U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

47–641 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 109–1080 

NOMINATIONS OF ROGER ROMULUS MARTELLA 

JR., BISHOP WILLIAM H. GRAVES, AND 

ALEX BEEHLER 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

September 13, 2006 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

ANDREW WHEELER, Majority Staff Director 

KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

September 13, 2006 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee .................. 3 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 17 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ....................... 9 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1 

Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 2 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 18 

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph, U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 18 

Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois ............................ 15 

WITNESSES 

Beehler, Alex, Nominee for Inspector General of the Environmental Protection 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 32 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 27 

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 31 

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 31 

Senator Lieberman .................................................................................... 30 

Graves, Bishop William H., Nominee for Member of the Board of Directors 

of the Tennessee Valley Authority ...................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Response to an additional question from Senator Jeffords ........................... 25 

Martella, Roger Romulus, Jr., Nominee for Assistant Administrator, Office 

of the General Counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency .................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 20 

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 20 

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 24 

Senator Obama .......................................................................................... 22 

(1) 

NOMINATIONS OF ROGER ROMULUS 

MARTELLA JR., BISHOP WILLIAM H. 

GRAVES, AND ALEX BEEHLER 

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 

U.S. SENATE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:15 a.m. in 

room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Boxer, Carper, Obama, Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. We will now convene the hearing of the nominees. We are going to hear from the three nominees this morning. 

First will be Roger Martella, who has been nominated to be the 

EPA General Counsel. Mr. Martella currently serves as Principal 

Deputy General Counsel of the EPA. Prior to joining the EPA he 

worked at the Department of Justice, Environment and Natural 

Resource Division. 

We will also hear from Alex Beehler, who has been nominated 

to be the EPA Inspector General. Mr. Beehler is currently with the 

Department of Defense serving as the Assistant Deputy under Secretary of Defense for Environment, Safety, and Occupational 

Health. He was also a trial attorney with the Department of Justice for ten years. Let me just say that Mr. Beehler is very qualified for this position, and I look forward to having an Inspector 

General that will carry out his duties without political bias. 

Last but certainly not least we will hear from William Graves, 

who has been nominated to be a member of the board of directors 

of the Tennessee Valley Authority. He is the 42nd Bishop of the 

Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. Bishop Graves serves as 

vice chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Memphis Light 

and Gas and Water, TVA’s largest customer. Bishop Graves is nominated to fill the 9th and final slot on the newly organized TVA 

Board. I look forward to hearing them. 

I understand that Senator Jeffords has an opening statement, 

and Senator Alexander, if you would like to come up here to be recognized, you will be after Senator Jeffords. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 
2 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

We are going to hear from 3 nominees this morning. First will be Roger Martella, 

who has been nominated to be the EPA General Counsel. Mr. Martella currently 

serves as Principal Deputy General Counsel of the EPA. Prior to joining EPA, he 

worked for the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Environment and Natural Resources 

Division for 7 years, leaving as Principal Counsel for Complex Litigation. He has 

a substantial background as an environmental attorney and will make an excellent 

addition to EPA. 

We will then hear from Alex Beehler, who has been nominated to be the EPA Inspector General. Mr. Beehler is currently with the Department of Defense, serving 

as Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health. He was also a Trial Attorney with DOJ for ten years. Let me just 

say that Mr. Beehler is very qualified for this position, and I look forward to having 

an Inspector General that will a carry out his duties without political bias. 

Last, but certainly not lease, we will hear from William Graves, who has been 

nominated to be a Member of the Board of the Tennessee Valley Authority. He is 

the 42nd Bishop of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. Bishop Graves served 

as Vice-Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Memphis Light Gas & Water, 

TVA’s largest customer. Bishop Graves is nominated to fill the 9th and final slot 

on the newly reorganized TVA board. 

I look forward to hearing from each of you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

all of the nominees here this morning for their commitment to public service. Two of our nominees will face great challenges at the 

EPA. 

Mr. Martella, nominated for the position of General Counsel, you 

will be the primary legal advisor through the Administrator. 

I want to commend these individuals and wish them well. You 

will be responsible for evaluating every issue the Agency must 

tackle, and I hope your evaluation will always make the health and 

the safety of the public and the environment your top priority. You 

will play a political role in making sure that the EPA’s legal decisions are based on the laws that Congress enacted. 

In recent years, many of the EPA’s legal decisions have been 

highly questionable and have not survived court review. I hope you 

will address that issue before this Committee. 

Mr. Beehler, you have some big shoes to fill. Your predecessor, 

Niki Tinsley, performed a great service at the EPA and the citizens 

of this country. She epitomized what was envisioned when the Office of the Inspector General was created in 1978 by providing independent and impartial analysis. The Inspector General provides a 

great service to the public. You will be the eyes and the ears for 

the public within the Agency, and that responsibility is not to be 

taken lightly. You have been closely involved in some controversial 

proposals at the Department of Defense. I look forward to examining your record in that regard. 

Bishop Graves, if confirmed you will join several other new TVA 

Board members confirmed earlier this year. In my view, your main 

responsibility is to ensure that TVA continues to provide its core 

product, electric power, competitively, efficiently, and reliably. But 

I also feel that the TVA needs to set a standard of public responsibility in the areas of environmental and fiscal performance. The 

TVA should be a model for the country in the area of cleaner and 

carbon-free power generation. 
3 

I look forward to hearing from all of you and learning how you 

will respond to these challenges if confirmed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:] 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF VERMONT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank all of the nominees here this 

morning for their commitment to public service. 

Two of our nominees will face great challenges at the EPA. 

Mr. Martella, nominated for the position of General Counsel, you will be the primary legal advisor to the Administrator. You will be responsible for evaluating 

every issue the Agency must tackle. I hope your evaluation will always make the 

health and safety of the public and the environment your top priority. 

You play a critical role in making sure that the EPA’s legal decisions are based 

on the laws that Congress has enacted. In recent years, many of the EPA’s legal 

decisions have been highly questionable and have not survived court review. I hope 

you will address that issue before this committee. 

And Mr. Beehler, you have some big shoes to fill. Your predecessor, Nicki Tinsley, 

performed a great service to the EPA and the citizens of this country. She epitomized what was envisioned when the Office of the Inspector General was created 

in 1978, by providing independent and impartial analysis. 

The Inspector General provides a great service to the public. You will be the eyes 

and ears for the public within the Agency and that responsibility is not to be taken 

lightly. You have been closely involved in some controversial proposals at the Department of Defense. I look forward to examining your record in that regard. 

Mr. Graves, if confirmed, you will join several other new TVA Board Members 

confirmed earlier this year. In my view, your main responsibility is to ensure that 

the TVA continues to provide its core product—electric power—competitively, efficiently and reliably. 

But I also feel that the TVA needs to set a standard for public responsibility in 

the areas of environmental and fiscal performance. The TVA should be a model for 

the country in the area of cleaner and carbon-free power generation. 

I look forward to hearing from all of you and learning how you will respond to 

these challenges if confirmed. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Jeffords. 

Senator Alexander, thank you for joining us. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for 

your courtesy in allowing me to be a part of the Committee. 

It is my privilege to be here today to speak in support of one of 

Tennessee’s most distinguished citizens who has been nominated 

by President Bush for the Board of the Tennessee Valley Authority. 

Bishop William Graves is from Memphis. He is well known in our 

State and in the entire mid-south region. 

First, he has plenty of experience in the job that he has been 

nominated to take, because over the last ten years he has been a 

member of the Board of Commissioners of the Memphis Light, Gas 

and Water Company, which is the Tennessee Valley Authority’s 

largest customer. So if he should be confirmed, Bishop Graves 

would be one of two members of the TVA Board with experience 

with distributors of TVA’s power. 

Secondly, as the Chairman said, Bishop Graves is the 42nd 

bishop of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. He was elected to that position in 1982. He served pastorates in Georgia, which 

is one of the States served by TVA, and Indiana and Wisconsin and 

California. He has represented the CME church in the World Meth-
4 

odist Conference on several occasions. He is the immediate past 

president of the board of directors of the National Congress of 

Black Churches, and currently presides over the First Episcopal 

District, with headquarters and residence in Memphis. 

Mr. Chairman, Bishop Graves’ nomination by the President represents two important milestones. First, Bishop Graves will be the 

first Memphis citizen ever to serve on the Tennessee Valley Authority Board, and since Memphis is the largest customer of TVA’s 

electricity, that is especially appropriate. Second, Bishop Graves 

will be the first African American member of the Tennessee Valley 

Authority Board. He is a distinguished citizen, and on behalf of 

Senator Frist and myself we welcome him. 

If I may just add to Senator Jeffords’ comment, I too hope that 

the Tennessee Valley Authority with the new board—Mr. Chairman, you and Senator Jeffords can remember that we confirmed 

several of them just a while ago—they are off to a terrific beginning. They are a very good board. They are doing exactly what a 

modern governance structure of an $7 billion a year company ought 

to do. They are developing a strategic plan. 

TVA is becoming a national leader in the production of carbonfree energy by reopening a nuclear power plant, which is on time, 

on schedule. Nuclear power, of course, produces 70 percent of our 

carbon-free energy in the country, and TVA as a Federal Agency 

is taking the lead in doing that, so I salute that, Mr. Chairman, 

and I applaud this nomination as I know all Tennesseeans do. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Alexander follows:] 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Mr. Chairman, members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, thank 

you for this opportunity to be here today to speak in support of the nomination of 

Bishop William Graves to serve as a Director on the Board of the Tennessee Valley 

Authority. I’m honored to be here today to introduce one of Tennessee’s most distinguished citizens who have been nominated by President Bush for the board of the 

Tennessee Valley Authority. Bishop William Graves is from Memphis. He’s well 

known in our state and in the entire mid-south region. 

First, he has plenty of experience in the job that he’s been nominated to take, because over the last ten years, he’s been a member of the board of commissioners 

of the Memphis Light Gas and Water company, which is the Tennessee Valley 

Authority’s largest customer. If confirmed, Bishop Graves would be one of two members of the TVA Board with experience as distributors of TVA’s power. 

William Graves is the 42nd Bishop of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. 

He was elected to this position at the 1982. He has served pastorates in Georgia— 

which is one of the states served by TVA—Indiana, Wisconsin, and California. He 

has represented the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church in the World Methodist 

Conference on several occasions. He is the immediate past president of the board 

of directors of the National Congress of Black Churches and currently presides over 

the First Episcopal District, with headquarters and residence in Memphis, Tennessee. 

Mr. Chairman, Bishop Graves’ nomination by the President represents two important milestones. First, Bishop Graves will be the first Memphis citizen ever to serve 

on the Tennessee Valley Authority Board, and since Memphis is the largest customer of TVA’s electricity, that’s especially appropriate. And second, Bishop Graves 

will be the first African-American member of the Tennessee Valley Authority Board. 

He is a distinguished citizen, and on behalf of Senator Frist and myself, we welcome him. 

The new TVA Board is off to a terrific beginning. They’re a very good board. They 

are doing exactly what a modern governance structure of a $7 billion-a-year company ought to do. They’re developing a strategic plan. TVA is becoming a national 

leader in the production of carbon-free electricity by reopening a nuclear power 
5 

plant. Nuclear power, of course, produces 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity 

in the country and TVA, as the Federal Agency, is taking the lead in doing that. 

So I salute that, Mr. Chairman, and I applaud this nomination, as I know all Tennesseans do. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Alexander, for that excellent statement. 

We will now hear from our witnesses. We will start with you, Mr. 

Martella. We would like to ask you to confine your opening statements to five minutes. Your entire statement will be made a part 

of the record. 

Mr. Martella. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER ROMULUS MARTELLA, JR., NOMINEE 

FOR ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF THE GENEARL 

COUNSEL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. MARTELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, and 

members of the Committee. Thank you for providing me with this 

opportunity and the honor to appear before you today. 

At the outset, I respectfully would like to introduce my wife behind me, Ann, and my children, Eva Angelina and Santino. And, 

for the record, I would like to recognize our third child who is on 

the way and due in January. 

I am also joined by my parents behind my wife, Roger and Mary 

Ann Martella, who are small business owners, who continue to run 

their Italian corner bakery after some 30 years. Next to them are 

my in-laws, John and Gayl Worthington, who are retired public 

school teachers from Battle Creek, Michigan, and made the journey 

to be here today. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, well behind me are a number of young 

men and women who are homeschool students from Virginia and 

also members of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, who are here both to 

show support to me and to observe this important Senate process 

of advice and consent on the President’s nominations. 

Mr. Chairman, I feel an extraordinary honor at being asked by 

the President and the Administrator to lead EPA’s attorneys in 

support of the Agency’s mission to accelerate environmental protection while maintaining economic competitiveness. For almost a 

year, as the acting General Counsel and as the Principal Deputy 

General Counsel, I have had the good fortune to work shoulder to 

shoulder with the talented staff at what is, in effect, the Nation’s 

strongest environmental law practice. The work that our office performs every day raises important and cutting edge issues critical 

to the Agency’s overriding mission, and I am fortunate that I have 

members of the General Counsel staff, several of whom are here 

today to show support to me, behind me. 

If confirmed as General Counsel, I would bring to the post my 

perspective as an environmentalist, my attorney skills developed as 

counsel to both the Federal Government and the private sector on 

complex environmental issues, and the unique breadth of perspective of how our Federal decisions affect local Governments. 

First, I am a passionate advocate for the environment. As the father of a young and growing family, I think constantly about the 

ramifications of decisions on my children, their young friends, and 
6 

all their future families, and believe our decisions today must give 

equal time to protecting their legacy tomorrow. 

At the same time, I also wish a strong and viable economy for 

my children. Environmental decisions should not be made without 

regard to their economic and social consequences and should be 

crafted to conserve our Nation’s economic competitiveness while 

protecting the environment. When I return home to my parents’ 

bakery and to a now struggling industrial town built by entrepreneurial immigrants, I reflect on the impact of our decisions on 

American small businesses, in particular. I feel strongly that good 

Government demands that we avoid doing harm to this backbone 

of our Nation’s economy, while at the same time promoting the 

health of our environment. I have no doubt that these two goals 

can be mutually achievable. 

Second, as an attorney I am a passionate advocate for my clients, 

in this case EPA. During my seven years at the Justice Department I took pride in maintaining an unbroken record of successfully litigating all the cases I took to court, which largely defended 

important Agency decisions and regulations. But I am also proud 

that, where feasible, I sought to resolve many cases in a way that 

not only resulted in a win for the Government but also addressed 

the interests of all stakeholders to the dispute. Ironically, it frequently takes a lawyer to suggest to parties that litigation is not 

the best solution and to facilitate a negotiated compromise that 

supports the interests of all stakeholders to the fullest extent possible. 

My experience has taught me that solving a problem through 

consensus has the added benefit of strengthening long-term relationships and avoiding future disputes. At EPA, I have worked to 

expand the use of environmental conflict resolution tools to address 

complex environmental disputes across the Nation. 

Finally, as a citizen who, during almost my entire career has 

played an active role in civic service at a local level, I appreciate 

firsthand the importance of working together with local, State, and 

tribal Governments, as well as other stakeholders, to achieve environmental results. I am fortunate to have the opportunity to apply 

my skills at the local level, including as an elected member of the 

Warrenton, VA Town Council and formerly as a member of a committee that brought together farmers, utilities, and the Government to help preserve my county’s agricultural heritage. I constantly reflect upon this local public service when I am at work at 

EPA. Having this local perspective reminds me of how decisions by 

the Federal Government have real and significant impacts on people in communities far flung from Washington. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I respectfully would request that my full statement be submitted as 

part of the record, and I would be happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Martella. 

Bishop Graves. 
7 

STATEMENT OF BISHOP WILLIAM H. GRAVES, NOMINEE FOR 

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

Bishop Graves. Good morning. I am honored to be here today as 

one of President Bush’s nominees to the Board of the Tennessee 

Valley Authority. I would like to thank Senator Frist, Senator 

Alexander, and my own Congressman, Harold Ford, Jr. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the 

opportunity to appear before you today, sir, but may I also add I 

am scared. 

[Laughter.] 

Bishop Graves. May I present my wife, who joins me, Donna 

Graves, and one of our daughters, Mira, who is sitting behind me. 

Senator INHOFE. Which one is the wife and which one is the 

daughter? 

Bishop Graves. My wife, my daughter. I hope I am able to go 

back home after that, Mr. Chairman. 

I was born in Brownsville, TN, the eighth of nine children, in the 

depths of the Great Depression. My family moved to Detroit when 

I was young, but I frequently returned, visiting relatives and 

friends. After completion of high school, I returned for my college 

years at Lane College in Jackson, Tennessee. 

I understand what TVA has meant to the people of Tennessee 

Valley from the years of economic struggle to the present day. As 

a resident of the Tennessee Valley, I would consider it a great 

honor and humbling challenge to serve on the Board of TVA, if confirmed. 

My background as a pastor and as bishop of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church gives me a profound appreciation for TVA’s 

mission of service to the 8.6 million people in the Valley. It is a 

mission based on making life better, improving our communities, 

and supporting our families as they live and work in concert with 

God’s natural world. It is a worthy mission, indeed, and I will use 

all of my faculties, my strength, and the power that is in me to consider the challenges facing TVA and make sound and careful determinations. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to also tell you that I had the opportunity to hear about your concern during the last confirmation 

hearing about the proper financial management of agencies like 

TVA. I want to assure you that if I am confirmed I will work hard 

to make sure that the TVA Board and employees manage our resources wisely and ethically. 

Based on my work, my life experience, and my knowledge of 

TVA, I believe I can make a valuable contribution to the Board of 

the Tennessee Valley Authority if you choose to confirm me. 

Throughout my professional life I have worked with people from all 

walks of life. As a board member of Memphis Light, Gas and 

Water, TVA’s largest single customer, I learned much about the 

challenges facing TVA as a power provider keeping pace with the 

exuberant growth of our region’s economy. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to answering any question you may have for me. 
8 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Bishop Graves. I am very familiar 

with your hometown. My daughter received her Ph.D from Memphis State University, and I have had a lot of barbecue there. 

Mr. Beehler. 

STATEMENT OF ALEX BEEHLER, NOMINEE FOR INSPECTOR 

GENERAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. BEEHLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Jeffords, members of the Committee, thank you for providing me 

with the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I would like to recognize my wife, Stephanie Beehler, who is 

seated three to the left of me. 

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

to be Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency. In 

my current and previous positions involving environmental law and 

policy, my vision has been to seek environmental improvement. 

If I am confirmed, I pledge to you that I will do everything in 

my power to work with the dedicated, expert staff in the Office of 

the Inspector General to provide the Agency, Congress, and the 

American people an independent, objective review of EPA programs. I will work to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse, 

and to provide the leadership to promote effectiveness, efficiency, 

and economy in program administration. Each is an important 

component in assisting the Agency’s mission of protecting human 

health and safeguarding the environment, and I pledge to work 

with the Committee and its staff in carrying out our shared goal 

of environmental protection and improvement. 

During my 28 years of professional experience in Washington, 

DC, I have had the privilege to spend 17 of those years engaged 

in environmental law enforcement and policy positions from several 

different perspectives. I have served as a special assistant to the 

Associate Administrator for Legal and Enforcement Counsel at 

EPA, as a Federal environmental prosecutor for the Department of 

Justice, as an environmental regulatory advisor to a major corporation, as the top environmental policy official at two non-profit organizations, and currently as a senior environmental official at the 

Department of Defense. 

These opportunities plus positions on the Senate Judiciary Committee and in private litigation practice have provided me with a 

wide range of legal, investigative, and Government experience that 

have prepared me to perform the critical role of helping protect 

human health and the environment as Inspector General of the 

EPA. 

While at the Department of Justice, I was lead attorney on many 

CERCLA cost recovery cases requiring the substantive review of financial and audit records. One case in particular, the Picillo Superfund Site in Rhode Island, involved the court appointment of a special master solely to address all accounting matters and the judicial 

rendering of one of the most comprehensive examinations of 

CERCLA cost recovery issues to date. 

My non-profit work afforded me the opportunity to devise and 

implement environmental policy strategies focused on environmental improvement, where substantive results were defined, 

measured, and emphasized. 
9 

In my current capacity at the Department of Defense, I continue 

to stress results over process by pushing for putting facts on the 

table and collecting the best available data and science in a holistic, integrated manner for all of the Department’s operations, from 

design to disposal. 

I have proactively pursued building trust with interested parties 

to encourage sharing of the issues and information leading to solutions and environmental improvement. If confirmed, I would continue the same truth-seeking approach as Inspector General, with 

independence and integrity. I would ferret out problems and target 

areas for improvement through proactively seeking knowledge from 

other internal EPA offices, from other Federal agencies and components, from State agencies, and from non-Government sources and 

entities. I would provide leadership through breadth of vision, 

while drawing upon the considerable expertise of staff for depth 

and execution. 

Throughout my career and life I have strived to use responsibilities entrusted in me to make things better. Through independent 

and measured thinking, sound judgment and common sense, respect for the rule of law with the highest ethical standards. My 

goal is to lead by example and learn from others. I hope to have 

that opportunity as EPA’s Inspector General. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I ask 

that my entire written statement be made part of the record. I 

would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Beehler. Of course, all statements will be made part of the record. 

We have two required questions or questions that have required 

answers I would like to ask each one of you and I would like to 

have you respond audibly for the record. 

Are you willing to appear at the request of any duly constituted 

committee of Congress as a witness? 

Mr. MARTELLA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Bishop Graves. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BEEHLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Secondly, 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 for this 

position? 

Mr. MARTELLA. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Bishop Graves. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BEEHLER. No, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

It is my understanding that Senator Boxer would like to make 

an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Well, since I missed that turn, I will be happy 

to wait until you finish your questions, and then if I could take five 

minutes for an opening and five minutes for questions that would 

be great. 

Senator INHOFE. That would be fine. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 
10 

Senator INHOFE. That would be fine. 

First of all, Senator Alexander, since you are here, anything 

you’d like to comment on or ask of any of the witnesses, particularly Bishop Graves? 

Senator ALEXANDER. That is a great courtesy, Mr. Chairman. I 

don’t think so. Bishop Graves and I have had a chance to talk. I 

know him well, know his experience. As I mentioned, he will go on 

the TVA Board as the most experienced member in terms of having 

direct experience on a day-to-day basis with the distributor. My 

hope, Mr. Chairman, with this new Board, which is a diverse board 

from all across the region, is that they have a chance to spend a 

year or two looking carefully at TVA and developing a strategic 

plan, and then coming back to this Committee and other Members 

of the Congress who have jurisdiction and letting us know the direction that you go. So I thank you for your courtesy, but I think 

I will not have questions. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Alexander. 

Senator JEFFORDS. I have no questions. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. 

Mr. Martella, in my office we discussed this and we have had 

some hearings, as you know, in the last couple hearings over how 

the various regions vary from one another in terms of things that 

they are involved in, the roles they play. I would ask you what role 

this position, if confirmed, you would be able to do to help us, recognizing that there are some differences from region to region, but 

certainly not the differences that would justify the behavior of some 

of these regions relative to each other. 

Mr. MARTELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. As 

you know, I share your concern and I believe that ensuring national consistency with EPA headquarters and our ten regional offices should be a goal of the Agency. At the same time, you and 

I agree there needs to be some flexibility. Senator Murkowski and 

I have talked about flexibility involving situations in Alaska, for 

example. 

Even as Deputy General Counsel I have taken a proactive role 

in working towards national consistency with headquarters and our 

regional offices. For example, I have worked very proactively with 

high-level headquarters officials and high-level regional officials towards developing a list of nationally significant projects and issues. 

The idea would be if an item is flagged as nationally significant 

there would be headquarters coordination to ensure that we were 

taking consistent positions across the Nation. I also rely Mr. Chairman, on my regional counsels in each of our ten regional offices to 

keep me informed and ensure that headquarters has a role in ensuring consistency in positions across the Nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Mr. Beehler, you and I also talked about this, the grants management and the problems. There has been criticism for the last 

ten years. And then, most recently, in the last three years we have 

been trying to set up a system where we have daylight and we 

know what types of grants are out there and who has access to 

them. What would be your role in grants management? 

Mr. BEEHLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. 
11 

Grants management at EPA is one of the most important activities that the Agency does, consuming almost half of their annual 

budget. If I am confirmed, I certainly will make the careful review 

of grants management one of my top priorities and would work 

with you, Mr. Chairman, the other Senators on the Committee, and 

the respective staff to seek out any questions and concerns that you 

may have, either on specific grants or on the general grant management program, as well, and then take that back and give it 

careful review throughout the Office of Inspector General to make 

sure that the grants management program is the most effective 

and efficient it can be, given the resources at hand. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Beehler. 

Bishop Graves, you know, we had a hearing and I think we had 

six nominees that were confirmed to the TVA on the restructuring 

of this board not too long ago, and it was called to attention in my 

State of Oklahoma we have what some people refer to as the Little 

TVA. It is called the Grand River Dam Authority. There has been 

a lot of ethical problems there, and so that made me most interested in the history of the TVA and some of the problems that were 

there, so I ask you the same question I asked the other six prior 

to their confirmation. What steps would you take to ensure that 

you don’t slip back—not you, individually, but the board does not 

slip back into some of the problems it had in the past? 

Bishop Graves. Would you repeat the question? 

Senator INHOFE. The ethical problems of the past of the board, 

what steps can you take to ensure that we don’t revert back to 

some of those problems as a member of the board? 

Bishop Graves. Well, first thing I would do, Mr. Chairman is 

make sure that I understand the past and compare, and would use 

all my abilities to check out and to do whatever research and use 

my best judgment to keep and raise high ethical standards. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. I have no doubt about that, and I have felt 

we concentrated most of the last hearing of those nominees up for 

confirmation to some of the problems of the past and how we can 

avoid those in the future, so I am very pleased, as is Senator Alexander, with this new formation and look forward to many years of 

relating with you. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. I am hoping I can have ten 

minutes now, because—— 

Senator INHOFE. You can have 10 minutes if you want 10 minutes. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I do. 

Senator INHOFE. Of course. 

Senator BOXER. I do. 

First of all let me say to the Bishop and to Mr. Martella I will 

be supporting you and I think your nominations are most appropriate. I have some questions about Mr. Beehler, so the two of you 

can breathe a sigh of relief. 

I will make my comments. 

Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly about the Office of the Inspector General in the various departments of Government. I mean, it 

is very clear to me that the Inspector General should be an advocate for the mission of the Agency and not come to the job with a 
12 

record of really working in many ways to weaken environmental 

enforcement, so I want to talk about my concerns, Mr. Beehler, and 

of course give you an opportunity to respond, but I’m going to wait 

for the chairman. 

I was saying that to me an Inspector General who is someone 

that Members can rely on from both sides of the aisle to look at 

their work to ensure that the mission is being accomplished by the 

Agency in which they are assigned, and the object to me is to ensure that EPA, its employees, and actions remain free of waste, 

fraud, and abuse, any person nominated I believe must be impartial, must be independent, and I just look at Mr. Beehler has a 

very successful record in his life and I applaud that but I don’t see 

it meshing with this job, so I’m going to talk to you about that. 

I know that you have been closely involved in efforts by the Department of Defense to obtain exemptions from environmental statutes, and what is disturbing to me is already in the law there is 

a broad exemption granted. If ever there is a problem with national 

security the DoD can come to us and can act, so there is no impediment, but yet still what we’ve seen lately is a DoD that keeps trying to win exemptions from specific environmental statutes. That 

is disturbing to me because, as Inspector General, you know, since 

you’ve done that, I just don’t think—and maybe I’m wrong again— 

that you would have a deep-seated belief that these statutes should 

be defended. 

You were in the key DoD position when the Department delayed 

stronger standards for perchlorate, for trichloroethylene, if I’ve said 

it right. We know that those contaminations exist on hundreds of 

sites, of DoD sites. And you left the Department of Justice to work 

as director of environmental compliance at Koch Industries, which 

had recently paid record fines for environmental violations and was 

facing criminal environmental charges. 

While at Koch, you helped to steer money to organizations that 

routinely seek to weaken our environmental laws. So I just have 

a problem. I mean, you might be great in some other position, but 

I see in this particular job the need for a principled environmental 

steward, independent, impartial, and I just unfortunately don’t see 

it. I see a nomination of an individual with close tie to the very industries that you will be charged to oversee. I think we need an 

independent EPA IG who will stand up to political pressures, give 

us the plain truth about EPA and environmental issues. 

So, with the time I have remaining, I would like to ask you about 

the issue of perchlorate, which is a very deep-seated issue in my 

State and in others. It is a widespread contaminant that could 

cause damage, mental and physical. It is especially lethal to pregnant women. 

On March 20, 2006, a California Federal court agreed with the 

Natural Resources Defense Council that the Department of Defense, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Environmental Protection Agency have improperly withheld a number of 

documents that describe perchlorate contamination health effects 

and cleanup methods and costs. For example, the court ruled that 

DoD had improperly withheld ‘‘a draft memorandum concerning 

perchlorate treatment technologies for DoD facilities in California.’’ 
13 

An Inspector General must be an advocate for openness, but not 

someone who supports keeping the public in the dark. The public 

has a right to know. I mean, that is the beauty of this greatest 

country in the world here. We let the public know. We don’t lie to 

them. We don’t hide things. And when we do, we are not advancing 

the cause of freedom or democracy. So I am very concerned, while 

at DoD did you advise or consent to withhold any information that 

the Federal Court recently ruled was improperly withheld from the 

public? 

Mr. BEEHLER. No, Senator, I did not. 

Senator BOXER. So you had nothing to do with what they did on 

the perchlorate issue? 

Mr. BEEHLER. Concerning the withholding of documents or providing documents? 

Senator BOXER. Well, what was your position on the cleanup of 

perchlorate? 

Mr. BEEHLER. Senator, my position when I came in, I helped establish the first program office that the Department of Defense had 

concerning emerging contaminants to help work in a cooperative 

fashion, in a very open fashion, with other Federal and State regulators to address such issues of concern as perchlorate, TCE, and 

the other chemicals that you mentioned. To date, my office and the 

services in response to this office and initiative have worked very 

closely with the State of California to set up a sampling protocol 

at over 1,000 sites where perchlorate may have been present to put 

a sampling priority for perchlorate at those sites and to implement 

it with the maximum amount of coordination, review - - 

Senator BOXER. Okay, so thank you. Do you disagree with the 

court’s decision then to find against the Department of Defense 

that you didn’t, in fact, do this, what you are saying you did? Do 

you think they were incorrect, the correct was wrong? 

Mr. BEEHLER. Senator, I am not in a legal position at the Department of Defense and I do not have general knowledge of the particulars of the court’s decision. 

Senator BOXER. Okay. Did you ever agree to provide or directly 

provide or were you aware that people were providing third parties 

who advocate for DoD contractors with information on the perchlorate issue? 

Mr. BEEHLER. Would you repeat the question please? 

Senator BOXER. Sure. Did you ever agree to provide or directly 

provide third parties who advocate for DoD contractors with information? In other words, did you agree to share that information 

with third parties? 

Mr. BEEHLER. Concerning this lawsuit? 

Senator BOXER. Perchlorate, concerning perchlorate. 

Mr. BEEHLER. We certainly have shared any information that we 

have obtained from the data sampling efforts with the State regulators, and I believe that is public information. 

Senator BOXER. Okay, but not with third parties? 

Mr. BEEHLER. I really do not have knowledge one way or the 

other about that. 

Senator BOXER. Okay. I would like you to go back and—— 

Mr. BEEHLER. Senator, I would be happy to take—— 
14 

Senator BOXER. Because I don’t want to give you a question that 

you are—so if you could go back, because the court held that that 

is exactly what happened, that the public didn’t get the information 

but yet the private contractors did get it. So if you could go back 

and let us know on that one. 

Mr. BEEHLER. I would be happy to, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

[The requested information was not submitted in time for print.] 

Senator BOXER. TCE is an industrial cleaning agent that we 

know causes cancer and other health effects. TCE contaminates at 

least 323 Superfund sites. A 2003 DoD document notes the Department has 1,400 TCE contaminated sites across the country. In 

2001, the EPA issued a draft risk assessment that found TCE can 

cause cancer, damage the human nervous and immune system, and 

children are especially vulnerable. In December, 2002, EPA’s 

Science Board called their risk assessment ground-breaking work, 

particularly in analyzing the risk to children. In 2006 the National 

Academy of Sciences concluded that evidence of carcinogenic risk 

and other health hazards from TCE has strengthened since 2001. 

The Los Angeles Times reports that the White House developed 

a working group which included DoD officials to fight EPA’s efforts 

to increase protections against perchlorate, and this works State 

and business to fight the TCE risk assessment. Did you agree with 

the decision to have DoD continue to participate in this working 

group? 

Mr. BEEHLER. Senator, the only working group that I am aware 

of is one that is ongoing, working with EPA and other Federal 

agencies to seek out the best available science and actually have 

requested that the National Academy of Science provide such information. 

Senator BOXER. Okay. So did you participate in the working 

group? 

Mr. BEEHLER. No, Senator, I did not. 

Senator BOXER. So you were never part of it and you didn’t know 

about it? 

Mr. BEEHLER. Well, Senator, as I’ve answered, the only group 

that I am aware of is the one that I have described. I am not aware 

of what the one that has been characterized in the news article. 

Senator BOXER. I’m sorry. Which one did you describe? 

Mr. BEEHLER. I described the one that is ongoing right now. It 

is at a staff level with several Federal agencies, including EPA. It 

is on an ongoing basis to look at TCE and seek out the best available science, and therefore has approached the National Academy 

of Sciences. 

Senator BOXER. Well, don’t you think there has already been 

ground-breaking work on TCE? You are still looking for more 

science? I mean, there has been ground-breaking work on TCE, but 

you think there needs to be more science? 

Mr. BEEHLER. Well, in fact, Senator, during this time around 

2002 EPA’s own Assistant Administrator for Research and Development openly questioned the conclusions of some of the draft work 

conducted by—— 

Senator BOXER. Okay. So the National Academy of Sciences in 

2006 concluded that evidence of carcinogenic risk and other haz-
15 

ardous from exposure from TCE strengthened since 2001, and you 

want more science? 

Mr. BEEHLER. Well, Senator, my understanding is it is a two step 

process, and TCE—the National Academy of Sciences is in the second phase of that. 

Senator BOXER. Okay. Well, it sounds like you are in the working 

group but you don’t define it the same way the L.A. Times does, 

so I will write to you and see if we can get this better explained, 

because you are in a group that is looking for better science, and 

yet the scientists have already said that TCE is a problem. A USA 

Today article said, on DoD’s efforts to stall regulations on perchlorate and TCE, quotes you as saying the military ‘‘diving into 

the science is one small but appropriate way for DoD to be a responsible player in these debates.’’ I would only just say, you know, 

I look at DoD in this case, I mean, as trying to challenge the 

science. I think you are saying you are diving into it when EPA 

made these landmark findings. 

I am troubled by it, Mr. Chairman, and I don’t question Mr. 

Beehler’s integrity as a human being at all or fault his career, but 

I just don’t see how his career thus far gets him ready for this important task. 

I thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Senator Obama. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to all 

who have been nominated I congratulate you for being in this position. 

I am going to just focus my questions to Mr. Martella, and I want 

to focus on a public health issue that is not of your making but you 

will not have line responsibility for and I am frustrated about, so 

don’t take this personally, but I want to talk to you about blood 

poisoning among children. 

During my short time in the Senate, a major focus of my work 

in this Committee has been to improve our Government’s efforts to 

protect children from lead poisoning. I notice you just passed some 

water backwards so, as I suspect, you’ve got a couple. One is really 

excited by this hearing, by the way. 

Mr. MARTELLA. That is a good thing. 

Senator OBAMA. Yes, exactly. I’ve got two children about the 

same age, so I think you will share with me the concern about this 

issue. 

The CDC estimates that 400,000 children under the age of five 

have elevated levels of lead in their blood. The consequences of this 

poison are all too well understood: learning disabilities, speech 

delays, hyperactivity, seizures. The majority of the research indicates that the damage, once done, is irreversible. My home State 

of Illinois has the unfortunate distinction of having the highest 

number of lead poisoning children in the Nation. 

The source of most child lead poisoning is no mystery; it is the 

lead paint in old houses. A number of my colleagues and I have 

pressed the EPA in the past as to what is being done to protect 
16 

against poisoning by lead and paint. Last year, I put a hold on an 

EPA nomination and even threatened EPA funding in order to get 

some action by the Agency in this regard. As a result, EPA issued 

a draft rule last December to address lead removal during home 

renovation and repairs. That was progress. That was a good start. 

I have been disturbed to hear from outside groups, however, that 

this rule may not be finalized until December of 2007. 

Now, I know obviously you are relatively new to EPA. That is 

why I said don’t take this personally. But part of your job, I think, 

is to understand sort of the statutory mandates that the EPA has 

and to develop this rule that, by the way, originally was enacted 

in 1992. It is now a decade later, so we have been waiting 14 years 

for these rules, which is, frankly, ridiculous. So recently Senator 

Boxer, Congressman Waxman, and I wrote two letters to Administrator Johnson asking a very simple question: when will this rule 

be finalized? We have not yet received an answer to our question 

and I just think the delay is unacceptable. 

You are being nominated for General Counsel of the EPA. You 

will be in charge of complying with statutory mandates. I have no 

doubt that you will want to do a good job. I’ve got to just as you 

a very simple question: when is the lead renovation rule to be finalized? 

Mr. MARTELLA. Senator Obama, I appreciate your question. I understand your concerns, as you recognize with my own young and 

growing family, and I will also share with you something, which is 

that we have made the decision to live in a house built in the 

1920s. 

Senator OBAMA. So you’ve got a personal concern. 

Mr. MARTELLA. We have a very personal concern. 

Senator OBAMA. Keep them away from the paint chips. 

Mr. MARTELLA. And we do. We take very strong precautions. So 

this is an issue that is also something that I acutely want to focus 

on if confirmed as General Counsel, and I appreciate the fact you 

recognize that the specific concerns you raise are not something I 

have had a role in. 

But what I can tell you is that if I am confirmed as General 

Counsel my role will be to work and put forward all the legal resources we have at our disposal to help the program finalize this 

rule and finalize protections against lead and do what I can from 

the Office of General Counsel and the legal issues to support the 

Agency’s efforts to address this very serious issue. 

Senator OBAMA. That is the response I wanted to hear, and I appreciate that. I am going to take you at your word that you are 

going to work diligently on this, and I just want to make clear my 

attitude that waiting for more than another year is unacceptable. 

From my perspective, this has been dragging on for 14 years. It is 

time to just go ahead and get this done. 

And so my office is going to be working diligently, and I would 

actually like, in the interim between this hearing and your confirmation, for you to take the initiative to get more answers from 

your colleagues who are currently working on these rules and get 

back to my office to find out how soon these actual rules are going 

to be released. If you already are knowledgeable about that, then 

I would like you to tell me either in—it sounds like at this point 
17 

you are not exactly sure what the status is. Am I correct about 

that? 

Mr. MARTELLA. Senator, I’m not sure of the status of the rules. 

I do understand, I believe, our program office, which has immediate control over the rules, is meeting with your staff in the near 

future. 

Senator OBAMA. Okay. 

Mr. MARTELLA. But I will follow up on your request and go back 

and try to get more information. 

Senator OBAMA. Yes. I just think you are here in front of me 

now. I expect to support your confirmation, but prior to the actual 

vote taking place I would like to get a sense that you are following 

up on this issue. 

Mr. MARTELLA. Thank you. 

Senator OBAMA. All right. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Obama. 

I thank all of our nominees for taking the time to be here today. 

We look forward to your service. We will be having our confirmation before too long. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:03 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF MONTANA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this business meeting to consider several important pieces of legislation and nominations. I congratulate all of the nominees— 

Mr. Martella, Mr. Graves, and Mr. Beehler. Thank your for your willingness to 

serve. Many issues face us today. But I would like to focus on Mr. Beehler’s nomination 

to be the Inspector General at the EPA and the bipartisan Good Samaritan legislation before us. 

Mr. Beehler, countless times I have sat at this dais and told stories about Libby, 

Montana. I’ve told the Story of Les Skramstad, the miner in Libby. When the news 

of the contamination in Libby broke, Les told me that he would be watching me to 

make sure that I kept my promises to help the community. I consider Les my good 

friend. It broke my heart to hear just the other day that he had to be hospitalized 

due to his asbestos related illnesses. 

I’ve told the story of Mel and Leehra (L-E-E-R-A) Parker. Mel and Leehra had 

to abandon their tree nursery on the banks of the Kootenai River, because their 

property was so contaminated. Only weeks ago, the Parkers found more asbestos on 

their property in an area that was supposed to have been remediated. 

Mr. Beehler, the story I would very much like to tell one day is the story of EPA 

getting the job in Libby done right. That is why last month in a letter to the Office 

of the Inspector General, I requested a review of EPA’s work in Libby. I want to 

make sure that the EPA has the necessary data to develop a baseline risk assessment and exposure criteria for tremolite asbestos. Mr. Beehler, the town of Libby 

does not need a rubber stamp. They need an advocate who will examine EPA’s work 

with an objective eye to make sure that this tragedy is not prolonged. 

Mr. Chairman, I’d also like to take a moment to comment on the Good Samaritan 

legislation before us. I’d like to try to allay some of the concerns that I’ve heard 

about this bill. Let me state what this bill is not. It’s not a substitute for the Superfund program. In fact this legislation prohibits issuing Good Samaritan permits to 

remediate sites on the Superfund National Priorities List. 

This bill is also not a loophole to protect polluters. Any person who had a role 

in the creation of the pollution is not eligible for a permit. If a person is liable under 

any Federal, State, tribal, or local law for the remediation of the site, then that person is not eligible for a Good Samaritan permit. 

Neither is this bill a re-mining bill. A Good Samaritan could reprocess tailings 

and ‘‘previously mined ores and minerals that directly contribute to the contamination’’ to capture any value, but this must be incidental and secondary to the primary 

purpose of remediating a historic and abandoned mine site. 
18 

This bill is an attempt to work together to help clean up the thousands of abandoned mines throughout the West. The scope of the problem is staggering. In Montana alone there are more than 5,000 abandoned hard rock mines. 

This legislation alone will not solve this problem. But it is an important tool that 

will give Good Samaritans the liability protections that they need to encourage them 

to undertake these cleanups. In exchange for these liability protections, any potential Good Samaritan must meet rigorous standards to make sure that the cleanups 

are done right. Any project must improve the environment to a significant degree 

and meet applicable water quality standards. The bill also includes a public hearing 

and comment process. Finally, EPA and the relevant state or Indian tribe must concur with the issuance of, and sign, the permit. If local rules or ordinances are implicated by the permit, then local authorities must also concur with, and sign, the permit. The bill also includes a provision sunsetting the Good Samaritan program after 

10 years. This is a good bill protective of human health and the environment. 

I’m proud to have worked together with Senators Inhofe, Allard, and Salazar to 

craft a bill that both industry and Trout Unlimited have endorsed. Mr. Chairman, 

this bill will not solve the problem of abandoned mines. But it will help. I urge my 

Colleagues to support it. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling today’s hearing. 

Today we’ll hear testimony from three nominees, two for positions at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and one for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 

The EPA positions for which these nominees are being considered are central to how 

the Agency functions. The General Counsel provides legal guidance, while the Inspector General serves as both auditor and watchdog. 

As we consider nominees to fill these positions, I believe we need to look at more 

than just their paper qualifications or someone’s expertise in a courtroom. We need 

nominees who understand that communities across the country face environmental 

problems that pose threats to the health, or even survival, of people and wildlife. 

I think most people would agree that the quality of the air they breathe is critical 

to their quality of life. As a quasi-Federal Agency, the TVA is exempt from parts 

of the Clean Air Act. But that doesn’t mean TVA should not work with the EPA 

to reduce smog and carbon emissions. 

I look forward to hearing Mr. Graves’ plans for the future of the TVA, particularly 

his plans for protecting the environment and conserving energy at TVA. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for calling today’s hearing. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak briefly about the nomination of 

Mr. Alex Beehler to the post of inspector general at the Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

According to the Inspector General Act, one of the duties of EPA’s inspector general is to keep the Agency’s administrator and the Congress fully informed of any 

serious deficiencies in EPA’s administration of the programs for which it is responsible. So that the inspector general might discharge that duty, the Act gives him 

tools that even this Committee often is denied in practice, namely, unimpeded access to all of the Agency’s records as well as to EPA’s administrator and other employees. 

The public and the Congress rely upon EPA’s inspector general to employ these 

powerful tools, and to disclose any serious Agency shortcomings that they reveal. 

If he does not, then critical problems will remain under wraps, and EPA, the nation’s primary protector of public health and the environment, will fail to exhibit 

the effectiveness that the American people deserve. 

In his current position as the head of the Defense Department’s office for safety, 

occupational health, and the environment, Mr. Beehler has fought to win exemptions for the Department from Federal anti-pollution statutes, and he has participated in the Pentagon’s effort to induce EPA to weaken and delay national healthbased standards for the carcinogenic solvent, trichloroethylene. With Mr. Beehler’s 

assistance, the Defense Department has enjoyed some success on these fronts. 

Under the current administration, some political appointees within EPA have 

supported, to varying degrees, the Pentagon’s resistance to the public-health protec-
19 

tions that EPA administers. I am concerned that if this collaboration gives rise to 

deficiencies in EPA’s administration of those protections, Mr. Beehler might, owing 

to his recent professional background and institutional loyalties, be too slow as EPA 

inspector general to uncover and disclose the deficiencies. In other words, I am not 

sure I am comfortable taking a protagonist in recent bureaucratic battles against 

EPA’s public-health programs and making him EPA’s internal watchdog, particularly at a time when certain key program officials within EPA exhibit insufficient 

enthusiasm for the Agency’s mission to protect public health and the environment. 

That said, I honestly hope that Mr. Beehler’s responses to my questions and those 

of my colleagues on this Committee will alleviate my concerns. For Mr. Beehler’s 

record reveals that he is an experienced, highly intelligent, and diligent lawyer. I 

believe that if he were to marshal those strengths toward the full and faithful execution of the duties set forth in the Inspector General Act, then Mr. Beehler would 

make a fine EPA inspector general. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER ROMULUS MARTELLA, JR., NOMINEE FOR ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, members of the Committee. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity and the honor to appear before you today. At the 

outset, I respectfully would like to introduce my wife, Ann, my children Eva 

Angelina and Santino, and for the record would like to recognize our third child who 

is on the way and due in January, name and gender yet to be determined. I am 

also joined by my parents, small business owners who continue to run their Italian 

corner bakery after some 30 years. 

Perhaps the best way to give you a sense of how humbled I am to be the President’s nominee for the General Counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency is 

to share with you a short story from my senior year in college. Late in my final 

semester at Cornell University, I decided to attend law school with the ultimate goal 

of working as an environmental attorney for the Government. I remember very distinctly approaching a recruiter from one of the top environmental law schools, told 

her that my goal was to work at EPA, and asked whether the school place students 

at the Agency. I can still hear her response as clear as the instant she said this 

to me: EPA is so selective in who they hire, and hires so few people, that you need 

to have other goals. 

So, with that background in mind, I hope you can appreciate the extraordinary 

honor I feel at being asked by the President and the Administrator to lead EPA’s 

attorneys in support of the Agency’s mission to accelerate environmental protection, 

while maintaining economic competitiveness. For almost a year, as the Acting General Counsel and as the Principal Deputy General Counsel, I have had the good fortune to work shoulder to shoulder with this talented staff at what is, in effect, the 

nation’s strongest environmental law practice. The work that our office performs 

every day raises important and cutting edge issues critical to the Agency’s overriding mission. For example, in the past several months I have worked with our attorneys to defend key Agency positions on clean water before the Supreme Court, 

to assess the Agency’s legal authorities in addressing the rapidly emerging field of 

nanotechnology, and to implement the Brownfields statute. 

If confirmed as General Counsel, I would bring to the post my perspective as an 

environmentalist, my attorney skills developed as counsel to both the Federal Government and the private sector on complex environmental issues, and a unique 

breadth of perspective of how our Federal decisions affect local Governments. 

First, I am a passionate advocate for the environment. As the father of a young 

and growing family, I think constantly about the ramifications of decisions on my 

children, their young friends, and all their future families and believe our decisions 

today must give equal time to protecting their legacy tomorrow. At the same time, 

I also wish a strong and viable economy for my children. Environmental decisions 

should not be made without regard to their economic and social consequences, and 

should be crafted to preserve our nation’s economic competitiveness while protecting 

our environment. When I return home to my parent’s bakery and to a now struggling industrial town built by entrepreneurial immigrants, I reflect on the impact 

of our decisions on American small businesses in particular. I feel strongly that good 

Government demands that we avoid doing harm to this backbone of our nation’s 

economy while at the same time promoting the health of our environment. I have 

no doubt these two goals can be mutually achievable. 

Second, as an attorney I am a passionate advocate for my clients, in this case 

EPA. During my seven years at the Justice Department, I took pride in maintaining 
20 

an unbroken record of successfully litigating all the cases I took to court, which 

largely defended important Agency decisions and regulations. In fact, senior managers created a special position for me Principal Counsel for Complex Litigation— 

to make the most use of my skills in handling and supervising a docket of natural 

resource cases among the Environment Division’s most complex. But I also am 

proud that, where feasible, I sought to resolve many cases in a way that not only 

resulted in a win for the Government, but addressed the interests of all stakeholders to the dispute. Ironically, it frequently takes a lawyer to suggest to parties 

that litigation is not the best solution and to facilitate a negotiated compromise that 

supports the interests of all stakeholders to the fullest extent possible. My experience has taught me that solving a problem through consensus has the added benefit 

of strengthening long-term relationships and avoiding future disputes. At EPA, I 

have worked to expand the use of environmental conflict resolution tools to address 

complex environmental disputes across the nation. 

Finally, as a citizen who during almost my entire career has played an active role 

in civic service at a local level, I appreciate firsthand the importance of working together with local, State, and tribal Governments as well as other stakeholders to 

achieve environmental results. My breadth of perspective includes public service to 

the Town of Warrenton and Fauquier County, beautiful and environmentally sound 

communities in the Virginia Piedmont. I am fortunate to have the opportunity to 

apply my skills at the local level, including as an elected member of the Warrenton 

Town Council and formerly as a member of a committee that brought together farmers, utilities, and Government to help preserve the County’s agricultural heritage. 

I constantly reflect upon this local public service when I am at work at EPA. Having 

this local perspective reminds me of how decisions by the Federal Government have 

real and significant impacts on people in communities far flung from Washington. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I would be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

RESPONSE BY ROGER ROMULUS MARTELLA JR. TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. With only one political official governing, on average, 1,000 career 

staff in each region, I have concerns that bureaucrats—rather than elected officials—are making significant policy decisions. As EPA General Counsel, what would 

you do to ensure that policies set by the Administration, are in effect and consistent 

in the regions? 

Response. As I referenced in my oral testimony, I believe that ensuring national 

consistency, while accommodating some flexibility where appropriate, is an important goal. During my tenure at EPA as Deputy General Counsel and as Acting General Counsel, I have taken proactive steps to further this goal. For example, I have 

played a lead role in working with headquarters and regional offices toward developing a definition of ‘‘national significance’’ that would flag issues for headquarters 

review to ensure consistency of positions across the Agency. I also work closely with 

OGC’s network of regional counsels and encourage open communication to identify 

issues among the regions that would benefit from headquarters coordination in 

order to ensure national consistency. 

If confirmed as General Counsel, I would continue to promote strong coordination 

and communication between headquarters and the 10 EPA regions to help achieve 

the goal of national consistency. At present, I hold a weekly telephone conference 

with senior OGC staff in Washington and with each regional office. The Office of 

General Counsel also holds a monthly call where legal developments are discussed 

to ensure consistent implementation across the Agency, and headquarters and regional senior staff meet in person twice a year to coordinate on legal developments 

and regional issues. Thus, if confirmed as General Counsel, I plan to take steps to 

ensure national consistency and will work to facilitate a strong flow of coordination 

and communication between the regions and headquarters to further this goal. 

RESPONSES BY ROGER MARTELLA TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. In recent years, a number of EPA’s rules have been overturned, with 

strongly worded court opinions that question EPA’s legal interpretations of key environmental statutes, such as the Clean Air Act. 

Do you believe it is the General Counsel’s duty to counsel against Agency action 

that the General Counsel believes is legally at odds with the statute and unlikely 
21 

to survive court challenge? Would you be willing to clearly indicate to the Administrator that a rule should not go forward because of high legal risk? 

Response. I believe that one of the General Counsel’s primary roles is, in consultation with the office’s staff, to advise the Agency’s decision makers on a range of options that are fairly supported by pertinent statutes, regulations and case law. As 

part of this analysis, I believe it is incumbent upon the General Counsel to provide 

an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of each option under the pertinent 

statutes, regulations and case law, including an assessment of any litigation risk. 

I do not intend to shy away from communicating directly the varying legal risks associated with different options to decision makers. Thus, if the Administrator or 

other Agency decision maker were considering an action for which a legal argument 

could fairly be articulated under the applicable statutes, regulations and case law, 

but that I believed nonetheless bore a high legal risk, I would be fully candid about 

the litigation risk and the downside potential of pursuing such a position. However, 

I am mindful that these statutes give the Administrator and other decision makers 

the ultimate authority to decide how to implement their provisions in light of all 

relevant information before the Agency, including any legal risks that I would have 

identified. 

One of my primary goals, if confirmed as General Counsel, would be to work to 

further support implementation of Agency decisions. Thus, I would work closely 

with the staff in the General Counsel’s Office and Regional Counsel’s Offices to ensure that the Agency compiles strong administrative records, to develop solid legal 

frameworks for rules and decisions, and to provide support to and coordination with 

the Department of Justice in defending the Agency in any litigation. 

Question 2. In a brief filed recently by the EPA’s Office of General Counsel before 

the U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board, the Agency argued, 

contrary to significant legal precedent, that there has been no clear, unequivocal 

waiver of Federal sovereign immunity from whistleblower liability under the Clean 

Air Act, CERCLA, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Toxic 

Substances Control Act and thus that whistleblower claims must be dismissed. Do 

you intend to maintain that Federal workers may not pursue whistleblower claims 

under these statutes to report concerns such as the Administration’s statutory violations, lax enforcement, or manipulations of data, any or all of which may result in 

threats to public health or the environment? 

Response. If confirmed as General Counsel, I would seek to ensure full and fair 

enforcement and implementation of all laws, including pertinent whistleblower provisions. I cannot, however, speculate on the specific position EPA will take in any 

hypothetical future litigation brought by a Federal employee under the whistleblower protection provisions of the environmental statutes. EPA’s position will necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the applicable laws. 

I would anticipate that I would also seek and respect the guidance of the United 

States Department of Justice, including opinions issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concerning waivers of Federal sovereign immunity. 

In the case to which you refer, EPA submitted arguments to the United States 

Department of Labor Administrative Review Board concerning waiver of Federal 

sovereign immunity from liability under the whistleblower provisions of various environmental statutes. EPA submitted these arguments in direct response to a specific invitation by the Administrative Review Board to EPA and other parties to address the issue in a case that was pending before the Administrative Review Board. 

The Administrative Review Board invited views on this issue based on one of its 

recent decisions holding that there was no waiver of State sovereign immunity 

under various environmental whistleblower provisions. The employee has appealed 

the Administrative Review Board’s decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Eleventh Circuit has recently asked the parties to address a threshold 

jurisdictional question relating to the procedure for seeking review of Department 

of Labor decisions. 

Question 3. Over the past several years, EPA has had to grant a number of petitions for reconsideration of controversial rules. Some of these rules were subject to 

court deadlines because EPA did not meet statutory deadlines. Some allege that 

EPA is knowingly issuing defective rules and then using its own powers of reconsideration to give itself more time. Do you believe such use of petitions for reconsideration is appropriate? What will you do to ensure that when a rule is issued pursuant to a court ordered deadline, it is at least good enough that EPA itself does not 

need to recall it? 

Response. When EPA issues a final rule, it seeks to account for all of the relevant 

information, including comments received during the public comment period and information obtained during the course of the rulemaking. In some instances, how-
22 

ever, new and relevant information comes to light after the close of the public comment period, and the Administrator decides on a course of action that rests on that 

new information. In those instances, parties interested in the rule may seek reconsideration on the basis they did not have the opportunity to comment on the new 

information. The Agency may grant reconsideration where appropriate to ensure 

that the public has a full and fair opportunity to comment on such information. 

The final rules that the Administrator issues reflect an appropriate consideration 

of the pertinent information and rationales available to the Agency at the time the 

Administrator issues the final rule. The Agency utilizes the reconsideration process 

in appropriate circumstances to ensure that the public has an adequate opportunity 

to react to information on which it was not practicable to provide comment in advance of the final rule. The Clean Air Act, for example, explicitly provides the opportunity for a reconsideration proceeding to provide further ventilation of the new information. 

Question 4. EPA has been on the cutting edge of many important legal issues that 

are relevant to the Federal Government as a whole. One such issue is the constitutional requirement that a person have ‘‘standing’’ to have his or her case heard by 

a Federal court. Depending on how the standing requirement is interpreted, the 

ability of citizens to challenge Federal Agency actions—particularly EPA actions— 

could be greatly curtailed. What are your views on the significance of this issue and 

how the doctrine of standing is evolving? 

Response. I agree that standing is a significant issue to be considered in litigation. 

As a judicial law clerk on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, I came to appreciate 

first hand that parties and the court both have obligations to consider standing as 

a constitutional requirement that is a necessary prerequisite to jurisdiction and justifiability. 

If confirmed as General Counsel, I would work closely with the Justice Department to evaluate whether parties in litigation have met the constitutional and prudential requirements for standing in a given action. My analysis would be informed 

by Article III of the Constitution and interpretations by the Supreme Court and 

other Federal courts. I anticipate that part of the analysis would include analyzing 

the complaint and pleadings to assess whether a plaintiff has established the standing requirements. At the same time, in response to your question, my evaluation 

of standing would not be driven by a sense of curtailing parties from bringing legitimate claims, but rather would be governed by established case law and principles 

relevant to the standing determination. 

RESPONSES BY ROGER ROMULUS MARTELLA JR. TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR OBAMA

Question 1. Due to growing concerns over child lead poisoning caused by lead in 

the paint of older homes, the EPA was mandated by statute in 1992 to issue a rule 

for home renovation and remodeling. Senator Boxer, Congressman Waxman, and I 

have written twice to the EPA, requesting additional information about the timing 

for finalizing the rule. The Agency’s reply, while timely, did not suffice to answer 

our questions, and I will therefore repeat them here. 

Is EPA considering conducting additional studies in support of this rulemaking? 

If EPA plans to conduct additional studies, please detail each such proposed study, 

including the timing and cost. What portions of the rulemaking will the additional 

studies support? 

Response. As I testified during the hearing, I am acutely sensitive to issues regarding lead. My role as General Counsel, if confirmed, would be to ensure that 

OGC provides adequate legal resources to help finalize this rule and finalize protections against lead. 

It is my understanding that staff from the Office of Pollution Prevention Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) met with your staff and staff from Senator 

Boxer and Representative Waxman’s office on Thursday, September 14, 2006 to discuss your questions regarding this proposed rulemaking (Lead Renovation Repair 

and Painting Program). I am told that it was a positive meeting and am appreciative of your willingness to sit down with EPA to discuss this issue further. I am 

told that on August 1, the Agency also provided a written response to your letter 

of July 24, 2006. 

As stated in the August 1 letter and consistent with the staff discussion of September 14, public comments on the proposed rule raised many important issues regarding the required work practices, cleaning verification, and activities that are 

prohibited during abatement but permitted by the proposed rule. Consistent with 

our recent written and verbal communications, the Agency is conducting a study to 
23 

better characterize dust lead levels generated during a range of renovation, repair 

and painting activities. EPA is conducting the study in parallel with other aspects 

of the rulemaking effort. The results of the study will provide important data, which 

will be available at a key point, to inform Agency decisions on how these issues will 

be addressed in the final rule. 

The objectives of the study include: 

• Characterizing the effect of a range of renovation, repair and painting jobs that 

disturb lead-based paint on dust lead levels. Jobs will include practices that are prohibited under abatement regulations but permitted in the proposed rule; 

• Characterizing the effect on dust lead levels of the use or non-use of plastic 

sheeting containment during interior and exterior jobs; 

• Characterizing the differences in lead levels between surfaces cleaned with the 

proposed rule cleaning methods, and surfaces cleaned with baseline (broom and 

shop-vacuum) cleaning methods; 

• Characterizing the amount of lead dust in adjacent rooms as a result of different renovation, repair and painting jobs, use or non-use of plastic sheeting containment and use or non-use of proposed rule cleaning methods; 

• Characterizing the accuracy of the cleaning verification method when used by 

workers in the range of renovation, repair and painting activities in the study. 

This study design underwent peer review last spring; data collection has started 

and will be completed in December 2006. EPA expects to receive the study results 

in January 2007. The estimated cost of the study is $1.2 million. 

I understand from my colleagues that EPA has committed to following up on last 

week’s agreement to discuss the results of the study with you or your staff once the 

study is finalized. We anticipate that the timing should be in late January 2007. 

At that time, we would also be happy to discuss in more detail the comments that 

you provided in your May 24, 2006 letter to EPA Administrator Steve Johnson. 

Question 2. Are there equally or more protective methodologies for which EPA already has sufficient supporting data, but which the Agency did not propose in an 

attempt to minimize the costs of the rule to industry? 

Response. Consistent with our discussions with your staff, the Agency proposed 

or took comment on the range of methodologies that it is aware of for conducting 

renovation, repair and painting activities in a protective manner. However, in order 

to be effective in protecting children, a rule governing these activities must be practical to implement and understandable to homeowners and residents and to the predominantly small businesses that conduct renovation activities. In addition, EPA’s 

goal in this rulemaking process is to develop an approach that will encourage homeowners to employ contractors who follow lead safe work practices. Thus, EPA believes that cost and practicability are relevant to the protectiveness of its proposed 

rule. EPA’s goal for the proposed and final rules is to establish a comprehensive program that protects children and that can be effectively implemented. Any methodologies or technologies required by the final rule will be subject to this consideration. 

Question 3. What information does the Agency staff believe it needs in order to 

support a final rule that it did not need to write the proposed rule? Has every step 

been taken to ensure the data/information does not already exist? 

Response. As discussed with your staff last week, EPA has received a large number of substantive comments addressing virtually every aspect of the proposed rule. 

Many comments address the need for and efficacy of the required work practices 

and other issues that will be informed by the study of lead dust generation that is 

currently underway. EPA has evaluated the existing data and does not believe that 

equivalent data exist. 

Question 4. Has EPA met with officials from industry who urged the Agency to 

delay the rulemaking through additional studies or other actions? If so, please provide the dates and attendees at those meetings, and describe the requests made in 

such meetings. 

Response. As communicated to your staff on September 14, we had the opportunity to meet with various stakeholders, including industry representatives, as part 

of the rulemaking process. We were not asked by these officials to delay the rulemaking through additional studies. 

We were, however, asked instead to extend the comment period on the proposed 

rule. On March 27, 2006, during the public comment period on the proposed rule, 

EPA met with representatives of the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) 

at the Office of Management and Budget. At that meeting, and in a subsequent letter, NAHB requested a 90-day extension of the public comment period in order to 

have sufficient time to complete and submit to the Agency a study that NAHB 
24 

planned to undertake. Other commenters also requested a 90-day extension of the 

comment period. EPA extended the comment period an additional 45 days. 

As further communicated to your staff on September 14, EPA has not and would 

not agree to additional studies or actions for the purpose of delaying a rulemaking. 

Question 5. When does EPA plan to complete the rulemaking? 

Response. EPA is committed to issuing a final rule as expeditiously as possible. 

As discussed in the meeting with your staff, EPA is currently analyzing a large 

number of significant comments on virtually every aspect of the proposed rule. The 

Agency is also determining what additional information-gathering and analysis may 

be needed to adequately respond to the comments and make informed and supportable decisions on how best to address commenters’ issues in the final rule. EPA expects to complete the analysis of the comments soon and will then be in a better 

position to predict the time required for the Agency to develop a final rule. At that 

time, EPA will be happy to share with you our thinking on the potential timing of 

a final rule. 

As I indicated in my oral testimony, if confirmed as General Counsel, I will ensure that the Office of General Counsel provides full and adequate legal resources 

to support the Agency’s efforts in finalizing the lead rule. 

RESPONSE BY ROGER ROMULUS MARTELLA JR. TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION

FROM SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question 1. You testified that environmental decisions should be crafted to preserve our nation’s economic competitiveness as well as protecting our environment. 

However, in some instances, Congress has directed that health standards should be 

set without considering the cost of implementing the standards. If you are confirmed 

as General Counsel, how would you advise the Agency regarding statutes that prohibit consideration of costs in setting health standards? 

Response. If confirmed as General Counsel, one of my primary responsibilities 

would be to advise decision makers at EPA on the range of discretion and factors 

they may consider in the decision-making process. In offering such counsel, I will 

review applicable direction provided by Congress in relevant statutes. Frequently, 

such statutes provide decision makers with wide discretion to consider numerous 

relevant factors, including environmental, health, and economic ramifications of a 

decision. In other instances, Congress in certain statutes has chosen to limit the 

Agency’s discretion to certain enumerated factors and criteria. I would anticipate 

that if confirmed I would examine each relevant statute in offering legal counsel to 

determine whether Congress intended to provide broader discretion in making a decision or whether Congress intended to limit the analysis to certain factors and preclude other factors, such as economic costs. 

STATEMENT OF BISHOP WILLIAM H. GRAVES, NOMINEE FOR MEMBER OF THE BOARD

OF DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Good morning. I am honored to be here today as one of President Bush’s nominees 

to the Board of the Tennessee Valley Authority. 

I am very grateful to Tennessee’s Senators, Majority Leader Bill Frist and Lamar 

Alexander, and to my Congressman, Harold Ford, Jr., for their support. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I was born in Brownsville, Tennessee, the eighth of nine children, in the depths 

of the Great Depression. My family moved to Detroit, Michigan, when I was young, 

but I frequently return, visiting relatives and friends. After completion of high 

school, I returned for my college years at Lane College in Jackson, Tennessee. 

I understand what TVA has meant to the people of the Tennessee Valley from 

the years of economic struggle to the present day. As a resident of the Tennessee 

Valley, I would consider it a great honor and a humbling challenge, to serve on their 

Board. 

My background as a pastor and as Bishop of the Christian Methodist Episcopal 

Church gives me a profound appreciation for TVA’s mission of service to the 8.6 million people of the Tennessee Valley. 

It is a mission based on making life better, improving our communities, and supporting our families as they live and work in concert with God’s natural world. 

It is a worthy mission indeed, and I will use all my faculties, my strength, and 

the power that is in me to consider the challenges facing TVA and make sound and 

careful determinations. 
25 

Based on my work, my life’s experiences, and my knowledge of TVA, I believe I 

can make a valuable contribution to the Board of the Tennessee Valley Authority 

if you choose to confirm me. 

Throughout my professional life, I have worked with people from all walks of life. 

As a Board Member of Memphis Light, Gas & Water, TVA’s largest single customer, 

I learned much about the challenges facing TVA as a power provider keeping pace 

with the exuberant growth of our region’s economy. 

Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have for me. 

RESPONSES BY BISHOP WILLIAM H. GRAVES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. The new Energy Policy Act of 2005 encourages the development of distributed generation by allowing individuals to connect windmills or solar panels at 

their home to the grid and expanding combined heat and power projects by standardizing the interconnection process. Do you think this legislation should apply to 

the TVA? 

Response. I do not have enough information at this time to comment on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, but I am very interested in exploring the potential benefits 

of distributed generation to the Tennessee Valley. I Look forward to participating 

in theTVA Board’s consideration of these standards if I am confirmed. 

Question 2. Would you support the TVA electing to voluntarily adopt further 

measure to increase energy-efficiency at its power generating facilities and among 

its rate payers, and increase the supply of electricity in the region? 

Response. Energy conservation, wherever it makes sense, is an important goal for 

TVA to take into account when considering the operations of its facilities. I have 

not yet had the opportunity to assess the potential for implementing greater energy 

conservation measures within TVA, but it is something I will look into if I’m confirmed. 

Question 3. Do you think that TVA, which has more than $24 billion in debt, 

should take on additional debt to finance new power plants when private industry 

is willing to accept the financial risk of constructing new plants? 

Response. I have not been privy to details about TVA’s debt or financing strategies, nor do I have information about the timeline for needing new generation. However, I believe TVA has a commitment to its customers to provide affordable and 

reliable power. If confirmed, I will use my position on the Board to make sure we 

are meeting the electricity needs of the Valley while working to keep costs low. 

Question 4. Do you feel the TVA should institute some kind of competitive bidding 

for new projects to ensure that the taxpayers of the Tennessee Valley region are 

paying the lowest possible price for their power, and that new generation is constructed in a cost-effective manner? 

Response. If confirmed, I will look into the way TVA makes investments in new 

projects. As I’ve mentioned, my experience in working with Memphis Light, Gas & 

Water, TVA’s largest customer, has given me a unique perspective on how important it is for TVA’s customers to have access to both affordable and reliable power. 

I would work to make sure TVA continues to meet this goal. 

Question 5. The effect of restructuring of the electric production and transmission 

industry in our country on the reliable delivery of electric power will continue with 

lessons learned form the blackout in New York, the California power crisis and reliability struggles elsewhere. TVA must continue its earnest efforts to ensure reliable 

power delivery. What else do you feel that TVA can be doing with neighboring utilities to ensure that we do not suffer additional regional blackouts? 

Response. I know how important electric reliability is to the people of the Southeast, especially for residents in the hot summer months and for industries located 

in the TVA region. I know this is something TVA has been involved in and that 

they continue to make efforts to increase the reliability of the power grid. At this 

point, I do not know specifically what else TVA can do with its neighboring utilities, 

but if confirmed to the Board I will make sure we have qualified people working 

closely on this issue. 

Question 6. What will you do to ensure that TVA aggressively reduces air pollution and aims to achieve at least 1990 levels of carbon dioxide emissions? 

Response. If confirmed, I will support the ambitious efforts already in place by 

TVA to reduce air pollution as well as future efforts to make additional reductions. 

The reduction of emissions is a very important issue, which I plan to give serious 

consideration. From what I understand about these issues now, I think TVA’s deci-
26 

sion to add more nuclear and renewable energy generating capacity to its system 

is a prudent thing to do. 

Question 7. What will you do to ensure that TVA is being operated as a very efficient business so that financial resources are available to continue its investments 

in state-of-the-art air pollution control technology? 

Response. If confirmed, I will carefully study TVA’s business model and will work 

diligently to further the TVA goals of keeping costs low and keeping debt at appropriate levels so that we can support the efficient operations of our plants and continue to install pollution controls. 

Question 8. In addition to hydropower, what portion of TVA’s generation base 

should come from renewable energy sources? 

Response. Unfortunately at this time, I do not have adequate information to be 

able to provide you with a percentage. I do support renewable energy sources and 

hope to make sure that TVA is doing its part for renewable energy if I am confirmed 

to the Board. 

Question 9. Do you support TVA’s Green Power Switch program, which allows 

families and companies to voluntarily accept a small surcharge on their monthly bill 

in order to purchase blocks of electricity generated from renewable sources? 

Response. From what I know about TVA’s Green Power Switch, I support the program. I do not have the details or the magnitude of this offering by TVA, but I think 

it is an important way in which we can help promote renewable energy. 

Question 10. TVA announced plans in 1997 to cut its debt in half by 2007 and 

increased rates for its distributors specifically in order to reduce its debt. TVA has 

acknowledged that it will not meet its debt reduction targets and is only on track 

to make a small dent in its overall debt. As part of the TVA board, do you plan 

to meet the original plan of reducing TVA’s debt? 

Response. I have not had the opportunity to read this plan, so I cannot commit 

to supporting those goals. However, it is important that TVA keep its debt at a level 

that ensures the financial health of the Agency. If confirmed, I will work to make 

sure TVA is financially sound and that the rate payers are not at a financial risk. 

Question 11. TVA is an $8 billion entity. TVA charges higher electricity rates in 

some portions of the service territory. Would you, as a member of the TVA Board, 

seek to make uniform TVA customers’ rates? 

Response. It is my understanding that TVA does charge uniform rates throughout 

the Valley. However, I will be glad to look further into this issue if I am confirmed. 

STATEMENT OF ALEX BEEHLER, NOMINEE FOR INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, members of the committee. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to appear before you today. It is a great honor and 

privilege to be here today as the nominee to be Inspector General of the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). 

In my current and previous positions involving environmental law and policy, my 

vision has been to seek environmental improvement. If I am confirmed, I pledge to 

you that I will do everything in my power to work with the dedicated expert staff 

in the Office of Inspector General to provide the Agency, Congress, and the American people, an independent, objective review of EPA programs. I will work to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in EPA programs, and to provide the leadership to promote effectiveness, efficiency, and economy in program administration. 

Each is an important component in assisting the Agency’s mission of protecting 

human health and safeguarding the environment. And I pledge to work with the 

Committee and its staff in carrying out our shared goal of environmental protection 

and improvement. 

The legislation creating the Federal inspectors generally recognizes the importance of the audit and investigative functions to be carried out by the Office of Inspector General, and specified in the Act the appointment of personnel to oversee 

those operations. Likewise, Congress recognized the skills necessary for an effective 

Inspector General, and required a background in accounting, auditing, law, public 

administration or investigations. 

During my 28 years of professional experience in Washington, DC. I have had the 

privilege to spend 17 of those years engaged in environmental law enforcement and 

policy positions from several different perspectives. I have served as a special assistant to the Associate Administrator for Legal and Enforcement Counsel at EPA, as 

a Federal environmental prosecutor at the Department of Justice, as an environ-
27 

mental regulatory advisor to a major corporation, as the top environmental policy 

official at two non-profit organizations, and currently as a senior environmental official at the Department of Defense. These opportunities, plus positions on the Senate 

Judiciary Committee and in private litigation practice, have provided me with a 

wide range of legal, investigative, and Governmental experience that have prepared 

me to perform the critical role of helping protect human health and the environment 

as Inspector General of EPA. 

While at the Department of Justice, I was lead trial attorney on many CERCLA 

cost recovery cases requiring the substantive review of financial and audit records. 

One case in particular, the Picillo Superfund Site in Coventry, RI, involved the court 

appointment of a special master solely to address all accounting matters and the 

judicial rendering of one of the most comprehensive examinations of CERCLA cost 

recovery issues to date. The outcome of the litigation was highly favorable to the 

U.S. Government on several accounts: award to the Government of almost 100 percent of contested costs; validation of the Government’s financial management of 

Superfund costs and strong precedential case law favoring the Government on cost 

recovery. My nonprofit work afforded me the opportunity to devise and implement 

environmental policy strategies focused on environmental improvement where substantive results were defined, measured, and emphasized. In my current capacity 

at the Department of Defense, I have continued to stress results over process by 

pushing for putting ‘‘facts on the table’’, and collecting the best available data and 

science in a holistic, integrated manner for all the Department’s operations—from 

design to disposal. 

In order to be effective, I have proactively pursued building trust with interested 

parties to encourage sharing of issues and information leading to solutions and environmental improvement. If confirmed, I would continue the same truth-seeking approach as Inspector General, with independence and integrity. I would ferret out 

problems and target areas for improvement through proactively seeking knowledge 

from other internal EPA offices, from other Federal agencies and components, from 

State agencies, and from non-Government sources and entities. I would provide 

leadership through breadth of vision while drawing upon the considerable expertise 

of staff for depth and execution. 

Throughout my career and life, I have strived to use responsibilities entrusted to 

me to make things better - through independent and measured thinking, sound 

judgment and common sense, respect for the rule of law, with the highest ethical 

standards. I try to listen to all sides of an argument and respect the views of those 

with different perspectives, before making a judgment. My goal is to lead by example and learn from others. I hope to have that opportunity as EPA’s Inspector General. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I would be happy to 

answer any questions that you may have. 

RESPONSES BY ALEX BEEHLER TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. In your past position with a non-profit organization, you had responsibility to ensure that the grants your organization awarded were properly funded, 

managed, and appropriately spent. How would this experience help the IG’s office 

improve its oversight of grants management at EPA? 

Response. In my previous position, I was responsible for ensuring grant dollars 

were awarded and managed in a way that promoted maximum benefits for the dollars spent. The same goals apply to the billions of dollars EPA invests in grants 

each year. Many of the best practices I employed in my position at the non-profit 

are transferable to EPA grants. Past Office of Inspector General (OIG) work identified a number of weaknesses in EPA grants management, some of which I understand continue to exist. I look forward to using my expertise to contribute to EPA’s 

initiative to improve grants management and ensure the American taxpayers dollars are well spent by EPA. 

Question 2. I understand that in your current position you are responsible for reviewing tens of millions of dollars in contracts for the Installation and Environment 

Division at Department of Defense. Do you see any of the criteria you use in these 

reviews as transferable to grants management oversight at EPA? 

Response. In my current position, I do not review individual contracts. I authorize 

the contracting agencies to contract for various products and services to support the 

functions of my office. In that role, I am responsible for ensuring that the products 

and services sought are necessary and useful and represent the most beneficial application of the taxpayers’ resources provided to my office. In addition, I review and 
28 

approve various grants, cooperative agreements, and interagency agreements to obtain products and services necessary to carry out the functions of the DoD in the 

area of environment, safety, and occupational health. In all these actions, I apply 

first and foremost the criteria that the expenditures will provide useful and valuable 

products for the taxpayers’ funds. I anticipate that the criteria I have applied at 

DoD are just as applicable in other settings such as EPA. 

Question 3. As most here are aware, I have been very critical of how EPA 

prioritizes its spending requests. For example, every year, in order to say they have 

‘‘cut spending,’’ EPA cuts the State revolving loan funds for water infrastructure, 

knowing that Congress will restore that money. These cuts to core programs with 

demonstrable environmental benefit occur, while certain small programs, with little 

to no benefit to the environment, go on completely funded. To your knowledge has 

EPA ever done a cost-benefit analysis of its various programs, including voluntary 

programs, research activities, and grants. Is this something that should be examined by the IG to determine where waste might be occurring? 

Response. To my knowledge, EPA has not conducted such a cost-benefit analysis. 

If confirmed, I plan to focus the OIG’s work on helping ensure EPA uses data and 

measures to effectively manage its programs and resources. 

Question 4. In my opinion, the former EPA Inspector General produced a number 

of reports that not only were shoddily investigated, but demonstrated a clear motivation to achieve policy objectives that not only was she unqualified to judge. In particular, a report was issued criticizing EPA’s mercury proposal process in which the 

IG’s staff interviewed only the small number of Clean Air Act Advisory Committee 

members who disagreed with EPA’s process and not one of the large majority of 

members who both attended the 13 days of meetings over 18 months and supported 

the process. What will you do to rein in this kind of behavior on your staff? 

Response. It is critical that the EPA Inspector General demonstrate independence 

and objectivity to effectively help the Agency achieve its mission. While I cannot 

speak to the quality of the OIG work you cite, I can say that in the limited contact 

I have had with the OIG staff, I have been impressed with the professionalism and 

dedication to their mission. As IG, I will ensure only objective, balanced, and suitable facts are used to support OIG reports. 

Question 5. Mr. Beehler, the subject of the The National Academy of Sciences report on assessing the Human Health Risks of Trichloroethylene (TCE) and its recommendations was discussed at the hearing.It has been suggested that NAS found 

that the science is ‘‘complete’’ on this chemical and that the NAS report suggests 

that there is enough science to force companies and other parties to cleanup potential TCE contamination to an even greater degree.In its recommendations, however, 

the NAS Committee stated that while the ‘‘evidence on carcinogenic risk and other 

health hazards from exposure to TCE has strengthened since 2001,’’ the committee 

recommended ‘‘that Federal agencies finalize their risk assessment with currently 

available data so that risk management decisions can be made.’’ It does not appear 

to recommend cleanup levels or a particular course of action with respect to cleanup, 

but rather suggests that EPA finish its risk assessment.In fact, the report makes 

clear that ‘‘the committee was not asked to address risk management issues.’’ Is 

that correct? 

Response. Yes, that is correct. 

Question 6. Additionally, the report includes several research and methodological 

recommendations regarding exactly how EPA should conduct this risk assessment, 

including new epidemiologic data analysis, sensitivity analysis, dose-response relationships, species differences and modes of action. If all this data analysis is yet to 

be complete, how can the science be considered ‘‘decided’’? 

Response. I agree that further data analysis must still be done before the science 

is considered ‘‘decided.’’ It is my understanding that EPA’s Office of Research and 

Development (ORD) agrees too.The NAS report recommends that as part of doing 

an updated assessment, EPA should do a new meta-analysis of currently available 

epidemiology studies. It is my understanding that ORD plans to do an updated assessment for peer review based on currently available data. 

Question 7. Prior to serving at the DoD, you worked at Koch Industries as the 

Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs.You also were employed by the 

Charles G. Koch Foundation as Vice President for environmental programs. Koch 

Industries’ record on the environment has included paying some of the largest civil 

fines ever imposed on a company under any Federal environmental law, and the filing of criminal charges for illegal releases of benzene in Texas, which were later settled with the Department of Justice for $20 million in penalties and a guilty plea 

for concealing information. 
29 

Although you arrived at Koch after the company had been charged with these violations, the settlement of the criminal indictment occurred during your tenure as 

Director of Environmental Affairs.What role, if any, did you play in any environmental enforcement settlements during your tenure at Koch Industries? 

Response. None. 

Question 8. If confirmed as Inspector General, would you plan on recusing yourself from investigating matters relating to Koch industries? 

Response. Yes. 

Question 9. If not, how would you plan on avoiding any appearance of impropriety 

or bias? 

Response. Not applicable. 

Question 10. With regard to your work as Director of Environmental Programs for 

the Charles G. Koch Foundation, we understand that during your tenure the foundation provided funding to a number of organizations such as the Mercatus Institute, among others, that are actively involved in debates regarding environmental 

regulations. 

Please provide a detailed description of the organizations or projects that the 

foundation funded or helped to fund that take positions or provide analysis regarding environmental protection laws. Please summarize the work product, or reports 

or other analysis that were funded during your tenure. 

Response. During my tenure, the Charles G. Koch Foundation (Foundation) was 

involved in extensive grant making in a wide range of fields with which I had no 

knowledge or involvement. To the best of my recollection, the relevant grants thatI 

was involved with included regarding an analysis of EPA’s permitting processes. 

This grant was provided to Resources for the Future. A second grant is one that 

involved Harvard University in conjunction with Resources for the Future, EPA and 

the American Chemistry Council. This grant analyzed lessons learned and successes 

shared toward better environmental management and improvement. 

Question 11. Your financial documents indicate that you have investments in a 

number of companies that could be directly affected by EPA regulations or enforcement actions. These include major manufacturing companies that have previously 

been subject to EPA enforcement actions, energy companies and mining companies. 

I understand you have elected not to divest yourself of these investments but rather 

to manage any potential conflicts of interest by recusing yourself from all matters 

that have a direct and predictable effect on your financial interests or by seeking 

a written waiver. 

Given the scope of environmental statutes that the EPA administers and the 

breadth of regulatory and enforcement actions it takes, how do you plan on evaluating all of your work for potential conflicts of interest? 

Response. In keeping with the terms of the ethics letter I signed on Aug. 3, 2006, 

I will issue a recusal statement that clearly sets forth the names of the companies 

from which I would be recused. I will remain vigilant with respect to my potential 

conflicts of interest and appearance concerns. I will consult the OIG’s Counsel and/ 

or the Agency’s ethics officials, as appropriate. In addition, I will rely upon the career senior managers in the OIG to assist me in abiding by the terms of my ethics 

agreement and my recusals. 

Question 12. Will this place a resource burden on the Office of Inspector General 

and the EPA ethics staff to screen all your work against the backdrop of your investments? If not, please detail how you will manage the Inspector General Office 

resources to avoid this. 

Response. The burden of remaining vigilant about my own recusals remains with 

me, as I am responsible for ensuring that I understand and abide by the Federal 

ethics standards. OIG Counsel assures me that he does not believe that my ethics 

considerations will create an undue burden on his workload. 

Question 13. How will you make strategic decisions for the Office of the Inspector 

General that relate to allocating scarce audit and investigation resources among different industry sectors, some of which may include companies that you maintain investments in? 

Response. The OIG does not normally allocate resources against industries. Resources are allocated based on customer (both internal and external) requests, potential monetary and environmental/health benefits or risk, and within the scope of 

the IG’s authority. Resource allocation and work decisions are not made based on 

the IG’s personal likes or preferences, but rather on the mission of EPA and the 

OIG. 
30 

Question 14. How would you handle a recommendation by the Inspector General 

staff that you institute an investigation of the EPA’s enforcement actions related to 

energy companies? 

Response. I have been advised by OIG Counsel and EPA’s ethics officials that I 

am not automatically recused from matters of general applicability involving energy 

companies. However, I would recuse myself from any matters in which I could not 

be objective, or perceived as being objective, whether they are due to a financial interest or my previous work. In such case, the work of OIG would continue to be handled by the experienced career executives of OIG. 

Question 15. In your view, would a recommendation, given by you, to investigate 

EPA enforcement activities related to a different industrial sector in which you do 

not have investments, also pose a conflict of interest, given the limited amount of 

investigation resources available to the Inspector General? If not, please explain 

why and be specific. 

Response. No, I do not believe that there would be any conflict of interest if I were 

to recommend OIG action with respect to an industry in which I do not have any 

financial interest. The term ′′financial interest′′ is defined in the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch as limited to financial interests 

that are held by an employee, his spouse or minor children. (5 CFR 2635.403(c)). 

However, if I could not be objective, or be perceived as being objective, whether 

the reasons are due to a financial interest or my previous work, I would recuse myself from the matter before me. In such case, the work of OIG would continue to 

be handled by the experienced career executives of OIG. 

Question 16. If during the course of your work as Inspector General, you are provided, either orally or in writing, with confidential enforcement information related 

to any company that you have investments in, how would you plan on making future investment decisions related to such a company, particularly decisions to divest 

or reduce your investments in such a company? 

Response. EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance handles enforcement matters for the Agency, not the OIG. As the IG, it would be highly unusual for such 

information to come to my attention. If it did, I would not involve myself in the matter nor would I use such information to make personal financial decisions. In the 

event that I am provided information related to a company identified on my recusal 

list, I would notify OIG Counsel and adhere to his advice on how to proceed. I would 

refrain from reading the information because I would be recused. 

Question 17. Did you invest in these sectors and/or companies while employed at 

DoD? How did you avoid conflicts of interest arising with your investments in these 

companies or other companies with financial relationships with DoD? 

Response. These investments were made prior to my employment at DoD. I relied 

on counsel of DoD General Counsel’s ethics office for guidance on avoiding conflicts 

of interests. 

RESPONSES BY ALEX BEEHLER TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR LIEBERMAN

Question 1a. Are you planning, in the event that you become EPA’s Inspector 

General, to recuse yourself from any decisions concerning any IG investigation, inquiry, audit, or report touching upon EPA’s reaction either to any Defense Department request for changes to the statutes that EPA implements or to any Defense 

Department request for particular EPA action or inaction? 

Response. In addition to recusing myself from any matter concerning exemptions 

sought by the DoD under the environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act, RCRA 

and Superfund for so called ‘‘readiness activities,’’ I will also recuse myself from any 

matters in which I could not be objective, or be perceived as being objective, whether 

due to a financial interest or my previous work. 

Question 1b. If so, then what assurances can you provide me now that other employees of the Inspector General’s office would have adequate legal authority and 

practical ability to initiate and effectively complete such an investigation, inquiry, 

audit, or report? 

Response. Under this circumstance, I will delegate all powers and authorities 

granted to be under the Inspector General of 1978, as amended or any other authority to the OIG official designated to handle the matter. 

Question 1c. If not, then why not, considering the concerns expressed in the opening statement that I submitted to the record of your confirmation hearing? 

Response. Not applicable. 
31 

Question 2. The Inspector General Act empowers and directs EPA’s inspector general to keep the Congress fully informed of, among other things, ‘‘serious problems 

. . . and deficiencies relating to the administration of programs and operations administered’’ by EPA. Please describe the principles and factors that will guide you, 

if you are confirmed to the post of EPA’s inspector general, in determining whether 

individual controversial policy decisions made by EPA officials qualify as or reveal 

‘‘serious problems’’ or ‘‘deficiencies,’’ as those terms are used in the Inspector General Act. 

Response. The principles and factors would be those matters which implicate 

fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement or inefficiency relating to EPA’s program and 

operations. Additionally, I would consider the level of risk involved, the amount of 

potential monetary costs or recovery involved, and the importance of an issue to 

Congress, the Agency and the public in developing OIG work assignments. The OIG 

formally reports to Congress semiannually on the activities undertaken, and the results of their work. 

RESPONSES BY ALEX BEEHLER TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question 1. During your tenure, the Department of Defense (DoD) has sought exemptions from the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Superfund and other environmental laws. If you are confirmed as Inspector General, would you continue to advocate for DoD to be exempt from laws administered by the EPA? 

Response. No. Under the IG Act, IGs are strictly prohibited from engaging in programmatic work and I will abide by the IG Act. Specifically, any decision I make 

as IG will be based upon my responsibilities as the IG and not on my previous work 

experiences. 

Question 2. While at the Defense Department, you opposed EPA’s revised risk assessment for the chemical trichloroethylene (TCE). If you are confirmed as Inspector 

General, and EPA decides to move forward with a revised risk assessment, or a 

strengthened drinking water standard for TCE, will you oppose EPA’s efforts? 

Response. See above. Policy deliberations and decisions are programmatic activities and are expressly prohibited under the IG Act. 

Question 3. As you know, The National Research Council (NRC) was ultimately 

called upon to study the issue of TCE. In July, the NRC essentially confirmed EPA’s 

view that a revised risk assessment for TCE was in order. Has your view of the 

matter changed in any way based upon the NRC report? 

Response. EPA, DoD, and DoE together sought the NRC review to analyze the 

science upon which the EPA draft risk assessment was based. The NRC brought 

certain matters into question and the EPA has taken that additional information 

to apply in improving its risk assessment. 

RESPONSES BY ALEX BEEHLER TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. The EPA Inspector General’s duty is to serve as an independent, impartial and accountable source for audits, evaluations and, investigations of EPA. 

The Inspector General functions as a ‘‘watchdog’’ in alerting the public and Congress 

to areas of concern at EPA. Your predecessor showed admirable independence in 

producing important reports that were critical of the EPA in the areas of mercury 

control, New Source Review and EPA’s evaluation of air quality after the World 

Trade Center attacks. 

What about your record makes clear that you are willing to take EPA to task for 

not fulfilling its public health responsibilities under the environmental laws? How 

does your record demonstrate the qualities of independent thought and communication that are required of an Inspector General? 

Response. During my extensive work experience in positions involving environmental law and policy, I have sought environmental improvement. Much of my professional experience has been spent enforcing our nation’s environmental laws. I 

was a prosecutor at the Department of Justice for 10 years. Prosecuting cases is a 

similar process: you collect the facts; build a case; and present your findings. It is 

like evaluating any organization concerning its operational decisions and actions. 

Question 2. During your time at the Department of Defense (DoD), you have advocated that the Defense Department be exempted from the major environmental statutes, including the Clean Air Act, Superfund, the Clean Water Act and the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act. Were these exemptions designed in any way to im-
32 

prove or enhance environmental protection? Would they have increased or decreased 

environmental oversight by EPA and the States? 

Response. The overwhelming focus (more than 95 percent) of my time and effort 

at DoD has been spent on program administration and outreach to States, localities, 

tribes, non-Governmental organizations (NGOs), and other stakeholders—not the 

legislative proposals known as the Range and Readiness Preservation Initiative, 

which were developed and adopted by DoD and the Administration two years before 

I joined DoD. 

As explained to me, these legislative proposals were simply designed to codify the 

existing regulatory policies and practices of DoD, EPA, and the State regulators— 

policies maintained under Federal and State administrations of both parties, including the previous Administration—which were, however, being challenged in various 

lawsuits. 

These proposals were therefore not intended to increase or decrease EPA and 

State environmental oversight. These proposals were designed to either have neutral or positive environmental consequences. 

RESPONSES BY ALEX BEEHLER TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. Mr. Beehler: You currently serve as Assistant Deputy Undersecretary 

of Defense for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health.During your tenure in 

that position, the Department of Defense has repeatedly sought exemptions under 

the environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act, RCRA and Superfund for so 

called ′′readiness activities′′ and you have publicly advocated for such exemptions. 

However, the record has shown that military readiness has not been impacted by 

environmental requirements and that DoD rarely, if ever, has used exemptions already available to it under existing regulatory provisions. 

If confirmed, do you plan on recusing yourself from issues related to these exemptions in light of your previous advocacy for them? 

Response. Yes. 

Question 2. If not, will you integrate these views into Inspector General Reports 

on EPA matters where these views may be relevant? 

Response. Not applicable. 

Question 3. Do you disagree in any way with former EPA Administrator Christine 

Todd Whitman’s testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee stating that ‘‘I do not believe there is a training session anywhere in the 

country that is being held up or not taking place because of environmental regulation.’’ February 26, 2003). If yes, please be specific in your response. 

Response. It has been reported to me by DoD that there is at least one situation 

where training has been restricted at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, 

Camp Edwards, due to Administrative Order No. 2 issued by EPA in April 1997 

pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act. That order relates to munitions constituents in a sole source drinking water aquifer. 

Question 4. On April 21, 2004, DoD Deputy General Counsel Ben Cohen indicated 

in testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee that in response 

to a request from Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, no branch of the DoD had submitted any information that warranted using the existing national security exemptions under CERCLA,RCRA or the Clean Air Act.After that testimony I understand 

you continued to publicly advocate for such exemptions. 

What was your factual basis at that time for continuing to advocate for these exemptions in light of the prior testimony of Administrator Whitman and Mr. Cohen 

on these subjects? 

Response. I have been advised that Mr. Cohen’s testimony referred to existing exemptions in various environmental statutes, not to the legislative proposals that 

DoD was advocating. 

My overwhelming focus, more than 95 percent of my time and effort, has been 

spent on program administration and outreach to States, localities, tribes, NGOs, 

and other stakeholders—not these legislative proposals, which were developed and 

adopted by DoD and the Administration two years before I joined DoD. 

As these proposals have been explained to me, these legislative proposals were 

simply designed to codify the existing regulatory policies and practices of DoD, EPA, 

and the State regulators—policies maintained under Federal and State administrations of both parties, including the previous Administration—which were, however, 

being challenged in various lawsuits. 
33 

These proposals were therefore not intended to increase or decrease EPA and 

State environmental oversight. These proposals were designed to either have neutral or positive environmental consequences. 

Æ