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

42–278 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 109–1036

NOMINATIONS OF MOLLY O’NEILL AND

DALE KLEIN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

THE NOMINATIONS OF MOLLY O’NEILL, TO BE AN ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND DALE

KLEIN, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

MAY 17, 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)

CONTENTS

Page

MAY 17, 2006

OPENING STATEMENTS

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware .................. 11

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas .................. 5

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 ................... 3

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ......... 8

Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois ............................ 10

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ....................... 6

Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia ...... 8

WITNESSES

Klein, Dale, nominated to be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................................................................................................................ 15

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 59

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 57

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 55

Senator Obama .......................................................................................... 57

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 56

O’Neill, Molly, nominated to be an Assistant Administrator, Environmental

Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 13

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 39

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

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 25

Senator Obama .......................................................................................... 37

Senator Thune ........................................................................................... 36

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Letter, Mary Alice Baish, associate Washington affairs representative, American Association of Law Libraries; Emily Sheketoff, executive director,

American Library Association, Washington Office; Douglas Newcomb, CAE,

chief policy officer, Special Library Association ................................................ 100

Review, Business Case for Information Services: EPA’s Regional Libraries

and Centers, January 2004................................................................................ 85–102

(1)

NOMINATIONS OF MOLLY O’NEILL AND

DALE KLEIN

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 628,

Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James Inhofe (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Inhofe, Warner, Voinovich, Jeffords, Carper,

Clinton, Lautenberg, and Obama. Also present: Senator Hutchison.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Senator INHOFE. We are going to go ahead. We have a policy here

that no other committee has, and that is we start on time. I don’t

care even if you don’t show up; we are going to start without you.

[Laughter.]

Senator INHOFE. Today we will be conducting a hearing to consider two highly qualified nominees: Molly O’Neill to be Assistant

Administrator at the EPA for Environmental Information and Dr.

Dale Klein to be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Molly O’Neill comes before the committee having served as the

State Director of the National Environmental Information Network

for the Environmental Council of States. She certainly understands

what EPA’s Office of Information is all about, and she will be able

to hit the ground running.

I would like to applaud the EPA’s recent efforts to find ways to

reduce the compliance burden associated with the Toxic Releases

Inventory, or the TRI. Last fall, the EPA proposed allowing certain

TRI reporters to use the shorter TRI form. This move would save

an estimated 165,000 hours of burden each year, while retaining 99

percent of the current long form data at the national level. This is

the type of streamlining the Agency should consider, and I encourage you, Molly, to do that.

Dale Klein has been nominated to be a member of the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission and the President has announced his intention to designate Dr. Klein as Chairman of the NRC. Dr. Klein

is currently assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear,

Chemical and Biological Defense Programs. Dr. Klein has significant experience in the nuclear world; he is a tenured professor at

the University of Texas, where he has worked in its nuclear program for nearly 30 years, and has served on the Texas Radiation

Advisory Board.
2

He has been a regulator; he has been part of the regulated community, where he oversaw the licensing of a university nuclear reactor. I think that is very important; not just to have the experience as a regulator, but also experience as a regulated. I went

through that myself for 30 years in the private sector, and that is

what drove me to Washington.

I have to say this, Dr. Klein.

[Laughter.]

Senator INHOFE. In 1998, as Chairman of the Nuclear Subcommittee, I began a series of hearings. Prior to that time, I was

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air. We had not had a

hearing on the NRC for 12 years. I don’t care what the bureaucracy

is, if you go without a hearing for a period of time, it gets out of

hand. We did that and they were very cooperative, and we totally

changed that and streamlined it and had some very positive results.

We need to confirm the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when

the committee votes for Dr. Klein’s confirmation. We also include

on the agenda both Commissioners Lyons and Jaczko. So that will

fill the committee, and that is what we want, to have a full committee.

So I want to thank the nominees for coming.

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Today we will be conducting a hearing to consider two highly qualified nominees:

Molly O’Neill to be the Assistant Administrator at EPA for Environmental Information, and Dr. Dale Klein to be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Molly O’Neill comes before the committee having served as the State Director of

the National Environmental Information Network for the Environmental Council of

the States. She certainly understands what EPA’s Office of Information is all about

and she will be able to hit the ground running.

I would like to applaud the EPA’s recent efforts to find ways to reduce the compliance burden associated with the Toxic Release Inventory, or TRI. Last fall, EPA proposed allowing certain TRI reporters to use the shorter TRI Form. This move would

save an estimated 165,000 hours of burden each year while retaining 99 percent of

current long form data at a national level. This is the type of streamlining the Agency should consider and I encourage you, Ms. O’Neill, to continue to look for other

areas where you can create efficiencies and reduce burdens while maintaining environmental protection.

Dale Klein has been nominated to be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the President has announced his intention to designate Dr. Klein as

Chairman of the NRC. Dr. Klein is currently the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs. Dr. Klein has significant experience in the nuclear world. He is a tenured professor at the University

of Texas where he has worked in its nuclear program for nearly 30 years and has

served on the Texas Radiation Advisory Board. He has been a regulator; he has

been part of the regulated community where he oversaw the licensing of a university nuclear reactor; and he has managed a large Federal Government office with

enormous responsibilities. He is the perfect fit to be Chairman of the NRC.

In 1998, as Chairman of the Nuclear Subcommittee, I began a series of oversight

hearings of the NRC. The hearing I held in 1998 was the first held by this committee in years. When I began conducting oversight of the NRC, I did so with the

goal of changing the bureaucratic atmosphere at the NRC. By 1998, the NRC had

become an Agency of process, not results. If the Agency was to improve it had to

employ a more results-oriented approach—one that was risk-based and sciencebased. I am pleased that in the last 8 years, we have seen tremendous strides. This

approach has made the NRC a lean and more effective regulatory agency. I do want

to take a moment to acknowledge the service of the current Chairman of the NRC,

Nils Diaz, as he has been a driving force behind much of the positive changes at

the Agency. After nearly a decade of serving on the Commission, Chairman Diaz has
3

decided to step down. He will be missed and I want to publicly thank him for his

service. It will now be up to Dr. Klein to continue that progress. If nuclear, and

more specifically NEW nuclear, is going to play an increasing role in this Nation’s

energy mix, the NRC must do its job effectively. They need to continue the effort

at risk-based regulations, enforcement actions and programs. It is not only important that we continue the progress on relicensing, we have to make sure that the

NRC can handle licenses for new plants. These are major challenges facing the

Commission.

We need a full and confirmed Nuclear Regulatory Commission. When the committee votes on Dr. Klein’s confirmation, we will also include on that agenda both

Commissioners Lyons and Jaczko.

Dr. Lyons and Dr. Jaczko are currently serving under recess appointments that

will expire at the end of this Congress. The NRC has significant challenges ahead

and we cannot ask for the Commission to function up to our expectations if we do

not have a full and confirmed commission in place.

I want thank the nominees for being here today and for your willingness to serve.

It is my hope that we can have you confirmed in the very near future.

Senator INHOFE. I recognize the Ranking Minority Member, Senator Jeffords, for an opening statement. As soon as that is completed, I think Senator Hutchison wants to be here for one introduction of Dr. Klein and maybe some other introductions.

Senator Jeffords.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today we have two nominees before us. The first, Dale Klein, has

been nominated to serve as Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The mission of the NRC is one of the most vital

functions carried out by the Federal Government. I will be asking

questions to ensure that the nominee shares my view: the top priority for NRC is safety.

Mr. Klein has been nominated to join the NRC at a time when,

I believe, public confidence in the Commission needs to be bolstered. Fortunately, and to the NRC’s credit, we have not had a serious nuclear accident at any of our Nation’s nuclear facilities. But

problems on several plants, including a plant in my home State of

Vermont, have left the public wondering about the effectiveness of

our regulatory system. We are asking the public to accept continued and expanded nuclear power generation. To do that, we need

to earn their confidence that the NRC is ensuring that nuclear

plants operate well and safely. I will be looking for assurances from

the nominee that he is committed to this goal.

Ms. O’Neill, it will be your role to lead EPA’s Office of Environmental Information. This office is critical for the Agency’s mission

and for helping the public understand and improve environmental

conditions where they live and work and play.

I am deeply concerned, however, that the Bush administration

seems intent on undermining the public’s right to know about environmental conditions in their communities. Last year, the Administration proposed to shield polluters by throwing out the requirement that industry disclose toxic releases every year. Instead, the

Administration would have them report toxic releases only every

other year.

The EPA has also proposed to exempt the thousands of facilities

from reviewing how much toxic waste was released and where it

went. According to the EPA’s own data, over 1,400 facilities that
4

released cancer-causing materials in 2003 would be able to hide

their emissions under this proposal. It is therefore not surprising

that officials from 23 States submitted comments in opposition to

this proposal.

The Toxic Release Inventory Program has proven to be one of the

most successful environmental statutes. By shining a light on toxic

releases across the Nation, the volume of toxic material released

annually has fallen by an estimated 59 percent since the disclosure

requirement went into effect in 1988. But now this Administration

wants to dim that light.

Just this week we learned of a new assault on the public’s right

to know. The Washington Post reported that funding cuts under

President Bush’s fiscal year 2007 budget would force EPA to close

its network of regional libraries. These libraries play an important

role in informing the public, and their disclosure would be another

example of this Administration’s disturbing trend of blocking access

to public information.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that this document, a 2004 EPA review

which points to the overwhelming cost benefits of the library system, be placed into the record.

Senator INHOFE. Without objection, I expect that will be done.

[The referenced document follows on page 85.]

Senator JEFFORDS. From my perspective, it is critical that the

head of the EPA’s Office of Environmental Information be committed to preserving the public’s right to know about environmental conditions in their communities.

I look forward to exploring your views on this issue and learning,

in particular, whether you support the Administration’s proposal.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]

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

STATE OF VERMONT

Thank you Mr. Chairman, today we have two nominees before us. The first, Dale

Klein, has been nominated to serve as a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC). The mission of the NRC is one of the most vital functions carried out by the Federal Government. I will be asking questions to ensure that the

nominee shares my view: the top priority for the NRC is safety.

Mr. Klein has been nominated to join the NRC at a time when, I believe, public

confidence in the Commission needs to be bolstered. Fortunately, and to the NRC’s

credit, we have not had a serious nuclear accident at any of our Nation’s nuclear

facilities. But problems at several plants, including a plant in my home State of

Vermont, have left the public wondering about the effectiveness of our regulatory

system.

We are asking the public to accept continued and expanded nuclear power generation. To do that, we need to earn their confidence that the NRC is ensuring that

nuclear plants operate well and safely. I will be looking for assurances from the

nominee that he is committed to this goal. Ms. O’Neill, it will be your role to lead

EPA’s Office of Environmental Information. This office is critical for the Agency’s

mission, and for helping the public understand and improve environmental conditions where they live, work and play.

I am deeply concerned, however, that the Bush administration seems intent on

undermining the public’s right to know about environmental conditions in their community. Last year, the Administration proposed to shield polluters by throwing out

the requirement that industry disclose toxic releases every year. Instead, the Administration would have them report toxic releases only every other year. The EPA

also proposed to exempt thousands of facilities from revealing how much toxic waste

was released and where it went. According to EPA’s own data, over 1,400 facilities

that released cancer-causing materials in 2003 would be able to hide their emissions
5

under this proposal. It is therefore not surprising that officials from 23 States submitted comments in opposition to this proposal.

The Toxic Release Inventory Program has proven to be one of the most successful

environmental statutes. By shining a light on toxic releases across the Nation, the

volume of toxic material released annually has fallen by an estimated 59 percent

since the disclosure requirement went into effect in 1988. But now, this Administration wants to dim that light.

Just this week, we learned of a new assault on the public’s right-to-know. The

Washington Post reported that funding cuts under President’s Bush fiscal year 2007

budget would force EPA to close its network of regional libraries. These libraries

play an important role in informing the public, and their closure would be another

example of this Administration’s disturbing trend of blocking access to public information. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this document, a 2004 EPA review which points

to the overwhelming cost benefits of the library system, be placed in the record.

From my perspective, it is critical that the head of EPA’s Office of Environmental

Information be committed to preserving the public’s right-to-know about environmental conditions in their communities. I look forward to exploring your views on

this issue and learning, in particular, whether you support the Administration’s proposals.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Jeffords. We are looking

forward to the opening statements of our other Members, but, with

their permission, we will go now to a special introduction that Senator Hutchison is going to make of Dr. Klein.

Senator Hutchison.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Jeffords, Senator Warner, Senator Voinovich,

Senator Lautenberg.

I am so pleased to be here because I am introducing a personal

friend who I think also has stellar qualifications for the position of

Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Before entering

public service, Dr. Klein served as vice chancellor for Special Engineering Programs at the University of Texas System. He also was

chairman and executive director of the Amarillo National Research

Center.

President Bush then selected him, in 2001, to act as Assistant to

the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs. His vast experience with nuclear policy, coupled

with his vision for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will enable

Dr. Klein to serve as a valuable asset to our country. His qualifications, experience, and integrity make him the very strongest candidate for this position.

At a time when our Nation is at increasing risk from nuclear

threats and we also are trying to improve and develop a nuclear

program for energy sources for our country, he is the perfect person, with his knowledge of nuclear policy, to try to bring all of that

to fruition.

He is joined today by his wife Rebecca Klein, a former chairman

of the Texas Public Utility Commission and a great public servant

in her own right. She has been an outstanding public servant, as

has Dr. Klein, and I so hope that you will act expeditiously on his

nomination. I know he will be a huge asset for us.

Thank you.
6

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. I know they appreciate your presence here today. You may be excused if you need

to.

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much.

Senator INHOFE. Senator Voinovich.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this

nomination hearing.

Unfortunately, I am not able to stay because I am introducing

my good friend, Rob Portman, to the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee for his nomination to be Director of the

Office of Management and Budget. I wish that I could be here for

this entire hearing, because it brings together two subcommittees

that I chair.

As chairman of the subcommittee that oversees Government

management in the Federal workforce, I want to make sure that

we have the right people with the right knowledge and skills at the

right place at the right time. I am especially concerned about this

for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission because I also chair the

Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety,

which oversees the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I welcome our nominees, Dr. Dale Klein for Chairman of the

NRC, and Ms. Molly O’Neill for Assistant Administrator of EPA’s

Office of Environmental Information. I thank you both for your

willingness to serve and, even more importantly, I thank your families for their sacrifices.

This is one of the most challenging times, Mr. Chairman, for the

NRC, as the industry is actively pursuing to build new nuclear

powerplants for the first time in decades. I just got an update on

that, and it looks like we have, at this stage of the game, a possibility of 15 to 18 new applications coming in for nuclear powerplants in this country, which is the first time this has happened

in my lifetime in terms of being here in the Senate. Mr. Chairman,

you know it wouldn’t have happened without the passage of the

Energy bill last year.

At the same time, the Agency will have to deal with a wave of

retirements, as more than 30 percent of its workforce will be eligible to retire. More than ever, the Commission needs strong and

able leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I met with Dr. Klein last week, and we had a detailed discussion about his qualifications and vision for the Commission. I believe that Dr. Klein has the right mix of technical, policy, and management experience to serve as NRC’s chairman. His

significant management experience at department events, combined with the years he spent in academia, make him uniquely

qualified for the position.

I just want to mention for the record, Mr. Chairman, that when

he was over at DOD, he oversaw some 2,400 employees, including

20 career SES managers, and a $6 billion budget. At the NRC he

will have a few more employees, 3,300, but a $760 million budget.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, from your longstanding interest in

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the thing that we really need
7

there is management, management, management, and I really

think that Dr. Klein is qualified to get the job done there for us.

I am pleased with his stated commitment to instilling regulatory

stability at the NRC with a focus on milestones and deliverables.

I appreciate his balance to push the NRC as a regulator that ensures the safe operation of the existing fleet of nuclear plants without stifling the growth of nuclear power. This committee has spent

a considerable amount of time and oversight in our legislation, and

I don’t want to see the progress eroded, as it is vitally important

for this country’s environmental, energy, and economic well-being.

Dr. Klein, I look forward to working with you as you take on

your challenges at the NRC. We held an NRC oversight hearing in

my subcommittee in March, and we are planning more before the

end of the year.

One last thought before I have to leave, Mr. Chairman. The NRC

currently has two recess-appointed Commissioners, Greg Jaczko

and Pete Lyons. With the challenges facing the Commission, I am

very concerned about the situation and believe they should be confirmed as expeditiously as possible, along with Dr. Klein. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that is your position on this, and I urge the

committee and Senate to act quickly so that we have a full Commission and Dr. Klein can get rolling.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OHIO

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this very important nominations hearing.

Unfortunately, I am not able to stay because I am introducing my good friend,

Rob Portman, to the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee for his

nomination to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

I wish that I could be here for this entire hearing because it brings together two

subcommittees that I chair. As chair of the subcommittee that oversees government

management and the Federal workforce, I want to make sure that we have the right

people with the right skills running our Nation’s Agencies. I am especially concerned about this for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission because I also chair the

Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety which oversees

them.

I welcome our nominees—Ms. Molly O’Neill for Assistant Administrator of EPA’s

Office of Environmental Information and Dr. Dale Klein for Chairman of the NRC.

I thank you both for your willingness to serve, and even more importantly, I thank

your families for their sacrifices.

This is one of the most challenging times for the NRC as the industry is actively

pursuing to build new nuclear powerplants for the first time in decades. At the

same time, the Agency will have to deal with a wave of retirements as more than

30 percent of its workforce will be eligible to retire. More than ever, the Commission

needs strong and able leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I met with Dr. Klein last week and we had a detailed discussion

about his qualifications and vision for the Commission. I believe that Dr. Klein has

the right mix of technical, policy, and management experience to serve as NRC’s

Chairman. His significant management experience at the Department of Defense

combined with the years he has spent in academia makes him uniquely qualified

for this position.

I am pleased with his stated commitment to instilling regulatory stability at the

NRC with a focus on milestones and deliverables. I appreciate his balanced approach toward the NRC as a regulator that ensures the safe operation of the existing fleet of nuclear plants without stifling the growth of nuclear power. This committee has spent a considerable amount of time on oversight and on legislation, and

I do not want to see that progress eroded as it is vitally important for this country’s

environmental, energy, and economic well-being.
8

Dr. Klein, I look forward to working with you as you take on these challenges at

the NRC. We held an NRC oversight hearing in my subcommittee in March and are

planning more before the end of this year.

One last thought before I have to leave. The NRC currently has two recess-appointed Commissioners—Greg Jaczko and Pete Lyons. With the challenges facing

the Commission, I am very concerned about this situation and believe that they

should be confirmed as expeditiously as possible along with Dr. Klein. Mr. Chairman, I understand that this is also your position. I urge this committee and the

Senate to act quickly so that we have a full Commission.

Again, I thank the witnesses for being here today and for their desire to serve

this country.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Voinovich.

We are joined by our senior member of this committee, Senator

Warner, who is also the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services

Committee.

Senator Warner.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Senator WARNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is always heartening at these hearings to see and read the dossiers of

the selections by the President. In this instance two very eminently

well experienced, qualified individuals. I would like to note that

Ms. O’Neill is a graduate of Virginia Tech, an outstanding institution in the Commonwealth of Virginia. You have my vote.

[Laughter.]

Senator WARNER. Mr. Klein, I had a very excellent meeting with

him, and I was reassured, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee really

wants to try and in no way marginalize safety, but see what we

can do to cut down the amount of time necessary to get the permits

and other regulatory conditions met by the private sector as we, as

a Nation, hopefully move more and more in the direction of developing, for power purposes, our nuclear energy. So I hope this nominee is able to work with his colleagues and effect that.

We also talked about one of the means to do it whereby the Commission pick three or four standard designs of a plant, well known,

well proven designs, certainly from the safety perspective. But that

might be a contributing factor to reducing the amount of time,

which now takes longer to get the permits than to build the plant.

So I am encouraged by this nominee and his desire to help this Nation bring into greater balance its energy resources such that nuclear makes an increased contribution.

I thank the Chair and the Ranking Member.

Senator INHOFE. Well, thank you very much for that excellent

statement.

Senator Lautenberg, thank you for deferring to Senator Warner.

You are recognized.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Senator LAUTENBERG. Always I know where my seniority stands,

Mr. Chairman. I was happy to defer to my colleague, my esteemed

colleague.

Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding this hearing and giving us an

opportunity to learn more about these two nominees. If confirmed,
9

they will have the opportunity to positively affect the lives and the

safety of millions of Americans.

First, regarding the NRC. Now, I support the use of nuclear energy, which is a far different thought than I or many of us had in

years past. But the reality has come home, and we just can’t depend on the same old way of energizing our needs. So I support the

use of nuclear energy. It provides 54 percent of New Jersey’s electricity.

I also believe—and I had an opportunity to meet with Dr. Klein

yesterday. I think we had a meeting of the minds generally. Because the safety factor must always come first, and I think Dr.

Klein shares that view—he will have a chance to talk about it—

and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s most important assignment must always be to protect the public health and safety.

The NRC is a watchdog on the nuclear power industry. This is

not to suggest they have any evil, but we have seen what happens

when mistakes are made in nuclear power generation. We just

can’t have a cheerleader, we have to have someone, we have to

have the inspector looking very carefully at what is going on. The

American people have concerns about nuclear energy, and it has

been decades since a new nuclear facility was approved in our

country. In order for nuclear power to remain a viable energy option, the industry needs to be open and honest with the public, and

the NRC needs to ensure the views of the public and the States are

fully considered.

Now, one of the nuclear facilities in our country, in New Jersey

is Oyster Creek. It is the oldest operating nuclear plant in the

United States, and the plant owners want to renew the operating

license for 20 more years. As the NRC considers that request, it

should give the people and the government of New Jersey a chance

to air their views in public hearings on the record. The NRC must

always protect the interests of the public, and it must protect whistleblowers who take the risk of exposing potential safety hazards

in nuclear plants, and the risk is a job risk or an assignment risk.

So we have to respect those sources if they come to us.

Now, I look to Dr. Klein’s statement on the remainder of the

hearing and learning more deeply about his views.

Our other nominee was chosen to head EPA’s Office of Environmental Information. That office has the critical responsibility to implement the Toxic Release Inventory. The TRI program requires industry facilities across the country to report the amount of toxic

chemicals that they store, manufacture, transport chemicals, and

what might be released into the environment. This program is a

cornerstone of our Federal Right-to-Know Law and has helped to

keep citizens aware of the exposures and risks they face in their

communities.

Now, last year, EPA proposed several changes to this program

that would reduce the amount of information available to people,

to States and first responders across this country. Now, my home

State of New Jersey, home to lots of chemical and fueled processing

facilities, we have opposition within our State, as there is in 22

other States, at the reduction, the notion that we would reduce the

time cycles and the standards for reporting.
10

New Jersey estimates that EPA’s proposal would exempt more

than 100 facilities in our State from requirements to report toxic

chemical releases to the public, and these include facilities that discharge carcinogens such as arsenic, styrene, and chromium. EPA

has also informed Congress that it intends to require reporting of

this information on a biannual basis, once every 2 years, rather

than annually, and that would make it harder for citizens to know

what is happening in their communities.

Now, I helped create the TRI program in the aftermath of the

tragic release of a deadly chemical cloud in Bopal, India. The

public’s right to know about chemicals stored and released into

their environment is too important to be gutted. So I strongly oppose the changes that EPA and the Office of Environmental Information have proposed to the Toxic Release Inventory program, and

I look forward to hearing the nominees’ views on this important

topic.

Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding this meeting. I, like Senator

Warner, have a hearing on the next occupant of the OMB director

seat, so please excuse me. I will submit questions in writing.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.

Senator Obama.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Senator OBAMA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding

this hearing today. I would like to welcome the nominees and their

families.

As my colleagues know, the State of Illinois ranks No. 1 in the

number of nuclear powerplants; we have 11. Unfortunately, in recent months, Illinois has also achieved the distinction of being the

first in the Nation to record a series of tritium leaks at these

plants. I had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Klein and have a

brief discussion about this. I know that the scientific evidence suggests low levels of tritium don’t pose a significant public health

hazard, but as I indicated to Dr. Klein in our meeting, that is not

the issue. The issue is whether neighboring communities have a

right to know about these leaks, even if they don’t pose a significant hazard.

My constituents who live near these plants just want timely and

complete information about any leaks so they can properly evaluate

the environment where their families live. As a parent of two

young daughters, I can certainly understand these concerns. When

there is a 3-million-gallon leak of tritiated water, as occurred both

in 1998 and 2000 in Will County, IL, I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect that the leak will be made public right after it happens, not 7 years later.

So to address a serious problem, Mr. Chairman, I introduced this

Nuclear Release Notification Act in March, that is, Senate bill

2348, to reform NRC notification requirements for residents who

live near nuclear plants. My bill is very simple, it simply says that

State and local officials should receive prompt notification after any

unplanned leaks.

I was pleased earlier this month that the nuclear industry announced its members would voluntarily provide such notification to
11

State and local officials, and I welcome the decision, but it begs the

question if industry itself understands and accepts the importance

of greater openness and transparency. I don’t understand why we

shouldn’t make the notification mandatory, and not just voluntary.

I know that NRC is conducting its own review on what notification should be required, and that review is set to be completed in

September. My hope is that we will get a commitment to adopt

these mandatory disclosure proposals. I hope that will be one of the

recommendations in the report in September.

Dr. Klein, I understand that you may not have been willing to

make this commitment yet. I would like to make this commitment

made soon, because as I indicated to you in our meeting, even if

it turns out that these releases are not harmful, because of public

perceptions, neighboring communities can end up seeing their property values affected significantly; they may not be able to sell their

home. There is a lot of misinformation floating around as a consequence of the unwillingness to share this information.

Let me just finally end, Mr. Chairman, by echoing something

that my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, stated

with respect to Ms. O’Neill. I am somewhat concerned and unclear

as to why we have seen a proposal from the office that you will be

heading regarding TRI reporting. It is not clear to me why we have

proposed the changes that have been proposed with respect to making the reporting less consistent and reducing the amount of information that is collected in certain areas.

Again, I am somebody who actually believes that nuclear power

is an important component in our overall energy portfolio, but I

think that, given past fears, the only way that we are going to be

able to move this industry forward is to make sure that everybody

is properly informed. So my hope is that on both these fronts we

make some progress, and I look forward to working with the nominees in this regard.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Obama.

We have a vote that has just opened. What I would like to do

is hear the opening remarks of Senator Carper, and then we will

have a very short recess. It takes about 10 minutes to get over

there and back.

Senator Carper.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to see Dr. Klein. Thank you for visiting with me

yesterday and congratulations on your nomination.

I want to welcome Ms. O’Neill today to our hearing.

In my brief comments today, I want to focus on nuclear energy.

I believe that a renaissance is underway in nuclear power. I welcome that. Today, some nine companies or groups of companies

have developed applications or are developing applications for new

nuclear powerplants with the intention of filing those applications,

I am told, with the NRC in the next couple of years.

In addition, many of the current nuclear plants that we already

have—I think there is about 100 or so—have renewed their licenses to continue to operate, and we expect the rest of the current
12

fleet to apply for renewals soon. Although the Department of Energy continues to push back its time line, I believe we can assume

that in the not too distant future they will apply for a license to

operate a nuclear waste repository.

I believe that the future of the nuclear industry literally begins

and ends with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The responsibility that the Commission shoulders is a big responsibility and one

that I believe that the Commission manages, for the most part,

quite well. As I said earlier, I am a believer in nuclear power and

nuclear energy, and I am heartened by its resurgence, though I acknowledge that there are serious concerns about the disposal of nuclear waste.

While there has been a lot of discussion about this nuclear renaissance, I am concerned that our focus on potential new plants

may have resulted in our forgetting about some of our current

plants that are already in existence. The public trust in nuclear

power must be reassured, and that assurance must start with our

current fleet of plants. When I was Governor of Delaware, I would

oftentimes tell my staff and cabinet—in fact, our motto was, ‘‘if it

isn’t perfect, make it better.’’ On balance I believe our existing nuclear powerplants have performed well, but we all know they

haven’t been perfect.

Over the past year, we have been faced, as Senator Obama says,

with tritium leaks not only in Illinois, but in New Jersey, across

the river from Delaware, by unplanned shutdowns, by lost fuel

rods, and by a number of other problems. I believe the NRC must

work hard to make sure that every nuclear powerplant in the

United States strives every day for perfection.

We are all aware that the coming years are going to require a

significant increase in our energy productions, hopefully a cleaner

energy than we have had in the past. I believe that most of us are

aware of the need for the United States to have a broad portfolio

of energy sources, and I believe nuclear must maintain a prominent

place in that portfolio.

To make sure that nuclear power fulfills its future promise, the

NRC must faithfully fulfill its current oversight mission.

Dr. Klein, as I said to you yesterday, I think you have been nominated for an important post, a very important post at a very important time for our country. We look forward to hearing your testimony following our vote, and that of Ms. O’Neill. If you are confirmed, I certainly look forward to working closely with you and

your colleagues on the Commission. Again, welcome and thank you.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Carper.

We now have a 10-minute recess. Don’t leave. We will be right

back.

Molly, when we get back, you are going to introduce Mama, OK?

[Laughter.]

[Recess.]

Senator INHOFE. We will start with Dr. Klein’s family introduction, since I think he only has one, then we will get to Molly, OK?

[Laughter.]

Senator INHOFE. Dr. Klein, do you have someone you would like

to share with us today?
13

Mr. KLEIN. I certainly do, Senator. As you know from the military perspective, you have CICs, you know, commanders in chief.

My commander in chief of the house, my wife, Becky.

Senator INHOFE. Becky, stand up so we can see you. Nice to have

you here, Becky.

Molly?

Ms. O’NEILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a very large contingent here, as you have witnessed.

Senator INHOFE. As you introduce them, I will ask them to stand

up until you finish your introductions.

Ms. O’NEILL. Certainly.

Senator INHOFE. Start with mama.

Ms. O’NEILL. My mother, Pam O’Neill, is present; my aunts and

uncles, Kate and Chuck Wall from Lynchburg, VA; Amelia Kriz

from Annapolis, MD; and my brother surprised me by flying in last

night with my oldest nephew, so Ted and Kieran O’Neill are here

from Seattle, WA. And I thank them for coming.

Senator INHOFE. Well, thank you all for coming in, and you can

be very, very proud of Ms. O’Neill today.

Why don’t we go ahead and, before we start, let me just—is Nils

Diaz here in the audience? I thought he might be here, but he is

not. I was going to make—in fact, I will make a comment about

him. He has had 10 years of great service. The changes that we advocated back when I mentioned that there had not been a hearing

in 12 years, he was primarily responsible for all of the improvements that we have experienced. I want to pay special tribute to

him now for his 10 years of service. He has decided to step down,

and he has been a great asset, too, to this committee and to the

whole system that we are talking about and addressing today.

Why don’t we start, ladies first, and if you would start with your

opening statement. I think we will be joined by other members

coming back from voting. Unfortunately, we do have other votes

that are coming back, one of which is one of my amendments, so

we will have to kind of wade through this.

Ms. O’Neill.

STATEMENT OF MOLLY O’NEILL, NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

Ms. O’NEILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and Mr.

Jeffords, if he were here, I would extend my——

Senator INHOFE. He will be right here.

Ms. O’NEILL [continuing]. And distinguished members of the

committee, it is both a privilege and honor to come before you as

President Bush’s nominee to be the Assistant Administrator for the

Office of Environmental Information and Chief Information Officer

for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I have environmental program and information technology experience, and also a

passion for ensuring environmental decisions and policy are based

on defensible data.

I come from a strong and supportive family. I would like to take

this opportunity to thank the members of my family, as well as my

friends and colleagues, for their continuing support.
14

All of my professional experience is rooted in supporting environmental protection. I began my career collecting environmental samples, visited dozens of industry facilities and reviewed countless analytical results. I spent 8 years working with State environment

department leaders to improve their business to redesigning their

business processes and incorporating technology without compromising the integrity and outcome of the programs.

Over the past 4 years, I served as the State Director of the National Environmental Information Exchange Network. I know my

reputation on developing the partnerships in the States, collaborating with EPA, and working with new technologies on this

project is one of the reasons I am before you today.

In my testimony today, I would like to share my thoughts on

managing information at the Federal and environmental levels.

The Federal Government is comprised of more than 100 agencies

and thousands of subagencies and programs. The complexity of relationships with other levels of government, as well as the private,

non-profit, and university sectors, is daunting and system communication barriers continue to exist.

Given these complexities, the challenge is how we use information technology to better serve the government and the American

citizen. The President’s Management Agenda, through the advancement of the Federal Enterprise Architecture, is the blueprint for

how agencies can share data better in the future.

I believe that CIOs at all levels of government must align investments to create system interoperability required to provide the

American public with government services, especially in times of

crises. The prospect of the Federal Government providing leadership on interoperability is one of the most profound actions it can

take in this decade. It will also take strong leadership and a willingness to share and adopt best practices, tools, and systems between Agencies.

With respect to environmental data, I am fortunate that EPA has

built a strong foundation with three major programs, namely, Environmental Indicators, the National Environmental Information Exchange Network, and Enterprise Architecture.

The Assistant Administrator for the Office of Environmental Information has the responsibility to ensure environmental data is

shareable and accessible, quality is not compromised, systems are

secure from today’s threats, and data can be turned into meaningful information. The foundation has been set and great strides have

been made. That said, for EPA to be more responsive to the American public’s questions on the environment, progress needs to continue in all of these programs I mentioned.

If confirmed, I will focus on improving data quality and access

to environmental information. It is my vision that scientists will

make decisions based on historical and real time data. Government

Agencies will have access to environmental data in daily processes,

as well as in times of national emergencies.

I grew up part of a military family. My late father, Lieutenant

Colonel Vincent O’Neill, was a first generation Irish American who

graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and served proudly for

more than 20 years as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps. He was

a highly decorated war hero, serving two tours on the ground in
15

combat in Vietnam. When I became an adult, he shared his belief

with me that every citizen should perform some type of service to

his country, whether it is military, government, or public. Giving

back makes this country great. Even though I have worked in the

private sector for most of my career, I want you to know I believe

in my father’s philosophy.

I am now ready, enthusiastic, and committed to this opportunity

to serve. I am confident that I can utilize my experience and leadership skills to advance the Agency in meeting the challenges and

opportunities that lay ahead. If confirmed, I intend to support the

President’s E-Government agenda. I will also support Administrator Johnson in accelerating the pace of environmental protection

while maintaining our Nation’s economic competitiveness. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee, Members of

Congress, and Administrator Johnson to improve the environment

and to be responsive to information needs.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I would be

happy to take any questions.

Senator INHOFE. Well, thank you, Ms. O’Neill. Don’t ever apologize for having experience in the private sector; that is one of the

things I like about both nominees today, you have had that experience. Thank you.

Dr. Klein.

STATEMENT OF DALE KLEIN, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER

OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Mr. KLEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Jeffords, and committee members, it is an honor to appear before you

today as President Bush’s nominee for the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

In addition to thanking my wife for coming today, I would also

like to thank Senator Hutchison for her introduction.

The current Commissioners have laid substantial groundwork to

help prepare the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the challenges it faces in the coming years. Challenge is the appropriate

word. The next several years will be perhaps the most significant

in decades in terms of regulating the civilian use of nuclear materials.

This challenge is all the more important when viewed through

the lens of what is happening in the energy arena. The global energy supply can affect both the U.S. economy and U.S. interests.

Oil and natural gas prices are at levels never seen before. There

are forecasts that U.S. energy electric demand will rise by 50 percent in just over two decades. Clearly, nuclear energy has a role

to play in meeting that demand.

The charge of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to ‘‘license

and regulate the Nation’s civilian use of byproduct, source, and

special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety, promote the common sense and security, and

protect the environment.’’

In meeting that mission, regulatory stability is a crucial element.

The NRC must clearly define the requirements. It must respond in

a timely manner. I believe the groundwork laid by the Commission

will be the key to providing the necessary regulatory stability.
16

The challenges ahead for the NRC are substantial: dealing with

the impending wave of applications for new reactors, overseeing

their construction, and simultaneously ensuring the existing plants

receive high standard of regulatory oversight set by the NRC is extremely important. The already high security of nuclear facilities

must be maintained.

There is a challenge to the Agency of dealing with a potential application by the Energy Department for a high level waste repository. Both this committee and the Appropriations Committee have

been very supportive of the Commission. Continued support will be

essential to help ensure that the licensing process moves smoothly.

If confirmed, you have my assurance I will work closely with you

and members of this committee on these issues.

Ensuring that the current fleet of commercial nuclear powerplants receive the proper level of scrutiny during the coming decade, as new plants are licensed and built, will require a continued

focus by the NRC on quality oversight. If confirmed, I can assure

you that I intend to see that the lessons learned from the past are

institutionalized in the NRC.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, while much of my

background is technical in nature, I am an experienced administrator who believes in milestones and deliverables. My goal is to

make sound decisions, based on sound science and sound public

policy. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee

and the challenge of being an NRC commissioner.

This concludes my statement, and I look forward to your questions.

Senator INHOFE. Well, thank you. Thank you, Dr. Klein.

I will go ahead and start with questions. One of the Senators in

opening statements made the comment there are some nine applications. I think there are actually more than that right now. A

sense of agreement that we seem to have on a bipartisan basis is

that we are not going to really resolve our energy crisis in this

country without the nuclear component. We have said it many

times and I know that has a lot of popularity. It wasn’t always the

case, but it is now. It is looked upon as being safe, clean, and abundant and inexpensive. So speaking for myself, and I am sure others

share this same notion, we want to get there as quickly as possible.

You are stepping in at a time, and particularly in the position

you are going to be in, when there are going to be a lot of applications to deal with, and I would like to get a pretty good idea from

you as to your timing. I know this is all new to you right now, but

maybe that is good. Maybe you can look at it with less of a bureaucratic view. What kind of timing do you think you could put on

some of these applications? Do you have some general ideas you

can discuss with us?

Mr. KLEIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, having been regulated in the

past as a licensee, I think it is very incumbent upon the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission to establish clear requirements and then to

respond in a timely manner. One of the issues that I think the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can do that will help expedite difficulties in the past is to have standardized processes, both the environmental site issues and also a standardized plant process. With

those two issues, I believe that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
17

can expedite license applications with no compromise on safety and

ensure public confidence.

The current guidelines that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

staff has indicated is that if they have a complete application, they

believe they can review an application in 30 months. What I would

like to see is once that process is completed, I would like to look

carefully at the decisions made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to see what process improvements can be made to make that

on a more timely manner with no compromise on safety.

Senator INHOFE. Like what?

Mr. KLEIN. I think one of the issues would be to look at a concept

called lean six sigma, where you look at lean issues to make sure

that all the processes that you do are risk-based; that you look at

the big issues; that you don’t get caught up, so to speak, down in

the weeds; that you look at the important issues, give clear guidance; and you have a trained staff that will respond quickly and

appropriately.

Senator INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. KLEIN. So I think looking at all the requirements is——

Senator INHOFE. Well, here is what I would like to do, not here

at this meeting, but after you get settled in, just because you all

know so much more about this than I do. I would like to see kind

of a little calendar of events on things and reasonable expectations

when different things can be done, reviews and hearings and whatever goes into the process, so that maybe we can visit, maybe even

have a hearing on this as to how we can expedite this. I think it

is very important that we do it as quickly as possible.

You commented on a risk-based approach, and I had a question

on that, but you covered that, I think, in your opening statement.

Security at nuclear facilities is something that we have always

been concerned about here, and I would ask if you agree that it is

important that there be a clear distinction of responsibility in protecting these facilities between the licensee, State, local, law enforcement, and Federal Government.

Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, security is very important at nuclear

plants because they are perceived to be a target. From my current

position at the Department of Defense, I am responsible for the nuclear security of other nuclear assets that the Government has, so

we have a very comprehensive program, and I believe that your

comment is very appropriate.

There should be certain requirements that the utilities have to

provide. Once that level is exceeded, then the State and also the

local enforcements should pick up the responsibility, and then finally the Federal Government. So it has to be a shared responsibility where the private industry, the local, State and Federal Governments are involved.

Senator INHOFE. Well, thank you. That is good. I had an opportunity to visit with both of you in my office and most of my questions were answered. You used a term. See, I have to call you

Molly. It sounds wrong, but I was telling your mama that I have

both a daughter and a granddaughter named Molly, so it just

makes me happy. I am the Chairman, so I can do that.

[Laughter.]

Senator INHOFE. Is that Senator Clinton?
18

Senator CLINTON. Yes, sir. Some of the names——

[Laughter.]

Senator CLINTON. I think that is good.

Senator INHOFE. I particularly liked one of the phrases you used.

You said decisions made on defensible data. One of the things that

bothers me more than anything else is all the—we are inundated

with flawed science in this committee, and it comes from all directions. People with their own agenda, they want to believe in some

outcome, so they doctor up the science so it agrees with their particular philosophy.

I would ask you, first of all, if you are in this position, when you

are confirmed, if you will make every effort to analyze data, analyze information, and where it is not accurate, to come forth and

be very honest about that. Any thoughts about that?

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. You may call me Molly any

time you want.

Senator INHOFE. All right. I appreciate that.

Ms. O’NEILL. Data quality is a really important thing to me, and

if I am confirmed, that is one of the focus areas for me. I know,

having worked with scientific reports and working with State environmental agencies, it is a real struggle, and it is a struggle not

unique to necessarily the environmental business, per se, but for

all science-based work.

Part of that is because we sort of have a history of paper files

and we have a history of moving data around a little bit in different ways, and we really have had a lack of data standards on

the environmental side up until about 5 years ago, when we started to really collaborate (the States and the EPA and the tribes) on

data standards. I will tell you that if I am confirmed, that will be

a focus, because as a scientist myself, I struggle with it and I care

about it.

Senator INHOFE. That is good. I appreciate that.

Oh, that is right, I forgot about the required questions. I will ask

each of you to respond so that we can get you recorded.

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

committee of Congress as a witness?

Mr. KLEIN. Yes.

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes.

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

not have thus far been disclosed that might place you in any conflict of interest if you are confirmed to this position?

Ms. O’NEILL. No.

Mr. KLEIN. No.

Senator INHOFE. OK. Very good.

Senator Jeffords.

Senator JEFFORDS. Ms. O’Neill, in your testimony you stated that

‘‘If confirmed, I will focus on improving data quality and access to

environmental information.’’ As you know, the EPA recently proposed converting the annual toxic release corporate disclosure requirement into an every other year report and allowing thousands

of facilities to withhold details of their pollution volumes and waste

management practices.
19

Based on what you know about EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory

proposal, do you support this rule? In particular, would you withdraw this proposal if confirmed?

Ms. O’NEILL. Senator Jeffords, thank you for the question. I believe right now the EPA is considering and engaging stakeholders

on the concept of alternate year reportings, but it has not been proposed as a rule yet. I will tell you I am an advocate for community

right-to-know. I think the program has been phenomenally successful and I think the data points to it.

It is a good program for a couple of reasons. One, it provides data

to the American citizens that they need and their communities, and

the second is it really holds industry accountable and allows them

to gauge how they are doing from a pollution prevention perspective. So it is a very important program.

So as EPA moves through the stakeholder involvement process,

I am sure that they will be obtaining comments on this proposed

option for changing the rule. I can tell you that, if I am confirmed,

I will work with you and this committee to understand the issues

here, engage a lot of stakeholders in this, because this really is important before moving ahead. I do believe it is important and I do

believe in the Community Right-to-Know Act, and I do believe it

needs external stakeholder, citizen, regions, and State input before

moving forward.

Senator JEFFORDS. Ms. O’Neill, I have expressed my concern

about the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget proposal, which reduces funding for the EPA library network. Should this proposal be

enacted, what are your plans to preserve and ensure access to the

25,000 maps, 3.5 million microfilm objects, and the more than a

half million books and reports currently housed at the 28 libraries

nationwide that will either close or experience severe cutbacks?

Ms. O’NEILL. Senator Jeffords, the first time I actually became

aware of this is when I read an article in the Washington Post this

week about the funding cut for the libraries, and, to be honest with

you, I really don’t know, from an EPA perspective, where the budget comes from in terms of what compromise the entire universe of

EPA libraries, whether it is a portion here, a portion there, so it

is hard for me to comment on the actual specific funding cut per

se.

But I will tell you that I have been a consumer of these library

services when I was in the private sector. I went to them, I used

the technical documents and maps. It was important service.

So moving forward, the other key to this is the recognition that

we can take technical documents and make them available online,

and clearly, as a person with a technology background, I support

making things available online because it does provide more access

to those reports in many ways. Instead of having one person or two

people checking out those documents, you could have 100 people

looking at those documents at the same time.

That said, there is an element to this that often technologists forget, which is the human factor. Not everyone has access to online

capabilities, yet, they need access to the reports. So if I am confirmed, I will look at this issue to make sure that the average scientist, the average citizen who needs access to these things, the average consultant out there who needs to use these to make deci-
20

sions will have those same rights and abilities to look at that information.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you.

Dr. Klein, some have argued that the NRC should limit access

to security information at powerplants across the board, even when

such information is not classified. Do you believe the NRC should

limit public disclosure of non-safeguarded security information?

Mr. KLEIN. Senator Jeffords, I think we have to be careful about

what information we provide to the public and for potential use by

terrorists. But if it is not safeguarded, if there is not a security

issue and a safety issue, I believe the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be one of openness.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you.

Senator INHOFE. All right, well, thank you, Senator Jeffords. You

will have an opportunity to ask other questions.

Senator Clinton, if you would like to include an opening statement at this time, feel free to do so.

Senator CLINTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will

just submit a statement for the record, if that is appropriate.

I want to thank Dr. Klein and Ms. O’Neill for being here today.

Dr. Klein, thank you for meeting with me yesterday. It was one

of those meetings on the run because I had to go vote, and you

were a great sport to kind of run down the hall with me and jump

in the elevator and go over to the Capitol.

As we discussed, Indian Point, the nuclear powerplant near

where I live in New York, has been a steady stream of mishaps and

bad news since September 11th. Just in the last year we have had

repeated failures of emergency sirens, leaks of contaminated water

from spent fuel pools, and other problems. Yesterday we had a report about a worker onsite who had been exposed to a radiation

dose above regulatory limits.

Now, all of these issues erode public confidence in Indian Point,

in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and because of the high

profile of the plant, being so close to the major media market in

the world, it undermines confidence in nuclear power in general. So

I have consistently pushed the NRC and the plant owner to do a

better job.

You know, my first concern is obviously the safety and peace of

mind of my constituents. But I also believe that the NRC needs to

assert itself more at Indian Point and elsewhere if we expect to be

able to move forward with new nuclear plant applications in our

country, because I think, as the Chairman pointed out, there are

applications waiting; there are a number of reasons why nuclear

power is being seen as a more favorable potential source of energy,

because of climate change concerns, primarily. But it is also clear

that there are unresolved safety, cost, waste, and proliferation

issues, and we have to get ahead of these because, otherwise, I

think whatever potential benefit there could be from nuclear power

will be derailed.

That is why I continue to believe that an independent safety assessment along the lines that I have proposed in my legislation

with respect to Indian Point is in everybody’s best interests. That

idea is also supported on a bipartisan basis by a number of my

House colleagues who represent districts in the vicinity of Indian
21

Point, as well as local elected officials, again, both Democrats and

Republicans.

This independent safety assessment would result in an extremely

thorough review of the plant’s operations, as well as its evacuation

plans, which any person that looks at the potential for evacuation

from the area surrounding Indian Point reaches the conclusion that

there is just no way to do it. This is hilly terrain, narrow roads,

isolated areas that would be difficult to evacuate.

So I was pleased when Chairman Diaz, sitting where you are,

Dr. Klein, made a commitment to me at the last EPW Committee

oversight hearing that the NRC would conduct an enhanced inspection at Indian Point. But as I mentioned yesterday, the information

that I have received from the NRC thus far is unsatisfactory. The

March 28 letter I received from Chairman Diaz was vague; it did

not address the issue of emergency preparedness in any effect. I

wrote back on April 3d expressing my dissatisfaction with the response and asking for more details about what the NRC is in fact

proposing to do. I am still waiting for a reply.

So what I want from you today is a commitment to help provide

specific information about what the NRC has planned at Indian

Point, and a commitment to work with me and my congressional

colleagues and local officials whom I represent to work out a plan

for enhanced oversight that will address legitimate public concerns

about safety, emergency planning, and evacuation. We really need

to develop a plan that everyone can support.

So, Dr. Klein, would you commit to working with me to develop

a plan for an assessment at Indian Point that covers safety, emergency planning, and evacuation?

Mr. KLEIN. Well, Senator Clinton, I think you brought up some

very good points. I think it is very important for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to have credibility among the general public. If

confirmed, I will certainly work with you to make sure that we address the needs and concerns that you have. I think it is very important to realize that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should

have those practices and policies for all of their plants, including

Indian Point. So I think it is very important that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have policies and procedures to work with all

of our constituents, and certainly those members of this committee

that have facilities in their State.

So what I often times tell people when issues come up, there are

usually three reasons: communication, communication, and communication. So I intend to, if confirmed, meet with members of this

committee often, meet with all of the public in areas for which nuclear plants are located to find out what issues are on people’s

minds, and what we can do to ensure their confidence that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is doing their job.

Senator CLINTON. I thank you very much for that response, Dr.

Klein.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is an important part of putting together any approach to additional nuclear plant sightings. We have

to be sure that the NRC has the staff, has the expertise, has the

communication skills, the technical abilities that will be necessary

to really answer questions and build confidence in this approach.
22

So I appreciate Dr. Klein’s answers and I look forward to working

with you.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Clinton. If you have any

further questions—there are just three of us—feel free to take some

more time. Would you?

Senator CLINTON. I would appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INHOFE. All right. Go ahead.

Senator CLINTON. Because I wanted also to associate myself with

the remarks of my colleagues earlier with regard to the EPA’s proposed changes to the Toxics Release Inventory, and I appreciate

your response, Ms. O’Neill. As I understand it, the EPA is justifying this rule change on the grounds that it will be, ‘‘a burden reduction’’ for some companies. But based upon the numbers that the

EPA sent in response to an information request from this committee, it appears that the average cost saved for businesses is

about $2.32 a day for one part of the rule and $2.83 for the second

part.

So I think that if you are looking at any cost benefit analysis,

withholding, hiding you could even say, details of thousands of

pounds of chemicals, some of which we know are carcinogens, from

citizens really does undermine what has been the trend over the

last 30 years, which you very eloquently supported, the right to

know.

I feel strongly about this because I am convinced that we, in the

next decade, will turn our attention much more aggressively to understanding the environmental connections between illness and exposures. We obviously know that, you know, exposure to lead leads

to lead poisoning, which has terrible impacts on children’s IQ and

their behavior and so much else. We know that we can trace specific problems with mercury. We know that.

But what we don’t know is all of the impact of these chemicals.

We certainly don’t know the impact of their combinations. I have

a particular interest in this because, post-9/11, we are seeing the

results of the exposures from ground zero. When the World Trade

Center and the nearby buildings collapsed, they released into the

atmosphere millions and millions of tons of all kinds of contaminants, we know asbestos, PCBs, everything you can imagine that

was there.

I think we were really inadequate in our response. The EPA, in

my view, mislead my constituents by saying that the air was safe,

and we now have a very high percentage of firefighters, police officers, emergency workers, construction workers and others who are

suffering from severe respirator distress of all kinds. In fact, we

just had recently an autopsy on a 34-year-old New York City police

detective who died and the New Jersey coroner said it was related

to the exposures that he encountered.

So obviously, that is an acute example of what I am concerned

about. But every single day we are exposed to things. We have no

idea what they are doing to our chromosomal makeup, what they

are doing to our lungs. I mean, we just don’t know.

So I am heartened by the fact that you agree the public does

have a right to know, and I hope that you will really take a hard

look at this step backwards, because we should be moving forward

and we should figure out a way that we can do that in an appro-
23

priate risk-based analysis, cost-benefit analysis. But let us not

withdraw information or withhold and hide information, because I

think citizens deserve to have it and, increasingly, researchers,

physicians, public health officials, others who are trying to sort out

all these chronic diseases we are suffering from need to have it as

well.

So could I just one more time hear a commitment to working

with us to try to figure out what it is we are breathing and drinking and being exposed to as we move forward?

Ms. O’NEILL. Senator Clinton, you certainly have my commitment, if I am confirmed, to sit down with you and talk to you about

these issues. I do think they are very important, and I actually

share your passion for linking environmental data to health effects

and indicators.

I personally have been working on some of those issues through

the National Environmental Information Exchange Network, actually sharing environment data with health departments at the

State level so that we can look at these trends for birth defects and

things like that. So it is a passion of mine as well. I really think

that that is what science is about, protecting the environment. It

also is the link to the human health aspect of it, and that is why

access to data is so important.

Senator CLINTON. Well, I appreciate your passion, because you

know, I mean, it is something that I feel so strongly about. You

know, I think we need to get ahead of this because you mentioned

birth defects, and we don’t collect the data in the right way. We

often collect health data and we look at it geographically. We don’t

look at it occupationally, for example.

We are starting to see some compelling evidence about some of

the linkages between everyday chemicals that people work with

and birth defects at a much higher than expected rate among the

children of those people in various professions and occupations. So

I really appreciate that and I look forward to working with you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Clinton.

Senator Jeffords, do you have any more questions for either of

the witnesses?

Senator JEFFORDS. Yes.

Dr. Klein, if you are confirmed, during your service, the NRC

may proceed to process a permit for the Yucca Mountain Project.

Doing so would require adding new expertise to the Commission

that it has not traditionally had. Will you share with the committee

your thoughts on that issue?

Mr. KLEIN. Well, Senator Jeffords, I think any time you have a

regulatory body like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it is extremely important to have a very technically qualified staff to be

able to review and evaluate the issues both for Yucca Mountain

and for reactor safety. Obviously, from the NRC’s perspective, they

have not received a license application from the Department of Energy, but, if confirmed, I would hope that the NRC would be able

to respond to a timely application with the right qualified individuals from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you.
24

Ms. O’Neill, when EPA issued its State of the Environmental Report in 2003, concerns by the White House prompted the EPA to

remove the section discussing the risks of global climate change. As

the President’s nominee to head EPA’s Office of Environmental Information, how would you respond to an effort by political leaders

to alter data provided by EPA’s scientists?

Ms. O’NEILL. Senator Jeffords, I appreciate the question. I was

not involved in developing the first State of the Environment Report, as you might know, since I didn’t work at EPA, but I thought

it was a very good first attempt. I really can’t comment on whether

climate change or global warming was taken out. I really wasn’t involved in that, so I really don’t have a comment on it. But I can

tell you, if I am confirmed as the Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information, I will support the Agency in making sure

that we have the data available to report out on indicators such as

climate change.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you.

Senator INHOFE. OK, well, thank you, Senator Jeffords. Thank

you, Molly and Dr. Klein, for the time that it has taken for you to

be here and having your family here. We appreciate it very much.

It has been an excellent hearing. I would say this. Normally, we

have a few more people show up, but we have a lot of anxiety taking place on the floor right now, and I think you understand that.

So we are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF MOLLY ANN O’NEILL, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, and distinguished members of the Committee. It

is both a privilege and honor to come before you as President Bush’s nominee to

be the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Environmental Information and

Chief Information Officer for the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

I have environmental program and information technology experience and also a

passion for ensuring environmental decisions and policy are based on defensible

data.

I come from a strong and supportive family. I am proud to introduce my mother,

Pam O’Neill, and my aunts and uncles, Chuck and Kate Wall and Carey and Amelia

Kriz, who are here supporting me today. I would also like to take this opportunity

to thank the members of my family as well as my friends and colleagues for their

continuing support.

All of my professional experience is rooted in supporting environmental protection.

I began my career collecting environmental samples, visited dozens of industrial facilities and reviewed countless analytical results. I spent 8 years working with State

environmental department leaders to improve their business by redesigning their

business processes and incorporating technology without compromising the integrity

and outcome of the programs. Over the past 4 years, I served as the State Director

of the National Environmental Information Exchange Network. I know my reputation on developing the partnerships in the States, collaborating with EPA, and

working with new technologies on this project is one of the reasons I am before you

today.

In my testimony today, I would like to share my thoughts on managing information at the Federal and environmental levels. The Federal Government comprises

more than 100 agencies and thousands of subagencies and programs. The complexity of relationships with other levels of government as well as the private, nonprofit, and university sectors is daunting and system communication barriers continue to exist.

Given these complexities, the challenge is how we use information technology to

better serve the government and the American citizen. The President’s Management

Agenda, through the advancement of the Federal Enterprise Architecture, is the

blueprint for how agencies can share data better in the future. I believe that CIOs
25

at all levels of government must align investments to create system interoperability

required to provide the American public with government services, especially in a

crisis. The prospect of Federal Government providing leadership on interoperability

is one of the most profound actions it can pursue in this decade. It will also take

strong leadership and a willingness to share and adopt best practices, tools, and systems between Agencies.

With respect to environmental data management, I am fortunate that EPA has

built a strong foundation with three major programs, namely Environmental Indicators, the National Environmental Information Exchange Network, and Enterprise

Architecture.

The Assistant Administrator for the Office of Environmental Information has the

responsibility to ensure environmental data is sharable and accessible, quality is not

compromised, systems are secure from today’s threats, and data can be turned into

meaningful information. The foundation has been set and great strides have been

made. That said, for EPA to be more responsive to the American public’s questions

on the environment, progress needs to continue in all of the programs I mentioned.

If confirmed, I will focus on improving data quality and access to environmental

information. It is my vision that scientists will make decisions based on historical

and real time data. And, Government Agencies will have access to environmental

data in daily processes as well as in times of national emergencies.

I grew up part of a military family. My late father, Lt. Col. Vincent O’Neill, was

a first generation Irish American who graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and

served proudly for more than 20 years as an Officer in the United States Marine

Corps. He was a highly decorated war hero serving two tours on the ground in combat in Vietnam. When I became an adult, he shared his belief with me that every

citizen should perform some type of service to his or her country—whether it is military, government, or public. Giving back makes this country great. Even though I

have worked in the private sector for most of my career, I believe in my father’s

philosophy.

I am now ready, enthusiastic and committed to this opportunity to serve. I am

confident that I can utilize my experience and leadership skills to advance the Agency in meeting the challenges and opportunities that lay ahead. If confirmed, I intend

to support the President’s E-Government agenda, and I will support Administrator

Johnson in accelerating the pace of environmental protection while maintaining our

Nation’s economic competitiveness. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this

Committee, Members of Congress, and Administrator Johnson to improve the environment and to be responsive to information needs.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am happy to take

any questions.

RESPONSES BY MOLLY O’NEILL TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. On January 13, 2006, EPA provided information that I requested on

the potential implications of EPA’s proposed changes to the Toxic Release Inventory

program. EPA’s responses were based on the most current information available, the

2003 report year data. Data is now available from the 2004 reporting year. As such

please update EPA’s response to my November 10, 2005 letter, using the 2004 reporting year data.

Response. Below you will find the information you requested based on the 2004

TRI data that was not available when Ms. O’Neill responded to the Committee’s earlier questions on May 22, 2006.

Because the data are extensive, we are providing a very short summary paragraph in answer to each of the four questions. (Please note: the Excel file attached

contains four separate ‘‘sheets’’—one for each of the four questions posed that totals

500 pages in length.)

Assuming these analyses are intended to project the impacts of the proposed rule

issued on October 4, 2005, please be aware that EPA cannot predict such impacts

with absolute certainty because the proposal did not affect the general 1-millionpound limit on manufacture, process, or use of the chemical imposed for those who

use Form A. This information is not reported to EPA, and so we are unable to predict whether a given facility meets the criterion. Further, experience has shown that

many facilities that are eligible for Form A choose instead to use Form R for various

reasons.

For ease of reference, please note: The enclosed CD–ROM labeled Molly O’Neill

Confirmation QFR, contains several data files. Within the file titled ‘‘Jeffords Update with 2004 TRI Data’’ there are four tables. Each table corresponds to one of

the questions posed below. ‘‘Table 1—Additional Facilities that could have used
26

Form A if proposed rule were in affect’’ responds to Question 1. Table 2—‘‘Facilities

that Reported Releases of TRI Chemicals Classified as known or probable Carcinogens in IRIS or NTP 11th Report on Carcinogens’’ responds to Question 2. ‘‘Table

3—Facilities Report of at least one PBT chemical with total annual reportable quantities <500 lbs., but no releases’’ responds to Question 3. Table 4—‘‘500 pounds but <5000 lbs. production related waste for 2004; greater than reported for the same

chemical for 2000’’, responds to Question 4. [The CD–ROM is retained in Committee’s file.]

(1) Request: A state-by-state list of the facilities that reported releases of at least

one chemical between 500 and 4,999 pounds in production-related waste in 2004,

and their TRI releases, by chemical, to each environmental medium.

The requested list on Table 1, under Jeffords Update with 2004 TRI Data. For

2004, 6,284 facilities filed 11,707 Form R reports for approximately 294 individual

TRI chemicals or chemicals listed in TRI chemical categories (e.g., chromium compounds) that reported >500 pounds, but ≤5,000 pounds of production-related waste.

(Note: Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) chemicals are not included in

the attached analysis for this request since the proposed regulation requires that

PBT chemicals have less than 500 pounds of production-related waste in addition

to having zero releases to change from Form R to Form A reports.)

(2) Request: Of the facilities listed in response to question 1, a state-by-state list

of any facilities that reported releases of chemicals that are classified as known or

probable (likely) carcinogens in EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System or the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program’s

Eleventh Report on Carcinogens.

Of the 6,284 individual facilities and approximately 294 chemicals identified

under Request 1 above, 1,360 of these facilities (about 22 percent) filed a total of

1,517 Form R reports for 56 individual TRI chemicals or chemicals belonging to a

TRI chemical category that are currently classified as known or probable (likely)

carcinogens in either EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database or

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program’s

Eleventh Report on Carcinogens. The full results of the analysis are presented in

Table 2.

(3) Request: A state-by-state list of facilities that reported at least one chemical

of up to 500 pounds of persistent, bioaccumulative production-related waste in 2004,

and their TRI releases, by chemical, to each environmental medium.

For 2004, 1,809 facilities (less than 9 percent of all facilities that filed Form R

reports in 2004) filed 2,394 Form R Reports for at least one TRI-listed PBT chemical

(other than dioxin or a dioxin-like compound) for which there were no releases to

air, land or water, and for which quantities in production-related waste (i.e., quantities recycled, used for energy recovery, or treated for destruction) were 500 pounds

or less. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 3 of the attached file.

(Note: EPA analyzed only those reports that showed 0 pounds of ‘‘releases and

other disposal’’ and 500 pounds or less of ‘‘other waste management’’; i.e., quantities

recycled, used for energy recovery, or treated for destruction, in order to provide results consistent with the regulatory proposal, which would require zero releases for

PBT chemical reports to be submitted on Form A rather than Form R. In addition,

the analysis does not include dioxin and dioxin-like compounds because they are excluded from the changes in the proposed rule.)

(4) Request: A state-by-state list of facilities that reported at least one TRItracked chemical between 500 and 4,999 pounds in production related waste in 2004

at greater quantities than the company reported in the 2000 TRI. Please indicate

the percentage increase.

Of the 23,675 individual facilities that filed at least one report (Form R or Form

A) to EPA for the 2004 reporting year, 2,284 (about 10 percent) reported quantities

between 500 and 5,000 pounds in total production related waste for at least one

TRI-listed chemical that were greater than the quantities that the same facilities

reported for the same chemicals for reporting year 2000. The detailed results, including the percentage increase of these quantities, are presented in Table 4 of the

attached file.

Total production related waste consists of quantities disposed of, or otherwise released into the environment; recycled; used for energy recovery; or treated for destruction. While these facilities reported increases in total production related waste

from 2000 to 2004, these increases do not necessarily mean increases in environmental releases of TRI chemicals—they could also be attributed to increases in

quantities recycled, used for energy recovery, or treated for destruction.

(Note: The analysis does not include PBT chemicals, because PBT chemicals

would be ineligible to switch to Form A unless the report showed zero pounds of

releases and total production related waste was less than 500 pounds.)
27

Question 2a. The Toxic Release Inventory program includes data on toxic releases

that are not related to production activities, such as accidents, spills or periodic activities like maintenance or equipment rebuilding (currently reported as ‘‘non-production toxic waste’’). Is this correct?

Response. Yes, the TRI information includes quantities (from Section 8.8 of the

TRI Form R) that shows the quantity released to the environment as a result of

remedial actions, catastrophic events, or one time events not associated with production processes.

Question 2b. If EPA’s TRI proposal is promulgated as a final rule, would industrial facilities still disclose the same amount of information on releases of non-production waste?

Response. If EPA’s proposal of October 4, 2005 is promulgated as a final rule, facilities would continue to provide this information on Form R. In that proposal, EPA

specifically asked for comment on whether the Section 8.8 amounts should count towards the amount used to determine eligibility for Form A. The Agency is considering comments on that issue and will make a decision as part of the final rule.

Question 2c. The Toxic Release Inventory program includes data on toxic releases

that are not related to production activities, such as accidents, spills or periodic activities like maintenance or equipment rebuilding (currently reported as ‘‘non-production toxic waste’’). Please provide information regarding the number of facilities,

by state, that reported releases of non-production toxic waste and the chemicals and

volumes involved, using data from the most recent reporting available (2004 data).

Response. Please find on the CD–ROM the document titled ‘‘Jeffords Facilities Reporting Non-Production Waste.’’ [The CD–ROM is retained in committee’s file.]

Question 3. Aside from the TRI database, are there other centralized, publicly accessible national databases that contain information on annual toxic releases? If so,

are these databases comparable in scope and specificity? Please explain any differences.

Response. EPA maintains several data systems that contain some information on

releases of toxic chemicals. The various data systems vary in terms of scope of

chemicals covered and frequency of reporting.

EPA has provided a chart that summarizes the various systems and their attributes:

Release and Transfer Databases

Database ..................... Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).National Emissions Inventory (NEI).Permit Compliance

System (PCS).

Biennial Hazardous

Waste Report (BR)

Type of information .... Release and waste

management data.

Release (emissions)

data.

Release (discharge)

data.

Waste generation and

management data

Media .......................... Air, land, water .......... Air ............................... Water .......................... Land (direct measures

only available for

wastes disposed of

in landfills)

Reporting Frequency ... Annually ..................... Every 3 years (triennially).Varies (monthly, quarterly, or annually).Biennially

Sources of data .......... Facilities covered

under EPCRA Section 313.

Various sources:

mostly estimates

from state and

local agencies; TRI

is one source.

Facilities regulated by

NPDES under the

Clean Water Act.

Individual generation

sites and TSDFs

regulated under

RCRA Sections

3002 and 3004

(large generators

only)

Basis for estimates .... Emissions factors,

mass balance calculations, engineering estimates,

monitoring data.

Emissions factors,

mass balance calculations, monitoring data.

Monitoring results are

submitted by facilities to the permitting authority in

discharge monitoring reports.

Hazardous waste

manifest forms and

operating records.
28

Release and Transfer Databases—Continued

Chemical coverage/

thresholds.

666 toxic chemicals

and chemical categories; Manufacturing: 25,000 lbs./

yr.; Processing:

25,000 lbs./yr.;

Otherwise use:

10,000 lbs./yr.;

lower thresholds for

PBT chemicals.

All criteria air pollutants (CAPS) and

their precursors

and all hazardous

air pollutants

(HAPs); about 520

chemical compounds in all.

Pollutants of three

different types: five

conventional, 126

priority toxic pollutants, and non-conventional pollutants

(pollutants cannot

always be mapped

to specific chemicals).

Reporting by

‘‘wastestreams’’

consisting of one or

more RCRA hazardous waste codes

(565 waste codes

in all, some corresponding to

chemicals, some

not)

Industry coverage ....... Only certain SIC codes

are covered, facilities must have >10

FTEs.

All major industrial

sources and

nonpoint sources.

Any point source discharging a pollutant into waters of

the United States.

Large quantity generators (LQGs)1 and

permitted treatment, storage and

disposal facilities

(TSDFs)

Accessibility ................ Available on the Internet through EPA’s

Envirofacts and TRI

Explorer, as well as

TOXNET and

RTKNET.

Data files are available on EPA’s

Emissions Inventory

Web page and can

be imported into

any database program.

Available on the Internet through EPA’s

Envirofacts and

ECHO systems.

BR data files available on EPA’s FTP

Internet server; National Biennial Reports available on

EPA’s hazardous

waste pages

LQGs: generate in any single calendar month >1000 kg of RCRA hazardous waste, >1 kg of acute hazardous waste, or >100 kg of spill

cleanup material contaminated with acute hazardous waste

Question 4. Please provide a list of each chemical included in the TRI program

that is also included in EPA’s Hazardous Air Pollutant program. Of these chemicals,

please provide a list of any chemical that EPA believes may be a concern to human

health or the environment when released by a facility at volumes under 5,000

pounds annually.

Response. Please find on the CD–ROM document titled ‘‘Jeffords HAPS that are

TRI Chemicals.’’ [The referenced document follows:]
29
30
31
32
33
34

Question 5. EPA has described its TRI proposal as a burden reduction initiative.

Yet small businesses that have less than 10 employees are already exempt from the

TRI program. In addition, reporting companies would still need to calculate their

emissions to determine if they qualify for the proposed exemption. Using EPA’s estimates provided on January 13, 2006, facilities eligible for this burden reduction

would save less than $2.50 a day. Isn’t it worth the cost of a slice of pizza to empower communities with information about toxic releases in their neighborhood?

Response. I am a firm believer in the concept of making information available to

the public so that they can make informed decisions about their daily lives where

they live, work and play. I believe that right-to-know and burden reduction are not

mutually exclusive. If I am confirmed by the Senate, I would be happy to work with

the Senator and the Committee to discuss this proposed action in greater detail.

Question 6a. There have been increasing complaints in recent years that EPA is

denying Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) fee waivers from a range of public interest organizations that previously received such fee waivers routinely. Has EPA’s

policy or implementation of FOIA fee waivers changed in recent years?

Response. The Agency informs me that EPA has not changed its policy concerning

the granting of fee waivers. The Agency is following established EPA FOIA regulations, the Department of Justice guidance on fee waivers, the Office of Management

and Budget requirements that Federal Agencies should collect fees when appropriate, (52 Fed Reg. 1002 (March 27, 1987)) and applicable case law. EPA grants

all fee waivers that meet the criteria set out in these rules. In making fee waiver

determinations, a Federal Agency must look at the facts presented by the requester

with each individual request and make a determination on a case-by-case basis.

EPA has informed me that it has made changes in the Agency’s process for reviewing fee waiver requests over the last several years. First, all fee waiver decisions at headquarters are now made by the National FOIA Staff and approved by

the Agency FOIA Officer in consultation with the U.S. Department of Justice, when

appropriate. EPA centralized its fee waiver decisions as a means of bringing more

consistency to the process. Second, the office with national responsibility for FOIA

responses and fee waivers is now focused on consistently ensuring that each requestor provide sufficient information to meet all the criteria for a fee waiver. As

a result, fee waiver decisions are made objectively by knowledgeable staff based

solely on information provided by the requester to justify the request for a fee waiver.

Question 6b. There have been increasing complaints in recent years that EPA is

denying Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) fee waivers from a range of public interest organizations that previously received such fee waivers routinely. For each of

the last 10 years, please provide a breakdown of how many fee waiver requests were

received and how many were granted.

Response.

Year1 (CY) Number of Fee Waiv- er Requests Grants Denials No fees assessed

20062 .................................................... 152 47 4 101

2005 ...................................................... 580 199 187 194

2004 ...................................................... 511 335 162 14

2003 ...................................................... 647 159 475 13

2002 ...................................................... 433 149 278 6

2001 ...................................................... 626

2000 ...................................................... 595

1999 ...................................................... 598

1998 ...................................................... 576

1997 ...................................................... 480

1996 ...................................................... 448

1Prior to 2002, the system used to track Agency FOIA requests did not record final disposition of requests for fee waivers.

2January 1, 2006—May 5, 2006.

Question 7. In response to my question on the future of the EPA Library Network,

you emphasized your belief in internet technology as a means of sharing environmental information. In many rural parts of the country, however, including my

home State of Vermont, high-speed internet access and basic computer technology

is not always readily available. If confirmed, what steps will you take to guarantee
35

the right of all Americans to access public information and to increase opportunities

to do so?

Response. I am committed to ensuring that all citizens have access to public information from EPA. One way the public can access EPA information is through their

local or university libraries. I have been informed by EPA that its Library plan will

include a commitment to working with local and university libraries to provide

interlibrary loan services to the public. If confirmed, I will work to help ensure that

local and university libraries have the information and tools needed to search EPA’s

Online Library System for information sources and the means to request information via interlibrary loans. In addition, EPA can work with librarians to teach them

how to navigate the EPA Web site to find information electronically far their local

constituents.

Question 8a. Across the country, communities in the vicinity of the high risk

chemical facilities utilize Risk Management Plans mandated by the Clean Air Act

to prepare for and act in response to accidents and other emergency situations.

These plans must be publicly available under law and are often obtained at regional

EPA libraries. Furthermore, a 2004 EPA report (EPA 260–R–04–001) concludes in

the first sentence of its Executive Summary, ‘‘The Environmental Protection Agency’s network of regional libraries provides substantial value to the Agency, its professional staff, stakeholders, and the public. Calculated conservatively, the benefitto-cost ratio for EPA library services ranges between 2:1 and 5.7:1.’’

If regional EPA libraries close or become otherwise unavailable to supply these

documents, what actions do you believe the Office of Environmental Information

should take in order to continue to uphold community right-to-know protections

under the Clean Air Act and other environmental reporting statutes?

Response. I have been informed by EPA that only three Regions’ Risk Management Plan (RMP)/Offsite Consequence Analysis (OCA) reading rooms are located in

Regional library space that may be affected by the library budget reduction. If I am

confirmed, I will work with the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response to ensure the rooms are relocated and the public continues

to have access to the information they need.

Question 8b. Please provide a copy of the Agency’s short- and long-term plans for

closing EPA libraries and maintaining the same quality of access through alternative means, including budget and digitalization, storage and document dissemination. If the aforementioned information does not currently exist, will you commit to

developing a long-term information services plan within the next 3 months for use

by the Committee?

Response. In response to important trends, the Environmental Protection Agency’s

budget request for FY 2007 includes a proposed $2 million reduction to OEI’s library

budget. Reductions will affect the Headquarters and Regional libraries, which comprise 11 of the 26 libraries in the EPA library network. First, for the past several

years there have been fewer and fewer people physically visiting the EPA libraries.

Second, during this same period more and more researchers are finding the resources the need on-line, and accessing them through desktop services. Recognizing

these trends, EPA has been looking at ways to more efficiently and effectively deliver our library services. The proposed solution is entirely consistent with the Agency’s long-standing policy of using new computer technology to provide services at

less expense, and our experience in creating ‘‘enterprise solutions’’ to meet other

needs and reduce unnecessary redundancy. EPA commits to provide information on

the proposed solutions when available.

OEI has established a senior level Library Steering Committee comprised of representatives from Headquarters offices and a subset of the Assistant Regional Administrators to develop and oversee the transition to a new model of library services.

One area in which EPA plans to achieve greater efficiencies in its library program

is through streamlining some of its physical library collections and moving toward

a new model that is focused on providing delivery of library services electronically

and leveraging services offered by other libraries in the network, such as the EPA

libraries in Research Triangle Park, NC and Cincinnati, OH.

The physical library space at Headquarters and various other locations may be

closed and walk-in services reduced. Staff in Headquarters and affected regions will

be able to obtain services via electronic means from other libraries in the EPA Network. EPA employees will continue to have online access to key journals and publications from their desktops, and they will have access to interlibrary loan and reference/research services. In addition, the Online Library System (OLS), the catalog

of all the holdings in EPA’s libraries, will continue to be available to staff.
36

EPA is committed to providing the public with access to environmental information. The public will also continue to have access to the Online Library System

(OLS), the catalog of all the holdings in EPA’s libraries, and will be able to obtain

over 13,000 unique EPA documents (titles) in electronic format through the EPA

National Environmental Publications Internet site and over 4,000 EPA titles in

hardcopy, free of charge, through the National Service Center for Environmental

Publications (NSCEP). In addition, the public will continue to be able to access EPA

publications via interlibrary loan by working with a requesting library.

The goal of the EPA’s plan is to ensure a smooth transition to a new model of

library services.

Question 9a. A January 2004 EPA report entitled, ‘‘The Business Case for Information Services’’ notes, ‘‘The Agency is shifting away from producing printed materials, yet lacks a controlled repository of either paper or electronic documents.’’

In your opinion, what steps should the Agency take to safeguard documents and

other materials for future use, both paper and electronic, especially those which are

unique?

Response. I have been informed by EPA that its library plan will include information on steps for safeguarding unique EPA documents. In addition, I have learned

that EPA is establishing some repository libraries to house documents from libraries

that are closing. The repositories will ensure that documents from libraries that are

closing will be maintained and available for interlibrary loan.

Question 9b. In terms of the number of items, what is the current makeup of

EPA’s estimated backlog for digitizing important paper-only documents?

Response. EPA currently has 13,000 documents digitized. EPA Headquarters is

working with the Regions to identify the estimated number of unique documents

that still need to be digitized.

Question 9c. How do you plan to manage this backlog?

Response. I understand EPA’s library plan will include guidelines on prioritizing

which unique documents should be digitized first.

Question 10. What is EPA’s policy on preserving electronic information? How is

the current policy sufficient to make certain that all information that EPA creates

can reasonably be made available as required by law?

Response. I have learned from EPA that in April of this year the Agency issued

a new Records Management Policy. This Policy establishes principles, responsibilities and requirements for managing EPA’s records, including records in electronic

format, to ensure that the Agency is in compliance with Federal laws and regulations, EPA policies and best practices for managing records. The Policy requires that

all electronic records, including electronic mail records, be maintained in the enterprise-wide electronic content management system when it becomes available. The

Policy also requires that electronic records be printed and filed in a paper recordkeeping system until an enterprise-wide electronic content management system

(ECMS) is available.

I have also learned from EPA that they are going to begin the development of

an information access policy to ensure that any new documents produced in hard

copy are also produced in electronic format. The policy will also establish guidelines

for ensuring that all new electronic documents are catalogued in EPA’s Online Library System and made available to the public.

Question 11. How many full-time employees work for the Assistant Administrator

for the Office of Environmental Information? What is the approximate annual budget for the Office of Environmental Information? How has your experience prepared

you to manage this office as the Assistant Administrator?

Response. The Office of Environmental Information (OEI) consists of approximately 400 employees. The FY 06 operating plan is approximately $277 million.

As to my experience in preparation for leading the Office of Environmental Information, I have 15 years of resource management experience in the private and nonprofit sectors. This includes planning, development, allocation, and management of

budgets, infrastructure and personnel. I have worked closely with senior regulatory

managers to incorporate technology to serve as a tool to improve business processes.

My technical experience coupled with my management experience has helped prepare me to manage the Office of Environmental Information.

RESPONSE BY MOLLY O’NEILL TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR THUNE

Question. The office to which the President has nominated you is the Agency’s

lead in moving towards a greater use of electronic data collection. As you may be
37

aware, the largest continuous paperwork burden that the EPA places on those who

are regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), is the

hazardous waste manifest system that tracks wastes from ‘‘cradle to grave’’. I am

working with members of this Committee in a bi-partisan manner to draft legislation to authorize regulated entities to submit electronic manifests as a way to provide more transparency and efficiency when it comes to the tracking of hazardous

waste. As a staff person at the Association representing hazardous waste officials,

I understand you are familiar with the effort to authorize electronic manifests. Can

we look to your office to vigorously support our efforts to establish an electronic

manifest system?

Response. The Agency informs me that the electronic manifest project falls under

the jurisdiction of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. I am, however, a firm believer in using technology solutions to better achieve mission goals.

If I am confirmed as Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer, the Office of Environmental Information will play a key partnership role to enable this important project to be both a mission and technical success.

RESPONSES BY MOLLY O’NEILL TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR OBAMA

Question 1. Under EPA’s proposal, one environmental group estimates that Illinois will have 207 facilities that no longer have to report detailed pollutant information. Is it your belief that members of those communities no longer have a right to

know what is being discharged into their communities?

Response. I bring a strong personal commitment to providing the broadest possible access to information that may impact our communities. If confirmed, I will

work with you and the Committee to balance burden reduction while continuing to

provide the public with information about toxics in their communities.

Question 2a. EPA’s proposal includes exempting facilities that emit less than 500

pounds of persistent bioaccumulative toxins annually from reporting requirements.

Are lead and mercury included among those persistent bioaccumulative toxins that

will be now exempted?

Response. As I understand what EPA proposed on October 4, 2005, lead and mercury would be eligible to use a ‘‘short form’’ (Form A) in lieu of the longer Form

R, under certain conditions. First, facilities wanting to use Form A could have no

releases of lead or mercury (or any persistent, bioaccumulative or toxic chemical) to

the environment. Second, the facility could conduct treatment or recycling, on or offsite, in amounts not to exceed 500 lbs.

Question 2b. You have been working with the States in information management

for the past 4 years. Do you think State environmental and health officials would

support giving up access to data on such persistent environmental toxins in their

communities?

Response. It is my understanding that several State officials did comment on the

proposed rule. If confirmed, I would carefully consider all of the public comments,

including comments from State environmental and health officials. In general, I believe the State environmental and health officials can understand the Agency’s desire to balance burden reduction with continuing to provide the public with information about toxics in their communities.

Question 3. EPA has proposed reducing TRI reporting requirements and closing

down EPA libraries, beginning with EPA’s library in Chicago. If confirmed, will you

work with members of this Committee to ensure that all Americans have access to

pertinent EPA data? If confirmed, will you work with members of this Committee

to examine the full implications of EPA’s proposal to reduce TRI reporting?

Response. If confirmed I will certainly work with the Committee or any individual

Senator to discuss access to EPA data as well as the proposed TRI rule.

Question 4a. At a recent briefing given to Environment and Public Works Committee members’ staff on the 2004 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data, the EPA staff

indicated that ‘‘lead and lead compounds disposal or other releases increased by 25

million pounds or 6 percent from 2001 to 2004’’ largely because the metal mining

sector had an increase of 10 percent during that period. It is not clear why that increase has occurred. Are these facilities directly mining for lead or is the lead a byproduct of other mining activities?

Response. EPA advises that over 8,000 facilities reported lead releases in 2004.

Just 12 facilities reported under SIC code 1031: Lead and Zinc Ores Metal Mining:

EPA cannot say with certainty whether there is primary mining of lead at these
38

facilities, but believes that the vast majority of lead releases are associated with

mining for other metals, including gold.

Question 4b. Where were the 25 million pounds disposed?

Response. The 25 million pounds are generally contained as trace elements in

waste rock and were disposed of mainly on-site at (near the area from which the

rock was originally extracted) metal mining facilities, primarily in surface impoundments or other land disposal.

Question 4c. What are the risks of exposure for children and women of childbearing age from the different disposal methods used for mined lead?

If children and women of childbearing age are facing an increased risk of exposure

due to increased mining activities, are there additional steps EPA can take to reduce that risk?

Response. The fate and transport, including exposure risk; of environmental contaminants is complex and can only be rigorously assessed on a site-specific basis.

However, in general, mining is conducted in remote areas and waste rock is redeposited near the area where it was mined. If confirmed, I will work with you and

the Committee to examine these issues.

Question 5. The briefing materials indicate that 189 million pounds of lead were

recycled offsite by electronic/electrical equipment manufacturers. How does that statistic compare with the most recent estimates of lead sold nationwide in electronics

and electrical components annually? The EPA briefing indicated that total production-related waste managed by the electronic/electrical equipment sector increased

by 14 percent between 2003 and 2004, reversing a downward trend. Please address

why that trend may have changed and are there steps EPA can take to increase

lead component recycling in electronics?

Response. EPA noted in its briefing materials that of 1.2 billion pounds of lead

total production-related waste from all sources, about 63 percent was recycled in

2004. Total production-related waste for lead decreased by less than 1 percent from

2003 to 2004, and decreased about 2 percent from 2001 to 2004. These are very complex questions which will require discussion across the Agency. If confirmed, I will

work with the Committee to examine these issues.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55

STATEMENT OF DALE E. KLEIN, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NUCLEAR

REGULATORY COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Jeffords and Committee Members, it is an honor

to appear before you today as President Bush’s nominee for the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC).

I want to acknowledge the presence of my wife, Becky.

The current Commissioners have laid substantial groundwork to help prepare the

NRC for the challenges it faces in the coming years. Challenge is the appropriate

word. The next several years will be perhaps the most significant in decades in

terms of regulating the civilian use of nuclear materials.

This challenge is all the more important when viewed through the lens of what

is happening in the energy arena. The global energy supply can affect both the U.S.

economy and U.S. interests. Oil and natural gas prices are at levels never before

seen. Domestic and global demand continues to rise. There are forecasts that U.S.

electricity demand will rise by 50 percent in just over two decades. Clearly, nuclear

energy has a role to play in meeting that demand.

The charge of the NRC is to ‘‘license and regulate the Nation’s civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment.’’

In meeting that mission, regulatory stability is a crucial element. The NRC must

clearly define the requirements. It must respond in a timely manner. I believe the

groundwork laid by the Commission will be the key to providing the necessary regulatory stability.

The challenges ahead for the NRC are substantial: dealing with the impending

bow wave of applications for new reactors, overseeing their construction, and simultaneously ensuring that existing plants receive the high standard of regulatory oversight set by the NRC. The already high security of nuclear facilities must be maintained. And there is the challenge to the Agency of dealing with a potential application by the Energy Department for a high level waste repository. Both this Committee and the Appropriations Committee have been very supportive of the Commission. Continued support will be essential to help ensure that the licensing process

moves smoothly. If confirmed, you have my assurance I will work closely with you

and the Members of this Committee on these issues.

Ensuring that the current fleet of commercial nuclear powerplants receive the

proper level of scrutiny during the coming decade—as new plants are licensed and

built—will require a continued focus by the NRC on quality oversight. If confirmed,

I can assure you that I intend to see that the lessons learned from the past are institutionalized in the NRC.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, while much of my background is technical in nature, I am an experienced administrator who believes in milestones and

deliverables. My goal is to make sound decisions, based on sound science and sound

public policy. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this Committee and the

challenge of being an NRC commissioner.

This concludes my statement. I look forward to your questions.

RESPONSES BY DALE KLEIN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. In April 2005, the National Research Council, part of the National

Academy of Sciences, released a report on the security of spent fuel storage at nuclear plants. I would like your views about how you will work to address a number

of issues it raises.

What, in your view, are the next steps that the Commission should undertake to

provide additional guidance to our Nation’s nuclear facilities on dealing with cooling

accidents?

Response. While I am not familiar with the details of that report, my background

as a scientist and an engineer will guide me as I study ways to further protect nuclear facilities in the event of accidents. If confirmed, I intend to work with this

Committee closely as we identify further improvements.

Question 2. The last chapter of the National Research Council report suggests

that the Commission’s controls on information may be inhibiting security improvements. Representatives of the study team, and industry were frustrated by the Commission’s restrictions on sharing data that could help with ‘‘early actions to address

identified vulnerabilities.’’

Will you describe, for the Committee, your general view about both public and

utility access to information regarding the security of nuclear material?
56

Response. The NRC is an Agency that makes available to the public thousands

of documents every year. Public access to information is key to maintaining confidence in the workings of the government. However, in addition to public access,

it is imperative that security information is protected using the need-to-know standard. As a Nation, we need to be mindful that guidelines are established for a reason

and that terrorists should not have access to security information.

Question 3. Would you share with the Committee your views about the type and

scope of peer review you believe is needed when studies show that nuclear materials

at powerplants or other facilities licensed by the NRC may be vulnerable to terrorist

attacks?

Response. Protecting nuclear facilities is an imperative. If confirmed, security will

be a top priority for me. I look forward to working with all relevant experts to ensure nuclear facilities are safe and secure.

RESPONSES BY DALE KLEIN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR VOINOVICH

Question 1. What do you consider to be the most important priorities and challenges facing the Agency as you take the helm at the NRC?

Response. If confirmed, I believe my most important priority and challenge will

be the continued safe operation of the existing nuclear plants and other licensed facilities while meeting the expected new license applications. Secondly, my next most

important priority will be to ensure regulatory stability. In order to do this, the

NRC should establish clear requirements and process applications in a timely manner.

Question 2. During your tenure in this appointed position, what key performance

goals do you want to accomplish, and how would this Committee know whether you

have accomplished them?

Response. My key performance goals will be safety and timely response metrics.

I look forward to reviewing the Agency’s strategic plans and goals to ensure that

the performance standards are appropriate. After these performance metrics are established, it is important to measure the results and to communicate these results

to the Committee.

Question 3. Going forward, NRC’s relationship with other Federal Agencies and

State/local governments will be absolutely critical in accomplishing its mission.

Please describe your thoughts and plans on how you intend to work on this issue.

Response. In my current assignment as the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense

for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, I have interfaced with

several Federal Agencies and State/local governments. The best way to accomplish

this mission is through good communications, stating clearly what is needed and

being responsive to the needs of the other Federal Agencies and State/local governments.

Question 4. One of the things that I have highlighted is the need for the NRC

to improve and be more proactive in its public relations efforts. I would like to get

your thoughts on how a regulatory agency such as NRC can improve in this area.

Response. Public relations and public education are extremely important. It is not

the role of the NRC to be an advocate for nuclear technology, but the NRC should

not be an impediment. The NRC needs to be a credible source of information and

the NRC needs to communicate its findings in a clear and understandable manner

to all stakeholders. If confirmed, I expect to look closely at the number of people

at the NRC involved in public relations/public education and evaluate what is being

done and determine if the resources are appropriate. I plan to reach out to all constituencies by meeting with a variety of stakeholders.

Question 5. It goes without saying that your relationship with Congress will be

critical in ensuring success for the Agency. Specifically, describe any experience you

have in working on a bipartisan basis to identify statutory changes that can improve program efficiency and effectiveness, as well as in fostering and responding

to legislative oversight.

Response. During the last several years as the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, I worked in a bipartisan way in many areas. This included the RRW (Reliable Replacement Warhead), the Chemical and Biological Defense Program, and the Chemical Demilitarization Program. If confirmed, I expect to have a proactive bipartisan effort with

the House and Senate staff members, staff Committee members, and elected officials. I am a strong advocate for communication. It is important that those involved
57

in legislative oversight understand the NRC’s programs and it is important for the

NRC to understand the goals of those involved in legislative oversight.

Question 6. To become a high-performance organization, an agency needs senior

leaders who are drivers of continuous improvement. As Chairman of the NRC, how

do you intend to motivate career employees, or any employees for that matter, to

achieve excellence?

Response. As an educator, I have been involved in motivating students for over

25 years. The same concepts apply to motivating employees. Clear goals need to be

established by senior management and yearly individual performance metrics

should be established. Employees should be empowered and encouraged to make decisions, to be proactive, and to have a strong sense of personal responsibility. If confirmed, there are two programs used at DoD that I intend to evaluate their applicability at the NRC: Lean Six Sigma for Service and Crucial Conversations.

Question 7. High-performance organizations draw on the strengths of employees

at all levels and maintain honest two-way communications. Based on your experience, how would you assess your Agency’s capability for two-way communication,

and what preliminary ideas do you have to promote such communication in your

Agency?

Response. My experience in the past on previous commissions and in the university system has well positioned me to promote communications to achieve consensus

with respect to ideas. The best way to enhance honest two-way conversations is by

having a system in place that encourages such communications. However, equally

important as having a system is how it is implemented and tracked. All the NRC

Commissioners need to have an ‘‘open door’’ policy for communications, especially

the Chairman. The NRC staff should always feel that their views are heard because,

at the working level, the staff are often more knowledgeable on issues to be addressed.

RESPONSES BY DALE KLEIN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. California’s San Onofre nuclear plant is in close proximity to earthquake faults. If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that nuclear facilities are

well-protected against earthquakes?

Response. The NRC has stringent safety requirements involving earthquakes at

all licensed facilities, and any new facility will be required to meet the Agency’s

strict standards with respect to that danger. If confirmed, ensuring the safety of existing and new facilities will be a top priority.

Question 2. A March 2006 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)

concluded that there is considerable room for improvement in the NRC’s activities

to promote nuclear plant security. Do you believe that the NRC and nuclear plant

owners and operators could do a better job ensuring nuclear plant security? What

improvements to the existing measures do you support?

Response. The safety and security of all facilities is vital to our Nation. Since September 11, 2001, I understand that the NRC and the industry have made great

strides in increasing security at the facilities. Not only do the plant operators and

the NRC have a role, I believe security is a shared responsibility. Local, State and

Federal officials all have a role to play in nuclear plant security. If confirmed, I look

forward to reviewing the security measures taken to date.

RESPONSES BY DALE KLEIN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR OBAMA

Question 1. At the Braidwood facility in Will County, IL, the failure to monitor

and control the release of radioactive materials into the groundwater would appear

to be a violation of 10 CFR 50.36a. (a) Why has this regulation not been enforced?

(b) Does the NRC plan to take any actions against Exelon for failure to notify the

public of the tritium releases in 1998 and 2000? (c) When instances of failure to notify the public occur, what processes are in place at NRC to deter future occurrence

of such instances by licensees?

Response. While I have not been fully briefed on this matter, I believe transparency with the public is key. If confirmed, I will be briefed on the inspection report and discuss this matter with all involved. I pledge to you that the NRC will

provide the appropriate oversight on this issue.

Question 2. If you are confirmed for this position, will you commit to supporting

mandatory public disclosure of unplanned releases, as I have suggested in S. 2348?
58

Response. I support early public disclosure even if safety is not an issue. I am

not fully knowledgeable of the pros and cons of mandatory public disclosure. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with you and your staff on this issue.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102

Æ