Accurate information. So when a Defense Nuclear facility safety board, whether an attorney, or a board member would ask me a question, i believe im obligated to tell the truth. Senator johnson . Yes. You know, i come at this from a perspective of a business guy whos managed construction prong ingts in the past, and theres a lot of things that i just this is a real head that this is a real head scratcher. A number of different perspectives. First of all, im not sure in terms of obviously we have a dispute between yourself and the company. Im not sure this is the best place to adjudicate this and to be done in a court of law. Theres real issues in terms of whistle blower protection and who is getting reimbursed for legal fees and who is not. You know, as a business guy i avoided attorneys, no offense, and the judicial process like a plague, and, you know, taking this kind of action, they would certainly understand this is going to create an awful lot of heat. Putting that aside, what i want to get so is having managed construction projects. Having been a customer, its always the its the having been a customer and a supplier, its always the customer thats in the drivers seat here. And the customer in this instance is the government. And i read in part of the briefing that the companies are require to notify the government if theyre going to be laying off or dismissing the safety employee. Okay, so were you one of those key persons . Yes, i am. And as of yesterday im still listed as a contractor. Where were the notifications given . There was a letter to my knowledge. I wont speculate. But i know there was a letter sent january 14th to the department of energy requesting to change key personnel. That letter has been labeled sensitive in the system. So theres a lot of gossip, so people brought it to my attention. I could not get a company. My understanding is the department of energy did not approve that or the significant reorganization of my Job Department at that time. So today i dont believe theyve made a decision one way or the other, and im still listed in the contract. I think the government should be in the drivers seat of making sure and putting controls in place to make sure, you know, that type of system should be honored and respected and followed. What other things are there that the government has in place to be in charge of this process that theyre maybe just ignoring or not following through on . Does that make sense . Do you know what im trying the to get at . I think so. In my view the department of energy is outnumbered, outmanned and outgunned when it comes to deal with the contractors. At the wpt, its about 100 if not 150 to 1, the ratio of contractor employees to doe oversight. Doe has to rely on the contractor for what the technical situation is. And when i was in as r t manager, there was not one engineer in h the doe change between my counterpart and secretary chu. I mean, all good degrees, but a law degree is not going to necessarily help with the design of the wpt. So the d. O. E. Has to rely on the contractor ls. The contractors now want to keep their funding going, so they will mislead, misrespect the facts and ill say sell a story to d. O. E. That gets to the point that the t government has to put in place the controls, recognizing the nature of the personnel versus the contractors. I remember the hearing we did have. That was a question i had. Is could we, you know, could the government hire the people to do this type of project. And really the answer is no way. So the government has to rely on these contractors, have expertise in producing these one at a time. You know, once in the span of Human History these types of projects, you have to rely on krrpts. But its a matter of how do you institute the controls. Thank you very much for that. We do have models in the country for regulating Nuclear Energy in the navy. Both have programs for instituting Safety Culture and making sure that the laws are followed. And of course, there is an element of independence there. And that is what is missing at the department of energy, for instance, the department of energy owns the site. Theyre subject to pressure from you guys and the state of washington to hurry up and get it done. Thats justifiable pressure, right . It is justifiable pressure. Were already leaking absolutely. This is a big, complex problem. No question about that. However, you do have Nuclear Safety laws, and if you take shortcuts there to hurry up on the schedule, then youve got a problem. Let me because i talked about difference of opinion. You mentioned fukushima, and again, im not a nuclear engineer. You said the experts said increase the walls to protect the diesel generators. The Design Change is going to be made as a result of that experience is to put a big tank of water on top of the Nuclear Reactor to cool it and can be filled by anything. I mean, you can get outside pumps to fill that. So the outside experts at that point, not having that experience, would have recommendeded raising walls s not the best design solution. The best is to put a big tank of water. It is true that youve got differences of opinion of the best way to succeed. I want to go back i think to your original question. Do i think the department of energy is responsible and accountable for the safe cleansnup. Absolutely. It has to be. Absolutely. I have no argument there. I also believe that the contractors who have signed written agreements and contracts with the department of energy are obligationed to tell the truth. Correct. Right . So thats the business side. So what parts of those contracts are they violating . So its fundamental that any documentation provided to the government be factual in all material respects. So when the department, when they exclude even differing opinions, people are making an uninformed decision on incleat facts. That directly relies with the contractor. So if donna is no longer allowed the to go to the Senior Management meetings with the department of energy, all were hearing is theyre good to go. The there are no differing opinions. Their all solved. Is it a complex problem . Yes. But its not as complex as people make it out to be. Were building two facilities and a laboratory. F those are standard technologies, but yet there are still systemic design flaws because we havent addressed the issues that are raised. Am at some point people have to make decisions on ultimate approaches and ultimate technologies. I think those always have to be reviewed and updated and was it the right decision . At a certain point of time you go, okay. We have to make a decision. We have to move forward on this, and you can vsh im not saying you can have people potentially off the wall different ideas on things. At what point do you say this is a decision we made in conjunction with the government, were moving forward on this, and you know what im say sng. Absolutely. Thats the question. Thats the conundrum here. Hang on one second. I was an executive. I do get the business and the profit and loss piece. I clearly understand that. We made the risks from 2003 to 2010. Those risks were taken. Management made the decisions, and they turned out to be technically wrong. Spo we have 60 concrete walls with commodities in the walls. So why isnt the department of energy theyre the ones that should be saying this is wrong. And quite honestly its a work in progress. Nobody knows for sure. We all collectively made the decision. It was a wrong decision. Now we have to change it. Its going to cost more money. Were not going to like that. Dollars are scarce. So you have all these competing pressures making it difficult to move forward. I believe they have in a large portion for the very reasons that we and many other people raised. Right . The question is how do you go forward . If you use the same Business Management models that make the same Business Decisions using the same process and same people, were going to end up ten years from now having the next discussion. Putting your civic situation aside, which should be adjudicated in the court of law, which an appropriate venue, from our standpoint, what do we need to do to solve it . How should the department of energy as a customer, how do they institute the controls . What do we need to put in the controls so this is a process thats going to move forward, be as Cost Effective as possible . But also proceed in a timely manner, kwily, as requesticly as possible, but also in a safe manner . Well, first let me offer that with a design in wpt. They designed the savannah plan. They operate it. Urs operates it. Urs operated the valley plan. And urs is operating settlefield england. Those Companies Know how to build a plan. F the problem is they dont come forward and say heres what were going to do. Let us tell you what this plant will do. What were going to provide you as the customer as the department of energy. They dont do that. Are there differences between these sites . There are, arent there . No, no. Its Nuclear Waste with every element of the periodic table in it. So why didnt the department of energy say youve already got these, just give us a quote on the same process. F weve already overcome the technical hurdles at the other sites. Why are we reinventing the wheel here . Again, the customer should be driving the process. They should be in charge. I would concur that the department of energy plays a role in establishing those r50ir789s. But again, they dont have the technical background. Why not . Good question. I would suggest that you need as congress to give the Defense Nuclear facility safety board some authority to assure that the designs are compliant with the nuclear laws. Thats what is missing here is that driver. The gao has done the studies. But mostly they identified conflict of interest. If you beef up the role of an agency already there doing the work but doesnt have the authority to, for instance, grant a license, then you have a problem. Now you make sure thats a safe design until we continue being d d. O. E. , the contractors have to do it with Nuclear Safety in mind. And thats going to improve the schedule and the cost. That only assumes that the Government Agencies have the expertise they do. Thats at least as good as the contractors have. They do. Theyve retired the engineers for the contractor community, from the nrc, from the nuclear navy. Good question. Weve been asking for that for some time. We would love you to do that. But thats a statutory issue. Right. Precisely. Thats what we should get decided on. Whatever this is. This meeting, which i appreciate, in hearings and subsequent hearings, we have to get to the point of whats the solution . What are the controls . What do we need to do from the government standpoint who should really be in charge of the process to solve the problem as well as provide the controls. Absolutely. But for the purpose of whistle blowers, we need a forum that we can raise concerns. Individuals like myself have an incredible amount of courage and some days i dont know how i went to work. But when you see very strong people that are treated the way we are and its a deafening silence when they have no forum to raise the concerns. And there is no check and balance in the system now. So with respect to whistle blower forum, i think we have a lot of work we need to do so we can raise concerns and they dont have to be adjudicated in the court of law for six to seven years while very legitimate safety issues are out. And might i add, the taxpayers are picking up an unfettered bill of millions of dollars for legal fees while they are scraping the to figure out how they can actually outweigh the paper barrage that will come down on their head from private defense firms who know the more they work it, the more money they make. Their incentive is to build, depose, bill, bill, delay, depose, build, build, build, delay, depose. So the notion that this is somehow a level Playing Field is ridiculous. But it should be because the adjudication process should reside from my standpoint in the department of energy. Theyre the ones that have the charge with safety, making sure those controls are in place, and you should be able to go to the department of energy, speak freely. From my stand point, the companies having laid you off is taking a pretty big legal risk. Well find out how that all plays out. But the process and the controls have to be in the the Governmental Agency which always gives me pause because we see theyre not particularly i did. I did go to the Employee Concerns Program in d. O. E. When the manager listened to my case, he said, he told me this was above the ability of his group and i should go to somebody on the outside. Thats what this is about. Well, im encouraged to hear youre ready to increase the department of appropriations. Im hap to look at the spending. That surprises me. If we could enhance government and not solely rely on the private sector, especially when all the incentives are to not slow down the process for technical concerns. To not hay low the technical concerns being raised to get the prominence in the d. O. E. So i think theres an issue in terms of empowering d. O. E. So they can be a real player at the table. Right now they dont have the manpower, the expertise or the resources. This is a priority of government. Okay. So you will cosponsor a bill with me to increase appropriations to the department of energy . Last time i thought you wanted to do away with the department of energy. Where is the lower spending items that we justify seat that wi that we offset with that . Im fine with that. How about bonuses and fees for some of the contractors that havent performed well out there. Thats an old refrain that we have covered many times in Sub Committee. I think certainly one step forward would be Congress Setting the standard and empowering d. O. E. Telling them the performance is unacceptable. D. O. E. Is an operation. They want to move ahead. A lot of pressure on them for schedule cost. They listen to the contractors. You get into a cycle. The cycle can slowly degrade. Its degraded now. Congress reenforcing the d. O. E. That the performance is unacceptable. And here are the things that need to change, just that, i believe would make a big step. I have advocated for the defense board to be given the authority so when they issue a recommendation, as mr. Carpenter said, they can also enforce it. Steps like that can help. Let me throw a caveat out there. I didnt just do business with the government because it wasnt worth it. And youre taking a look at it right here. There arent many on. And i think from empowering d. O. E. , kbu also to looking at having this outside third, you know, everyone respects this board. Everyone knows they know this very technical area. Giving them some Third Party Oversight with the ability to make some pronouncements in this area i think make a lot of sense. Theres a lot of private companies that deal tw the board now in this context. Theres no reason this fa tillty shouldnt also be one of them. Okay. Thank you vur much. Thank you. Im going to ask the witnesses there now to leave and were going to ask the department of energy to come up first. They are do not want to be at the the same table with you today. I dont really understand why. But were going to have them come up first. Who is the person from the department of energy . Who is the person from the department of energy that is testifying . Hello . Ill give my opening statement. Hopefully they will have shown up by then. This hearing will now come to order. The waste Treatment Plant is a Nuclear Facility in washington that is supposed to convert hazardous Nuclear Waste into a more stable and safe form for permanent disposal. Last june i held a hearing on contract management by the department, the waste Treatment Plant at hanford because the plant, which is under a design and construction construct in terms of how the contracts were given has a litany of cost overruns and schedule delays. Today, however, we are here to examine another aspect of the plant. Allegations of the department of energy and its contractors are engaging in retaliation against employees who raise concerns about the safety of the plants design and construction. The department of energy has a specific Nuclear Safety policy that states, quote, it is the policy of the department of energy to design, construct, operate and decommission its Nuclear Facilities in a manner that assures adequate protection to the workers and environment. However, the federal agencies that have looked at safety issues at hanford have particularly found key safety weaknesses, including the Safety Culture and federal oversight. Most recently the urs manager of safety donna busche has alleged that she was fired because she raised concerns that basic Nuclear Safety fundamentals had not been considered from the beginning of construction. Another official associated with the waste Treatment Plant, the manager of waste Treatment Plant research and technology, dr. Walter tamosaitis who testified before the Sub Committee in 2011 also claims to have suffered professional damage, including termination, after raising major Nuclear Safety issues. These individuals and many more who have chosen to remain anonymous have brought their concerns forward to their employers, to d. O. E. And to congress. I dont think anyone wants to be a whistle blower. Reporting your colleagues who may be your friends for actions that look like waste fraud abuse or others isnt an easy decision for most people. And life after youve blown the whistle isnt easy either, but the job that whistle blowers do is tremendously important and valuable. Thats why when courageous men and women feel compelled to speak out, we do not want to silence them. We want to give them a process that al