U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

52–238 CC WASHINGTON : 1999

S. HRG. 105–852

NOMINATIONS TO INDEPENDENT AGENCIES,

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

THE NOMINATION OF NIKKI L. TINSLEY TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY—JULY 15, 1998

THE NOMINATIONS OF ROMULO L. DIAZ, JR. AND J. CHARLES FOX

TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY—JULY 30, 1998

THE NOMINATIONS OF TERRENCE L. BRACY TO BE A MEMBER OF

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION,

AND NORINE E. NOONAN, TO BE AN ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY—SEPTEMBER 10, 1998

THE NOMINATIONS OF GRETA J. DICUS AND JEFFREY S.

MERRIFIELD, TO BE COMMISSIONERS, NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION—OCTOBER 1, 1998

THE NOMINATIONS OF WILLIAM CLIFFORD SMITH, TO BE A MEMBER

OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION; ISADORE ROSENTHAL AND

ANDREA KIDD TAYLOR, TO BE MEMBERS, CHEMICAL SAFETY AND

HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD—OCTOBER 7, 1998

THE NOMINATION OF ROBERT W. PERCIASEPE, TO BE AN ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGECY—OCTOBER 8,

1998

(

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

HARRY REID, Nevada

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

RON WYDEN, Oregon

JIMMIE POWELL, Staff Director

J. THOMAS SLITER, Minority Staff Director

(II)
(III)

CONTENTS

Page

JULY 15, 1998

NOMINATION OF NIKKI L. TINSLEY

OPENING STATEMENTS

Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado ............................ 4

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 2

Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ................. 1

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 3

WITNESS

Tinsley, Nikki L., nominated to be Inspector General, Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................... 4

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 11

Letter from Office of Government Ethics ....................................................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 20

JULY 30, 1998

NOMINATIONS OF ROMULO L. DIAZ, JR., AND J. CHARLES FOX

OPENING STATEMENTS

Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado ............................ 30

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 26

Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ................. 23

Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ........................... 27

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........... 27

WITNESSES

Diaz, Romulo L., Jr., nominated to be Assistant Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 28

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 43

Letter from Office of Government Ethics ....................................................... 47

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 48

Senator Kempthorne ................................................................................. 49

Fox, J. Charles, nominated to be an Assistant Administrator, Environmental

Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 32

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 52

Letter from Office of Government Ethics ....................................................... 57

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Allard ........................................................................................... 60

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 58

Senator Kempthorne ................................................................................. 57

Sarbanes, Hon. Paul S., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ..................... 31

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41
Page

IV

SEPTEMBER 10, 1998

NOMINATIONS OF TERRENCE L. BRACY AND NORINE E. NOONAN

OPENING STATEMENTS

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 62

Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ................. 61

Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida ................................ 63

Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia ....... 66

WITNESSES

Bracy, Terrence L., nominated to be a Member of the Board of Trustees,

Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental

Policy Foundation ................................................................................................. 65

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 75

Letters:

Bradley, Hon. Bill, former U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........................................................................................................... 78

Office of Government Ethics ..................................................................... 77

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73

McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona .............................. 64

Noonan, Norine E., nominated to be an Assistant Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 68

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 81

Letter from Office of Government Ethics ....................................................... 83

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78

Responses to additional questions from Senator Baucus .............................. 83

OCTOBER 1, 1998

NOMINATIONS OF GRETA DICUS AND JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD

OPENING STATEMENTS

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 89

Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ................. 85

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 90

Smith, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire ................ 87

WITNESSES

Bumpers, Hon. Dale, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas .......................... 86

Dicus, Greta Joy, nominated to be a Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................................................................................. 91

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 124

Letter from designated agency ethics official, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................................................................................................... 123

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 117

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 118

Merrifield, Jeffrey S., nominated to be a Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory

Commission ........................................................................................................... 93

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 106

Letters:

From designated agency ethics official, Nuclear Regulatory Commission .......................................................................................................... 110

Ehmig, William A., chairman of the Board of Directors, Council on

Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals, Inc. ................................... 111

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 104

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 111

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 114
Page

V

OCTOBER 7, 1998

NOMINATIONS OF ISADORE ROSENTHAL, ANDREA KIDD TAYLOR,

AND WILLIAM CLIFFORD SMITH

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ................. 137

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 139

WITNESSES

Breaux, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 145

Hill, Paul, chairman, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board ........... 141

Rosenthal, Isadore, nominated to be a member of the Chemical Safety and

Hazard Investigation Board ................................................................................ 147

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 165

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 163

Smith, William Clifford, nominated to be a member of the Mississippi River

Commission ........................................................................................................... 142

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 155

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 153

Taylor, Andrea Kidd, nominated to be a member of the Chemical Safety

and Hazard Investigation Board ..................................................................... 144, 146

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 179

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 177

Tauzin, Hon. W.J. (Billy), U.S. Representative from the State of Louisiana ..... 140

OCTOBER 8, 1998

NOMINATION OF ROBERT PERCIASEPE

OPENING STATEMENTS

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 194

Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ................. 193

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 194

WITNESS

Perciasepe, Robert W., nominated to be an Assistant Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 195

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 201

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 199

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 209
(1)

NOMINATION OF NIKKI L. TINSLEY

WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 1998

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:02 a.m., in room

406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of

the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Chafee and Baucus.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Senator CHAFEE. The committee will come to order.

We’ll get started today. This is a hearing on the nomination of

Nikki L. Tinsley to be Inspector General for the Environmental

Protection Agency who was nominated on April 23 by President

Clinton to serve as Inspector General for the Environmental Protection Agency.

It’s my intention that the committee act expeditiously on her

nomination. In fact, we plan to include Ms. Tinsley’s nomination at

the committee’s next business meeting scheduled for next week.

I want to start off by welcoming Ms. Tinsley. Do you have members of your family here?

Ms. TINSLEY. I do. My daughter is here, Sarah Tinsley.

Senator CHAFEE. Good. Well, we welcome you here, Sarah.

I want to note that the role of the Inspector General is an important one. Under the 1978 Inspector General Act, which outlines the

missions of Inspectors General throughout the Federal Government, they are given the responsibility of conducting audits and investigations of an agency’s programs and operations; they are to

recommend changes to promote efficiency and prevent fraud; and

to inform the agency and Congress of problems regarding administration of agency programs. The IGs, therefore, serve a key role in

all agencies, including EPA.

As is true for every Government effort, the work that EPA does

must carry credibility with the public, with the Congress, and, indeed, with its own personnel. The Office of Inspector General can

help make sure that such credibility is not only built but maintained. Working with forward-looking agency staff, a good IG can

contribute importantly to the quality of the work being carried out.

A quick glance at your resume, Ms. Tinsley, demonstrates a

wealth of experience in the role of auditor and investigator. You

have spent years in the field, with the General Accounting Office,

the Minerals Management Service at the Department of the Inte-
2

rior, at the regional and now headquarters office of EPA. You’ve

spent that time examining the work of various Federal agencies.

With such experience, I’m confident you are capable of taking on

the challenges that will face you as Inspector General of this important Federal agency.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say about your experience and what you hope to accomplish in the position of Inspector

General, if confirmed.

Senator CHAFEE. Mr. Baucus.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Tinsley, there’s no doubt that you’re qualified for the job. We

urge you to remember that as a public servant your primary goal

is to show credibility, integrity, and to have the respect—not necessarily be liked or disliked—but the respect of people at EPA and

the country. You should know that when you speak, you have the

taxpayer’s interest in mind in enforcing those statutes.

It’s a tough job. It’s a lonely job. In other agencies I know of IGs

whom I respect. They take a lot of heat, from within the agency

particularly, and some heat from without. But they have the highest integrity and credibility by doing what’s right. This means reporting to the proper person when something is wrong. It may even

mean resigning if something is wrong but not being properly addressed. You will be forever respected and admired when you follow those precepts. There are too many in this town who want to

get along—who worry more about themselves and not enough

about that responsibility of public service.

I know you’ll do so, I certainly expect you to do so, and you have

an opportunity at the beginning to do so. Knowing the importance

of the halo effect, that is, the importance of the impressions you

make when you begin, it’s much easier to begin on the right step

than it is to correct a misstep. The more you begin by taking the

right steps then the smaller the missteps. I’m envious of you. It’s

a great job.

As an aside, I might also say there are many reasons for enforcing our environmental statutes; the main reason is that Americans

want to have clean air, clean water, and no toxic waste. But there’s

another reason—many developing countries are struggling to cope

with their environmental problems. I accompanied the President on

his trip to China and can tell you that the Chinese desperately

want to find the right way to clean up their air and water and toxic

wastes. As you know, many EPA personnel have traveled to China,

in many respects because the Chinese want to model their programs on the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, other U.S. statutes.

We’re setting standards not only for Americans, but for many

other people in the world. It is a primary benefit to the people of

the United States and the world, but it also enables us to on a

trade basis to develop and market environmental technologies. I

was speaking with the Mayor of Shanghai, a casual conversation

on a boat going down the river, and I said, ‘‘You must be really

proud of all that you’ve done here in Shanghai.’’ I was struck with
3

his immediate response, which was, ‘‘Yes, but we’ve got problems,

and one of the problems is right there, the river.’’ The Yangtze

River was very polluted. And he said, ‘‘We plan to have that

cleaned up in 10 years.’’ It’s a herculean effort to clean up that

river, but it can be done. It seems like the people are determined

and very positive about the future.

So there’s another reason for you to enforce our statutes here, because we are observed by other nations. America is still a leader

in the world because of high moral standards, openness and honesty, and freedom, both personal or political. It is important that

we keep those high standards. We wish you good luck.

Ms. TINSLEY. Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Senator Baucus, I think there’s a lot of wisdom

in what you said. I think first, Ms. Tinsley, reiterating what Senator Baucus said, you’re not running in any popularity contest over

there. You are there not to win friends but to do the job, and sometimes the message you convey won’t be the most popular one.

The other point about the model we have for those overseas, I

likewise have seen foreign countries admire what we do. One additional point I might add to what Senator Baucus said. It isn’t just

that we can increase markets for our technology, but also what

they do in their countries in a long-distance way affects us, whether it’s the air, whether they’re dumping in the oceans, eventually

affects the environment in the United States, too.

So with those heavy-weighted words, we will urge you to proceed

with your statement. Also, I will place into the record at this point

the statements of Senators Inhofe and Allard.

[The prepared statements of Senators Inhofe and Allard follow:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA

Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling today’s confirmation hearing for Nikki

Tinsley as Inspector General for the EPA.

This is a very important position, and if confirmed, Ms. Tinsley, will be the only

internal check and balance for the EPA. I met with Ms. Tinsley last week and I

was impressed with her credentials. I believe if she maintains her independence

from Carol Browner and the other political appointees at the Agency and she is willing to pursue unpopular investigations and be critical of the EPA then she will

make an excellent Inspector General.

There are many areas of the EPA which need a critical look. Some of those areas

require vigorous Congressional Oversight, and I hope Mr. Chairman, as a committee, we will all become more active and aggressive in our oversight function. Other

areas require a critical look from within the organization and I hope as the IG Ms.

Tinsley will fulfill that need.

One particular area is the question of Science within the Agency and how it is

used. Recently 20 very brave EPA employees went public accusing the EPA and

Carol Browner of ignoring sound science, falsification of documents and illegal lobbying by government employees. While these individual claims have been referred

to the Justice Department, the broader issues on how the Agency uses and misuses

Science must be investigated. The IG should conduct a broad investigation across

the Agency on the use and misuse of science in the EPA’s decisionmaking and regulatory process. I believe for every employee who went public there are probably 10

more who agree with them and could offer further examples. I would like to hear

from Ms. Tinsley on how her Office would conduct such an investigation.

In addition there are other issues which warrant the IG’s attention.

An additional issue raised by the employees is lobbying activities both conducted

by EPA employees and encouraged by Agency outreach materials. It is illegal and

improper to use appropriated funds to support lobbying activities and the Agency

has continued to cross over the line in recent years. This area deserves a hard look

by the IG.
4

Another problem is in the enforcement arena and involves the use of the Agency

to over file in State enforcement cases. What should be investigated is not only the

use of over filing, but also the threat of over filing. Is this an appropriate use of

enforcement resources?

Another area which is very important but also more difficult is the possible collusion between Environmentalist suing the Agency and Agency employees and the effect of the resulting consent decrees. We are now in a position of consent decrees

negotiated between the Agency and environmentalist organizations driving public

policy and ignoring the will of Congress. What needs to be answered is whether

there is in fact collusion, the effect of circumventing the normal regulatory process,

and whether any laws are being violated.

While there is a Congressional role for all of these investigations, and I intend

to start pursuing them, there is also a very important role for the IG to play since

the IG is better equipped to learn the facts from EPA employees.

I would like to follow up with a few questions to Ms. Tinsley today on how she

intends to address the science issue and I would like to pursue the other issues with

her Office over the next few months.

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome Ms. Tinsley to our committee

and thank her for her commitment to public service. I believe Ms. Tinsley will do

a good job as Inspector General at EPA and hope that she won’t be shy about coming to this committee or to its individual members with her findings. Also, I think

it will be helpful to EPA for a Coloradan to be overseeing their actions.

I met with Ms. Tinsley yesterday and discussed with her the areas where perhaps

some work by the IG would be helpful, I would like to put them on the record:

(1) Environmental Justice—On February 11, 1994 President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 that ordered Federal agencies to, ‘‘make achieving environmental

justice part of [their] mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations

in the United States’’. Within this Order were certain quantifiable benchmarks that

perhaps the IG should examine to see if they were met. Further, perhaps a look at

whether the Order is being faithfully executed by Federal agencies would be appropriate.

(2) Federal Facilities—In general, perhaps further work on whether Federal facilities are complying with Federal and State laws should be examined. As Senator

Wyden and I argued during Superfund markup, there appears to be two standards

of enforcement in this country, one for those who live near private polluters and a

lower standard for those who live near Federal polluters. I believe the Federal Government is the largest polluter in America. Our environmental laws should be enforced against them.

And finally;

(3) I was pleased to hear that Ms. Tinsley is interested in examining outcomes

with respect to agency actions as well as examining procedure. In that vein, I think

she should look at EPA’s policy with respect to state audit laws. I believe EPA has

decided they do not like audits because it runs against their enforcement culture,

even though in Colorado audits have proven to be beneficial to the environment. If

Ms. Tinsley wants to examine environmental outcomes and not merely procedure

she should examine EPA’s policy in this regard.

I finally want to encourage Ms. Tinsley to keep in mind that EPA is the self proclaimed ‘‘environmental cop on the beat’’ and that needs to be the standard they are

held to when examining their actions. This is particularly true with respect to Federal facilities. This administration has a shameful record with respect to enforcement against Federal agencies. Ms. Browner’s position against the Federal Facilities

language Senator Wyden and I had attached to Superfund legislation earlier this

year is nothing short of a double standard. I hope you use your position to point

out where laws are not applied equally.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF NIKKI L. TINSLEY, ACTING INSPECTOR

GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Ms. TINSLEY. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Baucus. It’s a great honor for me to be here today as the Presi-
5

dent’s nominee to be Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency. I would like to thank the committee for considering

my nomination expeditiously as well as Administrator Browner for

her expression of confidence. If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to serve the Administration, the Congress, and the American people to the best of my ability.

The Inspector General position in a large Federal agency such as

the Environmental Protection Agency is a very important and challenging one. EPA has an annual budget of over $7 billion, with

more than one half devoted to environmental activities that are

provided by entities outside the Federal Government, primarily

State, local, and tribal governments. The American people expect

their tax dollars committed to environmental programs to be wisely

spent and produce results which protect the environment and

health of our country.

EPA’s Office of Inspector General has a very impressive track

record which, if confirmed, I would seek to maintain and build

upon. Over the past 25 years, the Office of Inspector General has

reviewed more than $55 billion in grants to communities to build

waste water treatment plants, and has recovered more than a billion dollars for additional plant construction. Audit and investigative efforts directed at EPA contracts have improved the agency’s

oversight program and resulted in a number of administrative and

judicial actions against individuals and companies that have defrauded the taxpayer.

With the implementation of the Government Performance and

Results Act, EPA is developing accountability systems that link its

activities to achieving environmental goals. In response, the Office

of Inspector General has turned its focus to environmental results,

evaluating the agency’s air, water, superfund, hazardous waste,

and enforcement programs to ensure that they are delivering the

environmental and health protection that the Congress and the Administration intend. At the same time, Office of Inspector General

staff continue to work closely with the agency to improve its fiscal

accountability.

This year marks the 20-year anniversary of the legislation establishing Inspectors General. As you mentioned, Inspectors General

play a unique role in Government, charged by Congress to independently and objectively audit and investigate their agency’s activities, to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse, and to keep the agency

head and the Congress fully informed of problems and deficiencies

in agency activities.

To be most successful, I believe that the Inspector General

should operate as an agent of positive change. The Inspector General should work constructively with the agency and its partners

and strive for a relationship built upon mutual respect and trust.

At the same time, the Inspector General must be independent and

objective, willing to make fair but tough calls on agency activities.

Just as the Inspector General should maintain an open line of communication with the Administrator and the Deputy Administrator,

the Inspector General must have that same open line of communication with the Congress. Finally, the Inspector General is under
6

an absolute obligation to report to the Congress when significant

problems are not being corrected.

I believe Administrator Browner shares this view and I’m confident that, if confirmed, the Office of Inspector General staff and

I would continue to have the good and open working relationship

we’ve had in the past with both the Administrator and the Congress.

My career in public service has allowed me to gain a broad

knowledge of Government programs and operations by having

worked in several departments including the General Accounting

Office, the Department of Interior’s Minerals Management Service,

and the Environmental Protection Agency. My background as a licensed Certified Public Accountant, experienced in auditing Government and industry along with my experience serving as EPA’s

Deputy Inspector General and Acting Inspector General will help

me address the challenges I will face if I’m confirmed.

My experiences as an auditor and a senior manager in EPA’s Office of Inspector General have strengthened my commitment to

independence and objectivity. I have faced the challenges associated with reporting audit and investigative findings that were both

unexpected and unpopular. I have obtained agreement from agency

managers to address and correct problems, because the work that

I’ve done and that of the organizations that I’ve represented has

been factual and nonpartisan.

Should I be confirmed, I am committed to building on the impressive accomplishments of EPA’s Office of Inspector General. I

look forward to working with the Administrator, this committee

and other Members of Congress, and to the broad constituencies

and taxpayers served by EPA, to help ensure that the agency delivers the maximum in environmental and health benefits to the public.

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions that you

might have for me.

Senator CHAFEE. Ms. Tinsley, are you willing at the request of

any duly constituted committee of the Congress to appear in front

of it as a witness?

Ms. TINSLEY. Yes.

Senator CHAFEE. Do you know of any matters which you may or

may not have thus far disclosed which might place you in any conflict of interest if you were confirmed?

Ms. TINSLEY. No.

Senator CHAFEE. Tell me a little bit about the Inspector General’s staff over there. You’ve worked over there in that office for

a while. How many people are there?

Ms. TINSLEY. We have 360 on our staff; about 70 criminal investigators, 30 people that are in support types of functions doing our

budget and administrative work, and about 260 auditors.

Senator CHAFEE. So you are the people that will audit what

takes place, for instance, in moneys that go out to the States under

the Clean Water Act for waste treatment plant construction.

Ms. TINSLEY. That’s correct.

Senator CHAFEE. And you audit the superfund moneys that go

out, too.

Ms. TINSLEY. Yes, we do.
7

Senator CHAFEE. What area takes the most time would you say?

I’m not pinning you down, I’m just curious from our experience.

Ms. TINSLEY. From an audit standpoint, we spend a great deal

of time on the agency’s financial statements because the agency is

building an accountability system and making a lot of improvements to its financial statements. In addition to that, right now we

have a concentrated effort on the agency’s water programs. We’ve

just completed a similar effort looking at the air program and

whether or not it was bringing about environmental results. We’re

beginning a large effort on the agency’s enforcement program. We

receive an appropriation to audit the superfund, so we devote a

great deal of effort to superfund activities. And we also spend a lot

of time auditing the agency’s contractors. In fact, we have staff that

are devoted to large contractors, similar to the Defense Contract

Audit Agency.

Senator CHAFEE. When we read that in Region I they’ve recovered $2.5 million from some corporation for dumping of PCBs or

whatever it might be, would that come from your organization?

How would something like that come about? Where do you get involved?

Ms. TINSLEY. That depends. There are two separate investigative

staffs. The agency has a staff of criminal investigators that investigate environmental crime. And our staff of criminal investigators

investigates frauds against the Government. So the large recovery

you’re talking about may have come from a fine against someone

who was committing an environmental crime.

We’ve had several large recoveries from contractors recently

whose crimes involved falsification of laboratory data on our

superfund sites. That kind of a falsification would be something

that our office would investigate.

Senator CHAFEE. You have lawyers on your staff?

Ms. TINSLEY. We are just in the process of obtaining our own

legal counsel. Up until recently, in fact, just the last month, our

legal counsel has come from the agency’s staff. And since I’ve been

the Acting Inspector General, we’ve changed that and we’re going

to have our own independent staff that reports directly to the Inspector General.

Senator CHAFEE. Senator Baucus.

Senator BAUCUS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I’m a little curious about how well EPA is addressing the socalled Y2K problem. Are you in a position to know that?

Ms. TINSLEY. We did some audits of the Y2K problem 2 years ago

and reported on problems in the agency. We were about a year

ahead of other IG organizations from that standpoint. We’re working with the agency as it implements its fixes to the Y2K problem.

In fact, Inspectors General across Government are working to oversee the testing of the agencies’ systems to make sure that there is

an independent look at whether or not the system fixes that agencies are implementing are in fact going to work.

Senator BAUCUS. Any assessment to date?

Ms. TINSLEY. We have concerns because of the amount of work

that has to be done in EPA to make the systems compliant. But

we’re not alarmed at this point.
8

Senator BAUCUS. What do you make of the President’s or the

Vice President’s call for, maybe it’s in the legislation, getting a kind

of community of companies that share their Y2K solutions with

other companies and agencies. Did you see that in this morning’s

news or yesterday?

Ms. TINSLEY. I heard that on the radio going home yesterday. I

guess I would think that would be good.

Senator BAUCUS. Yes. Should we be only concerned and not

alarmed?

Ms. TINSLEY. About EPA or about——

Senator BAUCUS. EPA.

Ms. TINSLEY. I think at this point it’s not an alarming situation.

I think we need to be concerned because there’s a lot to be done.

I think the biggest challenge in Y2K is not always knowing everything that has to be fixed or perhaps something is missing, and so

that’s why it’s so important for everyone to work together on it.

Senator BAUCUS. Is EPA considering the same experiment that

the New York Stock Exchange is considering? As you may know,

on December 29, 1998, they are going to do a mock conversion,

trades, everything, to see if their setup works to find any bugs in

the setup. I’m curious whether EPA is considering a similar experiment.

Ms. TINSLEY. That’s the kind of testing that I think almost all

agencies are doing of their own systems. There are a couple of

kinds, but one test is to actually simulate those dates and just see

what happens. So, yes.

Senator BAUCUS. Good. My concern, frankly, is that we’re kind

of dallying in lots of agencies, people, companies, let alone other

foreign companies, other countries. We’re in a global economy. The

Thailand stock market, look at what it’s done to the world. It affects the whole world. It’s a chain reaction. I just urge you and

your colleagues to be maybe even alarmed. Really make sure that

alarm turns only to concern as we approach the date, not vice

versa.

Senator CHAFEE. If you think EPA has got worries in this area,

how would you like to be head of the Social Security Administration.

Senator BAUCUS. Yes, I know.

Senator CHAFEE. But I think that’s a wise suggestion. I’m curious what’s going to happen with the New York Stock Exchange.

Senator BAUCUS. It will be interesting, won’t it?

Senator CHAFEE. Maybe our dividends will all be tripled or something.

[Laughter.]

Senator CHAFEE. How does the relationship work between the

Administrator and the Inspector General? Are there weekly staff

meetings where you sit in on matters, or how close contact do you

have with the Administrator?

Ms. TINSLEY. I sit in on the Administrator’s weekly staff meeting

and I also sit in on the Deputy Administrator’s weekly staff meeting.

Senator CHAFEE. I see. I just want to check to see if any other

Senators might possibly be on the horizon and want to ask you a

question or two. We’ll just wait a few minutes.
9

During this brief pause here, Ms. Tinsley, I’ve got here a Selected

Office of Inspector General Accomplishments, October to December

1997, here’s one from January to March 1998, and here’s one April

to June 1998. I guess you put these things out quarterly, do you?

Ms. TINSLEY. Yes, we do.

Senator CHAFEE. It’s rather interesting, the variation in your activities. You issued a report on Region 10’s waste water permit programs, ‘‘Needs improvement to protect water quality in Alaska and

Idaho.’’ Next one, ‘‘National Rural Water Association used Federal

funds to lobby and award contracts noncompetitively.’’ Are you familiar with these?

Ms. TINSLEY. I am.

Senator CHAFEE. Why don’t you just tell us about the second one,

‘‘National Rural Water Association used Federal funds to

lobby. . . .’’ That sounds like something that is improper. Could

you tell us a bit about that?

Ms. TINSLEY. It is improper. Briefly, we looked at the national

office and found that they were using some of their funds for an

extensive lobbying agenda, both EPA funds and actually Department of Agriculture funds. Another item of concern in that report

is that there was an EPA employee detailed to National Rural

Water Association and that person was actually engaged in lobbying activities as well, which is also inappropriate.

Senator CHAFEE. And then I guess you issued reports. ‘‘EPA

Brownfields’ Initiative Can Be Strengthened,’’ and then you issued

a report on that apparently.

Ms. TINSLEY. We found that some of the activities in

Brownfields, at five selected sites, were not helping cities move

along toward cleaning up their sites expeditiously and so we made

some recommendations that the agency agreed to implement that

would focus more on the cleanup side and getting the communities

ready to clean up, as opposed to some of the other activities that

they were doing with those funds.

Senator CHAFEE. I must confess I didn’t know a great deal about

this job. But it sounds like a job that a self-starter can find a lot

to do. On the other hand, if you want to do nothing, I suppose no

one is going to urge you to rush out and inspect them and audit

them. So it requires, as I say, a self-starter to run the place. I presume you’re anxious to be that self-starter?

Ms. TINSLEY. Yes, I am. Actually, we’re having some successes in

working with the agency on some of its environmental programs.

With respect to the water audit effort that I spoke to you about,

the Assistant Administrator that runs the water program has been

very receptive to working with us to help him identify segments of

the program that aren’t working so that he can take action to correct them. That’s an exciting thing for an auditor because, as you

mentioned, most times people are not anxious to have your help.

Senator CHAFEE. No. I suspect they see you coming and it’s like

receiving a letter from the IRS; it makes people nervous.

Where do you get your tips from? This web site that you’ve got,

the internet, does information come through that sometimes?

Ms. TINSLEY. Occasionally. We have our internet site set up primarily to provide the public with information about our activities.
10

But as part of our web site, people can report on our Hot Line just

as they can report to us on the Hot Line by telephone.

Senator CHAFEE. Ms. Tinsley, I think the Senator who wanted to ask you some questions isn’t available. He might submit a question

in writing to you and we would ask you to respond. That completes it. We’ll try and move right along with this. As I mentioned earlier, we’re going to have a committee meeting on

a variety of things and hopefully we can bring this up next week.

If all goes well, we can get this nomination to the floor before we

go out for the August recess. Certainly, that’s my objective barring

some objections from members when we meet with the full committee.

Ms. TINSLEY. Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you. That completes our hearing.

[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to re- convene at the call of the chair.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF NIKKI L. TINSLEY, NOMINATED AS INSPECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

It is a great honor to be here today as the President’s nominee to be Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency. I would like to thank the committee for considering my nomination expeditiously as well as Administrator Browner

for her expression of confidence. If confirmed, I would welcome this opportunity to

serve the Administration, the Congress, and the American people to the best of my

ability. The Inspector General position in a large Federal agency such as the Environ- mental Protection Agency is a very important and challenging one. EPA has an annual budget of over $7 billion, with more than one half devoted to environmental

activities provided by entities outside the Federal Government; primarily State,

local, and Tribal governments. The American people expect their tax dollars committed to environmental programs to be wisely spent and produce results which protect

the environment and health of our country. EPA’s Office of Inspector General has an impressive track record which, if confirmed, I will seek to maintain and build upon. Over the past 25 years, it has reviewed $55 billion in grants to communities to build waste water treatment plants,

and recovered more than a billion dollars for additional plant construction. Audit

and investigative efforts directed at EPA contracts have improved the Agency’s oversight program and resulted in a number of administrative and judicial actions

against individuals and companies which have defrauded the taxpayer. With the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act, EPA is developing

accountability systems that link its activities to achieving environmental goals. In

response, the Office of Inspector General has turned its focus to environmental results, evaluating the Agency’s air, water, superfund, hazardous waste, and enforcement programs to ensure that they are delivering the environmental and health protection that the Congress and the Administration intend. At the same time, Office

of Inspector General staff continue to work closely with the Agency to improve its

fiscal accountability. This year marks the 20-year anniversary of the legislation establishing Inspectors General. Inspectors General play a unique role in government: charged by Congress

to independently and objectively audit and investigate their agency’s activities; to

promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; to prevent and detect fraud, waste,

and abuse; and to keep the Agency head and the Congress fully informed of problems and deficiencies in Agency activities.

To be most successful, I believe an Inspector General should serve as a force for

positive change. The Inspector General should work constructively with the Agency

and its partners and strive for a relationship built upon mutual respect and trust.

At the same time, the Inspector General must be independent and objective, willing

to make fair-but-tough, calls on Agency activities. Just as the Inspector General

should maintain an open line of communication with the Administrator and Deputy

Administrator; the Inspector General must have that same open line of communica-
11

tion with the Congress. Finally, the Inspector General is under an absolute obligation to report to the Congress when significant problems are not being corrected.

I believe Administrator Browner shares this view and am confident that, if confirmed, the Office of Inspector General staff and I would continue to have the good

and open working relationship we have had in the past with both the Administrator

and the Congress.

My career in public service has allowed me to gain a broad knowledge of government programs and operations by having worked in several different departments

including the U.S. General Accounting Office, the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency. My background, as a licensed Certified Public Accountant, experienced in auditing government and industry along with my experience serving as EPA’s Deputy Inspector

General and Acting Inspector General will help me to address the challenges I will

face if confirmed.

My experiences as an auditor and as a senior manager in EPA’s Office of Inspector General have strengthened my commitment to the principles of independence

and objectivity. I have faced the challenges associated with reporting audit and investigative findings that were unexpected and unpopular. And, I have obtained

agreement from Agency managers to address and correct problems, because my

work and that of the organizations I have represented has been factual and nonpartisan.

Should I be confirmed, I am committed to building on the impressive accomplishments of EPA’s Office of Inspector General staff. I look forward to working with the

Administrator, this committee and other Members of Congress, and the broad constituencies and taxpayers served by EPA, to help ensure that the Agency delivers

the maximum in environmental and health benefits to the public. Thank you for

this opportunity to address you. I will be happy to respond to any questions you

and other members of the committee have.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

RESPONSES BY NIKKI L. TINSLEY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Recently 20 very brave EPA employees went public accusing the EPA and Carol

Browner of ignoring sound science, falsifications of documents and illegal lobbying

by government employees. While these individual claims have been referred to the

Justice Department, the broader issues on how the Agency uses and misuses

Science must be investigated. This would require a broad investigation across the

Agency on the use and misuse of science in the EPA’s decisionmaking and regulatory process. I believe for every employee who went public there are probably 10

more who agree with them and could offer further examples.

Question 1. Given that the Department of Justice is reviewing the individual employee issues raised regarding the misuse of science in the EPA, do you consider

it important for the IG to determine how widespread the problem might be at the

EPA?

Response. Sound scientific data and good science are critical for EPA to make correct environmental decisions. At EPA each employee is responsible for reporting any

indication of fraud, waste, or mismanagement. To facilitate reporting problems, the

Office of Inspector General (OIG) has established several lines of communication for

EPA employees and persons and organizations outside EPA including: a 24-hour

hotline, Internet electronic mail through the OIG Home Page, audit suggestions

from EPA program and financial managers, regular correspondence and telephone

conversations with the public, and referrals from other government organizations.
21

OIG staff take allegations seriously and evaluate them for investigations and/or audits. In addition, I personally receive suggestions for potential investigations from

EPA employees and management, including Assistant Administrators and the Chief

of Staff. OIG initiated work on issues raised by the EPA employees you refer to

when it became aware of the issues through our existing communication channels.

Question 2. How would you go about investigating the problem? Would it be important to examine the issue from the following perspectives and are there any

other groups who should be considered?

• Agency Lab employees, scientists, and researchers

• Program Office scientists and researchers

• Contractors who perform research or provide analysis

• Career managers who provide advice to political appointees (for example: Office

Directors, Division Directors, and Branch Chiefs)

Response. The OIG has been actively involved in reviewing EPA science particularly as it relates to laboratory data quality. We reported in 1997 that nine

Superfund sites located at Department of Defense and Department of Energy facilities did not have sufficient procedures in place to ensure that data was of known

and acceptable quality. We will conduct a follow-up review in fiscal 1999 to verify

that corrective actions have been taken. Another series of reviews found that even

EPA did not have an adequate quality assurance program to confirm waste contamination at Superfund sites. Also, we are also evaluating the quality of science in our

ongoing work dealing with water quality standards and monitoring.

Question 3. The following are additional issues regarding the management of the

Agency that are of concern to me. Please comment on whether or not you find them

appropriate to consider for an investigation. Also, please identify any additional issues of concern to you that you would concentrate on as the new Inspector General.

• An additional issue raised by the employees is lobbying activities both conducted by EPA employees and encouraged by Agency outreach materials. It is illegal

and improper to use appropriated funds to support lobbying activities and the Agency has continued to cross over the line in recent years. This area deserves a hard

look by the IG.

• Another problem is in the enforcement arena and involves the use of the Agency

to overfile in State enforcement cases. What should be investigated is not only the

use of overfiling but also the threat of overfiling. Is this an appropriate use of enforcement resources?

• Another area which is very important but also more difficult is the possible collusion between Environmentalist suing the Agency and Agency employees and the

effect of the resulting consent decrees. We are now in a position of consent decrees

negotiated between the Agency and environmentalist organizations driving public

policy and ignoring the will of Congress. What needs to be answered is whether

there is in fact collusion, the effect of circumventing the normal regulatory process,

and whether any laws are being violated.

Response. The OIG reported in early 1998 that the National Rural Water Association (NRWA) improperly used Federal assistance agreements and contracts to support an aggressive lobbying agenda. We also reported that an EPA employee was

improperly involved in NRWA’s lobbying activities. We have expanded our lobbying

audit work and are now evaluating whether this type of improper use of Federal

funds occurred at six State Rural Water Associations.

As I testified before the House Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on June 23, 1998, I support the idea of partnership between EPA, the

States, local agencies and industry to work together to solve environmental problems. Overfiling is an enforcement tool that can be used when other means have

not been effective in bringing violators into compliance. My understanding is that

overfiling is used infrequently. OIG Clean Air Act enforcement audits during the

past 2 years have identified significant weaknesses in the reporting of timely and

reliable information on violators. We will certainly be sensitive to your concerns in

this area as we continue to conduct audits of EPA’s enforcement activities.

One aspect of our enforcement issue area plan, which is a multi-year strategy for

audits of EPA’s enforcement activities, deals with compliance with consent decrees.

As we further develop this area, we will be alert to any indications of improper involvement of environmental groups in the issuance of consent decrees.

I believe its critical that OIG work address environmental outcomes. If confirmed

as Inspector General, I would continue to focus OIG work on the success of environmental programs and how they could be improved to provide the maximum benefit

to the public.

(23)

NOMINATIONS OF ROMULO L. DIAZ, JR., AND

J. CHARLES FOX

THURSDAY, JULY 30, 1998

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:10 p.m. in room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of the

committee) presiding. Present: Senators Chafee, Allard, and Baucus.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Senator CHAFEE. This is a meeting of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to have a hearing on Romulo Diaz

who has been nominated by the President to be the Assistant Administrator for Administration Resources Management at EPA and

J. Charles Fox, nominated by the President to be Assistant Administrator for Water in EPA.

I know that Senator Sarbanes wishes to be here to introduce Mr.

Fox and what we will do is we’ll proceed first with Mr. Diaz and

then when Senator Sarbanes appears, we will let him proceed with

Mr. Fox.

The purpose of the hearing today is to consider two nominations:

Mr. Romulo Diaz to be Assistant Administrator for Administration

Resources Management and that of Mr. J. Charles Fox to be Assistant Administrator for Water.

It’s my understanding that each of the nominees has members of

their families here. Mr. Diaz, if you’d like to introduce your parents

who are here?

Mr. DIAZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To my left are my mom and dad, Irene and Romulo Diaz from

Nederland, TX.

Senator CHAFEE. We welcome you here. You’re long distance

travelers. Very glad you’re here.

I’m not sure I know where Nederland, TX is.

Mr. DIAZ. It’s the heart of the Golden Triangle, Mr. Chairman,

between Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange, TX.

Senator CHAFEE. That locates us exactly, I’ll rush to my atlas.

[Laughter.]

Senator CHAFEE. Mr. Fox, I understand your wife and parents

are here?

Mr. FOX. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My wife, Ritu Fox; my father, Richard Fox; and my mother, Nancy Fox.
24

Senator CHAFEE. We welcome both of you here. It’s nice to have

parents here. We see wives and children frequently but not so often

do we see parents and that’s a very, very nice event when the parents are here.

The President nominated these two gentlemen on July 17; we received the paperwork. It’s our intention to act quickly on these

nominations and we’ll complete the hearing today. If all goes well,

we would get them to the floor as swiftly as possible and they

would be considered as soon as we return from the August recess

very early in September.

I’m pleased to report that both of the nominees have impressive

and diverse backgrounds well suited to the positions for which they

are nominated. Mr. Diaz has served as Director of the Office of

Regulatory Coordination at the Department of Energy the last 3

years. In that position, he oversaw the Department’s regulatory reinvention efforts.

Prior to that in 1995, he served in a number of positions within

the Energy Department, including Deputy Chief of Staff and Counsel to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary of International Affairs. Mr. Diaz has represented the United States on a

North Atlantic Treaty Organization committee dealing with energy

security for the Alliance.

Mr. Fox has an impressive background also. Since 1997, he has

served as Associate Administrator of EPA. In his current position,

he directs the Office of Reinvention, overseeing a number of Government reform and reinvention activities.

From 1993 to 1995, he was Assistant Secretary at the Maryland

Department of Environment. From 1993 to 1995, he was Chief of

Staff in EPA’s Office of Water, experience which will be invaluable

if he is confirmed. Prior to that time, he served in a number of positions in EPA.

For the EPA to perform effectively, it needs to have talented

decisionmakers, not only to carry out its core mission of protecting

environmental resources, but also to ensure that the agency runs

effectively in carrying out its mission.

If confirmed as Assistant Administrator for Water, Mr. Fox will

be responsible for keeping the Nation’s waters clean for fishing and

swimming, and safe for drinking. The Assistant Administrator for

Water oversees water and drinking water criteria and the national

pollution discharge elimination system which has the permits for

the programs under the Clean Water Act.

This position is a big one. Listen to these statistics. He will manage a work force of 2,680 employees and a budget of $2.6 billion.

Even for somebody from Washington, $2.6 billion is a lot of money.

If confirmed as Assistant Administrator for Administration Resources Management, Mr. Fox will help manage the Agency as the

liaison between EPA and the Office of Management and Budget,

OMB, the Office of Personnel Management, the General Services

Administration and the General Accounting Office. He would also

be responsible for agencywide resource management facilities, services, human resources, audits, administrative services and procurement. In short, he is responsible for ensuring the bulk of EPA’s

budget which is spent to procure services from the private sector

and to make sure that these are spent wisely.
25

I thought there was a mistake here. I was giving you all those duties, Mr. Fox, and you were sitting there wondering what’s going

on. Those are Mr. Diaz’s duties.

Mr. FOX. I was starting to get nervous.

Senator CHAFEE. Yes, I thought you might. I was thinking as I read this over, this doesn’t sound right. So everything I said about

your duties apply to you, Mr. Diaz. [Laughter.]

Senator CHAFEE. And I apologize. Both positions have a lot of responsibility.

[Laughter.]

Senator CHAFEE. And we look forward to hearing what the wit- nesses have to say. After we hear the statements of Senator Baucus and other committee members, we’ll start with Mr. Diaz. As I

mentioned, should Senator Sarbanes come in, we’ll go directly to

him.

[The prepared statement of Senator Chafee follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE

ISLAND

Good afternoon. The purpose of today’s hearing is to consider two nominations within the Environmental Protection Agency. The first nomination is that of Mr.

Romulo L. Diaz, Jr., to be the Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management. The second nomination is that of Mr. J. Charles Fox to be the

Assistant Administrator for Water.

I am delighted to welcome everyone, particularly our two nominees, Mr. Diaz and Mr. Fox, and I would like to acknowledge the members of their families who are

here. Mr. Diaz is accompanied by his parents, Romulo Sr., and Irene Diaz, who have

come all the way from Nederland, Texas. Mr. Fox is accompanied by his wife, Ritu

Sharma and his parents, Richard and Nancy Fox. The President nominated Mr. Diaz and Mr. Fox on July 17, and we have received their paperwork in the interim. It is the committee’s intent to act on these nominations at the earliest opportunity after the Senate returns from the August recess.

I am pleased to report that both of the nominees have impressive and diverse

backgrounds and are well-suited to the positions before them. Romulo (Romy) Diaz

has served as the Director of the Office of Regulatory Coordination at the U.S. Department of Energy since 1995. In this position, Mr. Diaz has overseen the Department’s regulatory reinvention efforts. Prior to 1995, he has served in a number of

positions within the Energy Department, including Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary of International Affairs. He

has represented the United States on a North Atlantic Treaty Organization committee dealing with energy security for the Alliance.

Charles (Chuck) Fox also has an impressive background. Since 1997, he has

served the Associate Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. In his

current position, he directs the Office of Reinvention, overseeing a number of government reform and reinvention activities. From 1993 to 1995, Mr. Fox was the Assistant Secretary at the Maryland Department of the Environment. From 1993 until

1995, he was the Chief of Staff in EPA’s Office of Water, experience which will be

invaluable if confirmed. Prior to that time, he served in a number of positions in

EPA and in the non profit sector.

For the EPA to perform effectively, it needs to have talented decisionmakers not

only to carry out its core mission of protecting environmental resources, but also to

ensure that the agency runs efficiently in carrying out that mission. If confirmed

as Assistant Administrator for Water, Mr. Fox will be responsible for keeping the

Nation’s waters clean for fishing and swimming, and safe for drinking. The Assistant Administrator for Water oversees water and drinking water criteria and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits program under the Clean

Water Act, and manages a workforce of 2,680 employees and a budget of 2.6 billion

dollars.

If confirmed as Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management, Mr. Diaz would help manage the Agency as the liaison between EPA and

the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Personnel Management, the

General Services Administration, and the General Accounting Office. He also would
26

be responsible for agency-wide resources management, facilities services, human resources, audits, administrative services, and procurement. In short, he is responsible

for ensuring that the bulk of EPA’s budget, which is spent to procure services from

the private sector, is spent wisely.

Both positions pose difficult challenges, but I am confident that both Mr. Diaz and

Mr. Fox are prepared to face the tasks at hand. I look forward to hearing what today’s witnesses have to say about their backgrounds and what they hope to accomplish, if confirmed.

After we hear the statements of Senator Baucus and other committee members,

we will start with Mr. Diaz, and after members have an opportunity to question

him, move on to Mr. Fox.

Senator Baucus.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Along with you, I welcome both the nominees and as you have,

I’ve also spoken with them individually and I look forward to a

very successful tenure with both of them.

I also am pleased, apparently Mr. Diaz, your parents, who are

here from Texas, have already been introduced and I’d like to acknowledge them myself. I know how proud they are.

Senator CHAFEE. I’ve done everything but switch the parents

here today.

[Laughter.]

Senator BAUCUS. Well, I know your parents, both sides, are very

proud of you and have the highest expectations for you, and you

are very proud of them as well. I wish you all well.

I met with Mr. Diaz about how to motivate agencies and empower people to work harder and to like their job and feel that

their service and efforts are being rewarded for the country. We

had a very good conversation. I very much expect Mr. Diaz to do

a very good job along those lines.

Mr. Fox, too, and I had a similar conversation and I expect Mr.

Fox to do just as well.

I’m reminded of our efforts in past years with the Clean Water

Act, and more recently with the Safe Drinking Water Act. I remind

you, Mr. Fox that we were able to pass I think quite good legislation because everybody cooperated—the municipalities, the environmental groups, the Republicans, Democrats, Administration. We

just didn’t grandstand, we rolled up our sleeves and got the job

done without any fanfare. As a consequence, the Congress passed

pretty good legislation attempting to kind of correct some of the

mistakes, if you will, that we made in the 1988 Safe Drinking

Water Act. I think the 1988 Act put an unnecessary burden on

small communities—standards and monitoring requirements and

so forth.

As you well know, we’ve made great strides to clean up our water

in the last 25 years. You’re a little younger than I, but I can remember when the Potomac just stank. I’m sure you can remember

too, Mr. Chairman. While driving along the Potomac River, you noticed that it smelled at times, and you wouldn’t dare get caught

falling overboard a boat or swimming in the Potomac. It was just

so bad. In those years too, we all know about the Cuyahoga River

that caught on fire.
27

So we can be proud of ourselves. The statutes we have passed

in the last 25–30 years have worked. Our air is much cleaner now;

our water is much cleaner. But we also know that the loading into

our waterways is also increasing. We’re dumping a lot more stuff

into the water, whether it’s from factories or municipalities or particularly so-called nonpoint runoff. So even though we’ve done well,

we can never rest on our laurels and we have to work very hard

just to keep what we have, and also very hard to improve upon

what we have.

You will find this committee ready, willing and able to join with you. Our chairman is very, very hardworking; he’s very reasonable;

he’s very wise; and he’s a good catalyst. Again, I look forward to working with both of you and with your people at the agency. Let me just finish by saying I invited you both to come to Mon- tana, you both accepted and I look forward to your visit to our

State.

Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Senator. I have the statements of

Senators Kempthorne and Lieberman to put into the record.

[The prepared statements of Senators Kempthorne and

Lieberman follow:]

STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to question the Administration’s

nominees for the positions of Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management and Assistant Administrator for Water.

As a Senator from the great State of Idaho, I am very interested in Region 10

of the Environmental Protection Agency. I am pleased to have this opportunity to

ask Mr. Diaz about the future priorities of Region 10, and how those priorities will

be reflected in relative funding levels for environmental programs important to

Idaho, such as water quality, air quality and Superfund.

As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries and Wildlife

and sponsor of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, I have a particular interest in the nomination of Mr. Fox. August 6 will mark 2 years since the Safe

Drinking Water Act was signed into law by the President. At the second anniversary of this law, it is appropriate to ask those charged with its implementation

about their vision and priorities. I would like to hear Mr. Fox’s views on how the

implementation of the Act is progressing, and how EPA, under his guidance, plans

to carry out the statutory guidelines of the Act.

Water is such an important issue to Idaho. We are now engaged in the process

of answering the challenge to establish total maximum daily loads for pollutants in

water-quality impaired water bodies. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Assistant Administrator for Water should expect to work very closely with those in Idaho

who are engaged in the task of protecting Idaho’s water through targeted, flexible,

local and State-driven initiatives.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing the testimony of both

nominees.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

CONNECTICUT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to consider the nomination of

Chuck Fox for Assistant Administrator in the Office of Water at EPA. Americans

agree that clean water must be one of our highest environmental priorities. The

next Assistant Administrator for Water at EPA will be responsible for ensuring that

we have clean drinking water, for improving the water quality in our rivers and

streams, and for protecting our critical wetland resources. Chuck Fox is highly

qualified to hold this important job, and I strongly support his nomination.

Mr. Fox’ current and past experience—both at EPA and outside the Agency—have

prepared him well for new responsibilities as EPA’s Assistant Administrator for
28

Water. Currently, Mr. Fox oversees EPA’s Office of Reinvention. In this capacity,

he directs a number of regulatory reinvention initiatives to protect our environment

through the implementation of cleaner, cheaper and smarter strategies. Regulatory

reinvention efforts such as Project XL and the Common Sense Initiative represent

an important new way of doing business at EPA. They signal a commitment to innovative approaches to environmental protection that supplement more conventional

regulatory methods.

Chuck Fox also brings with him valuable State experience. He was the Assistant

Secretary and Chief Operating Officer of the Maryland Department of the Environment. Prior to joining Maryland State government, he served as the Chief of Staff

at EPA’s Office of Water and as Special Assistant to the EPA Administrator. In addition, he has worked with a number of non-profit environmental organizations on

a wide range of environmental issues.

I have known Chuck Fox for many years, have worked with him, and have followed his accomplishments. His nomination to be EPA’s new Assistant Administrator for Water deserves the support of this committee.

Senator CHAFEE. Mr. Diaz, why don’t you proceed with your

statement?

STATEMENT OF ROMULO L. DIAZ, JR., NOMINATED BY THE

PRESIDENT TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. DIAZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Baucus.

It is a great honor and privilege to be here today as the nominee

of President Clinton and Administrator Browner to be the Environmental Protection Agency’s Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management. I’m very proud to have been

asked to serve in the Clinton Administration with Administrator

Carol Browner, both of whom are working to enhance the level of

public health and environmental protection for all Americans. I

look forward to working closely with you and the Congress to continue to improve management and performance at EPA.

I want to speak briefly about my background and discuss where

I would hope to bring new ideas and leadership to the position if

confirmed.

I come to you with over 25 years of experience and public service,

both as an attorney and a manager of domestic and international

strategic programs for the Department of Energy and related energy agencies. In my current position as Director of the Office of

Regulatory Coordination, I have played a leadership role in the reinvention efforts that resulted in the elimination of streamlining of

more than 75 percent of the Department of Energy regulations,

more than 50 percent of its internal directives and 20 percent of

its paperwork burden. These are efforts that are enabling the Department to realize savings in excess of $100 million over 5 years.

Throughout my career, I have pursued public service with a passion and have dedicated myself to making the Federal Government

work better and more efficiently to meet the needs of its customers

and stakeholders. I believe I have done this while always being

mindful of the expectations of the American public. This has required a dedication to measuring performance based on results

rather than process and if given the opportunity, I’d like to bring

forward these experiences and perspectives to the leadership team

at EPA and to continue to sharpen EPA’s focus on efficient management services.
29

I would like to summarize the values and principles that will

guide me if confirmed as EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management. They include integrity and

fiscal responsibility, openness and willingness to listen, fairness

and accountability, proactivity and the spirit of partnership.

EPA’s Office of Administration and Resources Management provides leadership to ensure sound management of administrative

services throughout that agency. The office has a broad range of

functions including management of human resources, information

technology, contracts and grants management, employee health

safety and security and facilities construction.

In managing these functions, I would like to concentrate on three

priority areas. My first priority is to manage information effectively. This includes ensuring that EPA’s information systems are

Year 2000 compliant and that the environmental data we provide

to the public is of the highest quality.

I am aware that Congress has concerns about the Federal response to the Year 2000 computer date conversion issue. In addition, correcting this problem is one of Administrator Browner’s top

priorities. In my discussions with senior EPA staff, I have been assured that EPA’s mission critical information systems and technology infrastructure will be Y2K compliant and verified through

operational trials before the turn of the century.

EPA has placed an increased emphasis on using the tools of government to enhance information available to the public about our

drinking water, our air, our homes and the environment in our

communities. Improving access to and the quality of environmental

information allows society at all levels to make better decisions.

My second priority is to ensure a high level of integrity and accountability in the management of our financial resources. About

two-thirds of the EPA’s budget is obligated each year as contracts

or grants, so these are very important areas to manage and to

manage well.

In this regard, I have been informed that the agency has made

substantial progress, so much so that the Inspector General has removed or agreed to remove contracts management as a material

weakness reported to the President and to the Congress. Furthermore, the grants closeout backlog has been reduced by 80 percent.

However, more work needs to be done and if confirmed, I will focus

my efforts on strengthening oversight and making sure that we get

what we pay for when we enter into a contract or grant at the

EPA.

Finally, my third priority reflects my firm belief that we need to

invest in human resources to ensure that we have the science and

technology skills needed for the future and that our work force reflects the talents and perspectives of a growing multicultural society.

Building on my previous experiences, I intend to ensure that

EPA recognizes the richness and diversity of its work force so that

future scientists and engineers see the agency as an employer of

choice.

In summary, effectively discharging the responsibilities of the Office of Administration of Resources Management is critical to meeting EPA’s mission. I believe that it is in the best interest of EPA
30

and the public to integrate our mission goals and effective management. If confirmed, I pledge to bring the full weight of my experience and abilities in order to further that integration.

Let me close by expressing my appreciation to the committee for

your recognition of and support for the agency’s vital mission and

the opportunity to appear here today. I’m pleased that my parents

are here from the heart of the Golden Triangle and would like to

thank you for the courtesies extended to them.

I request that my prepared statement be entered in the record

in its entirety and at this time, I would be pleased to take any

questions the members of the committee might have.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Mr. Diaz.

Senator Allard, a valuable member of this committee, has I understand a conflict and as frequently occurs, has to be two places

at once. Senator, if you want to make a statement or even ask

questions now, proceed.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to have an opportunity to make a statement. I appreciate the indulgence of both you and the minority members in

this particular situation.

In the past I’ve raised concerns with the EPA nominees because

of that Agency’s action with respect to Colorado’s Environmental

Self Evaluation law and both these gentlemen have been into my

office and visited with me personally. I think that they are qualified.

I’ve had many conversations with the Assistant Administrator for

Compliance at the EPA, Steve Herman, on this topic. Every time

we speak, he emphasizes to me that EPA is attempting to work

with the State of Colorado to resolve this issue. However, it always

seems that I’m quickly disappointed with EPA’s actions soon after

these conversations.

Unfortunately, I am once again disappointed. It has come to my

attention that EPA is referring to the Department of Justice for

legal action a local government in Colorado that availed itself of

Colorado’s self-audit law. Further, they seem to have begun enforcement action on another local government in the State. To be

honest, it appears to me that EPA has declared war on local governments in Colorado.

Further, I’m very distressed—I emphasize very distressed—by officials in EPA’s Region 8 office who seem to feel that they are not

policy implementers but policymakers. For example, Mr. Ron Rutherford, the Senior Enforcement Coordinator for Region 8, is quoted

in the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph this past week as saying this about the recent actions taken against the two local governments. ‘‘It’s a statement as to why we think these’’—referring

to immunity laws—‘‘are often misguided.’’

Later in the same story, Mr. Rutherford claimed that ‘‘These decisions are made as a matter of fairness, that those who economically benefit from polluting should be fined.’’ Further, another EPA

official in Colorado stated his philosophical opposition to Colorado’s

audit laws.
31

It’s my view that if these individuals are not in their current positions to enforce their philosophical views, they are there to implement the law. I have concerns about these remarks that indicate

to me two bureaucrats who have become too wrapped up in the culture of enforcement, irrespective of whether it is productive or good

for the environment.

Further, I have questions with respect to EPA’s application of

economic benefit as a determining factor in decisions to overfile,

particularly as it applies to local governments. In that respect, I

have a letter prepared for Mr. Herman. I will not yet state whether

I intend to object to these two nominees once reported from the

committee. That will depend on how EPA cooperates with my staff

and me along with this reply to my letter.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve talked about my concerns

with both of the nominees and they do seem sensitive.

I appreciate the time.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Senator.

We’ve been joined by Senator Sarbanes. Senator, I know you

wish to introduce one of the nominees.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL S. SARBANES,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus and Senator Allard.

I appreciate this opportunity to come before the committee and

express my strong support for Chuck Fox, the President’s and EPA

Administrator’s nominee for Assistant Administrator for Water.

I first came to know Chuck Fox in the early 1980’s when he

served as a Chesapeake Bay project director for the Environmental

Policy Institute, a not-for-profit environmental organization. At

that time, the Chesapeake Bay Agreement was just being crafted

amongst the States and the Federal Government and we were

working together with Senator Mathias and Senator Warner as

well as with you, Mr. Chairman, to draft the original legislation

authorizing EPA’s participation in the Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort.

Chuck played an important role in helping to develop the intergovernmental partnership and watershed management approach

which has become the hallmark of the Chesapeake Bay program

and I think a standard for restoration in other impacted coastal environments.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Senator Baucus, and

Senator Warner for recently approving several new measures relating to restoring and protecting the Bay including the Chesapeake

Bay Restoration Act and the Gateways Act. We’re very appreciative

to the committee for that action.

Over the past 15 years, Chuck Fox has held increasingly important and responsible positions, first with other nonprofit organizations and in the public service. As Chief of Staff of the EPA Office

of Water, Assistant Secretary of the Maryland Department of the

Environment, and most recently, EPA Associate Administrator, he

has gained a wealth of knowledge and experience managing people,

managing budgets, working with Members of Congress, since no
32

one manages Members of Congress, and with public and private

sector organizations.

In every instance, I think he’s demonstrated exceptional talent,

ingenuity, political skill, and leadership abilities that I think are

going to be a very important asset to the Administration and this

important position of Assistant Administrator for Water.

In my judgment, Chuck Fox will make a significant contribution

addressing the challenges facing the EPA as we move into the next

century. I’m absolutely confident that his long-time involvement in

environmental issues combined with his experience and with his

commitment to the public interest will make him a skillful and effective assistant administrator.

I strongly urge the committee to act favorably on this nomination. I very much hope we’ll be able to move him through to confirmation in short order.

I thank the committee.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Senator, for coming. I

know that’s a very powerful endorsement and we appreciate your

taking the time.

What I’d like to do now is to hear from Mr. Fox and then if we

have questions, we’ll direct them to the respective nominee. Go

ahead, Mr. Fox, with your statement.

STATEMENT OF J. CHARLES FOX, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. FOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Baucus. I’m

honored to be here today as the President’s nominee for Assistant

Administrator for Water.

I’m pleased that Administrator Browner asked me to take on the

challenge and responsibility of administering the Nation’s clean

water and safe drinking water programs. I look forward to the opportunity to work closely with this committee and Congress to improve the stewardship of our Nation’s water resources.

My career in the environmental policy arena here in Washington

and in the State of Maryland spans 15 years. As a Federal official,

State official and representative of nonprofit environmental organizations, I have dedicated my professional career to working on

water issues on behalf of the American public. I look forward to

continuing this work with this committee on a bipartisan basis.

My experience with both Federal and State governments has focused on finding cleaner, cheaper, and smarter ways to achieve our

Nation’s environmental goals, and I will continue this work with

the Office of Water.

As the Assistant Secretary for the Maryland Department of the

Environment, I directed a comprehensive permit reform initiative

that provided Maryland businesses with more timely and predictable results, while at the same time allowing State resources to be

deployed more efficiently.

I also coordinated a multiagency environmental goalsetting effort

to foster collaboration among State agencies and to enhance accountability to the public and the State legislature. This effort was

very similar to the activities carried out by EPA pursuant to the

Government Performance and Results Act.
33

As the Associate Administrator for Reinvention at the EPA, I

worked to improve the management of environmental information,

reduce paperwork burdens and to implement the agency’s regulatory reform agenda. In the information area, for example, EPA is

implementing a program that will improve data accuracy, enhance

public access, and reduce burdens on State governments and the

private sector. These types of common sense, cost effective reforms

characterize much of the work I accomplished in the Office of Reinvention.

I would like to talk very briefly about the challenges confronting

our Nation’s water programs. Twenty-five years after passage of

the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts, we stand at a critical threshold. We have made remarkable progress in ensuring safe

drinking water and cleaning up the Nation’s rivers, lakes, and

streams. However, 40 percent of the water accessed by the States

and tribes do not meet water quality goals and too many people are

exposed to potentially harmful drinking water.

Under the bipartisan leadership of this committee, President

Clinton and Congress have articulated a clear agenda for drinking

water by strengthening the Safe Drinking Water Act. In February

of this year, the President proposed a Clean Water Action Plan

that describes 10 general principles for strengthening clean water

programs with over 100 specific actions.

If confirmed as Assistant Administrator for Water, my top priority will be to support the effective implementation of the Safe

Drinking Water Act amendments and the Clean Water Action Plan.

I see five key themes that will most need attention.

No. 1, maintenance of core programs. We need to assure financial

integrity of the State revolving fund, work with our State partners

to improve implementation of discharge permitting programs, and

implement the source water and nonpoint source pollution programs effectively.

No. 2, definition of environmental goals. We must support State

and tribal efforts to expand and improve water quality standards

and assure that we use sound science in developing new drinking

water standards.

No. 3, promotion of the watershed approach. We need to expand

policy tools and incentives that encourage Federal, State, tribal,

and local governments to form partnerships dedicated to resolving

water quality problems on a watershed basis.

No. 4, building intergovernmental partnerships. Implementation

of the Clean Water Action Plan and Safe Drinking Water Act requires an unprecedented level of coordination at all levels of government. I hope to continue and expand these efforts if confirmed.

Finally, we need to improve public access to information. I will

work with the States, tribes, and other stakeholders to improve the

public’s right to know about the condition of their surface water

and drinking water.

The Office of Water has established a strong track record of

reaching out to its State, tribal, and local government partners as

well as to industry and environmental interest groups. I am committed to continuing this tradition and to achieving the broadest

possible participation to develop effective, workable solutions for

those most affected by our actions.
34

Let me close by expressing my appreciation to the committee,

particularly the chairman and ranking minority member for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am eager to apply my energy and experience toward this new mission.

If confirmed, I will consider it a great honor and a privilege to

work with the members of this committee toward achieving the Nation’s goals for clean and safe water.

I would also like to express my appreciation for the support of

my family, particularly my wife. As you know, Mr. Chairman, public service requires significant commitments and sacrifices. I’m

grateful for their past support and I know it will continue in the

future.

Thank you very much and I’d be pleased to answer any questions.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Fox.

Now, I’d ask both of you the same question. Are you willing, at

the request of any duly constituted committee of the Senate, to appear in front of it as a witness?

Mr. FOX. I am.

Mr. DIAZ. I am.

Senator CHAFEE. Do you know of any matters which you may or

may not have thus far disclosed which might place you in any conflict of interest if you’re confirmed in this position?

Mr. FOX. I am not aware of any conflicts.

Mr. DIAZ. I am not, Senator.

Senator CHAFEE. Mr. Diaz, I was interested when you talked

about the computer situation with regards to the year 2000. We

spend a lot of time worrying about it up here but there’s not much

we can do. It really is those who are out on the firing line such as

yourself. You think that EPA is going to be ready for that momentous day?

Mr. DIAZ. Mr. Chairman, it’s clear to me the importance of the

so-called Y2K issue being addressed effectively by the Environmental Protection Agency as well as the rest of the Federal Government, but in my briefings so far, I have a sense of confidence

that yes, we will be ready.

There are 61 mission critical information systems at the EPA

that require compliance with the Y2K standard before the turn of

the century. Of those, two-thirds are already in compliance. The

scheduled milestone for total compliance is the end of the first

quarter of the next year which will allow the EPA 9 months of

operational testing to verify the operational readiness of those systems prior to the turn of the century.

Clearly this is an area that requires close monitoring because of

the importance to both the agency and to the American public as

well as to the Congress. So it’s one to which I would like to apply

my management skills to ensure that milestone that has been set

is met, but I do have the confidence that we’re on the right course

to accomplish that.

Senator CHAFEE. I wouldn’t expect that EPA would be as dependent upon their computers as say the Social Security Agency or

something like that, or the Treasury, but still each agency is terribly important.
35

I presume you’ve had considerable experience working with computers yourself, have you?

Mr. DIAZ. I’ve actually dealt with the computer issue at the Department of Energy in a couple of different areas, essentially with

regard to the paperwork burden reduction which includes electronic

reporting burden as well and to another extent with regard to local

area networks that we use at the Energy Department, Internet access to information.

We have a responsibility in the Office of Administration Resources Management for the Chief Information Officer responsibility that was established by the Clinger-Cohen Act, so it’s one where

I believe we have the resources that are dedicated to ensuring that

we are Y2K compliant, but I do believe it’s necessary to continue

to exercise oversight to make sure that we’re meeting our responsibilities.

If I may add just one short addendum, that is that it’s clear to

me that this is an issue that needs to be addressed in concert with

our partners outside of the agency upon whom we are dependent

for information which is made available to the public through the

EPA information systems.

We are working directly with stakeholders to make sure that

they understand the importance of the Y2K issue, that they are

taking advantage of the opportunities to correct their own systems

to be compliant by the Year 2000 as well. So it’s a major outreach

effort on behalf of the agency.

Senator CHAFEE. We will look to you frequently, we deal with the

Administrator but with you also in connection with say the expenditures under Superfund for example, and all of this will fall, I presume, under your umbrella as paying attention to the administrative aspects of these different programs.

Mr. Fox, obviously we’re not going to do anything on the Clean

Water Act this year but next year it would be my intention to get

back with the Clean Water Act and under that, the wetlands is always the most contentious provision.

Have you dealt much with mitigation banking under wetlands?

Mr. FOX. Yes, I have, Mr. Chairman, particularly at the State

level and some earlier work at the USEPA. I believe that mitigation banking offers tremendous promise to try and provide a little

more predictability in the wetlands permitting process and at the

same time to help the Nation achieve our no-net-loss of wetlands

goals.

I think we need to always be conscious of places where mitigation banking might not be appropriate and we need to just remember and keep those safeguards incorporated in the program. There

are, as you know, some types of wetlands, for example, that aren’t

real easy to replace in the context of a mitigation bank, but overall,

the Administration has been a strong supporter of mitigation banking and I think it’s an important part of the wetlands solution.

Senator CHAFEE. Have you ever seen one that works?

Mr. FOX. There are some examples of some. We had one in Maryland, in fact, that was showing itself to be quite successful. It depended a lot on the land area where, in fact, the wetlands were

being created and could we have engineering solutions in those
36

areas that replaced the functions and values of the wetlands, but

it can be done in some cases.

There are certainly many examples of it not succeeding as well.

Senator CHAFEE. We went down to see one south of Fredericksburg. I must confess I’ve forgotten the exact place we went but they

had one of a couple hundred acres down there and it’s working

quite successfully, so it seemed.

Senator Baucus.

Senator BAUCUS. I’d like to ask each of you why do you want this

job, your individual jobs? I’ll start first with you, Mr. Diaz. Why do

you want this?

Mr. DIAZ. First of all, I believe that this represents a tremendous

opportunity to support a mission which is future-oriented and

which is strongly supported by the American people, that is protecting our environment for ourselves, for our families and our

communities.

In addition to that, I believe that in connection with my background, you will see a career of increasing levels of complexity and

trust in government service. This is an opportunity for me to take

those experiences and perspectives and share them with colleagues

at the Environmental Protection Agency.

I’m very enthusiastic about the opportunity to use management

skills in supporting the core mission of the agency that is environmental protection, and I do believe, as I said in my summary statement, that integrating the delivery of that core mission with efficient and flexible management services, I think is something that

is desirable and one where I would like to help make a difference.

Senator BAUCUS. You have a passion for the job?

Mr. DIAZ. I think that’s a fair summary, yes, sir.

Senator BAUCUS. How do you want to be remembered?

Mr. DIAZ. I’ve said there are three priorities I see for this job

that I would like to accomplish. As I’ve also indicated, I’ve dedicated my career to achieving results and not focusing on process.

As far as I’m concerned, I’ve essentially laid out a contract with

this committee and I would like to be remembered in terms of a

legacy as having achieved results on the three priorities that I indicated to this committee—efficient and effective information management, efficient and effective management of our financial resources contracts and grants, the lifeblood of the agency in many

respects, and third, assuring that we are investing in the future in

terms of the human infrastructure of the agency.

If I accomplish what I have indicated to this committee, what I

see as my three priorities, I will indeed have a happy legacy.

Senator BAUCUS. You’ve measured those results to know whether

you’ve accomplished them or not? By what standard?

Mr. DIAZ. You and I had an interesting conversation, Senator,

when you talked about your sense of making sure that we know

names, dates, and data. It strikes me that in connection with assuring that we know how to measure performance, which is always

a difficult issue, one of the things I’ve been talking to my colleagues at the EPA about is essentially coming up with a game

plan so that we know how to measure success over the next 30, 90,

180 days. I’d like to share that with this committee and as far as
37

I’m concerned, those are the performance measures that I would

like to be measured against.

Senator BAUCUS. Do you have a sense of at the end of your term,

do you want to find the agency 10 percent more efficient and effective, 20 percent? Do you know enough about the agency to know

percentage of improvement that sounds reasonable?

Mr. DIAZ. That’s an interesting question. Let me first say that as

I think the committee members are aware, this is an agency which

I have a general sense of understanding about. The President’s

nomination went forward to this committee on the 17th of this

month. In less than 2 weeks, I have tried to become sufficiently

briefed on the major priority issues of the agency so that I can reputably respond to your questions.

I can’t give you a quantifiable measure but it strikes me that

what we’re trying to do is to ensure that in an environment where

I understand in connection with the balanced budget amendment,

we will see essentially steady resource allocation to the Environmental Protection Agency, we see growing expectations on the part

of the American public with regard to their environment.

We’ve got to learn how to do more with less, more stable resources and so I think the performance measure, and I can’t quantify it anymore than that, Senator, but I would be happy to share

further insights with you at a later date, it strikes me that we need

to be able to deliver on those increasing expectations with the kind

of resources that we have, always mindful of course of the fact that

we need to work in collaboration with our customers and stakeholders upon whom we depend for so much delivery of those services.

Senator BAUCUS. Are there any breaking new concepts or technologies or something in your area that you’re sort of intrigued

with that might help you and the agency do a significantly better

job in your area?

Mr. DIAZ. One of the areas in fact that I’m quite excited about

and I would like to have an opportunity to get a firsthand observation of is the new facility being constructed at Research Triangle

Park in North Carolina. It’s been supported by this committee and

the Senate and the Congress. It is going to be a state-of-the-art facility. It’s going to enable us to realize a tremendous cost savings

over the 30-year life of that facility. It’s estimated to be $100 million cost savings over 30 years.

We see increased productivity gains associated with that, consolidation and the state-of-the-art laboratory facility, we believe is

going to support the research mission of the agency and delivery

of sound science into the next century. That’s the kind of thing that

very much excites me and I’d like to get a firsthand observation of

it.

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. Fox, same list of questions. Why do you

want this job?

Mr. FOX. That’s actually an easy answer for me, Senator. This

is an incredibly exciting time in the water area. This committee,

with passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments has laid

out what I think is a very ambitious job for the Assistant Administrator for Water.
38

You have given the agency a series of deadlines and a series of

new drinking water standards that we have to develop so that we

can meet the needs of small communities throughout the country,

so that we can assure the public has high quality drinking water.

On the clean water side, the President’s Clean Water Action Plan

lays out a very ambitious agenda that needs to be implemented.

Despite our best efforts, we haven’t made great progress in the last

10–15 years in terms of tackling some of the nonpoint source pollution problems this Nation faces, particularly associated with urban

runoff or suburban runoff, or agricultural runoff. I think those

areas in particular pose significant challenges and opportunities at

the same time to build partnerships with farmers, with State and

local governments to try and solve these problems.

So I think we truly are at a threshold in the 25 years of history

with both the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act.

Senator BAUCUS. How do you want to be remembered?

Mr. FOX. I’ve worked for many years on ocean and coastal issues

and one of the areas I clearly want to be remembered for is helping

to advance the cause of protecting our Nation’s oceans and coasts.

It’s an area where as a Nation we’ve increased population growth

and habitat deterioration and pollution inputs to our coastal waters. I want to be remembered as somebody who can hopefully have

advanced that cause of protecting our coastal environments.

I also want to be remembered as somebody who has begun to

tackle the problem of nonpoint source pollution in a real, effective,

meaningful way. Many parts of the country, including your great

State of Montana, have waters that are affected by nonpoint source

pollution. So I would really like to see some success in that area

as well.

Senator BAUCUS. We’ve had this discussion, as you know. Some

agencies have a pretty good reputation, some Federal agencies,

some not. Those that do are agencies like the USDA where there

is a lot of personnel on the ground, where people get to know each

other, people doing the work have lunch together and supper together and they get to know each other which means that the local

folks have a little more confidence that the agency understands

what their problems are. The fact is, that’s true the agency does

have a better understanding of what the problems are. Nonetheless, the agency personnel go ahead and do a good job.

That’s not true of the EPA. The basic problem is the EPA doesn’t

have the personnel on the ground in the field, not near as many

as say the USDA. So you’ve got a unique problem, how to develop

public confidence when you don’t have very many people.

A lot of people in western States think that the Denver office,

Washington, DC., what do they know about us, they’re thousands

of miles away. With airline costs as high as it is and airline travel

as difficult as it is, particularly from Denver, there’s no way that

very many PA personnel are going to get to Montana and back. It’s

a problem. You’ve got some good people there in Montana. There’s

John Wardell, for example, who does a pretty good job in the State.

I’d just urge you to bend over backwards to figure out some way

to enable people to truly believe that you’re truly listening to their

problems. Set some systems in place or go out more frequently

than I otherwise thought I would, the kind of walking around con-
39

cept, out from behind your desk and get a feel or a taste or spell

of what’s going on here. It will go a long, long way. I strongly urge

you to do so.

I wish you both very, very good luck.

Mr. FOX. Thank you, Senator.

Senator BAUCUS. One final point. It’s my view and my hope that

when you have a problem and you think it’s something this committee should know about, tell us, and the earlier the better. It just

makes things a bit difficult and problems brew up. Some members

of the committee hear about it through the back door or somehow

and want to create a fuss or something. So just let us know in advance and we’ll probably be able to work it out pretty well.

Thank you.

Mr. FOX. Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. I want to echo what Senator Baucus said in

that last point. Obviously this committee is not here in a

confrontational mode with you, we’re not out here to harass you.

We’re on this committee because the members care about the environment and some people forget that EPA stands for the Environmental Protection Agency. Therefore, we’re here to attempt to be

helpful when you’ve got challenges and through the Administrator,

you can bring your difficulties here where we might be helpful and

we’re out to try and do that.

I would hope, Mr. Fox—and this would apply to you, Mr. Diaz,

too—that you’d embrace what might be new techniques in trying

to solve some of these problems. For example, we had some very

interesting testimony not long ago on the effectiveness of spending

money on watersheds as opposed to trying to clean up the rivers

when they came down into say the New York City water supply

system.

If we can put a modest amount of money into say some holding

pond for manure generated on a farm upstream from the watershed that supplies New York City, it’s far more effective than trying to clean up that water when it gets down with that cattle manure or whatever might be in it as it comes down into the immediate water supply system say for the city of New York.

It was fascinating to me to learn the modest expenditure that

could take place upstream in prevention as opposed to downstream

attempt at a cure.

Several times you’ve mentioned nonpoint source pollution and

that’s a tremendous problem. There is no question that we—we

being the industry and the Federal Government with the support

of local communities—have done a tremendous job in cleaning up

these lakes and rivers. I don’t know what the percentage is you’re

using now for the pollution in rivers coming from nonpoint source

pollution. What percentage do you use?

Mr. FOX. As a general rule—obviously it varies around the country—I think it’s fair to consider it’s a little more than half. Certainly the nutrient pollution would be coming from nonpoint

sources.

Senator CHAFEE. So we’ve come a long, long ways with the point

source pollution. I want to tip my hat to industry. Obviously

they’ve had to comply but they have complied and without squawking and with an honest effort to reduce the point source pollution.
40

Now, as you point out, it’s the nonpoint source pollution that’s

a real problem. It’s difficult and you get tangled up into land use

planning, which are always fighting words as you know, from the

Federal Government getting into that area, but there are interesting techniques.

I’m always impressed around here by the static situation as it exists as far as the development of waste treatment plants. It doesn’t

seem to me that much has happened. Am I missing something or

is everything about the way it was 40 years ago?

Mr. FOX. The basic technology of most of them, Senator, is virtually identical to the way it was but there have been a number

of new advancements in changing how the pollutants are retained

in different holding ponds, adding different chemicals here and

there, and you are getting much higher performance today out of

sewage treatment plants than you were before, and there’s new capacities to get nutrient pollution removal which you couldn’t get before. So they’re making some improvements.

Senator CHAFEE. I always have the feeling that it’s such an expensive undertaking for a community that nobody wants to try

anything new for fear if it doesn’t work, they’re stuck with it and

the costs are substantial.

I don’t see much that is adventuresome out there. Again, am I

missing something?

Mr. FOX. No. I think the evidence we have right now shows not

only is nonpoint source pollution a significant part of the problem,

but that we can much more cost effectively control pollution from

nonpoint sources. So if we can find ways of building partnerships

with farmers and local governments on a watershed basis, we can

end up not only cleaning up the waters, but saving money at the

same time. So I’m real hopeful that we can do that.

Senator CHAFEE. I’ll remember what you’ve said and a year or

so from now, we might ask you to come back up here and see how

you’re doing.

Mr. FOX. Fair enough.

Senator CHAFEE. Senator Baucus, have you got anything else?

Senator BAUCUS. No more questions.

Senator CHAFEE. We thank both of you gentlemen for coming

here. Again, I want to say that the earliest we’ll be able to get

these nominations to the floor would be in the first part of September, but it’s my intention to move briskly along with this because

I don’t like to hold up these things.

Thank you very much, both of you, and thank your families.

What’s that triangle I meant to look up, Mr. Diaz?

Mr. DIAZ. The Golden Triangle, sir, and Nederland, TX is the

heart of the Golden Triangle.

Senator CHAFEE. What makes up the Triangle, again?

Mr. DIAZ. Belmont, Port Arthur and Orange, TX.

Senator CHAFEE. I got it. Thank you. Glad you’re here, and your

families.

[Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the chair.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow.]
41

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL S. SARBANES, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

MARYLAND

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present and express my strong support for Charles Fox, the President’s and the EPA Administrator’s nominee for

Assistant Administrator for Water.

I first came to know Chuck Fox in the early 1980’s when he served as the Chesa- peake Bay Project Director for the Environmental Policy Institute, a not-for-profit

environmental organization. At that time, the Chesapeake Bay Agreement was just

being crafted and we were working together with Senator Mathias and Senator

Warner as well as the Committee Chairman, Senator Chafee, to draft the original

legislation authorizing EPA’s participation in the Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort. I

want to thank the Chairman, Senator Baucus and Senator Warner for approving

several new measures recently to restore and protect the Bay, including the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act and the Gateways and Watertrails Act. Chuck played an

important role in helping to develop the intergovernmental partnership and watershed management approach which have become the hallmark of the Chesapeake

Bay Program and the standard for restoration in other degraded coastal environments.

Over the past 15 years, Chuck has held increasingly important and responsible positions with other non-profit organizations and in public service. As Chief of Staff

of the EPA Office of Water, Assistant Secretary of the Maryland Department of the

Environment and most recently, EPA Associate Administrator, he has accumulated

a wealth of knowledge and experience managing people and budgets, working with

Members of Congress and public and private sector organizations. In every instance,

he has demonstrated exceptional talent, ingenuity, political acumen and leadership

abilities that would be a tremendous asset for the Administration and for this important position.

In my judgment, Chuck would make a significant contribution in addressing the challenges facing the EPA as we move into the next century. I am confident that

his longtime involvement in environmental issues, combined with his experience

and commitment to the public interest, will make him an effective and skillful Assistant Administrator. I urge the committee to favorably and swiftly report this

nomination to the full Senate.

STATEMENT OF ROMULO L. DIAZ, JR., NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR

FOR ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a great honor and privilege to be here today as the nominee of President Clinton and Administrator Browner

to be the Environmental Protection Agency’s Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management. I am very proud to have been asked to serve in the Clinton Administration and with Administrator Carol Browner, who are working to enhance the level of public

health and environmental protection for all Americans. I look forward to working

closely with you, the Congress, to continue to improve management and performance at EPA.

I want to speak briefly about my background and discuss where I would hope to bring new ideas and leadership to the position, if confirmed. I come to you with over 25 years of experience in public service, both as an attor- ney and as a manager of domestic and international strategic programs for the Department of Energy (Department or DOE) and other Federal energy agencies. In my

current position as Director of the Office of Regulatory Coordination, I have played

a leadership role in reinvention efforts that resulted in the elimination or streamlining of more than 75 percent of the Department’s regulations, 50 percent of its internal directives, and 20 percent of its paperwork burden. These efforts are enabling

the Department to realize savings in excess of $100 million over 5 years. In previous posts, I was responsible for DOE management and operations policies, was twice unanimously elected by the nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to chair an energy committee, successfully negotiated the international energy contingency response to the 1990–91 Gulf Crisis, represented the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on important energy legislation, and led that agency’s

efforts to create a nationwide system for the emergency implementation of deregulatory pricing regimes under the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978.

Throughout my career, I have pursued public service with a passion and have

dedicated myself to making the Federal Government work better and more efficiently to meet the needs of its customers and stakeholders. I have done this while

always being mindful of the expectations of the American public. This has required
42

a dedication to measuring performance based on results, rather than process. If

given the opportunity, I look forward to bringing these experiences and perspectives

to the leadership team at EPA and to continuing to sharpen EPA’s focus on efficient

management services.

I would like to summarize the values and principles that will guide me if this

committee approves my nomination and the Senate chooses to confirm me as EPA’s

Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management. They include: integrity and fiscal responsibility; openness and willingness to listen; fairness

and accountability; proactivity; and a spirit of partnership.

EPA’s Office of Administration and Resources Management provides leadership to

ensure sound management of administrative services throughout the Agency. The

Office has a broad range of functions, including: management of human resources;

information technology; contracts; grants; employee health, safety and security; and

facilities construction. In managing these programs, I pledge to ensure the highest

quality standards of integrity and fiscal responsibility. I would like to focus on several high priority areas.

First, I am aware that the Congress has concerns about the Federal response to

the Year 2000 computer date conversion issue (Y2K) and I know this is also one

of Administrator Browner’s top priorities. In my discussions with senior EPA staff,

I have been assured that EPA’s mission critical information systems and technology

infrastructure will be Y2K compliant and verified through operational trials before

the turn of the century. EPA is working with State, local, and tribal governments

and regulated industries to ensure that systems will be compatible to allow for the

exchange of data by the year 2000. In addition, the Agency is working with several

sectors of American industry to build awareness and to encourage their action to

address Y2K problems.

EPA has placed an increased emphasis on using the tools of government to enhance the way we get information to the public about our drinking water, our air,

our homes, and the environment in our communities. Improving access to and the

quality of environmental information allows society at all levels to make better decisions. The Office of Administration and Resources Management has the responsibility for the technology infrastructure that supports these efforts. If confirmed, I will

dedicate myself to moving this important initiative forward.

I am aware that the Congress has been concerned in the past with the Agency’s

management of its contracts, grants and assistance agreements. About two-thirds of

EPA’s budget is obligated as contracts or grants every year, so these are very important areas to manage and to manage well. I have been informed that the Agency

has made substantial progress, so much so that EPA’s Inspector General agrees that

contracts management should no longer be reported as a ‘‘material weakness’’ to the

President and Congress. Furthermore, the grants close-out backlog has been reduced by 80 percent. If confirmed, I pledge my support to the Administrator and

the Congress to strengthen the initiatives the Agency has established to promote

more effective management and accountability for these important functions.

I firmly believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to attract a

workforce that reflects the talents and perspectives of a growing multi-cultural society. This is an investment in the human infrastructure of the Agency to ensure that

it has the science and technology skills needed for the future. Building on my previous experiences, I intend to ensure that EPA’s work environment is grounded in

fairness and recognizes the richness and diversity of its workforce.

I also believe it is essential that we provide a healthy, safe and secure environment for the Agency’s employees. In that regard, I want to recognize your support,

Mr. Chairman, and that of the members of the committee, in helping EPA to obtain

the necessary space that will allow us to consolidate our employees in Washington,

DC., as well as in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. This effort will result

in cost savings for the U.S. taxpayer and improved productivity for the EPA

workforce.

In summary, effectively discharging the responsibilities of the Office of Administration and Resources Management is critical to meeting EPA’s mission. I believe

that it is in the best interest of EPA and the public to integrate mission goals and

effective management. If confirmed, I pledge to bring the full weight of my experience and abilities in order to further that integration.

Let me close by expressing my appreciation to the committee for your recognition

of and support for the Agency’s vital mission. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I’d like to thank my parents, who are here today, for their continued love and support. I’d also like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members

of the committee for the courtesies extended to them today. At this time, I would

be pleased to take any questions that you may have.
43
44
45
46
47
48

RESPONSES BY ROMULO L. DIAZ, JR., TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR

INHOFE

The EPA’s Environmental Justice program has come under increased scrutiny, particularly since the issuance of the February policy. That policy has been roundly

criticized by groups including: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Black Chamber

of Commerce, Western Governors Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National

Association of Counties, National Association of Black County Officials, and the Environmental Commission of the States. The Agency has also been accused of withholding reports which are critical of the policy.

Question 1. If you were to be confirmed as the Official in charge of the Office of Environmental Justice, how would you plan on addressing the concerns raised by

these groups?

Answer. Senator, if confirmed as Assistant Administrator for Administration and

Resources Management, I would have responsibility for a broad range of functions

including: management of human resources; information technology; contracts;

grants; employee health, safety, and security; and facilities construction. These responsibilities do not encompass the Agency’s Environmental Justice Program.

I have brought your concerns to the attention of the relevant officials at EPA, who

informed me that environmental justice activities are the responsibility of EPA’s Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Environmental Justice. The Office of Civil

Rights addresses Title VI issues under the Civil Rights Act. Much work is underway

to explore how EPA should implement the requirements of Title VI in addressing

complaints from communities in which discrimination has been alleged in the issuance of environmental permits. The Office of Environmental Justice is responsible

for coordinating efforts within the Agency to identify and address disportionately

high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low income populations.

I have emphasized in my testimony the desirability of working collaboratively

with the Agency’s customers and stakeholders, which is a view that I believe is

shared by the senior management of EPA. In particular, I am sensitive to the fact

that you, other Members of Congress, and the stakeholders mentioned in your question should be a part of this collaborative process. It is a priority of the Administrator to see that children’s issues also receive serious attention from the Agency

and these stakeholders.

If you would like further information on the activities of these offices, I would be

happy to work with my EPA counterparts to address your concerns.

Question 2. Recently an EPA employee, Beverly Baker, was quoted in the Washington Post (7/20/98) as saying ‘‘the best hope to improve minority involvement lies

with educating children and getting them involved ‘as young as possible.’ ’’ Considering the prohibition on encouraging lobbying activities, could you explain how the

Agency plans on targeting such education efforts at children and to what extent the

Agency plans ‘‘on getting them involved?’’

Answer. I have been informed that the Agency has several financial assistance

programs available to nonprofit organizations. The Environmental Education Office

focuses on supporting schools in developing programs on environmental justice. In

addition, the Office of Environmental Justice has a Small Grants Program to Communities for nonprofit organizations at the local level, such as schools, grassroots

and community organizations, to introduce the concept of environmental justice to

young people and others. Grants under this program contain a special condition prohibiting lobbying in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circulars

A–122 and A–21. Other approaches to getting young people motivated to educate

themselves about environmental issues have included: (1) sponsoring ‘‘shadowing

program’’ which expose students from local schools to basic environmental science,

computer training, and job skills development in addition to an opportunity to work

on specific EPA-sponsored projects; (2) designing (in conjunction with the Urban

League) an eight-week ‘‘Urban Wall’’ summer program which provides experiences

in water sampling, soil sampling and analysis; and (3) providing guest speakers who

travel from school-to-school to discuss environmental justice issues with the students. These approaches are strictly educational in nature and do not involve any

form of prohibited lobbying. Therefore, the Agency has been able to educate young

people on environmental issues that affect them, their families, and their communities without engaging directly or indirectly in prohibited lobbying activities.

Question 3. Can you explain how your Office will coordinate environmental justice

activities with other Agency programs such as the Brownfields initiative?

Answer. The Office of Administration and Resources Management does not have

responsibility for coordinating environmental justice activities. Overarching responsibility lies with the Office of Environmental Justice. When issues specifically per-
49

tain to Brownfields, the Office of Environmental Justice will coordinate with the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

I understand that the Office of Environmental Justice coordinates its activities

primarily in three ways. First, it has a formal process through Executive Order

12898, which requires EPA and other Federal agencies to develop environmental

justice strategies that describe how they will meet their environmental justice goals,

policies and strategies. The Office also monitors activities through internal Agency

submissions that are received as part of the Agency’s Environmental Justice and

Annual Report. This report allows the Office of Environmental Justice to determine

what additional Agency resources might be offered. The final form of official coordination is through the Environmental Justice Steering Committee which includes

senior level managers from each office, who meet periodically to discuss pressing issues and exchange information.

Question 4. Considering the mounting pressure in opposition to the policy, including criticism from Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer, do you consider it prudent to rescind the policy and involve the affected stakeholders in the development of a new

policy?

Answer. EPA is carefully evaluating all of the comments it has received on the

Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging

Permits from the States, industry, and community organizations. In addition, EPA

has established a Federal Advisory Committee to further advise the Agency on implementation of Title VI and the Interim Guidance. The Committee includes representation from industry, academia, the community, State and local governments,

tribal governments, and environmental groups. This Committee is expected to make

its recommendations by the end of this year. Until any guidance is finalized, the

office of Civil Rights has informed me that EPA’s intent is to continue to apply the

Interim Guidance and EPA’s Title VI regulations to investigate existing complaints.

EPA will not finalize the Interim Guidance without fully considering all comments

received as well as the recommendations from the Committee.

Should you desire, I would be glad to work with the Agency’s Office of Civil Rights

and Office of Environmental Justice to provide you with additional information on

any of these issues.

RESPONSES BY ROMULO L. DIAZ, JR. TO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR

DIRK KEMPTHORNE

Question 1. As Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources, you

will be in a position to account for the division of expenditures amongst various environmental programs in every EPA Region in the country. As a Senator from

Idaho, I would like to be informed of how EPA Region 10 is currently allocating expenditures, and how it predicts it will allocate expenditures over the next 5 years.

Would you be able to obtain this information for my reference?

Answer. Senator, if confirmed as Assistant Administrator for Administration and

Resources Management, I would have responsibility for a broad range of functions

including: management of human resources; information technology; contracts;

grants; employee health, safety, and security; and facilities construction. These responsibilities do not encompass the allocation or accounting for financial resources

among and within EPA’s ten regional offices, which is the responsibility of the Agency’s Chief Financial Officer.

With respect to Region 10, I have been informed by the Chief Financial Officer

that the Balanced Budget Agreement provides stable funding for EPA’s operating

programs for the next several years. For example, the President’s Budget request

for FY 1999 reflects the Balanced Budget Agreement.

The attached chart displays State Grant funding for the State of Idaho for fiscal

years 1997, and 1998, as well as proposed funding for 1999. These numbers are consistent with data contained in the Budget Information by States Report which is

part of the President’s Budget submission to Congress each year. Proposed funding

for these State grants are formulated by the Agency’s National Program Managers

who have responsibility for the different categories of grants.

Once a final budget is enacted into law, the National Program Managers issue

budget amounts to the EPA Regional offices for final allocation to the States. It is

because of this process that a 5 year projection is not available for State funding.

State Grant flexibility is provided through the Use of Performance Partnership

Grants which allow States to combine one or more of the grants listed below and

spend the money on the highest priority areas for that State.
50

STATEMENT OF J. CHARLES FOX, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to be here today as the President’s nominee for Assistant Administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency. I am pleased that Administrator Carol Browner asked me to take on

the challenge and responsibility of administering the Nation’s clean water and safe

drinking water programs. I look forward to the opportunity to work closely with this

committee and Congress to improve the stewardship of our Nation’s water resources. My career in the environmental policy arena in Washington and in the State of Maryland spans 15 years. As a Federal official, State official, and representative of

nonprofit environmental organizations, I have dedicated my professional career to

working on water issues on behalf of the American public. I look forward to continuing this work on a bipartisan basis with this committee.

My experience with both Federal and State governments has focused on finding

cleaner, cheaper, and smarter ways to achieve our Nation’s environmental goals,

and I will continue this work with the Office of Water. As the Assistant Secretary

for the Maryland Department of the Environment, I directed a comprehensive permit reform initiative that provided Maryland businesses with more timely and predictable results, while at the same time allowing State resources to be deployed

more efficiently. I also coordinated a multi-agency environmental goal-setting effort

to foster collaboration among State agencies and to enhance accountability to the

public and the State legislature. This effort was very similar to the activities carried

out by the EPA pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

As the Associate Administrator for Reinvention at the EPA, I worked to improve

environmental information, reduce paperwork burdens, and implement the Agency’s

regulatory reform agenda. In the information area, for example, EPA is implementing a detailed program that will improve data accuracy, enhance public access, and

reduce burdens on State government and the private sector. These types of common

sense, cost-effective reforms characterize much of the work I accomplished in the Office of Reinvention.

I would like to talk briefly about the challenges confronting our Nation’s water

programs. Twenty-five years after the passage of the Clean Water Act and the Safe

Drinking Water Act, we stand on a critical threshold. We have made remarkable

progress in assuring safe drinking water and cleaning up the Nation’s rivers, lakes,

streams, and coasts. However, 40 percent of the waters assessed by States and

tribes do not yet meet water quality goals. And, too many people are exposed to potentially harmful drinking water.

Under the bipartisan leadership of this committee, President Clinton and Congress have articulated a clear agenda for drinking water by strengthening the Safe

Drinking Water Act. And, in February of this year, the President proposed a Clean

Water Action Plan that describes 10 general principles for strengthening clean

water programs with over 100 specific new actions. As Assistant Administrator for

Water, my top priority will be to support the effective implementation of the Safe

Drinking Water Act Amendments and the Clean Water Action Plan. I see five key

themes that will most need attention.

(1) Maintain Core Programs—The additional responsibilities associated within the

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments and the Clean Water Action Plan are based

on the premise that the core clean water and drinking water programs remain

strong. We need to assure the financial integrity of clean water and drinking water

State revolving loan funds. We must continue to work with our State partners to

improve implementation of the discharge permitting and public water supply system

programs. We must implement effective programs to prevent pollution, including the

source water protection program and the nonpoint pollution control program.

(2) Define Environmental Goals—The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments and

the Clean Water Action Plan both stress the need to improve efforts to define goals

and standards for clean and safe water. We need to make the new drinking water

contaminant selection process a shining success and we need to assure that we use

sound science in developing new drinking water standards under the guidelines established by Congress.

To achieve the Nation’s clean water goals, we must support State and tribal efforts to expand and improve water quality standards by providing them with the

best scientific information about pollutants. Special attention must be paid to the

development of water quality standards for nutrients and biological water quality

criteria.

(3) Restore Water Quality Using the Watershed Approach—Under the Clean

Water Action Plan, States and tribes are now completing their unified watershed
51

assessments and new resources will be directed to those watersheds not meeting

clean water goals. We are encouraging States and tribes to approach these restoration efforts on a watershed basis. We also need to expand policy tools and incentives

to encourage Federal, State, tribal, and local governments to form partnerships

dedicated to resolving water quality problems on a watershed basis.

(4) Build Inter-Governmental Partnerships—EPA, acting alone, cannot protect

and restore clean water and drinking water quality. Under the Clean Water Act and

Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA delegates major program responsibility to State

agencies. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments created new State revolving

loan funds for financing drinking water systems and the Clean Water Action Plan

proposed significant new funding for State and tribal efforts. I am determined to

provide the resources States and tribes need to succeed, so that we can achieve our

environmental and public health goals by working together.

Implementation of the Clean Water Action Plan requires an unprecedented level

of coordination at all levels of government, particularly among Federal agencies.

EPA is working with USDA to coordinate efforts related to animal feeding operations and to foster stewardship of natural resources (including developing buffer

strips). We are working with NOAA to expand joint coastal protection. We continue

to work with the Army Corps of Engineers to protect wetlands. I hope to continue

and expand these efforts.

(5) Improve Public Access to Information—Both the Safe Drinking Water Act

Amendments and the Clean Water Action Plan include new initiatives to improve

the public’s right to know about the condition of surface water and drinking water.

Informing the public about the health of rivers, lakes, and coastal waters where

they live and the quality of the water they drink is extremely important and I will

work with States, tribes, and other stakeholders to make these efforts a success.

In addition to this current focus on coordinating Federal water resource protection

and restoration efforts, the Office of Water has established a strong track record of

reaching out to its State, tribal, and local government partners, as well as to industry and environmental interest groups. I am committed to continuing this tradition

and to achieving the broadest possible participation to develop effective, workable

solutions with those most affected by our actions.

Let me close by expressing my appreciation to the committee, particularly the

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, for the opportunity to appear before you

today. I am eager to apply my energy and experience toward this new mission and

to work with Congress. If confirmed, I will consider it a great honor and a privilege

to work with the members of this committee toward achieving the Nation’s goals

for clean and safe water. I would be pleased to respond to any questions from the

committee at this time.
52
53
54
55
56
57

RESPONSES BY J. CHARLES FOX TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR KEMPTHORNE

Question 1. My home State of Idaho is currently engaged in the task of setting

total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs, for more than 700 bodies of water in the

State. How do you see the TMDL process proceeding over the next few years, particularly with regard to the implementation of the Administration’s Clean Water Action Plan?

Answer. I am hopeful that the TMDL program will provide an important technical

and analytical basis for improving the condition of the Nation’s waters through watershed-based management approaches.

EPA has taken a number of steps in recent years to improve the TMDL program.

For example, in November, 1996, EPA established a Federal Advisory Committee

Act committee on the TMDL program to provide recommendations to EPA concerning needed changes to EPA’s regulations and guidance. The Committee’s final report

was released on July 28, 1998, and I am reviewing the recommendations of this diverse group of talented people in considering changes to EPA’s regulations.

In August 1997, EPA established two new policies related to the pace of TMDL

development and implementation. Under these policies, EPA is calling for States to

develop 8–13 year schedules for developing TMDLs for all listed waters and to implement TMDLs, particularly nonpoint source TMDLs. EPA has increased the technical assistance being provided to States and is developing computer applications

and data bases to improve the efficiency of the analytical elements of the process.
58

The Clean Water Action Plan focuses on a watershed approach for restoring and protecting water resources. Because TMDLs specify the amount of a pollutant that

needs to be reduced to meet State water quality standards, and allocates pollutant

loads among pollution sources in a watershed. TMDLs are one of many important

tools that States will use to improve water quality on a watershed-by-watershed

basis. The Plan calls for States to develop Unified Watershed Assessments by October 1998. The assessments will, among other things, identify and prioritize watersheds needing restoration, to which increased resources, including Sec. 319 grants

will be directed. In creating the assessments, States will use and coordinate a variety of existing information sources and processes, including State agricultural conservation priority areas, nonpoint source assessments, drinking water assessments,

and section 303(d) lists and schedules for TMDL development. In addition, the

TMDL process is important for carrying out several other action items in the Plan.

The Action Plan, for example, calls for EPA to use the TMDL program to evaluate

the links between air emissions and water quality impacts of nutrient overenrichment and help determine appropriate nutrient reduction actions.

Question 2. As you may be aware, States dealing with the TMDL process are enthusiastic about the possibilities of using effluent trading to achieve TMDL goals.

Do you believe that effluent trading is a reasonable tool to help reach TMDL goals?

Would this option be encouraged by the EPA Office of Water under your leadership?

Answer. I believe that effluent trading can be used to help achieve water quality

goals. To be effective, effluent trading requires reliable analytical and management

frameworks, including accountability mechanisms. The TMDL framework is one of

many tools which can be used as a basis for successful trading.

The TMDL process establishes the baseline pollutant reduction necessary to

achieve water quality standards. This provides a starting point for comparing the

costs of the pollutant reductions associated with the TMDL to alternative pollutant

allocation schemes that also meet water quality goals. In this way, TMDLs facilitate

identification of the economic and water quality benefits of various pollutant reduction allocation schemes that can be used for an effective trading program.

The Office of Water is currently encouraging, and, under my leadership, will continue to encourage and support, pilot effluent trading projects throughout the United States, including those in Idaho. These pilot projects will help us understand the

key opportunities and barriers to using effluent trading to meet our Nation’s water

quality goals.

Question 3. Over the last decade, the EPA has allocated funds to reduce pollution

caused by point source discharges. In light of the current focus on water quality impairments associated with nonpoint source pollution, is the EPA prepared to concentrate similar resources to assist those working to improve water quality in accordance with the nonpoint source program?

Answer. Nonpoint source pollution is the largest remaining cause of water quality

impairment in the United States. Consequently, EPA is focusing increasing resources on helping to solve this problem. For example, the President’s FY 1999

budget request to Congress proposes increasing nonpoint source grants to States

under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act from $105 million in FY 1998 to $200

million in FY 1999. EPA has also committed itself to working with States to increase their use of State Revolving Loan Funds to implement nonpoint source controls. We note as well that our partners in the U.S. Department of Agriculture also

implement very important programs to control nonpoint source pollution. The President’s FY 1999 budget request proposes increasing the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, implemented by USDA under the 1996 Farm bill, from $200 million to $300 million.

RESPONSES BY J. CHARLES FOX TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. In the wake of the Wilson Wetlands Decision, how do you view the

current Wetlands program which varies according to the Federal Circuit? Do you

consider it important to develop a new national program? Do you consider legislation necessary to address the Wilson case? If not, please describe in detail how the

Agency would obtain a new national program.

Answer. The Wilson decision (United States v. Wilson, 133 F. 3d 251 (4th Cir.

1997)) found that a Corps’ regulation asserting Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction

over isolated waters on the basis that their degradation ‘‘could’’ affect interstate

commerce was unauthorized by the CWA as limited by the Commerce clause, and

therefore invalid. Although within the Fourth Circuit the agencies will no longer

cite or rely upon the invalidated regulation, we will continue to assert jurisdiction

on the basis of the CWA itself where; (1) an actual link between the isolated water
59

body in question and interstate or foreign commerce is established; and (2) individually and/or in the aggregate, the use, degradation or destruction of isolated waters

with such a link has or would have a substantial effect on interstate or foreign commerce. This approach is consistent with the holding in the Wilson case and ensures

that isolated waters with the requisite link to interstate commerce which are located

within the Fourth Circuit continue to be subject to CWA jurisdiction. While the Wilson decision is at odds with most other decisions on the scope of

CWA jurisdiction, as noted above EPA and the Corps will continue to assert jurisdiction over isolated waters within the Fourth Circuit in a manner to ensure valuable waters are protected. Ultimately, jurisdiction over isolated waters is critically

important as these waters provide a wide range of functions that are valuable and

worthy of protection, including floodwater retention, sediment and nutrient retention, habitat for waterfowl and other species, and groundwater recharge. As one example on the national level, prairie potholes are capable of storing large volumes

of snowmelt or runoff, and because they have no natural surface outlets, this stored

water does not contribute to local flooding. As much as half the waterfowl of North

America are believed to originate from the prairie pothole region, generating economic benefits related to hunting in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Both the CWA’s legislative history and court opinions recognize that the Federal Executive Branch was meant to assert broad CWA jurisdiction over waters of the

United States subject to Federal constitutional authority (primarily the authority of

the ‘‘Commerce Clause’’ of the U.S. Constitution). Although EPA and the Corps believe that the Wilson case was wrongly decided, our objective is to continue to main- tain a strong program for protection of isolated waters across the country. We do

not believe that any legislative changes are needed either to address the isolated

waters aspects of the Wilson decision or to provide for development of a new national program for protection of isolated waters for us to continue achieving this objective.

Question 2. Please discuss the role of the EPA veto in the wetlands process. In terms of timing (in relation to a permit filing), when is it appropriate for the agency

to first raise concerns that a veto may be necessary? When is it appropriate for the

Agency to voice objections to a permit? Answer. Under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, the Administrator of EPA

has the authority to prohibit or restrict the discharge of dredged or fill material into

a defined area of waters of the United States, after public notice and opportunity

for public hearing. This authority includes the ability to ‘‘veto’’ or otherwise restrict

Corps issuance of a Section 404 permit based on a written determination that a proposed discharge will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas, wildlife, or recreational areas. EPA has used its Section 404(c) authority sparingly; in fact, this Administration has not issued a single final determination under 404(c). Early, frequent and effective communication among Federal and State agencies and permit applicants is fundamental to appropriate resolution of environmental concerns. These communications should articulate clearly and consistently the concerns or objections of the

Agency.

Question 3. Do you consider mitigation to be an appropriate vehicle for wetlands

preservation?

Answer. Under the Section 404 program, compensatory mitigation is required to

offset wetland losses after all appropriate and practicable steps have been taken to

first avoid and minimize wetland impacts. Mitigation banking can be used as an effective form of compensatory mitigation to offset the remaining unavoidable impacts

when use of a bank is environmentally preferable or when there is no practicable

opportunity for on-site compensation. In addition, under exceptional circumstances,

the Corps of engineers will accept wetlands preservation as mitigation; although,

the acreage required by be higher than if wetlands creation, enhancement or restoration is proposed.

Question 4. The EPA’s GPRA called for 100,000 new acres of wetlands per year;

how does the Agency propose accomplishing this?

Answer. Consistent with the President’s Clean Water Action Plan released earlier

this year, the goal of achieving a net gain of 100,000 acres of wetlands per year by

2005 will be accomplished by ensuring that wetland losses continue to decline while

encouraging the use of restoration initiatives in Federal programs in coordination

with State and private partnerships. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has

been required.

In addition to the EPA’s efforts, some important programs in other Federal agencies will also help to achieve the goal of a net increase of wetlands acreage by 2005.
60

The Wetlands Reserve Program, for example, has set out to restore 975,000 acres

by 2002, with additional gains expected from the Conservation Reserve Program

and the Partners for Wildlife program. The restoration provisions contained in the

North American Wetlands Conservation Act are also expected to leverage additional

gains in wetlands acreage. Finally, public-private partnerships led by Ducks Unlimited and Partners in Flight will provide important wetland acreage gains as well.

RESPONSES BY J. CHARLES FOX TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR ALLARD

Question 1. What activities is the Office of Water undertaking to ensure full implementation of a Performance Based Measurement System (PBMS) in accordance

with the directive issued by Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen? Can you inform

the committee when the Office of Water expects to release its implementation plan?

Answer. The Office of Water, in cooperation with the Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assistance, is developing a Performance Based Measurement System

(PBMS) Implementation plan that will allow use of any method that is validated

to meet program- or project-specific performance criteria and which removes the requirement to use approved methods, except for method-defined analyses. The approach meets EPA’s PBMS goals, and Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen approved

it during an August 7, 1998 meeting.

The Office of Water will implement the PBMS plan through a final rulemaking

package that will be published in the Federal Register by the end of the calendar

year. A summary of the plan will soon be placed on the Internet on the home page

of the Office of Science and Technology (OST) in the Office of Water.
(61)

NOMINATIONS OF TERRENCE L. BRACY AND

NORINE E. NOONAN

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1998

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:01 a.m. in room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of the

committee) presiding. Present: Senators Chafee, Warner, Baucus, and Graham.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Senator CHAFEE. I want to welcome everyone here this morning. I like to start on time; somebody once told me that more people will

catch the train if it always leaves on time than if it leaves a bit

late.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to consider two nominations.

The first nomination is that of Mr. Terrence L. Bracy, to be re- appointed as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K.

Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy

Foundation. That’s a long one, isn’t it?

The second nomination is that of Dr. Norine Noonan, to be the

Assistant Administrator for Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency.

I am pleased to welcome everyone, and in particular our two

nominees, Mr. Bracy and Dr. Noonan. I also welcome Senators

McCain and Warner, who will introduce Mr. Bracy, and they will

be along shortly. Senator Graham, who is a member of the committee, will introduce Dr. Noonan.

It is my pleasure to report that both nominees have impressive

backgrounds and are highly qualified for the positions before them.

Terrence Bracy was initially appointed by President Clinton to the

Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Foundation in 1994, and

has been nominated by the President to serve a second term on the

Board. Mr. Bracy also was elected the first chair of the Foundation’s Board. Mr. Bracy currently is chief executive officer of Bracy

Williams & Co., a Washington-based consultancy with a clientele

that includes Fortune 500 companies, major U.S. cities, Native

American tribes, Asian and European concerns, and the U.S. Government. Prior to this position Mr. Bracy served in a number of capacities, including time as a legislative assistant to Congressman

Udall from 1966 to 1976. In this position he played an important

role in the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Act; the Campaign
62

Reform Acts of 1971 and 1974; and numerous other environmental

bills.

In addition, Mr. Bracy holds an undergraduate degree from St.

Louis University and a Master of Arts degree in Government from

the University of Arizona, and has been published in many wellrespected journals and has appeared as a guest lecturer at the

Brookings Institute and at Harvard University.

The Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation was established by Congress in

1992 as a nonprofit organization committed to educating a new

generation of Americans to preserve and protect their national heritage by the recruitment and preparation of individuals skilled in

effective environmental public policy and conflict resolution. Thus

far, 125 undergraduate students throughout the United States

have been named Morris K. Udall Scholars and have been awarded

scholarships of up to $5,000 a piece. Just this year, the Foundation

has been given a new mission by the Environmental Policy and

Conflict Resolution Act of 1998. The Foundation will serve as an

executive branch resource to solve important environmental disputes without resorting to litigation.

Dr. Noonan is nominated to be the EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Research and Development. The Assistant Administrator

for R&D serves as the principal science advisor to the Administrator of EPA, and is responsible for the development, direction,

and conduct of national research development and demonstration

programs in a series of areas, including pollution sources and

health and welfare effects.

In addition, the person in this position advises the Administration on pollution prevention and control, waste management, utilization technology, environmental sciences, and monitoring systems.

Dr. Noonan has an impressive background. Since 1992 she has

served as dean of the Graduate School and is currently vice president for Research at Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne,

FL. From 1987 to 1992 Dr. Noonan was Chief of the Science and

Space Programs Branch of the Energy and Science Division, Office

of Management and Budget, OMB. In addition, she served as

American Chemical Society Congressional Service Fellow for the

Senate Commerce Committee. She received her B.A. summa cum

laude in zoology from the University of Vermont, and her M.A. and

Ph.D. degrees in cell biology from Princeton. She is a member of

the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Society for Cell Biology, Sigma Xi, and Phi Beta Kappa.

Both of these positions pose challenges. I am confident that each

is prepared to face what is required of each of them. I look forward

to today’s hearing.

After the statements of Senator Baucus and other committee

members, we will hear from Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham, followed by Mr. Bracy and Dr. Noonan.

Senator CHAFEE. Senator Baucus.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join

you in welcoming Mr. Bracy this morning who has been nominated
63

to serve a second term on the Udall Foundation Board. I believe

this demonstrates Mr. Bracy’s commitment to the Foundation and,

I presume, his admiration and his respect for his former boss, our

former colleague, Mo Udall.

As the great champion for so many environmental issues, it is

only fitting that the Foundation continue its work with the help of

one of Mo’s most trusted aides. The Foundation was established to

educate a new generation of Americans to preserve and protect our

national heritage, no small matter.

Based on the successful performance of the Foundation, last year

this committee passed a bill creating the United States Institute

for Environmental Conflict Resolution within the Foundation to

help resolve environmental conflicts when the Federal Government

is a participant in the conflict.

We look forward to your testimony, Mr. Bracy. We know you’ve

done a good job already. Maybe you can give us a few thoughts

about what’s been working, what you’re working on, and your assessment of the work of the Foundation to date. We’re glad that

you’re here.

I also join in welcoming Dr. Noonan, the President’s nominee to

be Assistant Administrator for Research and Development at EPA.

Dr. Noonan has a very impressive resume, ranging from Assistant Professor of Veterinary Medicine to Budget Analyst for Science

and Space Programs at OMB. I am anxious to hear how one goes

from veterinary medicine to space.

[Laughter.]

Senator BAUCUS. Your experiences certainly give you a broad

base of knowledge, which I view as critical in assuming the position

for which you have been nominated.

The EPA is responsible for making so many decisions based on

science, or what is now being referred to as ‘‘peer-reviewed,’’ or

‘‘sound science,’’ which makes your job a critical one. Determining

the agency’s research priorities for drinking water, for air, for hazardous waste, while complying with the law, will be a challenge.

I am anxious to hear your testimony and your ideas, and I meant

what I said about the importance of your position, particularly in

research in science, which is probably the underpinning of almost

everything that we do—not only in EPA, but in environmental law.

Frankly, I admire your courage and admiration for taking on such

a challenging job.

Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Senator Baucus.

Senator Bob Graham.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GRAHAM, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am particularly pleased today to have the opportunity to introduce a fellow Floridian, Dr. Norine Noonan, who the President has

nominated to be the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency. Ms. Noonan is

joined today by her godson, Alexander Kemnitzer, who is here, and

I would like to recognize him; Alexander has taken the day off from

school in order to join us here today, and I appreciate his doing so.
64

Mr. Chairman and Senator Baucus, you have already given a

substantial amount of Dr. Noonan’s biography. I will not be repetitive, other than to say how proud we are that she is a Floridian

and has spent a considerable amount of her academic career at institutions in our State, currently serving as vice president for Research and dean of the Graduate School at Florida Institute of

Technology in Melbourne, FL.

She does, as Senator Baucus has said, take on a very important

position. There is no phrase that is more used in this committee

than ‘‘good policy based on good science,’’ and we will be depending

in large part on Dr. Noonan and her colleagues to provide us with

that good science.

I am very pleased the President has made this wise decision, and

I hope that this committee will quickly confirm her nomination.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Senator Graham.

Senator John McCain—we welcome you, Senator McCain. I believe you have a statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF ARIZONA

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator

Baucus, Senator Graham.

I am pleased this morning to introduce you and your colleagues

to Mr. Terry Bracy, who is accompanied by his wife, Nancy, for the

purpose of your approval of his nomination for reappointment to

the Board of the Udall Foundation.

Mr. Chairman, I have known Terry since my election to the

House in 1982. He was a key aide and advisor to my good friend

and former colleague, Mo Udall, a man who was so respected and

admired by the Congress that when he had to retire because of the

ravages of Parkinson’s Disease, we established an educational foundation in his name to carry on a legacy of wise environmental policy and opportunities for Native American leadership training and

education.

Terry was elected chair of the Foundation’s Board in 1994 and

he has done such an exceptional job that when we developed the

legislation creating the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict

Resolution, we placed the Institute within the Udall Foundation

because we knew it would succeed with Terry’s leadership.

The Morris K. Udall Foundation is a success story. The Udall

Foundation operates on a shoestring, with a staff of only three; but

in the last 3 years they have awarded 200 college scholarships and

4 graduate scholarships; created the first ever Native American

Congressional Internship Program which has served 32 Native

Americans, some of whom are now in key leadership positions in

their tribes; sponsored three major national hearings on the environment and Indian health issues; and helped create the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution from scratch. This could

only have been done with a very active and dedicated Board of

Trustees under keen leadership.

Mr. Chairman, Terry Bracy has put his heart into the Udall

Foundation, offering his considerable expertise and resources—and,

of course, at no cost to the taxpayers. I can’t give a more meaningful tribute to Terry than to say that I am sure that if Mo Udall
65

were sitting here now, he would tell you that he is proud of the

work Terry has done on his behalf and would urge you to make

this reappointment, and I agree.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Senator McCain. Now, I know you

have further appointments, as I believe Senator Graham has, so

feel free to move on to those if you so choose.

Now, if each of the nominees will please come forward, Mr. Bracy

and Dr. Noonan.

I believe, Mr. Bracy, you have your family with you, do you?

Mr. BRACY. Yes. I have my wife, Nancy.

Senator CHAFEE. All right. We welcome you, Mrs. Bracy.

Do you have a statement, Mr. Bracy?

STATEMENT OF TERRENCE L. BRACY, NOMINATED BY THE

PRESIDENT TO BE REAPPOINTED AS A MEMBER OF THE

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

POLICY FOUNDATION

Mr. BRACY. Senator Chafee, Senator Baucus, Senator Graham, I

have a written statement which is available to you. Let me summarize it quickly, if I may.

Senator CHAFEE. Fine.

Mr. BRACY. First of all, I want to thank Senator McCain for that

wonderful introduction—probably not as deserved as it could be,

but I think we have been successful. It’s been a wonderful experience. I love Mo Udall; he’s very much like a father figure to me,

and this has been a wonderful way to pay him back and at the

same time contribute something to the next generation.

I also want to thank the members of this committee for their involvement in the Foundation. Several members of this committee,

and particularly Senator Baucus, have taken a real interest in our

Native American youngsters.

Senator Baucus, you will be interested to know that Margaret

Flores, who I believe was the first Udall Native American scholar

to be mentored in your office, came back to Washington State to

represent the Pascua Yaqui tribe. Recently, she has since won a

scholarship to law school.

So we are seeing a real pattern of development in all these Native American interns, and it’s a wonderful thing.

Senator Chafee, thank you and your staff for the involvement

with the U.S. Institute. We received a lot of guidance from your

staff; we worked closely with them in developing this program.

Briefly, the Udall Foundation is both like the Goldwater and

Truman Foundations, and unlike them. It is like them in that

we’re an educational institution. We have a series of programs, already described by Senator McCain. A few amendments to that; we

have now awarded 220 scholarships. This program of juniors and

seniors going into the environmental field has become one of the

most popular scholarships in the Federal family. I’d like to think

it’s because of our brilliance, I really think it’s attributable to the

power of the environmental issue for the next generation.

An interesting statistic on that. Of our scholars—and I wouldn’t

have guessed this—about 70 percent are women, and of the women,
66

about 70 percent of the women are science majors. This demographic is indicative of the rich and profound change our society is

undergoing.

The Native American Internship Program has been mentioned.

It’s been enormously successful. Half the interns serve in Democratic offices, half in Republican. We get three slots at the White

House. It’s been warmly received.

We are launching a new program this year called ‘‘Parks in

Focus,’’ where we will target younger children in the center cities.

We have partnered with Canon and Kodak, and we’re going to take

them out—with the help of Boys and Girls Clubs, the National

Park Service, and the National Parks—for long weekends, give

them cameras, have photography contests back in their schools,

and so on. It’s a wonderful program.

Senator CHAFEE. Mr. Bracy, I wonder if—Senator Warner is

here, and I just want to let him make his statement because he has

to chair a Rules Committee hearing in just a few minutes.

So, Senator?

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can speak very

quickly.

I have known the candidate for a long time.

I ask that my statement be placed in the record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE COMMONWEALTH

OF VIRGINIA

The Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy

foundation was established in Congress in 1992 to honor Morris Udall’s 30 years

of service in the House of Representatives. The Udall Foundation is a non-profit organization committed to educating a new generation of Americans to preserve and

protect their national heritage by the recruitment and preparation of individuals

skilled in effective environmental public policy conflict resolution, as well as issues

related to Native Americans.

Before us today is Terrence L. Bracy renominated to be on the Board of Trustees

for the Morris K. Udall Foundation Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy. As he has served for the last 4 years as Chair of the Morris K. Udall

Foundation’s Board of Trustees and had the privilege to serve under Morris K.

Udall for 10 years, I find him unequally qualified for this reappointment.

Congressman Udall is known as a man whose career was marked by civility, integrity and consensus. Terry Bracy follows in the footsteps of his previous boss.

Terry Bracy will continue as a member of the board of trustees to focus on increasing recognition of environmental issues, granting undergraduate scholarships

for majors in fields related to environmental public policy and to Native Americans

and Alaskan natives in fields relating to public policy on Indian reservations. Terry

is well acquainted with the issues facing the Alaskan natives, as he worked on the

Alaska Native Claims Act, while serving as a legislative assistant for Morris Udall.

Under Terry Bracy’s management, I believe that the Morris K. Udall’s foundation

will continue to identify students in need of college scholarships, fellowships and internships to further this most worthy foundation’s goals.

• Terry Bracy is a resident of McLean, Virginia.

• Wife—Nancy Bracy—children—Michael, 30 years old and Timothy, 24 years

old.

• CEO; Bracy Williams & Company; Washington, DC; 1982—present.

• Government Affairs Consultant; Alcalde, Henderson O’Bannon & Bracy; Washington, DC; 1977–1979.

• Legislative Assistant; Representative Morris K. Udall; Washington, DC; 1966–

1976.

Senator WARNER. I had the privilege of sharing a bit of life with

this distinguished person whom we honor today in this Foundation,
67

and listening to your report, I’m glad that it’s become a viable and

a constructive organization and contributes to the greater welfare.

My only urging is to reproduce that book, the humor that he had,

and see if there’s any scrap of it left that is unpublished and get

that out. We need a little humor on the Hill.

[Laughter.]

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. OK, fine. Thank you.

All right, Mr. Bracy. Thank you for letting him go. Why don’t you

continue? You were talking about giving these youngsters cameras.

Mr. BRACY. What we’re trying to do with our educational programs is have sort of life-changing experiences for these kids. For

the Native American kids, the juniors and seniors in college going

on to environmental careers, and now the younger group,

particulary the kids in the core cities. Mo always felt that if you

could somehow reach in to the core cities and give these youngsters

a feel for the environment at an early age, that it could have a lifeinfluencing effect. So we’re trying to do that.

We also do conferences. We have national conferences every year.

For example, this October we will have probably the largest national conference ever assembled on Native American health care,

looking toward the era of privatization.

All these things we do, but we also, as you know, are launching

in October, Senator Chafee, based on S. 399 which this committee

authored and sent to us, a new Mediation Center for Environmental Conflict within the Federal Government—a place inside the

Federal family but outside the Beltway, actually located in Tucson,

where we’ll try to help settle some of these environmental disputes

that are raging in the courts but have clogged things up and aren’t

moving.

I described our management process leading up to the opening

of this to your staff yesterday. It’s been quite a management exercise; I’ve never put together a Federal agency before, and hope I

never will again. But in any event, it’s an exciting possibility——

Senator CHAFEE. You mean this conflict resolution effort?

Mr. BRACY. Yes, sir. This will begin in October, assuming our

funding comes through, which is expected. We are ready to go in

October. It will take us about 3 months to gear up with our fulltime staff, but we will be ready to go, and we will be in full operation by January of next year.

Can these conflicts be solved? What percentage of them can be

solved? I don’t know. I can only report to the committee that we

are not yet open for business, but they are lined up at the door.

Indian tribes, Federal agencies, State agencies, several big utilities,

and so on, are all asking for our services before we can even provide them. So this may be an indication that the committee was

correct in anticipating this need.

Let me stop there. You have another nominee. You have heard

enough from me. I am here and happy to answer any questions.

I just want to say again that it is a real privilege and an honor

to walk a little bit in Mo Udall’s shadow and to work with this

committee on matters of real national interest. It’s a great time for

me, and for my wife, to do this kind of thing. I am really enjoying
68

it. I hope that I’ve done a good job and that you’ll give me a chance

to continue.

Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you.

All right. What I’d like to do now is have Dr. Noonan, and then

if we get any questions, we will ask either or both of you.

Dr. Noonan, if you have a statement, go to it.

STATEMENT OF NORINE E. NOONAN, NOMINATED BY THE

PRESIDENT TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Ms. NOONAN. I do, Senator, and I submitted it to the committee

for the record. Let me summarize rather briefly.

Let me first thank you very much for this opportunity to present

myself and my qualifications for this position of Assistant Administrator for Research and Development at EPA. I am very deeply

honored to have been nominated by the President for this position,

and I very much understand the importance of this position in assuring that sound science, and highest quality science, is done in

the service of environmental protection. It is with great humility

and a sense of great responsibility that I undertake this job.

I want to just expand a little bit on what you have already been

so kind to say about my resume. Once I completed my doctorate in

cell biology at Princeton, I accepted a position as a charter faculty

member at the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of

Florida. I have to say at this point, ‘‘Go, Gators.’’

My research centered on the process that changed normal cells

to malignant cells. I was a successful researcher and teacher at

U.F., and I’m most proud to tell you that one of my very first students has become the first University of Florida graduate to be

elected president of the Florida Veterinary Medical Association.

When I came to Washington because of family circumstances,

and as a result of my lifelong interest in public policy, I sought and

was offered an opportunity to work on Capitol Hill as an American

Chemical Society Congressional Science Fellow. In fact, I worked in

the Russell and Hart Senate Office Buildings for the Senate Commerce Committee, so this appearance brings me back to familiar

territory.

After that year on the Hill, I moved to OMB. In 1987 I was promoted to Branch Chief for Science and Space. In this job I had

budget responsibility for all of NSF, all of NASA, several smaller

agencies, and the task of being the lead person for preparing all

the analyses for the President’s budget on Federal R&D.

My former branch continues to have those responsibilities, as

well as the responsibility—which we started—of coordinating interagency R&D efforts in a wide variety of areas, including high performance computing and communications; science and math education; and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

For the past 6 years I have been a university administrator and,

once again, a faculty member at a research university. I have the

responsibility in its entirety for research on my campus, including

technology transfer, and I now have firsthand knowledge of how

Federal agencies deal with universities as performers of R&D.
69

I also have ‘‘cradle to grave,’’ responsibility for nearly 1,000 graduate students on our main campus, about 30 percent of whom are

doctoral students, and over 1,000 more at our off-campus graduate

centers around the country, including one here in the Washington,

D.C. area.

This position has allowed me to be intimately involved with the

important process of fostering the linkage between research and

graduate education, and in participating first-hand in a system

that is the envy of the world. It is a system which produces not

only our Nation’s future scholars and innovators, but a significant

percentage of the world’s scholars and innovators.

And I would like to say here that the increased emphasis that

ORD has placed on supporting this education process by starting

a graduate fellowship program and by expanding the recruitment

of postdoctoral researchers for its internal research enterprise is, in

my view, of great importance to maintaining ORD’s long-term future as a leader in core and problem-driven environmental research.

I am proud to say that I played a small part in the early stages

of the Graduate Fellowship Program, and from what I have observed, it is progressing in an extremely positive direction.

For the past 6 years I have also had the honor to serve on several study committees of the National Research Council. I want to

mention just a couple of these.

On the Committee for Antarctic Science and Policy, we dealt

with the appropriate balance between scientific research and environmental protection in the context of the Antarctic Environmental

Protocol. Our committee’s work, I am pleased to say, played a role

in supporting the implementing legislation that enabled the protocol to enter into force.

I also served on the Committee to Develop an Environmental

Management Science Program. We assisted the Department of Energy in developing this basic research program to help the Department underpin its massive cleanup effort. The role of EMSP, is in

some ways, like the role of ORD. EMSP was created to support

high-quality basic research in the service not of regulation, but of

remediation. It was and is essential that the highest-quality basic

research be supported by EMSP, but it was also essential, especially in those early days, that the stakeholders, both inside and

outside of DOE, be involved with the development of EMSP’s general strategies and priorities.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if confirmed, I will

inherit a very sound and healthy organization. I’ve had the opportunity over the past several weeks to meet with some of the ORD

personnel, and I’d like to tell you how impressed I’ve been with

their knowledge, their professionalism, and their dedication. Much

of the credit for this goes to my predecessor, Dr. Robert Huggett.

He not only did a lot of ‘‘heavy lifting’’ in instituting a formal strategic planning process, but in reorganizing the ORD laboratories

under a risk assessment/risk management paradigm.

As I have observed, the ORD strategic planning process is closely

linked to the overall EPA planning process, and to GPRA, the Government Performance and Results Act. In addition, ORD is working

hard to enhance not only its own internal research capabilities,
70

but, through its supportive universities, to involve the Nation’s best

and brightest scientists and engineers in ORD’s programs.

In my opinion, it is essential that we continue on this positive

path. If confirmed, I would make it my goal to do so. ORD’s own

ecological niche is to advance knowledge with a purpose. We must

include in that portfolio a strong base of long-term core research

to develop broadly applicable tools and information. ORD must also

have research programs to address shorter-term problem-driven issues, motivated in many cases by current or pending regulation.

This balanced portfolio strategy has been recommended by the

National Research Council. One example of this balanced strategy

in action is the issue of Children in the Environment. As one major

element of that program, I understand that ORD is collaborating

with the National Institutes of Health and has just funded eight

Centers of Excellence in Children’s Environmental Health at leading research institutions. These Centers will bring together the talents of some of the Nation’s leading researchers in public health

and environmental science, and will also actively involve communities and community groups.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, there are several

themes I want to outline for you briefly that must continue to characterize ORD’s mission:

No. 1, the highest quality science and a strong and stable longterm program of core research; No. 2, a problem-driven research

program, with its priorities set in close cooperation with the regulatory offices; No. 3, development and maintenance of an outstanding cadre of scientists inside EPA; and No. 4, close collaboration

with other agencies, universities, and the private sector.

For myself, if confirmed, I will only do what my late parents

asked of me, my best. It is time, I believe, to cement the institutional and organizational changes that have been made, and to involve all of ORD’s people, as well as as many of our external stakeholders as possible, in the next round of strategic planning.

In my opinion, ORD has vitally important work to do in helping

to address and identify, through research, the environmental issues

our Nation and the world face. If confirmed, I would be committed

to making ORD an organization that bright young scientists want

to work in, where intellectual excitement and commitment to important national goals are inextricably woven into the fabric of

what we do every day.

If confirmed, I look forward to working with you and your colleagues and your staff to achieve these goals, and I would be

pleased to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Dr. Noonan.

Are you willing, at the request of any duly constituted committee

of Congress, to appear in front of it as a witness?

Ms. NOONAN. Absolutely, sir.

Senator CHAFEE. Do you know of any matters which you may or

may not have thus far disclosed which might place you in any conflict of interest if you are confirmed?

Ms. NOONAN. No, sir, I do not.

Senator CHAFEE. I believe in this ORD, the position you have

been nominated for, and just as others have said here, so often we
71

are asked, ‘‘Are the programs which we are talking about based on

sound science?’’

Does your work lead you into consideration of the global warming problems that I think are upon us, but many don’t think can

be justified, that any action, really, is required?

Ms. NOONAN. Senator, EPA is an active participant in the U.S.

Global Change Research Program, which has a broad portfolio of

research activities aimed at answering a lot of questions about the

global environment, including the issue of global warming. The program involves about 12 agencies; EPA is an active player. Yes, sir,

we do have a good portfolio of research and of very active scientists

involved in those research programs.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, I hope you will give your personal attention to those matters.

Ms. NOONAN. I certainly shall.

Senator CHAFEE. I am deeply disturbed over the fact that many

in the Congress believe that there’s nothing there, that there’s

nothing to it, that all the CO2 that’s being spewed into the atmosphere doesn’t really make any difference. I tend to believe it does.

But there’s nothing like having some scientific evidence to support

the views that one has.

Mr. Bracy, you mentioned that you’re getting geared up for this

conflict resolution effort. Now, you hang your hat right here in

Washington?

Mr. BRACY. I go back and forth. We have hired a director, Dr.

Kirk Emerson, who is a mediation specialist. I live here, but I go

back and forth to Tucson quite frequently.

Senator CHAFEE. It’s hard for many people to realize that Mo

Udall is still alive. He’s bedridden, in effect, is he?

Mr. BRACY. It’s very sad.

Senator CHAFEE. It’s Parkinson’s, is it?

Mr. BRACY. It’s the last stages of Parkinson’s Disease. It isn’t

pretty.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, most of us saw him in his prime. I can

remember when he came, I believe, within one vote of being elected

majority leader, didn’t he?

Mr. BRACY. Yes, sir. Very close.

Senator CHAFEE. And he had some views on that result, too.

[Laughter.]

Senator CHAFEE. Well, I commend you for taking on this.

I have to ask you the same questions that I asked of Dr. Noonan,

namely, are you willing, at the request of any duly constituted committee of Congress, to appear in front of it as a witness?

Mr. BRACY. Yes, sir.

Senator CHAFEE. Do you know of any matters which you may or

may not have thus far disclosed which might place you in any conflict of interest if you are confirmed?

Mr. BRACY. I know of none.

Senator CHAFEE. And you, sir, you get no salary? All you get is

your expenses, air transportation, so forth?

Mr. BRACY. Yes, sir. Middle seats, usually.

[Laughter.]

Senator CHAFEE. Middle seats?

Mr. BRACY. Middle seats.
72

Senator CHAFEE. Except if a Congressperson is occupying them.

[Laughter.]

Senator CHAFEE. Well, I want to thank you for what you’re

doing. I’m interested in this conflict resolution. There was a professor at Harvard Law School who has been rather active in this. It’s

encouraging to find out that there are a lot of people waiting for

you to get started; in other words, you’re going to have some business when you open your doors.

Mr. BRACY. I’ve been amazed, Senator, by the response to this.

There have been a number of newspaper articles—we haven’t

rushed out to seek a lot of publicity because it’s not necessary, but

the New York Times and the Washington Post and other major

news organizations have now caught on to this, so there have been

a few big articles in the news media. The response has just been

amazing from people who are interested in it, and organizations

that might want to be involved. As I say, potential clients are lined

up at the door.

So I can only conclude that the committee was correct in its assessment that the legal system needs help. I hope we can succeed.

We will work closely with you and your staff. It’s a new area. We’re

plowing new ground, but we hope we can make some progress.

Senator CHAFEE. I have only one suggestion in connection with

your annual report. Maybe you publish another report that goes

along with it, but I couldn’t see any financial data in here——

Mr. BRACY. I think on the back page, Senator.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, have I got the right one?

Mr. BRACY. Yes, I believe there is financial data, perhaps on the

last page, the cover page—I don’t have it in front of me.

Senator CHAFEE. Oh, I’ve got a different one.

Mr. BRACY. Senator, perhaps I can give you a short summary.

Our corpus was authorized at $40 million, but Congress gave us

$19 million to start.

Senator CHAFEE. OK.

Mr. BRACY. We have had a 10 percent reinvestment program,

and in addition, Congress liked our scholarship program and gave

us an additional $1.75 million for it last year, so we are at about

$24 million in our corpus right now. That’s Account A, which is an

education trust fund account. That’s all invested in Treasuries.

The new bill which you approved, Senator, S. 399, created a second account for us, which is Environmental Conflict Resolution.

You gave us an initial capital investment of $3 million for staff,

equipment, etc., plus $1.25 million for 5 years. And you gave the

other Federal agencies contract authority to hire us for services—

EPA, for example, to pay for the services. Hopefully, it’s somewhat

like the concept that you created in other bills to replenish an existing fund.

Senator CHAFEE. Right.

Mr. BRACY. That’s how we are managing it. That’s how we expect

it to operate. I may be back 2 years from now to tell you that it

didn’t work exactly as we thought, but hopefully it will.

Senator CHAFEE. How do your fellow Trustees get selected?

Mr. BRACY. The process is all Presidential appointments, but

with the Senate having two appointees and the House having two

appointees which they recommend to the President, and he then
73

appoints. I was recommended by the House of Representatives for

my initial appointment; I was recommended initially by Speaker

Foley, subsequently by Speaker Gingrich and Minority Leader Gephardt, to the President. The President renominated me.

Senator CHAFEE. I see.

OK. Well, thank you both very much. I would like to move these

along as quickly as possible.

Ms. NOONAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. I appreciate your both coming. Thank you very

much.

Ms. NOONAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BRACY. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 9:43 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the chair.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF TERRENCE L. BRACY, NOMINATED TO BE MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF

TRUSTEES OF THE MORRIS K. UDALL FOUNDATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased and honored to be

nominated for another term on the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Foundation. Since beginning its active life 4 years ago, I have had the privilege of

chairing a Foundation which carries on the vision of one of the greatest public servants this century has known—Mo Udall. While awarding Mo the Medal of Freedom,

President Clinton said:

‘‘His landmark achievements such as reforming campaign finance, preserving our

forests, safeguarding the Alaskan wilderness, and defending the rights of Native

Americans were important, indeed. But he distinguished himself above all as a man

to whom others—leaders—would turn for judgment, skill and wisdom. Mo Udall is

truly a man for all seasons and a role model for what is best in American democracy.’’

Unfortunately, Mo is immobilized by Parkinson’s disease and was unable to be

present to hear such praise. Yet even though he has been out of the public eye since

1991, his reputation seems to grow. The Foundation receives communications and

inquiries from all over the country seeking information about a man people obviously miss and whose core values of civility, integrity, and consensus they seek. He

has charted a path the Foundation has tried faithfully to follow.

During 30 years in Congress, Mo Udall was a champion of better and more responsive government and of the environment, a man of honor and vision. He was

also my mentor and friend. So it has been a singular honor and matter of great

pride to chair the Foundation that bears his name.

Senators will recall that the Udall Foundation is both similar to and different

from its predecessors in the Federal family: the Truman, Madison, and Goldwater

Foundations.

We are similar in that we are educational entities that award college scholarships,

fellowships and internships to further public goals. The Udall Foundation’s focuses

are the environment and Native American affairs.

We differ in that our Foundation was given a broader mandate—but, unfortunately, less money—than the others. Congress also told us to do policy work in the

areas of Native American health care and environmental conflict resolution, to hold

annual conferences on important national issues and to work with the Udall Center

at the University of Arizona to generate new research in our fields. Congress authorized $40 million for these purposes, but appropriated only $19 million for beginning activities. Four years later, our corpus has grown to almost $24 million because

of a 10 percent reinvestment program and an additional appropriation by Congress

last year of $1.75 million. Since our establishment, we have accomplished the following:

• The Foundation has awarded 220 scholarships to college juniors and seniors

planning careers in the environment or Native American health care. Interest in

Udall scholarships has grown rapidly, and today more than 1,200 colleges and universities participate. The demand is such that the Board would like to raise the annual number of awards from 75 to 100 and the stipend from $5,000 to $7,500.

• We have initiated the first Native American Congressional internship program.

This year we graduated and sent back to their tribes the third class of Udall interns
74

with an enriched knowledge of Congress and the executive branch. Congressional

interns, all of whom are college graduates, are split evenly between Republican and

Democratic offices; three slots have been made available at the White House. Interns are lodged at George Washington University and are provided a per diem and,

upon successful completion of the program, a stipend of $1,200. The program also

provides regular counseling, travel to historic sites and special meetings with national leaders. The evidence thus far suggests that our graduates are having a dramatic impact on their tribes.

• The Foundation has begun a program to support top doctoral candidates in

their dissertation years. Last year, we began by authorizing the gift of $24,000 each

to two of the Nation’s leading graduate students after a national competition. The

first year was judged a success, yielding two potentially publishable theses covering

new ground in environmental research. The Board has decided to continue the program this year and expand it over time as our financial resources grow.

• We have sponsored two widely reported national conferences on environmental

issues, and another conference, this October, will focus on Native American health

care.

• The Foundation has conducted extensive preliminary planning for a program

that will begin this year called ‘‘Parks in Focus.’’ In cooperation with the Boys and

Girls Clubs, the National Park Service and two private concerns, Cannon and

Kodak, we will take inner-city children into our national parks for long weekends.

They will be given cameras and will engage in photography contests. Their photos

then will be displayed in their schools. This effort with grade school children will

supplement our educational programs which focus on college and graduate students.

• Finally, we have undertaken a searching analysis of the methods of environmental conflict resolution and its possible use by Federal agencies. The Foundation’s

efforts included convening a large national conference on the subject and conducting

simulations to test negotiating methods. We concluded in a report to this committee

that this approach holds great promise, particularly in the settlement of lands disputes in the West.

As the Chairman knows, our research led to a request by Senator John McCain

that the Foundation undertake a formal role as the Federal mediator in environmental disputes. In consultation with the White House, Senator McCain introduced

S. 399, which was subsequently approved by this committee and the full Senate and

House and signed by President Clinton in January of this year. The law creates

within the Udall Foundation a new Federal entity known as the U.S. Institute for

Environmental Conflict Resolution.

The Institute will be located with the Foundation in Tucson, providing a neutral

site within the Federal establishment but outside the ‘‘beltway’’ where public and

private interests can seek common ground and settle environmental disputes.

The Institute is intended to give yet another boost to the growing environmental

conflict resolution movement, to move away from a period of confrontation and litigation to a new area where we follow Mo Udall’s lead and strive for consensus.

It is not just an idea whose time has come. It is one that is long overdue.

Environmental conflicts have escalated over the past decade, particularly over

natural resources policy, public lands management and the regulation of public policy. Some 500 environmental lawsuits are filed in Federal courts each year, and an

increasing number are being filed in State courts as the body of State environmental

law grows. Federal agencies are increasingly involved as parties in these proceedings based on their role as public planners, managers, regulators and enforcers.

What we are doing is putting together a new and simpler way to work out our

problems. It should not only streamline the process but save money, as well.

Pending funding, the Institute will be operational in October.

Mr. Chairman, to head a Foundation named for Mo Udall has been one of the

great privileges of my life. It is a most pleasurable if sometimes awesome and intimidating task. I hope my performance has lived up to his expectations and to

yours. I would very much appreciate the opportunity to continue to serve.
75
76
77
78

STATEMENT OF NORINE E. NOONAN, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR

FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to

present myself and my qualifications for the position of Assistant Administrator for

Research and Development (ORD) of the United States Environmental Protection

Agency. I am deeply honored that President Clinton has nominated me for this position.
79

The position of Assistant Administrator for Research and Development is one of

the principal science positions in our government. It is critical to our national goal

of understanding, preserving and protecting our country’s environment for the citizens of today and for future generations. It is, therefore, with great humility and

with a sense of great responsibility that I appear before you ready to accept this

task.

Let me tell you a bit about myself. I am currently Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School at Florida Institute of Technology. I am also a

professor of Biological Sciences at that esteemed institution. My career has had

three distinct phases. After complying my doctorate in cell biology at Princeton University, I accepted a position as a charter faculty member in the College of Veterinary Medicine of the University of Florida. My research centered on the process that

turns mammalian cells from normal to malignant and how this process affects the

membranes of the cell and nucleus. I was a successful researcher and teacher, receiving tenure and promotion. I am proud to say that several of my former veterinary students are themselves successful practitioners in the Melbourne area and

one of my first students has just become the first University of Florida graduate

to be elected president of the Florida Veterinary Medical Association. Family circumstances then brought me to Washington, DC in the early 1980’s. As a result of my lifelong interest in public policy, I sought and was offered an opportunity to work on Capitol Hill as an American Chemical Society Congressional

Science Fellow. In fact, I worked in the Russell and then the Hart Office Buildings

for the Senate Commerce Committee so this appearance brings me back to familiar

territory. After that year on the Hill, I moved to the Office of Management and

Budget as the budget analyst for the National Science Foundation. In 1987, I was

promoted to Branch Chief for Science and Space. In this job I had budget responsibility for all of NSF, NASA, and several other smaller agencies, as well as the lead

role in preparing the analyses of all Federal R&D for the President’s Budget. In addition, my branch had (and continues to have) a central role in reviewing and coordinating interagency R&D efforts in such widely varying areas as High Performance Computing and Communications, Science and Mathematics Education, and the

U.S. Global Change Research Program. I am very familiar with all aspects of the

budget development and deliberation process and with the need to set priorities

within constrained resources. I have also developed a deep understanding of the entire Federal R&D establishment, particularly non-defense R&D activities, including

environmental and human health R&D.

For the past 6 years I have been a senior administrator and, once again, a faculty member at a research university. In this capacity, I have the responsibility for the

entire research administration process on my campus, including technology transfer,

and have first-hand knowledge of how Federal agencies deal with universities as

performers of R&D. In addition to my responsibilities as Chief Research Officer, I

have ‘‘cradle to grave’’ responsibility for nearly 1,000 graduate students on our main

campus, about 30 percent of whom are doctoral students, and over 1,000 more at

our off-campus graduate centers around the country. I have been intimately involved in fostering the linkage between university research and graduate education,

and participating first hand in a national system that is the envy of the world, and

one which produces not only our Nation’s future scholars and innovators, but educates a significant percentage of the world’s scholars and innovators. May I say here

that the increased emphasis that ORD has placed on supporting this education process by starting a graduate fellowship program and by expanding the recruitment of

post-doctoral students for its internal research enterprise is, in my view, of great

importance to maintaining ORD’s long-term future as a leader in core and in problem-driven environmental research. I am proud to say I played a small part in the

early stages of the graduate fellowship program and, from what I have observed,

it is progressing in a very positive direction.

Over the past 6 years, I have also served on several study committees of the National Research Council. The work of two of these committees is worth noting here.

On the Committee for Antarctic Policy and Science we dealt with the appropriate

balance between scientific research and environmental stewardship in the context

of the Antarctic Environmental Protocol. I am proud that our committee’s work

played a role in the passage of the implementing legislation that has enabled the

Protocol to enter into force. I also served on the Committee to Develop an Environmental Management Science Program (EMSP). We assisted the Department of Energy in developing this research program to provide solid scientific underpinnings

for its massive clean-up efforts. The role of EMSP is, in some ways, much like the

role of ORD. EMSP was created to support basic research in the service, not of regulation, but of remediation. It was, and is, essential that the highest quality basic

research be supported by EMSP, but it was also essential, especially in those early
80

days, that the stakeholders both inside and outside of DOE be involved with the

development of EMSP’s general strategy and priorities. Like ORD, albeit on a smaller, more narrow scale, the EMSP represents science in the service of the agency’s

mission and has allowed DOE to approach many of its cleanup tasks on a firm scientific footing and move beyond what one of my committee colleagues termed, the

‘‘muck, suck and truck’’ cleanup philosophy.

members of the committee, if confirmed, I will ‘‘inherit’’ a sound and healthy organization. I have had the opportunity to meet with some of the ORD personnel and

have been very impressed with their knowledge, professionalism and dedication.

Much of the credit for this situation goes to my predecessor, Dr. Robert Huggett,

who did a lot of ‘‘heavy lifting’’ to develop a strategic plan that focuses R&D activities to address the greatest risks, to reduce uncertainty in risk assessment and to

develop cost-effective approaches to risk prevention and management. Dr. Huggett

also realigned the laboratory structure of ORD based on this risk assessment/risk

management paradigm. As I have observed, the ORD strategic planning process is

closely linked to the overall agency process and to GPRA. In addition, ORD is working hard to enhance not only its internal research capabilities but, through its support of universities, to involve the Nation’s best and brightest scientists and engineers in ORD’s programs.

In my opinion, it is essential that we continue on this positive path and, if confirmed, I would make it my goal to do so. ORD’s own ‘‘ecological niche’’ is to advance

knowledge with a purpose. ORD must include in its research portfolio a strong base

of long term, core research to develop broadly applicable research tools and information on a variety of physical, biological, sociological, and economic processes. ORD

must also have research programs to address shorter-term, problem-driven issues

motivated, in many cases, by current or pending regulatory activities. This balanced

portfolio strategy has been recommended by the National Research Council. One example of this balanced strategy in action is the issue of children and the environment. A key research question that must be addressed is: to what extent are children a sensitive population? I understand that ORD has an extensive research program underway which will provide much needed information about the biological

susceptibility and possible developmental effects of environmental hazards, such as

pesticides, in children, as well as unique patterns of exposure of children to such

hazards. As one major element of this program, I understand that ORD is collaborating with the National Institutes of Health to fund eight Centers of Excellence in

Children’s Environmental Health at leading research institutions. These centers will

bring together the talents of some of the Nation’s leading researchers in public

health and environmental science, and will also actively involve communities and

community groups. This is precisely the collaborative, coordinated approach that I

believe has the greatest probability of yielding research that is both scientifically

valid and useful to the regulatory process—no matter what the actual research results are.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, there are several themes that must

continue to characterize ORD’s mission: (1) the highest quality science and a strong

and stable long-term core research program; (2) a problem-driven research program

with its priorities set in close cooperation with the client regulatory offices; (3) development and maintenance of an outstanding cadre of scientists inside EPA; and

(4) collaboration with other agencies, universities and the private sector. These are

not new. But I believe we must continue to pursue them because they are the right.

For myself, if confirmed, I will do in this job only what my late parents asked of

me: my best. It’s time to cement the institutional and organizational changes that

have been made and to involve all of ORD’s people as well as many of our external

stakeholders in the next round of strategic planning. In my opinion, ORD has vitally

important work to do in helping to identify and address, through research, the environmental issues our Nation and the world face. If confirmed, I would be committed

to making ORD an organization that bright young scientists want to work in, where

intellectual excitement and commitment to important national goals are inextricably

woven into the fabric of what we do every day. I thank you for the opportunity to

appear before you today. If confirmed, I look forward to working with all of you,

your colleagues, and your staff to achieve these goals.

I’d be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
81
82
83

RESPONSES BY NORINE NOONAN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BAUCUS

Question 1. During this committee’s consideration of the Safe Drinking Water Act

in the 104th Congress, sound science was discussed extensively and the EPA was

directed to use sound science when developing standards for regulating contaminants in drinking water. Can you tell the committee how you define ‘‘sound science’’

and how you will ensure that sound science is the basis for the standards set by

EPA?

Response. In my view, ‘‘sound science’’ has three components: (1) quality, (2) relevance and (3) timeliness. First and foremost, the science that underpins any standards-setting process must be of the highest quality. If confirmed, I plan to ensure
84

that the science performed in ORD and throughout EPA meets this criterion. I plan

to accomplish this through the rigorous application of the peer review process. Second, relevance of the science to proposed standards is key to ensuring that the correct scientific questions are being addressed so that uncertainties in the standardssetting process are resolved to the extent possible. Last (but certainly not least), the

scientific research for standards setting must be timely. This means that the science

informs the decisionmaking processes and enables those decisions to be made based

on the best available, relevant science. My personal goal, if confirmed, is to make

sure that EPA’s science is the soundest science available and that ORD is a true

and valued partner in EPA’s policymaking process.

Question 2. Also in the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Congress directed the Agency to consider children and sensitive subpopulations when setting standards for

drinking water contaminants, as opposed to the usual way of setting a standard

based on the average adult male. As a scientist, can you explain for the committee

the impact this provision has on protecting the health of those populations?

Response. There is an growing body of scientific evidence that suggests that individual differences in metabolism, behavior and activity patterns, genetic makeup,

physical environment, age or other factors may increase the risk posed by exposure

to environmental agents. Within ORD, there is ongoing research designed to provide

the information needed to assess how risk from exposure to environmental agents

varies from person to person. The research focused on sensitive subpopulations is

adding an important dimension to our understanding of this variability and the data

from this research program will allow us to evaluate and, as appropriate, modify

our risk assessment methodologies to better protect the health of those persons at

highest risk.

Question 3. In setting priorities within an agency with limited resources, often

times it is the research and development budgets that are often at the bottom of

the priority list because they are not of immediate concerns (sic). How do you intend

to make research and development a priority within the agency?

Response. It has been said that ‘‘the future has no constituency.’’ This statement

might imply that ‘‘the future,’’ as represented by funding for research and development (R&D) activities might, indeed, be viewed as deferrable in times of limited resources. However, in my view, this is not a strategy that serves the Nation well.

We must maintain our commitment to environmental research, otherwise we will

lack the high-quality, relevant and timely knowledge on which to base future environmental policy decisions. Sound science must inform policymaking processes in

both the present and the future.

The ORD Strategic Plan identifies ‘‘twin towers’’ of core research and problemdriven research. If confirmed, I intend to maintain this approach since I believe that

it is an excellent way of ensuring that the work that ORD does is of value to EPA’s

overall mission. ORD, in my view, already has a high ‘‘value-added’’ for the agency’s

mission. I will strive to maintain and increase the value of ORD’s work—not only

to the EPA, but to the Nation as a whole.

Question 4. As the science advisor to the Administrator, what is your advise (sic)

on research priorities? What environmental threats concern you most?

Response. The environmental threat that concerns me the most is not paying

enough attention to the many critical environmental issues that face us. The worst

thing that we as a Nation could do would be to reduce our investment in or our

emphasis on high-quality environmental research. Indeed, I believe that research is

the key to understanding and managing many of our most pressing problems. The

ORD portfolio of core and problem-driven research is constructed in a way that will

not only advance the state of our knowledge (which enables us to be proactive) but

also to address in a scientifically rigorous way many of our most pressing current

problems. As the science advisor to the Administrator, I would advise her to continue on the path EPA has set for itself—support for science that is credible, relevant and timely, of highest quality as judged through a rigorous peer review process, and, thus, science which can effectively address a wide spectrum of critical

health and environmental problems.
(85)

NOMINATIONS OF GRETA J. DICUS AND

JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1998

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:02 a.m. in room

468, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Chafee, Smith, Baucus, and Lautenberg.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Senator CHAFEE. I’d like to have everybody’s attention, please.

This is the meeting of the Environment and Public Works Committee for hearings on the nominations of Mr. Jeffrey Merrifield

and Ms. Greta Joy Dicus for positions on the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

I’m delighted to welcome everyone here, especially our two nominees. I’ll also welcome Senator Smith, who will be coming here very

shortly to introduce Mr. Merrifield. Senator Smith is a very prominent member of this committee, chairman of our Superfund Subcommittee. And Senator Bumpers I understand will introduce Ms.

Dicus.

It’s my pleasure to report that both nominees have impressive

backgrounds and are highly qualified for the positions before them.

The President has nominated Ms. Dicus for reappointment. She

has been on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission previously from

February 1996 to January 1998, when her term expired.

Pending her reappointment to the NRC, she is currently an outside expert at the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board. From

1994 to 1995, she served as a member of the board of directors for

the U.S. Enrichment Corporation. From 1980 to 1994, she worked

in progressively responsible positions in the Division of Radiation

Control and Emergency Management at the Arkansas Department

of Health, serving as chief of licensing from 1982 to 1984, and director of the division from 1985 to 1993.

Ms. Dicus received a B.A. in biological sciences from Texas Women’s University in 1961, and a master’s degree in radiation biology

from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in 1967.

The President has nominated Mr. Jeffrey Merrifield to serve as

commissioner of the NRC. Mr. Merrifield currently serves as counsel to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control,
86

and Risk Assessment—in other words, a subcommittee of this very

committee. He has held that position since 1995.

Serving in this position, Mr. Merrifield has worked diligently on

Superfund reform for the past 31⁄2 years. If there’s anybody in this

Senate side of the capital that knows about Superfund, it certainly

is Mr. Merrifield.

He has worked on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

and the Toxic Substance Control Act.

Prior to his current position, Mr. Merrifield served from 1925

[sic] to 1995 as an associate in the law firm of McKenna & Cuneo.

Before his private sector service, he served as legislative assistant to Senator Robert Smith, drafting legislation, testimony, and

statements on energy, transportation, and environmental issues.

Before joining Senator Smith’s office, Mr. Merrifield worked as a

legislative assistant to former Senator Gordon Humphrey.

Mr. Merrifield received his B.A. magna cum laude in political

science and history from Tufts University. He also holds a J.D.

from Georgetown University Law Center.

He is accompanied here by his wife, Diana, and his oldest son,

Graham.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a bipartisan, independent

regulatory commission responsible for ensuring adequate protection

of the environment, public health and safety, and common defense

and security with respect to the use of nuclear materials for civilian purposes in the United States.

The position of NRC commissioner offers challenges which I believe both Mr. Merrifield and Ms. Dicus are prepared to face.

I look forward to hearing today’s nominees describe their backgrounds and what they hope to accomplish if confirmed.

Now I notice that both Senator Smith and Senator Bumpers are

here. Perhaps if you would come forward, each of you gentlemen,

and give your statements on behalf of the nominees, that would be

fine.

Senator Bumpers, if you’d like to start, we welcome you here,

Senator.

STATEMENT OF HON. DALE BUMPERS, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, is it a genuine pleasure to be here this morning

and have this opportunity to introduce to the committee Greta Joy

Dicus.

In 1993, the President had a great wisdom to nominate Greta as

a member of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation’s board of directors.

A little more than 2 years later, she was nominated and subsequently confirmed as a commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission. Recently, she was nominated to serve a new term.

Greta has served the people of the United States in exemplary

fashion, and she richly deserves a second term on the NRC as it

enters a very important phase of its existence.

Greta is eminently qualified. One only has to look at her very impressive resume to know that.

In addition to serving as an original member of the board of directors of the Uranium Enrichment Corporation, she was the direc-
87

tor of the Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management at the Arkansas Department of Public Health from 1985 to

1994.

She has also served as chairman of the Central States Low-Level

Radiation Waste Commission, and was Arkansas’ liaison with the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, while NRC’s role in the licensing of

new nuclear power plants has been greatly diminished, simply because there is a lack of demand for new plants, the NRC plays an

extremely important role in ensuring that our existing reactors are

operated safely. As the age of our reactors advance, this role becomes that much more pronounced.

Greta has been a role model to all of those who would consider

public service as a career, and I therefore, for that reason and

many more, strongly urge this committee to act on her nomination

as expeditiously as possible to serve a full 5-year term.

I feel compelled, in the interest of candor, to say that she is not

perfect. She made one classic mistake—she was born in Arkansas

and chose to go to school in Texas for her education.

[Laughter.]

Senator BUMPERS. Where I come from, that is almost unforgivable.

[Laughter.]

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Senator.

I don’t know whether—can you wait just a few minutes?

Senator BUMPERS. How many minutes?

Senator CHAFEE. All right——

Senator BUMPERS. I’m not in a big rush, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. All right. I thought we’d have Senator Smith’s

comments, and then there may be questions from the panel.

Senator BUMPERS. Sure.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, if Senator Bumpers has to go, go

ahead and proceed with the questions.

Senator CHAFEE. OK. Are there any questions?

Senator BAUCUS. I don’t want him to leave. He’s so entertaining,

I always like to have him around.

[Laughter.]

Senator BUMPERS. You and I both have our work cut out for us.

Senator BAUCUS. We do, and that’s why I’m not going to stay

very long.

Senator CHAFEE. All right. Well, I guess there doesn’t seem to be

any questions, Senator. We appreciate you coming by to put in this

strong endorsement for Ms. Dicus.

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you very much for allowing me to do

this, Mr. Chairman.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT SMITH, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a little unusual

to sit on this side of the table, but it is a privilege for me today

to speak on behalf of nominee Jeff Merrifield for the NRC.

Jeff was one of a handful of staffers that I guess you could say

I inherited from Senator Humphrey in 1990. When you take over
88

an office from an—it’s easy when you defeat somebody, but when

you take over an office full of staff and you’re asked to review them

all carefully and select some of them, sometimes you want them,

sometimes you don’t. But in the case of Jeff Merrifield, it was a

great find to have him stay with me throughout—with a brief

interruption, but throughout my tenure in the Senate.

He was born in Westerly, RI, which didn’t hurt him, I don’t

think, and then he spent most of his childhood in Antrim, NH, so

I think he covered the bases with you and me.

As you said, in 1985 he graduated from Tufts University. In

1986, he joined the staff of Senator Humphrey, where he worked

on energy and environmental issues for 4 years before Senator

Humphrey left the Senate.

During the time that Jeff worked for both Senator Humphrey

and for me, he put himself through Georgetown Law School at

night. I think anyone who is a staffer here knows how difficult that

is with the hours that the staff here has to put in, in addition to

that, going to law school. Frequently, he had to return here back

to the Senate after attending law school classes in the evening.

Sometimes it was late at night.

After that, after graduating in 1992, Jeff left the Senate, left my

office, to work for McKenna & Cuneo, a law firm here in town,

where he was a litigator on environmental and government contracts cases.

After a while, though—I don’t know whether it was the fact that

the Republicans regained the Senate or what the main reason was,

but in 1995 Jeff did return to act as my counsel for the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, he was the lead staffer for me in

developing Superfund reauthorization legislation. You and I

worked very closely with him and with Tom Gibson, as well, and

you know his skills in that regard and his expertise.

He has been involved in a number of other major pieces of legislation, some before my time in the Senate and some after, but certainly the Price Anderson reauthorization, the Oil Pollution Control

Act, clean air reauthorization efforts to reauthorize both Superfund

and RCRA, and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency

Act, ISTEA–I.

In addition to his duties on the committee, Jeff has been extensively involved in assisting me on Armed Services Committee matters, as well. I chair the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and

there is a lot of oversight regarding environmental management,

DoD, and DoE facilities. Jeff has been very helpful in that regard

in that role.

In December, Jeff and his wife, Diana, will celebrate their 10th

wedding anniversary. They have two sons, Graham and Trevor.

Graham is here with us today, very quiet. Good kid—for now, anyway.

And, if confirmed—a matter of interest—Jeff will be the secondyoungest commissioner in history at 34, so it is quite an honor for

New Hampshire.

And I also would like at this time to thank Senator Baucus and

Senator Lautenberg publicly and their staffs for their support and

cooperation in this matter. There wasn’t one shred of partisanship
89

here, and I think it says a lot about the capabilities of Jeff to have

that kind of support, which I know Jeff appreciates, and I do, as

well.

So I’m pleased to be here in support of the nomination of Jeff

Merrifield for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, thank you very much, Senator Smith. Obviously, I have, as have other members of the committee, gotten to

know Mr. Merrifield well, particularly during the Superfund negotiations and hearings and other activities, and I share your high

respect for the job he has done.

I must confess, I’ve never heard of Atrim, NH. Is that——

Senator SMITH. Antrim.

Senator CHAFEE. Antrim?

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Antrim. It’s named for a town in Ireland.

Senator CHAFEE. Antrim?

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Antrim.

Senator CHAFEE. I take it it’s a relatively small town?

[Laughter.]

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Population 2,300.

Senator CHAFEE. Population 2,300.

Well, thank you very much, Senator.

Senator Baucus, do you have any statement?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Senator BAUCUS. Yes. I just wish Jeff the best. We’ve all worked

with him and we know that he’s very competent. We wish not only

him but his wife, Diana, and his eldest son, Graham, and the rest

of his family the very best for the future.

Mr. Chairman, we’re accustomed to seeing Jeff at the table as a

very competent advisor on matters before the committee. We are

not accustomed to him yet as a member of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, and that will, of course, place him in a much different

role, one where we will be asking different kinds of questions than

we were asking before. I expect in the second capacity he’ll do just

as well as he has in the first.

Serious issues face the Nuclear Regulatory Commission—the role

of nuclear power in reducing greenhouse gases, for example; disposal of nuclear waste. Those major problems won’t go away, and

it will take someone of Jeff’s tenacity and perception and

doggedness, frankly, to help resolve them, and I think we’ll do well

with his service, and I again wish him the very best.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Lautenberg, do you have any questions of Senator

Smith?

Senator LAUTENBERG. If I may be indulged, Mr. Chairman, I’d

like to make a statement, not of Senator Smith——

Senator CHAFEE. Well, I’ll tell you what we might do. If the questions aren’t of Senator Smith, we might excuse him and then——

Senator LAUTENBERG. Sure.

Senator CHAFEE [continuing]. Perhaps then you can make your

statement, or else we can have the two witnesses—the two nominees come forward and make their statement.
90

Senator LAUTENBERG. If I might, I’d welcome to the table, Mr.

Chairman——

Senator CHAFEE. All right. Why don’t the two nominees come forward, and then, Senator Lautenberg, why don’t you make your

statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I’m pleased that you’re holding this meeting

today, this hearing, and I want to welcome Ms. Dicus and Mr.

Merrifield. There are two vacancies, one of which has been open for

over a year, way too long. Because it is—we were out of here yesterday, and I didn’t have a chance to do some of the things that

I wanted to do before we got here, but I did want to talk about the

NRC a little bit because of the critical nature of this regulatory

agency.

For instance, we saw at Chernobyl what can happen with unsafe

nuclear power plants and poor regulation. The world got a peek at

what can happen when something goes wrong at a nuclear power

plant.

On Monday past, I visited with a boy in New Jersey who was

brought here with seven other young people to Paul Newman’s

camp up in Connecticut, and during that time they got some treatment and got pointed in the right direction.

Well, unfortunately, out of the eight boys who came, only one

survived, and he’s the young fellow living in New Jersey, now 14

years old. And he is thriving, but it is a living reminder of what

can happen if there is an accident in a domestic nuclear plant.

The NRC commissioners stand between 105 operating power

plants and America and the public to assure that we don’t have a

Chernobyl-like accident in America. It’s a major responsibility, and

I know that both of these candidates will be taking their responsibility seriously.

Ms. Dicus has had a chance to be there.

And nuclear power in New Jersey is an extremely important factor. Of our electricity, 60 percent is generated from nuclear power

companies, compared to 20 percent nationally. And in the most

densely populated State in the country—and I was listening to Antrim. I know that there’s an Antrim county and 2,300 people. When

we look at like statistics for the State of New Jersey for that same

amount of geography—as the Senator from Montana knows, I always talk about how many people we have in just a little space.

Heaven forbid any kind of an accident, whether rural or urban.

So there are a few States that have as big a stake in good,

proactive safety-conscious NRC commissioners. And NRC has been

active in overseeing compliance with its regulations in the nuclear

industry in New Jersey, and when Salem Nuclear Power Plants

One and Two were shut down in 1995, the NRC played a vigilant

role in ensuring that the operator of the plant met vigorous health

and safety standards before they were allowed to resume operations.
91

Due to that work with plant operators, both of these units were

recently removed from NRC’s watch list of problem plants, and

that’s reassuring to us.

I want to know that plants in New Jersey are operating safely,

and a large part of the responsibility rests with NRC.

And so for me, obviously, Mr. Chairman, as it is for everybody,

but it is particularly significant as to who it is that sits on our Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and these positions are extremely

important. Nominees should have the expertise, experience, and

independence necessary to effectively oversee the industry.

So I look forward to hearing from our candidates this morning,

and, again, I, too, know Mr. Merrifield and know that he is diligent

and fairly thorough about his work, and so I would like to hear the

testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I’d like the opportunity thereafter to

ask a couple of questions.

Senator CHAFEE. Fine. Senator Baucus, you have no statement?

Senator BAUCUS. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. All right. We’ll proceed with the statements.

There is a statement for the record by Senator Inhofe.

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

STATEMENT BY HON. JAMES INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling today’s confirmation hearing for Greta Dicus

and Jeff Merrifield to be Commissioners at the NRC. The NRC Commission has not

been fully staffed for too long and I am glad the administration has nominated these

individuals and we are moving them through the process quickly.

This is a very important time for the NRC, some long needed reforms are underway and the Commission is beginning to deal with the issue of license renewals.

We need all five Commissioners on the job and I believe both of you will work diligently on the challenges ahead.

Ms. Dicus, I have only heard good things about your brief tenure on the Commission and I have confidence in your ability to meet the challenges facing the NRC.

Jeff, I have appreciated the work you have done on Superfund and I think your

talents will be put to good use at the NRC.

We held our first NRC oversight hearing this past July and our next hearing is

scheduled for January 28, I look forward to you both testifying at that hearing.

Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Ms. Dicus, do you want to proceed with a statement?

STATEMENT OF GRETA JOY DICUS, NOMINATED BY THE

PRESIDENT TO BE REAPPOINTED AS COMMISSIONER OF

THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Ms. DICUS. Yes. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is, indeed, a

wonderful privilege and honor for me to appear before you as one

of President Clinton’s two nominees to be a member of the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

Many of you are familiar with my professional background, and

it has been repeated today, so I’m going to give an extremely abbreviated comment about that.

As Senator Bumpers mentioned, I did go to school in Texas, even

though I’m a Native Arkansan, and that included a master of arts

degree in radiation biology from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in Dallas. And also my undergraduate degree is in biological sciences from Texas Women’s University, with
92

a double minor, one in chemistry and the other one in government

history.

When I first appeared before this committee as my previous nomination to the NRC was under consideration, I explained that the

NRC’s mission was to ensure that the civilian uses of nuclear materials in the United States are carried out with adequate protection

of the public health and safety, the environment, and national security.

My term as a commissioner has not changed my understanding

of the NRC mission, and I will continue to work, if confirmed to

a second term, to further the accomplishment of the NRC’s mission.

During the previous hearing, Senator Chafee and Senator Smith

expressed support for assuring NRC was positioned to effectively

consider that nuclear power plant license renewal applications, if

submitted, are efficiently and effectively considered.

I am pleased to say that, just prior to the end of my first term,

all commissioners had unanimously approved a policy statement

providing for improved management of adjudicatory hearings, including those for license renewal.

This policy statement was published in August of this year. The

framework outlined in that policy statement has already been utilized in establishing a hearing schedule for the first license renewal

application, which was filed by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company to renew the operating licenses for their Calvert Cliffs Power

Plants.

These hearing improvements have great potential to provide an

expeditious consideration of license renewal applications and concerns of members of the public related to those applications.

In addition, an application for renewal of Oconee Nuclear Station, units one, two, and three, was received by NRC from the

Duke Energy Corporation, and the same policy statement would

also be used by the Licensing Board if a hearing is granted in that

proceeding.

During my first term, the Commission initiated a number of actions to improve the regulatory framework of the agency, particularly with respect to performance assessments of nuclear power

plants. Much remains yet to be done to see these improved programs finalized and implemented, and during the second term on

the Commission, if I am reconfirmed, I would continue to press to

improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Commission’s activities in furtherance of NRC’s regulatory mission.

During my first term on the Commission, it was clear to me that

many challenges face the Agency, as the nature of the nuclear industry changes, involving both power plants and the use of radiological materials in other beneficial ways.

I stated during my first confirmation hearing that we should utilize a fair and open process in all decisions, while at the same time

maintaining our regulatory independence.

I worked faithfully to make decisions with those principles in

mind during my first term, and will continue to do so if confirmed

for a second term.

It is clear that an efficient, fair, and open process regarding our

regulatory decisions will assure that the industry understands and

that the public accepts NRC’s regulatory decisions.
93

I want to again express to you my appreciation for this opportunity to discuss my renomination to a second term as commissioner of the NRC. Obviously, I’m available to answer any questions that you may have.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Ms. Dicus.

Now, Mr. Merrifield, if you’d like to give a statement. I know you

have a statement here. Obviously, that will be, all of it, in the

record. If you want to summarize that, that would be fine, too.

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD, NOMINATED BY THE

PRESIDENT TO BE APPOINTED AS A COMMISSIONER OF THE

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the

honor of appearing before you today as one of President Clinton’s

two nominees to be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I also want to say thank you to all of the members here today

for your very kind comments. It is very much appreciated.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for scheduling this

hearing so promptly. I know it is a very quick time line, and we

have only a few days left in the session, and so the speed with

which you were able to convene this is very much appreciated.

Senator CHAFEE. While you’re saying that, I would announce

that it would be my intention to—unless there are questions that

are submitted that aren’t answered in time—if there are written

questions, I would ask you both to get them back quickly. It would

be my intention to bring up these nominees tomorrow at a business

meeting we’re having at 9:30 unless something goes wrong, so I

would make that announcement now and hope that we can get a

good turnout to act in everything we have before our business committee, including the nominees.

All right, Mr. Merrifield, won’t you continue, please?

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When I first came to work in the Senate for former Senator Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire in 1986, my first job was answering the mountain of constituent mail that he received regarding Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant. Of the thousands of letters that Senator Humphrey received, some of them were from individuals who disagreed with positions taken by the NRC.

Yet, even where those individuals disagreed with the NRC, very

few, if any, of our constituents called into question the integrity

and objectivity of the NRC or its commissioners. I believe that is

very telling.

During the entire time I have spent in the Senate, I have consistently heard the message that the NRC is an agency that has

earned the trust of the public, and it can be relied on for fair and

scientifically-based decisionmaking.

To prepare for this hearing, I took the time to read the record

of the nomination hearings of other commissioners over the last

few years. In his nomination statement 7 years ago, former NRC

Chairman Ivan Selin made the following statement:

In my view, when it comes to licensing a nuclear facility, the judgment on safety

of the technical experts, both in-house and independent experts, deserves great
94

weight. So does the endorsement of the NRC’s decisions by reviewing courts. But

in the long run, none of these will matter if the American public does not have the

confidence in the competence, the integrity, and the candor of the regulators who

are making the decisions.

I would like to associate myself completely with former chairman

Selin’s statement. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed by the

Senate, I will use his statement as a guiding principle in fulfilling

my duties as an NRC commissioner.

Despite the positive reputation that it has developed over the

years, the NRC cannot take a solitary role in maintaining full public confidence in the safety of nuclear power. Indeed, the nuclear

industry must also assume equal responsibility for taking the steps

necessary to maintain the trust of the American public.

Following the March 28, 1979, incident at Three Mile Island,

President Carter asked Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, the father of

our nuclear Navy, to analyze the lessons to be learned from this

incident.

I believe there is one passage in his report that is particularly

instructive:

Safe design, construction, and operation of nuclear power plants owned and operated by utilities will not result from expanding the NRC, reorganizing the NRC, or

passing more laws, nor will it be derived from establishing new, diverse, non-expert

oversight groups. If commercial nuclear power plants are to be operated safely, the

organizations that own and operate the plants, the utilities, must know what they

are doing and commit themselves to take the steps necessary to achieve nuclear

safety. If the utilities do not establish stringent standards, institute rigorous training programs, and police themselves, there is little hope for assured safety operation

of commercial nuclear power.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that statement was correct then, and almost 20 years later it is still correct.

Since this statement was made, the NRC has evolved from a nuclear power plant and material licensing agency to the regulator of

an operating nuclear industry. In the next few years, the NRC will

be making a number of critical decisions regarding plants that may

be relicensed, as well as others that will be decommissioned.

Irrespective of whether these facilities are relicensed or decommissioned, the NRC will need to ensure that these activities are accomplished in a manner that is fully protective of the health and

safety of the individuals who live and work near these facilities.

Over the last few months, there has been a renewed congressional interest in conducting oversight of the NRC. While there are

some who think that congressional scrutiny is to be greeted with

fear and loathing, I believe that a frank and straightforward dialog

between a regulated agency and its congressional oversight committee can be positive for both.

If I am given the privilege of being confirmed to this position, I

will be pleased to come back here to testify at any time.

In summary, I believe we’re entering a very dynamic and critical

period for the NRC. I am eager to play a role in addressing these

important issues, and am hopeful that my experience and background can contribute to the competence and integrity we have

come to expect from the NRC.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to answer

any questions you may have.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, thank you very much.
95

I want to ask you both a standard question. Are each of you willing, at the request of any duly constituted committee of the Congress, to appear in front as a witness?

Ms. DICUS. Yes.

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Do you know of any matters which you may or

may not have thus far disclosed which might place you in any conflict of interest if you are confirmed in this position?

Ms. DICUS. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MERRIFIELD. No, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Let me ask you this. Currently, as I understand

it, about 20 to 25 percent of the power generated in the United

States is nuclear power. Does that sound about right?

Ms. DICUS. That’s correct. Yes.

Mr. MERRIFIELD. About 20 percent.

Senator CHAFEE. And obviously in other countries it is way

greater than that, and I think in France and Germany, for example—I don’t know about England, but certainly in those two countries a far higher percentage.

Are we drawing too many road blocks? Everybody is for safety,

and I don’t want anybody to say we’re not for that, but, I mean,

are we throwing too many road blocks in the way of nuclear plants

being erected in this country or relicensed? What do you think?

Why—is it just too expensive? We’ve got less-expensive gas than

Germany does, so, therefore, economically it doesn’t pay for the

construction of nuclear plants? Why aren’t we, in the United

States—why don’t we have as much power produced by nuclear

power as the other nations do?

Did you want to take a crack at that, Mr. Merrifield?

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Well, I think you have touched on some of the

reasons for it.

When we had—and this is the case we went through when

Seabrook was being built. The cost of money was very high. There

were over-runs. There were a lot of issues raised in terms of the

safety of that particular facility.

Today, the price of gas-powered electricity is, frankly, lower than

it would be if you had to go out and build a new nuclear power

plant. We, nonetheless, have a number of new certified designs, so

at some point down the road there may be a decision by utilities

to move forward and build new facilities.

The NRC’s role, as you know, Mr. Chairman, is different. It

evolved from that of the earlier agency, the Atomic Energy Commission. The intention of the NRC is for oversight and to ensure

that public health and safety and the environment are protected.

It is not the role of the NRC to cheerlead for the nuclear industry,

nor to maintain too close a relationship.

And so, while there may be many out there who are very enthusiastic about nuclear power, the role, if confirmed, of the commissioner is to make sure that the high confidence in the safety of that

power is maintained.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, I agree with that, but I think, at the same

time—and I’m not saying this is true, but I think, certainly in the

Seabrook thing, it seemed like it was a moving target. And I don’t

want to replay the Seabrook thing, but what—it seems to me that
96

if the go-ahead is given to build a plant, then they’re a go-ahead,

but am I wrong in saying that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

seems to constantly impose more and more requirements so that

the—and thus running up the cost? Is that an unfair——

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Well, one of the things that has changed, Mr.

Chairman, since Seabrook was built is we now have a one-step licensing process, so once you go ahead and you obtain the license

for your facility, they can move forward in the construction. That

type of a change, which was made by Congress, would inevitably

lead to a more streamlined process for building those plants.

I think the point, which I agree with you, that you’re getting at—

I think I agree with you—is the obligation of the Agency is to ensure that public health and safety are protected. That does not

mean that the Agency needs to be dilatory, and I think the public

has an expectation—and when I say ‘‘the public,’’ I mean both the

folks who live and work near the plants, but as well as individuals

who are investing in those plants—that the NRC make its decision

as quickly as possible, yet at the same time maintaining that full

public confidence.

Senator CHAFEE. What do you say, Ms. Dicus?

Ms. DICUS. I concur completely with everything Mr. Merrifield

has said. I might add just a little bit, too.

Part of my understanding of some of the problems that the commercial nuclear power industry did get into was some prolonged licensing actions, and that obviously had a tremendous effect on

cost.

Two things that have occurred—and I think he has alluded to

both of them—is, of course, the one-step licensing process, which

should and will shorten licensing, and therefore make the outcome

much more probable if a utility decides that they want to go with

a nuclear option.

And the second thing, as mentioned, are the certified standard

designs—we have two of them already. A third one is almost

ready—which makes a much more predictable outcome.

Senator CHAFEE. Senator Lautenberg.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And thanks

to each of you for your statements.

I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, about being ready for action tomorrow. There are several questions that I have that we’ll submit

in writing, and I hope that the nominees will have a chance to get

them done.

You brought up a good question, Mr. Chairman, and that is: why

not more nuclear? I’d ask you, first, what’s the impact, do you

think, on, let’s say, nuclear versus fossil fuel energy production? Is

there more to worry about when you think about coal and other

fuels, or when you think about nuclear and the waste disposal

problem?

Mr. Merrifield, or whatever.

Ms. DICUS. OK. I’ll go first on that one.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Please.

Ms. DICUS. It is clear that, with the fossil fuels, there are emissions to the atmosphere that are troublesome to us, and with the

nuclear option you do not have those emissions.
97

I have been told that if we lost our commercial nuclear power

plants, we will have to double our efforts on the greenhouse effect

to meet the standards that we’re trying to meet. So clearly, from

that perspective, nuclear is a viable option for us.

The issue of waste disposal is a problem that has to be addressed

for the nuclear industry. I think it is one of their challenges now

to have that problem addressed. I’m convinced that nuclear waste,

both high-level waste and low-level waste, can be effectively and

safely disposed.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Do you know where?

[No response.]

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Merrifield, do you want to——

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I don’t have really much to add. I agree with

Commissioner Dicus.

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. Because we know—look what has

happened. And I don’t know whether we can blame the regulations

for the problems. Seabrook, Shoreham, $5 million, Mr. Chairman.

Was it $5 million or even more? Finished the plant and never

opened. That makes producing nuclear energy fairly expensive—

build them and close them.

So I, too, though, had the same nagging question that the chairman has. It is a much more renewable source of energy or fuel, but

then how do you deal with the other problem? Ms. Dicus, when you

have a chance, if you could whisper in my ear about where we’d

put the stuff, I’d appreciate it.

And so we have a concern about safety that overrides almost everything else, because people are aware that’s what caused the

shutdown in Shoreham. That’s what caused the shutdown at New

Hampshire.

And can we ever totally ensure that we can operate nuclear

plants without—with total safety, without fear of an accident?

Ms. DICUS. We can ensure, to the best of our ability, that we can

do that, and I think——

Senator LAUTENBERG. Would you take that as a resident nearby,

‘‘best of our ability,’’ do you think?

Ms. DICUS. Say again? I’m sorry.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Would you accept that, do you think, if you

and your children lived next door, that to the best of your ability——

Ms. DICUS. I think—well, I’d like to address it in this way. The

commercial nuclear power industry in this country has an extraordinary safety record. Even with the accident that occurred at Three

Mile Island, where there was some release of radioactive material,

no member of the public living next to or close to the reactor received radiation exposure anywhere near approaching our regulatory limits.

So I think with that sort of track record that we have, I think

we can assure that our plants are operated safely, and the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission is ensuring that by its stance in the way

it tries to deal with its power plants.

Mr. MERRIFIELD. If I may, I think I agree with Commissioner

Dicus. I mean, the statement ‘‘trying to maintain the highest

standards’’ really, I think, goes to the effect of you can never be 100

percent certain that what you are doing is going to absolutely pro-
98

tect everyone, but you need to strive for that 100 percent and get

there as close as you can and maintain that.

Now, the other comment you made was going to the whole issue

of cost. Is this a power option that is going to be available?

Again, I think the one-step licensing program, where once you

get your construction license you can move forward and build that

plant, thereby eliminating the second license, the operating license,

which is what hung up Shoreham and what hung up Seabrook, certainly is going to change the nature of how these plants are going

to operate.

In addition, as you know, the economic climate is different now.

When Seabrook was being built, when Shoreham was being built,

those were the days when we were all faced with 14 and 15 percent

interest rates, which were exorbitant amounts. The cost of money

was a significant element in the excessive cost of those facilities.

Today, if a plant were being built, given the 30-year loan at

prime rate, the nature of that would certainly be different.

In addition, with the new approved licenses that the NRC has

given, we have two very brand new plant designs. The cost of

building those presumably would be better. Weighed against that,

again, is the very low price in the cost of natural gas right now.

Those seem to be, from a cost basis, the most economically efficient

means of doing power right now.

If there is a change in the price of gas, that may very well make

nuclear energy more available as an option for future construction.

I am told that actually the current generating plants are the second-most efficient, second-least expensive—aside from New Hampshire and a few other States, where we have very exorbitant rates

as a result of nuclear power—but overall, on a national average,

nuclear power is, I believe, the second-lowest generating cost to

coal-fired plants.

Senator LAUTENBERG. But I don’t think it was the cost, because

in each case these plants were practically finished. Certainly,

Shoreham was finished, and so the cost had already been absorbed.

And there were opportunities, as you know, under law—bankruptcy or creditor reorganization, and somebody takes a hit, but

the facility is there.

The question I believe that arose, more than anything else, was

safety in the nature of the way these plants were located, etc.

Mr. MERRIFIELD. When I mentioned cost, I meant in terms of

current utilities making a decision to build a new plant, looking

back at those lessons in the cost. That was the analogy I was attempting to make, that there is some leeriness of entering into that

now, given the history of the more-recent history of building some

of these plants and the excessive costs that were related to those.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, shall I submit the other

questions in writing, then? Is that what you’re suggesting?

Senator CHAFEE. I was just going to give Senator Smith a shot

here.

Senator LAUTENBERG. I’m sorry.

Senator CHAFEE. OK. Senator Smith, have you got some questions?

Senator SMITH. Just a couple.
99

In listening to both of your remarks regarding the cost and the

fact that we’ve gotten a better handle on the costs of construction

now, for a lot of reasons—interest rates is certainly one. Another

would be the fact that the approval process takes place before we

start building, which why on earth we would do other wise in the

earlier days I’ll never know, but we learned the hard way about

that, certainly, at Seabrook.

But, to me, the arrows are going in two different directions, and

I don’t think—we may never get a chance to find out whether the

cost is going to be less or not, because at this point we’re not building any more.

So let me ask you this question. I think where the stress is going

to come and where your challenge is going to come as commissioners is in the recommissioning, the relicensing, if you will, of the

older plants, because we’re not getting any more. And so I’d like

you to both comment on that in terms of, you know, we’ve got—

obviously, you’re not going to compromise safety, but I think there

is going to be a lot of pressure if we see the declining number of

plants.

There are going to be some that are going to be coming off-line,

indeed, during both of your tenures, and so I think you are going

to see there will be more pressure on you to relicense.

Just comment, if you would, both of you, on how you see that developing. Go ahead, Ms. Dicus.

Ms. DICUS. OK. On the relicensing, as I mentioned in my oral

comments, there are two applications in now, and the Commission

has set up a fairly robust renewal process. It’s scheduled to take

about 21⁄2 years to renew the first license.

There has been debate as to whether it should take that long or

whether it should be longer. Clearly, you don’t want to—as you try

to move quickly, you don’t want to sacrifice safety.

Some of the reason it will take this long and some of the reasons

that we’re dealing with it are processes that have to be done by

law—for example, the NEPA process—and the need to have a hearing when you amend a license of that sort.

I think in time, as we move through—as the NRC moves through

the continued renewals—and I think the NRC can anticipate getting more renewals—the time might be able to be shortened somewhat.

Again, there are processes involved, and some of these do take

some time, but I think this can be helpful.

When I was on the Commission, we were excited to get that first

application for renewal in.

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think there are going to

be a very large number of plants that appear to be coming up for

relicensing. Of the 105 or so plants that we have now, there may

be as many as 75 or 80 of those, maybe more, that may ultimately—the owners of those facilities may ultimately seek to renew

those licenses. Others, for a variety of reasons, those owners will

seek to decommission those.

I think it is about balancing public health and safety. I think it

is the obligation of the Agency to act in as expedited a fashion as

it can while, as Commissioner Dicus mentioned, meeting all applicable laws and requirements.
100

The fact is that decisions made by that Commission affect people.

They affect people who live and work near those plants, who are

very concerned about their safety. At the same time, they also affect the ratepayers, the people who are paying for the electricity.

If the Commission delays in dilatory fashion relicensing those

plants, other owners may seek not to obtain relicensing, may

choose not to go through it, and ultimately will shut down their

plants. Others who have chosen to go through the relicensing process will have to live with a long record of uncertainty.

If that happens, ultimately the cost will be born by the ratepayers, who will either have to pay for more-expensive replacement

plants or will have to pay for additional rates.

So, I mean, it is a balance, but I think the Agency needs to work

quickly.

Senator SMITH. The point I was trying to develop a little bit is:

if you were approving at whatever rate, one a year, or whatever,

any rate, new state-of-the-art nuclear power plants and they were

going on line, then the stress or the pressure on you to relicense

the old ones would be less, I think, overall.

Now, it is the opposite. We’re not putting any new state-of-theart plants on line, and so you always—you hear the criticism anyway that the NRC is over-zealous in its regulation, it’s not being

fair, standards we can’t meet.

So I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong, but I just see, down the road,

this getting into a larger problem as these plants become necessary

to go off-line, and we’re not building new ones, and therefore, unless we make it up with oil and gas, oil and coal, or gas-fired

plants, then where are we?

And so I guess I’m just trying to sense what your biggest challenge would be on that end. I know the waste end is always a challenge. But in terms of the construction end, whether you view that

as your challenge.

I mean, you’re going to get pressure as these plants begin to get

older, and, you know, you try to extract as much life as you can

out of them with nothing else coming down the pike, and we do

need energy. And if, you know, the other atmospheric problems

continue to stay on the front pages, it will even be more pressure.

So I guess I was just looking for a response in that regard,

whether you view that as a big challenge, or do you just feel like

you’ll just take them off-line, period, if you have to and you will let

somebody else worry about where the energy is made up.

Ms. DICUS. I wouldn’t foresee the NRC renewing the license of

a plant that it honestly believed had aging problems that would affect the safety. There might be some pressure because we need the

energy or because of concerns on meeting the emission standards

that we’re trying to meet, but it is clear, as I said—you know, not

only should we not go forward quickly at the expense of safety, but

we’ve got to ensure that the relicensing of a plant can be relicensed

because it is safe to operate. We can’t compromise that.

Mr. MERRIFIELD. With 20 percent of the Nation’s energy baseload, the role of those existing plants is very important and will

continue to be, and there will be many, many of these plants that

will come up for relicensing and presumably could very well be relicensed.
101

The role of the Commission is to act as an adjudicatory body, to

receive the information from the licensee demonstrating that that

plant is safe, to look over that evidence, and to decide.

And, as Commissioner Dicus has said, if the facts indicate that

the stresses on that plant—on the concrete and steel that make up

the important elements of that containment vessel—if those are not

up to snuff, then that plant should not be relicensed, irrespective

of the percentage of power it has for a State.

On the other hand, if it is safe and the Commission can be satisfied that that is the case, then the Commission should move forward quickly to give the assurances so that the owners of that facility and the ratepayers know that they will have that plant operating for a long period of time.

Senator SMITH. Last question. Is electricity deregulation a good

or a bad thing for nuclear energy?

Ms. DICUS. I think it is one of the challenges that our commercial

nuclear utilities are going to have to deal with in order to ensure

that the nuclear plant can be competitive in that market.

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I think it depends on where you are. I think different plants have different circumstances. Some plants have very

low operating costs and will be extremely competitive in a deregulated environment. There are other plants which have very high

base costs, very high—you know, Seabrook is—not to keep going

back to Seabrook, but Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant, the

users in New Hampshire do pay pretty high rates for their power.

In a deregulated environment, obviously, that will have to be

looked at. Some plants will be more competitive than others.

I think if you talk to the folks in the industry, they will say, ‘‘We

believe that we can be out there competing against a whole lot of

those plants,’’ and I think they are. I think generally they are supportive of a deregulated environment.

Senator CHAFEE. Senator Lautenberg.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. A couple of things, Mr. Chairman,

and then I’ll submit the rest for written response.

I think Senator Smith raised an important question about, you

know, where we go on license renewal and so forth.

The fact of the matter is that I believe that we’re seeing more

electricity generated by co-generators and people who are finding

ways to produce energy at cheaper levels, and the fact that this

distributes through a network makes the whole game quite a bit

more competitive.

Would you know, or venture a view, on whether or not an old

plant, an aging plant, can be brought up to current standards, or

are some of them, if the aging process is so significant that they

would not be able to continue to operate?

I look at the things we’ve found ways to reinvent, and work quite

well—I mean, airplane engines and all kinds of things. Would you

venture a view on whether or not these plants can be salvaged, or

do they arrive at a point where there is just no possibility of giving

them the later techniques and the later equipment, etc., etc.?

Ms. DICUS. Some of the—basically, that’s a decision that the utility makes when it looks at renewal as to any items that have to

do with aging that need to be upgraded, and they look at that as
102

to whether or not economically—and they make an economic decision that it’s worth doing or they feel that they can do it.

For example, I think Calvert Cliffs, they are going to replace

their steam generators, and they made that decision to do that to

be able to relicense those plants and have them operate safely.

So it is an economic decision the utility makes.

Senator LAUTENBERG. I think that’s right. You don’t even have

to bother, Mr. Merrifield.

The important issues in the next century between NRC and the

nuclear industry, could you give me a summary of what you think

those might be?

Ms. DICUS. Waste, license renewal, and new applications for new

plants.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Do you have anything to add, Mr.

Merrifield?

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Yes. I think the other major issue for the industry is they are currently required to pay the cost of the operation

of the NRC, and there is some dispute about whether those costs

that are being imposed are appropriate or fair, and that will be an

ongoing debate.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Do you get the feeling that the NRC staff

or organization could be reduced without impairing its operations?

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I don’t know. I mean, that’s one of the issues

that I certainly will be looking into if I am confirmed.

One of the things that I would say is there has been a significant

look throughout the Government—the Vice President’s initiative to

right-size the Government to make sure we’re fulfilling our mission

to the American public in the most efficient manner. That has been

done in a variety of different agencies.

I don’t know the degree to which that has occurred at the NRC,

and would certainly work—if confirmed, would work with Commissioner Dicus and others to see if that happens.

I know Chairman Jackson and others have hired outside consultants, Arthur Andersen and others, to assist them, and I think that

probably is a positive move.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Do you, Ms. Dicus, know whether the Y2K

problem is one that the nuclear industry faces, and how serious it

might be for them?

Ms. DICUS. My understanding—and I don’t have the latest information on this, but the NRC has been dealing with particularly the

nuclear power plants, but other licensees, as well, on the problem.

My understanding is—and I may have to get back to you on this

to clarify. My understanding is that everything is pretty well under

control and should not be a problem. The plant should be ready to

deal with the issue, and the NRC’s own plans to deal with the

issue are right on track.

But I do want to double check that for you.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Are you familiar with that?

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Nationally, the Y2K problem is something that

everyone has to face, and when—if I am confirmed, certainly would

want to look into that when I get over the NRC.

Senator LAUTENBERG. I’ll ask one last question, Mr. Chairman.
103

There are ongoing disputes between NRC and EPA. Mr.

Merrifield, you’ve had experience with EPA working here. You’re

aware of the disputations that have arisen?

Mr. MERRIFIELD. I’m aware of the dispute between the two agencies.

Senator LAUTENBERG. How do you think we resolve these matters?

Mr. MERRIFIELD. Well, I think there was some talk, although it

was not offered in the context of our Superfund markup, there was

some talk that there needs to be a Congressional resolution to that

issue to make a determination about how that should move forward.

I think both of the agencies feel that they have a significant role

to make in that determination, and it may very well be up to Congress to finally set clear who, indeed, should be the decisionmaking

there.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much,

and I thank the witnesses.

Senator CHAFEE. Senator, do you have further questions? As I

mentioned before—now that there is a vote going off—as I mentioned before, it would be my intention to bring up these nominations tomorrow. We’re all conscious of getting out of here, and I

just don’t want these to hang over if I possibly can avoid it for all

those months.

Under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission—and Ms. Dicus has

experienced this—if you’re not confirmed, reconfirmed, you go off.

In other words, you can’t hold on. So, in other words, her reappointment—her term expired, and——

Senator LAUTENBERG. Are you off now?

Senator CHAFEE. And so she’s off now.

Senator SMITH. Her term expired June 30, didn’t it?

Ms. DICUS. Yes, it did.

Senator SMITH. I remember talking about that, that we could

reasonably work this out in a few days.

Senator CHAFEE. So, therefore, I’m anxious to proceed if at all

possible with these nominees. If members have questions, I would

ask that those questions be submitted by 2 p.m.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Fair enough.

Senator CHAFEE. That’s a tight deadline, but then they can get

their answers out very quickly. I know they will be anxious.

They’re just as anxious as I am, obviously, and I think we all are

to get these nominees confirmed, if that’s the will of the committee

and of the Senate.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I indicated earlier that I

had a little concern about the pace at which we’re moving here.

That is somewhat mitigated by the fact that we’d like to go back

to our States and do our work there.

But this is a fairly narrow timeframe. These are such important

appointments, and the operation of the Commission is an important thing, and I want to be cooperative, Mr. Chairman, and we

will get our material in by 2 p.m., but I want to take a look at

things, I want to review the statements that have been delivered

here.

Senator CHAFEE. That’s certainly fair enough.
104

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. All right. That concludes the hearing, unless you—does anybody have further questions? [No response.]

Senator CHAFEE. All right. I want to thank everybody, thank the witnesses and the nominees.

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to re- convene at the call of the chair.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD, NOMINATED TO BE A COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to ap- pear before you today as one of President Clinton’s two nominees to be a member

of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for

scheduling this hearing so promptly on our nominations. It is a privilege to be here

today. Coming, as I do, from New Hampshire, I am well aware of the role played by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in protecting the health and safety of the public in

the licensed use of nuclear materials. As you know, Seabrook Station Nuclear Power

Plant, which received its operating license in 1990 (the 3rd most recently licensed

plant), was the subject of significant public debate in my State. When I came to work in the Senate for former Senator Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire in 1986, my first job was answering the mountain of constituent mail

regarding Seabrook. Although I was a correspondent for only a brief period of time,

the memory of all of those letters is still quite clear to me. As you can imagine, the

opinion of our constituents ranged from vocal opponents to strong supporters of nuclear power. Frequently, their letters urged the NRC to act on one side or another

of a particular regulatory decision. Of the thousands of letters we received, some of them were from individuals who

disagreed with positions taken by the NRC. However, I remember very few, if any,

that called into question the integrity and objectivity of the NRC or its Commissioners. I believe that is very telling. In the time I have worked in the Senate, both

on and off the Environment Committee, as well as the time I spent as a litigator

in the private sector, I have consistently heard the message that the NRC is an

agency that has earned the trust of the public. Indeed, the NRC has developed a

well deserved reputation that it can be relied upon for fair and scientifically based

decisionmaking.

To prepare for this hearing, I took the time to read the record of the nomination

hearings of the other Commissioners over the last few years. In his nomination

statement 7 years ago, former NRC Chairman Ivan Selin made the following statement:

In my view, when it comes to licensing a nuclear facility, the judgment on safety

of the technical experts—both in-house and independent experts—deserves great

weight. So does the endorsement of the NRC’s decisions by reviewing courts. But

in the long run, none of these will matter if the American public does not have confidence in the competence, the integrity, and the candor of the regulators who are

making the decisions.

I would like to associate myself completely with former Chairman Selin’s statement. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed by the Senate, I will use his statement as a guiding principal in fulfilling my duties as an NRC Commissioner.

Despite the positive reputation that it has developed over the years, the NRC cannot take a solitary role in maintaining full public confidence in the safety of nuclear

power. Indeed, the nuclear industry must also assume equal responsibility for taking the steps necessary to maintain the trust of the American public.

Following the March 28, 1979 incident at Three Mile Island, President Carter

asked Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, the father of our nuclear Navy, to review this

matter and provide his analysis of the lessons learned from this incident. I believe

that there is one passage in his report that is particularly instructive:

Safe design, construction, and operation of nuclear power plants owned and operated by the utilities will not result from expanding the NRC, reorganizing the NRC,

or passing more laws. Nor will it be derived from establishing new diverse, non-expert oversight groups. If commercial nuclear power plants are to be operated safely,

the organizations that own and operate the plants—the utilities—must know what

they are doing and commit themselves to take the steps necessary to achieve nu-
105

clear safety. If the utilities do not establish stringent standards, institute rigorous

training programs, and police themselves, there is little hope for assured safe operation of commercial nuclear power.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that statement was correct then, and almost 20 years

later, it is still correct.

Much has changed at the NRC over these last 20 years. Most importantly, the

scope of the NRC’s work has evolved from a nuclear power plant and material licensing agency to the regulator of an operating nuclear industry. Within the next

few years, the NRC will be faced with a significant number of new challenges. As

you know, there are a number of plant owners that have filed for renewal of their

licenses and others who have decided to decommission their facilities. The NRC will

have to take an active role in determining whether or not plant relicensing can be

accomplished in a manner that is fully protective of the health and safety of the

individuals who live and work near these facilities. Similarly, the interest of the

public will continue to be preeminent in making decisions associated with facilities

undergoing decommissioning.

Another potential challenge for the NRC in the next few years is a proposal to

have the NRC become an external regulator for a number of Department of Energy

facilities. While there are some who believe that this will provide greater public confidence in DOE’s cleanup program, I am not predisposed either way on whether the

NRC should assume such a role. Like others, I am interested in reviewing the results of the external regulation pilot projects that will be made available by DOE

over the course of the next year. It is certainly possible that these pilot projects will

result in a recommendation to increase the interaction between the NRC and DOE.

If this is indeed the case, this will be a significant issue that the NRC will need

to grapple with over the next few years.

Since the breakup of the former Soviet Union, the NRC has taken a greater role

in the international arena to assist both Russia as well as former members of the

Eastern Bloc to modernize their safety procedures, fuel handling practices and

training. While there are some who question this role, we should be proud that the

United States has an agency that the world looks to for leadership on these important safety and health issues. Given the significant cross-boundary impact that nuclear incidents can have, I believe that it is vital that the NRC continue to be looked

at as a leader in this area.

Over the last few months, there has been a renewed Congressional interest in

conducting oversight of the NRC. While there are some who think that Congressional scrutiny is to be greeted with fear and loathing, I believe that a frank and

straightforward dialog between a regulated agency and its Congressional oversight

committee can be good for both Congress as well as the agency. If I am given the

privilege of being confirmed for this position, I would be pleased to come back here

to testify at any time you so desire.

In summary, I believe we are entering a very dynamic and critical time period

at the NRC. I would be excited and eager to play a role in addressing these important issues. If I have the privilege to be confirmed for this position, I am hopeful

that my experience and background will contribute to the confidence and integrity

that we have come to expect from the NRC.

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to answer any questions you

may have.
106
107
108
109
110
111

RESPONSES BY JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR

INHOFE

Question 1. You are aware of the many reform efforts undertaken by the Commission over the past few months. Many of these efforts, of course, came about as the

result of interest and activity by this committee. Are you, generally speaking, in

favor of these efforts?

Response. While I am aware that there are changes being considered by the NRC,

I am not familiar with the details of these reform efforts. Nonetheless, if I am confirmed, I intend to come up to speed on these efforts very quickly. As a general matter, I believe the Commission should continually strive to ensure that it operates

in an efficient and cost effective manner, fully consistent with its mandate to protect

human health and safety.

Question 2. You are also aware that this committee has already announced plans

for a series of hearings to oversee the NRC and its efforts toward reform. Can we
112

count on the two of you being available to the committee as we move forward with

our oversight responsibilities?

Response. I am aware of your intention to hold an NRC oversight hearing sometime after the first of the year. As I stated in my statement, I believe that a frank

and straightforward dialog between a regulated agency and its Congressional oversight Committee is positive for both. If I am given the privilege of being confirmed

for this position, I would be pleased to come back here to testify at any time.

Question 3. I’d like both of you to briefly comment on each of the following reform

efforts currently ongoing at the agency and tell us what you will do to ensure that

these changes are fully carried out during your tenure.

Response. As a general matter, I do not have all of the details of these programs,

but I generally support the concept of constant review and reform to improve the

effectiveness of the regulatory system. Notwithstanding these efforts, nuclear safety

must remain the focus of NRC activities.

Question 3a. Efforts by the Commission to exercise its management oversight responsibilities by providing clear direction and expectations to Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards?

Response. This is not an area I have studied, but I intend to do so if I am confirmed.

Question 3b. Efforts by the Commission to establish a license renewal timetable of

30 months, including time for hearings if necessary?

Response. Generally, I believe that it is positive for the Commission to establish

clear time tables for its decisions and strive to meet them. As I am not a member

of the Commission, I do not know whether 30 months is an appropriate period of

time for a decision on a license renewal.

Question 3c. The Commission’s acceptance that the regulator’s role is not to demand perfection, but to achieve ‘‘adequate protection of public health and safety’’ as

called for in the Atomic Energy Act?

Response. Although I am not familiar with the interpretation of this particular

provision of the Atomic Energy Act, I would be pleased to look into this matter if

I am confirmed by the Senate.

Question 3d. Efforts to integrate and overhaul the agency’s processes for assessment, inspection and enforcement?

Response. It is my understanding that the integration of the assessment, inspection and enforcement processes is taking place. I further understand that the NRC

and the nuclear industry are meeting soon to discuss this issue. If I am confirmed,

I look forward to reviewing the results of this meeting to see if further regulatory

improvements may be made.

Question 3e. The Commission’s recent announcement that it would suspend the

SALP process indefinitely?

Response. It appears to me that the NRC decision to suspend the SALP process

has been done in concert with its effort to integrate the assessment, inspection and

enforcement processes. If an effort is underway to streamline this process, a suspension of the SALP process would seem to make sense as part of its efforts to test

the newer processes.

Question 3f. The agency’s new found commitment to dealing with a petition for

rulemaking that would allow more flexibility for plants in making changes to their

quality assurance plans?

Response. I am not familiar with the details of the petition for rulemaking in the

quality assurance area. Generally, the nuclear programs in the United States are

known for their extensive quality programs. If confirmed, I would undertake an effort to review how the NRC deals with these programs.

Question 4. As you know, the NRC’s budget is completely paid for by a direct assessment on agency licensees. As public servants, it is your duty to ensure that any

moneys collected by the Federal Government are used effectively and cost-efficiently.

This committee and others in the Congress have expressed particular concern in the

last year regarding long-standing criticisms of internal agency management practices. What will you do to initiate and/or support efforts to streamline the NRC’s

staff and processes?

Response. I agree that as a public servant, it is my duty to ensure that any moneys collected by the Federal Government are used effectively and cost-efficiently. It

is my understanding that the NRC has sought the assistance of an outside accounting firm to review agency management practices. I believe outside review of these

practices can be helpful and useful. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the

external analysis. As I stated previously, I believe the agency should continually
113

strive to operate in an efficient and cost effective manner, consistent with its mandate to protect human health and safety.

Question 5. Since 1994, the Commission has been aware that agency licensees are

charged more than $50 million annually for activities unrelated to the NRC’s regulation of them. To date, the Commission has made little effort to rectify this inequity.

What are the two of you willing to do to ensure that licensees pay only for activities

related to their own regulation?

Response. I am aware that there have been concerns raised by agency licensees

regarding charges that they believe are unrelated to the NRC regulation of their operations. While I have not had an opportunity to review these concerns in detail,

I will certainly do so if I am confirmed.

Question 6. There has been some indication that the Commission will suspend the

agency’s Watch List beginning next year. Would you be in favor of such a move?

Response. As I am not a member of the Commission, I am not privy to its internal

deliberations regarding a suspension of the Watch List. If I am confirmed as a member of the Commission, I would certainly review the Watch List process in concert

with efforts regarding the integration of the assessment, inspection and enforcement

functions.

Question 7. In fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Conference Report the Congress provided buy out authority for the NRC to speed

work force downsizing and restructuring the agency. We expect that these funds will

be used to reduce duplication in the agency, improve the supervisor to employee ratio,

and begin to consolidate functions within divisions.

Question 7a. Are you prepared to use this authority granted to you as a new member of the Commission?

Response. I believe that buy out authority can be a useful tool for managers of

all Federal programs in efforts to right-size Federal agencies. As I am not currently

on the NRC, I cannot comment whether or not this authority is appropriate at the

NRC. If I am confirmed, and if I come to the conclusion that this should be utilized

at the NRC, I am prepared to use that authority.

Question 7b. In what way do you think the buy out authority will benefit the NRC?

Response. I refer to my answer to the previous question.

Question 8. NASA has just announced a new program with George Mason University which will provide a transition for senior managers and others who can afford

to retire but do not want to give up the challenges of having a job. Those selected

will become advisors to the commercial space and satellite industry. NASA is trying

this program in the hope that senior employees will retire sooner without forced reductions or buyouts.

Question 8a. Do you think that the NRC may want to begin a similar program?

Response. I am aware of the NASA program. It certainly looks interesting, and

if confirmed, I would be pleased to review it to see if it has applicability at the NRC.

Question 8b. What steps do you foresee needed to develop such a program?

Response. I refer to my answer to the previous question.

Nuclear Waste Questions

Radiation Protection Standard

Question 1. An area of significant concern to the committee is the establishment

of an appropriate radiation protection standard for the permanent repository for nuclear waste. On April 29, 1997, members of the NRC testified before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Commerce Committee.

At that hearing Chairman Jackson was asked a question relative to the public

health and safety afforded by the radiation standard. She stated,

‘‘The [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission notes the standard in H.R. 1270 of an annual effective does of 100 mrem to the average member of the general population

in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain and views that standard as consistent with the

protection of the public health and safety.’’

Do you support the point of view enumerated by Chairman Jackson relative to

the radiation protection standard as it was included in H.R. 1270?

Response. I have not had the opportunity to review the language included in H.R.

1270, nor have I had an opportunity to review the testimony made by Chairman

Jackson relative to that legislation. I would be pleased to look into this matter if

I am confirmed by the Senate.

Question 2. When the Senate considered this issue in the context of S. 104, it included a standard which was more stringent than the one included in H.R. 1270.
114

Is it your view that, if enacted, the standard in S. 104 also adequately protects health

and safety of the public as well as the standard in H.R. 1270? Response. I have not had the opportunity to review the language in S. 104, nor have I had the opportunity to determine how it compares to the language included

in H.R. 1270. I would be pleased to look into this matter if I am confirmed by the

Senate.

Question 3. As you know, EPA has the initial responsibility for promulgating and establishing such a standard; however, other agencies (DOE and NRC) also have a

serious interest in assuring that the radiation standard is appropriately set. But as

the process has unfolded, we understand that there has been a significant disagreement between the agencies as to the appropriate standard to apply. NRC and DOE

have taken the position that the standard currently contemplated by EPA is not appropriate.

Question 3a. Would you not agree that the EPA standard as currently favored by EPA is not workable? Please explain your rationale. Response. I am not fully familiar with the difference in approach between the NRC, DOE and the EPA in establishing a radiation standard for a permanent repository. However, if confirmed, there are two principles I believe are important: First, whatever standard is ultimately adopted, it must be protective of public health and safety. Second, while it would be beneficial for the agencies come to a mutual agreement on setting a standard, if they cannot do so, there may be a justification for Congressional action to settle these differences.

Question 3b. Do you agree that a ground water standard as part of the overall standard is not appropriate in this circumstance?

Response. I refer to my answer to the previous question.

Question 3c. Do you agree that it is appropriate for the NRC in developing Part 63 to not include subsystem performance standards as a separate ground water

standard?

Response. I refer to my answer to question 3(a).

Question 3d. In your view, is the standard currently proposed by the EPA consist- ent with the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, as required by

Section 801 (a)(1) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992? Response. I refer to my answer to question 3(a).

Viability Assessment Analysis

Question 1. The Senate remains concerned over the timeframe required before a repository is operational at Yucca Mountain. As an important step, DOE is now currently conducting a viability assessment. That assessment is anticipated to be completed this Fall and delivered to the NRC. Following receipt of the viability assessment by NRC, the Commission will have a 3-month period to review the ‘‘Licensing

Application Plan,’’ included in the assessment.

Will you provide the committee with a commitment to expeditiously review the assessment and complete this specific task within 3 months? At the end of the 3-

months, will you be able to inform DOE of any improvements in the ‘‘Licensing Application Plan’’? If not, for either questions please describe why that will not be possible.

Response. Although I am not completely familiar with any constraints the Commission may face on this issue, I am fully committed to an expeditious review of

these issues, consistent with protection of public safety. I would expect that the

Commission would be accountable to inform DOE of any improvements required in

their Licensing Application Plan.

RESPONSES BY JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR

LAUTENBERG

Question 1. Please discuss your professional background, and how this will be an

asset to the Commission, and to the regulation of the nuclear industry.

Response. I began my professional career in the U.S. Senate in 1986, working as

a legislative assistant for Senator Gordon J. Humphrey (R-NH). In that role, I

served as the Senator’s legislative assistant for issues that related to his assignment

on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, as well as energy issues

in general. In this role, I acted as the Senator’s advisor on issues associated with

the oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. From 1986 until the time Senator Humphrey retired in 1990, I assisted Senator Humphrey in his efforts to ensure that safety requirements were not waived by the NRC during the construction
115

of Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant. During this time period, Senator Humphrey led the fight to ensure that the 10-mile emergency evacuation zone at

Seabrook was not reduced. In addition, I also staffed Senator Humphrey on the Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, issues related to the Waste Isolation Pilot

Project and the High Level Waste Repository. From 1990 through 1992, I was employed by Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) and played a similar role in advising him on nuclear issues that came before the Senate

Environment Committee and before the U.S. Senate.

From 1992 through 1994, I was an attorney in private practice with the Washing- ton, D.C. based law firm of McKenna and Cuneo. At McKenna, I represented a

broad range of clients on regulatory, corporate and litigation matters. In this role,

I was involved with a number of activities pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, as well as compliance with a number of environmental laws including

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxics Substances Control

Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Recovery Act

(CERCLA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA).

From 1995 through the present, I have acted as Senator Smith’s counsel for the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment. In this role, I

crafted legislation regarding the reauthorization of CERCLA as well as amendments

to RCRA.

Senator Smith is also the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee

on Strategic Forces. I have acted as one of Senator Smith’s principal advisors on

issues associated with the cleanup of Department of Defense and Department of Energy facilities that are contaminated by hazardous or radioactive waste. I have described these activities more specifically in my responses to questions 2 and 3. In

addition to these activities, Senator Smith also directed me to track the series of

pilot projects between the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the possibility of external regulation by the NRC of DOE activities. The results of these pilot projects will be made available by the DOE over the

course of the next 1–2 years, and may involve additional oversight responsibilities

by the NRC. I believe that if I am confirmed, my legislative and legal experience in the Senate will be an asset to the Commission. Having been the primary staffer on nuclear issues for two members of the NRC’s oversight committee, I believe that I can share

with the other Commission members a greater insight into the expectations that

Congress has for the NRC. Having also served Senator Smith on a number of issues

associated with the cleanup, safe transportation and storage of low level, transuranic, high level and mixed wastes under control of the Department of Defense and

the Department of Energy, I believe that my background will serve me well if I am

confirmed.

In addition, since there are currently no attorneys on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and considering the fact that it acts essentially as an adjudicatory

body, I believe that my experience would add to the diversity of the NRC, and hopefully provide a fresh insight into many of the issues currently under consideration

by the Commission.

Question 2. I understand that you have investigated Department of Energy and De- partment of Defense hazardous and radiological waste programs. Please identify the

particular programs investigated, the reasons for the investigations, and the nature

of your involvement in the investigations. Please identify any steps taken by the Department of Energy or the Department of Defense as a result of such investigations. Response. The investigations were focused on activities of the Department of En- ergy’s Office of Environmental Management and the Department of Defense’s Environmental Restoration program. Specific areas investigated included the degree to

which DOE and DOD comply with requirements of Federal statutes such as RCRA,

CERCLA and the Federal Facilities Compliance Act. Investigations also included

the review of Federal policies and budgets. My role was not to direct the Departments’ management of these programs but to support the Chairman of the

Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment Subcommittee by gathering information to support his decisions and actions in crafting environmental legislation. My specific involvement included meetings with Federal installation managers, site cleanup contractors, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials, State and

local officials, and stakeholder and community groups; organizing and participating

in Congressional oversight hearings; and drafting proposed legislation.

As a result, several important legislative initiatives were successfully passed into

law. For example, the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act which eliminated duplicative and overlapping layers of regulation in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was passed in 1996. In addition, Senator Smith included a series of

CERCLA amendments in the National Defense Authorization Acts of 1995 and 1996
116

that streamlined the reutilization of facilities closed under the Base Closure and Reutilization Act. The amendments were intended to promote rapid reutilization of

these facilities while at the same time meeting existing cleanup standards and requirements. Finally, as a direct result of hearings held by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary Richardson recently announced plans to reexamine the

Department of Energy’s policy on offsite disposal of low level radioactive waste. This

new policy will ensure that DOE low level and mixed low level radioactive wastes

are disposed of only at licensed facilities. It is anticipated that the new policy will

promote greater competition for such disposal among existing licensed contractors,

resulting in savings to the taxpayers.

Question 3. I understand that you have participated in the review of hazardous waste cleanup efforts at the Department of Defense. Please identify the particular

cleanup efforts you reviewed, the reasons for your review, and the nature of your involvement in the investigations. Please identify whether any of these cleanups involved mixed waste, or radioactive waste. Please identify any steps taken by the Department of Defense as a result of the review.

Response. As stated in my answer to question 2, the investigations were focused on activities of the Department of Defense’s Environmental Restoration program.

The cleanup efforts reviewed, the reasons for the reviews, and my role in the investigations are the same as indicated in my answer to question 2. Several of the programs investigated have responsibility for cleanup of low level

radioactive and mixed wastes. For example, I reviewed the radioactive waste management programs of the Department of the Navy through numerous meetings with

Navy personnel and discussing Naval fuel loading, transportation, storage, and processing activities. During my visits to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, I encountered sites where the Navy was managing mixed

waste and radioactive waste.

I have participated in the review of programs carried out by the Office of Naval

Reactors, which includes the decommissioning of surplus reactor training facilities.

The Office of Naval Reactors has established an aggressive decommissioning program to decontaminate and close its surplus nuclear facilities. My reviews focused

on the cleanup and decontamination standards adhered to at Navy closure sites and

the processes utilized to maximize protection of worker safety and health and protection of public health and the environment.

Again, as I stated in my answer to question 2, my role was not to direct the Departments’ management of these programs but to support the Chairman of the

Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment Subcommittee by gathering information to support his decisions and actions in crafting environmental legislation.

Question 4. What are your views about the adequacy of NRC regulations? Do you

think they are too burdensome? Too lax? Please identify specific regulations you believe should be modified, and explain your reasons for believing that they require

modification.

Response. I do not have a specific opinion regarding whether the existing NRC

regulations are too burdensome or too lax. If I am confirmed as an NRC Commissioner, I intend to quickly become more familiar with these regulations and how

they may be improved.

I am aware that many stakeholders have raised a number of concerns about the

NRC regulations. Many of the concerns appear to be focused on the reactor oversight program, specifically on the inspection and performance assessment processes;

the enforcement program; license renewal; license transfers; the transition to a risk

informed and performance based framework; and other areas requiring timely decisions. I understand that the NRC has a number of improvements underway to reduce the burden on licensees and make more timely decisions while still ensuring

adequate protection of public health and safety. If confirmed, I plan to evaluate the

adequacy of NRC’s regulations and the ongoing efforts to improve them in order to

better understand what further modifications may be necessary.

Question 5. I understand that you are a member of the Federalist Society. Please

describe this Society’s mission, and whether the Society has adopted any positions

that pertain to regulating the nuclear industry. Please also describe the activities you

have performed as a member of the Society.

Response. The Federalist Society is a social and educational organization of lawyers that is similar to the American Bar Association. To quote the Federalist Society

‘‘purpose’’ statement: ‘‘The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is

a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal

order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that

the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that is

emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what
117

it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles

and to further their application through its activities.’’

Since I have been a member of the Federalist Society I have attended a number

of social functions including lunches and dinners. I do not hold a membership in

any office of the Federalist Society.

According to the staff at the Federalist Society, the Society has never taken a position, either formal or informal, pertaining to the regulation of the nuclear industry.

STATEMENT OF GRETA JOY DICUS, NOMINATED TO BE A COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR

REGULATORY COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is indeed a great privilege and honor

for me to appear before you as one of President Clinton’s two nominees to be a

Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Many of you are familiar

with my professional credentials and qualifications from previous appearances before you, so I will give an abbreviated version of my background.

My educational background includes a Master of Arts degree in Radiation Biology

from the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School in Dallas Texas and my

undergraduate degree was in Biological Sciences, with minors in Chemistry and

Government History, from Texas Woman’s University in Denton, Texas. After a career in research and as a State official in the State of Arkansas, eventually serving

as Director of the Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management for the

Arkansas Department of Health, I was nominated and confirmed by the U.S. Senate

as an original member of the Board of Directors of the United States Enrichment

Corporation. I served on the U.S. Enrichment Corporation Board until my term

ended in March 1995. I was subsequently nominated and confirmed as a member

of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, commencing a term in February 1996

which was completed on June 30 of this year.

When I last appeared before this committee as my previous nomination to the

NRC was under consideration, I explained that NRC’s mission was to ensure that

civilian uses of nuclear materials in the United States are carried out with adequate

protection of the public health and safety, the environment, and national security.

My term as a Commissioner has not changed my understanding of the NRC mission

and I will continue to work if confirmed to a second term to further the accomplishment of NRC’s mission.

During the previous hearing Senators Chafee and Smith expressed support for assuring NRC was positioned to effectively consider that nuclear power plant license

renewal applications, if submitted, are efficiently and effectively considered. I am

pleased to say that just prior to the end of my first term, all Commissioners had

unanimously approved a policy statement providing for improved management of

adjudicatory hearings including those for license renewal. This Policy Statement

was published on August 5, 1998. The framework outlined in that policy statement

has already been utilized in establishing a hearing schedule for the first license renewal application, filed by Baltimore Electric and Gas Company to renew the operating license for their Calvert Cliffs power plant. These hearing improvements have

great potential to provide an expeditious consideration of license renewal applications and any concerns of members of the public related to the applications. In addition, an application for renewal of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3

was received by NRC from Duke Energy Corporation on July 6, 1998, and this policy statement would also be used by the Licensing Board if a hearing is granted in

that proceeding. During my first term, the Commission initiated a number of actions

to improve the regulatory framework of the agency, particularly with respect to performance assessments of nuclear power plants. Much remains to be done to see

these improved programs finalized and implemented and during a second term on

the Commission I would continue to press to improve the effectiveness and efficiency

of the Commission’s activities in furtherance of NRC’s regulatory mission.

During my first term on the Commission, it was clear to me that many challenges

face the agency as the nature of the nuclear industry changes, involving both power

plants and the use of radiological materials in other beneficial ways. I stated during

my first confirmation hearing that we should utilize a fair and open process in all

decisions, while at the same time maintaining our regulatory independence. I

worked faithfully to make decisions with those principles in mind during my first

term and will continue to do so if confirmed for a second term. It is clear that an

efficient, fair, and open process to reaching regulatory decisions will assure that the

industry understands, and that the public accepts, NRC’s regulatory decisions.
118

I want to express to you my appreciation for this opportunity to discuss my re- nomination to a second term as a Commissioner on the NRC. I would be pleased

to answer any questions at this time.

RESPONSES BY GRETA DICUS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. You are aware of the many reform efforts undertaken by the Commis- sion over the past few months. Many of these efforts, of course, came about as the

result of interest and activity by this committee. Are you, generally speaking, in

favor of these efforts?

Response. I supported those efforts that were initiated while I was on the Commission, and in general, I am in favor of efforts that improve the effectiveness and

efficiency of the agency. Many of the efforts are not complete and will be continuing.

Such improvements as the recently issued Policy Statement on the Conduct of Hearings will require continued Commission attention to assure proper implementation.

Additionally, the Government Performance and Results Act has provided a framework for the agency to begin improving our ability to institute and monitor reforms.

I believe we owe it to both the Nation and our stakeholders (licensees, public interest groups, ratepayers) to assure we reform as necessary to maintain an organization that can protect the public health and safety without undue costs or delays.

I, therefore, do support reforms that would assist the agency in achieving these

goals.

Question 2. You are also aware that this committee has already announced plans for a series of hearings to oversee the NRC and its efforts toward reform. Can we

count on the two of you being available to the committee as we move forward with

our oversight responsibilities? Response. I assure the committee that if I am confirmed by the Senate I will be available to individual members or the entire committee as necessary to allow the

committee to conduct its oversight responsibilities.

Question 3. I’d like both of you to briefly comment on each of the following reform efforts currently ongoing at the agency and tell us what you will do to ensure that

these changes are fully carried out during your tenure:

Question 3(A). Efforts by the Commission to exercise its management oversight responsibilities by providing clear direction and expectations to Atomic Safety and

Licensing Boards? Response. (A) Particularly during the later part of my first term I was concerned with the performance of our Licensing Boards. Throughout my first term I reviewed

adjudicatory matters and increasing found distressing the length of time some proceedings were taking to reach finality. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks for

the committee, one outgrowth of the concern of myself and my fellow Commissioners

was a recently issued policy statement providing additional guidance on the conduct

of hearings. I believe the members of the Commission are committed to looking for

improvements and improved performance in terms of the efficiency with which we

reach adjudicatory decisions. If confirmed, I intend to continue to monitor these issues as the Licensing Boards implement the new Commission hearing policy.

Question 3(B) Efforts by the Commission to establish a license renewal timetable of 30 months, including time for hearings if necessary? Response. (B) I believe the Commission can meet the 30 month schedule for license renewal. In fact, I have some hope that as we gain experience with the renewal process we will find future renewals can be issued in shorter timeframes. It

must be recognized that some components of this 30 month cycle arise from statutorily mandated opportunity for hearings and NEPA reviews. Adequate time must

be allowed for these reviews and for the staff to conduct sufficient technical reviews

to reach an informed decision on the acceptability of the proposed renewal application. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to expect NRC to be able to meet a 30

month schedule for this process.

Question 3(C) The Commission’s acceptance that the regulator’s role is not to demand perfection, but to achieve ‘‘adequate protection of public health and safety’’ as

called for in the Atomic Energy Act?

Response. (C) The Commission recognizes its role to assure adequate protection

of public health and safety, and has performed this responsibility exceedingly well.

Because of this responsibility as well as the complexities of the technology and the

potential ramifications of a nuclear accident, the reviews that NRC performs are

necessarily thorough. I do not believe ‘‘perfection’’ is the standard by which licensees

should be regulated. I and my fellow Commissioners have always remained sensitive

to the need to conduct regulatory reviews in a timely manner and have exercised
119

increased oversight of staff activities to ensure continued timeliness and efficiency

in review processes. If confirmed, I will continue to exercise such oversight to ensure

that proper protection of public health and safety is maintained.

Question 3(D) Efforts to integrate and overhaul the agency’s processes for assessment, inspection and enforcement?

Response. (D) The Commission has undertaken a significant effort to integrate its

various processes for assessing the performance of licensees, inspection and enforcement. This integrated review effort should result in a more efficient and objective

assessment process by incorporating the desirable attributes of existing processes

while eliminating duplicative and nonvalue-added components of the process. Public

comments will be sought on the revised assessment process, which includes inspection and enforcement aspects. While it is expected that this new process will be a

significant improvement over those used in the past, I will continue to strive to ensure that assessment processes are adequately serving the public need, and make

appropriate changes when necessary.

Question 3(E) The Commission’s recent announcement that it would suspend the

SALP Process indefinitely?

Response. (E) The Commission suspended the SALP process indefinitely in order

to utilize the resources that would have been directed toward SALP reviews, for the

completion of the integrated review of assessment processes. In the interim, results

obtained via other NRC assessment processes will be made publicly available to ensure that the public is kept adequately informed of licensee performance. I am very

supportive of the integrated review, the development of which began during my first

term on the Commission. By early 1999, progress on the integrated review should

be sufficient for my fellow Commissioners and me to make final determinations on

the format for future evaluations and monitoring of licensee performance.

Question 3(F) The agency’s new found commitment to dealing with a petition for

rulemaking that would allow more flexibility for plants in making changes to their

quality assurance plans?

Response. (F) The NRC is committed to promptly consider all petitions for rulemaking. In the area of Quality Assurance the staff, several years ago, implemented

a ‘‘graded quality assurance’’ pilot program intended to allow licensees flexibility in

making changes to their quality assurance plans without first receiving NRC approval. This program is ongoing. The staff is also continuing its review of a recent

petition for rulemaking regarding changes to quality assurance programs. I am supportive of all initiatives that are technically sound, prudent, and worthwhile, and

continue to encourage frank dialog, and timely and efficient reviews of such initiatives. As a general matter, I am always willing to listen to new and innovative suggestions for ways to reach the agency’s goal of protection of the public health and

safety without unnecessary costs to licensee, ratepayers and taxpayers.

Question 4. As you know, the NRC’s budget is completely paid for by a direct assessment on agency licensees. As public servants, it is your duty to ensure that any

moneys collected by the Federal Government are used effectively and cost-efficiently.

This committee and others in the Congress have expressed particular concern in the

last year regarding long-standing criticisms of internal agency management practices. What will you do to initiate and/or support efforts to streamline the NRC’s

staff and processes?

Response. I am strongly committed to ensuring that moneys collected by the Federal Government will be used by the USNRC effectively and cost-efficiently. During

my first term, the Commission completed a strategic assessment and rebaselining

that provided the groundwork for re-aligning and streamlining operation of the

NRC. Realignment of agency management functions will significantly aid in meeting

these goals. The creation of an Executive Council consisting of the Directors for Operations, Finance and Information will provide clear lines of responsibilities for

these key areas. The Chief Financial Officer will provide a central management

point for assuring cost effectiveness of USNRC operations. The creation of the Office

of the Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Effectiveness will provide a meaningful way for monitoring the Commission’s success in meeting our goal of increasing effectiveness and to identify new avenues to further increase our effectiveness.

Steps have been successfully taken increasing the span of responsibility of supervisors and managers including increasing the employee-supervisory ratio.

It is important to note that changes are relatively new and time will be required

to realize the full potential of these changes.

Question 5. Since 1994, the Commission has been aware that agency licensees are

charged more than $50 million annually for activities unrelated to the NRC’s regulation of them. To date, the Commission has made little effort to rectify this in-
120

equity. What are the two of you willing to do to ensure that licensees pay only for

activities related to their own regulation? Response. I believe the Commission has been making efforts in this area. The Commission is on record supporting an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act to remove that portion of NRC operations not directly related to regulation of NRC licensees from the license fee base and fund it through general appropriation. I concurred in this and continue to support this amendment as a matter of fairness and

equity to NRC licensees. As a fundamental matter, there are activities undertaken

by the NRC that are necessary and benefit the Nation generally, rather then specific licensees. Such activities might be more fairly funded through a mechanism

other than user fees. At the same time the Commission has taken steps to streamline and prioritize its functions in these areas, for example, through the strategic

assessment and rebaselining reviews of the Agreement State program and the Office

of International Programs. While many of the NRC functions in these areas are

statutorily required, I believe that the Commission actions to make these programs

more effective and cost efficient together with Commission support for amending the

Act to remove these activities from the licensee fee base represent significant steps

to address licensees’ concerns. These efforts will assure those activities fairly assessed to the licensees are conducted in the most efficient, cost effective manner.

Question 6. There has been some indication that the Commission will suspend the

agency’s Watch List beginning next year. Would you be in favor of such a move? Response. Each of the Commission’s assessment processes that have been implemented have served the agency and the industry well to assure adequate public

health and safety. All were very effective in achieving their purposes at the time

they were instituted and each of those processes continue to contain elements that

are relevant today. It is the responsibility of the Commission to ensure that these

assessment processes are maintained current and relevant with respect to the industry’s operational performance and circumstances. My response to question 3(d)

and (e) more fully describes agency efforts to assure that any duplicative, unnecessary or inefficient plant evaluation efforts are adjusted to create an efficient integrated system to monitor plant performance. If confirmed, I will continue to assess

the usefulness of the watch list in the broader context of the overall integrated review of assessment processes.

Question 7. In fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Conference Report the Congress provided buyout authority for the NRC to speed

work force downsizing and restructuring the agency. We expect that these funds will

be used to reduce duplication in the agency, improve the supervisor to employee ration, and begin to consolidate functions within divisions.

(A) Are you prepared to use this authority granted to you as a new member of the Commission?

Response (A). I would be fully prepared to use buyout authority to reduce super- visor to employee ratios and to improve the efficiency of the agency operations.

(B) In what way do you think the buyout authority will benefit the NRC?

Response (B). Obviously, having established a goal of reducing the management to employee ration, it would be of benefit to the NRC if buyout authority can be

used to reach this goal without the disruption that forced reductions in force could

introduce. I do, however, have concerns about processes that inevitably result in our

losing some of our most experienced managers. On the other hand, to rely on attrition alone may not meet our restructuring goals and forced reductions also have

negative implications, particularly if they have the unintended effect of depriving

the agency of its future leaders. I, therefore, do believe that buyout authority is a

valuable tool that, if used judiciously, can help make for a smooth transition to a

leaner agency.

Question 8. NASA has just announced a new program with George Mason Univer- sity which will provide a transition for senior managers and others who can afford

to retire but do not want to give up the challenges of having a job. Those selected

will become advisors to the commercial space and satellite industry. NASA is trying

this program in the hope that senior employees will retire sooner without forced reductions and buyouts.

(A) Do you think that the NRC may want to begin a similar program?

Response (A). Although I am not familiar with NASA’s new program with George

Mason University, based on the information provided in the question, I would not

object to evaluating the merits of implementing such a program at the NRC if current efforts to streamline are unsuccessful. As you know, like NASA, the NRC is

in the process of reducing the number of managers in its organization. As part of

this effort, an agency goal is to substantially reduce the number of Senior Executive

Service (SES) managers by January 1999. This will be accomplished, in large part,
121

by reorganization efforts currently underway. I am firmly committed to streamlining

the agency to the extent that it does not decrease public health and safety. If NRC’s

current efforts are unsuccessful, I would be willing to consider alternate methods

of streamlining the agency, such as implementing a program similar to NASA’s new

program.

(B) What steps do you foresee needed to develop such a program?

Response (B). Specific steps needed to develop such a program would be developed and considered during the course of evaluating the merits of the program.

Nuclear Waste Question

Radiation Protection Standard

Question 1. An area of significant concern to the committee is the establishment of an appropriate radiation protection standard for the permanent repository for nuclear waste. On April 29, 1997, members of the NRC testified before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Commerce Committee. At that hearing Chairman Jackson was asked a question relative to the public health and safety afforded by the radiation standard. She stated, ‘‘The [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission notes the standard in H.R. 1270 of an an- nual effective does of 100 mrem to the average member of the general population

in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain and views that standard as consistent with the

protection of the public health and safety.’’ Do you support the point of view enumerated by Chairman Jackson relative to the radiation standard as it was included in H.R. 1270?

Response. I concur in the Chairman’s statement that the standard in H.R. 1270

is consistent with the protection of the public health and safety, but would add my

expectation that this standard, if enacted, would be implemented together with

NRC’s existing requirement that licensees make every reasonable effort to maintain

exposures to radiation as far below the dose limits as is reasonably achievable

(ALARA). In practice, the implementation of the ALARA requirement by NRC licensees has resulted in worker and public doses resulting from licensed operations

that are well below applicable regulatory limits. It should be noted that, as a general practice in radiation protection, the basic radiation protection limit of 100

mrem/y is apportioned when there is a possibility of exposure to multiple licensed

sources of radiation (‘‘constraints’’). In the case of the Yucca Mountain site, however,

its extreme remoteness makes it unlikely that members of the public in its vicinity

will be exposed to other licensed activities. Therefore, application of the standard

in H.R. 1270 when combined with the existing requirement for ALARA is acceptable

in this case. With these understandings, the standard is consistent with the recommendation of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)

and the National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) for

members of the general public. The ICRP and NCRP are independent scientific organizations which provide scientifically based recommendations for radiation protection which are generally followed worldwide.

Question 2. When the Senate considered this issue in the context of S. 104, it included a standard which was more stringent than the one included in H.R. 1270.

Is it your view that, if enacted, the standard in S. 104 also adequately protects

health and safety of the public as well as the standard in H.R. 1270? Response. The standard in S. 104 is expressed in terms of the maximum lifetime

risk of fatal cancer to an average member of the critical group that is not to exceed

1 in 1000. This is equivalent to an average annual dose of about 30 mrem/y. I would

note the difference between the specified exposed populations in H.R. 1270 & S. 104,

i.e., an average member of the general population in the general vicinity of the site

is specified in H.R. 1270 vs. the specification of an average member of the critical

group in S. 104. Notwithstanding the differences in the specifications of the exposed

populations, the standard in S. 104, is also protective of the public health and safety.Question 3. As you know, EPA has the initial responsibility for promulgating and establishing such a standard; however, other agencies (DOE and NRC) also have a

serious interest in assuring that the radiation standard is appropriately set. But as

the process has unfolded, we understand that there has been a significant disagreement between the agencies as to the appropriate standard to apply. NRC and DOE

have taken the position that the standard currently contemplated by EPA is not appropriate.

(A) Would you not agree that the EPA standard as currently favored by EPA is

not workable? Please explain your rationale.

Response (A). I would agree that EPA standards go beyond those necessary to protect the public health and safety and have the potential to introduce prohibitive and
122

unnecessary expense for those responsible for meeting those standards. To this extent those standards may be unworkable.

(B) Do you agree that a ground water standard as part of the overall standard

is not appropriate in this circumstance?

Response (B). Briefly stated, my view is that NRC’s proposed radiation protection

standards for radioactive waste disposal are consistent with ICRP and NCRP recommendations for radiation protection, are scientifically defensible and are protective of the public health and safety. There is nothing in the ICRP and NCRP recommendations that would support creation of a separate standard for ground water

because their recommended standards for limiting radiation exposure are not dependent upon the route of exposure. Therefore, there is no scientific radiation protection justification for a separate standard for ground water. In my judgment,

EPA’s proposed standards go beyond those recommended by the National Academy

of Sciences especially with respect to establishing a separate standard for ground

water.

(C) Do you agree that it is appropriate for the NRC in developing Part 63 to not

include subsystem performance standards as a separate ground water standard?

Response (C). See response to Radiation Protection Standard Question 3(B) above.

(D) In your view, is the standard currently proposed by the EPA consistent with

the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, as required by Section

801 (a)(1 ) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992?

Reponse (D). See response to Radiation Protection Standard Question 3(B) above.

Viability Assessment Analysis

The Senate remains concerned over the timeframe required before a repository is

operational at Yucca Mountain. As an important step, DOE is now currently conducting a viability assessment. That assessment is anticipated to be completed this

Fall and delivered to the NRC. Following receipt of the viability assessment by

NRC, the Commission will have a 3-month period to review the ‘‘Licensing Application Plan,’’ included in the assessment.

Question 1. Will you provide the committee with a commitment to expeditiously

review the assessment and complete this specific task within 3 months? At the end

of the 3-months, will you be able to inform DOE of any improvements in the ‘‘Licensing Application Plan’’? If not, for either question please describe why that will

not be possible.

Response. I share the Senate’s concern regarding the timeframe required to open

a repository at Yucca Mountain. As you know, the Department of Energy (DOE) is

currently scheduled to complete the Viability Assessment (VA) this fall. There is no

plan by DOE to issue it in draft for comment, and NRC’s review of DOE’s VA is

not an explicit statutory requirement. However, NRC expects to be asked by Congress to comment on DOE’s VA. NRC’s independent licensing view may be useful

input to potential Congressional decisions about the future of the national program.

I strongly support an expeditious review of the VA by the NRC. Early feedback

to DOE resulting from reviews of draft and/or final VA documents will be a continuation of NRC’s ongoing issue resolution activities during the pre-licensing phase.

Early feedback has already been given to DOE in fiscal year 1996–1998. In my view,

the final objectives of the VA review, as outlined below, should be completed within

3 months after receipt of the VA. These objectives are threefold: (1) to identify

progress in the development of information necessary for a complete license application; (2) to identify potential licensing vulnerabilities that could either preclude or

pose a major risk to licensing; and (3) to identify major concerns with DOE’s test

plans, design concepts and Total System Performance Assessment, that if not resolved by DOE, might result in an incomplete or unacceptable license application.

Following the completion of the objectives, the NRC would promptly forward its results to the DOE for its consideration.
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135

(137)

NOMINATIONS OF WILLIAM CLIFFORD SMITH,

ISADORE ROSENTHAL, AND ANDREA KIDD

TAYLOR

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1998

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 406,

Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Chafee, Baucus, and Lautenberg.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Senator CHAFEE. Good morning.

The purpose of this hearing is to review the nomination of Dr.

Isadore Rosenthal to be appointed a member of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. The second nomination is for

Dr. Andrea Kidd Taylor also to be appointed a member of the

Chemical Safety Board. The third nomination is that of Mr. William Clifford Smith to be appointed as a member of the Mississippi

River Commission.

I’m pleased to welcome those who are here today, in particular,

our three nominees. Also, we expect some Senators here who will

introduce, I believe we’re expecting Senator Specter, who is going

to introduce Dr. Rosenthal. Senator Levin will introduce Dr. Taylor. And Senator Breaux and Congressman Tauzin, I believe, will

introduce Mr. Smith.

It’s my pleasure to report that all three nominees have impressive backgrounds and are well suited for the positions for them.

The President has nominated Dr. Rosenthal as a member of the

Chemical Safety Board, a position he’s highly qualified to assume.

Since 1990, Dr. Rosenthal has been a senior member of the

Wharton Risk Management and Decision Process Center at the

University of Pennsylvania, where he teaches a course in the MBA

program. He’s also a member of the board of the University of

Pennsylvania’s Environmental Research Institute.

Prior to that, from 1953 to his retirement in 1990, he served on

a number of research, development and new business ventures in

corporate staff positions at Rohm and Haas Company. Dr. Rosenthal received his B.A. from New York University, an M.S. from

Pursue, and a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania.
138

The President has also nominated Dr. Andrea Kidd Taylor to be

a member of the Chemical Safety Board. Dr. Taylor has been an

Occupational Health Policy Consultant and Industrial Hygienist for

the United Automobile Workers since 1989. Prior to that, she was

with the Maryland Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.

And prior to 1984, was a Coordinator/Industrial Hygienist at the

Workplace Safety and Health Program at Coppin State College in

Baltimore.

In addition to her professional achievements, Dr. Taylor has been

a member of the President’s Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses. She’s a member of both the American Industrial

Hygiene Association and the American Public Health Association.

Dr. Taylor received a B.S. from Howard University, an M.S. in public health from the University of Alabama in Birmingham, Doctor

of Public Health degree from Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and

Public Health.

Mr. William Clifford Smith has been nominated by the President

to be a member of the Mississippi River Commission. Mr. Smith is

president and CEO of T. Baker Smith and Son, a private company

that provides civil engineering, land surveying, and environmental

services. He’s worked in this position since 1962 and has been directly responsible for the general management, direction and supervision of all professional services.

He’s served as a member of the Board of Commerce and Industry

for the State of Louisiana. Prior to that, a member of the Coastal

Zone Commission for the State. He is a member of the board of directors of Louisiana Intercoastal Seaway Association, and a member of the Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association. He received his

Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Louisiana

State University.

The Chemical Board is completing its first year of operation. It

was authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, but fiscal year 1998 was the first year for which it received appropriated

funds. The Board was modeled after the National Transportation

Safety Board and given the mission of investigating industrial

chemical accidents to identify the causes and, more importantly

than that, to recommend steps to enhance the safety of chemical

operations. Members serve 5-year terms.

The Mississippi River Commission’s duty is to implement construction and operate the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.

Doing this involves the development and execution of the flood protection program comprised of levee construction, river dredging and

river distribution.

The three positions at hand offer challenges which I believe all

of our nominees are prepared to face. It’s my hope that we can

work it out to report the nominees tomorrow, if they pass muster

here. And we’ll have an opportunity to meet off the floor on Thursday morning.

I would ask all Senators with questions to please submit them

to the staff by noon today.

Senator Lautenberg, do you have a comment?
139

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, first, to commend you for

starting early. I’m glad I wasn’t taking your airplane this morning,

because I would have been left standing at the station.

I’m so pleased to see that we’re trying to fill the posts on the

Chemical Safety Board, since I was the principal author there. Unfortunately, my State, not unlike yours, Mr. Chairman, is a State

that has a proud industrial past that’s left it with the problems of

today as a result of that. And so I think we’re making progress.

As you noted, Mr. Chairman, the authorization was done a number of years ago. This is the first time we’ve gotten funding for it.

It’s a very important task. And I don’t think, Mr. Chairman, we

don’t have anybody from New Jersey for the Mississippi River

Commission, so I would say that we’re content with, pleased, more

than that, to support these nominees.

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

NEW JERSEY

I would like to start by thanking the Chairman for holding this markup on such

short notice. His great effort on behalf of these nominations is a sign of the wide

support for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

I welcome all three of you, but I am especially glad to see Dr. Taylor and Dr.

Rosenthal here. Your presence is a sign that the Board is becoming a well-established entity. That is a good sign for workers, for industry, and for the environment.

It’s a good sign for the country.

Congress created the Chemical Safety Board in the 1990 Clean Air Act, modeling

it after the National Transportation Safety Board. I became especially interested in

the Board after a tragic explosion that took the lives of five men just a few miles

from my house in 1995. At the time of the explosion at Napp Technologies, adequate

funds had never been appropriated to the Board, nor had members been appointed.

Our one response to such tragedies in those days was enforcement. Don’t get me

wrong—tough and fair enforcement is essential to deterrence. But it doesn’t always

get to the root of the problem. Enforcement alone can not prevent future tragedies.

Identifying root causes to chemical accidents, and recommending measures to prevent them are an essential part of the equation as well. That’s what the Board is

for.

I am very proud to have offered the amendment that provided the Board its first

appropriations in Fiscal Year 1998. I am proud, as well, to have negotiated an increase in the Board’s appropriations to $6.5 million—an increase which was included in the VA–HUD conference report. The Board is a very new organization.

But for a new organization it’s off to a great start.

The Board opened its doors for business on Monday, January 5, 1998. On Wednesday of that week, an explosion at an explosives plant near Reno claimed the lives

of four workers and injured six others. On Friday of that week, the Board was at

the site of the accident, starting its investigation. The Board published its report

of that accident last month.

The report has been widely acclaimed and makes recommendations that should

make the manufacture of explosives much safer.

In all, the Board has initiated investigations of six accidents and is currently reviewing 13 other incidents. These are accidents that tragically resulted in 30 deaths

in 16 States. Among them are two in New Jersey.

One occurred last April in Patterson, my home town, when an explosion ripped

through the Morton Specialty Chemical Company, injuring nine workers, two seriously. I understand the Board has completed the first phase of that investigation.

The second New Jersey accident occurred in August at RBH Dispersions in Middlesex, mortally injuring one worker. Unfortunately, because the Board is just starting up—it isn’t yet fully staffed, it isn’t yet fully funded—it was unable to launch

a full investigation and will only be able to review OSHA’s investigation.

But all in all, I would say the Board is off to a great start. I only wish that start

had been 8 years ago, instead of 8 months ago.
140

Finally, I think it’s significant that we find before us today both Dr. Taylor, with

her years of experience in the labor movement, and Dr. Rosenthal, with his decades

of experience in the chemical industry.

I think it’s significant that they have both been endorsed by the chemical industry

and labor. It shows what many of us believe—whether Democrat or Republican, industry or labor—a fully functioning Chemical Safety Board will be as good for the

chemical industry as it will be for the employees and neighbors of the industry.

Senator CHAFEE. Fine. I see Congressman Tauzin’s here, and Mr.

Congressman, if you’d like to come forward and make a statement.

I suspect you’re here on behalf of Mr. Smith. And if you’d like to

make a statement, there may be others, Senator Specter is expected. And others perhaps.

But we welcome you, Congressman, and if you’d like to proceed,

we look forward to hearing your comments.

STATEMENT OF HON. W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Senator. I understand Senator Breaux may also be here, and I want to thank you for allowing

us to say a few good words for our dear friend. And Mr. Smith is

not only a dear friend of mine, but also Senator Breaux’s, longstanding.

I was once introduced to the Supreme Court as a practitioner before the Supreme Court by a young man named Randy Pero, who’s

now a judge in Louisiana, who was an L.A. for a former Congressman from my district, Pat Caffrey. He was a dear friend, brought

me to Washington, introduced me to the Burger Court. It was the

first time the Chief Justice, sitting as the Chief Justice in the full

court, was there. He was so overtaken by the majesty of the moment that he forgot the card that he was supposed to use to introduce me.

And all these other young attorneys were there with their fathers

and grandfathers in tuxedos and we two country boys were standing there, he having lost his card, overtaken completely by this incredible array of the entire Supreme Court. He said, Mr. Chief Justice, I’m a member of the Supreme Court. I want to introduce you

to my friend, Billy Tauzin. He was supposed to talk about all my

credentials, but couldn’t remember any of them.

He said, ‘‘He’s a good guy.’’

[Laughter.]

Mr. TAUZIN. I think it’s recorded as the only moment that the

Chief Justice ever laughed openly in court. And I think I stand as

the only person ever confirmed to practice before the Supreme

Court on the basis of that qualification.

But it’s a qualification I think that most defines our friend

Clifford Smith. He is truly a good guy. He’s one of the best. He has

not only, as I said, been a personal friend, but he has been a fixture in our State in its commitment to its many opportunities and

problems associated with the Mississippi River and the delta.

Just last weekend, he participated, his son was on a panel at a

huge national conference we had at Nicholls State, my Harvard on

the bayou, in Louisiana, where we discussed the future of the incredible land loss in Louisiana along our coast, 35 square miles a

year, that America witnesses every year. And it literally goes on in

too many cases unnoticed.
141

And his commitment to the river and to solving many of these

problems associated with the drainage system and the river corridor and all its ports and transportation opportunities is one of

long standing. He is eminently qualified. He has bipartisan support

of Louisiana. As you know, Louisiana is now led by Republican

Governor Mike Foster, who is, I think, the most popular Governor

in America.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Representative Tauzin, you bring both

sides of the aisle with you.

Mr. TAUZIN. In fact, I do. I’ve been called a lot of labels—somebody called me a ‘‘transvesticrat’’ at one point. I’m not sure

that’s——

[Laughter.]

Senator LAUTENBERG. We don’t use that kind of language around

here. That’s reserved for the House.

[Laughter.]

Mr. TAUZIN. I do bring a bipartisan recommendation to you, and

without taking any more of your time, I simply wanted to urge you,

on behalf of this Nation, to confirm this good man for this very important duty as Commissioner on the Mississippi River Commission.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, thank you very much, Representative

Tauzin. You’re nice to come over and we appreciate it. I know you

have a busy schedule, so if you want to be excused, feel free to do

so.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Senator.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, I also know that you roughnecked

out of Lafayette, LA. So I know you have sort of a bond with us.

Senator CHAFEE. I do. It was a great experience, it was the end

of my freshman year at college. And I went down there and worked

in Barataria, which Dr. Smith and I talked about yesterday.

Thank you very much for coming over.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Senator.

Senator CHAFEE. Now, if the nominees would please come forward and take a seat at the table.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, if I might, the record will

reflect any statements, and I have no questions, except to say that

I know in the case of Dr. Rosenthal and Dr. Taylor, these are very

well qualified people, a lot of experience. I look forward to working

with them over the years ahead and if I may, Mr. Chairman, I’ll

be excused.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much for coming. And it’s my

understanding Senator Baucus will be here shortly.

Now, it’s my understanding that Dr. Paul Hill, chairman of the

Chemical Safety Board, is here. Is that correct? Did you want to

step up? Did you want to introduce any of the members or make

a comment?

STATEMENT OF PAUL HILL, CHAIRMAN, CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

Dr. HILL. Yes, thank you, Senator. Because of the schedules in

this hectic time period, Senator Levin and Senator Specter we understand may not be able to be here. On behalf of the board, I

would like to present both Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rosenthal, with the
142

full support of the other board members. We truly think they would

be great additions to this board, and help us do the work that lies

ahead.

So I just briefly wanted to offer our support and ask your support

as well.

Senator CHAFEE. Fine. Thank you very much. And you’re free to

be excused, if that’s what you’d wish.

Now, why don’t we start with Mr. Smith. Why don’t you proceed.

If you’ve got a statement, now’s the time.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM CLIFFORD SMITH, NOMINATED TO

BE A COMMISSIONER OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It’s an honor

to be here before your committee as a nominee for the Mississippi

River Commission.

I would like to make a brief statement about the Mississippi

River Commission and the Mississippi River and Tributary project

and my qualification for the position which I have been nominated.

The Mississippi River Commission, established by an act of Congress on June 28, 1879, consists of seven members, all of whom are

appointed by the President of the United States, subject to the confirmation by the Senate. Three members are Corps of Engineers officers, one of whom serves as the president. One member is from

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. And three

members are from the civilian sector, two of whom must be civil

engineers.

From its inception in 1879, the Commission has been charged

with the vital task of planning and implementing a program of

flood damage reduction projects and navigation improvements on

the Mississippi River. More recently, project purposes have been

expanded to include environmental restoration.

This task continues to be conducted in connection with the many

political institutions, individuals and public entities which have

major interest in seeing that the water resource needs and opportunities of the Mississippi Valley are evaluated, planned, designed,

constructed, and maintained.

As established in 1879, the commissioners were to serve as advisors in planning and implementing water resource projects and

programs on the Mississippi River between the Head of Passes

below New Orleans, to its headwaters. Since 1928, the Commission

has focused on the Mississippi River and Tributary Project authorized by the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928, to be implemented

under oversight of the Commission.

The Mississippi River and Tributary Project extends generally

from the confluence of the Ohio River to the Head of Passes below

New Orleans, and covers portions of seven States. It receives water

from all or parts of 31 States and parts of two Canadian provinces,

or roughly 41 percent of the contiguous United States.

Effective planning, design, construction and operation of the

widespread and complex Mississippi River and Tributary Projects

have been assigned greatly by the Commission’s active consultation

with the public, particularly on its semiannual lower Mississippi
143

River inspection trips, and by the high degree of professionalism

that has been developed in its staff.

The Mississippi River and Tributary Project is truly of national

significance. For example, a major flood on the lower Mississippi

River would have catastrophic effects on the inhabitants of the

Mississippi Valley and the economy of the Nation, were it not for

the protection provided by the levees and other flood control works

throughout the project area.

Many have noted that the comprehensive project on the lower

river provided for passage of major floods in 1973, 1983, 1997 and

other years without the extensive damage that was suffered in the

upper river areas during the 1993 and 1995 flood events.

In addition, the navigation improvements of the project are essential to the maintenance of the river for shipping import and export commodities between the inland ports and the world markets.

In short, the navigation features of the Mississippi River and Tributary Projects are essential in peace time and vital to our national

defense in times of emergency.

The reorganization of the Corps of Engineers in April 1997 has

placed the entire length of the Mississippi River within one Division of the Corps of Engineers. The Commander of this Mississippi

Valley Division of the Corps also serves as the president of the Mississippi River Commission. By the way, Major General Philip Anderson, who is the designee-president of the Mississippi River Commission, is here with me this morning.

Senator CHAFEE. General, we welcome you, and appreciate your

coming. As I was telling Mr. Smith yesterday, I have great admiration for the Corps, having seen your works extending from

Dhahran in Saudi Arabia to the Mississippi River and elsewhere.

And obviously also in my section of the country, where your folks

have done a wonderful job.

So we’re very glad to see you. Thank you for coming.

Mr. SMITH. The reorganization of the Corps allows the management of the Mississippi River as a single and unified system and

allows the Commissioners to more effectively serve as advisors to

the division commander and the chief of engineers as authorized in

the enabling legislation in 1879.

The Commission has been active as advisor to the Corps on the

Upper Mississippi River since the reorganization. The Commission

conducted inspection trips on the Upper Mississippi River in August 1997 and August 1998, holding a series of public meetings in

the St. Paul, Rock Island, and St. Louis Districts each year, in addition to the semiannual inspection trips and public meetings in

the Memphis, Vicksburg, and New Orleans Districts.

In regard to my personal qualifications, I am a 1958 graduate of

Louisiana State University with a Bachelor’s Degree in civil engineering. I have been a partner in my father’s firm since 1962, and

operated and been directly responsible for the general management

of the firm, and overall supervision and administration of all my

employees.

During my 40 years of professional experience, I have been involved with numerous significant public works and private industrial projects requiring civil engineering, land surveying and environmental services. I have been a registered civil engineer and land
144

surveyor in Louisiana since 1958 and a registered civil engineer in

Mississippi since 1985, and am involved in several professional organizations in the engineering field.

I feel that with my diversified experience in my company’s engineering field, I have the expertise to serve as a civil engineer member of the Mississippi River Commission.

If confirmed to the position, Mr. Chairman, I would look forward

to playing a key role in the continual improvement of the Mississippi River system and the Mississippi River and Tributary

Project and applying the best of modern practices in water resources engineering. I would also look forward to being a member

of a Commission that focuses not only on the traditional roles of

safely passing the Mississippi River Basin floodwaters to the Gulf

of Mexico, plus providing a safe and dependable navigable waterway, but also recognizing the Nation’s environmental awareness

and incorporate environmental restoration.

Mr. Chairman, for your information, I have attached a complete

biography on myself and a current list of the members of the Mississippi River Commission.

This completes my prepared statement, and I will be more than

happy to respond to any questions.

Senator CHAFEE. I think what we’ll do is we’ll have the statements from each of the nominees, and then I have some questions

for the individuals.

Ms. Taylor, if you’d like to go next, please do.

STATEMENT OF ANDREA KIDD TAYLOR, NOMINATED TO BE A

MEMBER OF THE CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

Ms. TAYLOR. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

I would first like to thank you and the members of the committee

for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you regarding my nomination by President Clinton to fill a position on the Chemical

Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

I currently work as an industrial hygienist and occupational

health policy consultant for the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America.

The shorter term for that is the UAW. I’ve held this position in the

UAW’s Health and Safety Department for almost 10 years.

In this capacity, I conduct workplace health and safety inspections and evaluate industrial hygiene data from various UAW-represented facilities around the country. Requests for these inspections are usually made by workers who are experiencing illnesses

and health symptoms from possible exposures to various chemical

and/or environmental hazards on their jobs.

Working with the union local and its company’s health and

safety staff, I attempt to identify the source of employee exposures,

review the appropriate industrial hygiene data if available, and

make recommendations on the steps that need to be taken to control or reduce employee exposures, thereby reducing employee

risks, health symptoms and complaints.

Another aspect of my job involves educating employees and employers regarding the health hazards associated with their jobs and

many of the industrial processes. Training is generally conducted
145

through many of our jointly funded labor management health and

safety programs. In addition, I edit the health and safety newsletter which is distributed nationally and internationally to subscribers.

I am very excited about the possibility of becoming a member of

the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. The

board’s mission of investigating chemical accidents to independently identify the causes and make recommendations on how to improve chemical operations is basically a continuation of my current

job responsibilities at the UAW. However, the impact and scope of

the board is much broader.

My hope is that the board’s presence will add a new dimension

to how chemical accidents are investigated and how recommendations are made to prevent such accidents from occurring in the future.

I would like to share with you a recent incident that occurred at

one of our UAW-represented facilities. On February 2, 1998, an explosion occurred at York International in York, PA.

Senator CHAFEE. I’ll tell you, Dr. Taylor, just take a little gap

right there before you get into this particular incident.

We’ve been joined by Senator Breaux who I’m confident is here

to say a word about Mr. Smith. He has a busy schedule, so Senator, if you’d like to make your comments.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BREAUX, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF LOUISIANA

Senator BREAUX. I apologize, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Dr.

Taylor, I’m sorry. The chairman has been very generous letting me

make a comment or two, and I appreciate it. I won’t take much

time.

Mr. Clifford Smith who is at the table at the President’s recommendation to serve on the Mississippi River Commission. I

wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support him. I’ve known him

for far too many years, we go back personally as well as professionally, in helping the people of south Louisiana.

He is a professional engineer, and I take that to his credit, the

type of people that will be very helpful to serve on the Mississippi

River Commission. He has a wonderful insight as to the problems

of the river system and the environment, the loss of wetlands.

We’ve had many, many discussions and meetings, and his leadership in this area, in trying to bring around the business community

to understanding the need for protection and flood control, and protecting the environment, that it all goes hand in hand.

Too many people have thought it should be all navigation, all

dams around the river, and no concern for the environment. I think

what Clifford Smith has brought to the table is an understanding

of all the things that have to go into good public policy.

The other day, in the hurricane, Mr. Chairman, the Mississippi

River actually was flowing north because of the strong winds from

the Gulf of Mexico. Sort of an unusual engineering feat to have the

Mississippi River flowing north. So I asked Clifford what caused

that. He gave me a great engineering answer by just saying, what

goes down must come up.

[Laughter.]
146

Senator BREAUX. And I didn’t challenge that engineering exam- ple from Clifford, but I think it just shows you how qualified he is

to serve on this commission, and I enthusiastically look forward to

working with him and thank you very much for letting me make

a comment, Dr. Taylor.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Senator, very much for coming. We

know you have a very busy schedule.

So Dr. Taylor, if you’d like to proceed, because this was an interesting example you were just starting into.

STATEMENT OF ANDREA KIDD TAYLOR—CONTINUED

Ms. TAYLOR. Yes. Regarding the explosion at York International

in York, PA, 1 worker was killed and 15 workers and 5 rescuers

were injured. The tank, one of four that were clustered together,

was not in use at the time of the explosion. When it ruptured, the

tank ripped holes in two of the other tanks, causing more explosions and sent the fourth tank soaring into the air. It was found

later on out in the community. Part of one tank blasted through

the wall of a building.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, the accident occurred at 11:35

p.m. As bad as the accident was, it would have been a lot worse

had it happened during the day. Most of the employees at this facility work on the day shift. Neighboring workplaces would have

been up and running and people would have been walking or driving on nearby streets. The exact cause of this accident has still not

yet been determined.

Although I was not directly involved with investigating this particular incident, another member from the UAW Health and Safety

staff was involved. I have, however, been involved with investigating other UAW facility fatalities. Mr. Chairman and members of

the committee, I want you to know that losing even one life to a

chemical accident or any other job hazard can be devastating to

family members, co-workers, and the community at-large. Identifying the root cause of such accidents is not always easy.

That is why prevention is important, and a key component of the

board’s mission, performing a vital function never before addressed

in the Federal Government.

I envision the board continuing to act as an independent agency

in developing recommendations for preventing chemical accidents

from the investigations that it conducts. I also believe the agency

can, for the first time, produce a comprehensive accounting of the

actual number of chemical incidents occurring in the United States

today, so that safety efforts may be focused where the greatest

problems exist.

I also envision the board as partnering with Government, labor,

industry, and the community at-large in identifying ways for preventing future incidents from occurring. As a non-regulatory agency, it is essential that the board establishes and keeps open lines

of communication with all of the aforementioned organizations.

Filling the void that currently exists between Government agencies, industry, labor, and the community is a tremendous challenge

for the board. The board’s role, however, in assuring that commercial and industrial chemical processes are as safe as possible provides workers and the surrounding community with a sense of se-
147

curity and confidence that the Government cares and is responsive

to their needs for a healthy and safe environment.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear today before you.

I would be pleased to address any questions.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Dr. Taylor.

And now Dr. Rosenthal, if you’d like to proceed with your statement.

STATEMENT OF ISADORE ROSENTHAL, NOMINATED TO BE A

MEMBER OF THE CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You already summarized a good part of my career, and I have

submitted a written statement that has some elaboration on your

introduction. I would just like to briefly touch on one or two points

in that statement.

I believe my background in industry, the last 13 years of which

dealt directly with safety, health and environment, and a good part

of which was concerned with post-Bhopal and preparing my company and working within the industry to deal with this new awareness that the potential for chemical accidents was enormous. I’ve

worked in that area both as a manager, I’ve contributed individually and published articles.

Since my retirement from Rohm and Haas, I’ve had the opportunity to look at the management of major accidents and the perspective from insurance companies and other public agencies.

I believe the board can fill a good part of the void that exists in

our overall country’s effort on prevention of major accidents. As I

said in my prepared statement, I believe it’s important for us to

recognize that the key to prevention of accidents lies with industry

itself, labor unions and public interest organizations, and that the

role of the board will be to catalyze, synergize and fill any voids

that exist within this concerted country effort.

I applaud the excellent beginnings that Chairman Hill has started with the agency, and look forward to having the opportunity to

contribute whatever I can to achieving its mission, which is the

prevention of chemical accidents.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Dr. Rosenthal.

We’ve been joined by the ranking member of this committee. Senator Baucus, do you have a statement?

Senator BAUCUS. No statement, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for

the delay. The subject, though, which you’ll appreciate, is the environmental group. We’re trying to find a way to encourage better

environmental ties between the United States and China. I apologize for the delay.

Senator CHAFEE. Great. Did you get it solved?

Senator BAUCUS. Well, we inched forward. Thank you.

I do look forward to finally having some members of the board,

the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. It’s needed,

and I’m pleased. This is a big day, Mr. Chairman. We’re taking

major steps toward getting people on the board. That’s a very good

step.

Thank you.
148

Senator CHAFEE. Senator, what I’d like to do is to move forward

with these nominees, and if possible get them reported out, and if

there’s no objection, have them confirmed before we leave. And

that’s a tight schedule.

I would ask if anybody has, if any members have questions, that

they get them in before noon, so that we can get the answers to

them. I don’t know of any questions.

Then Senator if it’s agreeable, what I’d do is assemble our members on the floor after a vote, and there we’d have a quorum and

try to move forward.

Senator BAUCUS. I think that will work. I’m unaware of any

problems on our side, or any questions on our side.

Senator CHAFEE. I’d like to ask just a couple of questions. First,

Mr. Smith, I really applaud the environmental approach that

you’re taking. I’ve long been concerned, and obviously you and as

voiced by Representative Tauzin, have been greatly concerned

about what’s happening in the Delta there with the erosion and

loss of those wetlands. I think Representative Tauzin, did he say

35 acres?

Mr. SMITH. Thirty-five-square miles a year, it’s estimated, Senator.

Senator CHAFEE. That’s devastating.

Mr. SMITH. I believe it’s about a Rhode Island a year.

[Laughter.]

Senator CHAFEE. I would urge you not to use that approach.

It is very, very distressing. There are so many factors contributing to it, including things that I suspect even the nutria, which you

and I discussed yesterday—is that the correct pronunciation?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir, nutria.

Senator CHAFEE. You don’t pronounce the i, do you?

Mr. SMITH. Right, sir, it’s nutria.

Senator CHAFEE. I don’t know whether you’ve ever heard of

them.

Senator BAUCUS. I never have, Senator.

Senator CHAFEE. They’re a small——

Senator BAUCUS. That’s why you’re the chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, I hope it’s based on something firmer

than that.

[Laughter.]

Senator CHAFEE. Nutria are these little animals that have escaped, they’re not indigenous to Louisiana or the south. And they

just have, they’re sort of like a muskrat, I suppose you’d say.

Mr. SMITH. A big muskrat.

Senator CHAFEE. I’ve been down there and seen them, and

they’re all over the place.

Senator BAUCUS. What do they do?

Senator CHAFEE. They apparently gnaw at the grasses that hold

the soil together. And by consuming these grasses, then the essential ingredient to hold the soil together in the wetlands disappears,

and thus the soil disappears. It’s a contributor, I don’t know whether it’s a major factor.

Mr. SMITH. It is one of the many contributing factors. One of the

huge problems, and again, I’ve lived there all of my life, and of
149

course we’re concerned, you’re concerned. It’s a survival concern to

us, because we’re losing so much land to the Gulf of Mexico.

But I live between the Mississippi and the Atchafalaya, which is

the worst deteriorating coastline in America. Yet on my western

boundary is the mouth of the Atchafalaya, which is the only building delta in America. So the rivers, the controlling of the rivers has

cutoff the natural flow of fresh water and silt throughout our area,

and the rebuilding of the wetlands, as it used to do centuries ago.

The leveeing of the rivers were important to keep us from flooding every spring. That was a very important thing to do. We

wouldn’t be there today if we were flooding every spring. But in

doing that, it allowed this other deterioration problem to be created.

Again, as an engineer, it’s very frustrating that we’ve solved one

problem but we’ve created another problem. However, that’s an example of, by the way, the whole Mississippi River system, in my

opinion. It’s a dynamic system. It’s changing all the time. And although we’ve spent many billions of dollars to control it and improve it, there are probably many things we will have to do in the

future, because it’s a living, dynamic system.

But in our area, the problem is that we’ve cutoff the flow of the

rivers. I think the rivers, with using the flows, using the silt, using

the fresh water under controlled conditions, can reverse some of

the things that are happening to it. We simply have to refine our

projects and refine our designs and refine our thinking to use that

resource.

I really believe the rivers, which are the resources that we can

use to solve some of our problems, frankly. And that’s the challenge. That’s kind of the new challenge, as I see it, for the entire

country. And really for the Mississippi River Division of the Corps

of Engineers and the Mississippi River Commission.

Senator CHAFEE. I’m going to ask all three of you a question.

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, if I might, just following up a

little bit. So you’re not going to bring down the levees?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir. You’re going to have to protect where people

live. You’re going to have to protect where the major physical improvements are. We live on what we call little ridges, 5, 6 feet

above sea level. We’re going to have to protect those and build flood

control projects and pumping systems. And we’re doing that as we

speak.

And then we’re going to have to divert the rivers in specific areas

under controlled conditions, but disperse the water and the silt as

naturally as possible, once we’ve protected where people live and

operate and so forth.

Senator BAUCUS. So what percent of the delta would be restored

to its natural state?

Mr. SMITH. I would hope that we could, well, first, we need to

stop the deterioration. We need to minimize the deterioration.

Whether we can actually build additional deltas, although right at

the mouth of the Atchafalaya, we’re building 400 to 500 acres a

year right now. But we could use those silts and what have you

and reverse some of the activity that has happened to it.
150

We probably can’t, frankly, totally eliminate some of the deterioration. But we can certainly curtail the speed that we’re losing

land.

Senator BAUCUS. So instead of 35-square miles a year, what’s the

goal?

Mr. SMITH. We would hope to get it to zero, frankly.

Senator BAUCUS. By when?

Mr. SMITH. Well, depending on what kind of resources we could

use, but it could take us 20 years, frankly, to get to that point. It’s

taken us 60 years to get to the point we are now.

Senator BAUCUS. What’s going to happen to the nutria?

Mr. SMITH. Well, the nutria, that again is a very unusual problem. The only predator, the natural predator of the nutria today in

South Louisiana is the alligators. And we’ve got a lot of alligators.

So we hopefully will proceed to develop the alligator population

which will eat some of the nutrias.

But the nutria is something that you can see, you can ride down

the highways and go through some of the wetlands and see where

there used to be a little pond 2 or 3 years ago, and now it’s a big

pond. And you can see the nutrias out there eating the grass.

They’re vegetarians, and they eat everything in sight.

And again, marshlands, wetlands in particular, marshlands are

99 percent organic material. Whatever changes, salt water, fresh

water, too much water, nutrias, whatever changes it, it deteriorates.

Senator BAUCUS. Can’t find some kudzu, can you?

[Laughter.]

Mr. SMITH. We’re also trying to teach Cajuns how to eat them.

Senator BAUCUS. Are they tasty?

Mr. SMITH. In fact, Louisiana Wildlife has developed a program

on how to cook nutrias and I’ve eaten it. Frankly, I can’t hardly

eat just the nutria meat, period. It’s got to be mixed with something else. But when you do mix it, it’s hard to tell that you’re eating it.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Is the alligator population coming back strong?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, that’s a great example,

in my opinion, of the endangered species, alligators 20 years ago

were endangered species in South Louisiana. And the trapping and

hunting of alligators was outlawed. It was outlawed for about 10

years. Gradually, the population began to come back, and now we

really have a tremendous amount of alligators in South Louisiana.

Also, they’ve begun to farm alligators. They actually raise them

in controlled conditions, too. But again, that’s a big product.

Nutrias were originally brought into the State because they are

a fur-bearing animals. Fur for centuries has been a big activity in

South Louisiana, catching and processing fur primarily for human

wear. Of course, that market has deteriorated drastically, most of

that market is now in foreign countries.

That’s why nutria were originally brought into the country.

Senator BAUCUS. Where did they come from?

Mr. SMITH. South America. And they were brought in as an experiment that you could develop as a bigger fur-bearing animal, the

mink or muskrat or what have you. And they are bigger, and they
151

eat everything in sight. Again, it’s something we never should have

brought into our area. As the Senator explained, it’s not a native

to the country.

We’ve also tried to use them in other areas for other purposes.

They can’t survive much north of Louisiana. Like a lot of our furbearing animals and a lot of our wildlife, we can actually export

around the country, but we can’t export the nutria.

The alligator, though, has made a tremendous recovery. Really

has.

Senator CHAFEE. Eating the nutrias?

Mr. SMITH. Eating the nutria and the conservation efforts that

have been put forward, and the limiting on hunting and trapping

the alligators.

Senator BAUCUS. I saw a bunch of alligators swimming around

during Hurricane George, in the rivers.

Senator CHAFEE. Let me just say that there are two questions

that I have to ask each of you, and if you could answer in unison.

Are each of you willing to, at the request of any duly constituted

committee of the Congress, to appear in front of it as a witness.

Mr. SMITH. Certainly.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes.

Ms. TAYLOR. Yes.

Senator CHAFEE. Do you know of any matters which you may or

may not have thus far disclosed which may place you in any conflict of interest if you are confirmed in the position you’ve been

nominated for?

Mr. SMITH. No.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. No.

Ms. TAYLOR. No, sir.

Senator CHAFEE. Now, I have a couple of questions for Dr. Taylor

and Dr. Rosenthal. I just want to say that I certainly agree that

prevention is the key. Both of you stressed that, particularly Dr.

Taylor, from the previous work you’ve done. This isn’t an organization that you’re being appointed to, to just collect data and make

reports. It’s to prevent these accidents.

So I would urge you to be vigorous in seeking prevention activities. We just don’t want any of these horrible accidents. As you

pointed out, Dr. Rosenthal, you mentioned Bhopal and these

haven’t been in the United States, but they’ve been horrible accidents that we’ve heard about here, and we want to do everything

we can to avoid them occurring in our country.

Senator do you have any questions?

Senator BAUCUS. Just wondering, preliminary, are we at a point

in America where, some of our plants are starting to get old, and

with increased maintenance costs, and greater probabilities of

something going wrong, and I mention that, because I think that’s

happening to our airlines. We have old fleets that require more

maintenance, that are getting a little bit worrisome, frankly.

I wonder if the same is true in the chemical industry, or in any

of the industries you’re going to be looking into. Is that a concern

or is that not a concern, aging?

Mr. ROSENTHAL. I believe it’s a concern, but I think that by and

large, while we have no definitive answers, as we look at what has

happened in most chemical accidents, it has not been the failure
152

of equipment because of aging, but rather failures due to absence

of proper maintenance or training or system faults, that there’s a

set of problems that have existed with old and new plants. While

they are made more sensitive by aging equipment, I think our emphasis has to be on trying to find a way through which we pay

greater attention to prevention, training and the maintenance of

systems that we’re engineered in.

I might say that by and large, I would make a statement, I think

it’s not too controversial, that in most cases, the systems were

maintained with the original design basis, if we did what we knew

we had to do when we designed the plants in training, maintenance, relatively few of the accidents would occur.

Senator BAUCUS. So what goes wrong? We don’t stick with what

we started with?

Mr. ROSENTHAL. I think that over a period of time, these are low

probability events, they’re kind of like we as individuals saying,

well, if I don’t get my weight down, something’s liable to happen,

but more immediately, we’re faced with surviving, with going

through our ordinary activities. We have to just achieve a better

balance in paying attention to these low probability things, these

things that don’t, the first time you do something, it doesn’t happen.

Like all significant problems, there’s no easy solution. But I believe the board can play a role in getting the labor industry to be

more sensitive to the need to pay attention to the maintenance of

the design bases of our systems.

Ms. TAYLOR. I agree with Dr. Rosenthal. A lot of it depends on

how equipment is designed and how it is maintained. And in addition to that, how well the workers or employees are trained on

what to do, how to handle situations and how involved they are in

the actual process, in the working of the systems.

Senator BAUCUS. So you’re saying basically more disciplined

maintenance?

Ms. TAYLOR. Not necessarily disciplined maintenance. But——

Senator BAUCUS. Discipline to the systems?

Ms. TAYLOR. The systems, right.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. I think you can look at the process that has severe consequences. Generally, there are three or four barriers that

have to go down before the accident occurs. We design it that way.

We don’t design the system so it’s going to explode the first time

someone makes a slight mistake.

What happens, we get confident, and one barrier goes down, so

we work with two barriers. And the system works fine for 10 years,

so we say, OK, we’ve just got to go on. It’s a problem not only with

just the people who manage the system, but also with labor.

It’s a heck of a job to shut a system down, not only because of

lost production, but because if you’re a worker in there, and working, it’s hard to get it started up. So we tend to be heroes and just

keep going a little past the point at which we ought to.

Senator BAUCUS. Roughly analogous to the world financial crisis.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes.

Ms. TAYLOR. I guess so.

Senator CHAFEE. All right, thank you all very much. As I indicated previously, I want to move these along as rapidly as possible.
153

If any questions—I would say this to each of you. If any questions

are submitted, you should get the answers as rapidly as possible

to us. I don’t know whether any questions will be submitted, but

they have to come in within the next 2 hours, namely by noon, and

we’d get them to you and ask you to get the answers back very rapidly. Because if there are unanswered questions hanging out there,

then we can’t go forward with the nomination.

Thank you very much. That concludes the hearing.

[Whereupon, at 10:15 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the chair.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM CLIFFORD SMITH, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE

MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am honored to appear before you

as the nominee for member of the Mississippi River Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief statement about the Mississippi River

Commission, the Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) project, and my qualifications for the position for which I have been nominated.

The Mississippi River Commission, established by Act of Congress on June 28,

1879, consists of seven members, all of whom are appointed by the President of the

United States subject to confirmation by the Senate. Three members are Corps of

Engineers officers, one of whom serves as president; one member is from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and three members are from the

civilian sector, two of whom must be civil engineers.

From its inception in 1879, the Commission has been charged with the vital task

of planning and implementing a program of flood damage reduction projects and

navigation improvements on the Mississippi River. More recently, project purposes

have been expanded to include environmental restoration. This task continues to be

conducted in concert with the myriad of political institutions, individuals, and public

entities which have major interests in seeing that the water resources needs and

opportunities of the Mississippi Valley are evaluated, planned, designed, constructed, and maintained.

As established in 1879, the commissioners were to serve as advisors in planning

and implementing water resource projects and programs on the Mississippi River

between the Head of Passes below New Orleans to its headwaters. Since 1928, the

Commission has focused on the Mississippi River and Tributaries project, authorized by the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928, to be implemented under oversight

of the Commission. The MR&T project extends generally from the confluence of the

Ohio River to the Head of Passes below New Orleans and covers portions of seven

States. It receives water from all of part of 31 States and part of two Canadian provinces, or roughly 41 percent of the contiguous United States. Effective planning, design, construction, and operation of the widespread and complex MR&T project have

been assisted greatly by the Commission’s active consultation with the public, particularly on its semiannual lower Mississippi River inspection trips, and by the high

degree of professionalism that has been developed in its staff.

The MR&T project is truly of national significance. For example, a major flood on

the lower Mississippi River would have catastrophic effects on the inhabitants of the

Mississippi Valley and the economy of the Nation were it not for the protection provided by the levees and other flood control works throughout the project area. Many

have noted that the comprehensive project on the lower river provided for passage

of major floods in 1973, 1983, 1997, and other years without the extensive damage

suffered in the upper river area during the 1993 and 1995 flood events.

In addition, the navigation features of the project are essential to maintaining the

river for shipping import and export commodities between inland ports and world

markets. In short, the navigation features of the MR&T project are essential in

peace time and vital to our national defense in times of emergency.

Reorganization of the Corps of Engineers in April 1997 has placed the entire

length of the Mississippi River within one Division of the Corps of Engineers. The

Commander of this Mississippi Valley Division of the Corps also serves as President

of the Mississippi River Commission. The reorganization of the Corps will allow

management of the Mississippi River as a single and unified system and will allow

the Commissioners to more effectively serve as advisors to the Division Commander

and the Chief of Engineers as authorized in the enabling legislation in 1879.
154

The Commission has been active as advisor to the Corps on the Upper Mississippi

River since the reorganization. The Commission conducted inspection trips on the

Upper Mississippi River in August 1997 and August 1998, holding a series of public

meetings in the St. Paul, Rock Island, and St. Louis Districts each year, in addition

to the semiannual inspection trips and public meetings in the Memphis, Vicksburg,

and New Orleans Districts.

In regards to my personal qualifications, I am a 1958 graduate of Louisiana State

University with a Bachelor’s Degree in civil engineering. I then became a partner

in my father’s firm, and the name of the firm was changed to T. Baker Smith &

Son. Following my father’s death in 1962, I have operated the company as president

and sole owner and am directly responsible for the general management of the firm

and overall supervision and administration of all company affairs.

During my 40 years of professional experience, I have been involved with numerous significant public works and private industry projects requiring civil engineering, land surveying, and environmental services.

I have been a registered civil engineer and land surveyor in Louisiana since 1958

and a registered civil engineer in Mississippi since 1985 and am involved in several

professional organizations in the engineering field.

I feel that with my diversified experience in my company’s engineering field, I

have the expertise to serve as a civil engineer member of the Mississippi River Commission.

If confirmed to the position, Mr. Chairman, I would look forward to playing a key

role in the continual improvement of the Mississippi River system and the MR&T

project and applying the best of modern practices in water resources engineering.

I would also look forward to being a member of a Commission that focuses not only

on the traditional roles of safely passing the Mississippi River Basin floodwaters to

the Gulf of Mexico, plus providing a safe and dependable navigable waterway, but

also recognizes the Nation’s environmental awareness and incorporates environmental restoration.

Mr. Chairman, for your information, I have attached a complete biography on myself and a current list of members of the Mississippi River Commission.

Mr. Chairman, that completes my prepared statement, and I would be pleased to

respond to any questions.
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163

STATEMENT OF ISADORE ROSENTHAL, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity and

privilege to appear before you today as President Clinton’s nominee to fill one of the

remaining three positions on the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing on my nomination

so very promptly.

I have spent 38 years in the chemical industry with Rohm and Haas, a multinational chemical company, before I retired in 1990 and joined the Wharton Risk

management and Decision Processes Center to do research on low probability—high

consequence chemical process accidents. Both of these experiences have made me

very aware of the risks associated with the chemical processes used by industry to

produce the varied products that are vital to our citizens well being and our country’s economy.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, our fellow citizen’s present serious concerns about

potential chemical process accidents developed rather slowly. The catastrophic accidents at Foxborough (1974) and Seveso (1976), which led the European Union to

enact a major process safety law (Seveso Directive), and even the terrible disaster

in Mexico City (1984) did not generate widespread U.S. public concerns about major

chemical accidents.

This situation changed completely after the December 1984 disaster at Bhopal.

Not only was the public’s confidence in the chemical industry shaken; the chemical

industry itself questioned whether its provisions for protection against major accidental releases were adequate. Bhopal and the subsequent disaster at the Phillips

installation in Houston (1989) led to a series of initiatives by industry, labor, public

interest organizations and State and Federal Governments. At the Federal level,

these initiatives culminated in section 112(r) of the 1990 Clean Air act amendments

which established the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board on which I

hope to serve and laid the basis for the present process safety activities by OSHA

and EPA.

I was very aware of these developments since they all occurred over the last part

of my career in industry, when I served as the Corporate Director of Safety, Health

and Environmental Affairs of Rohm and Haas. During this period, I helped establish

improved process safety programs within my company and worked within the
164

Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) on industry wide initiatives such as the

Community Awareness and Emergency Response and the Responsible Care programs.

My activities within the company prior to 1990 and my subsequent research activities on major chemical accidents at Wharton also brought me into close contact

with the excellent process safety initiatives carried out by labor unions such as

OCAW and USWA, public interest groups such as the National Institute for Chemical Studies and the National Environmental Law Center, professional groups such

as the Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical

Engineers and academic institutions such as Texas A&M and MIT.

I have had the occasion to hear the Board’s Chairman, Dr. Paul Hill, informally

discuss his vision for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. I fully

agree with his emphasis on organizational excellence and Board actions that contribute to accident prevention. The Board should be judged on its contributions to

measurable reductions in chemical process accidents, rather than the number of accident investigations it conducts.

I also agree with Dr. Hill’s observation that accident investigations per se will not

lead to accident prevention unless the findings from an investigation are integrated

with previous findings, translated into practical recommendations and effectively

transmitted to the organizations and people who run our plants.

The Board faces a great challenge in discharging even its narrow legally mandated responsibilities with necessarily limited resources. However in the course of

meeting this challenge, the Board will have the opportunity to carry out other initiatives that do not require significant resources but will significantly contribute to the

prevention of chemical process accidents.

For example, consider the fact that the activities of the Board and other government agencies are only a small part of our country’s overall efforts on chemical accident prevention. Industry, labor unions, public interest groups, academia, and professional societies must, and do play the major roles in this effort. However, I believe there are important voids in this overall effort. Many of these voids will be

filled by the Board; most cannot.

I think that the Board has the legal and moral authority to provide leadership

for a joint effort to define these voids by all organizations and agencies working on

any aspect of chemical process safety. In the process of doing this, it could also be

ascertained whether the participating organizations have plans for filling these

voids. Where this is not the case, and as appropriate, the Board could either issue

recommendations on how these needs can be best be addressed or undertake to do

some of the work itself.

In summary, I believe that the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board,

under Dr. Hill’s leadership, has made a good start toward discharging its mandate.

If I am confirmed, I think that my past experience would allow me to make a significant contribution to the Board’s future accomplishments. I know that I would

enjoy having the opportunity to try to do so.

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions

you may have.
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177

STATEMENT OF ANDREA KIDD TAYLOR, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

Good morning. My name is Andrea Taylor. I would like to first thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the committee for allowing me the opportunity to

speak to you regarding my nomination by President Clinton to fill a position on the

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. I currently work as an industrial hygienist and occupational health policy consult- ant for the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural

Implement Workers of America (UAW). I have held this position in the UAW’s

Health and Safety Department for almost 10 years. In this capacity, I conduct workplace health and safety inspections and evaluate industrial hygiene data from various UAW-represented facilities all over the country. Requests for these inspections

are usually made by workers who are experiencing illnesses and health symptoms

from possible exposures to various chemical and/or environmental hazards on their

jobs. Working with the union local and its company’s health and safety staff, I attempt to identify the source of employee exposures, review the appropriate indus-
178

trial hygiene data if available, and make recommendations on the steps that need

to be taken to control or reduce employee exposures, thereby reducing employee

risks, health symptoms and complaints.

Another aspect of my job involves educating employees and employers regarding

the health hazards associated with their jobs and many of the industrial processes.

Training is generally conducted through many of our jointly funded labor-management health and safety programs. In addition, I edit a health and safety newsletter,

which is distributed annually and internationally to subscribers.

I am very excited about the possibility of becoming a member of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. The boards mission of investigating

chemical accidents to independently identify the causes and make recommendations

on how to improve chemical operations is basically a continuation of my current job

responsibilities at the UAW. However, the impact and scope of the board is much

broader. My hope is that the board’s presence will add a new dimension to how

chemical accidents are investigated and how recommendations are made to prevent

such accidents from occurring in the future.

I would like to share with you a recent incident that occurred at one of our UAWrepresented facilities. On February 2, 1998, an explosion occurred at York International in York, Pennsylvania. One worker was killed and 15 workers and five rescuers were injured. The tank, one of four that were clustered together, was not in

use at the time of the explosion. When it ruptured, the tank ripped holes in two

of the other tanks, causing more explosions and sent the fourth tank soaring into

the air. Part of one tank blasted through the wall of a building.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the accident occurred at 11:35 p.m. As bad as the

accident was, it would have been a lot worse had it happened during the day. Most

of the employees at this facility work on the day shift. Neighboring workplaces

would have been up and running and people would have been walking or driving

on nearby streets. The exact cause of this accident has still not yet been determined.

Although I was not directly involved with investigating this particular incident,

another member from the UAW Health and Safety staff was involved. I have, however, been involved with investigating other UAW fatalities. Mr. Chairman and the

committee, I want you to know that losing even one life to a chemical accident or

any other job hazard can be devastating to family members, coworkers, and the

community at-large. Identifying the root cause of such accidents is not always easy.

That is why prevention is important and a key component of the board’s mission,

performing a vital function never before addressed in the Federal Government.

I envision the board continuing to act as an independent agency in developing recommendations for preventing chemical accidents from the investigations that it conducts. I also believe the agency can, for the first time, produce a comprehensive accounting of the actual number of chemical incidents occurring in the United States

today, so that safety efforts may be focused where the greatest problems exist. I also

envision the board as partnering with government, labor, industry, and the community at-large in identifying ways for preventing future incidents from occurring. As

a non-regulatory agency, it is essential that the board establishes and keeps open

lines of communication with all of the aforementioned organizations.

Filling the void that currently exists between government agencies, industry,

labor and the community is a tremendous challenge for the board. The board’s role,

however, in ensuring that commercial and industrial chemical processes are as safe

as possible provides workers and the surrounding community with a sense of security and confidence that the government cares and is responsive to their needs for

a healthy and safe environment.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear today before this committee. I

would be pleased to address any questions.
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191

(193)

NOMINATION OF ROBERT W. PERCIASEPE

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1998

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room 406,

Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Chafee, Warner, Inhofe, and Baucus.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Senator CHAFEE. This is a meeting of the Senate Committee on

Environment and Public Works. It’s a nomination hearing on Mr.

Robert Perciasepe, who has been nominated by the President to be

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation in the EPA.

Welcome. Do you have members of your family here, Mr.

Perciasepe?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not.

Senator CHAFEE. OK. We welcome you.

I briefly want to discuss the process that we’re going through

here. We want to move a slate of last-minute nominations that

have come up from the White House as quickly as possible. Obviously, time is running out. If all goes well with the hearing on Mr.

Perciasepe, it would be my intention to have a markup after the

first recorded vote following this hearing; in other words, I think

there’s going to be a recorded vote at about 2:30 today. If there are

written questions submitted to you, Mr. Perciasepe, I would ask

that you get them back immediately.

Mr. Perciasepe has been at EPA since October 1993, when he assumed the position of Assistant Administrator for Water, as we

know. Prior to serving with EPA, he was Maryland’s Secretary of

Environment. In that position he directed all aspects of pollution

control and environmental protection in Maryland: air, water, management of hazardous and solid waste, control of sediment, erosion,

storm water, and other activities such as that.

He received his B.S. degree in Environmental Sciences from Cornell and a Master’s degree in planning from the Maxwell School of

Syracuse University. He has lectured at Johns Hopkins, Morgan

State, and the University of Maryland.

So, Mr. Perciasepe—I see we have been joined by the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that deals with these matters.
194

Senator Inhofe, if you have a statement, we would be delighted

to hear it.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Senator INHOFE. I have a short statement, Mr. Chairman. I

thank you, and I thank you for scheduling this on such short notice. It is my hope that we will be able to get this finished in this

session, which is rapidly coming to a close.

The process for this nomination has been somewhat contentious

and confusing for everyone involved; however, this has not been

any reflection on the man being nominated. I am glad that we have

finally resolved the issue and suggest that we put all this behind

us.

I am pleased with the renomination of Robert Perciasepe to be

the Assistant Administrator for Air. He did a great job as Assistant

Administrator for Water, and I was very much pleased with his

work. I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Perciasepe last July on

a lot of air issues; there are some areas where we’re going to be

together and some where we’re going to be opposed, but we certainly have our dialog open, and I’m sure I’ll be supporting his

nomination.

I appreciate your calling this hearing, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Baucus.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your efforts and

those of Senator Inhofe. Finally, we are going to get Mr. Perciasepe

up and running at full steam, and I appreciate that and I know

that he does. It’s good for the country.

I welcome you, Bob, to a new challenge. I know you’ll do very

well.

I think it’s important, Mr. Chairman, that we move this nomination very quickly in the remaining days of this Congress, and also

that we move the other EPA nominees that this committee has favorably reported. Many of the nominees are currently in the role

of Acting Assistant Administrators, and I believe they need to have

the full advice and consent of the Senate in order to do their work.

Bob Perciasepe is no stranger to this committee. I’ve had the

pleasure of working with Bob over the last 5 years in his role as

Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water at EPA. I will

never forget the moment I first saw Bob before this committee,

when he was working in another capacity—I think it was on the

Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, and so forth—and I must say, Mr.

Chairman, that I am hard pressed to name anybody else who has

ever appeared before this committee who has been as impressive

and knows his stuff as much as Bob did then, and still does now.

I think he’s one of the best public servants this country has been

honored to have working for it.

He has worked very effectively to develop some very important

reforms in the Safe Drinking Water Act in the last Congress, and

I think that bill is one of this committee’s better accomplishments.
195

Bob is a key part of our success. Furthermore, he has been instrumental in crafting the Administration’s Clean Water Action Plan.

As I said parenthetically, before coming to EPA, Bob served as

Secretary of Environment for the State of Maryland. He was responsible for directing all aspects of pollution control and environmental protection, including water and air pollution control. So he

certainly has the experience. As I said earlier, in addition to his experience, he has the competence and the creativity and the initiative, and that extra-special quality of effectiveness. He just knows

how to get things done.

On top of that, he has earned the respect not only of myself, not

only for his integrity, but again, his commitment to public service.

He was as determined as any of us to protect public health while

making the process less burdensome for State and local governments and water suppliers. As a former State official, he certainly

knows how important it is to get the job done without making it

unnecessarily burdensome on the States.

Really, this is a high moment for me to see Bob finally get the

job that he deserves.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Perciasepe, just before you start, before you gentlemen

arrived I indicated that it was my intention to bring up this and

a series of other nominations following the first vote, which might

well be at 2:30. It would be in the President’s Room, S–216, just

off the Senate floor.

So, Mr. Perciasepe, if you want to proceed. If you have a statement, go ahead. Don’t make it too long, if you would, please, because there is this vote coming up at 2:30 which will require us to

attend

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. PERCIASEPE, NOMINATED TO BE

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF AIR AND

RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say

a very few words.

First, I appreciate the introductions, and I am happy to be here

today, talking with all of you. And I plan to do much more of it

than just today, and I want to make sure that you all know that.

I do want to emphasize at the onset a little bit about my career.

I know that you mentioned a couple of points on that already, and

I just want to emphasize a few other ones.

First and foremost is my personal commitment to public service.

This has been my career. In the past, I have had 12 years of experience at city government with the city of Baltimore, including

being responsible for capital budgets and many other local government activities. You also mentioned my State service for Maryland

and, obviously, my EPA service to date. The emphasis in my career

has been on public service, and the emphasis has been on working

with other people and that is something that is very important to

me and I will continue with that in this job if you approve.

You all know that my style is to recognize the importance of inclusive processes, bringing people together to resolve differences,

both in the legislative arena as well as the regulatory arena. I am

very anxious to continue that process in this new role.
196

Senator Baucus, you mentioned the Safe Drinking Water Act. I,

too, view that as very successful work that we have done together

in this committee, and everybody here worked on that. That’s the

kind of successful problem solving and work that I hope we can

continue to do. I view building bridges and working together as an

important part of the process.

When I look at the Air and Radiation job, I have just a couple

of quick opening thoughts about areas of emphasis, and then perhaps we can have some time for questions and answers.

I view one of the most important things that I can bring to this

job over the next several years is to help set the country up for success with implementation of Clean Air programs. There are many

implementation issues in the Clean Air Act and for our new public

health clean air goals that require constant diligence in working

with the States, developing sound science, developing the technical

tools that we need to get the work done, working with environmental, public interest, and business groups and working with

Congress. One of my highest priorities is going to be assuring that

we’re setting a course for the country that will assure continued

success in air quality and pollution control for its citizens.

Another thing that has been a hallmark of my efforts has been

promoting common-sense regulation, and I intend to bring that

kind of experience and orientation to the clean air program. These

efforts are likely to include things such as flexibility in rules, market-based approaches, and working with State and local governments to enhance successful local decisionmaking.

I know that climate change will be an issue, and I want to make

sure that you all know that I am not, in any way, shape, or form,

going to be implementing the Kyoto Protocol before it is ratified by

the Senate. I will continue common-sense discussions with industry

and others about making sure that our regulations do not go in the

wrong direction, and that we continue energy and cost saving actions that we’ve been working on to achieve broader climate protection objectives.

I want you also to know that I take very seriously the Government Performance and Results Act. I view management as one of

my strengths. This is something that I have enjoyed doing for

many, many years, going back to my city experience in budgeting,

and I plan to bring that expertise to this job, including working on

the Government Performance and Results Act and setting up measurable objectives.

Radiation and Indoor Air is also part of my portfolio, and whether it be asthma or radon or working on protective standards for

Yucca Mountain, I plan to put energy into these efforts to keep

them moving forward.

Let me just say in closing—and I’m trying to be very brief, I am

sure you know there is a long list of issues for us to discuss and

not enough time to cover them all. But I do have a few thoughts

on the Clean Air Act. I have spoken to Senator Inhofe about his

interest in looking at the Clean Air Act over the next year or beginning in the next Congress, and I want to say that we’re ready and

willing to work with the committee to discuss how we can make

improvements to and strengthen of the Clean Air Act. We will be
197

ready and prepared, and I will personally work with the committee

and the subcommittee on those issues as they come up.

So I think I’ll just stop there and we’ll do some questions and answers.

Senator CHAFEE. All right, Mr. Perciasepe.

Now, are you willing, at the request of any duly-constituted committee of the Congress, to appear in front of it as a witness?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. And do you know of any matters which you

may or may not have thus far disclosed which might place you in

any conflict of interest if you are confirmed in this position?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. No, I do not.

Senator CHAFEE. I just want to say this, Mr. Perciasepe. We’ve

worked with you on the clean water matters and on the safe drinking water, and that’s been a cooperative and successful undertaking. It seems to me that—I would hope that, working in the clean

air area, that you would come to this committee when you believe

you are working with laws that are inflexible and should be modified. In other words, we’re not in an adversarial position here;

we’re here to help you and help make these programs succeed. One

of the things that comes to mind are these so-called problems that

come up with nonattainment areas that fail to meet the 1-hour

ozone standard, whether they should be bumped up to the 8-hour

standard. Those are matters where, if the law doesn’t make sense,

then I would hope you would come and tell us about them.

Senator Baucus.

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, I think that’s a very good point.

I urge you to work diligently in that area. When you see something is not working—I know that you have to clear matters

through the executive process, but I would urge you to work

through that process vigorously. Address problems sooner rather

than later because it’s going to be a lot worse than it is now. So

I urge you to work very hard at that.

Second, I agree with your statement that you will not do anything to implement the Climate Change Treaty because, after all,

the Senate hasn’t endorsed it. But on the other hand, I do think

it makes sense to take common-sense actions, as you indicated. For

example, as you may know, there’s an organization—I think it’s

called the ‘‘Pew Group,’’ a group of U.S. companies, Enron——

Senator CHAFEE. BP?

Senator BAUCUS [continuing]. BP might be in there too, I guess

that it is, who by and large recognize that the climate is changing;

they say this publicly; and recognizing that human beings are causing a part of the climate change, and they themselves are taking

it upon themselves to do what they can reasonably, together, to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses. On their own, they’re already

doing some things. I think that’s very constructive and I take my

hat off to them for that.

The treaty has not been agreed to. There is a huge problem that

developing countries aren’t pulling their fair share; that’s something that we’ll have to work out in some other forum, some other

way, but in the meantime I do think it does make sense to use

common sense, but without going ahead and implementing provisions.
198

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Again, I would concur, and I have already, in

the short time I have been working on air issues at EPA, been having discussions with business and industry groups, and particularly

utilities, about what their plans are and how we can work together

on common-sense measures to meet broad climate protection objectives. So I would assure you, Senator, that I’m going to pay attention to it; climate concerns come into our discussions quite often

and I won’t deter from thinking about those common-sense measures that we as a Nation should be doing.

Senator CHAFEE. Senator Inhofe.

Senator INHOFE. This is going to be going down as the quickest

hearing we’ve had, I guess, on confirmations.

Mr. Perciasepe, in Tuesday’s hearing on acid rain we announced

that we’re going to be asking the GAO to do a study on the cumulative effect of the various air issues, where you have the PM, the

ozone, the NOx, and all the rest of them, and I would ask you if

you would be cooperative and do all that you can to supply them

with the data to try to assist them in this effort.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, we certainly would want to work with the

General Accounting Office. Actually, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 also asked EPA to look retrospectively at costs and

benefits, back to 1970, which we have done, and we are now in the

process of looking prospectively from 1990 out into the future. So

there would be a dovetailing——

Senator INHOFE. It could be a cooperative——

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We’re working on the cumulative impacts of the

Clean Air Act, and if GAO, at the request of Congress, starts to

look at that as well, we would definitely work with them.

Senator INHOFE. Now, in the area of international pollution—you

and I have talked about this, in Texas and Oklahoma in particular

because of last May and the fires that were coming up—I know

that the EPA received information from the State of Oklahoma, Department of Environmental Quality, back in June, and they’re still

waiting for a response. I would like to ask if you could participate

in trying to get these responses out a little quicker than they have

been in the past.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. As you mentioned, we did talk about this

before. I have shared with your staff the general policy that we

have developed, and we are going to provide the appropriate discounting of those events.

We have been working with NASA also to get the satellite imagery for that time period. We are just about done with that analysis, and we plan to share it with the States and start working with

the individual States on specific issues. So I will continue to stay

on top of that and work with Oklahoma.

Senator INHOFE. That would be really helpful. I’m not saying it

in a critical way, except that it seems to me that it could have been

done a little quicker.

And last, when I talked at the Annapolis Center you were the

speaker right after me, and I announced on the clean air reauthorization that I was going to try to do this over a relatively short period of time compared to what it was before. But there are certain

reasons why it should be a shorter period of time. Even though it

would be the next Administration when we actually drafted the
199

legislation, I would ask you, do you think our timeline is realistic?

And could you work in cooperation with us in meeting that

timeline?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, if you have hearings in the next Congress,

as I said in my opening statement, we are anxious to work with

the Congress.

I remember—and I did catch your discussion that day; if I remember, you were talking about 4 years?

Senator INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. If you can build a consensus about how the act

needs to be improved and strengthened in the appropriate areas,

with all the different stakeholders, and have an inclusive process—

and we are out there working with you on it—it’s conceivable that

two Congresses from now, something could be done. But it will require a lot of work, and we’re prepared to work with you in the

next Congress as you start looking into the specific issues.

Senator INHOFE. I thank you very much. Just to restate what I

said in my opening statement, the problem we had with your nomination had nothing to do with you; it was a process and a precedent that I felt needed to be changed. I appreciate your help and

the attitude you had during the course of that time. I look forward

to supporting you.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Thank you.

Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Yes.

Senator WARNER. If I may just briefly add my indication of

strong support for the nominee in the position to which the President has nominated him. I first gained knowledge of the nominee

way back when Senator Mathias and I did the landmark legislation

on Chesapeake Bay, and you’ve been an instrumental part of making that program achieve, I think, a modest success thus far, although much remains to be done. You bring to this position credentials which reflect a lot of experience in the areas over which you

will hopefully soon be confirmed and have the responsibility. I wish

you luck.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Thank you, Senator.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, this has been a lovefest, and a swift one

at that.

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, I move that we favorably report

the nominee.

Senator INHOFE. I’ll second that.

Senator WARNER. I’ll second.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, that’s splendid. I’ll tell you what, we really don’t have enough members here, and we’re going to be meeting

at 2:30—Senator Warner, would you note this, please, that there’s

going to be a vote somewhere in the neighborhood of 2:30, but

whenever the Senate vote is, following that, we shall meet in the

President’s Room. There is a series of nominations—not just this

one of Mr. Perciasepe, but others. Certainly, I would like a good,

swift attendance, and then we can get our work done.

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, this could well be our last hearing this year, this session, this Congress. I know I speak for all——

Senator CHAFEE. Is that right? Well, I guess you’re right. We

don’t have anything else scheduled.
200

Senator BAUCUS. Well, I just want to say to you, speaking on behalf of all the members of this committee, that we appreciate the

job you have done as Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Aren’t you nice? Thank you. Likewise, I appreciate the job you’ve done, as well.

Senator BAUCUS. I only regret that Senator Kempthorne is not

here on this final day, because it would otherwise be his last day.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, I had a chance to say farewell to Senator

Kempthorne. He presided earlier this morning, at 9:30, on a hearing dealing with the Snake and Columbia Rivers, and I was able

to thank him for his work. We’re going to miss him. He’s done yeoman work.

And indeed, Mr. Perciasepe, when you were talking about working on the Safe Drinking Water Act, I immediately was reminded

of the work that Senator Kempthorne did there.

So thank you, Senator Baucus, for your kind comments, and the

meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the chair.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. PERCIASEPE, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say a very few words.

First, I appreciate the introductions, and I am happy to be here today, talking

with all of you. And I plan to do much more of it than just today, and I want to

make sure that you all know that.

I do want to emphasize at the onset a little bit about my career. I know that you

mentioned a couple of points on that already, and I just want to emphasize a few

other ones.

First and foremost is my personal commitment to public service. This has been

my career. I have worked at city government, which is going a little bit further

back, but I have 12 years’ experience at city government, including doing capital

budgets and many other local government activities. And then you mentioned my

State service and, obviously, my EPA service to date. The emphasis on public service, the emphasis on working with other people is something that is very important

to me and I will continue that in this job if you approve.

Recently, you all know that my style is to understand the importance of inclusive

processes, bringing people together to resolve differences, both in the legislative

arena as well as the regulatory arena. I am very anxious to continue that process

in this new role.

Senator Baucus, you mentioned the Safe Drinking Water Act.

I, too, view that as a very successful work that we have done together in this committee, and everybody here worked on that. That’s the kind of work that I hope we

can continue to do.

I very much view building bridges and working together as part of the process.

As far as the Air and Radiation job, I’d like to say just a couple of quick opening

thoughts about areas of emphasis, and then perhaps we can do some questions and

answers.

I view one of the most important things that I can bring to this job over the next

several years as to set up success for implementation. There are many implementation issues in the Clean Air Act and for our clean air goals that require constant

diligence in working with States, developing sound science, developing the technical

tools that we need to get the work done, working with stakeholders and working

with Congress. One of my highest priorities is going to be assuring that we’re setting the country up for continued success in air quality and pollution control.

Another thing that has been a hallmark of my efforts has been promoting common-sense regulation, and I intend to bring that kind of experience and objective

to the clean air program, or my time at the clean air program, including things like

flexibility in rules, market-based approaches, and working with State and local governments to develop local decisionmaking.

I know that climate change will be an issue, and I want to make sure that you

all know that I am not, in any way, shape, or form, going to be implementing the

Kyoto Protocol before it is ratified by the Congress and by the Senate, and I want

to make sure you know that. I will continue common-sense discussions with industry and others about making sure that we don’t make regulations that go in the

wrong direction, or that we continue cost savings and appropriate actions that we’ve

been working on in terms of energy.

I want you also to know that I take very seriously the Government Performance

and Results Act. I view management as one of my strong suits. This is something

that I have been doing for many, many years, going back to my city experience in

budgeting, and I plan to bring that attitude to this job, including working on the

Government Performance and Results Act and setting up measurable objectives.

There is also Radiation and Indoor Air as part of the portfolio, and whether it

be asthma or radon or working on Yucca Mountain, I plan to put a lot of energy

into these things to keep them moving forward as the country needs them to move

forward.

Let me just say in closing—and I’m trying to be very quick here, because you

know it’s a long list—Senator Inhofe and I have talked about this. I want to look

at the Clean Air Act over the next year or beginning in the next Congress, and I

want to say that we’re ready and willing to work with you on looking at how we

can make improvements and strengthenings of the Clean Air Act. We will be ready

and prepared, and I will personally work with the committee and the subcommittee

on those issues as they come up.
210

RESPONSES BY ROBERT PERCIASEPE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR

INHOFE

Question 1. What are the top three priority areas under the Clean Air Act that you plan to work on in the next year? Answer. As the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR),

my priority goals for he next few years can be described in the following four broad

categories: (A) To pave the way for successful implementation of the new NAAQS. In order to realize the expected health benefits from these standards, they need to be implemented efficiently and effectively. This process must seek input from industry, governors, mayors, and the public health and environmental community. This means

improving processes such as Title V and new source review (NSR) so they can world

as expected and it means providing guidance and technical assistance and support

to States so everyone is working together to the same end. It also means providing

certainty to industry so they can plan and prepare for compliance. We are also continuing to use flexibility and cost-effective measures so that these new standards

can provide public health benefits at the least cost. This task will require a great

deal of communication and coordination between all levels of government, industry,

and other stakeholders.

(B) To set new Tier II mobile source emission standards that will continue

progress. We reported in the Tier II Report to Congress that we submitted in July,

1998 that new Tier II emission standards are both necessary and feasible. Because

vehicle miles traveled and light duty truck sales are going up and the price of gasoline is at an all-time low, the progress we’ve made in the last 70 years in reducing

tail-pipe emissions will erode unless we set standards that can take us into the next

two decades. In this way, we can work to ensure that mobile sources continue to

provide some of the technological solutions to our air pollution problems. We also

need to reduce the sulfur levels in gasoline so that catalytic converters and new engine technologies can perform optimally. (C) To set in motion a program to reduce air toxics in urban areas. Since the 1990 CAAA, are have made tremendous progress reducing toxic air pollutants under the

MACT program. As required by the Act, now it is time to assess the residual risks

that may still remain. Also as required by the Act, we are to assess urban air toxics

because it is in urban areas where many sources of toxic air pollution are located

and where many people live. Under the urban air toxics program we are planning

to assess the type and amount of toxic pollutants people are being exposed to and

to prepare the appropriate response, which might include a national maximum

achievable control technology (MACT) standard, local controls, or exposure reduction, depending on the findings. (D) To continue progress both nationally and internationally on making the Kyoto Protocol acceptable for ratification. We have had tremendous success bringing energy-efficient technologies to the market under our Energy Star and Greenlights

partnership programs. However, we also realize that energy-efficient technologies

will not be sufficient on their own. Therefore, we have been advocating and discussing with developing nations and others the concept of an emissions trading program

to achieve the emission reductions in a cost-effective manner. This will require

working closely with Congress on concepts such as early credits for action.

Question 2. As you know, we plan to move forward with Clean Air Act Reauthor- ization in the next Congress. Which aspects of the current law do you believe need

to be addressed legislatively? Answer. I understand that you we interested in holding hearings next year to examine the Clean Air Act. I believe it would be useful for the hearings to examine

the current implementation of the Act to determine whether the various programs

are working well and to explore whether programs could be improved. As you know,

the Office of Air and Radiation has worked very hard within the bounds of the current statute to craft creative regulatory solutions to the inevitable problems that

surface during the course of implementation. I believe that we should continue to

explore regulatory solutions as much as possible before deciding whether or which

statutory changes are necessary. I think the coming hearings will be one excellent

forum for airing these issues, and I look forward to working on them with you and

your staff.

Question 3. In your brief tenure, how would you describe the interactions and relations between the Regional Offices and the Air program in Headquarters and Research Triangle Park? What areas need improvement and how do they compare to

the Water Office in general?

Answer. In general, I believe that the relations between headquarters and the Regional Offices in the air program are good. There is, of course, an inherent tension
211

in our relations with the Regions. This is the tension between the need for national

consistency on the one hand and the need for flexibility and local solution, on the

other. I believe that the Air programs have a strong Regional management process

which deals well with this inherent tension. Each year the Air Office provides the

Regional Offices with guidance on national priorities. Each Region then develops a

Memorandum of Agreement with us that represents a balancing of those national

priorities with specific Regional needs. Out of this process we have been able to develop creative solutions to problems across the Nation.

I would also like to note that the Air Office has made a strong commitment to

the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) process. For some two years

now this office has been negotiating outputs and measures with the Regions and

States. As result of the investment of time we’ve made the State Commissioners are

comfortable with the measures we’re adopting.

I recently met with all of the Regional Air Division Directors and believe that they

are strong team. From my experience in the Water Office, I have instituted weekly

conference calls with the Directors to ensure that they understand national priorities and needs, and that I, in turn, understand local concerns and priorities. I am

also considering establishing a ‘‘coordinating committee’’ between the national, regional, tribal, and State programs that would meet regularly to improve coordination on program management.

Question 4. In your brief tenure, how would you describe the interactions and coordinations between the Air Office and OECA?. What areas need improvement and

how do they compare to your experience as the Assistant Administrator for Water?

How do you see OECA working with your department to ensure greater compliance

by moving the emphasis to compliance as opposed to enforcement?

Answer. During my tenures in both the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and

the Office of Water (OW), I have found that it is important to develop effective

teamwork between the program office and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). The teamwork is necessary as regulations me developed to

ensure that they are enforceable. Teamwork is also important to ensure that enforcement and compliance activities are consistent with the policies of OAR.

During my tenure as Assistant Administrator for Water, I tried to build an effective working relationships with OECA on a number of projects For example, we

worked to ensure that the release of OECA’s animal feeding operations (ASO) guidance was coordinated with the release of the USDA’s/EPA’s ASO Strategy. I also established a mechanism that required regular meetings and discussions to ensure

better communication and coordination,

During my brief tenure as Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, I have

already seen that OAR and OECA can have a very close and effective working relationship, as shown by their excellent work in the heavy duty diesel engine enforcement action. In addition to levying a fine appropriate to the seriousness of this violation the team’s efforts resulted in a settlement that is fair to all parties and keeps

the focus on protecting the environment, rather then strictly on the penalty.

I am committed to become personally involved in fostering teamwork between

OECA and OAR, particularly on permitting and new source review matters. Achieving our air quality goals requires effective enforcement and implementation, but it

is important that we also provide sufficient flexibility to enable industry to compete

in a global setting. Making rules enforceable and flexible is one of our most important challenges.

I am particularly concerned that we design our rules to minimize impacts on

small businesses, and that we do everything we can to assist small businesses in

understanding and complying with our rules. OECA has made great strides in these

areas, and my goal is to see that kind of progress continues. I am convinced that

as we are move in this direction, compliance will be the norm and the need for enforcement action will be greatly reduced.

Question 5. Since 1992, the air permits rule to define minimum requirements for

approval of State Title V programs has been the subject of much controversy, including lawsuits. Specifically the provisions governing the procedures sources and States

had to follow when revising a Title V permit. I understand that EPA has been meeting with the stakeholders to debate issues surrounding the permit revision process

in an attempt to meet the needs of all parties. It is my understanding that when

the States, industry, and EPA’s Air Office find common ground, the Office of Enforcement and OGC insist on placing additional procedural requirements, with limited environmental benefit, to the rule. Having the background in the water permit

program, how do you plan to resolve the air permitting issues so that all stakeholders can maintain common ground and the Agency can move toward implementing

a reasonable program without wasting additional valuable resources?
212

Answer. Recently, I received my first detailed briefings on the Title V air permitting program, and believe that I need several more intensive briefings before we

reach the point of having regulatory improvements I am comfortable putting forward. These additional briefings are necessary for me to understand the issues more

thoroughly, as well as the history behind decisions that have been made to date.

States, industry officials, and environmental groups have expressed a number of

concerns which EPA needs to explore further before finalizing the Title V permit

revisions regulation. The Title V issues are very challenging and warrant further

consideration since a viable permit program is critical to implementing and ensuring

compliance of the requirements of the Clean Air Act and protecting human health

and the environment. Balanced against these benefits is the potential burden to industries that require operating flexibility and a streamlined process to compete in

a global economy. EPA is striving to design a permit program that strikes the balance between these objectives and which avoids saddling industries with unnecessary red tape when making a change or addition at a facility. I intend to spend a

lot of time over the next few months in order to give the Title V issue the time and

effort that it demands.

Question 6. Regarding NAAQS, EPA should coordinate the effort to regulate emissions contributing to regional haze with the ongoing implementation of the Clean

Air Act and the NAAQS implementation schedule set forth by President Clinton.

How do you intend to assure this coordinated implementation in a cost-effective and

flexible manner for both the State regulators and the regulated community?

Answer. We agree that every effort should be made to ensure that regional haze

requirements are well coordinated with efforts to implement the new PM-fine and

ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The final rule for regional

haze will incorporate the revised deadlines contained in the Transportation Equity

Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). By clearly establishing schedules for submission

of State implementation plans (SIP) for regional haze which are dependent on the

schedules for attainment and nonattainment designations for the PM-fine NAAQS,

TEA-21 supports EPA’s goal of ensuring the programs are well coordinated. In addition, we intend to implement the regional haze rule and PM-fine standards in ways

that foster and encourage coordinated regional planning efforts. We believe that any

control strategy decisions arising from these efforts need to be responsive to both

sets of requirements, thereby avoiding redundancy and conflicts. The Grand Canyon

Commission’s efforts, and the follow-on work by the Western Regional Air Partnerships are good examples of State regulators and stakeholders working together to

seek flexible, cost-effective solutions. We intend to continue to encourage these efforts to provide guidance and assistance as these regional efforts proceed.

Question 7. Considering that the court action on ETS was highly critical of the

EPA for forcing science to fit the justification for regulatory action, how do you plan

to ensure that good science is used and the results of good science are used to prevent unjustified regulations from being promulgated?

Answer. I believe EPA regulations and non-regulatory activities need to be based

on sound science, and I am committed to continue to make sure the best research

is behind our problematic decisions and policies. The Agency recently reinforced it’s

policy that ‘‘all major scientifically and technically based work products related to

Agency decisions normally should be peer-renewed’’ by publishing the Science Policy

Council Peer Review Handbook in January 1998. Regarding the court action on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), I stand behind the science we used in developing

our risk assessment—a report which was endorsed by the independent Science Advisory Board of the EPA.

It should be noted that EPA has no regulatory authority over ETS. Restricting

smoking in public places is primarily a State and local issue, and is typically addressed in clean indoor air laws enacted by States, counties and municipalities. Our

ETS-related work involves the dissemination of information to the public regarding

the risks from ETS and we have published recommendations to help people take actions to prevent involuntary expose to secondhand smoke.

I also refer you to the statement regarding this matter issued by Administrator

Browner on September 15, when she said, ‘‘It is a widely accepted scientific fact that

second-hand tobacco smoke poses significant risks to public health. The court’s decision was based on procedural concerns regarding technical aspects of EPA’s study.

In the appeal, EPA will defend its scientific review process, which is widely recognized as thorough, factual and fairs The 1993 risk study was reviewed and approved

by 18 independent, leading scientists in the field.’’

Additionally, it is important to note that Americans concerned about their health

and the health of their children should continue to avoid exposure to second-hand

smoke. The court’s decision last July did not challenge EPA’s findings that the ad-
213

verse health effects are real and significant for children. Since EPA’s 1993 risk

study, several health studies have confirmed the serious risks posed by second-hand

smoke, including a study conducted by the California Environmental Protection

Agency released last year. We look forward to the appellate court’s review of this matter and to a decision

that is in the best interest of protecting public health and the environment.

Question 8. Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has been the exclusive Federal statutory and regulatory framework for controlling and managing air emissions. Recent

development in the Clean Water Act’s program on total maximum daily loads raises

the prospect that those authorities may be used to leverage additional controls on

air emissions to deal with air deposition. Do you believe there is any basis under

the Clean Water Act to control pollutants released into the air as opposed to directly

into the water?

Answer. There is growing evidence that air deposition is a significant source of water pollution to some waterbodies. Recent reports by States indicate that atmospheric deposition is the leading source of pollutants to impaired Great Lakes waters

and the third leading source of pollutants to impaired lakes. In response to this evidence, EPA is working to better understand the relationship between air and water

pollution and is evaluating approaches to better defining linkages between impaired

waters and emissions of air pollutants.

EPA recently formed an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to review the efforts by EPA and States to implement the Total Maximum

Daily Load (TMDL) program under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The Committee was made up of over 20 members representing diverse groups and organizations including States, industry, municipalities, local government, environmental organizations and others. The Committee recently released a major, consensus report

making recommendations for improvements to the (TMDL) program. The Committee

recommended that EPA continue research into the causes and impairment of waters

due to atmospheric deposition. EPA is developing revisions to existing TMDL relations based on the FACA report and expects to publish proposed regulations in May

of 1999.

Under EPA’S current TMDL policies, States develop TMDLs for impaired waters

that define pollutant reductions needed to meet water quantity standards and allocate load reduction responsibility among pollution sources. Often these sources discharge to water and load reductions for these sources are enforceable under conditions of Clean Water Act permits Other sources that do not have Clean Water Act

permits may be allocated pollutant reduction responsibility where there is a ‘‘reasonable assurance’’ that the reduction will be accomplished. These allocations to other

sources reduce the pollution reduction burden on point sources. If the connection between an emission of pollutants to the air and the impairment of a waterbody were

established and there was a ‘‘reasonable assurance,’’ that a reduction would be implemented (e.g., under authority of a law other than the Clean Water Act such as

the Clean Air Act, a State air law, or other air related authority), a State TMDL

would have the option of allocating load reduction responsibility to an air source.

Question 9. If this committee undertakes reauthorization of the Clean Water Act

in the 106th Congress, can you assure this committee that EPA will not be seeking

Clean Water Act authorities to address air deposition and in turn air releases from

given sources?

Answer. The Agency continues to study the phenomenon of air deposition, and it

is too early even to speculate on what measures might eventually prove fruitful in

addressing it. I can, however, state that we intend to work closely with the Congress

in thinking about this issue, and that any measures we might propose would be

based solidly on sound science, cost-effectiveness, and demonstrated concerns about

public health and the environment.

Question 10. I know you will be coming out with the new Tier II Auto standards

soon and it will include a decision on sulfur in gasoline. We have already discussed

this and I am reiterating my concerns about the effects this will have on the refinery industry, particularly the smaller refiners. I am raising this now because this

Administration and previous ones as well, have not had a well thought-out energy

policy. While this has typically been a Department of Energy issue, regulations from

the EPA, and in particular the Air Office, have been increasing in recent years and

have been having a greater impact on our energy sources. What do you think your

role, and the role of your Office is, regarding our nations energy policy? Have you

had any discussions ninth the Department of Energy on your role and the impact

of the Clean Air Act on a national policy?

Answer. I believe first and foremost that the role of the Office of Air and Radiation, and my role as Assistant Administrator, is to fulfill the statutory direction
214

of Congress and the executive direction of the President. Given that the Clean Air

Act is our main statutory mandate, we need to ensure that we solicit DOE comment

on the energy policy implications of our proposed regulations and to reflect those

comments in a manner consistent with the strategic direction set by the Administration and the Congress. I strongly believe that our goal should be to carry out our

environmental statutory responsibilities in a way that will allow our country to simultaneously promote our environmental, energy, and economic goals. I have not

yet had the opportunity to specifically discuss this issue personally with my colleagues at the Department of Energy but I plan to do that soon. I believe that coordination between agencies is important and I will work hard to foster that coordination.

Æ