TESTIMONY OF TOD ROCKEFELLER; March 4, 1999.

Mr. Rockefeller received a M.S. in Environmental Management, Long Island University, 1987; a B.S. in Biological Sciences, State University, Stony Brook, 1979; and an A.S. in Medical Technology, Nassau Community College, 1976.

Mr. Rockefeller has over 17 years of experience in the area of Quality Assurance (QA). Mr. Rockefeller was employed at WIPP as a field QA Representative and was assigned as the Carlsbad Area Office's Deficiency Reports Program Manager. In this capacity Mr. Rockefeller worked on implementing Total Quality Management (TQM) within his program.

The DOE objected to Mr. Rockefeller being able to testify to most of the information contained in his Notice of Intent to Present Direct Testimony on the grounds that it was not technical testimony and that some of his remarks were "too inflammatory." DOE specifically objected to being described as "a coyote guarding the hen house." Mr. Rockefeller is currently suing the DOE in response to being terminated from his job at WIPP. The Hearing Officer allowed Mr. Rockefeller to give a toned-down version of his technical testimony.

There are 2 important concerns at DOE facilities and operations: Quality Assurance (QA) and safety. The DOE has alleged that WIPP is safe. However, Mr. Rockefeller has knowledge of safety and QA violations at WIPP. Mr. Rockefeller gave examples of these from his personal experience. Mr. Rockefeller believes that the DOE tries to keep the public from finding out about safety violations, and he is concerned for the safety of workers and of the environment. Procedures for the identification and prevention of problems need to be truly implemented--not just talked about for the sake of public relations.

The DOE has proposed the deletion of the essential elements of Total Quality Management (TQM) from the final Permit and has succeeded in removing or is trying to remove many Quality Assurance (QA) safeguards that were in the draft Permit. These include:

1. DOE's Comment 20. Elimination of any requirements to identify "In-Process" nonconformance.

2. DOE's Comment 32. Elimination of NMED notification of the results of weekly examinations which reveal indications of process changes or limits being exceeded, with a cease-of-shipment of the waste stream in question until a follow-up sample and analysis of the waste is completed.

3. DOE's Comment 44. Elimination of any required reporting by the Permittee concerning nonconformance with the Waste Analysis Plan (WAP) prior to waste receipt at the WIPP site.

4. DOE's Comment 48. Elimination of independent technical review of raw data generation/collection. [This does not comply with DOE Order 5700.6C. Eliminating this requirement for independent assessment authorizes workers to prepare assessments on projects run by their supervisors.]

5. DOE's Comment 62. Elimination of the entire WAP General Requirements Audit Checklist. [The DOE claims this checklist is an ineffective tool and redundant. However, Mr. Rockefeller recommended that one should not conduct an audit without a checklist. Each site could amend a basic list to fit its unique needs.]

6. DOE's Comment 66. Elimination of the requirement for NMED to be a participant in performance of "verification visits" intended to assure that audit deficiency corrective actions have been undertaken and are effective.

7. DOE's Comment 67. Elimination of the requirement for trending and trend reports to determine whether similar situations exist system-wide. [The DOE claims that each site is so unique that trending will not add any value to the system and that the trending of audit findings will not be useful. Trending is one of the most important QA principles.]

8. DOE's Comment 6. Deletion of specific requirements for the immediate suspension of generator/storage site waste shipments when the DOE fails to promptly correct WAP compliance failures and/or to comply with the approved acceptable knowledge (AK) procedures for waste certification. [This whole section (II.C.1.f) was deleted in the second draft Permit.]

9. DOE's Comment 31.C.2. Elimination of controls on generator/storage site generation procedures such as nonconformance reporting and process knowledge data verification. [The supervisor and QA officer would have signed off all raw data, but all of this section (B.3.d[1][a]) was deleted.]

Numbers 8 and 9 taken together have particularly dangerous implications for accountability. Mr. Rockefeller listed 5 more items not mentioned here that the DOE proposes to eliminate in his previous submissions for the record.

It appears that the DOE wants a non-existent QA program. The DOE's safety record speaks for itself. All QA requirements in the May 1998 draft Permit should be restored.

There was no cross-examination of Mr. Rockefeller.