator, nuclear
energy will be part of the mix of the energy future of the
United States. With respect to the waste, the Environmental
Management Office doesn't have responsibility for the
commercial waste and spent nuclear fuel. But we do have spent
nuclear fuel in the Environmental Management Program. We have
high level waste that comes from our defense mission.
With respect to technology development we believe that it
is essential and in fact, Secretary Chu has told me personally
that he wants us to make an investment on ensuring that we
reduce some of the cost associated with vitrifying the waste.
We are poised to deal with the spent nuclear fuel with put it
in dry storage. With respect to the actual high level waste, we
know, as you know, we vitrify the majority of our waste and
leave it in a very safe configuration.
With respect to that vitrification process we are looking
very closely to work with some of our colleagues in Mr.
Koonin's portfolio to look at better melter technologies. To
look at ways to reduce constituents that would then allow us to
maximize the waste loading and the production of glass. In
these vitrification plants we have both at Savannah River and
we will have at Hanford.
So I assure you that Secretary Chu is very interested in
transformational technologies that actually can help us do our
job more effectively. We will be working very closely with Mr.
Koonin's colleagues to accomplish that.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms.
Johnson, we had a chance to visit yesterday and very
productive, very fruitful meeting. Thank you so much for coming
by and for the time.
Something happened since we met yesterday and it was that
the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said
that there was no need to build new United States coal and
nuclear power plants. This is since we visited yesterday. Mr.
Wellinghoff went on to say that renewables like wind, solar and
biomass will provide enough energy to meet base load capacity
and future energy demands.
This kind of flies in the face of the things we discussed
yesterday where we discussed an understanding that American
energy needs at this point. We're using it all. I'm just
interested, given that the estimated increases in energy demand
and limitations of our transmission infrastructure and the need
for power when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.
Do you agree with Chairman Wellinghoff's statement or should we
be taking energy generation options off the table at this
point?
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Senator for that question. Thank
you also for the time to meet yesterday. As we spoke we need to
have a comprehensive, strategic energy plan.
One of the first things, if confirmed, that I would like to
work on with my colleagues and the Secretary is to come up with
a technology energy road map that puts down what are the goals
we're trying to accomplish which is securing our energy future,
creating millions of jobs as we discussed and cutting
greenhouse gases. Once we have that road map in place then we
can look at the portfolio of energies that we have, coal,
nuclear, renewables, etcetera and see how each one of those
will contribute along with what I think is most important
because it is the low hanging fruit is conservation and
efficiency. I think there are a number of gains that can be
made in the short term as we bring on carbon capture and
sequestration with coal, as we restart the civilian commercial
nuclear industry and some of these other areas that we'll be
able to address the overall challenge of the three goals that I
mentioned.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Tompkins, I wanted--and I have a
couple, Mr. Chairman, questions to submit in writing.
I just wanted to visit with Ms. Tompkins. Long before
either you or I got here there was an issue of Washington owing
Wyoming hundreds of millions of dollars from abandoned mine
land funding. It's Wyoming's money. This has been collected and
held in Washington for a long time.
In 2006 after decades of bipartisan effort, an agreement
was found and signed into law to guarantee that States, like
Wyoming that were owed money, would finally be paid without
strings attached. President Obama and Secretary Salazar both
voted for the bill. It's been signed into law and they voted
for it when they were in the Senate.
The bill required certified states or Indian tribes to be
paid back money owed in seven equal installments. I quote, this
is the law. ``The Secretary shall make payments to states or
Indian tribes for the amount due for the aggregate,
unappropriated amount allocated to the state or Indian tribe
under sub paragraph A or B.'' A section, and it goes through
the section numbers of this title.
It says, ``The payments shall be made in seven equal and
annual installments beginning with Fiscal Year 2008.'' The
Interior Solicitor before you came to a different conclusion
stated that what Congress meant was that the funds must be paid
back in the form of a grant and not in seven, equal
installments. I'd like to know your understanding of seven
equal installments as well as whether you agree or disagree
with the fine votes cast by President Obama and Secretary
Salazar prior to their new positions in government.
Ms. Tompkins. Senator, thank you for this question. I have
to say that I don't today, have an opinion on the issue. That
it would be a new issue for me. I would have to look at it more
closely before I could give you a definitive response. That's
the best I can do today.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll submit some
questions in writing. Hopefully you'll have a chance to take a
look at this.
But it seemed very clear to people on both sides of the
aisle what this meant. But in a previous administration and a
previous solicitor came up with an idea that really I don't
think anybody in the Senate had anticipated. So I hope that you
see it the same way that we do. Thank you very much. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward
to working with all the nominees here in their important
capacity in both agencies. Ms. Triay, thank you for your visit
to my office. We had a chance to talk about some of these
issues and for your compelling personal story as well.
First of all it's great to see so many women in the fields
of math and science. I hope that you can help us in recruiting
more into the fields. But obviously one of the most urgent
needs is Hanford cleanup and the 53 million gallons of
radioactive waste that is stored in underground storage tanks.
Sixty-seven of which have been confirmed to be leaking and are
reaching ground water plumes that are moving toward the
Columbia River.
We had a chance to talk about this. But the Department of
Energy is obviously missing the milestones for the cleanup of
Hanford in the tri party agreement. So getting into compliance
is obviously a big part of the concerns that we have.
So I have a couple of questions about that. First of all do
you think that there is adequate storage space in the double
shell tanks to safely retrieve the waste until the waste plant
is fully operational?
Ms. Triay. Senator Cantwell, thank you. First off, thank
you for your leadership in the Hanford cleanup. We could not be
where we are today and have a path forward without your
leadership.
With respect to the double shell tanks space, I feel
strongly that we need a systems plan analysis on an annual
basis to ensure that we make the decisions as to whether or not
we need additional tank space, a systems plan that takes into
account every cubic meter of the waste in those tanks. I have
been working with the field office as well as the State. I
assure you that part of that systems plan will be to address
exactly that question, do we need further tank space.
If we do, obviously we will press forward at fulfilling
that need. Of course we would try to make every effort to
prevent having to build more double shell tanks that then have
to be cleaned up. But we assure you that that systems planning
is going to be comprehensive. It's going to be done in a
collaborative manner with the state that has excellent experts
to assist us as well as the Environmental Protection Agency.
Senator Cantwell. When would that be completed do you
believe?
Ms. Triay. We are intending to have our first systems plan
within this year. But after that that systems plan needs to be
updated. Those modeling efforts that take into account every
single cubic meter of that tank waste has to be refreshed on an
annual basis, at least.
Senator Cantwell. I'm sorry what do you mean by that? I
mean obviously the tanks are leaking. They're contaminating
ground water and so the annual analysis isn't so much the issue
as to have a concrete plan to remove the tank waste until a
reprocessing plant is up and running which is not until, well
hopefully it will be 2019. That's the goal, but.
Ms. Triay. As you know we are aggressively pursuing
removing the waste from the tanks as we speak. We are removing
the waste from the single shell tanks and preparing them for
when the waste treatment plant comes online. What I meant was
that we can use evaporator technology to remove the liquid so
that we actually increase the tank space available in the tank
funds.
We already are looking at the integrity of the tanks to
make absolutely certain that we do not have leaks that are
going to compromise the environment. What I meant by the
systems plan is that every time that that calculation gets
performed, that modeling exercise gets performed, we have to
make the decision as to whether or not we need to press forward
with further tank space or whether we have enough tank space
given that we have evaporator technology that we have removal
technologies in order to be able to complete the cleanup and
have enough feed for the waste treatment plant when it comes
online in 2019.
Senator Cantwell. Will the 2 billion in added stimulus
funds help expedite the goal of the ground water contamination?
Ms. Triay. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Cantwell. If the goal was originally 2015 in
cleaning up that plume, what would it be with $2 billion?
Ms. Triay. We are, right now, as you know with this
particular stimulus package, we have gone out of our way to
consult with the regulators as well as our stakeholders. So
right now we are looking at what is the amount of acceleration
that that particular, in essentially in this particular case is
$1.961 billion, you know, between the Office of Radioactive
Protection in Hanford. That would accelerate the ground water.
We understand that our goal is to have absolutely no
contaminates reaching the Columbia River. So a significant part
of that $2 billion is going to go toward that effort. In
addition to that Secretary Chu has asked us to invest in
technology development to also deal with the ground water, deal
with barriers such as reactive barriers with minerals that can
absorb the contaminants bioremediation.
So I think that you're going to see dramatic effort in
making sure that contaminants do not reach the Columbia River.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Stabenow.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to each
of you and to your families. We thank you for your willingness
to serve at a very challenging time. It is also a time where we
can make great progress in the country if we work hard and are
focused. I appreciate the President's visions in each of the
areas that you are hoping to work in.
I wanted specifically, Dr. Johnson, to thank you for the
chance to have the opportunity to talk specifically about the
loan programs and grants and how we move forward on technology
and so on. I wondered if you might speak about the President's
targets for getting us to electric vehicles. One that I support
strongly is his goal of putting one million plug-in electric
vehicles on the road by 2015.
We've been working very hard on that. Our recovery plan, of
course, has the $2 billion investment in grants. Working with
the chairman and his leadership on the Finance Committee, we've
been able to add manufacturing incentives. We're already in
Michigan seeing the benefit of that by manufacturing facilities
for batteries being announced and in just a few months we hope
to see ground breakings on those which are very important.
I wondered if you might share with the committee how you
view delivering on the President's goal in terms of electric
vehicles and the importance of having a domestic battery
manufacturing presence in the United States.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Senator. I too enjoyed
our time to talk yesterday. So the President's goal is to have
one million plug-in electrical vehicles on the road by 2015, I
believe.
This will require a tremendous investment in infrastructure
and components. So, as you mentioned batteries. As part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act we are funding programs
in that area and look at batteries to look at applications for
storage in the infrastructures that we can power the vehicles.
It is a complex problem. We have hundreds of millions of
cars on the road today. We know how to build cars in this
country.
What we need to do, as we just talked, is leverage that
expertise now to retool and be able to apply it toward
electrifying the fleet. To that end, I just, I think 2 weeks
ago we announced $40 million in grants as part of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act toward different battery
technologies, fuel cells that was matched by 70 million from
industry. It is looking at programs that have been in Arkansas
and in Michigan with I think, Delphi received a $2.8 million
grant. Again to look at ways of leveraging what we have in
place and to retool and to look at other manufacturers.
So, I think, promoting that, continuing to work together
integrating the basic and applied science toward
commercialization and deployment is what we will be able to do.
I do believe we will be successful.
Senator Stabenow. Further on that point, as we had talked
yesterday, I was pleased to have championed section 136 of the
Energy Bill of 2007. At that time we focused on retooling, on
getting the new technologies out and so on. There was a $25
billion allocation set up for the fund.
President Obama has spoken about a $50 billion commitment
through that fund. I'm hoping that we can get to that point
very soon. I wondering if you have any thoughts about raising
that number to the President's expressed number as he talked
about back in the fall.
Then second looking at the section 136 and the other loan
guarantees and loan programs and grant programs, if you have
any comments about what we had talked about yesterday as well
with the different silos of these grants and loans when it's so
critical right now to get capital out to businesses. There are
hundreds of businesses in Michigan that are ready to take that
next step on commercialization or be able to scale up right in
the middle of the global credit crisis. So these areas of
creating capital become incredibly important, but it is
complicated and confusing right now for businesses to which
ones to apply to and how they fit together and how much of a
loan and how much of a grant and so on.
So, first about the number in terms of getting us up to the
50 billion that the President talked about in section 136. But
then second, just the ability to move forward in a coordinated
way with the current loans and grants that are available.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. First of all the Loan Guarantee
Program is critical toward moving new technologies forward. I
believe that 2 or 3 weeks or most recently we had the first
loan guarantee that went out to SOLYNDRA for about $500 million
for advanced photovoltaic systems.
So the process is working. I'm not familiar with the
amounts. Haven't had a chance to be briefed on that, but I look
forward to working with you and this committee to see what
would be the best mechanism to continue that program. That
would be, if confirmed, of course.
Senator Stabenow. Of course. Great. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Bennett, did you have additional
questions or Senator Cantwell?
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask
Mr. Harris a few questions if I could. It's good to see you
here in this capacity for your nomination.
One of the big issues obviously has been Hanford and Rocky
Flats lawsuits related to the cold war radiation legacy of our
nuclear program. Obviously for those who have been impacted as
in the downwind population, has been an ongoing case. In fact
the Energy Department seems to have sent quite a bit of money,
more than 125 million in just the contract or legal cost, that
is the out sourced, legal dispute, I guess is the best way to
characterize it.
It has been going on for many years. In fact we had one
Federal judge last March concluding that quote, The financial
cost of litigation is very high. The court concludes that
continuing to resolve the claims in this manner is not
economical and is unacceptable. Sorry, that manner is not
economical and is unacceptable.
So what are your thoughts about how we get out of this just
basically continuing to have, you know, law firms making tons
of money off of the Department of Energy on cases that probably
should be settled?
Mr. Harris. When I was a young lawyer the senior partner I
worked for and I admired the most, said to me, you know, an ok
settlement is better than the greatest trial. That's my view of
litigation in general. If solutions can be found that are
acceptable to the parties.
It is far better to do that and to attempt to do that than
to waste years and enormous amounts of money on litigation. Not
maybe the best thing for a litigator to say. But it's my view
and has been for a long time.
I'm aware of the Hanford litigation. But because precisely
it is in litigation, it was impossible for me, as not being an
employee of the Department to discuss it very much with people
who were there because of the risk of learning confidential
information at a time that would not be appropriate. But I can
promise you that if I am confirmed I will indeed look at that
litigation as one of the first things I do in the Department.
Senator Cantwell. Can you send the committee a written
summary of the findings and intentions regarding Hanford and
Rocky Flat cases within 90 days?
Mr. Harris. I would be pleased to do that.
Senator Cantwell. Ok, thank you. Obviously you will be
involved in the oversight and management of these cases?
Mr. Harris. Absolutely.
Senator Cantwell. I mean in the context of one of the
concerns is that so much has been outsourced to an outside
legal firm that they're calling the shots and making the
decisions. Obviously if they can continue a case for now that's
been more than a decade and continue to just make great fees
off of the Department of Energy then why not continue that?
Mr. Harris. I, having been in private practice as long as I
have, I think I'm in a good position to review the practices of
outside counsel.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Harris. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Appreciate that. Ms. Triay, actually a
question for you that, definitely far easier than tank waste
and ground water contamination. The B reactor has finally been
designated as a national historical monument. To, I don't know
if it's to our surprise, I visited the B reactor and it's an
incredible part of the history of our country.
But we know that, you know, trying to make that more
accessible to the public and do you have some suggestions on
how to do that? I think the first set of tours that were
supposed to now last for the next year sold out in less than 72
hours. It's like the hottest--I mean Ticketmaster sales don't
go as quickly as B reactor. So what else can we do given that
it's on the Hanford reservation and that it's part of the
complex?
Ms. Triay. Thank you for that question, Senator. I really
appreciate that question because we are very proud of the fact
that part of our history is being so well embraced by the
public. We are going to be spending $1.5 million, I believe,
this year and about the same amount next year for safety and
seismic upgrades to ensure that we can continue these tours and
have the reactor well preserved.
In addition to that we are going to be working very closely
with the Richland Field Office to see what can we do to
increase the ability of these tours that are so popular. That
frankly we are so proud because they are such an integral part
of our history.
Senator Cantwell. I have one question too, for Ms. Johnson
about the transfer of Hanford Reservation property too.
Obviously people are interested in reducing the size of the
Hanford footprint. So do you see any legal barriers to transfer
or lease of land at Hanford to third parties to establish
something like a clean energy park or develop large scale
energy related facilities?
Ms. Johnson. Senator, I'm not familiar in details with the
matter of the legal aspects of it. But if confirmed I'd be
happy to consult with my colleague at the far end of the table
to understand the issue in more detail.
Senator Cantwell. Or Ms. Triay? I know that the agency has
some.
Ms. Triay. We have done land transfers in other parts, like
Oak Ridge, like in Savannah River. So we would be working
again, with Mr. Harris if we're confirmed and his staff. I
assure you that we will find a path forward so that we can
fully utilize, you know, the benefits of this footprint
reduction, you know, that the Recovery Act will gain us.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. I thank the Chairman. I don't
think there could possibly be a more important group of
nominees for the State of Washington, literally for the country
given that Hanford is the largest nuclear cleanup site. I would
say probably in the world.
It just happens to be in Washington State. But our
obligations there are immense. So I thank the chairman. I thank
the nominees for their willingness to delve into these issues.
The Chairman. Again, thank you all for being here. We will
allow members until 5:00 p.m. tomorrow to submit any additional
questions for the record.
If any are submitted I hope you can respond quickly on
those. If you can then we can try to take action here in the
committee on your nominations next week. Thank you all very
much. That will conclude our hearing.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Scott Blake Harris to Questions From Senator Murkowski
loan guarantees
Question 1a. The Loan Guarantee Program established by Title XVII
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has an important role in fostering
clean energy technology for the country, including nuclear and
renewable energy resources. Although the issue of loan guarantees by
the Department has been authorized for four years, we have only just
recently seen the first loan guarantee issued. Many questions still
remain on the part of applicants regarding the program rules and
interpretations of the 2005 law by the Office of the General Counsel.
Do you share the enthusiasm for this program that has been
expressed by the Secretary of Energy?
Answer. Yes. Moreover, if I am confirmed, my office will fully
support the objectives of the Department and the priorities of the
Secretary including the Title XVII Loan Guarantee program that fosters
clean energy technology while protecting the American taxpayer.
Question 1b. How will you work with industry to ensure that the
program rules promote the greatest leveraging of the authorities
granted by Congress to promote clean sustainable energy for the 21st
century?
Answer. If I am confirmed as General Counsel, I will examine the
rules and regulations governing the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program
and ensure that the program rules promote the greatest leveraging of
the authorities granted by Congress to promote clean sustainable energy
for the 21st century.
cyber security
Question 2. Does DOE require additional emergency authority to deal
with imminent cyber security threats that could impair the nation's
electrical grid? If so, how would the Department propose to work with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to deal with these cyber
security threats?
Answer. I understand that the Department has been working with the
private sector for several years to enhance cyber security in the
energy sector through the implementation of the Roadmap to Secure
Control Systems in the Energy Sector. If confirmed, I will certainly
work closely with the FERC and others to address cyber security
threats, and to evaluate whether additional authorities are needed.
res
Question 3. How does DOE propose to implement a new federal
Renewable Electricity Standard? Currently 29 states plus the District
of Columbia have some form of an RES in place. Each program contains at
least one resource not permitted under draft Federal RES legislation
proposals now under consideration. How would DOE reconcile existing
state programs with a new federal program?
Answer. While I am not yet familiar with the details of the RES, I
am keenly aware of the importance of an appropriate balance between
state and federal authority. I understand that the proposed legislation
would require the Department to promulgate rules for implementation,
and as General Counsel, I would work to ensure that the rulemaking
process allows for the consideration of the views and interests of
states and other stakeholders, and proceeds promptly to an appropriate
conclusion.
eers
Question 4. Is the Department capable of implementing and
administering a federal EERS? Would your answer change if Congress also
passed a stand-alone RES? What if both of those standards and climate
change legislation all pass--is the Department ready to meet its
responsibilities under all three of those measures?
Answer. My view is that the Department is, and must be, capable of
implementing any authority that Congress chooses to give it. If
confirmed, I will work diligently to ensure that the Department meets
all of its legal obligations.
renewable energy zones/administration
Question 5. Can you comment on Secretary Salazar's recent
``Secretarial Order'' calling for DOI to not only establish renewable
energy zones on public lands, but also to handle the permitting and
environmental review? Should a non-land management agency like DOE or
FERC be given the coordinator role instead? Should Congress expedite
environmental or judicial reviews?
Answer. I believe that siting of power lines is an issue of
national importance; exploitation of our country's plentiful renewable
energy resources is certainly an important driver in this area.
However, I am not familiar with the details of Secretary Salazar's
proposal. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Secretary Chu,
the Administration, and Congress to help determine a path forward that
facilitates renewable energy production on public lands while allowing
for full consideration of other interests.
smart grid
Question 6. Title 13 of EISA 2007 and the American Recovery and
Reinvestment 2008 provided authorization and funding, respectfully, for
modernization of the electricity grid (Smart Grid). ARRA specifically
provided funding to DOE to support the demonstration, research, and
matching funds along with funds for the interoperability standards
framework. Are there any statutory barriers that prevent DOE from
accelerating the standards development activity needed to provide the
underpinning for deployment of smart grid technologies and products? If
so, what are they and what obstacles do they present? Can this
Committee count on you in your capacity as general counsel to assist
DOE in accelerating smart grid deployment?
Answer. Given my background in telecommunications, it is perhaps
not surprising that I believe smart grid deployment is extremely
important. I am not aware of statutory barriers that prevent DOE from
accelerating the standards development activity; however, I understand
that progress--and the speed of that progress--does depend on
cooperation from industry stakeholders through a consensus process. I
understand that Secretary Chu has pushed to speed up the process, and
if confirmed, I will assist him in any way that I am able.
interoperability
Question 7. Title 13 of EISA 2007 lays out the need for
``interoperability'' as an objective of the smart grid. This entails
businesses working with electric power to exchange some fairly detailed
operating information about their technologies and products. Given this
fact, what role does DOE foresee in managing the demonstration and
research work to ensure a pro-competitive environment involving
competing technologies and systems? What role can Standards Developing
Organizations play with respect to developing standards through the DOE
activity?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the interoperability
issue, but I believe that my experience in telecommunications law will
help me to get up to speed quickly. If confirmed, I will do so and to
then work with Secretary Chu and the Department to push
interoperability standards forward.
timeframe for standards
Question 8. The DOE administers the Appliance Standards and Codes
program authorized under EPCA, as amended. As you are aware, there have
been significant delays by DOE in meeting statutory deadlines for
issuing new or amended standards, if warranted. Some of these delays
have been attributed to resource constraints within the legal review
process in DOE according to the GAO. Can this Committee expect to see
improved operational efficiencies in the processing and handling of DOE
decision-making on appliance standards and code matters? Will you
report back to the Committee on what steps you take within the General
Counsel office to address the legal review processes?
Answer. If confirmed I will do everything possible to ensure the
legal review process operates efficiently and will be happy to report
back to the Committee. Though I have not been briefed on all the
details of this issue, I am aware that the Department of Energy (DOE)
is required by a consent decree to issue appliance efficiency standards
by a date certain for 22 consumer and commercial products. Furthermore,
I understand that there are additional deadlines in statute, and that
President Obama has identified appliance efficiency standards as an
important focus of the Department. If confirmed, I will be fully
committed to meeting these deadlines and working to improve this vital
program.
Responses of Scott Blake Harris to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. In December, the Department of Energy's Office of
Environmental Management released a white paper on its strategic
planning efforts to identify ways to reduce the cleanup footprint and
return its land to productive use while addressing our nation's energy
crisis.
One such use specifically studied was converting land within the
nuclear cleanup footprint to clean energy parks. There has been a very
favorable response to DOE's proposals to reduce the footprints of the
major cleanup sites.
The idea of combining the reduced footprints with making land
available for Industrial Use for possible Energy Parks seems to have
ignited a bonfire of creative ideas and proposals in these communities.
Under DOE's proposal, designated tracts of land would be transferred to
a third party for rapid development of large scale clean energy-related
facilities.
DOE's plan to facilitate this development includes:
(1) initial evaluation of land that will be available
(2) optimizing the value of the land in relation to
opportunity
(3) enabling development by a third party; and
(4) participation in achieving program goals.
Do you see any legal barriers to rapidly transfer or lease
contaminated land at Hanford to third parties to establish a Clean
Energy Park and deploy large scale clean energy-related facilities?
Answer. I am informed that DOE had broad property disposal
authority pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act for some land that DOE
owns, and that this authority could potentially be used in such cases.
If confirmed, I will promptly and fully investigate how this authority
can be utilized.
Question 2. The Hanford and Rocky Flats lawsuits represent major
unfinished elements of Cold War radiation legacy of the U.S. nuclear
weapons program. These lawsuits were files in 1990 after previously
secret information revealed that significant amounts of radioactive
materials were released into the environment and had contaminated
thousands of people and their property.
In both cases liability has been established and has been affirmed
by the United States Supreme Court. Regarding Hanford, after nearly 20
years, with jury verdicts finding for two plaintiffs in bellwether
trials and lengthy appeals, this litigation remains trapped in
seemingly endless delays fueled at government expense. And DOE is
allowing this to continue to proceed with no resolution in sight.
Meanwhile thousands of people who lived on or worked at DOE nuclear
facilities are being compensated under federal statutes, a compensation
program that is unavailable to downwinders who were of very tender ages
when exposed to these cancer and diseasing causing radioactive
releases. The Energy Department seems to have spared no expense to
fight these cases and had paid more than $125 million in contractor
legal costs. On March 26, 2009, a Federal judge presiding over the
Hanford litigation concluded that ``the financial cost of the
litigation is very high. The Court concludes that continuing to resolve
claims in this manner is not economical and is unacceptable.'' In
addition, in the Rocky Flats litigation a jury has arrived at verdict
against the federal government and its contractors and there is a $926
million judgment pending.
In light of DOE's determination to indemnify legal liability of its
contractors in the Hanford and Rocky Flats litigation, will you commit
to taking steps to explore resolution of these claims as required by
the Price Anderson Act?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed I will certainly explore the possibility
of resolving these cases in a manner that promotes the public interest.
Question 3. Given that DOE has paid at least $57.8 million in
contractor legal fees for the Hanford litigation and $72 million for
the Rocky Flats lawsuit it appears that the Office of General Counsel
should be performing routine oversight of the status and validation of
expenses for these cases and should be consulted by contractor
attorneys, especially when settlement issues arise.
Do you intend to provide oversight over the management of these and
other cases?
Can you send the Committee a written summary of its findings and
intentions regarding the Hanford and Rocky Flats cases within ninety
days of your confirmation?
What will you do to establish control over DOE's ``spare no
expense'' policy for contractor legal costs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will oversee the management of all cases in
which the Department has an interest. I am not sufficiently informed
about the contractor legal costs issue you raise but I will certainly
commit to investigating it. With respect to the particular cases
mentioned, Hanford and Rocky Flats, if confirmed, I will provide the
Committee with a written summary of my assessment and intentions within
90 days.
______
Responses of Kristina M. Johnson to Questions From Senator Murkowski
yucca mountain
Question 1. In comments before this committee and elsewhere, the
Secretary of Energy has stated that the Yucca Mountain waste repository
is no longer an option for the permanent disposal of high level
civilian and defense related nuclear waste.
Given that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has barely had a
chance to begin its review of the Yucca Mountain license application
how would you reconcile this decision to the administrations stated
commitment to science based policy making?
Answer. I do not consider myself an expert on the science related
to Yucca Mountain. I do understand that President Obama and Secretary
Chu believe that we need a better solution, and if confirmed, I look
forward to working with Secretary Chu and this Committee on this
matter.
spent nuclear fuel
Question 2. A primary component of the Secretary of Energy's
approach to the spent nuclear fuel policy debate is to establish a blue
ribbon commission to examine the issue.
a. How do you think the product of such a committee's deliberations
will improve upon the many studies and reports on geologic disposal and
nuclear waste management that have been conducted over the last half
century?
b. How do you believe that such a committee should be structured to
insulate it from political influence, and what should the scope of the
committee's deliberations be?
Answer. Secretary Chu has stated that he intends to convene a Blue
Ribbon Commission, composed of experts, to evaluate alternative
approaches for meeting the Federal responsibility to manage and
ultimately dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary to help structure
the panel to provide recommendations that are based on science and
insulated from political influence.
renewable energy priorities
Question 3. Alaska has tremendous potential in tidal and wave
energy, geothermal, biomass, wind, and other renewable resources. My
question is how do you envision spreading your scarce resources among
current and future prospective renewable energy technologies? Will you
support funding for more than basic research, for not only
demonstration, but also deployment grants until renewables become truly
mature technologies? How do we avoid picking winners and losers, but at
the same time funnel enough federal aid to get technologies
economically off the ground?
Answer. As I stated during the hearing, I believe that we need to
do better across the entire pipeline--from basic research, to applied
research to deployment. Improving technology development and deployment
has been a key focus of my career, and I look forward to continuing
work in this area at the Department if I am confirmed. One of the early
tasks that I would like to undertake if confirmed is development of an
energy technology roadmap that can help guide the investments of the
scarce resources to accelerate applied R&D on the most promising
approaches early on, while supporting truly basic research that will
lead to the next breakthroughs in the way we use energy, thus
transforming for the better our society.
fossil fuels
Question 4. In all the talk about renewables, and perhaps because
of last year's price spike for crude oil--prices that are a receding
memory--aid to the fossil industry to get more conventional
hydrocarbons out of the ground seems to have gone out of style. But
given that in the best case scenario we are still going to be dependent
on fossil fuels for decades, should we not continue research into how
to better extract heavy oil, like the billions of barrels under Prudhoe
Bay in northern Alaska? Should we not provide greater funding for
research into production of methane hydrates--Alaska is forecast to
contain 32,000 trillion cubic feet of hydrates--enough to power the
nation for a millennium? Should we not aid the industry to find better
environmentally sensitive ways to produce the trillions of barrels of
oil shale in the West? What is your view about the need for continued
federal research into improvements in fossil fuel production?
Answer. I believe that oil and natural gas will continue to play a
large role in energy supply for decades. While oil and gas companies
have ample resources and a strong incentive to invest in research and
development, I believe that there are areas where government investment
is appropriate, including long-term, high-risk research and development
on methane hydrates.
cash for clunkers
Question 5. A proposal known as ``Cash for Clunkers'' is receiving
much greater attention after the President endorsed it. ``Cash for
Clunkers'' would provide owners of older cars with vouchers to purchase
better performing vehicles, in exchange for scrapping their
``clunkers,'' and it would by administered by the Department of Energy.
In the past, many supporters have urged its passage as part of an
effort to stave off bankruptcy for struggling automakers. Now that some
form of bankruptcy appears increasingly likely, however, would you
still support this proposal? Or do you believe it could simply trade
billions of taxpayer dollars for little or no environmental benefit?
Answer. While I am generally familiar with the ``Cash for
Clunkers'' concept, I am not fully briefed on the Administration's
plans in this regard. If confirmed, I will look into this matter and
would be glad to report my findings to you.
biofuels
Question 6. In consultation with the EPA, the Department of Energy
is conducting research on the impact that higher blends of ethanol-
greater than 10 percent by volume--could have on existing vehicles,
equipment, and infrastructure. There is significant concern that the
EPA Administrator will approve Growth Energy's waiver petition before
this testing is complete, and raise the blend cap to 12%, 13%, or even
15%. If consulted as Under Secretary of Energy, will you commit to
advising against any such increase until sufficient scientific data
indicates there will be no adverse consequences?
Answer. If confirmed, I will look into this matter and will provide
advice to Secretary Chu and to the EPA after consideration of the
relevant scientific information.
nietc
Question 7. What is your assessment of the National Interest
Electric Transmission Corridor process established by Congress in the
2005 Energy Policy Act?
Answer. I am not yet familiar with the details of the National
Interest Electric Transmission Corridor process established by Congress
in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. However, I believe that addressing the
transmission and distribution system has become a national issue. The
system is aging and in need of investment and modernization. The key is
to strike the right balance between local, state and federal
authorities and interests, something I look forward to working on with
you if I am confirmed.
siting
Question 8. Do you support an enhanced federal role for the siting
of interstate power lines? Do you believe that any enhanced federal
role should be limited to proposals that give preferential siting and
permitting for ``green'' power lines? Is such a concept even consistent
with the physical reality of how power flows through the grid?
Answer. As noted above, I believe that siting of power lines is an
issue of national importance; exploitation of our country's plentiful
renewable energy resources is certainly an important driver in this
area. The key is to strike the right balance between local, state and
federal authorities and interests, something I look forward to working
on with you if I am confirmed.
hydro
Question 9. Do you agree that hydroelectric pumped storage is an
excellent means of providing zero emissions backup to intermittent wind
and solar plants? Would you support allowing pumped storage to qualify
for credits under a federal Renewable Electricity Standard?
Answer. Pumped storage offers excellent capability to assist
electric utilities with integrating wind and solar energy. For example,
a Colorado utility has modified operation of an existing hydroelectric
pumped storage facility in its system to enhance the utility's
capability to integrate its rapidly growing levels of wind energy.
While many operational and infrastructure changes are available to
assist with wind and solar energy integration, hydroelectric pumped
storage provides integration capability at a scale that warrants strong
consideration for federal subsidy to increase its viability. I do not
have a view at this point in time about whether inclusion in an RES is
appropriate, but if confirmed, I will look into it and work closely
with you and other members of the committee on it.
msw
Question 10. A number of Senators have called for the inclusion of
Municipal Solid Waste as an eligible resource for purposes of meeting
any federal Renewable Electricity Standard. What is your position? Are
there additional resources Congress should consider?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review the RES proposal in
detail, but pledge to do so if confirmed.
cyber security
Question 11. Does DOE require additional emergency authority to
deal with imminent cyber security threats that could impair the
nation's electrical grid? If so, how would the Department propose to
work with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to deal with these
cyber security threats?
Answer. I understand that the Department has been working with the
private sector for several years to enhance cyber security in the
energy sector through the implementation of the Roadmap to Secure
Control Systems in the Energy Sector. I do not have a view at this
point about whether additional legislative authority is needed, but if
confirmed, I will examine the issue closely.
nuclear
Question 12. Do you agree that nuclear power must be part of our
supply mix going forward?
Answer. I do.
coal
Question 13. Do you agree that there is ``no such thing as clean
coal''?
Answer. I believe that we can and we must develop technology to
enable us to continue to use coal while sharply reducing our greenhouse
gas emissions. Developing carbon capture and storage technology will be
a key priority for me if I am confirmed.
wapa
Question 14. The Stimulus bill provided brand new borrowing
authority for the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) in the
amount of $3.25 billion, to plan and construct transmission lines for
renewable energy projects. How is DOE moving forward with this new
authority? What will such federal authority mean for private
transmission efforts and existing regional grid planning?
Answer. It is my understanding that WAPA published a proposal
regarding the use of the ARRA authority in a March 4, 2009 Federal
Register notice. That proposal provides for collaboration with public
and private entities across the region, and coordination with existing
planning efforts. If confirmed, I would be glad to look into this
matter and provide you with additional information.
Responses of Kristina M. Johnson to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1a. What is your position on the importance of ensuring
the recruitment and retention of a highly skilled and knowledgeable
workforce to carry out essential clean-up tasks at sites like Hanford?
Answer. I think it is essential that we have a highly skilled and
knowledgeable workforce at the Hanford Site in carrying out our cleanup
program. If confirmed, I will look first to retaining these skilled
workers and then recruit workers who have the required skills and
knowledge to successfully perform work.
Question 1b. Do you view these highly skilled workers as assets
that DOE has already spent million of dollars in taxpayer funds to
train?
Answer. I do.
Question 1c. Will you commit to providing sufficient funding to
maintain the current workforce at Hanford and other sites while
attracting candidates of equally high caliber when current workers
choose to retire?
Answer. It is my understanding that the funding for the ongoing
base program as well as the accelerated cleanup funding provided under
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be sufficient to
maintain the current Hanford Site workforce as well as provide new
employment opportunities for skilled and qualified workers.
Question 1d. Will you commit to ensure that contractors have prior
experience in cleaning up legacy atomic sites and that they give
priority to employing members of the current workforce with invaluable
knowledge of the site itself?
Answer. If confirmed, one of the principles that I will apply is
that we will not perform EM cleanup work at the Hanford Site unless we
are assured it can be conducted safely. Workers who perform EM cleanup
work must be trained and qualified to perform their assigned tasks. In
my view, prior experience as a former cleanup worker or as a current
qualified worker is extremely beneficial and should be considered in
employment decisions.
Question 1e. Will you commit to make certain that current and
future workers who perform equal work at these sites receive
compensation in the form of equal wages and benefit?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to assuring equal wages and benefits
to workers at the Hanford Site in accordance with the requirements of
existing labor union agreements.
Question 2. In January 2004, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman
introduced a plan to establish a two-tiered pension and medical
benefits system whereby a successor contractor at Hanford or elsewhere
would only be required to contribute to the workforce's current defined
benefit pension plan for the first five years of the contract.
After five years, all employees would be subject to a new 401(k)
style plan. Due to my opposition and that of my other colleagues,
Republicans and Democrats, in April 2006 Secretary Bodman modified the
plan to allow incumbent workers to maintain a defined benefit pension
plan (Ref. DOE Notice 351.1).
The following month, the Senate and the House blocked funding to
implement DOE Notice 351.1. As a result, in June 2006 Secretary Bodman
suspended 351.1 to allow him to consult with Congress and other
stakeholders.
Despite this suspension, DOE continued with efforts to establish a
two-tiered pension system through Request for Proposals and the recent
awarding of three contracts at Hanford, including the Tank Operations
Contract, Mission Support Contract and the Plateau Remediation
Contract.
Given that a bipartisan group of Senators, Members of the House, a
number of Governors, labor unions and other stakeholders oppose such a
two-tiered pension and medical system, what steps will you lake to
remove any such existing contract requirements at DOE sites?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the existing contract
requirements to ensure that they balance DOE's needs to mitigate cost
growth and volatility of pension funds, and are fair to incumbent and
future contractor employees.
Question 3. Our new national energy priorities, such as increased
renewable electricity generation accelerated adoption of hybrid
electric vehicles, and ambitious goals for improving end-use
efficiency, can only be addressed if we also transform our US
electrical infrastructure. Accomplishing this transformation very
quickly is key, and likely a focus of additional debate in the 111th
Congress, beginning with the economic stimulus package. This
transformation will benefit from the unique resources in the Pacific
Northwest, including leadership at the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (PNNL), BPA and utilities throughout the region.
Transforming the grid requires incorporation of modern monitoring,
communication, and computing technologies in our electrical
transmission and distribution systems while continuing to deliver
highly reliable and affordable electricity. This modernization will
deliver new levels of efficiency, flexibility, security, and
resiliency, serving the energy interests of the U.S. for decades. This
transformation will also spark new economic activity analogous to
markets created by the Internet and the nationwide efficiencies of the
Interstate Highway System, resulting in major economic growth and both
near-term and sustained job creation.
PNNL has identified three key Federal actions that will provide a
framework for massive private sector investments in new infrastructure
and innovation to create new energy markets. Each of these actions can
be completed or deliver material progress within the next four years.
These actions include:
establishing the authority and resources for effective
national grid planning by 2010,
establishing a real-time, nationwide grid monitoring system
and
demonstrating the national benefits of grid intelligence
across transmission to distribution to customers by 2012.
Our national energy priorities, such as increased renewable
electricity generation, accelerated adoption of hybrid electric
vehicles, and ambitious goals for improving end-use efficiency, can
only be addressed if we also transform our electricity grid to make it
more intelligent and flexible. Accomplishing this transformation very
quickly is an important focus of my activities on this Committee, and
its an issue where the Pacific Northwest is poised to help lead the
nation, leveraging our institutions such as the Pacific Northwest
National Lab, Bonneville Power Administration and other regional
stakeholders.
What is your plan to move the Department forward in this regard?
More specifically, do you support the vision of and are you
prepared to make critical R&D investments to realize the vision of a
more transparent, flexible and intelligent grid?
Answer. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the
Department is already taking steps to move in that direction. The
Department allocated funds in the Recovery Act specifically targeted at
building this national capability and demonstrating the national
benefits of grid intelligence across the transmission and distribution
system. DOE is also leveraging the funding to accelerate the
facilitation of regional transmission analysis and planning by states
and industry, which is needed to integrate diverse clean energy
resources into the grid. As you point out, PNNL and BPA have important
resources that can be brought to bear on this problem. If confirmed, I
will continue to build on these efforts. I support this vision of a
more intelligent, secure grid, and will support research efforts needed
to achieve it.
Question 4. It seems clear that working together, China and the US
can do more to drive our world toward sustainable development than any
other pair of nations in the world. Washington State has a special
trade relationship with China (especially maritime) and, through very
strong science and technology collaborative research relationships
between the University of Washington and PNNL, the major Chinese
universities and the Chinese Academy of Science (CAS). We have a unique
and urgent opportunity to expand these activities by launching
immediate, aggressive multi-track technology, policy and industrial
initiatives across the buildings, transportation, utility and
industrial sectors of our two economies. These efforts would be
designed to help stabilize the global economy, create jobs and trade
opportunities and sustainably transform the energy economies of both
countries.
The Under Secretary will have a key role in shaping DOE's approach
to advancing partnerships with Chinese Science and Technology
Institutions to accelerate progress on challenges such as decarbonizing
our energy systems, advancing renewables and modernizing the electric
infrastructure. PNNL, working with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, is
making important progress on a Technology and Policy Roadmap designed
to jump start this cooperation and progress.
How do you see DOE's role in shaping and advancing partnerships
with Chinese science and technology institutions to accelerate progress
on shared energy challenges?
Carbon dioxide and GHG emissions reduction in particular is a
global problem for which a global solution is needed and for which
there seems to be great opportunity for accelerating solutions with
leveraged investments across these two nations. Would you support a
significant partnership in this area?
Answer. If confirmed I would indeed support partnership with China
in this area. In fact, a former professor from my former institution,
Johns Hopkins University, is dean of the newly formed engineering
school at Beijing University. I have visited both Tsinghua and Beijing
universities twice in the past year, and also the Chinese Academy of
Science. These personal experiences and connections would help to
inform my work at the Department. In that regard, I understand that the
Department already plays an active role in working with China across a
broad horizon of energy issues. I envision DOE continuing to play a
critical role in advancing scientific cooperation between our two
nations to address the many challenges we face in common. One of the
most pressing common challenges is climate change, and the mitigation
of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. I look forward to
greater cooperation with China in this critically important area.
Question 5. What the Department of Energy's current efforts in
supporting the development of biofuels for commercial and general
aviation? In the event that there is created a Federal Aviation
Administration Center of Excellence for the Development and Use of
Biofuels for Commercial and General Aviation, would the Department of
Energy be willing to partner with the selected Center of Excellence and
support program elements that are outside the mission of the FAA but
within the Department's mission?
Answer. Development of biofuels for aviation is a key technology,
and if confirmed, I will work within the Department and with external
partners, such as the FAA Center you mention, to accelerate research
and development in this area.
Question 6. Dr. Johnson, as you may know, the previous
Administration did not support R&D in ocean and tidal energy so
Congress added funding each year to support this research. What will be
your strategy for this program in Fiscal Year 2010 and beyond? The
Department's only marine sciences laboratory is located in Sequim,
Washington and I believe it can be a real asset to the Department in
addressing marine energy R&D opportunities. Before our nation can fully
realize the potential of water power as a carbon-free energy source, we
must accurately assess our regional and national resources, and
evaluate new technologies in marine environments to determine potential
environmental impacts. Can I have your assurance that you will engage
the Marine Sciences Laboratory as you move this program forward?
Answer. I believe that we need to explore and utilize all of our
renewable resources. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's (PNNL's)
Marine Sciences Laboratory (MSL) has valuable capabilities in physical
oceanography and marine biology as they relate to the development of
ocean energy. DOE currently employs the MSL, where researchers work
collaboratively with DOE-supported ocean energy projects, including
Snohomish Planned Unit Development of a tidal energy site in the
Admiralty Inlet section of the Puget Sound and the Northwest National
Marine Renewable Energy Center, a joint Oregon State University-
University of Washington program addressing wave and tidal energy R&D
and testing. If confirmed I will build on this work and engage the MSL
going forward.
Responses of Kristina M. Johnson to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. As we strive to make the United States more energy
independent, do you think we need all U.S. energy resources to meet
future energy demands?
Answer. The United States should continue to make use of all its
resources as part of a comprehensive energy mix that puts us on a path
toward greater energy independence. It is particularly important to
accelerate the development and deployment of energy technologies that
enable the use of domestic energy resources in a manner that enables us
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If confirmed, I will work to
improve the Department's efforts to develop and deploy such clean
energy technologies, including carbon capture and storage.
Question 2. Do you believe the U.S. has the responsibility to take
the lead in developing clean coal technology?
Answer. I believe the United States should continue its leadership
role in developing clean coal technologies. The development of clean
coal technology represents not just a responsibility, but also a
significant opportunity. We are one of the most prolific producers of
coal and also one of the chief consumers of coal. The United States has
demonstrated a significant track record in developing clean coal
technologies, and if confirmed, I will endeavor to accelerate this
work.
Question 3. How would you move forward with respect to carbon
sequestration R&D and eventual deployment?
Answer. I believe that we need to pursue a range of promising CCS
technologies. It is my understanding that the Department's Carbon
Sequestration Program is pursuing such an approach, developing a
portfolio of technologies with potential to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and ultimately move those technologies to commercial
readiness for deployment. In addition to demonstration projects, large-
scale development projects are also underway. If confirmed, I will make
management of this CCS portfolio one of my highest priorities.
Question 4. The Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center is a 10,000-
acre facility located within the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 3 (NPR-3)
also known as Teapot Dome Oil Field. It provides a venue for service
companies and equipment manufacturers to test new ideas and products
leading to increased recovery or reduced operating costs--combining all
technologies to strengthen integrated energy development. The Center is
also a tremendous resource for students to learn and research. Its
partners include academia, inventors, small and large businesses, and
government entities, including national labs. If confirmed, what would
you propose for as the long-term plan to extend the operation and
production of the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center and ensure its
continued success as a research and education resource?
Answer. I am not familiar with all of the details about this
matter, but I understand that production is currently authorized until
April 2012. If confirmed I will look into options for the RMOTC and
would be glad to discuss the long-term plans that you mention.
Response of Kristina M. Johnson to Question From Senator Bunning
cap and trade
Question 1. Dr. Johnson, it's good to see you again. In our meeting
we discussed the issue of cap and trade. As you know, I have concerns
about mandating a system that would not only punish American consumers
and producers but would restrict domestic economic growth. You
indicated in our meeting that through implementing a cap and trade
system America can take a global leadership position on climate change.
You argued that developing nations will ``follow, not lead'' on the
issue of climate change and that mandatory agreements with these
nations would not be necessary as they will voluntarily adopt emissions
standards in the future. Is this correct? Follow up: Cap and trade
advocates have argued that without mandates, the marketplace will not
make the adjustments to advocate a ``follow, not lead'' voluntary
approach with developing nations while dismissing the same approach in
America?
Answer. I believe that the United States should provide leadership
by moving forward with a program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At
the same time, I recognize that climate change is a global problem that
will require a global solution. I also realize the importance of
American competitiveness; this applies not only to energy and trade
intensive industries, but also to positioning the United States as a
leader in development of clean energy technologies. The challenge is to
develop a policy that addresses all of these issues, something I pledge
to help do if confirmed.
______
Responses of Steven Elliot Koonin to Questions From Senator Murkowski
national labs
Question 1. During the Cold War the national laboratories were an
important part of a national innovation engine that was the envy of the
world. This engine included basic research at universities, applied
research at the national laboratories, and commercialization by private
industry. Many would say that the energy and climate change challenges
our nation faces are at least as compelling as the challenges of the
Cold War.
As Under Secretary for Science, what steps would you take to
promote this type of collaboration between the universities, the
laboratories, and industry in meeting the challenges our nation faces
in the 21st Century?
Answer. I think that the kind of collaboration that you describe is
critical to meeting our energy challenges in the 21st century. I have
had initial discussions with Secretary Chu about better integration of
research efforts across institutions, and I know that he also believes
this is an important priority. I understand that the DOE Office of
Science has taken several steps in this direction in recent years. One
example is the scientific workshops. Over 25 workshops led by the
Office of Science over the past 8 years have brought together
scientific and technical experts from academia, the national
laboratories, the private sector, and government, including program
managers from the DOE applied technology programs, to identify the
scientific and technical challenges our nation must overcome to develop
new and advanced energy technologies and to address environmental
concerns. These workshops bring the communities together from the very
beginning to identify scientific priorities, and in the process
encourage the building of partnerships.
If confirmed, I will build on this and other ongoing work to
promote ideas that will result in more beneficial collaborations.
Question 2. The Office of Science is responsible for 10 national
laboratories and the largest share of the Department's national
laboratory budget after the NNSA. This Committee recently approved
legislation that would double the funding authorization for the Office
of Science over the next 6 to 7 years. Even this funding may not be
sufficient to address the diverse mission of the Office of Science.
How do you plan to coordinate the missions of the Office of Science
laboratories so that they can collaborate rather than compete for
scarce funding?
Answer. While competition is important to spur new ideas and new
discoveries, and continue to push the frontiers of science and
technology, it is also important that we encourage collaboration
between the laboratories, particularly when resources are scarce. I
understand that the Office of Science (SC) has in place several
mechanisms to encourage collaboration. For example, through the annual
laboratory planning process, SC coordinates discussions on the
laboratories' core competencies to enable an understanding of where the
laboratories' priorities for future investments are and better position
SC to facilitate coordination between the laboratories where it is most
beneficial. If confirmed, I will build on this and other efforts to
improve coordination across the SC labs.
biofuels
Question 3a. I noticed some of your former comments where I believe
you have somewhat the same view as I do, that com-based ethanol is not
the best answer to our need for biofuels to ethanol and related fuels.
In Alaska right now, for example, there is a test underway that shows
that sugar beets are growing much better in cool temperatures than
anyone predicted, the beets containing 16% to 22% more sucrose than the
average sugar beet. That sucrose can then be utilized to manufacture
Dimethyifuran (DMF) that initial tests show requires 40% less refining
costs than ethanol to become a finished fuel.
What is your view on whether we should be concentrating more of our
research dollars and subsidies to perhaps speed cellulosic ethanol
development, compared to the 15 billion gallons of com-based ethanol
mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007?
Answer. It is my understanding that nearly all the research dollars
that the Department of Energy (DOE) is devoting to biofuels are aimed
at developing cost-effective means of producing cellulosic biofuels on
a commercial scale--and not just cellulosic ethanol, but cellulosic
hydrocarbon fuels, including green gasoline, diesel, and perhaps even
jet fuel. We are beginning to understand how these latter fuels, which
would be fungible replacements for our current petroleum-based fuels,
can be produced by both microbial and chemical catalytic means.
Cellulosic biofuels--biofuels from nonfood plant fiber--really hold the
key to a new biofuels economy. But we will need transformational
breakthroughs in basic science to develop cost-effective methods of
producing them, and that is the focus of DOE research.
Question 3b. As a former BP official, where in your view should the
biofuel industry be headed?
Answer. There is a growing understanding among most energy
companies that we need to transition to alternative energy. We have
concerns about the security of our energy supplies, especially
petroleum. We have major concerns about the climate if we continue
reliance on fossil fuels. In the area of liquid transportation fuels, I
think the real future lies in cellulosic biofuels, for the reasons
discussed above.
Question 3c. Do you support the addition of promising new
feedstocks, such as algae, into the Renewable Fuel Standard?
Answer. I do not have a view at this point about the inclusion of
additional feedstocks into the RFS. However, I do believe that our
choice of feedstocks should be determined by the results of our
research, and that we should be careful not to prematurely close off
any promising technological pathways.
ocean-geothermal renewable energy
Question 4. In the past, you have also talked about the need to
improve our focus on new energy technologies given our nation's finite
resources. I am almost scared to ask this question coming from a state
with 34,000 miles of coast line and thousands of miles of rivers that
make ocean hydrokinetic power: wave, tidal and current projects, all
irresistibly attractive, and coming from a state where nearly 50% is
located above potential geothermal hydrovent hotspots that might make
geothermal an attractive baseload power source, compared to the 65
cents per kilowatt that diesel-fired generation is currently costing on
average in rural Alaska. But the question is, where should we be
placing our research dollars to gain the most energy in the future at
the lowest capital and fuel costs? Could you rank the order on which
prospective technologies we should be spending our dollars for
promotion of renewable energy in the future?
Answer. As you point out in your question, the attractiveness of
energy resources varies greatly by region. Therefore, I think it is
important for DOE to invest in a range of technologies, including the
hydrokinetic and geothermal technologies that you have identified.
biofuels
Question 5. In consultation with the EPA, the Department of Energy
is conducting research on the impact that higher blends of ethanol-
greater than 10 percent by volume--could have on existing vehicles,
equipment, and infrastructure. There is significant concern that the
EPA Administrator will approve Growth Energy's waiver petition before
this testing is complete, and raise the blend cap to 12%, 13%, or even
15%. If consulted as Under Secretary of Science, will you commit to
advising against any such increase until sufficient scientific data
indicates there will be no adverse consequences?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, I will review the relevant
scientific data and provide my best judgment on the matter.
gas tax
Question 6. Last July, during a speech you gave at the University
of California-San Diego, you indicated that you believe the United
States should establish a floor for the price of gasoline. If
confirmed, will you urge the Secretary and the President to seek such a
policy? At what price per gallon would you suggest setting a floor?
Answer. It is my understanding that President Obama has ruled out a
gas tax such as I described. If confirmed, I would work to implement
the President's policies and to advise Secretary Chu and President
Obama in the development of new policies.
Responses of Steven Elliot Koonin to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1a. Now, more than ever, the ability to quickly and
efficiently leverage U.S. science and technology to solve our nation's
challenges is critical. Nowhere is that more evident than in the sphere
of energy innovation, where national lab assets playa unique role in
defining the of DOE research and development and lab-derived energy
discoveries, the national laboratories must have the tools to
effectively and efficiently collaborate with industry to turn these
discoveries into commercial innovations.
For many years, the national laboratories have commercialized
innovative technologies through licensing agreements with industry, and
by opening specialized lab resources for collaboration through
mechanisms like the Cooperative Research and Development.
While these agreements have been used effectively, they have their
limits. Certain features constrain DOE's ability to collaborate and
leverage the results of that collaboration to deliver complex
innovation at the scale and speed required by current national energy
policy objectives.
Most importantly, the Department's current organization results in
a system where commercialization is a secondary priority rather than a
central consideration when it comes to the effective deployment of
technology. In addition, outdated contract and intellectual property
terms can discourage industry engagement, as can varying implementation
at each laboratory and field office. At the same time, Management and
Operations (M&O) contractors are limited in their ability to bridge the
``Valley of Death'' between basic research and technology development
by making investments and taking risks that could facilitate
commercialization and speed.
In Title X of the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 2005, Congress
attempted to empower DOE to address issues related to commercialization
by directing the Secretary to create a technology transfer coordinator
within the Department responsible for advising the Secretary ``on all
matters relating to technology transfer and commercialization.''
Congress also created a Technology Transfer Working Group--consisting
of representatives from each or the DOE national laboratories--to
coordinate tech transfer activities, exchange information on best
practices and resolve disputes over intellectual property rights.
Almost two years after the enactment of EPACT, the Bush
Administration finally assigned the Under Secretary of Science, Dr.
Raymond Orbach, the role of tech transfer coordinator, which he assumed
in addition to overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Office of
Science and serving as chief policy advisor to the Secretary on
Department-wide science and technology issues.
The Bush Administration also created a Technology Transfer Policy
Board to assist in coordinating and implementing DOE's tech transfer
policies and activities. In November 2008, the DOE Office of Science
posted a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register inviting comments on
a series of questions concerning tech transfer practices at DOE
laboratories, not moving aggressively in this area, and, as a whole,
has done little else to improve technology transfer at its national
laboratories.
While the Secretary has yet to select a tech transfer coordinator,
and has not indicated whether he will create a stand-alone tech
transfer coordinator or assign the responsibility to an existing
individual, entity, or office, one thing is clear--the Department's
commercialization policies and mechanisms will dictate how quickly and
efficiently the nation can leverage our federal investment in science
and technology to address energy security and climate change, among
other pressing issues. The previous Administration assigned the Under
Secretary for Science the role of Technology Transfer Coordinator. Do
you aim for that to be your responsibility as well?
Answer. I understand that the Secretary is personally engaged in
considering how the function should be organized. Regardless of the
outcome, I can commit to you that if confirmed, one of my top
priorities will be to better focus DOE research to deliver solutions to
our energy and climate challenges.
Question 1b. The National Academy Report, ``Rising Above the
Gathering Storm'' as well as GAO and other industry reports conclude
that industry remains frustrated in engaging the national laboratories.
How do you intend to improve those interactions?
What will you do to facilitate partnerships among national
laboratories, universities, and industry, and improve technology
transfer and commercialization within the Department and at the
national laboratories?
Do you recognize that there are impediments to national laboratory
collaboration with industry, universities, not-for-profit organizations
and other national laboratories?
Answer. As a result of my time at BP and my efforts to work with
Secretary Chu when he was the Lawrence Berkeley Lab Director, I
understand first-hand the frustrations that industry encounters in
dealing with the Department and its national laboratories. I know that
barriers also exist to better collaboration with universities and other
labs as well. If confirmed, I pledge to work to remove these barriers
and to improve partnerships between DOE labs and other entities. Doing
so will help to realize the potential that Department of Energy and its
laboratories have to be a major driving force for addressing many of
the technological, environmental, ecological and economic challenges
our Nation now faces.
Question 1c. Will you be open to new and innovative mechanisms to
accomplish these objectives?
Answer. Absolutely. As Chief Scientist of BP working with Berkeley
Laboratory I had first hand experience of these barriers, and I am
committed, and know that the Secretary is absolutely committed, to
soliciting and implementing new and innovative mechanisms to
facilitating interaction with industry, not-for-profit organizations,
and academia.
Question 2. The Department has many elements that are a part of the
climate change agenda, such as Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, Energy
Efficiency, Policy, and Office of Science.
What is your role in the climate change agenda within the
Department of Energy?
Who is the principal point of contact for climate change issues
within the Department, other than the Secretary?
As Chairman Bingaman indicated in the last Congress, the need for
accurate modeling is essential if we are to design legislation around
long-term emissions mitigation targets. It is particularly important
that these tools provide timely assessments at scales useful for
decision making--e.g., assessments of climate change impact at the
regional vs. global scale, and within the next decade.
Given that DOE is the principal federal funder of this research,
would you support increased investment for integrated assessment tools
for research and analysis?
Answer. As the Under Secretary for Science my primary role with
respect to climate change will be to oversee and coordinate related
research and development activities across the Department, and to serve
as the principal science advisor to the Secretary, which includes
ensuring that we make sound, science-based decisions with respect to
the Department's investments in advanced energy technologies that will
mitigate current and future CO2 emissions.
With respect to modeling, I agree that we must have effective tools
that provide timely assessments of climate change impacts at scales
useful for decision making. DOE has significant work underway in this
area, and if confirmed, I will look for opportunities to build on this
work.
Response of Steven Elliot Koonin to Question From Senator Corker
Question 1. After falling behind for a number of years, today the
U.S. has regained world leadership in high performance computing and
computational sciences, as recognized by the Gordon Bell Prize for the
scientists at the Leadership Computing Facility at the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, where they built DOE's petaflop machine on time
and ahead of schedule.
Dr. Koonin, what is your plan to sustain and expand U.S. leadership
in computing and computational sciences, especially in energy, climate
and environment by accelerating the development and deployment of
leadership computers through Exascale and beyond? As the Office of
Science funding doubles over the next few years, do you expect the
budget for computing also to double so that the U.S. can maintain its
leadership?
Answer. As you point out, high performance computing and
computational sciences are an important area of investment. I am not in
a position to make judgments about future budgets at this time, but if
confirmed, I will work closely with you on this matter.
______
Responses of Ines R. Triay to Questions From Senator Murkowski
defense cleanup
Question 1. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided
more than $5 billion dollars for defense environmental cleanup. My
recollection is that these funds would be used largely to finish
smaller projects in the hope that the overall footprint of the defense
cleanup effort could be decreased.
Is this still the plan for using these funds and can you comment on
how well the additional funding is being incorporated into the overall
cleanup effort?
Answer. Over the past year and a half, the Environmental Management
(EM) program has conducted strategic planning analysis, which indicates
that substantial benefit in terms of life-cycle cost savings and
cleanup completion can be achieved with additional investments in the
areas of decontamination and decommissioning of facilities, remediation
of contaminated soils and groundwater, and disposition of solid waste
(low-level and transuranic) to achieve footprint reduction. These
results were discussed in the EM progress report mandated in the Fiscal
Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act and submitted to Congress
in January 2009.
EM is well poised to effectively implement efforts for the $6
billion in Recovery Act funding because the proposed cleanup is
associated with projects that have a well-defined scope, cost and
schedule and are ready to be implemented; technologies that are proven
and with which EM has a successful record; the regulatory framework is
established; the contract vehicles are in place which allows quick
expansion of the environmental cleanup workforce; and the project
management structure is in place which provides the ability to track
and measure performance.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) funding
for EM will be applied towards the implementation of the footprint
reduction initiative. Our strategic planning analysis was based on EM's
achieving a 90 percent footprint reduction by 2015. The Recovery Act
funding will allow a 40-50 percent footprint reduction by 2011, and
will go a long way toward achieving the 2015 goal.
Question 2. You may not be the best person to ask this question
since the Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Program Act
for nuclear workers health assistance was largely taken from DOE and
given to the Department of Labor for implementation in 2004. But you
are here, and in my home state there were nuclear tests conducted
between 1965 and 1971 at the direction of DOE on Amchitka Island. At
the time people who worked on the tests were paid under contracts, some
from DOE's predecessor, the Atomic Energy Agency, and others under
military contracts to private contractors paid by the Department of
Defense. Under EEOICPA, however, only the DOE-paid workers are
receiving compensation, while the workers whose contracts were paid by
DOD--even though they often did nearly the same jobs in digging of the
underground tunnels on the island and faced the same radiation
hazards--are getting no special assistance, not even health care under
the Veterans Administration. I have been seeking to once again reopen
this act and to include DOD contract employees in the compensation
scheme. As the person that will be in charge of defense nuclear cleanup
dollars, what would be your view, when DOE is asked, about such a
change in the law?
Answer. The Department of Energy supports the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). Since 2004,
the Department's role in the program has been limited to verifying
employment records and providing exposure information to the Department
of Labor (DOL) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH); the Department's Office of Health, Safety and Security
(HSS) has the primary role in providing that information. We want to
assure you that DOE is committed to the safety and health of our
workforce and to ensuring continued availability of records that could
be critical for the EEOICPA. If I am confirmed, I will work with HSS as
well DOL, NIOSH, and others in the Administration to assure that we
promote the safety and health of our workforce and fulfill our
commitments to former workers.
Question 3. In December, the Department of Energy's Office of
Environmental Management released a white paper on its strategic
planning efforts to identify ways to reduce the cleanup footprint and
return its land to productive use while addressing our nation's energy
crisis. One such use specifically studied was converting land within
the nuclear cleanup footprint to clean energy parks. There has been a
very favorable response to DOE's proposal to reduce the footprints of
the major cleanup sites.
The idea of combining the reduced footprints with making land
available for Industrial Use for possible Energy Parks seems to have
ignited a bonfire of creative ideas and proposals in these communities.
Under DOE's proposal, designated tracts of land would be transferred to
a third party for rapid development of large scale clean energy-related
facilities. DOE's plan to facilitate this development includes:
(5) initial evaluation of land that will be available
(6) optimizing the value of the land in relation to
opportunity
(7) enabling development by a third party; and
(8) participation in achieving program goals.
What is your plan to more quickly reduce the Hanford cleanup
footprint and transfer the land and local economy to clean energy
development?
Answer. At Hanford, the Office of Environmental Management (EM) has
estimated there would be approximately a 50 percent site footprint
reduction by 2011, leading to a 90 percent reduction by 2015.
Investment in the 100 Area cleanup, including the River Corridor
project, will result in the decommissioning and demolition of nuclear,
radiological and industrial facilities and structures along the
Columbia River, thereby eliminating any risk of additional
contamination of this key water resource. Specifically, the Plutonium
Finishing Plant (a large nuclear processing facility) and over 40
plutonium-contaminated support facilities will be decommissioned and
demolished by 2011. Achieving these objectives will go a long way
toward restoring the River Corridor and protecting the Columbia River.
Footprint reduction makes large tracts of EM land and
infrastructure available to support new beneficial site missions, such
as the establishment of Energy Parks that will sustain local and
regional economies and increase the supply of green energy to enhance
environmental quality and reduce emissions associated with global
climate change.
Question 4. I understand that the Department of Energy may be
considering utilizing diesel generators to secure the tremendous amount
of power needed to run Hanford Waste Treatment Plant once it is up and
running. However, with the Department's 2015 plan for reducing the
legacy waste footprint at cleanup sites like Hanford and transition
these areas to Clean Energy Parks it seems be an ideal opportunity to
secure the tremendous amount of clean power to run the Hanford Waste
Treatment Plant once it is up and running.
What, if any, barriers are there to securing tremendous amount of
power to run the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant once it is up and
running from future Clean Energy Parks on cleanup sites?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to look across the full spectrum of
energy sources to supply the future power needs of the Hanford Waste
Treatment Plant and other facilities cost-effectively. This includes
negotiating favorable rates from Bonneville Power Administration, on-
site generation and possible green sources like solar. Some of these
options could be implemented through the Energy Parks concept.
Under the Energy Parks concept, land would be returned to
productive use for clean energy development using current authorities.
The Department has authority under the Atomic Energy Act, for example,
to transfer and lease some of its property. If confirmed, I pledge to
work to review and where appropriate transfer or lease cleaned up land
in response to requests by third parties at Hanford, and after all
appropriate consultations.
Question 5. The Environmental Management (clean-up) budget for
Technology Development and Deployment is $32 million, to support a $5-6
billion investment of federal resources. A recent National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) report evaluated the DOE-EM Science and Technology
Roadmap and made the following findings:
the challenges in the EM scope are technically challenging
and long term
the national labs, particularly those visited as part of the
NAS study (INL, ORNL, PNNL and SRNL), have unique site
technical knowledge and capabilities that should be brought to
bear on the EM challenges
the Roadmap is directionally correct but more work needs to
be done to define insertion points for the technology and
knowledge
the technical complexity and the life-cycle costs of the EM
program justify a larger investment in science and technology.
PNNL is the leading technical authority for Hanford tank waste
issues including waste processing and is also the technical authority
for subsurface contamination including the fate and transport of
contaminants impacting the Columbia River (see attachment l for
distinguishing capabilities, distinguishing performance and mission
relevance). As pointed out in the NAS report, PNNL's unique
capabilities and facilities are critically important to the success of
the EM cleanup mission, and these core competencies must be retained
and refreshed. Under Jim Rispoli's leadership, there was a trend
towards expanded utilization of the laboratories with the site-specific
technical knowledge at the most complex DOE cleanup sites (Hanford, Oak
Ridge, Idaho, and Savannah River). With the change of administration it
is essential that there be a continued investment focus in the core
competencies at these laboratories to ensure that the technical
resources are available to reduce technical uncertainties, lead
transformational approaches to the EM mission challenges, and provide
the technical basis for protecting human health and the environment.
Consistent with the needs and recommended scope in the DOE-EM
Roadmap, the department has increased the Office of Engineering and
Technology (OET) (EM-20) budget for FY-09 from $22 million to $32
million. However, recent funding allocations of OET funds reflect a
trend away from the NAS recommendation to rely on the laboratories with
site-specific domain knowledge, such as PNNL, to address their cleanup
challenges.
A recently issued National Academy study acknowledges that while
much has been done towards cleanup, DOE's remaining cleanup sites
present the greatest challenges. The study presents a list of
significant uncertainties that, if unresolved, can delay the schedule
and increase the cost of cleanup. The study also notes that DOE's
national laboratories have unique site knowledge and technical
expertise that can be usefully brought to bear on reducing those
uncertainties. What is your position on the role that science and
technology, and the National Laboratories, can play in reducing the
risks associated with cleanup?
Current understanding of the fate and transport of contamination in
the subsurface will in large part define the options and schedule for
ultimate site closures.
Can you articulate EM's plans to further define the issues and
risks relative to long term contamination in the subsurface and
protection of the Columbia River?
Answer. I believe that science and technology is the key to
reducing risks associated with the Environmental Management (EM)
program in such high risk areas as radioactive tank waste
stabilization, treatment, and disposal and groundwater remediation. EM
will invest in technology development and deployment to address high
risk areas at Hanford as well as other EM sites.
The EM Program seeks to become a world-class technical
organization--fully credible to and trusted by its customers and
stakeholders--to reduce the technical risks and uncertainties of DOE's
cleanup programs and projects. The Technology Development and
Deployment Program invests in mid-and long-term range research and
development projects focused on high priority cleanup issues. EM plans
to expand its efforts in working with scientists and engineers from
DOE's National Laboratories, including Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (PNNL) and Savannah River National Laboratory which are co-
located at our two largest clean-up sites, as well as with those in
private industry and academia to exchange information and develop and
demonstrate innovative technologies.
Under my leadership, EM has added several world-class scientists to
its staff through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) from the
National Laboratories, including experts from PNNL, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory;
additional IPAs from other National Laboratories are in process. The
two PNNL scientists are experts in tank waste processing and subsurface
science. In addition, we are planning to work more closely with other
parts of DOE to leverage and apply their research and expertise.
Currently, EM is working with stakeholders in the Richland area to
further define the issues and risks of concern to the community,
including tribal concerns. The collaborative process will then allow EM
to develop appropriate scientific approaches to reduce contamination
and mitigate risks from the long-term contamination of the site. A new
initiative underway will support applied research in computational
modeling to improve the predictive capabilities of the subsurface
models. The initiative will also leverage investments in basic
computational research in the Office of Science, especially at PNNL.
The EM Engineering and Technology Roadmap developed in March 2008
will continue to provide a guide to develop strategies to address the
technology gaps.
In an effort to realize this vision, EM will:
Invest in new technologies to reduce project costs, reduce
the time to project completion, and provide enhanced health,
safety, and technical performance capabilities;
Ensure the technology readiness of EM cleanup technologies;
Utilize state-of-the-art modeling and simulation tools; and
Assure current technologies are meeting or exceeding safety,
cost, schedule, and technical objectives.
Currently, eight innovative approaches are being implemented to
address hexavalent chromium, strontium-90, and carbon tetrachloride at
Hanford.
These are:
Injected micron-sized iron into deteriorating portions of
the existing In-Situ Redox Manipulation (ISRM) Barrier to
determine if the deteriorating portions of the chromium barrier
in the 100-D and 100-K areas of Hanford can be mended.
Investigated in-situ biostimulation amendments for reducing
hexavalent chromium to the less mobile and less toxic trivalent
chromium at the Hanford Site.
Conducted vadose zone characterization and geochemistry
studies to better understand the fate, transport, and reduction
of chromium at Hanford.
Refined the location of chromium sources using innovative
drilling and sampling technologies at the Hanford 100-D Area to
identify areas for directed remediation.
Completed field test of phytoremediation along the 100-N
Columbia River riparian zone to extract or isolate strontium-90
from the soil and incorporate it into above ground biomass.
Completed the testing of in-situ sequestration of strontium
by surface infiltration of an apatite solution in the 100-N
area.
Continued 300 Area Uranium Plume Treatability Demonstration
project that will evaluate uranium stabilization through
polyphosphate injection.
Continued carbon tetrachloride and chloroform attenuation
parameter studies for heterogeneous hydrolytic reaction.
In addition, funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
will be used at Richland to accelerate cleanup of facilities, waste
sites, and groundwater along the Columbia River. This accelerated
cleanup at the 586-square-mile Hanford Site is expected to shrink the
remaining cleanup work to 75 square miles or less by 2015. At the
Office of River Protection, Recovery Act funds will be used to upgrade
infrastructure and systems to transfer radioactive liquid waste from
aging underground tanks to a waste treatment facility for
immobilization and disposal to meet the 2019 startup date. All of these
efforts will help to mitigate the risks associated with site
contamination and will result in improved protection of the Columbia
River.
Response of Ines R. Triay to Question From Senator Bunning
paducah cleanup
Question 1. Dr. Triay, as you know, Paducah is home to the last
operating uranium enrichment plant in the United States. This plant,
along with two others--one in Tennessee and one in Ohio--allowed
America to make rapid advancement in nuclear energy and weapon
technology in the last century. These plants pushed the envelope, often
without realizing the environmental and safety consequences. It has
been 17 years since the 1992 agreement on decontamination and
decommissioning of these plants. I have worked to ensure that the
cleanup of these plants stays on track and that D.O.E meets their
target deadline for completion. It has recently been brought to my
attention that D.O.E.--through problems in budgeting outlays--may have
not have budgeted enough money to meet the 2019 cleanup for Paducah. Is
this the case? If confirmed can you assure me that D.O.E. will meet
this completion date at Paducah and will allocate enough funding to do
so?
Answer. In a memorandum from April 2009, I advised the Manager of
the Portsmouth & Paducah Project Office that it is my direction and
expectation that the Department will meet its commitment to complete
the environmental cleanup at the Paducah Site by 2019. I am committed
to ensuring that funding levels and targets will support and be
consistent with the Paducah Site life-cycle baseline for each fiscal
year through 2019, which is consistent with the 2003 Agreed Order, and
subsequently approved Tri-Party Site Management Plan. The Department
remains committed to the Paducah completion date of 2019 as reflected
in the site's regulatory compliance agreements and in the current
certified life-cycle baseline.
Responses of Ines R. Triay to Questions From Senator Wyden
Question 1. You spoke about all the positive measures you are now
taking at the Hanford site. Yet I note that (a) the clean-up of Hanford
is over budget and behind schedule. (b) safety problems with the high-
level waste vitrification plant and the high-level waste tanks continue
to occur, (c) every year the DOE Inspector General puts the DOE clean-
up program on its -Management Challenges'' list, and (d) you have been
at DOE's headquarters in senior positions overseeing this program since
January, 2004. Please explain why it has taken you so long to start
cracking down on the contractors, given your involvement in this
troubled program for the past five years.
Answer. The cleanup of the Hanford site and the protection of the
Columbia River and the people of the Pacific Northwest is one of the
Department's highest priorities. If confirmed, I will work closely with
your office and Congress to ensure the completion of cleanup projects
at Hanford on schedule and within budget, with an emphasis on the Waste
Treatment Plant, a first-of-a-kind construction project to address
radioactive waste in underground tanks. The safety of our workers is
and will continue to be EM's top priority. In fact, the Waste Treatment
Plant was just awarded the Department's Voluntary Protection Program
(VPP) MERIT status for safety excellence and leadership, and has
committed to achieving VPP STAR status within the next five years.
With regard to procurement and project management, aggressive
efforts are underway in EM to identify and implement improvements in
personnel capabilities and systems to transform EM into a ``best-in-
class'' project management organization. EM is also developing and
implementing processes and procedures for quality assurance and for
identifying and managing project risks.
If confirmed, under my leadership, EM will identify and minimize
the programmatic risks associated with start of construction during the
early stages of the design phase. In addition, if confirmed, I intend
to look within the Department to the Office of Science, which has had
an excellent record of completing their construction projects on time
and within cost. The Secretary has made their lead project management
expert available to advise us, and we have developed a review process
modeled after the DOE Office of Science project reviews, tailored for
the EM projects. These construction project reviews determine if
project performance is consistent with agreed upon mission and project
requirements; has reached the appropriate level of maturity; and can be
completed successfully as planned, budgeted and scheduled.
While the Government Accountability Office (GAO) continues to
include DOE contract and project management on its list of government
programs at high risk, the GAO believes ``that DOE as a whole has met
three of the five criteria necessary for removal from the high risk
list.'' The two criteria that remain before DOE can be removed entirely
from the list are having the capacity (people and resources) to resolve
the problems, as well as the capacity to monitor and independently
validate the effectiveness and sustainability of corrective measures. I
am committed to completing the actions in DOE's Corrective Action Plan,
which will address these two criteria.
If I am confirmed, my personal goal will be to see that we are
removed from the GAO high-risk list during my tenure.
Question 2. Even though you are now increasing your oversight of
the contractors, we seem to have gone through several years of missed
opportunities. How can I be sure that we will not miss other
opportunities in the future to accelerate the cleanup?
Answer. Under my leadership, the Office of Environmental Management
(EM) has taken a number of specific steps recently to ensure improved
project performance:
Initiated a thorough review of the contract type and fee
structure for all construction projects in order to ensure that
the contract type and fee structure will result in maximizing
improved performance in the EM projects.
Required the parent companies carrying out the major EM
projects (including all construction projects) to justify and
improve the composition of the contractor management teams in
charge of executing the EM projects.
Increased the EM on-board count during the past two years by
approximately 300 federal employees (from 1370 to 1680) in the
areas of project and contract management, safety, engineering,
and quality assurance. The Office of River Protection alone has
increased its federal staff from 95 to 145 employees
specifically targeted for oversight of the Waste Treatment
Plant and the cleanup of highly radioactive waste in the
Hanford underground tanks. The EM program is poised to increase
its federal staff to approximately 1800 to further strengthen
our oversight capability. While EM hires federal personnel,
continued use of staff augmentation through the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers will be employed to fill the gaps.
Established an Office of Quality Assurance at Headquarters,
and required federal and contractor quality assurance
professionals at every field site. This is needed to assure
quality is incorporated into EM projects, thus avoiding cost
increases and schedule delays. Federal quality assurance
resources now account for almost six percent of the total
number of EM employees, which is within the industry range of
four to seven percent.
Continued training sessions and supplier workshops attended
by hundreds of large and small businesses alike, in order to
increase the cadre of suppliers qualified to the high standards
of nuclear quality assurance.
Implemented the Department of Defense and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Technology Readiness
Levels to judge the relative maturity of new technologies prior
to approving full-scale development.
Established a cost-estimating group at the EM Consolidated
Business Center, in order to improve the quality of the EM
program's independent government estimates for construction and
cleanup projects.
Initiated the process of implementing a project management
software tool to further increase transparency of the health of
EM projects not only to EM management but also to the DOE's
Office of Engineering and Construction Management.
Increased the frequency of the EM headquarters and field
project management reviews from quarterly to monthly to
increase management attention and accountability at all levels.
These reviews are attended regularly by DOE's Office of
Engineering and Construction Management and often times by the
Office of Management and Budget.
If confirmed, I will address high EM life-cycle costs by further
focusing on strategic planning efforts to identify and evaluate
alternative approaches for radioactive waste in tanks, spent nuclear
fuel, and special nuclear materials. Strategic planning efforts are
underway in these areas which have the highest overall life-cycle costs
of the program.
Coincident with these planning efforts, we are also proposing to
focus additional resources towards technology development, particularly
for tank waste and groundwater remediation. We are looking to make
investments in new technologies and computer modeling.
In summary, if confirmed, I will assure that EM uses science and
technology, robust project management, and our intergovernmental
partnerships to ensure that we are taking advantage of every
opportunity to complete the cleanup of Hanford safely, on schedule and
within budget.
Question 3. As the acting Assistant Secretary with day-to-day
responsibility for Hanford, where do you stand on the DOE proposals to
bring more waste to Hanford? Please address (a) bringing highly
radioactive commercial spent fuel and low-level radioactive waste to
Hanford for waste disposal and (b) bringing waste from other DOE sites
to Hanford for disposal.
Answer. Regarding commercial spent fuel, the Department has no
plans to ship commercial spent nuclear fuel to the Hanford facility.
As for low level radioactive waste, the Department entered into a
settlement agreement with the State of Washington in 2006, in which the
Department agreed to suspend importation of low-level, mixed low-level
and transuranic wastes from other DOE sites to Hanford until a new
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision are issued.
This EIS evaluates the impacts of disposal of wastes from other DOE
sites at Hanford. The State of Washington is a cooperating agency in
this EIS, which will provide the basis for decisions on future disposal
of other sites' wastes at Hanford. In fact, the EM program has
published waste disposition paths for all of its wastes that do not
involve waste disposal at Hanford. If confirmed, I assure you that I
will consult with you, other members of Congress, the tribal nations,
the States of Washington and Oregon, the regulators, and other
stakeholders to ensure a path forward that is mutually agreeable.
Question 4. What will you do specifically to prevent any more waste
from going to Hanford?
Answer. As stated above, the Hanford Tank Closure and Waste
Management EIS will provide the basis for decisions regarding waste
disposition at Hanford. I have and will continue to ensure that this
EIS presents a highly credible and unbiased scientific evaluation of
the impacts of such activities. I will also ensure that the public has
adequate time to review and provide comment on this important document.
Under my leadership, the EM program has published waste disposition
paths for all of its waste that do not involve waste disposal at
Hanford. If confirmed, I assure you that I will consult with you, other
members of Congress, the tribal nations, the States of Washington and
Oregon, the regulators, and other stakeholders to ensure a path forward
that is mutually agreeable.
Question 5. What will you do to make sure that Oregon has a seat at
the table when decisions are made about Hanford? I am not expecting
that Oregon will become a site regulator, like the State of Washington,
but I am expecting that there will be more consultation with the
Governor, and Oregon energy and environmental agencies, and the
Congressional delegation.
Answer. If confirmed, you will have my commitment to meet on a
regular basis with your staff, other members of the Oregon
Congressional delegation, and other interested parties from the State
of Oregon. The State of Oregon currently provides advice and
recommendations to the Environmental Management program as a current
member of the Hanford Advisory Board, the National Governors
Association's Federal Facilities Task Force and the State and Tribal
Government Working Group. I value the advice of these and other
stakeholder groups that the EM program supports and regularly interacts
with and I will continue my outreach efforts to all these advisory
bodies. If confirmed, I will redouble my efforts to meet and reach out
to the Governor and Congressional delegations, and plan to do so
specifically on the Hanford Tank Closure and Waste Management
Environmental Impact Statement, waste disposition, groundwater issues
and any other matters of interest to the State of Oregon.
contracts
Question 6. DOE at Hanford is currently in the midst of trying to
award the mission support contract. This was undertaken in 2006. It has
not been awarded.
The proposals were evaluated and scored, so why has it taken so
long to award the mission support contract?
Answer. The competitive procurement process for the award of the
mission support contract followed the procedures established by federal
acquisition regulations. This competitive process is thorough and
extensive. The Mission Support Contract was one of the three integrated
contracts for the Hanford site and was based on a significantly new
contract strategy aimed at improving the delivery of the mission. Prior
to release of the final solicitation, DOE conducted extensive market
research and communications with industry and other stakeholders to
ensure that competition for this extremely complex and challenging work
scope would be optimized. On September 3, 2008, contract award was made
to Mission Support Alliance, LLC in which it was determined the offeror
provided the best value to the Government.
An unsuccessful offeror, Hanford Mission Support Company, LLC filed
an initial protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on
September 22, 2008 and a supplemental protest to the GAO on October 16,
2008 challenging the basis of the award. Following a meeting with the
GAO, DOE notified GAO on December 23, 2008 that it intended to
implement corrective action by re-evaluating the existing procurement
record, and if necessary, amend the solicitation and/or soliciting
proposal revisions from the offerors. Based on this corrective action,
the GAO dismissed the protests as academic on December 29, 2008.
Following the dismissal of the protest, DOE implemented a
corrective action process whereby the existing procurement record was
re-evaluated, including the technical evaluation of the offerors' cost
proposals. DOE completed the corrective action and awarded the mission
support contract to Mission Support Alliance, LLC on April 28, 2009
formed by Lockheed Martin Integrated Technology, LLC, Jacobs
Engineering Group, Inc., and Wackenhut Services, Inc.
If confirmed, I commit to reducing acquisition lead times
(currently upward of two years), achieving sustainable process
improvement, and recruiting and developing a highly qualified
acquisition staff. As EM continues to move away from the management and
operations contract model to discrete performance-based contracts, both
the number of planned acquisitions and the associated complexity will
continue to increase. EM forecasts approximately 15 to 20 major
procurement actions over the next three years, more than double the
number in 2002, and anticipates the same level through Fiscal Year
2018. If confirmed, I commit to use the newly established EM
Acquisition Center, continuous process improvement, particularly from
lessons learned, and continued recruitment and training, to address
these challenges as EM moves towards implementing a centralized,
standardized, and streamlined acquisition process that reduces the time
that it takes from request to award.
uranium plumes
Question 7. The CTUIR analyzed the extent and nature of the
subsurface contamination under the B-BX-BY tank farms and sent you a
report (Interpreted Extent of Subsurface Contamination Resulting from
the 241-BX-102 Tank Leak 200 East Area, Hanford Site, Washington,
November 2004). The Initial SST Performance Assessment (DOE/ORP-2005-
01) predicted that the groundwater contamination from tank wastes would
arrive in 12,000 years. In the March 30, 2009 response letter to
Gabriel Bohnee, Director NPT ERWM, the DOE ORP noted in the RCRA
Facility Investigation RFI Report for Single shell Tank (SST) Waste
Management Areas (WMA), DOE/ORP-2008-01, Rev 0, that BX 102 has
contaminated the groundwater and that the identification and
implementation of corrective measures is an important priority. The
conclusions and plans will be released later as part of the WMA C phase
2 activities as explained in Appendix 1 of the Hanford Federal Facility
Agreement and Consent Order and through BP-5 OU follow on activities.
Can the CTUIR be assured that the analysts developing the
characterization and modeling for WMA C report have higher standards
than the authors that developed the wrong conclusions (wrong by 11,996
years too early) for the BX-102 report?
Answer. The Initial SST Performance Assessment (DOE/ORP-2005-01)
used available data and simplified modeling methods to evaluate the
future impacts of tank waste and historic leaks on the environment.
This assessment was performed in recognition that significant
additional data collection would occur prior to making final decisions
regarding tank farm clean-up and closure. The performance assessment
provided insights by identifying that contamination already in the soil
from historic leaks or overfill events will have a greater future
impact on the environment than residual wastes remaining in tanks after
retrieval. These insights have helped define the necessary Phase 2
activities, which include extensive additional soil characterization,
followed by additional risk assessment.
Phase 2 soil investigations and remediation have been initiated for
Waste Management Area C. The soil characterization activities for that
waste management area are being performed to comply with data quality
objectives developed with the Washington State Department of Ecology in
collaboration with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Prior to initiating the Phase 2 risk assessment, a series of working
sessions have been planned that will include both DOE Hanford Offices,
Ecology, the EPA, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Tribal
Nations, such as the CTUIR, and organizations representing public
interests have been invited to participate in these working sessions to
ensure that the risk assessment input data, assumptions, modeling
parameters and methods reflect the state of the art and address the key
issues.
Future activities to address waste management area B-BX-BY will
follow the same pattern. Extensive additional data collection will
occur with input from regulators and stakeholders. Risk assessment
modeling will incorporate the input of regulators and stakeholders. As
new information becomes available, it will be used to revise and update
risk assessments to allow selection of the most effective remediation
and closure approaches. If confirmed, I assure you that state-of-the-
art modeling will be performed for risk assessment in order to gain the
highest degree of credibility in our findings in consultation with the
tribal nations, the States of Washington and Oregon, the regulators,
and other stakeholders.
tank closure waste management eis
Question 8. After several years and millions of dollars, DOE is
going to release the Tank Closure Waste Management Environmental Impact
Statement (TCWM EIS) on May 15, 2009. The public and stakeholders and
Natural resources trustees have not had the opportunity to review this
document. Requests for an extended review period are needed. DOE has
recently extended it from 90 days to 140 days.
This may not be enough time for the CTUIR to meaningfully review
the document and develop comments, considering the enormous amount of
accelerated work due to the ARRA investment in DOE efforts?
Answer. If confirmed, I assure you that EM will work with the
tribal nations, the States of Washington and Oregon, the regulators and
other stakeholders to ensure that enough time is provided for the full
review of this important document. I also commit, if confirmed, that EM
will conduct workshops and provide detailed briefings to the CTUIR and
the other tribal nations before issuance and during the comment period
of the draft EIS in order to facilitate review of the document.
Question 9. Is DOE truly seeking a technically feasible clean up,
or a legally defensible approach to tank closure and waste management?
Answer. Both. The draft Tank Closure and Waste Management EIS
covers three programmatic areas: tank waste treatment and closure of
single shell tanks, closure of the Fast Flux Test Facility, and related
waste management activities. There are seventeen alternatives being
evaluated which, in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) regulations, cover the full range of reasonable actions the
agency is to consider. I completely understand that the tribal nations,
the States of Washington and Oregon, the regulators, and other
stakeholders are all important in defining and selecting the path
forward for the Hanford cleanup. If confirmed, I assure you that EM
will engage in ample consultation with the tribal nations, the States
of Washington and Oregon, the regulators, and other stakeholders as we
move forward with the cleanup.
Question 10. If trustees and stakeholders identify major scientific
and technical concerns about the TCWM EIS, will review time be extended
and will new alternatives with CTUIR participation be developed?
Answer. If confirmed, I assure you that EM will work with the
tribal nations, the States of Washington and Oregon, the regulators and
other stakeholders to ensure that enough time is provided for the full
review of this important document. I also commit, if confirmed, that EM
will conduct workshops and provide detailed briefings to the CTUIR and
the other tribal nations before issuance and during the comment period
of the draft EIS in order to facilitate review of the document. All
comments received will be addressed in a comment response document
which will be published as part of the final EIS. Changes will also be
made in the final EIS based on issues raised during the public comment
process, as appropriate. I completely understand that the tribal
nations, the States of Washington and Oregon, the regulators, and other
stakeholders are all important in defining and selecting the path
forward for the Hanford cleanup. If confirmed, I assure you that EM
will engage in ample consultation with the tribal nations, the States
of Washington and Oregon, the regulators, and other stakeholders as we
move forward with the cleanup.
greater than class c nuclear waste
Question 11. DOE by congressional request is currently preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement for the disposition of Greater than
Class C Nuclear Waste (GTCC EIS).
Answer. With extensive groundwater and soil contamination at
Hanford without a comprehensive site-wide baseline characterization and
risk assessment, why is DOE considering adding additional sources of
contamination to Hanford including commercial Greater than Class C
Waste?
Answer. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Department of Energy (DOE) to consider a range of alternatives in
preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the disposal of
greater-than-class C (GTCC) low-level radioactive waste (LLW). Hanford
is one of nine such alternatives that were identified by DOE in its
July 23, 2007, Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the disposal of
GTCC LLW. The Department is currently preparing the Draft GTCC EIS,
which will identify and evaluate the potential environmental
consequences for each disposal alternative. I fully agree with you that
a site-wide baseline characterization and risk assessment is required
in order to evaluate the impacts of GTCC LLW disposal at Hanford as one
of many alternatives being considered. Decisions on a disposal
alternative or alternatives will be made only after DOE consults with
Congress as directed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. If confirmed, I
assure you that DOE will consult with members of Congress, the tribal
nations, affected States, including Washington and Oregon, regulators,
and other stakeholders to ensure an acceptable path forward for GTCC
LLW.
Response of Ines R. Triay to Question From Senator Corker
Question 1. Dr. Triay, it is my understanding that almost every
Environmental Management project is behind schedule and over-budget,
and that the primary reason blamed for this is a flawed EM management
model. I am particularly concerned about EM project delays in light of
the recent stimulus funds that have been provided. Do you believe that
the current model that gives management authority to DOE headquarters
in Washington, DC, is causing unnecessary delays in completing EM
projects? Do you think that shilling the management authority to the
environmental staff of the regional DOE offices is a good idea? Would
you support this type of reform to the EM program? Are you confident
that under the current model projects funded by the stimulus will be
completed on time?
Answer. Within the current model, the field managers, and the field
staff have the authority to manage the contracts and oversee the
contractors' performance with respect to delivering EM projects on time
and within cost. However, I do believe that it is important to delegate
as much authority as possible and appropriate to the field offices and
their managers. If the field managers had more authority than they do
now, the EM program, in my opinion, would be more efficient. However,
the additional authority would come with the responsibility to deliver
excellent performance. Performance is measured by the results obtained,
and the manner in which they are obtained. Therefore, if confirmed, I
will support a reform to the EM Program to align authority with
performance at each site to deliver projects on time and within cost.
EM has a high degree of confidence that the projects funded by the
stimulus will be completed on time and on budget. EM's confidence is
centered on the following key point: the projects funded by stimulus
contain a mix of clean-up projects from EM's Portfolio of
Decontamination and Decommissioning and Environmental Remediation
Projects. These types of projects were specifically chosen because of
EM's track record of completing the scope on time and within cost, the
required technologies are proven, there is agreement on the regulatory
framework, the contract vehicles are available, and the project
management structure is in place providing the ability to track and
measure performance. Table 1* compares the approved project cost and
project schedule to the actual completion cost and schedule for
Environmental Management cleanup projects completed since 2005. These
19 projects were projected to cost over $12 billion dollars. Sixteen of
the projects completed within 10% of the projected budget, 18 of these
projects were completed on schedule, and each of these projects
completed all remediation and disposition of waste required by
regulatory compliance agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Responses of Hilary Chandler Tompkins to Questions From
Senator Murkowski
Question 1a. I know you understand there is a great debate about
climate change that is ongoing and on renewable energy as well. Several
of the proposals on renewable energy would put federal lands off limits
in terms of renewable biomass that can be used in a Renewable Fuel or
Electricity standard. Given the hundreds of thousands of acres of dead
material in the Intermountain States (CO, NM, AZ, UT, WY, MT, and ID)
does it make any sense to you to restrict the use of woody biomass from
federal land?
Answer. I know that the Department of the Interior has programs in
its bureaus, particularly in the Bureau of Land Management, that supply
woody biomass for energy production and other uses.If confirmed as
Solicitor, I will provide the Secretary and the relevant bureaus with
the legal advice they need to appropriately carry out this program.
Question 1b. In advising the Secretary of the Interior on this
issue will you recommend a federal lands moratorium when it comes to
biomass use, or will you advocate for a policy that facilitates the
treatment and removal from these lands to protect the soil, water, and
wildlife?
Answer. I am advised that the BLM has an existing biomass
utilization program and neither the BLM nor the Department of the
Interior is considering a moratorium on biomass use. If confirmed as
Solicitor, any legal recommendations I would provide to the Secretary
or the Department's bureaus would be informed by the proposals of the
relevant policy makers and my review of the legal underpinnings of such
proposals.
Question 2a. A significant number of acres of DOI lands have burned
in the last decade which is causing tremendous impacts on sensitive,
threatened, and endangered species. As solicitor would you be willing
to advise the Secretary and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the
impact of these fires may be causing more harm to endangered species
than many of the other activities the Department has been restricting?
Answer. If confirmed as Solicitor, I will work with all of the
agencies within the Department of the Interior to advise the Secretary
about the legal issues that he must consider regarding managing fires
when threatened and endangered species are present.
Question 2b. If not, are you willing to ask the agencies to assess
ALL natural and man-made disturbances when considering a listing
request or developing a habitat management plan?
Answer. The Endangered Species Act requires consideration of a
number of factors when making a decision to list a particular species
and determining critical habitat. If confirmed, I will advise the
Department to consider all appropriate factors and associated
information when making these kinds of determinations.
Question 2c. Do you agree that it may be penny wise and pound
foolish to put lands off limits to management activities such as
thinning and hazardous fuel removal if the lands are at high risk for
catastrophic fires when those fires could otherwise destroy critical
habitat for threatened, sensitive, or endangered species?
Answer. If confirmed as Solicitor, my role will be to advise the
Secretary and other decision-makers within the Department of the
Interior of their management options under the law.
Question 3a. With regard to the recent DC Circuit decision on the 5
year OCS program, what will be the Department's approach to handle the
leases currently ongoing, as well as royalty payments already
negotiated with states?
Answer. To date I have not been involved in those deliberations,
but I have been informed by the Minerals Management Service that this
is a significant issue. According to MMS, there arc 1872 leases issued
in the Gulf of Mexico (GUM) under the 2007-2012 program and 487 in the
Alaska Region (from Chukchi Sea Sale 193). No exploration or production
plans have been submitted for the Chukchi Sea, however, there are 95
approved exploration plans in the GOM, 21 previously approved
development plans, 4 leases under production, and numerous approvals
and pending approvals for action on those GOM leases. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with the Secretary on this issue.
Question 3b. What will be the remedy with regard to the Court's
reference to ranking leases according to environmental sensitivity?
Answer. I am aware of the significance of this decision and the
fact that it was just recently issued and is still under review in the
Department. If confirmed, I will work with the Minerals Management
Service and the Department of Justice to determine how best to respond
to the court's remand.
Question 4. With regard to the 5 year lease program, are you
committed to ensuring that the United States will continue to develop
more of its oil and gas domestically?
Answer. I blow that the Secretary has recently conducted a number
of meetings around the country to inform his decision as to where
development on the Outer Continental Shelf will be pursued during the
next 5 year leasing program. The OCS appears to be a significant part
of the solution to dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas. If
confirmed, I will provide the Secretary with the necessary legal advice
to implement the President's program to achieve energy independence.
Question 5. What does the Department of Interior think about
private verses public funding for a seismic inventory of the OCS? Would
the Department move forward on such a process as expeditiously as
possible?
Answer. While I am not familiar with the process for funding
seismic surveys on the OCS, if the Secretary determines to implement a
new policy for funding such an inventory, I commit to providing the
Secretary and any DOI bureaus with all relevant legal options for
gathering this information.
Question 6. Do you consider the Endangered Species Act to be the
proper statute for regulating greenhouse gas emissions through
protections of the polar bear and other Arctic species?
Answer. I agree with the other Departmental nominees that have come
before this Committee that the Endangered Species Act is not
particularly well suited for regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
Question 7. Recently the Department found justification for the
listing of the yellow billed loon. How will legal challenges to
Interior's scheduled lease sales that overlap or abut the related
species range and critical habitat to be handled?
Answer. My understanding in this case is that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service determined that listing the yellow-billed loon range
wide under the Act is warranted but precluded by other higher priority
listing actions. As a result, the species is not presently listed nor
has a proposed listing or critical habitat rule been issued, and
neither the consultation nor conferencing provisions of Section 7
apply.
Question 8. When the government has entered into a valid, binding
contract, do you believe it is important for the government to honor
the contract as a means of demonstrating respect for the law and
setting an example for the business world? When, if ever, would there
be a basis for the government to fail to honor a valid binding
contract?
Answer. As a general proposition, I believe that it is very
important for the Government to honor its contractual obligations for
many reasons, including those that your question suggests. With that
said, government contracts are administered under an elaborate--series
of laws and regulations. Many of these laws and regulations, such as
those governing acquisition of goods and services for the government,
are specifically geared towards assuring fair and open competition in
the selection of contractors, regularity and transparency in contract
administration, obtaining the best value for the taxpayer, and
protection of government funds, property, and resources. These legal
requirements--all of which are designed ultimately to protect the
taxpayer--distinguish government from private sector contracting and
they may necessitate in some circumstances the cessation of a
contractual relationship in order to protect the public interest.
Ultimately, properly drawn contracts, under any statutory or
programmatic setting, should contain provisions that define the
parties' mutual understanding of how the contract may be terminated.
Question 9. Secretary Salazar recently issued a Secretarial Order
calling for the identification of renewable energy zones on public
lands. How will DOI identify and define these renewable energy zones?
Is the Interior Department also seeking to handle the siting for
renewable energy projects and needed transmission?
Answer. I am advised that the Department is working with
stakeholders, including the Western Governors' Association (WGA) as
well as other agencies, on energy zone evaluation, specific corridor
planning, and siting. I further understand that the BLM is preparing a
programmatic solar EIS, has completed wind and geothermal programmatic
EIS s, and is working with project proponents on specific renewable
energy proposals. I am informed that the BLM will continue to authorize
and site solar, wind, and renewable energy transmission projects on the
public lands under its right-of-way program, pursuant to the provisions
of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and other applicable
laws. If confirmed, I look forward to engaging on the legal aspects of
this important energy issues.
Question 10. Section 368 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act directed the
Energy Department and the land management agencies to designate Rights-
of-Way Corridors on Federal western lands for oil, gas, and hydrogen
pipelines, as well as for electricity transmission lines. How does
DOI's Secretarial Order comport with the Rights-of-Way work the
Department recently completed?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Secretary's energy task
force will look at a variety of issues, including rights-of-way
corridors on federal lands. It would be premature to determine how the
work of the task force relates to the Department's efforts under
section 368 of the Energy Policy Act. If confirmed, I will support the
Secretary in his efforts to develop a balanced energy portfolio that
places a high priority on renewable energy.
Question 11a. Over the years Congress has passed a significant
number of land exchanges and land conveyance laws because they involve
both the Department of Agriculture national forest lands and Department
of the Interior lands. In some of those exchanges Congress has exempt
[sic] the exchange from FLPMA and NEPA; in some they provide the agency
direction to complete those processes in a compressed time frame; and
in some they require not only a FLPMA process, but an Environmental
impact Statement followed by a finding by the Secretary of net public
benefit. Some in Congress believe that Congress has the right to exempt
land exchanges from these processes, and some do not. a. Where do you
come down on this issue? Will you oppose legislation that exempts land
exchanges from FLPMA and or NEPA?
Answer. Congress has the ability to enact legislation that exempts
land conveyances and exchanges from the processes that are laid out in
FLPMA and NEPA. I cannot make a blanket statement regarding whether I
would recommend that the Department support or oppose legislation that
would make these exemptions without knowing the context for the
proposed exemptions. The FLPMA and NEPA procedures provide assurance to
the public and to Congress that a proposed conveyance or exchange is
consistent with Federal goals and good policy, and that the effects,
costs, and benefits of the proposed exchange have been fully examined.
I would individually examine proposed legislative land exchanges or
land conveyances before giving advice to the Secretary.
Question 11b. If you believe that land exchanges and land
conveyances should be subject to FLPMA and NEPA do you believe that
other Congressional actions, such as the designation of Wilderness
should also be subject to FLPMA and NEPA? If not, why not?
Answer. Again, it is my view that any such proposed or enacted
legislation, including legislation to designate wilderness, would have
to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Only Congress can designate
wilderness. The legislative process does generally provide an
opportunity for public involvement and oversight through the
Congressional hearing process. As I stated in my answer above, FLPMA
and NEPA procedures can provide policy-relevant information. But
overall, I believe this is an area where there are not onesize-fits-all
policies and all proposals must be evaluated individually.
Question 12. In reviewing your paperwork I am struck by how little
it revealed concerning your past participation or experience with the
natural resources issues that you will be expected to deal with as
Solicitor, should you he confirmed. And I do not feel that your oral
testimony provided additional enlightenment.
Could you provide the Committee with a detailed list of the cases
you participated in while working at the Department of Justice and what
federal land issues you had personal involvement in while working for
Governor Richardson?
Answer. While working for the U.S. Department of Justice, I brought
civil prosecutions against defendants for violations of various
environmental statutes such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act,
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (``RCRA''), and CERCLAI
Superfund. The geographical regions for which I was primarily
responsible were the Midwest and the Pacific Northwest. I handled a
wide variety of cases. For instance, I worked on a significant and
complex CERCLA case in the Coeur d'Alene Basin in Idaho filed against a
number of mining companies, including Asarco and Hecla Mining (referred
to as the ``Bunker Hill case''). A large component of this case was the
natural resource damage claims under CERCLA. Another case I worked on
was a Clean Water Act case filed against Texaco and Mobil for
violations of the Clean Water Act due to their oil and gas operations
in southern Utah. A central issue in that case was whether the
intermittent arroyos in the desert were ``navigable waters of the
United States'' under the Clean Water Act.
In my position as legal counsel to Governor Richardson, I worked on
the Otero Mesa litigation, which was a NEPA, APA, and FLPMA challenge
to a resource management plan issued by the Bureau of Land Management.
As you are aware, I have submitted a written recusal to the Committee
on this matter.
I also handled a number of other natural resources and
environmental issues that did not involve federal lands under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior but that are worth
mentioning to demonstrate my level of experience in this area.
I co-authored an amicus brief with the New Mexico Attorney
General's Office in the recent Tenth Circuit decision in HRI, Inc. v.
EPA, 2009 WL 1027184 (April, 2009) regarding the question of whether
land in close proximity to a Navajo chapter was -Indian Country'' for
the purposes of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Environmental
Protection Agency argued that the land was Indian Country and HRI,
Inc., argued that it was not. The Navajo Nation was an intervenor in
the case. The State of New Mexico appeared as amicus curiae in a
neutral capacity.
I have assisted the New Mexico Environment Department and the New
Mexico Energy and Natural Resources Department in negotiations with
regulated entities that were conducting activity subject to various
environmental and natural resources laws. For instance, I assisted in
negotiations with a prominent mining company regarding its mining
activity and financial assurance components of an agreement.
I provided assistance to the Natural Resources Trustee of the State
of New Mexico and the New Mexico Attorney General on the natural
resources component of Superfund cases, such as the South Valley
litigation that was filed against the DOE, DOD, USAF and various
private companies. In that case a settlement was reached in 2006 and
the Natural Resources Trustee adopted a Restoration Plan in 2007.
I participated with the New Mexico Environment Department in its
negotiations with Louisiana Energy Services, a company that was seeking
to locate a uranium enrichment facility in Eunice, New Mexico. The
agreement with the State contained requirements that were in addition
to requirements imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I worked on the State of New Mexico's approach to responding to a
decision by the U.S. Forest Service in 2005 to change the 2001 Roadless
Area Conservation Rule and adopt a new rule authorizing Governors on a
state-by-state basis to determine which areas would remain roadless in
their respective states.
I received briefings from the general counsel of the State
Engineer's Office and Interstate Stream Commission regarding pending
adjudications, water management and delivery issues, and
administrative, rulemaking issues.
I drafted Executive Orders on behalf of the Governor regarding
renewable energy, clean energy, renewable fuels, energy efficient
building standards, energy efficiency, climate change and greenhouse
gas reduction initiatives. I also drafted Executive Orders regarding
emergency funding for the prevention and suppression of wildfires,
disaster assistance, drought declarations, drought plans, establishment
of a drought task force, water infrastructure development,
establishment of a water cabinet, establishment of a Blue Ribbon Task
Force on Water, and adoption of an environmental justice policy.
I reviewed all legislation involving natural resources and
environmental issues and provided legal advice to the Governor before
he took action on these bills.
There is one additional matter in which I participated on behalf of
tribal clients in New Mexico that is beyond the scope of your specific
question but that reflects my experience with natural resources issues,
including the Endangered Species Act. I participated in an
intergovernmental collaborative workgroup on behalf of my tribal
clients regarding the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow and monitored the
pending litigation, which involved the Department of the Interior,
environmental groups, the State of New Mexico, and other intervenors.
My tribal clients were not parties to the litigation.
Question 13a. Due to your capacity as Deputy Counsel and Chief
Counsel to Governor Richardson, I am forced to ask you about the
ongoing investigation by the Federal Prosecutor in New Mexico related
to the Governor, his Administration, and campaign finance
irregularities.
Can you provide the. Committee any information you have on your
involvement in that investigation or work you did to prepare Governor
Richardson or any of his staff for any meetings related to that
investigation?
Answer. I have had absolutely no involvement in the investigation
and I did not conduct any work for the Governor, his staff, or any
other person regarding that investigation.
Question 13b. Would you provide this Committee with communication
from the Department of Justice that will give us some assurance that
you are not a target or potential target of the grand jury
investigation in question?
Answer. I would be happy to ask the Justice Department for such an
assurance, but of course, I cannot guarantee that the Justice
Department will deliver such a communication.
Question 14a. I note that you have spent a significant part of your
career working for or representing a number of tribal entities. Can you
describe how you and the Department of Interior's Office of Ethics will
address any communications or issues that come before you, if confirmed
as solicitor, related to any of the tribal entities you worked for or
represented?
Answer. I will consult with the Department of the Interior's Office
of Ethics on any potential conflicts of interest, and I will abide by
all applicable ethical rules and regulations should any matter come
before me involving a former client. I will also abide by the
Committee's 1993 recusal policy. Lastly, I will abide by the rules of
professional conduct that apply to me as a licensed attorney.
Question 14b. Given your long time representation and advocacy for
a number of Native American Tribes and groups, how will you deal with
the decades old Cobell v. Secretary of the Interior case? Do you expect
to recluse [sic] yourself from those proceedings; if not how will you
ensure that your past advocacy does not color your work on this issue
while at the Department of the Interior?
Answer. I have never worked on or represented a party in the Cobell
v. Secretary of the Interior case. I do not have any financial interest
in this case and I am not aware of any relative who may have an
interest in this case. I also do not believe that my past
representation of Indian tribes and pueblos, my participation in Native
American groups, or my ethnic identity will impair my ability to work
on this case in an unbiased fashion. Under these circumstances, I do
not believe that a recusal is warranted.
I believe it is also important to note that I have represented the
United States and the State of New Mexico in an impartial and unbiased
fashion notwithstanding my prior affiliations with Indian tribes. If I
am confirmed, I will solely represent the interests of the United
States and will be a zealous advocate for the Department of the
Interior in accordance with the highest ethical standards.
Question 15. Would you describe your understanding of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 settlement in the 2005
Energy Act and compare and contrast your interpretation of that
settlement with that of the last administration?
Answer. I am unaware of any Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 settlement that was part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
and both legal and policy staff at the Office of Surface Mining in the
Department of the Interior have been unable to identify the referenced
settlement. If confirmed, I would be happy to work with you and your
staff on this issue.
Question 16. In July 2007, a legal opinion was issued in the
Interior Regional Solicitor's Office that the Department has sufficient
statutory authority to accept State transportation funds, and transfer
them to Tribes under self-determination and self-governance agreements,
under 23 U.S.C. Sec. 204(d) and 25 U.S.C. Sec. 450i. Section 204(d) of
Title 23 specifically concludes that the Department may accept funds
from States for the construction and improvement of roads on federal
lands highway programs. This is a program of which the Indian
Reservation Roads program is a part. Section 450i of Title 25 states
that the Secretary may accept donations of funds to further any program
authorized by other provisions of the law for the benefit of Indians.
Despite this authority, the Department of Interior has refused to
accept funds on behalf of tribes. If confirmed, would you be willing to
work with Interior officials to establish a clear guidance so that
tribes or Alaska Native villages in my case can continue to make
necessarily investments in critical infrastructure?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed I will be willing to review existing
authorities and to work with Interior officials to provide guidance on
accepting State funds to make necessary investments in critical
infrastructure.
Responses of Hiliary Chandler Tompkins to Questions From
Senator Bennett
Question 17. Do you agree that the Department's authority to
establish new Wilderness Study Areas under Section 603 of FLPMA expired
no later than October 21, 1993?
Answer. It is my understanding that in a brief filed in the 10th
Circuit, the Department of the Interior took the position that its
authority to establish new Wilderness Study Areas under section 603 of
FLPMA expired on October 21, 1993. I also understand that there is new
litigation concerning this issue. If confirmed, I look forward to
learning more about this topic.
Question 18. Do you agree that the Department currently has no
authority to establish new WSAs (post-603 WSAs) under any provision of
federal law, such the Wilderness Act of Section 202 of FLPMA?
Answer. It is my understanding that other provisions of FLPMA, such
as section 202 and the Wilderness Act, have been interpreted to give
the Department of the Interior the authority to manage land for
wilderness values. I have not had an opportunity to review the various
concerns that have been raised with respect to the Department's use of
these authorities. I am also aware that there is new litigation
concerning this issue. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more
about this topic.
Question 19. Do you agree that the Department has not had the
authority to create any new WSAs since the expiration of FLPMA Section
603 on October 21, 1993?
Answer. As I noted in my response to question 17, it is my
understanding that in a brief filed in the 10th Circuit, the Department
of the Interior took the position that its authority to establish new
Wilderness Study Areas under section 603 of FLPMA expired on October
21. 1993. As I also noted in that response, I understand that there is
new litigation concerning this issue and I look forward to learning
more about this topic.
Question 20. Do you agree with federal Judge Dee Benson that the
settlement agreement between the state of Utah and the United States is
consistent with FLPMA?
Answer. Thank you for providing me with a copy of the settlement
agreement approved by Judge Dee Benson in Utah v. Norton during our
meeting last week. It is my understanding that the Department took the
position in the 10th Circuit that this settlement agreement was
consistent with FLPMA. As I stated earlier, I am aware that there is
new litigation concerning this issue and I look forward to learning
more about this topic. I do understand that the decisions made by
agencies in Washington D.C. have serious repercussions on the lives of
people who live near vast Federal land holdings in the West. If
confirmed, I will advise the Secretary regarding his options under
applicable laws as well as the impacts of proposed changes in
applicable statutes.
Question 21. Does the BLM have authority to apply the non-
impairment standard, as enumerated in the Interim Management Plan for
wilderness study areas, to lands that are not designated as WSAs under
Section 603?
Answer. As I discussed in my previous answer, I believe that
wilderness management is a complex topic with serious repercussions. If
confirmed, I will advise the Secretary on how he can manage lands
consistent with the requirements of FLPMA. 1 have not had an
opportunity to review the question of whether BLM has the authority to
apply the non-impairment standard, as described in the Interim
Management Plan for wilderness study areas, to lands not designated as
WSAs under Section 603 of FLPMA. However, if confirmed, I look forward
to learning more about this topic and advising the Secretary.
Question 22. Under what legal authority did Secretary Salazar
cancel the 77 leases earlier this year?
Answer. I was not involved in this decision, nor have I discussed
the basis for this decision with Secretary Salazar. My general
understanding is that in this situation the Secretary was acting in
accordance with his general discretion to offer parcels for lease/sale
or to determine not to offer parcels for lease/sale. If I am confirmed
I will certainly learn more about this topic.
Question 23. Utah has made significant progress on the R.S. 2477
issue. The legislature recently established a process to record rights-
of-way that were accepted under the terms of R.S. 2477. The state has
submitted approximately 2,500 such rights-of-way for non-binding
determinations to the Utah Office of the Bureau of Land Management.
Could you please explain how the recorded data will be used for such
determinations?
Answer. If I am confirmed as Solicitor, you have my commitment that
I will study the issues that surround the RS 2477 claims and work
towards a resolution.
Question 24. Do you support the use of non-binding administrative
determinations to help resolve the R.S. 2477 issue in each state?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to examine whether the use
of non-binding administrative determinations may be able to help
resolve R.S. 2477 issues. If confirmed, I will commit to studying this
issue and supporting policymakers at DOI in their efforts to resolve
issues surrounding R.S. 2477.
Question 25a. Much of the evidence of the acceptance of the R.S.
2477 grant is in the form of personal knowledge. Since the people who
have this knowledge won't always be with us, the state has been
gathering affidavits from witnesses to road construction or continuous
use and will include the affidavits in its requests for non-binding
determinations of the validity of the rights-of-way. I am concerned
that the DOI solicitor's office in Utah has refused to consider
individual affidavits that provide some evidence of either construction
or continuous use, but do not prove evidence of the complete acceptance
of the R.S. 2477 grant. This would be tantamount in a criminal trial to
ignoring all witnesses that didn't see the entire spectrum of the
crime--if they didn't see the murder suspect purchase the gun, shoot
the gun, and hit their target, their testimony wouldn't count. Who is
the factfinder in a non-binding determination?
Answer. It is my understanding that BLM is the fact finder in a
non-binding determination involving BLM lands.
Question 25b. Is the fact finder entitled to arbitrarily and
capriciously ignore evidence that, when taken in a totality, would
prove the acceptance of the R.S. 2477 grant, even if the information
were contained in more than one affidavit?
Answer. I agree with your general premise that government
decisionmakers are not entitled to act arbitrarily and capriciously. I
would need specific knowledge of the affidavits in question in order to
evaluate whether a particular decision might be arbitrary or
capricious.
Question 25c. Is there any rule of law or policy in the Department
of the Interior that would preclude the factfinder from considering
affidavits that did not, per se, show acceptance of the R.S. 2477
grant, but tended to show some evidence of either construction or
continuous use for the statutory period?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to examine the non-binding
determination process in detail, including any rule of law or policy
addressing the types of information that would he relevant when
considering a request for a non-binding determination.
Question 25d. May the factfinder in a non-binding determination
consider information in an affidavit that tends to show some evidence
of either construction or continuous use for the statutory period but
not all evidence?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to examine the non-binding
determination process in detail, including the types of information
that would be relevant when considering a non-binding determination for
a claimed R.S. 2477 right-of-way.
Responses of Hillary Chandler Tompkins to Questions From
Senator Barrasso
Question 26. Last month a federal judge blocked an Interior
Department rule allowing people to carry concealed weapons in national
parks and wildlife refuges if that state's laws allow it in public
places. The rule is intended to respect Second Amendment rights of law-
abiding gun owners, while providing a consistent application of state
weapon laws across all land ownership boundaries. The judge argued in
her ruling that adequate environmental analysis had not been done. The
Obama administration has said it will not appeal the federal court
ruling, but that Interior will continue to review the policy.
If confirmed, how do you plan to address this lone federal
judge's ruling that strips Americans of their Second Amendment
rights simply because they might be standing or driving on
federal land?
As a matter of legal policy, do you think it makes sense for
the Interior Department to have inconsistent gun regulations
within the lands it oversees?
Based on your experience, what type of environmental study
could be done to determine the environmental impact of someone
standing in or driving through federal lands with a concealed
weapon?
Answer. I understand that Secretary Salazar told this Committee
during his confirmation process that he is a strong supporter of the
Second Amendment. I am aware that litigation with respect to this
regulation is ongoing. If I am confirmed as Solicitor, I intend to
carry out my responsibilities in accordance with laws enacted by
Congress, including applicable laws related to conducting environmental
review, as well as the applicable provisions of the Constitution. The
Department and its land managing bureaus have extensive experience
carrying out environmental analyses under the applicable statutes. My
past experiences working with general environmental statutes and on
public lands issues will enable me to provide sound legal guidance to
those tasked with carrying out such a review.
Question 27. Leases issued for oil and gas development in the Outer
Continental Shelf in 1998 and 1999 did not contain price thresholds.
This decision was made by the Clinton Administration and officials
within the Department of Interior. There was legislation in the
previous Congress to effectively force the lease holders to renegotiate
their leases to include a price threshold.
Do you think it weakens the value of government contracts if the
federal government--after signing a contract--decides it no longer
likes the contract and therefore bullies companies into renegotiating?
Isn't that a breach of contract, or at a minimum, a breach of good
faith?
Do you think it is constitutional to confiscate property interest
of leaseholders without just compensation?
Answer. If confirmed as Solicitor, I will closely evaluate any
contract or takings issue according to all applicable laws,
regulations, and the Constitution. I am unable at this time to make a
blanket statement regarding contracts, takings issues, and
Congressional legislation without having had the opportunity to review
the specific relevant materials, but I can assure you that I will
approach any such legal question with care and an open mind. Generally
speaking, I believe it is vital that the federal government performs
its duties in accordance with all legal requirements when taking action
that impacts the property and livelihood of individuals.
Question 28. Washington owes Wyoming hundreds of millions of
accumulated Abandoned Mine Land funding. It is Wyoming's money. In
2006, after decades of bipartisan effort, an agreement was found and
signed into law to guarantee Wyoming receives the money it was promised
without strings attached. President Obama and Secretary Salazar both
voted for this bill when they served in the Senate. The bill required
certified states or Indian tribes to be paid back money owed in seven
equal installments.
I quote--``the Secretary shall make payments to States or Indian
tribes for the amount due for the aggregate unappropriated amount
allocated to the State or Indian tribe under subparagraph (A) or (B) of
section 1232(g)(1) of this title.'' ``Payments under subparagraph (A)
shall be made in 7 equal annual installments, beginning with fiscal
year 2008.''
The previous Interior Solicitor came to a different conclusion and
stated that what Congress meant was that the funds must be paid back in
the form of a grant, and not in seven equal installments. What is your
legal interpretation of ``7 equal annual installments?'' Do you agree
or disagree with the previous Solicitor's opinion?
Answer. As I noted at my hearing, this is not an issue that I am
familiar with. I do agree that an initial reading of the language
appears to support the interpretation you note in your question.
However, I have not had an opportunity to review the previous
Administration's legal analysis. If confirmed, I would be happy to look
into this issue.
Question 29a. The State of Wyoming strongly disagrees with the Fish
and Wildlife Service's decision not to defend in court the wolf
management plan agreed to in Wyoming between the federal government and
the State. Will the Obama Administration stand by the States when
recovery goals are set and achieved, and then they are challenged in
court by outside groups?
Answer. I recognize that states play an important role in many
aspects of wildlife management. If confirmed, I will work with the DOI
Bureaus and the Department of Justice to uphold Endangered Species Act
decisions and actions based on the provisions of the law and its
implementing regulations.
Question 29b. What steps would you take in order to ensure that
listing and delisting decisions under the Endangered Species Act are
made 'solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available' as required by Section 4(b) of the ESA?''
Answer. If confirmed as Solicitor I will work with the Director of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that the Endangered
Species Act is administered and implemented with the highest ethical
standards and professional integrity and respects the work of the
Service's biologists. ESA listing decisions must be made based on the
best available science and need to be undertaken in an accountable,
transparent fashion that involves the public
Question 29c. Do you believe that distinct populations segments can
be divided by state lines? Political boundaries are not based upon
ecological characteristics. How is this practice in accordance with the
biological parameters of a distinct population segment?
Answer. The Endangered Species Act requires consideration of
various factors when making a decision to list a particular species. It
is my understanding that consistent with Fish and Wildlife Service's
policy on distinct population segments, political boundaries do not map
ecological characteristics, but they are relevant to survival of a
species because the applicable State laws and the resources and
capacity of State wildlife agencies to provide support to conservation
programs are relevant to the survival chances of a species within that
jurisdiction. While I am not familiar with the details of how the
Service has applied the distinct population segment policy with respect
to the gray wolf, if confirmed my role will be to advise the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and other DOI Bureaus on their management options
under the ESA and its implementing regulations.
Question 29d. What are the specific legal hurdles that must be
overcome in order to delist the gray wolf in Wyoming? How will you
advise the Secretary to overcome each of these hurdles?
Answer. I am aware that the Service has determined that the States
of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho must include in their management regime
provisions to ensure the population never falls below the minimum
recovery goal of 10 breeding pairs and 100 gray wolves per State. If
confirmed, I will advise the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as it moves
forward in its efforts to work with the State of Wyoming to address
issues associated with the State's management plans and laws that
concern the delisting of the gray wolf in Wyoming.
Question 30. We have a significant problem at the BLM with grazing
permit renewals. Completing NEPA paperwork takes months, even years,
and threatens ranchers' livelihood. Currently, we have legislative
language in place that allows permits to continue while NEPA paperwork
is completed. This is responsible stewardship and good business.
However, ranchers live under threat of this language expiring annually.
Absent legislative language with regard to NEPA on permit renewals,
would you supporting continuing grazing with the existing permit under
the Administrative Procedures Act until NEPA paperwork is completed?
Answer. While I am not familiar with this issue, I am advised that
the congressional permit renewal language has been extremely helpful to
the BLM in prioritizing the processing of over 18,000 permits and
leases based on environmental considerations, while meeting its NEPA
obligations. If confirmed as Solicitor, I will study the issue and
provide advice to the Secretary as he works with Congress to strengthen
the tools available to the BLM concerning grazing permit renewals while
ensuring resource protection and fiscal accountability.
Question 31. Do you support the 2007 Solicitor's opinion defining
``significant portion of the range'' in order to focus the Fish and
Wildlife Service's efforts on protecting endangered species in areas
where they are struggling to survive? What is your definition of
``significant portion of the range''? What are the implications of your
definition for managers on the ground in Wyoming?
Answer. While I am aware that this is a question of law that the
Solicitor examined in detail, I have not personally dealt with either
this M-opinion or the underlying legislative history for this term. I
therefore am not in a position to provide you with a specific
definition at this time. I understand that this interpretation is
implicated in a case pending before the United States Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit, and the court's decision may provide further
clarity in this area.
Response of Hillary Chandler Tompkins to Question From Senator Bunning
Question 32. As you may know, on December 8, 2008, the Department
of the Interior published a rule that reversed its longstanding
restrictions on transporting and carrying firearms in national parks.
This rule was recently struck down in U.S. District Court because it
did not adhere to environmental impacts. Secretary Salazar originally
said before this committee that he supported the Bush Administration
rule but has come back and said that the Department of the Interior
will conduct an environmental impact study on the Bush Administration's
rule. Is it possible to make the Bush Administration's rule comply with
the court decision? Will you support rescinding this rule?
Answer. I understand that Secretary Salazar told this Committee
during his confirmation process that he is a strong supporter of the
Second Amendment. I am aware that litigation with respect to this
regulation is ongoing. It is my understanding that the March 19, 2009,
opinion granting the injunction reveals the court's view that the rule
had not been subject to the evaluation of reasonably foreseeable
environmental impacts required by the National Environmental Policy Act
and that substantial information in the rule'sadministrative record
concerning environmental impacts had not been considered or addressed.
In a step towards resolving this matter, the United States has
advised the court it will seek a stay so that the Department can
undertake an environmental analysis. My role as Solicitor will be to
advise the Secretary and other decision-makers within the Department of
their management options under the law, the impacts of any court
rulings, and applicable laws related to conducting that environmental
review, as well as the applicableprovisions of the Constitution.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski, U.S. Senator From Maryland
Mr. Chairman--I appreciate the opportunity to express my strong
support for President Obama's nominee for Under Secretary of Energy--
Dr. Kristina Johnson.
I have known Kristina Johnson since she became provost and senior
vice president for academic affairs at Johns Hopkins University in
September 2007. She is one of the preeminent scientists of her
generation--as well as an accomplished teacher and administrator.
I have three criteria that I use to evaluate all executive branch
nominees: competence, integrity, and commitment to the core mission of
the Department. Based on these criteria, I wholeheartedly support Dr.
Johnson to be our Under Secretary of the Department of Energy
Secretary.
Dr. Johnson is the Provost of Johns Hopkins University and former
Dean of the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University. Since
receiving her PhD from Stanford University in electrical and computer
engineering, Dr. Johnson has written extensively and holds 45 patents.
She has received numerous awards--including being the only woman to win
the John Fritz medal--the highest award in the engineering profession.
Dr. Johnson will effectively implement President Obama's priorities
of developing clean energy and addressing global warming. She has the
unique combination of scientific, leadership, and policy skills needed
to be an effective and respected Under Secretary of the Department of
Energy.
Dr. Johnson would bring vision, new ideas and energy to the
position of Under Secretary of the Department of Energy. I
wholeheartedly support her for this important position.
______
Energy Communities Alliance,
Washington, DC, April 16, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 364 Dirksen
Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304
Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Dr. Ines Triay, Nominee for Department of Energy Assistant
Secretary of Environmental Management
Dear Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski: The Energy
Communities Alliance (ECA) respectfully requests that you expeditiously
confirm Dr. Ines Triay to be the new Department of Energy Assistant
Secretary of Environmental Management. As the organization of local
governments and communities that are adjacent to or impacted by
Department of Energy Environmental Management (DOE-EM) activities, ECA
has developed a close relationship with Dr. Triay in her current
capacity as Acting Assistant Secretary and through her former positions
within the DOE-EM program.
As you consider Dr. Triay's nomination, we believe she should be
confirmed for the following reasons:
(1) Significant work experience in the challenging arena of
complex environmental cleanups.--Dr. Triay has developed a
technical expertise in the EM program through her past
leadership roles in the ``field'' at the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant and the Los Alamos National Laboratory. In addition, her
recent roles at DOE Headquarters have equipped her with the
skills to execute at the programmatic level;
(2) She is open and honest with external groups such as
states, tribes, and local governments.--Dr. Triay not only has
much technical expertise in the environmental cleanup arena,
she also has the ability to work well with state, tribal, and
local governments around the DOE cleanup sites. Communications
and partnerships with external stakeholders is critical to the
success of the EM program by avoiding costly disputes and
achieving mutually agreeable cleanup solutions; and
(3) She will provide a continuity of leadership at this
critical time for the DOE-EM program.--The DOE-EM program must
effectively implement $6 billion in funding it received under
the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, and as such, a
continuity of leadership is paramount. Given the current
conditions and the goal of the EM program to stimulate the
economy through shovel-ready cleanup and construction jobs, we
believe that an EM-1 should be put in place immediately.
Further, Obama administration initiatives such as the Energy
Parks Initiative, which takes federal land that requires
environmental remediation and turns it into an opportunity to
provide energy to our country, will require her strong
leadership to succeed.
The work of the DOE-EM program is extremely important to the public
health and environmental well being of ECA communities across the
nation, and as such we recommend Dr. Ines Triay to be confirmed as the
new DOE Assistant Secretary of Environmental Management.
Sincerely,
Robert Thompson,
ECA Chair,
Council Member, City of Richland, WA.
______
State of New Mexico,
Office of the State Engineer,
Santa Fe, NM, April 21, 2009.
Hon. Tom Udall,
B 40D Dirksen, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Nomination of Hilary Tompkins as Solicitor of the Department of the
Interior
Dear Senator Udall: On behalf of the New Mexico Office of the State
Engineer and Interstate Stream Commission, we strongly support the
nomination of Hiliary Tompkins as Solicitor of the Department of
Interior. Hilary provided excellent legal counsel to Governor
Richardson and will be a valuable member of the Interior team. Hiliary
provided guidance to our agency on a broad range of water-related
issues and we look forward to working with her in her new position on
the numerous issues that overlap between our agency and the Department
of Interior.
Sincerely,
John R. D'Antonio, Jr., P.E.,
State Engineer.
Jim Dunlap, Chairman,
Interstate Stream Commission.
Estevan R. Lopez, P.E., Director,
Interstate Stream Commission.
______
State of New Mexico,
Office of the State Engineer,
Santa Fe, NM, April 21, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
703 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Nomination of Hilary Tompkins as Solicitor of the Department of the
Interior
Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the New Mexico Office of the
State Engineer and Interstate Stream Commission, we strongly support
the nomination of Hiliary Tompkins as Solicitor of the Department of
Interior. Hilary provided excellent legal counsel to Governor
Richardson and will be a valuable member of the Interior team. Hiliary
provided guidance to our agency on a broad range of water-related
issues and we look forward to working with her in her new position on
the numerous issues that overlap between our agency and the Department
of Interior.
Sincerely,
John R. D'Antonio, Jr., P.E.,
State Engineer.
Jim Dunlap, Chairman,
Interstate Stream Commission.
Estevan R. Lopez, P.E., Director,
Interstate Stream Commission.