[Senate Hearing 106-268]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-268
NOMINATIONS CONSIDERED DURING THE FIRST SESSION OF THE 106th CONGRESS
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
THE NOMINATION OF GEORGE T. FRAMPTON TO BE A MEMBER, COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY--APRIL 28, 1999
THE NOMINATION OF TIMOTHY FIELDS, JR. TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY--
MAY 5, 1999
THE NOMINATIONS OF RICHARD MESERVE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION, PAUL L. HILL, TO BE A MEMBER, CHEMICAL SAFETY
AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD, AND MAJOR GENERAL PHILLIP R. ANDERSON,
BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT GRIFFIN, AND SAMUEL E. ANGEL, TO BE MEMBERS OF
THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION--SEPTEMBER 23, 1999
THE NOMINATIONS OF GLENN L. McCULLOUGH, AND SKILA HARRIS TO BE MEMBERS
OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, AND GERALD V. POJE, TO BE A MEMBER
OF THE CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESIGATION BOARD--OCTOBER 6, 1999
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
59-383 cc WASHINGTON : 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred sixth congress
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming HARRY REID, Nevada
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BARBARA BOXER, California
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah RON WYDEN, Oregon
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 28, 1999
NOMINATION OF GEORGE T. FRAMPTON
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 4
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from the State of Utah..... 7
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 1
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 11
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 5
WITNESS
Frampton, George T., nominated by the President to be a member of
the Council on Environmental Quality........................... 9
Committee questionnaire...................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Bennett.......................................... 39
Senator Crapo............................................ 40
Senator Graham........................................... 33
Senator Thomas........................................... 34
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Draft Memorandum, to Heads of Federal Agencies................... 35
------
MAY 5, 1999
NOMINATION OF TIMOTHY FIELDS
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 47
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 43
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 48
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 60
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........... 56
WITNESS
Fields, Timothy, nominated by the President to be Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 44
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Committee questionnaire...................................... 66
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Chafee........................................... 73
Senator Inhofe........................................... 78
Senator Smith............................................ 81
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters:
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials.................................................. 92
Chafee, Hon, John H., Chairman, Committee on Environment
and Public Works......................................... 90
Environmental and Technology Council......................... 94
Hazardous Waste Action Coalition.............................
Interstate Oil and Gas Commission............................ 92
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA............ 92
Petroleum Marketers Association.............................. 93
Report, Strategy for Enforcement of Regulatory Requirements
Applicable to Underground Storage Tank......................... 85
Memorandum, Underground Storage Tanks, EPA....................... 87
List.............................................................
------
SEPTEMBER 23, 1999
NOMINATIONS OF RICHARD MESERVE, PAUL L. HILL, PHILLIP R. ANDERSON,
SAMUEL E. ANGEL, AND ROBERT GRIFFIN
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 95
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 97
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 97
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I. U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 118
WITNESSES
Anderson, Maj. Gen. Phillip R., nominated by the President to be
a member of the Mississippi River Commission................... 114
Committee questionnaire...................................... 160
Letter, Division Ethics Counselor............................ 169
Prepared statement........................................... 158
Angel, Samuel E., nominated by the President to be a member of
the Mississippi River Commission............................... 115
Committee questionnaire...................................... 175
Prepared statement........................................... 173
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 98
Prepared statement........................................... 118
Griffin, Brig. Gen. Robert, nominated by the President to be a
member of the Mississippi River Commission..................... 116
Committee questionnaire...................................... 186
Prepared statement........................................... 183
Hill, Paul L., nominated by the President to be a member of the
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board................. 101
Committee questionnaire...................................... 124
Prepared statement........................................... 119
Responses to additional questions from Senator Lieberman..... 141
Meserve, Richard, nominated by the President to be a member of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.............................. 107
Committee questionnaire...................................... 145
Prepared statement........................................... 143
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Lieberman........................................ 157
Senator Thomas........................................... 157
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
List, Members of the Mississippi River Commission................ 172
------
OCTOBER 6, 1999
NOMINATIONS OF GLENN L. McCULLOUGH, SKILA HARRIS, AND GERALD V. POJE
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 200
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 199
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 214
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 205
WITNESSES
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi... 195
Harris, Skila, nominated by the President to be a member of the
Tennessee Valley Authority..................................... 204
Committee questionnaire...................................... 233
Letter, Government ethics official........................... 239
Prepared statement........................................... 231
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Chafee........................................... 240
Senator Inhofe........................................... 241
Lott, Hon. Trent, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi..... 200
McCullough, Glenn L., nominated by the President to be a member
of the Tennessee Valley Authority.............................. 202
Committee questionnaire...................................... 218
Letters, Government ethics................................... 229
Prepared statement........................................... 216
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 230
Pickering, Hon. Charles, U.S. Representative from the State of
Mississippi.................................................... 197
Poje, Gerald V., nominated by the President to be a member of the
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board................. 206
Committee questionnaire...................................... 245
Letter, Government ethics official........................... 259
Prepared statement........................................... 241
Thompson, Hon. Fred, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee.... 196
Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Representative from the State of
Mississippi.................................................... 198
Prepared statement........................................... 215
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statement Hon. Bill Frist, U.S. Senator from the State of
Tennessee...................................................... 216
NOMINATION OF GEORGE T. FRAMPTON
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Chafee, Lautenberg, Smith, Bennett,
Thomas, Crapo, and Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. Good afternoon.
The purpose of today's hearing is to consider the
nomination of Mr. George T. Frampton to be a member of the
Council on Environmental Quality, which during the course of
the afternoon will be called CEQ, I am sure, in many instances.
I am pleased to welcome everyone, and in particular our
nominee, Mr. Frampton.
The CEQ was established in 1970 by the National
Environmental Policy Act to review the impact of programs and
activities of the Federal Government on the environment, and to
recommend to the President national policies to improve the
environment.
Mr. Frampton was appointed acting Chair of the CEQ upon the
departure of the then-Chair, Katie McGinty, in November 1998.
Before joining CEQ Mr. Frampton worked as a private attorney
and environmental consultant. From 1993 to 1997 he had what I
consider to be one of the best jobs in the U.S. Government,
Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
And if you didn't enjoy that job, you are a hard man to
please.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. Prior to that he was President of the
Wilderness Society. From 1976 to 1985, Mr. Frampton was a
partner in a Washington law firm. During the period from 1979
to 1980, he was Deputy Director and Chief of Staff of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's investigation into the Three
Mile Island nuclear accident.
Among his experiences, he clerked for the Honorable Harry
Blackmun on the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1971-1972 session. He
received his B.A. in Physics and Philosophy from Yale, his M.S.
from the London School of Economics, and his J.D. from Harvard
Law School.
Now, anybody who went to Yale undergraduate and Harvard Law
School, I am sure, is destined for greatness.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. Mr. Frampton has an impressive background.
He is well qualified to be Chair of CEQ. This position poses a
challenge that I am confident he is prepared to face. I look
forward to hearing what our nominee has to say about his
background and what he hopes to accomplish.
Senator Baucus is not here, and I understand that Senator
Crapo--you have to preside at 3, as I understand it?
Senator Crapo. Yes, one of my opportunities that I have.
Senator Chafee. OK. If you have a statement and would like
to ask a question, something to that effect, go ahead.
Senator Crapo. I don't have a statement, but I would like
to ask questions. Would you like me to do that?
Senator Chafee. I think so. I'm going to get back to
Senator Bennett and Senator Thomas, but you have a peculiar
situation and we want to accommodate you.
Senator Crapo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
that.
Mr. Frampton, welcome. I always like to see a Harvard Law
graduate come before the committee.
As you know, I ended up as a freshman here, being called to
serve as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife, and Drinking Water, and I am interested in your
perspective on why you feel that comprehensive reform of the
Endangered Species Act failed in the last Congress. Do you have
a feel for that?
Mr. Frampton. Well, Senator, I think perhaps other members
of the committee could answer that better than I could. I would
just say that, as I think you know, I worked on this issue at
the Interior Department for 4 years, began a partnership with
the Western Governors Association, Governor Levitt of Utah, in
1993 to try to craft a consensus proposal with WGA and the
Administration, and I think we did produce a proposal which
became one of the bases for the committee's own deliberations
and negotiations over the Kempthorne bill that was reported out
by the committee, which I thought was a bill that, obviously,
we hoped would move through the Senate, and perhaps it just ran
out of time. But it seemed to me to be a bill that was a good
consensus reform effort that would improve the act and had a
lot of support from the regulated community and from the
Administration.
As I said to a number of members of the committee, I would
certainly be delighted, if I am confirmed as Chair of CEQ, to
work to try to see whether it is possible to bring that kind of
a consensus bill back this year.
Senator Crapo. Do you feel that we need to have
comprehensive reform of the Endangered Species Act?
Mr. Frampton. Well, Senator, I will say this, that I think
the Administration in the last 6 years has really pushed the
envelope to try to develop new ways to make the Endangered
Species Act work, particularly on private land, in using
voluntary agreements with land owners in which State and local
governments are involved. So I think we have taken this a long
way, and it is working now. But there are concerns that some of
the administrative reforms that the Administration has
pioneered and put into place may be vulnerable, that those
should be put into the statute.
So I think there is a need for a sort of centrist
consensus, a legislative effort, which simply codifies and
perhaps takes a step forward on some of the directions that
have been done over the last few years administratively. I
think that need is out there.
Senator Crapo. I think I know the answer to this question,
but I just want to be sure. Did you support the Kempthorne
bill, the committee bill that actually came out last Congress?
Mr. Frampton. I was actually out of the Interior
Department, but I believe the Administration did support that
bill; to what formal extent I am not certain, but certainly we
were very happy with that bill. There were things that we would
have liked to have had different, but we really hoped that that
bill--we worked hard on it for 4 years--would pass the Senate
and become a vehicle for eventual Congressional action.
Senator Crapo. Did you have a personal position on that
bill? Did you personally support it?
Mr. Frampton. I personally worked very hard, not only
myself but the people working directly for me, my deputy and
counselor and special assistant, to take that bill from its
inception with the WGA staff, right through the WGA and into
the committee process. So that was something that I thought
personally could be--I thought we had just about hit the sweet
spot of ESA reauthorization with that bill.
Senator Crapo. Well, as we try to work on Endangered
Species Act issues this year, can we be assured of your
cooperation in working with us to find a path forward?
Mr. Frampton. Absolutely.
Senator Crapo. In your testimony you mention that the CEQ
has developed a new paradigm for the Endangered Species Act. It
seems to me that if the CEQ is in a position where it is
developing a new paradigm, or having to deal with creating a
new paradigm, that that's further indication that reform of the
act is really necessary. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Frampton. Well, I would just say that I'm not sure that
it's CEQ. CEQ is important to this, but it's really the
departments and agencies that administer the law that are
principally involved in the new paradigm.
But as I said, I think that to encapsulate in legislation
and to consolidate the new paradigm, legislation is very
important.
Senator Crapo. I see that my time is running out.
As the chairman of the subcommittee that will be working on
this issue--and you may not be able to answer this question
right now, but if you have any insight, I would appreciate it--
could you give me any advice as the chairman as to the
direction you think we ought to take as we seek to reform the
Endangered Species Act?
Mr. Frampton. Well, Mr. Subcommittee Chairman, I would be
very hesitant in my current position to undertake to give you
any advice. But as I've said, I think that the Kempthorne bill
represented the culmination of a very good process and had a
lot of support, and if there is a realistic possibility of
going forward in the next 2 years with this, I would think that
would be an ideal place to start.
Senator Crapo. All right. Well, thank you very much. I
notice that my time has expired----
Senator Chafee. If you have another question, you go ahead.
We want to accommodate you. I know that you are due there very
quickly. If you have a couple more minutes, go ahead.
Senator Crapo. I do just have maybe another question or
two, and I do appreciate the Chairman's willingness to help out
on this. In fact, maybe I will just conclude with a comment.
We do want to look at this very closely and see where we
can move. As you know, there are a lot of issues related to the
Endangered Species Act where it was hard to find that ``sweet
spot'' that you were talking about, where we could move
forward. We are going to be trying to do that again, and I
would welcome the opportunity to work with you to be sure that
we do as much as possible in that regard.
And in that context, I guess my last question would be
this. If confirmed, are you in a position from the CEQ to play
a leadership role from the Administration's perspective in
helping us to work on this issue?
Mr. Frampton. Senator, I would certainly undertake to do
that. I have to say that my philosophy about CEQ is that the
kind of leadership that it should exercise is to help the
people who actually implement programs and policies to do their
jobs. So I would want to engage you and the subcommittee and
the committee on these issues not just as a CEQ function, but
with the people from the Interior Department and National
Marine and Fisheries Service and other Federal agencies that
have a working group that worked on this over the last few
years.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Frampton.
Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate your cooperation. As you
know, one of the opportunities that freshman Senators have is
to preside over the Floor when assigned, and that's my
opportunity right now. Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. Well, seize upon your opportunity.
OK. Fine.
Senator Baucus?
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, are we speaking or are we
questioning?
Senator Chafee. I think now we will go back to the
statements.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, I will just submit mine for
the record.
First let me congratulate and welcome Mr. Frampton. As you
know, Mr. Chairman, he has a wide variety of experiences, from
Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish and Wildlife, to head
of the commission that was examining Three Mile Island. It's a
wide variety of deep experience and background, and he is
eminently qualified for the job.
My issues--I have many, but one that I am going to want to
explore with him at some time, maybe today, is his ideas on how
we can use Better America Bonds to help deal with growth and
sprawl and open space generally in this country. That's not
directly under the purview of the Council on Environmental
Quality, but it's something the Council will be involved with
in some way.
In addition, I would urge Mr. Frampton--I know this will be
the case, but just to remind him--to work hard on the balance
between environmental protection and growth. We have to work
together here. It's this whole thing; it's food on the table,
plus enjoying clean air and clean water and open space. It's a
balance, there's nothing more to it than that.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Frampton.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe--have you
introduced his son and his fiancee yet?
Senator Chafee. I have introduced no one.
Senator Baucus. Well, I will introduce someone, his son
Thomas is here. Thomas, why don't you stand?
And Ms. D'Arista, his fiancee?
We are very happy to have you both here, and I know Mr.
Frampton is very proud of you, and you are of him, too.
Finally, Mr. Frampton, in wishing you good luck, I would
just urge you to decide what it is that you want to be
remembered for when you leave, and I'm going to be asking you
that question, so you might be thinking about it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:]
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I would like to join you in welcoming
Mr. Frampton back to this committee.
As you have noted, and as evidenced by his resume, Mr. Frampton
brings to this position vast experience in environmental issues,
ranging from Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish and Wildlife to
Chief of Staff for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's investigation
into the Three Mile Island nuclear accident.
With our ever-increasing awareness that environmental protection
and economic growth go hand in hand, the Council on Environmental
Quality will need a person with his breadth of knowledge to help shape
and coordinate Federal environmental programs.
What was clear in 1970 when the Council was established is even
more important today. Growing demands to use land and water for
residential and business growth put pressures on our valued and limited
resources.
Growth is an important issue in my State of Montana. Montana is the
least metropolitan State in the country, yet we grew faster than the
rest of the country--a 10 percent increase--in the 1990's. Last year,
our State Environmental Quality Council set up a Growth Subcommittee to
investigate the issues that arise from growth.
Although sprawl does not fall into the traditional NEPA role of
CEQ, the Council can play an important role in coordinating the Federal
agencies on this issue.
In addition, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on how the
Administration's Better America Bonds proposal could be used to help
communities deal with growth. I believe that it is a very useful
concept and one I intend to pursue.
I look forward to hearing from you this afternoon, Mr. Frampton.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Senator Thomas?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Frampton. Since coming to the Senate I have
been particularly interested in the Council on Environmental
Quality. As a matter of fact, for 2 years we had an oversight
committee on energy in which we spent a great deal of time with
the Council.
It was established in the 1970's to review the impact of
Federal programs and activities on the environment. Today, the
agency has a much broader role in developing Federal land
management policy. In fact, throughout President Clinton's time
in office, CEQ has been more powerful than all the other
Federal land management agencies put together. Although CEQ
claims it is only advisory and does not set policy, nothing
could be further from the truth.
I am particularly interested in Mr. Frampton's views on the
role CEQ can play in resolving issues regarding the National
Environmental Policy Act. It has been designed to ensure that
environmental impacts of proposed Federal actions are
considered and minimized by Federal agencies. Although the
process sounds simple and quite reasonable, NEPA has become a
real problem for public land users throughout Wyoming and
throughout the west. The statute that was supposed to provide
for additional public comment and input has instead become an
unworkable and cumbersome law.
The current NEPA process takes too long, costs too much
money, is being used to delay and stop many activities on
Federal lands designed for multiple-use projects. From timber
salvage sales to the renewal of grazing permits on BLM lands,
NEPA is used to delay and frustrate the efforts of public land
users who rely on these areas for economic survival.
Let me make it clear: I am not opposed to the efforts to
review environmental impacts, but there must be something done
in a reasonable and straightforward manner that does not serve
to hinder reasonable multiple use activities. Unfortunately, in
my repeated efforts to engage CEQ, making reasonable reforms to
NEPA, and looking for answers to many problems, the agency has
been of little help in the process. On several occasions I have
met with Katie McGinty, past Director, to discuss NEPA. I have
written numerous letters to the agency about the problems with
the law. In 1995 we wrote a 13-page letter, with Larry Craig. I
got a letter that basically said, ``I am open to your ideas.
Thank you for your letter.'' That's all I ever heard.
As you know, we wrote a letter last year, and 9 months
later, after you came, we got a letter acknowledging receipt;
no response, no activity, nothing substantive to come from CEQ.
So these are the kinds of experiences that I've had, and I
don't think I'm the only one.
So I am very interested in finding some solutions to make
NEPA work. I think that is the responsibility of CEQ. Perhaps
we made a mistake when we combined the two activities and made
being advisory to the President the major task.
So I look forward to your testimony and I have a number of
questions that I might ask. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thomas follows:]
Statement of Hon. Craig Thomas, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today regarding the
nomination of George Frampton to become Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality. I look forward to hearing Mr. Frampton's
testimony and discussing with him his views on the role of CEQ.
Since coming to the Senate, I have been particularly interested in
the Council on Environmental Quality. Although the CEQ was established
in 1970 to review the impact of Federal programs and activities on the
environment, today the agency has a much broader role in developing
Federal land management policy. In fact, throughout President Clinton's
time in office, the CEQ has been more powerful than all of the Federal
land management agencies. Although the CEQ claims it is only
``advisory'' in nature and does not set Administration policy, nothing
could be further from the truth.
I am particularly interested in Mr. Frampton's views on the role
CEQ can play in resolving issues regarding the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA was designed to ensure that the environmental
impacts of a proposed Federal action were considered and minimized by
the Federal agency taking that action. Although this process sounds
simple and quite reasonable, NEPA has become a real problem for public
land users throughout Wyoming and the West. A statute that was supposed
to provide for additional public comment and input in the Federal land
management process has instead become an unworkable and cumbersome law.
The current NEPA process takes too long, costs too much money and
is being used to delay or stop many activities on Federal lands
designed for multiple use. From timber salvage sales to the renewal of
grazing permits on BLM land, NE PA is being used to delay and frustrate
the efforts of public land users who rely on these areas for their
economic survival. Let me be clear, I am not opposed to efforts to
review the environmental impacts of proposed actions on Federal lands,
but this must be done in a reasonable and straightforward manner that
does not serve to hinder 'reasonable multiple use activities.
Unfortunately, despite my repeated efforts to engage the CEQ in
making reasonable reforms to NEPA and looking for answers to many of
the problems regarding the law, the agency has been of little help in
this process. On several occasions I met with Katie McGinty, past
Director of CEQ, to discuss NEPA, have written numerous letters to the
agency about the problems with the law and have discussed this issue at
length with other Federal land management agency officials, but to no
avail. The problems with NEPA implementation continue to grow and the
frustration of public land users continues to increase.
Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in finding solutions that will
allow the NEPA process to work properly. I hope Mr. Frampton will work
with me to find the answers that help us resolve many of the current
problems regarding NEPA. The status quo is unacceptable, and I expect
the CEQ to step-up and fulfill its role as the primary agency designed
to address issues involved with NEPA.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony of
Mr. Frampton.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bennett?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
going to have to leave as well for the Appropriations
Committee, so I will submit questions to Mr. Frampton in lieu
of asking them here.
I want to make a few comments for the record.
Like my friend from Wyoming, I've had less than
satisfactory experience with CEQ, but to use a Biblical phrase,
``There arose in Egypt a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph.''
Everything was different. I have hopes--while Mr. Frampton
clearly has many views that are different from mine, I have
hopes that his administration of this agency will be like that
new Pharaoh, and that we will have a greater degree of openness
and communication and cooperation than we've had before, and I
have strong reason to believe that will be the case.
I worked with Mr. Frampton in his position at the Interior
Department. He came to Utah on occasion, which probably was not
his favorite thing to do, but he took his assignments very
seriously. We were always able to get an answer from him when
we wanted something, and even when the answer was no and we
wanted it to be yes, it was very straightforward and the lines
of communication were kept open. I have every reason to believe
that will be the case now at CEQ, and I look forward to that
change.
I would ask you if I might, Mr. Frampton, before I leave,
do you have any knowledge of any ``stealth national monuments''
that are being considered anywhere in Idaho or Arizona or
Colorado or someplace that you might want to take this
opportunity to tell us about in advance?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Frampton. Senator, I have no knowledge of any stealth
monuments. The only monument proposal that I am aware of is a
very large blip on everyone's radar screen, which is the
proposal that Secretary Babbitt is advancing or trying out in a
series of public meetings----
Senator Thomas. This is on the Arizona strip?
Mr. Frampton. For Arizona, the area in the northwest corner
of the Grand Canyon National Park, the Arizona Strip proposal.
What I know about that is what I read in the newsclips and from
the hearings and the other work that the Interior Department
has done to put the proposal forward for public comment and
criticism and reaction.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Frampton knows full well
that history; he lived through that whole thing with us, and I
think he's smart enough to realize that that's not something
the Administration should try to do again. I think it was a
shameful period in our history, where the Administration did
something strictly ex parte with one group, while at the same
time doing everything they could to keep the ``bad guys''
uninformed and in the dark. And as one of the ``bad guys,''
whose principal sin was that I was elected by the people of the
State of Utah, I resented that action on the part of his
predecessor, and I made that very clear to her in previous
hearings.
So I intend to vote for Mr. Frampton's confirmation with
some enthusiasm, based on the experience we have had--
conversations we have had privately. He has been good enough to
come by my office and we've talked through some of these
issues, and I think this is one of the President's better
appointments. I am happy to support it and look forward to
working with him very closely.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator.
Mr. Frampton, before you give your statement, I just want
to say that I listened very closely to the problems Senator
Thomas raised, and I found them disturbing. Now, that wasn't on
your watch, so you are not the person involved, but obviously
you're not going to be able to satisfy every Senator on this
committee. But I certainly would expect you to go the full
distance in responding accurately to questions--in this case,
from Senator Thomas, or if he wants to get together with you,
you should make yourself available, because this committee is
very responsive to how its members feel about situations.
Again, I'm not sure that you can necessarily satisfy
Senator Thomas, but you certainly have to make a determined
effort to do so. And not just Senator Thomas; anybody on either
side of this committee.
And maybe at the end of the period, we can have for you
glowing reports from Senator Thomas just like Senator Bennett
gave. We'll give you a couple months.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. All right. Why don't you proceed with your
statement?
STATEMENT OF GEORGE T. FRAMPTON, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO
BE A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr. Frampton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, distinguished members of the
committee, it is an honor to appear before you as the
President's nominee to be a member and Chair of CEQ. I have
submitted a written statement and I will certainly try to keep
my oral remarks very short, since we seem to be well into the
questioning and dialog already.
Six years ago, when I came before this committee as a
nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Interior, I said that if
confirmed I thought that you would find me a reasonable and
constructive partner with the Congress. And I believe--at least
I hope--that I lived up to that trust, having been confirmed,
in the 4 years that I spent at Interior.
I think that work was good preparation for CEQ because a
great deal of what I did at the Interior Department involved
building teamwork and consensus, trying to get agencies--just
the agencies within the Interior Department--to work together,
something that was not always easy, but more importantly, to
get the various Federal departments working together, and for
the Federal Government to begin to work more with States and
local governments and stakeholders in new kinds of
partnerships. Those were the kinds of projects that I worked
on: Everglades restoration, where I chaired a Federal-State
task force with seven Federal departments; Exxon Valdez oil
spill, where I served on a trustee council, which was a State-
Federal partnership; plus my efforts to restructure the
Endangered Species Act to use voluntary agreements with local
governments and landowners, from timberland owners in the
northwest and southeast to the counties of San Diego and
Riverside in Southern California.
In fostering those kinds of partnerships, which I think is
the direction in which our environmental policy has got to go,
CEQ really has to play an indispensable role. CEQ was created
by Congress in 1969 in part to advise the President on the
long-term direction of environmental policy; but equally
important, and especially critical today, to coordinate the
environmental work of the Federal family, to make sure that
Federal agencies speak with one voice, work together, and
referee disputes among them.
Even more important, CEQ is charged with a broader mandate
to make sure that in the implementation of our environmental
programs, economic and social imperatives would be fully taken
into account. Sound environmental policy that was broad-based
and balanced and based on good science--I think that was
Congress' vision in 1969.
A parallel vision that Congress sought to advance in NEPA
was to make sure Federal agencies would make important
decisions affecting the environment in a democratic way, and
only after a thorough examination of the impacts of alternative
courses of action. Both of these visions--the vision of
coordination and balance, and the vision of informed democratic
decisionmaking--were quite prescient for 1969, especially when
you consider that EPA hadn't even been created at that time,
which seems hard to believe now. But they remain the
cornerstones of the Nation's environmental policy today.
My vision, in response to Senator Baucus, my idea of the
challenge for CEQ going forward, is no more or no less than
what I perceive Congress' vision to have been in 1969: first,
to give farsighted but realistic advice to the President and
his advisers and the Cabinet about the future direction of
environmental policy; second, to coordinate the implementation
of environmental programs, but to do so not just within the
Federal family, but today that has to be with the States and
local governments and private stakeholders; and third, to make
sure that we have a process of environmental decisionmaking
that is balanced, well informed, and democratic.
I would like to just conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that
in the last 6 years, I think that this Administration has
compiled a strong record of environmental protection, as good
as that of any in history, and presided over the strongest
economic recovery, probably, in the 20th century--peacetime
recovery, at least.
So there shouldn't be any reason to debate any longer
whether rigorous environmental standards can go hand-in-hand
with economic progress. Recent history has proven that they
can. And I say that very emphatically, without any tinge of
partisanship, because you, Mr. Chairman, as one of the greatest
environmental statesmen of the Senate, know much better than I
that the Republic Party has been at least as identified with
environmental issues over time as the Democrats, and that most
of what we have accomplished in the environmental field over
the last 30 years truly has happened only when there has been
bipartisan support for it, and I embrace that tradition. I am
proud of the role that CEQ has played in that tradition. I am
proud of the role that NEPA has played in that tradition, and I
hope that to the extent that that's not working well, Senator
Thomas, that I can help improve it; and I hope that in
furtherance of that tradition, that if confirmed, I will be
able to work with the Congress in a bipartisan tradition in
trying to address the environmental challenges we face as we go
into the next century.
Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you, Mr. Frampton, for those
kind comments. I think they are accurate. People forget that
the great mass of environmental legislation pouring through
here in the early 1970's was all signed by President Nixon--
that is the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species
Act, all that early 1970's legislation. But it came about, just
as you said, in a bipartisan fashion, Senator Muskie being the
chairman of the subcommittee that Senator Crapo is now in
charge of.
Senator Lautenberg, do you have an opening statement that
you would like to make?
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, I will submit my
statement for the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]
Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the State of
New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, am pleased that we are having this hearing today to
confirm Mr. Frampton to be the new Chair of the Council on
Environmental Quality. This is an important position, and Mr. Frampton
is well qualified for this post, as his record attests.
Mr. Frampton is certainly no stranger to the issues of interest to
this committee. He has worked in the private sector both as a partner
in the law firm of Rogovin, Stern & Huge, and as president of the
Wilderness Society, a non-profit organization devoted to preserving
wilderness and wildlife, from 1986 to 1993.
He also has extensive experience within the Federal Government--as
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. In
this position, he was responsible for the National Park Service and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Moreover, since the departure of Katie
McGinty, he has been serving as the Acting Chair of CEQ, and knows well
what this position entails.
I look forward to hearing his statement today, and response to any
questions we might have, and to working with him over the next 2 years.
Senator Lautenberg. I just want to welcome Mr. Frampton. I
am encouraged by his lengthy experience and his knowledge of
the issues, and his interest in improving the functioning of
CEQ and the whole environmental agenda. So I welcome Mr.
Frampton and hope that we will be able to move with dispatch
here. And if there are any issues that ought to be discussed, I
hope that they will be discussed separately from just the
confirmation of his well-qualified background and his knowledge
generally, that we will get confirmation done and then get on
with the committee's business.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Smith, do you have an opening statement?
Senator Smith. No, Mr. Chairman, I will wait for the
questions. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. All right.
I think I will start down the list of questions now.
Mr. Frampton, 2 weeks ago a Federal District Court Judge
issued an order prohibiting the Department of Transportation
from starting construction of the Wilson Bridge, and the claim
was that they didn't comply with NEPA, they didn't comply with
the Clean Air Act, they didn't comply with the National
Historic Preservation Act. And it is evident that the documents
that they submitted on this were woefully inadequate, and even
EPA indicated that the environmental analysis for the
construction was unsatisfactory.
What are you going to do to see that this doesn't happen
again, either with respect to this bridge or any other? It
seems to me that this is a very costly--and I'm not necessarily
talking dollars, I'm talking time--error that was made, and the
Court had no trouble finding that the preparation was totally
inadequate.
Mr. Frampton. Senator, I have not read the Court's
decision, so I cannot comment on the specific issues. I can
only say that I wish the CEQ had been a little bit more on top
of this EIS process over the last couple of years because,
certainly, the Court's decision is pretty emphatic.
I think that we obviously need to pay more attention to
this issue. In fact, with respect to issues that relate to
highways and bridges, in the TEA-21 legislation there is a
provision that CEQ was instrumental in getting in the
legislation that calls on DOT to have a more coordinated
review, and I think there is a process there that we are
working through. We will invest a fair amount of time and
energy in trying to see that that process is improved.
With respect to the bridge itself, the Justice Department,
as I understand, has taken the lead in trying to bring the
Federal agencies together to figure out the fixes that need to
be made, how those fixes can be made quickly and in a realistic
timeframe, so that we don't face the problems that I have read
about in the newspapers with respect to the lifetime of the
bridge for heavy vehicles. The Justice Department has a sort of
``emergency task force'' looking at that issue and how we can
do it right and do it quickly.
Senator Chafee. Well, that was one of the questions I had.
You are absolutely right, what you said about TEA-21 and the
streamlining provisions. You are getting geared up for that now
in the CEQ, are you?
Mr. Frampton. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I realize that this
committee is having hearings on that subject. It has taken some
time for the Department to move forward. They went around the
country, listening to people on all the issues of TEA-21, which
is a pretty complicated statute, but I think they are now
making some progress. There is an options paper on coordinated
review of transportation projects that is out, and hopefully
some decisions will be made in the next few weeks about
specific proposals. We intend to devote some time and energy to
try to push that process forward.
Senator Chafee. OK. A final question. I have heard some
concerns raised about the Administration's plans to restore the
Everglades, something you've been involved with. The complaints
are that the Administration doesn't go far enough. If I
remember, they are talking in terms of $8 billion, aren't they?
Is that the right figure?
Mr. Frampton. About $7 billion, of which roughly half or a
little less than half would be a Federal share, over a period
of approximately 20 years, Senator. I believe that's the
number.
Senator Chafee. And I think that we have a water resources
bill here, and we will do another one next year, particularly
because of the Florida Everglades.
Are you paying attention to what these scientists say? I
suppose you can get scientists to say anything on any side of
the issue.
Mr. Frampton. Senator, I am personally paying attention
because the statute requires that the restudied plan come to
Congress by July 1 of this year.
I think that in the development of this plan, which has
been a monumental effort of getting stakeholders together and
basing it on the broadest possible science, that a very good
job has been done. However, we have one last opportunity to
make sure that this is the best possible plan between now and
the first of July, and I think that not only Federal scientists
but outside scientists need to have one last shot at this plan.
I am confident that we are going to have a very good plan, come
July 1st.
Having said that, however, like many long-term plans, some
of the details here will be in the implementation. So it's not
just getting a good plan--and I am confident we will have one--
it's setting up a process of independent scientific peer
review, which Secretary Babbitt has set in motion, over the
next five to 6 years as the final designs are developed and the
implementation begins, that there is constant outside vetting
of that activity. I think that is equally important to the
outlines of the plan that we will be submitting July 1st.
Senator Chafee. All right.
Senator Baucus?
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frampton, just briefly, on the first question raised by
the Chairman, namely, the Wilson Bridge, does CEQ review that
EIS?
Mr. Frampton. I don't know the answer to that, Senator. I
will have to get back to you.
Senator Baucus. This is not the first time. I have come up
with something similar to this in my State of Montana. It's a
vexing problem. Generally, in my opinion, it is because the
relevant departments--the State Department of Transportation,
and ironically, in this case it could be the Federal Highway
Administration and DOT--just don't do a good job in preparing a
proper EIS. In Montana, for example, the State did an improper
job; somebody litigated it, and they had to go back and do it
all over again. If you do it right the first time, then you
avoid these kinds of problems. It just happens constantly.
I know there is a problem with the EIS procedure, but I
must say that a lot of the problem with the Federal agencies is
that they just don't do a good job in the first place. If they
did a good job in the first place, then they wouldn't
consequently be having these kinds of problems. That happens
time and time and time again, particularly with respect to
highway projects.
My question really revolves about the Better America Bonds.
I think this is a very good concept, one that has lots of
potential, and I'd like your thoughts on how you think it
should be shaped or formed, or some of the divisions that we
should be looking at, or some of the ideas that you might have
with it.
Obviously, growth and sprawl issues are nationwide. There
are problems in urban America, but there are very much problems
in rural America, as well. I am very sympathetic with small
problems in metropolitan areas, but I am also very sympathetic
with a lot of the open space issues that occur in the western
States. I can certainly speak for the State of Montana.
As you know, this is a bonding authority that the States
would have. Some have suggested that EPA allocate the amount of
bonding authority to be available among the States. Frankly, I
am a little nervous about that; I think it smacks too much of
``Big Brother'' Federal Government, and there are lots of other
ways to address the allocation issue.
But your thoughts on how we can make this work and work
well?
Mr. Frampton. Senator, I think this is a very exciting
concept, and it has found a lot broader support than even I
expected that it would. I think it is one of a number of things
we are doing, like the Salmon Fund proposed in the budget, and
the Clean Air Partnership Fund, to try to help local and county
and State government take the lead on these issues.
So it is responsive to the idea that we can't do everything
by regulation, and we have to put some resources into the local
effort.
Let me just say a couple things about how I think this
would work best.
No. 1, Better America Bonds is aimed at issues of
livability and smart growth, but not just at the suburbs. It is
also aimed at the cities----
Senator Chafee. Mr. Frampton, I'm going to have to ask you
to hold up here. We are now in the last part of a vote.
Apparently it's a motion to instruct the Sergeant at Arms.
Senator Baucus. I could go over a little later, after I
finish this.
Senator Chafee. What in effect I was going to propose is to
ask our members to go over and vote and come right back, so we
will do that now.
Senator Chafee. I would ask Senator Smith and Senator
Thomas, if you would, come right back because we want to give
you a shot at the questions.
Mr. Frampton. Senator, this is aimed at the inner cities as
well as the suburbs, No. 1.
No. 2, I think it is important that the money available--
which at the levels requested by the Administration would
generate close to $10 billion in bonding authority over 5
years--would be used for each of the designated purposes,
brownfields, open space, recreation, and clean water.
I also think, to respond to your comment about EPA, EPA is
the conduit for receiving proposals from cities and counties to
do the bonding, and the Administration proposed it that way
because EPA is doing brownfields and clean water issues and has
relationships with the cities and counties. But EPA is not
going to be the deciding agency. This will be an interagency
program, and there will be an interagency committee that looks
at the bonding requests and make judgments--if there is an
overapplication for requests, who will get what.
Senator Baucus [assuming the chair]. So how did you handle
the oversubscription or overapplication?
Mr. Frampton. We don't have specific criteria, but the
proposal is to make it competitive and try to create an
interagency process that--obviously, geographical distribution
will be important to some extent, but a process that tries to
look at whether the proposals are part of a good plan, part of
a comprehensive smart growth plan, and also partly whether they
really supplement existing resources that States and counties
have; and then, which ones seem to be getting the biggest bang
for the buck. To some extent, that is subjective.
Senator Baucus. Another problem is, what happens when there
is a huge project? You don't want it to take up the lion's
share of the bonding authority that is available nationwide and
leave out some good smaller projects in other parts of the
country.
Mr. Frampton. These are issues that have been discussed
internally to try to get a balance into the criteria for
judging, but probably we won't finalize those unless and until
Congress enacts the program.
Senator Baucus. Right.
Mr. Frampton. But I think those are hard issues.
Senator Baucus. They are, but I am raising all these with
you so that we can discuss them and flesh them out, so that
there is general agreement among those who are interested in
the program as to what those provisions should be. I just urge
you--and I know you well--and others to be thinking about that,
because I think this is a very exciting program and I am going
to be developing my own proposal, and I would like those who
are interested to consult with me, as I will with them.
Well, I think I had better get over and vote. The committee
is temporarily in recess.
[Recess.]
Senator Thomas [assuming the chair]. If you're prepared,
we'll just go ahead. The Chairman will be along in a minute or
two, since we've kind of fallen behind. I will take the
prerogative of going ahead with some questions and we'll get
started.
You mentioned in your statement, Mr. Frampton, you are
going to be a member and Chairman. Who else are members?
Mr. Frampton. There are no other members, Senator.
Senator Thomas. Why not?
Mr. Frampton. Well, I am not an expert on the history of
this, but my understanding is that since the mid-1980's,
basically Congress has provided each year in the appropriations
bill that the power of the Council is vested in a Chair, so it
is has been a one-person Council for 10 years or more. That has
been something that, I guess, has been accepted by both
Administrations and Congresses.
Senator Thomas. The CEQ is combined with the White House
Office of Environmental Policy, and I think this has obviously
expanded the role of establishing environmental policy within
the Administration.
Rather than being a policy arm, shouldn't CEQ be an
independent agency to do this coordinating that you talk about?
Mr. Frampton. Well, at the beginning of the Clinton
Administration, Senator, there was an effort or an initiative
to create an Office of Environmental Policy that would be
different from CEQ, but that effort was abandoned. My
understanding--again, I'm not an expert in the history--is that
now there is CEQ, the Council on Environmental Quality.
Technically in the statute there is also an Office of
Environmental Quality, which was also provided for in 1970, so
that's the original formulation, is what we have now.
I think that CEQ is somewhat different than the other
policy councils at the White House because it does have a
Senate-confirmable Chair, but on the other hand it is not,
obviously, a completely independent agency. One of the purposes
of CEQ was to give advice to the President about environmental
policy, and another was to actually coordinate the
Administration's environmental policy.
So I think it exists in a place in between an independent
agency and advisory role.
Senator Thomas. It is also charged with the responsibility
of really administering and coordinating NEPA, was it not?
Mr. Frampton. That is correct.
Senator Thomas. And how many new changes and policies and
rules and adjustments have there been made in the last 20
years?
Mr. Frampton. Well, over the last 20 years CEQ has issued
guidance under the rules----
Senator Thomas. Under new rulemaking in 20 years? I don't
think so.
Mr. Frampton. Not new regulations. I think the regulations,
by and large, have worked pretty well. What CEQ has done is
write guidance under the regulations and the statute to respond
to individual issues or problems that have----
Senator Thomas. I guess I disagree with you some. You
indicated a moment ago how you had to be responsive to the
changes that have taken place since 1969 or whenever it was.
The fact is, there have been very few in terms of administering
this very difficult law, under quite difficult circumstances,
and literally for 20 years the agency charged with
administering it and keeping up-to-date rules has not issued
any rules at all.
Mr. Frampton. Has not made major changes in the regulations
that were originally written, Senator.
I would say this, though, that I think that the ability to
write guidance is a way to adjust to changing circumstances.
You mentioned in your opening statement that you had found CEQ
unresponsive in the past, and this is something that we
discussed when I came to see you in your office. And one of the
concerns you expressed was the need to amend the law or create
a new policy on cooperating agencies. This was something, in
your view, that even though CEQ had done positive things in the
past, wasn't working very well.
I went back and looked into this after we met a couple
weeks ago, and found that indeed CEQ had on occasion written
letters to agencies, encouraging them to be more forward-
leaning in getting State and local agencies in as cooperating
partners, but we didn't have comprehensive guidance on that. So
I asked that one be drafted, and it is in fact in interagency
review and we're going to issue it.
I hope that through guidance, comprehensive guidance, we
can deal with the problem that you identified, I hope in an
effective way, and be responsive to you and your concerns on
those issues, without necessarily rewriting the statute or the
regulations. We will see how that----
Senator Thomas. What is your opposition to rewriting? If
you agree with the cooperating agencies, why shouldn't that be
the standard for each of these operations? Why should we be
selective? We had to work our fannies off to get it for the
Yellowstone winter use. Now, when they want it in Medicine Bow,
why shouldn't the State and the counties be entitled to be
cooperating agencies?
Mr. Frampton. Well, as I said to you, when we talked--I
think to try to rewrite the statute or the regulations to
require that, in every case, hundreds and hundreds of EIS's a
year, every single State and local agency that falls within the
possible orbit automatically be included, is really sort of a
top-down, one-size-fits-all approach, particularly in light of
the fact that being a cooperative agency often costs the local
government unit money----
Senator Thomas. They aren't required to participate, and
neither do you have to include everything. Maybe it ought to be
their choice, rather than yours.
Mr. Frampton. Well, I hope that by putting out new guidance
in response to your concerns, and trying to put this policy of
being very open to this and offering it--except in unusual
cases--to every local government unit, that we can address the
problems that you're concerned about that way. If it turns out
that that really does not address the problems, then I think we
can look----
Senator Thomas. I just would hope we don't have to wait
another 20 years to find that out. I think we've done this
quite a little bit. We've found some times, certainly, when
cooperating agencies had some expertise, and that's all they
are in there for, is to share the expertise they have, which is
defined.
On a different matter, we have been working on open space
and so on, and of course livestock production plays a role in
that. Do you think it is necessary that the renewal or the
transfer of a permit is a major Federal action, for a grazing
permit?
Mr. Frampton. Well, I think that's an issue that, as you
and I discussed, is the result of some Court action concern
about whether the agencies need to do this. For a long time,
the grazing permits--NEPA work was not being done on them, and
now EAs need to be done on them, and the agencies----
Senator Thomas. The Court has not ruled that the need to do
it.
Mr. Frampton. But I think there is a concern that without
going through the process, we will be very vulnerable----
Senator Thomas. So you are going to be driven by the threat
of lawsuits rather than what's good policy?
Mr. Frampton. No. My understanding is that the
Administration is being driven by what it thinks it needs to do
under the law.
Senator Thomas. So you agree that there has to be a NEPA
study for the renewal of an unchanged grazing license?
Mr. Frampton. Well, my understanding is that the agencies
are doing what the guidance from the Justice Department is
telling them is the best practice. Now, when you say
``unchanged,'' I think it may be that it being unchanged in
going back to the beginning would not require an EA.
I'm not trying to deliver a legal opinion on this because
I'm not that familiar with the legalities----
Senator Thomas. You're avoiding my question.
Mr. Frampton. Sorry.
Senator Thomas. Do you think that the renewal of a 100-head
lease that is unchanged, location, numbers, should have to have
an EIS or an EA?
Mr. Frampton. I would like to have the opportunity to
respond to you in writing, because I think you're asking me in
part a legal question, about the judgments that have been made
about that. The agencies obviously feel that, with respect to
leases on which there are changed circumstances, the NEPA work
has to be done.
Senator Thomas. What happens, as you know, is that the
Forest Service, for example, isn't able to do it all, so we
have to go into the budget; we have to put into the budget
special language to say that it will be extended for a certain
length of time so that the agency can do it; they claim that
they don't have the money, they don't have the expertise. But
your agency, which is responsible for making this thing work,
has taken a hands-off position. I don't understand that.
Mr. Frampton. Well, Senator, I don't think we have taken a
hands-off position. I think that one of the important solutions
to this would be not to do them all one by one, but to try to
batch them so that you can do them in a much more efficient
way, and then nobody gets delayed. And nobody is being harmed
now under the current status quo.
And CEQ is working--and has worked and will work--hard with
BLM and the Forest Service to try to push the idea of doing
these in a batch----
Senator Thomas. I appreciate what you are saying, but it
doesn't give me much comfort to have you say, ``Well, we'll
work with them.'' They've been working with it for 20 years,
had that long a time. We have referred it to them; nothing
happens. It's discouraging. And then to have you come here, as
a new face in an agency, and really say, ``Well, we'll just do
what we've been doing''--it would be really refreshing for you
to say, ``By golly, if there's something that ought to be
changed here, we'll do it.'' But you haven't said that.
Mr. Frampton. Well, Senator, there are two issues that you
have raised that you raised with me in your office a few weeks
ago. One was cooperating parties----
Senator Thomas. And you have not responded to either one of
them.
Mr. Frampton. Well, I have tried to. What I am telling you
today is that we have tried to set a world record in response
by actually putting out a policy, getting a policy, writing it,
and putting it out. And on the issue of grazing EAs, we're
looking into what we can do to put more pressure on the
agencies to try to batch these and do them by watershed or
ecoregion instead of one at a time.
Senator Thomas. I've taken too long.
That's what we had in our grazing bill. You can take a look
at the whole area, but you don't need to take each one. I mean,
it just doesn't even make sense.
Mr. Frampton. I agree with that.
Senator Thomas. And I understood that your agency--you act
like you have to persuade them. I thought you were sort of in
charge of coordinating this. You're not?
Mr. Frampton. Well, we can't always instruct. Even within
the Federal Government it takes a certain amount of consensus
and suasion to change the way agencies work.
Senator Thomas. I just have to tell you, I am impressed
with your background but I'm not very impressed with your
willingness to talk about making changes in something that, to
most people, has been generally a little unsatisfactory. And
I'm just being very candid with you. I don't think that's the
kind of an approach that some of us would expect to see when a
new person comes into this job.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee [resuming the chair]. Senator Smith?
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Mr. Frampton.
You come from a background, as I understand it--you were
President of the Wilderness Society, you were an Assistant
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife at the Department of the
Interior, and obviously those two areas are very much involved
with animal protection and so forth, which surprises me. What
surprises me is the Administration's insistence on the chemical
testing initiative, which has raised the ire of many in the
animal welfare community, and in my view, with justification.
A, it's costly; B, it is repetitious and unnecessary in many,
many cases.
I chair the subcommittee with jurisdiction over this and
have some interest in it, but EPA is working on three of these
initiatives. One is the High Production Volume, two is the
chemical testing program, and three is the endocrine disruptive
program in children's health. And each requires the industry to
commit to massive toxicity testing.
So my question is, given all the concerns expressed, and
the financial implications for both the industry and EPA, why
continue this?
Mr. Frampton. Well, Senator, I think what has raised some
controversy about this most recently is the agreement between
the Chemical Manufacturers Association, EDF, and EPA to do a
large volume of testing of chemicals, and to put the resulting
information out to the public on the Internet, which I think is
a terrific voluntary information-based strategy.
Now, I think the announcement of that program several
months ago has given rise to some misunderstandings about the
actual impact this is going to have on animal testing with
rabbits and so forth. In the first place, there is not an
intent to increase testing or do testing with respect to
chemicals for which we do have information already. So a lot of
this program is simply gathering and coordinating existing
information, making it available to the public.
Second, as a part of this, the Administration is committed
to trying to make sure that the actual amount of animal testing
is minimized; that alternatives are being sought; EDF and
various Federal agencies--I believe that we responded in a
letter to you on this recently--so we are very conscious of
trying to make sure that a very, very good program, which has
tremendous benefits for public health, does not necessarily
result in an unnecessary amount of animal testing.
But ultimately, a certain amount of animal testing--we
would like to get away from it altogether--but a certain amount
of it is still the cost we pay for significant improvements in
public health, for children and adults.
Senator Smith. Still, though, the question is that there
are a lot of these chemicals that you have significant and
extensive data on, that are still being used. You haven't
purged the list. I mean, I hear your testimony, and I've heard
it before from others, but there is an extensive amount of
testing that still goes on that is totally unnecessary. I don't
think you're getting the right information in terms of what
these chemicals are and how much data you already have--you
know what they are, but in terms of the data that already
exists, it's repetitious and unnecessary.
What about the final point on this? It is my understanding
that you did meet with some animal welfare representatives who
did raise some issues--eight, I think. Why have you not
responded to those issues?
Mr. Frampton. I have not personally met with the animal
welfare rights folks on this over the last month or so, when I
became aware of this. I know that issues have been raised to
various Federal officials and to the Vice President and the
President, but we have tried to respond by, No. 1, clarifying
what it is that we are doing; and, No. 2, undertaking some
efforts to make sure that animal testing for chemicals that do
have to be tested is minimized.
Senator Smith. Well, as a Senator with a staff, just be a
little bit careful in your response, because your staff did
meet and talk extensively. You said you didn't meet, but my
staff----
Mr. Frampton. I personally have not met.
Senator Smith. All right. You should clarify that.
So I still think that there is more that we can do in this
area, and I would ask you to look at it because I think you are
going to find that there is extensive testing that is totally
unnecessary, with a lot of data available.
Mr. Frampton. Senator, I am very willing to look at the
issue in more depth, personally and through my staff, to make
sure that what we are doing to make sure that the testing is
minimized is everything we can do.
Senator Smith. All right.
Let me ask a couple questions on another subject.
On Superfund, Carol Browner said a little while ago that
``Our experience on allocation is that it's a great tool; it
should be part of Superfund.'' But this year EPA has taken the
position that ``fair share'' should not be part of any
Superfund legislation. Why the dichotomy here?
Mr. Frampton. Well, Senator, I can't respond on the
individual issue of the different position that she has taken.
I would just say that we discussed this before, as well,
because I know you are concerned about the Administration
engaging on this issue. We do want to engage on the issue, but
the situation is a little different, and I don't think anybody
can fault the Administration's engagement over the last 6
years, certainly trying to reach agreement. I think
Administrator Browner is as disappointed that comprehensive
reform didn't reach agreement as you are, but we are in a
situation now, as I said to you a few weeks ago, where the
program is different than it was 6 years ago. Most of the
cleanup decisions have been made. We have tried so hard to
reach agreement, and we are still apart on issues; the people
who are doing this at EPA and others in the Administration tell
me, ``If we're going to accomplish something, we want to try to
focus on those limited but important areas where we do have
agreement, which fit the current needs of the program.'' And if
we could do that, perhaps--the things where there is
consensus--we would be able to move forward on some of those
issues where everybody wants to do things, brownfields and
innocent purchasers and so forth.
Senator Smith. Well, fair share allocation is a concept
that has been around for a long time. It's not new, as opposed
to joint and several liability, and it seems to me that in this
position you should be able to answer the question yes or no.
Do you support fair share allocation in Superfund, yes or no?
Mr. Frampton. I am not a Superfund expert----
Senator Smith. I don't think you need to be an expert.
Joint and several liability means that everybody is liable at
the site, regardless. There might be some argument--there is a
big argument about how much. And the other is, you figure out
how much each party owes, and they pay their fair share. I
mean, there's nothing complicated about it.
Mr. Frampton. Here is what I have to respond to you. I am
not--there is some impression that Administrator Browner has
said or testified that the Administration would be open to, or
embraces, fair share allocation as opposed to joint and several
liability, and I am not familiar with the specific statements
but I think that EPA would say that if that's the impression
that has been created, it's a misunderstanding, and the
Administration is not in a position to agree to that. But
again, some of this is in the details, and my understanding is
that at the end of last year, we were still pretty far apart on
some pretty major liability issues, and some other issues, as
well.
Senator Smith. We are, but you know, you were in support of
reinstating the taxes, and doing it by picking winners and
losers rather than fair share. I mean, the Administration has
taken the position that de minimis municipalities, waste
generators, and so forth should be out; others, those locked in
consent decrees or those that have not settled one way or the
other, PRPs, those people should not get out. So that's not
fair. It becomes a fairness issue, as far as I'm concerned.
Mr. Frampton. Well, I understand your position, Senator. I
think the Administration would say that if we can agree, if
there is consensus within the Congress and with the
Administration, that it is fair to let some parties out, to
exempt some parties, with de minimis liability, and we can
agree on what is fair with respect to some people, but we
cannot come to agreement on major liabilities with larger
parties, then we ought to go forward and try to be fair to
those people on whom we can agree what fairness is about.
Senator Smith. What you're saying is, you're willing to be
fair to some people and not to others, therefore it's not fair.
I mean, that's the bottom line here. That's the argument we've
been having with Ms. Browner and the Administration for years,
that in order to really reform Superfund, we need to be fair to
everyone; and that to be fair to everyone, whoever has the
site, if you're a de minimis party or if you're a huge entity
such as Mobil or Exxon or somebody like that, that whatever
your fair share is is what you owe. And you're picking winners
and causing others to be losers and saying, ``Well, we'll be
fair to these guys, but not fair to these guys.'' If you're not
fair to everybody, then you're not being fair at all.
Mr. Frampton. I think what is involved is some
fundamentally different ideas about what being fair, especially
to the large number of large parties, really means. I think
what I'm saying is, I understand the Administration's position.
Again, I'm not an expert on this. I know we failed to agree on
this over the last few years, but if we can agree on being
fairer than we are now, even by your terms, then maybe we
should go ahead and do that because then we can legislate it.
Senator Smith. Well, I don't think you're going to--I think
the message needs to be taken back to EPA that the taxes on
industry are not going to be reinstated in this Congress unless
the program is fair, and I think that's the bottom line. And it
is not fair the way it is now, and I wish we could get there. I
regret that we're not, because I think that's the only way
we're ever going to get the program fixed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. All right. There are a couple of obligatory
questions I will ask you, Mr. Frampton.
First, are you willing, at the request of any duly
constituted committee of the Congress, to appear in front of it
as a witness?
Mr. Frampton. I certainly am.
Senator Chafee. Do you know of any matters which you may or
may not have thus far disclosed which might place you in any
conflict of interest if you are confirmed in this position?
Mr. Frampton. Other than what has been disclosed, no, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Senator Thomas, do you have any further
questions?
Senator Thomas. I have a couple. I will try to do it
quickly.
I guess I'm a little confused about the administration of
NEPA. I get the impression from you and from your predecessor
that one of the responsibilities there is to administer it and
to coordinate it--I don't know anyone else who does--and yet,
you don't do any regulations. You do rules and letters and
guidance, none of which are subject to public review.
If it is your job to make it common and administer it, how
do you do that?
Mr. Frampton. Well, Senator, as you pointed out, the
regulations that were written under the original act were, of
course, subject to the usual public review process. My
understanding is that in the past, when CEQ has issued guidance
or advice on NEPA issues, that the practices varied, but
certainly what CEQ tries to do is bring the Federal agencies--
and if it hasn't in the past, I think it sometimes has, but
certainly should in the future--bring the public and
stakeholders into that process as well.
But I don't know anything else that CEQ does, as you said,
that is regulatory or rulemaking. If we did, it would require,
under the APA, another statute, public notice and comment
period and so forth, Federal Register publication.
Senator Thomas. Wouldn't it be a normal expectation that
you would do rulemaking from time to time, as times change? You
have mentioned three or four times in your testimony how times
have changed, how the circumstances have changed, and yet,
apparently, the regulations are OK for 20 years.
Mr. Frampton. Well, I guess one way of looking at that is
that the regulations have stood the test of time----
Senator Thomas. If you agree with that, of course.
Mr. Frampton. If you feel the program is not working, then
I think that obviously one would look to regulatory changes.
But I am not familiar in the last few years with any specific
set of proposed regulatory changes that have been put forward
under NEPA that are designed to make it work better.
I think the problem is really in the implementation, not in
the regulations.
Senator Thomas. I have not heard of any either, and I would
rather like to hear of some.
We are having a hearing tomorrow on the Everglades. Have
you seen the GAO report?
Mr. Frampton. I have.
Senator Thomas. What do you think of that?
Mr. Frampton. Well, I think there is a genuine and
legitimate concern that is expressed in the report about the
lack of a strategic plan for the overall program, but I am not
sure that the GAO examiners who worked on the report fully
understood how much the restudy and surrounding processes which
were created, which represent an enormous amount of consensus
among a lot of parties, actually embody a strategic plan, or
the fact that an actual strategic plan is in the process of
being developed.
So I think that's a genuine concern, but I think that
concern is being responded to.
Senator Thomas. Is that what the restudy is for, to come up
with a plan to spend the $10 billion that they predict will be
spent?
Mr. Frampton. The restudy is a strategic plan of enormous
breadth. What the GAO said is--I think the kind of strategic
plan that was unthinkable 4 or 5 years ago--that anybody could
develop that on a consensus basis. The GAO said, ``Well, you
need a consensus plan that goes much further, that looks at all
the actors in south Florida who are doing everything. You need
to broaden the scope of this plan.'' And to the extent that the
restudy has to fit with other important things that are
happening, I think that's right, and I think that some of that
is going on, and that the people who worked on the report--the
examiners themselves--don't appreciate how much of that is
actually happening.
Senator Thomas. Well, it's an interesting thing when the
Park Service has a little over $1 billion a year in their
budget, $6 billion in arrears, and we're going to spend $10
billion here. It's an interesting study, in any event.
Thank you.
Mr. Frampton. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Chafee. All right. Well, thank you, Senator.
Mr. Frampton, thank you very much for coming by and
responding to the questions. I don't know if anybody asked for
other questions, but if so, please respond swiftly if you can,
in writing.
Mr. Frampton. We will indeed, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
That concludes the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of George T. Frampton, Jr., Acting Chairman, Council on
Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President
Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, distinguished Members of the
Committee: It is an honor to appear before you today as President
Clinton's nominee to be a Member and the Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality.
Six years ago, I came before this Committee as the President's
nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife
and Parks. I said I believed that, if confirmed, you would find me to
be open, fair, and a reasonable and constructive partner with the
Congress. I also said that as an advocate in different professional
roles throughout my career, I had based my advocacy on sound facts,
fairness, practicality, and the importance of maintaining personal
credibility.
You did vote to confirm me, and as an Assistant Secretary of the
Interior from 1993 to 1997, I believe I fulfilled the trust you placed
in me. I further believe that the insight and experience gained during
my time at Interior help immeasurably in fulfilling the
responsibilities I assumed upon becoming acting Chairman of CEQ 5
months ago.
Much of my work at Interior involved building teamwork and
consensus--among agencies within the Department; among various Federal
departments and agencies with different priorities and missions; and
among State and local governments, private landowners, and other
stakeholders.
One such undertaking was the Federal/State task force that
developed a comprehensive restoration plan for the Everglades/South
Florida Ecosystem, the largest ecosystem restoration ever undertaken in
the United States. This 6-year effort, which enjoys bipartisan support
at both the Federal and State level, is scheduled to come to fruition
this June.
Another major success was our effort to develop a new paradigm for
the Endangered Species Act, including the pioneering use of Habitat
Conservation Plans with private landowners, and collaborations with
State and local governments such as Natural Communities Conservation
Planning Program (NCCP) in the Southern California counties of San
Diego, Orange, and Riverside Counties. In addition, in partnership with
Governor Leavitt of Utah and the Western Governors Association, I
helped craft a reform proposal for the Endangered Species Act that
became an important basis for the Kempthorne bill reported out of this
committee.
As the lead Federal trustee in the Federal/State Exxon Valdez Oil
Spill Trustee Council, I joined with then-Governor Wally Hickel of
Alaska to forge a balanced, comprehensive program guiding the use of
the civil penalty paid by Exxon to restore Prince William Sound and the
Exxon Valdez spill area in South Central Alaska. This program, based on
the best available science and broad public input, found wide support
among Federal and State agencies, Native Corporations, fishermen,
environmentalists, and local and Alaska residents.
Working with the Alaska Department of Economic Development, the
U.S. Department of Energy, and the National Park Service, I also
negotiated an agreement to locate one of the nation's first Clean Coal
Technology Demonstration Projects adjacent to Denali National Park.
Among the benefits of this innovative project are improved visibility
and air quality. Without this agreement, the project would have
foundered.
To cite just a few other examples: I was a principal in the
collaborative effort with the Forest Service and the Department of
Commerce to finalize the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan. I worked with
the armed services to develop cooperative programs to protect habitat
on military bases. With the State of California, the Corps of
Engineers, and the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, I led the
effort to use port mitigation funding to purchase and bring into
protective ownership of the State the largest remaining estuarine
wetlands on the California coast. In Montana, Utah, and North Carolina,
I oversaw the implementation of innovative habitat plans with
landowners and county governments to protect endangered species.
While at Interior, I came to recognize that almost every important
environmental or natural resource issue facing the Federal Government
today requires coordination among more than one Federal agency or
department. Most of these issues also demand close cooperation, and
often a sustained partnership, with State and local government as well.
This is where the Council on Environmental Quality plays an
indispensable role.
CEQ was created by the Congress in 1969 to advise the President on
the long-term direction of environmental policy. But equally
important--and especially critical today--was Congress' direction to
coordinate the environmental work of the Federal family, and to oversee
implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
First, CEQ was to make sure that Federal agencies are working
together, not at cross purposes, and to referee disputes between the
agencies. Congress envisioned CEQ as a 'neutral' arbiter free of
``agency bias''--that is, commitment to a particular regulatory
approach or agency mission. As such, CEQ could ensure that the broadest
set of environmental goals was being advanced.
Second, CEQ was charged with an even broader mandate: to make sure
that in the articulation and implementation of the nation's
environmental program, economic and social imperatives were fully taken
into account. Sound environmental strategy that is based on good
science, and is broad-based rather than parochial in scope--this, I
believe, was the vision of Congress.
A parallel vision embodied in NEPA is that Federal agencies make
important decisions affecting the environment in a democratic way, only
after a thorough examination of the likely impacts of alternative
courses of action. By putting sound information before the public and
government managers, informed public input to such decisions would be
guaranteed.
Both of these visions--coordination and balance, and informed
democratic decisionmaking--were prescient for 1969, a time when the
Environmental Protection Agency did not yet even exist. They remain
cornerstones of the nation's environmental policymaking, and have been
at the heart of our environmental progress over the past three decades.
In my work over the past 5 months as Acting Chairman of CEQ, a very
large part of my work has been oriented to this practical, problem-
solving side of CEQ's mandate: seeing to it that Federal departments
and agencies are on the same page, are working together. I have been
reminded often, as I was at the Interior Department, how important it
is that the Federal family speak with one voice. This subject comes up
over and over again with mayors, county executives, and Governors, as
well as with representatives of regulated groups and industries.
In November, when I addressed the Western Governors Association
(WGA) meeting in Phoenix, many of the Governors explained how important
CEQ is to them because it is the only place where ``all roads cross''
when it comes to Federal environmental policy. It is the only place
they can go for help when they are caught between Federal environmental
statutes or agencies, or want to appeal an agency policy or decision.
In fact, several Governors said publicly they are dismayed that CEQ is
so small and has so few resources, given the importance of its role to
their constituents.
A significant part of CEQ's casework relates to the NEPA process,
and particularly to the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements
(EIS) and Environmental Assessments (EA). Typical of CEQ's involvement
is a recent settlement in a case involving the Longhorn Pipeline, which
runs from Austin to San Antonio. A proposal to use this former oil
pipeline to transmit natural gas--serving, among other things, poor
communities with inadequate energy supply--faced potentially fatal
delays because proponents sought to avoid NEPA's applications and a
Federal court held that an EIS might be required. A CEQ-brokered court
settlement satisfactory to all parties calls for prompt preparation of
a robust EA that will provide the public with ample information and
meet NEPA legal requirements in time to allow for key investment
decisions.
State and local governments, and other stakeholders, look to CEQ
for leadership on new initiatives as well. For example, last fall the
Governors of California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska asked the
Administration to create a Federal fund to help them restore endangered
coastal salmon runs--with an absolute minimum of Federal red tape. But
to ensure accountability to the Federal Government and Congress, and
coordination on a regional basis, the Governors proposed that the
Federal coordinating role be undertaken by CEQ. Responding to their
request, the President's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget indeed
includes a $100 million Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery fund to help
States, tribes and local communities restore coastal salmon.
Clearly CEQ's ``casework'' and coordinating roles are also very
important to many Members of Congress. The number of requests and
referrals from Members seeking improved NEPA coordination among the
agencies is increasing every year.
Yet CEQ today has fewer staff members and a smaller budget than it
had during much of the 1970's--nearly a third less staff even than at
the end of the Bush Administration.
For this reason, the President's proposed fiscal year 2000 Budget
requests additional funding for CEQ to carry out a Partnership Program
to work more closely with governments, mayors, and private individuals
in collaborative initiatives and in problem-solving in the field.
My vision for CEQ is no more and no less than the vision I believe
Congress had in 1969: a balanced, coordinated and effective Federal
environmental policy, and a process for democratic, informed
environmental decisionmaking.
In 6 years this Administration has compiled a record of strong
environmental protection as good as that of any President in history,
while catalyzing and overseeing the strongest economic recovery since
World War II. There is no longer any reason to debate whether rigorous
environmental standards go hand in hand with economic progress. The
history is now clear, and the record speaks for itself.
I am proud of the part CEQ--and NEPA--have played in establishing
that record and look forward to working with the Congress to continue
building on it, for the sake of our environment and the American
people.
__________
Responses by George Frampton to Additional Questions from Senator
Graham
Question. Will the CEQ conduct an analysis on how the Department of
Defense conducts Environmental Impact Statements for base closures and
determine if the process could be streamlined or improved for future
base closures?
Response. Pursuant to the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1988 and the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990, Congress modified the application of NEPA to
the base closure process and limited its procedural mandate to certain
phases. The overall process could certainly be improved for future base
closures. In fact, given where the processes currently are, a review of
how to improve the NEPA coordination would be timely. At present, CEQ
was not contemplating a study of this process. However, it this
surfaced as an important and immediate issue and CEQ had additional
resources for an analysis on the base closure and reuse process, the
results could possibly be helpful to the agencies and the public.
As to the specific question you and I spoke about in your office,
there appears to be no difference between how the various branches of
the Armed Services conduct their NEPA analyses for base closures. The
difference between how the NEPA processes were conducted for the
closures of Homestead Air Force Base and Orlando Naval Air Station was
based solely on differing levels of community support. The difference
was not based on any inconsistency between the Armed Services'
implementation of NEPA.
______
Responses by George Frampton to Additional Questions from Senator
Thomas
Question 1. During your confirmation hearing, you stated that CEQ
was preparing interagency guidance regarding State and local
governments as cooperating agencies.
A. Please provide a copy of this guidance.
Response. A copy of the draft interagency guidance, currently being
circulated for comments, is attached.
B. Will this guidance be subject to public review and comment?
Response. Guidances, such as this one, represent short policy
statements which usually do not go through a public comment period.
Instead, the draft guidance will be circulated to all Federal agency
NEPA contacts for agency comments. In addition, however, we would be
pleased to circulate copies of the draft guidance to interested Members
of Congress, such as yourself, and receive comments on the draft
guidance from your office and other Congressional offices. We will also
be happy to send draft copies to the National Governors Association,
the Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties for
comments.
C. When will this guidance be issued?
Response. We hope to issue this guidance by mid-June 1999. Of
course, that is dependent on the nature and timing of the comments we
receive on the draft guidance.
D. What agencies will receive this guidance?
Response. All Federal agencies will receive the draft guidance and
will have an opportunity to comment on it. The final guidance will also
be sent to all Federal agencies.
E. Why not issue this guidance as a CEQ regulation?
Response. The current CEQ regulations already contain clear
provisions concerning cooperating agencies and the roles of local,
county, State and Tribal governments in the NEPA process. The guidance
focuses on the existing regulations and will serve to remind all
agencies of their responsibilities to include local, county, State and
Tribal governments, where appropriate. Thus, the guidance is an
appropriate way of reinforcing the intent of the regulations and makes
the issuance of another regulation unnecessary.
F. How will CEQ ensure that local land managers or rangers are
aware of this guidance?
Response. The final guidance will be sent to all agency heads and
all agency NEPA liaisons. CEQ will request that these agency heads and
NEPA liaisons distribute the guidance to the appropriate personnel,
including all appropriate regional, district and other local offices.
G. Will you support my efforts to amend NEPA to clarify that-State
and local governments should be afforded the opportunity to become
cooperating agencies if they so choose?
Response. The National Environmental Policy Act and the current
NEPA regulations fully reflect the goals of NEPA in including local,
county, State and Tribal governments as cooperating agencies. We
believe that the guidance currently contemplated satisfies the
additional need for a comprehensive policy as we discussed in your
office. The Administration has opposed in the past amending NEPA to
make mandatory State, local and Tribal cooperative status. If the
guidance proves not to be successful, however, I will certainly be
willing to consider other options.
Question 2. In November 1995, Senator Craig and I sent the attached
letter to your predecessor outlining a process of improving NEPA
compliance within the Forest Service. I also have enclosed Ms.
McGinty's only response to this letter. Please provide an action plan
for addressing the issues raised in that letter.
Response. The November 1995 letter to the Chair of the Council on
Environmental Quality raises serious and important issues regarding the
Forest Service's implementation of the National Environmental Policy
Act. The numerous suggestions contained in the letter for embarking on
a comprehensive rulemaking include cogent observations and interesting
substantive suggestions. I believe that the process that you and
Senator Craig propose for the rulemaking has merit. I also agree with
the suggestion in the letter that we only begin on such a course of
action following the Forest Service's revision of their planning
regulations under the National Forest Management Act. This is
especially important since the NEPA process, to be effective, must be
well integrated with the decisionmaking process. In short, after the
Forest Service's revision of their planning regulations has been
completed, it will be appropriate for the Forest Service to revise
their current NEPA procedures. At that time, I will consult with the
Chief of the Forest Service regarding the proposals in the November
1995 letter and report back to you and Senator Craig on the NEPA
implementation issues.
Question 3. According to CEQ regulations, Environmental Assessments
(EAs) are to be brief concise analyses which assist a Federal agency in
determining whether a proposed action will have significant impacts and
therefore require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
A. Please provide the number and length of EAs, by Federal agency,
for each of the last 5 years.
Response. Our most recent data on environmental assessments is
CEQ's 1992 survey of Federal agencies and EAs. In 1992, Federal
agencies prepared 45,000 EAs, and agencies continue to prepare
approximately 50,000 EAs each year. Only 26 percent of the agencies
responding to the 1992 EA Survey indicated that their EAs do not exceed
10-15 pages, as recommended by CEQ. Another 26 percent of the agencies
estimate the average EA length at 26-45 pages. Forty-six percent of the
agencies prepare EAs averaging between 16-60 pages. Six agencies (13
percent) responded that the average length is between 46-100 pages. Two
agencies stated that their average EA is 100 pages. Attached please
find the list of 44 agencies responding to the EA survey, the chart
regarding number of EAs prepared by agency and the chart of average
length of EAs by agency. (See Attachment).
B. How many of these EAs resulted in the preparation of EISs?
Response. Twenty-eight percent of the respondents to the 1992 EA
Survey stated that they precede EISs with EAs less than 1 percent of
the time. Further, the same number simply never prepare EISs, while 4
of the respondents said their agencies ``rarely'' precede EISs with
EAs. Thus, 67 percent of the respondents, rarely, if ever, precede EISs
with EAs, either because they do not prepare EISs, or, as many agencies
noted, do not have to prepare an EIS based on experience and NEPA
guidance. The 67 percent figure rises to 74 percent when calculating
those agencies that precede less than 10 percent of their EISs with
EAs. Four agencies precede EISs with EAs 100 percent of the time.
C. How many EISs were preceded by EAs?
Response. The 1992 EA Survey reflects that most of the 44 Federal
agency respondents do not precede EISs with EAs. As set form above, 74
percent of respondent agencies stated that less than 10 percent of
their EISs are preceded by EAs.
D. ACED does not have this information, why not?
Response. Not applicable.
Question 4. Given the wide range of actions which require an EA--
everything from the Longhorn pipeline in Texas to the renewal of an
unchanged grazing permit in Wyoming--Ms. McGinty stated that ``CEQ is
aware that further clarification of the use of EAs would be useful,
particularly in the area of public participation. `` See S. Hrg. 104-
774 at p. 61 (Sept. 26, 1996.) What clarification has CEQ provided over
the last 3 \1/2\ years on the use of EAs?
Response. In the past 3 \1/2\ years, CEQ has provided clarification
on the use of environmental assessments in its Environmental Justice
Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act, published on
December 10, 1997. The guidance makes clear that EAs also require a
discussion of socio-economic considerations.
__________
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
from acting chair to heads of federal agencies
Re: Designation of Non-Federal Agencies to be Cooperating Agencies
in Implementing the Procedural Requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act
Date: April ,1999
The purpose of this Memorandum is to urge agencies to actively
solicit the participation of State, tribal and local governments as
``cooperating agencies'' in implementing the environmental impact
assessment process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
40 C.F.R. Sec. 1508.5. As soon as practicable, but no later than the
scoping process, Federal agency officials should identify State, tribal
and local government agencies which have jurisdiction by law and or
special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in
a proposed action, or a reasonable alternative to a proposed action,
that requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement. The
Federal agency should hen determine whether such non-Federal agencies
are interested in assuming the responsibilities of becoming a
cooperating agency under 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1501.6.
The benefits of granting cooperating agency status include
disclosure of relevant information early in the analytical process
receipt or technical expertise and staff support, avoidance of
duplication with State tribal and local procedures, and establishment
of a mechanism for addressing intergovernmental issues. If a non-
federal agency agrees to become a cooperating agency, agencies are
encouraged to memorialize in writing their specific expectations, roles
and responsibilities.
Agencies are reminded that cooperating agency status neither
enlarges nor diminishes the decisionmaking authority of either Federal
or non-Federal entities. However, cooperating agency relationships with
State, tribal and local agencies helps to achieve the direction set
forth in NEPA to work with other levels of government ``to promote the
general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and
nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social,
economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of
Americans.'' Considering NEPA's mandate and the authority granted in
Federal regulation to allow for cooperating agency status for State,
tribal and local agencies, cooperator status for appropriate non-
Federal agencies should occur routinely.
______
List of 44 Agencies Responding to EA Survey and Initials as They Appear
in Tables
Department of Agriculture
Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS)
Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS & APHIS/
BP)
Farmers Home Administration (FHA)
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSI)
Forest Service (USES)
Rural Electrification Administration (REA)
Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration (EDA)
Department of Defense
Air Force (Air Force)
Army (Army)
Marine Corps (USMC)
Navy (Navy) Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Bureau of Reclamation (RECLAM)
Fish and Wildlife Service (F&WS)
Minerals Management Service (MMS)
National Park Service (NPS)
Office of Surface Mining (OSM)
Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
Department of the Treasury
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (T-FLETC)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (T-ATF)
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA)
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM)
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-OHL (FERC-OHL)
Federal Maritime Commission (FMC)
General Services Administration (GSA)
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)
Marine Mammal Commission (MMC)
National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation) NRC/NRA
U.S. Postal Service (USPS)
Small Business Administration (SBA)
__________
Responses by George Frampton to Additional Questions from Senator
Bennett
Question 1. Do you have any knowledge of communications, ongoing
plans or activities designed to create additional national monument
sites anywhere in the United States, beyond the discussions regarding
the proposed monument on the Arizona Strip?
Response. Nothing beyond the letter from the President to Secretary
Babbitt in November and made available to Congress. As you know, the
President wrote Secretary Babbitt asking him for his advice on whether
any area warranted national monument protection. The President has
received no such recommendation or information from Secretary Babbitt
to date and other than the conversations that Secretary Babbitt has had
with Congress, I am aware of no such recommendations or information.
Question 2. I am sure that the Committee members would be very
interested in learning which States would be impacted by such plans if
there are any. Please tell us all of the areas and States that have
been, currently are, or could be included in any discussions that have
been held.
Response. See answer 1 above.
Question 3. If you are not personally aware of any other
discussions, will you review this matter with your staff as well as the
appropriate individuals in the various Federal agencies that might be
impacted. If it is the case that there are no plans to use the
Antiquities Act to create additional monuments, please provide me
written assurance that this is the case within 2 weeks of receiving
these questions.
Response. Only the President has the authority under the
Antiquities Act to create a national monument. To my knowledge, my
staff and I are not aware of any plans for the President to do this.
Question 4. Do you feel that the Antiquities Act which was passed
in 1906, long before the passage of FLPMA, NEPA, the National Park
Service Organic Act, or the Wilderness Act is still an appropriate
vehicle for public land management decisions? Is it your intention that
this authority will be used again during the remaining tenure of the
Clinton Administration?
Response. I believe that the Antiquities Act is still an
appropriate vehicle for certain public land management decisions. As
you know, the President's authority under the Antiquities Act is
available only to the extent that the land in question is land already
in public ownership, and has no application to land that is privately
owned. The decision to invoke the executive authority under the
Antiquities Act is not available to the Chair of CEQ, but is the
President's alone. I would not presume to speak for the President on
this matter with respect to the remainder of his term.
______
Responses by George Frampton to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. Congress and the courts have repeatedly confirmed the
authority of States to allocate and administer water within their
borders. However, I am deeply concerned that the Administration is
setting the stage for ignoring long-established statutory provisions
concerning State water rights. Can I have your commitment that the
Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Federal Land Policy Management
Act, national designations, and other Federal initiatives are not used
to erode State sovereignty over water?
Response. The Administration's initiatives proceed from the
principle that we need to strengthen our partnership with States both
in protecting ground water and surface water, and in helping resolve
disputes among States with conflicting claims to water resources. This
principle recognizes that State law provides the foundation for our
water right's system.
As the Committee is aware, there are particular circumstances in
which States have disputed the scope of Federal authority to protect
waters of the United States or to protect other water resources that
have been entrusted to Federal management. I do no intend to seek any
change in the positions or roles that agencies have asserted in these
particular matters over the course of the Administration, and I intend
to make myself available to States with concerns that agency conduct
may have impinged State authority over water resources.
Question 2. Current Federal land management agency actions
demonstrate a clear policy direction to decrease access by the public
to Federal lands. I have visited communities in Idaho that have been
greatly impacted by these actions. Recognizing the role of the CEQ in
guiding these policies, is it appropriate for National Forests to be
designated ``closed-unless-posted-open.'' ?
Response. CEQ has had no involvement to my knowledge in these
policies that involve decreasing access by the public to Federal lands.
As I understand it, the policies your question raises about national
forest road postings are decided on a forest-by-forest basis at a local
level.
Question 3. If this must be determined on a case-by-case basis, is
it your policy that the public is restricted from public lands except
where designated by land managers?
Response. Many of the public lands are administered under multi-use
statutes. However, not all uses are appropriate for all lands. The
appropriate use is determined by the processes set out by law and
processes, which generally involve local land users and stakeholders.
Question 4. At the recent Andrus Symposium on public land
management in Boise, Idaho, a number of agency officials, including
Chief Dombeck and Director Clark, indicated their interest in having
more collaborative stewardship with local communities. I support their
interest in this, but am concerned that policy direction from
Washington poses constraints on the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FA
CA) process. What steps are you taking to eliminate these constraints
to FACA and increase local public involvement in decisionmaking?
Response. The Administration is committed to working with local
communities to forge partnerships for more collaborative stewardship.
There was concern voiced several years ago that the Federal Advisory
Committee Act prohibited such local government inclusion. Fortunately,
FACA was amended specifically to allow State and local government
participation where a statute, such as NEPA, encouraged public
involvement. To the extent that your question raises concerns about the
number of authorized advisory committees, I would be pleased to review
the situation and see if the number of committees in existence can and
should be increased.
Question 5. Your predecessor, Katie McGinty, was an instrumental
supporter of the Enhanced Training in Idaho project as the Idaho
congressional delegation, the Air Force, the Department of Interior,
and the State of Idaho worked to enact land withdrawal legislation to
build this range. Can we count on your support as we continue the
effort to develop this important Air Force training range.
Response. I am aware of CEQ's historical involvement and support of
this project and would be more than happy to work with the Idaho
delegation should there be a role for CEQ to play in the future.
NOMINATION OF TIMOTHY FIELDS, JR.
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Chafee, Warner, Crapo, Baucus,
Lautenberg, and Wyden.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. Good morning. The purpose of today's
hearing is to consider the nomination of Mr. Tim Fields as
Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response.
I am pleased to welcome everyone here today. Mr. Fields, I
believe you have the members of your family here. Would you
like to introduce them to us?
Mr. Fields. Yes, sir, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have with me, and I will ask them to stand, my wife,
Emma; my son, Stephen Fields; my mom, Clara Fields; and my dad,
Tim Fields, Sr. And they are all here to visit today with me,
and thank you for having me introduce them.
Senator Chafee. Fine, well, we are delighted that you all
were able to be here this morning, and I am very pleased to
welcome you to this hearing.
Mr. Fields has been employed by EPA in a variety of
positions for more than 25 years. Most recently, on February
17, 1997, Mr. Fields was appointed as Acting Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, which has the unpronounceable acronym of OSWER, which
is an odd one.
Prior to this, Mr. Fields served for 3 years as Principal
Deputy Assistant Administrator for OSWER. In this capacity, he
was responsible for Superfund, hazardous and solid waste
management under the so-called RCRA Act, and environmental
cleanup under a number of other Federal laws.
Mr. Fields was Director of EPA's Superfund Revitalization
Office for 2 \1/2\ years. He was Deputy Director of EPA's
Superfund Office for 2 \1/2\ years, Director of EPA's Emergency
Response Division for 4 \1/2\ years, and Deputy Director of the
Hazardous Site Control Division for a 1 \1/2\ years.
In addition to these positions, Mr. Fields has held a
variety of supervisory and staff positions in the Office of
Mobile Sources and the Office of Solid Waste. Since September
1997, he has also served as Chairperson of the EPA Human
Resources Council.
Mr. Fields has a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial
Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Virginia
State University. He has a Master of Science in Operations
Research from George Washington University, and had an
additional year of graduate studies at Ohio State University.
Now this nomination has not proceeded as quickly as others
that the committee considered recently. Mr. Fields has been
serving in an acting capacity for nearly 27 months, since his
predecessor, Elliott Laws, resigned in early 1997. The White
House nominated another individual for this position, but that
was later withdrawn and Mr. Fields was selected as the new
nominee.
Mr. Fields might have been confirmed last year, had his
nomination been received by the committee just a few days
earlier than it was. The committee acted on a large number of
nominations, right up to the end of the last Congress. And all
those individuals were ultimately confirmed, prior to
adjournment.
Since the President resubmitted Mr. Fields' nomination to
the committee in January of this year, we have examined an
important decision that EPA made regarding the enforcement of a
December, 1998 deadline for underground storage tanks to comply
with Federal law. I will have some questions on the substance
of that policy, and Mr. Fields' role in the EPA's decision,
when we get to the question period.
Now, Senator Baucus, I am sure, has a statement. And
perhaps other committee members will, too. I do not see Senator
Baucus, but he should be here soon.
But I think we can proceed. You have a statement, Mr.
Fields. Why do not you rise and raise your right hand, if you
would, please.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Fields. I do, sir.
Senator Chafee. Fine, all right, why do not you proceed
with your statement, Mr. Fields?
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY FIELDS, JR., NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO
BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Fields. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great honor
for me to be here before you and the other members of the
committee who will be joining us.
As you said, I have been a career public servant for almost
28 years now. I am greatly honored to be here today to testify
before this committee.
My family and I are both grateful and honored that
President Clinton has nominated me for the position of
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
I look forward with great enthusiasm to the challenge and
the opportunity of serving as Assistant Administrator and
directing the waste management and environmental cleanup
programs at EPA. I am willing to meet with any other Senators,
and talk to members of your staff, as you consider this
nomination.
I am especially proud today to have my family with me. They
are my greatest supporters. I thank them for being here and
being present.
My wife, Emma, has been my greatest supporter for more than
26 years. We have been keeping each other together and straight
for a long time. And I thank her for all she has done to be a
supporter for me.
My son, Stephen, I thank him for even being here. He is in
the midst of final exams right now, in college, as he graduates
next week.
I thank him for making the sacrifice to come here and be
here, in the middle of his exam schedule. I told him to stay,
but he decided to come anyway. That speaks well of him, but I
hope it does not impact on his exam grades.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Fields. I am also thankful for my parents. My mom and
dad have been great for me. A lot of people say I act like my
dad and look like my mom.
My dad is my hero. He is why I became an engineer. My
father, at an early age, when I was growing up, built his own
house. He put in all the electricity. He put in water and
heating and bathroom facilities when we formerly were using
outhouses. He cut my hair, he fixed my cars, and he still does
that, even today. So I thank him for being a great role model
for me.
My mom, she has been a great friend. She has been a great
supporter. When I was growing up, I always wondered, people
used to always come down around our house. We lived in a rural
community. And they would always come visit. I thought they
were visiting me. I found out later that they wanted to be near
my mom's cooking.
So, you know, it has been a tremendous support system. And
my mom and dad have been supporting me for more than 51 years.
And I thank them for being here today. It is really, really
special that they are here.
Senator Chafee. Well, we are certainly glad you are all
able to be here. That is a wonderful thing. And I know Senator
Lautenberg joins me in welcoming you, your son, your wife, your
parents, to this hearing today.
Senator Lautenberg. It does intimidate us, I will tell you.
We had better behave.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Fields. Well, Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, and Senator
Lautenberg, and other members of the committee who will join
us, I did begin my career at EPA in 1971, about 6 months after
EPA was formed.
A lot has changed at EPA since that time. What has not
changed is my dedication to public service and my strong
commitment to EPA's mission to protect public health and the
environment. I know that public service is a special calling
for me.
As Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for 3 years,
and Acting Assistant Administrator during the past 2 years, in
OSWER, and Senator Chafee, you did a good job of pronouncing
that acronym, I have had the opportunity to be involved in some
major program initiatives; the Superfund program reforms being
a major component of that.
I was tasked by the Administrator to lead and direct the
three rounds of Superfund administrative reforms. I am pleased
to tell you that the high priority on Superfund by this
Congress and the Clinton Administration has resulted in some
significant improvements.
We have got 599 sites that are now construction completed.
We have got 90 percent of the sites that are either
construction complete or construction underway.
So we have done a lot to get cleanup done. We have
accelerated cleanup by more than 20 percent, and reduced costs
by about 20 percent, with more than a billion dollars in cost
savings and remedy updates over the last 3 years.
We have been fair. More than 18,000 small parties have been
settled out, and we have offered orphan share funding for more
than 70 parties over the last 3 years. At the pace we are
going, we are projecting that 85 percent of the sites will have
construction completed by the end of 2005.
Our goal in Superfund is to build on that success
administratively, and work with Congress to pass responsible
Superfund legislative reform. We would suggest that there is a
lot of agreement of certain reforms like liability relief for
perspective purchasers, innocent landowners, contiguous
property owners and small generators and transporters of
municipal solid waste.
We would hope that people would focus on some of those
changes, enact them, and reinstate the taxes, and allow us to
have the resources we need to finish the job of getting these
sites cleaned up.
Brownfields has also been a program that I have spearheaded
and led the effort on at EPA. I led the direction and the
development of the Brownfields Action Agenda in 1995.
That effort started with three communities, began to spread
to 50 more, and now we are involved in more than 250
communities around the country, where we have given them grants
to provide assistance to the assessment and cleanup of
Brownfields sites in communities around the country.
It has resulted in more than a billion dollars in other
private and public sector investment, and created more than
2,500 jobs in the last couple of years.
I will continue to build on the success of this initiative,
which began as an EPA initiative, and has now become an
Administration-wide initiative.
Third, one of my top priorities for the near term will be
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) correction
action program. We want to implement administrative changes to
RCRA, just like we have done for Superfund. I welcome the
opportunity to work with this committee on making those
changes, as well.
The RCRA corrective action program has 1,700 high priority
sites. We want to work with you to develop a program and game
plan as to how we can most effectively address those sites.
I am ready to provide leadership to meet this challenge.
States are largely responsible for overseeing RCRA corrective
action cleanups. But I believe they need national and program
leadership from EPA to help get the job done.
Last, in closing, I would like to thank the employees of
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and many
other partners at EPA, in the Enforcement Office, the General
Counsel's Office, Congressional Affairs Office, all the folks
who have worked to support me over the years, as well as our
EPA regional offices and the labs, who work hard to implement
the Superfund, the Brownfields, the RCRA Hazardous and Solid
Waste Program, the Underground Storage Tank Program, the
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Program, the
Federal Facilities Oversight Program, the Technology Innovation
and the Oil Pollution Programs on a daily basis.
I could not do my job without that tremendous support.
These are all talented and dedicated Federal employees, who are
critical to the success of these programs. I pledge my support
to them, as well as this committee, as we work together to
provide safe and healthy environments for ourselves, for our
children, our grandchildren, and future generations.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your time
and the opportunity to appear before this committee. I ask this
committee for your support of my nomination as Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response at EPA. I
pledge to faithfully execute the laws and regulations within my
responsibility.
I look forward to working with this committee. And I will
be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Fields.
And Senator Baucus, do you have a statement that you would
like to make?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Actually, I would, Mr. Chairman, like to
say a few words about the nominee.
Since the nominee is a native Virginian, Senator Warner was
going to be here this morning to introduce Mr. Fields. But he
is unable to attend this hearing, because of the crisis in
Kosovo, and he has several meetings on that subject he is
attending.
And I would just like to, in the meanwhile, just mention a
little bit of Mr. Fields' very considerable background,
particularly in solid waste and emergency response.
As a career employee of EPA since its inception in 1971, he
actually is a very rare breed, in the length of time he has
served with such distinction.
Even more remarkable, he received the highest award for
civil servants, the Presidential Rank Award for Distinguished
Executive Service--not once, but he received that highest award
four times. He was twice recommended under President Bush and
twice recommended under President Clinton. And he is the only
EPA employee to be so honored, and has received four times the
highest civil service award.
Mr. Chairman, we have a nominee of exceptional ability. He
has demonstrated commitment to public service more than anyone
I know. And these are qualities that I think will help serve
him in the programs he administers very well.
He has been front and center at the heart of a lot of the
reforms in Superfund. He has dedicated experience. He has long
tenure, a great list of personal accomplishments. And I know
that he is the kind of man who focuses on getting solutions to
problems today. Rather than bellyaching or complaining about
something not getting done right, he just settles down and gets
the job done.
And I just want to commend you, Mr. Fields, and thank you
for all the work that you have done for not only EPA, but for
our country.
Mr. Fields. Thank you, sir.
Senator Chafee. Senator Lautenberg?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I feel like now, having read the book, we are going to the
prologue and see what it is about. Because we have heard from
Mr. Fields. We have met the three generations, which is nice to
see. I am sure that your family is proud of you. And we know
that you have a good support system, not only on a personal
basis, but within this institution, as well.
And it is deserved, because you have done such a good job,
Mr. Fields. Rarely, as Senator Baucus has said, have we had a
nominee come before us with so much direct experience to
qualify him for the job??
And as you know, Mr. Fields comes to us, not from a
political background, but from the field of engineering. He
came to the attention of the Administration not from the world
of politics, but from long and outstanding service as a career
employee.
You mentioned that you started in the early 1970's, and
during that time you have worked on matters that relate to
hazardous waste, since well before the passage of Superfund in
1980.
As you well know, it has been a program that I have
supported very aggressively, because I see the results. And we
are pleased that we are on target to complete the task that was
taken those years ago. It took a long time to get it rolling,
but it is rolling now.
And Mr. Fields served as Deputy Assistant Administrator in
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response from 1994
through February 1997. And at that time, he was appointed to
his current position as Acting Assistant Administrator for
OSWER.
During that time that Tim Fields has been working in the
top management of the waste programs, the program has undergone
major changes and major improvements. In fact, as just about
everyone involved in the Superfund Program agrees, there have
been significant strides made in the number and the pace of the
sites being cleaned up, with your hand very much involved.
According to a report issued by the General Accounting
Office, by the end of this fiscal year, all cleanup remedies
will have been selected for 95 percent of the non-Federal NPL
sites. That is over 1,100 sites.
Additionally, about 990 National Priority List sites have
had final cleanup plans approved. Approximately 5,600 emergency
removal actions have been taken at hazardous waste sites to
stabilize dangerous situations, and to reduce the threat to
human health and the environment.
Almost 31,000 sites have been removed from the Superfund
inventory of potential waste sites, to help promote the
economic redevelopment of these properties. That is a very
significant program.
During this same time, EPA has worked to improve the
fairness and the efficiency of the enforcement program, even
while keeping up the participation of potentially responsible
parties in cleaning up their sites.
EPA has negotiated more than 400 de minimis settlements
with over 18,000 small parties, which gave protection for those
parties against expensive contribution suits brought by others
to try oftentimes to divert attention to the polluter largely
responsible.
So since fiscal year 1996, EPA has offered orphan share
compensation of $145 million at 72 sites to responsible parties
who were willing to step up and negotiate settlements of their
cases.
And EPA is now offering this at every single settlement, to
reward settlers and reduce litigation, both for the Government,
and with other private parties.
And I had an interesting meeting with a fellow named Jan
Schlichtmann, who was the subject of a movie called Civil
Action. And I was interested to know that this lawyer, who
brought the famous case up in Woburn, is now engaged not in
litigation, but in negotiating settlements, and has decided
that there is a better way to go.
And that is pretty astounding, when you think about it.
Because often, there are such juicy fees that hang out there as
a target for reward. But people are getting more sensible,
totally, about the way we deal with the Superfund Program.
So other improvements besides the few highlights we have
mentioned, such as instituting the targeted review of complex
and high cost cleanups, prior to remedy selection, have reduced
the cost of cleanups, without delaying the face of cleanups.
In short, EPA's administrative reforms have significantly
improved the program by speeding up cleanups and reducing
senseless litigation, and making the program fairer, faster,
and generally more efficient.
And I think it is fair to say that Mr. Fields deserves a
significant part of the credit for these strides. In fact, I
think that most of the people who have dealt with Tim Fields,
in his current acting position, would agree that his approach
is unflaggingly constructive, and that he is devoted to making
the programs that he administers work.
I understand that many outside groups support this
nomination, including the Hazardous Waste Action Coalition, the
Association of State and Solid Waste Management officials, the
Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and the InterState
Oil and Gas Compact Commission.
They are, by no means, uninterested observers in this
action. They say, Mr. Fields, that you deserve support because
of the way you have handled your job.
So I want to put into the record, Mr. Chairman, a copy of
their letter in strong support of Mr. Fields. And I look
forward to working with him in the future, continuing our joint
efforts to clean up hazardous waste sites and protect the
health and future welfare of our citizens.
[The letter from Hazardous Waste Action Coalition follows:]
Hazardous Waste Action Coalition
Washington, DC 20005, February 19, 1999.
The Honorable John H. Chafee,
Dirksen Office Building,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Chafee: The Hazardous Waste Action Coalition (HWAC) is
a national trade association representing the leading firms that
provide multimedia environmental assessment and remediation services
across the United States. Our members work to implement this country's
hazardous waste laws in an expeditious, cost-effective manner to ensure
protection of human health and the environment.
HWAC strongly endorses the nomination of Tim Fields to be the
Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER). Mr. Fields has been responsible for implementing
EPA's Superfund Administrative Environmental Resources Reforms, which
have helped to improve the Superfund program in the absence of much
needed comprehensive legislative reform. Mr. Fields' breadth of
experience in Superfund, RCRA and the other activities undertaken by
EPA's OSWER office is matched by few people either inside or outside of
the Federal Government. Our experience is that Mr. Fields is a
consensus-builder, and is committed to getting the job done. We are
confident he will work hard to promote responsible implementation of
Congressional initiatives. Finally, Mr. Fields knows the cleanup
business and is extremely well-suited to guide EPA's hazardous and
solid waste programs into the next century.
We urge your prompt confirmation of Tim Fields, to be EPA's
Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER). Please feel free to contact me at 202-828-7368, or
Terre Belt, HWAC's Executive Director, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Daniel E. Kennedy, President.
Senator Lautenberg. And I hope that the process will move
expeditiously, and that you will be able to assume the full
responsibility, as I think you have earned it.
Mr. Fields. Thanks very much.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Crapo?
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no opening
statement at this time.
Senator Chafee. All right, now we will have a period for
questions.
Mr. Fields, on December 9 of last year, you issued a
memorandum on the subject of EPA's enforcement policy with
respect to the December 22 deadline for upgrading, replacing,
or closing leaking underground storage tanks. As you recall,
the deadline was to be December 22.
Up until that point, everyone at EPA, from the
Administrator down, had repeatedly stated that the deadline
would be enforced. We were so informed that you were going to
stick by that deadline.
Your December 9 memo, however, seemed to reflect a
different position, essentially giving small businesses, the
so-called ``mom and pop'' operations, and State and local
governments, that is, local fire departments or police
departments, or local governments--what you did was to give
them an additional 6 months to come into compliance.
Now, obviously, the ones who had made the effort to comply
were resentful of the extension that was given to some others.
And I have great trouble understanding why you changed the
policy. Could you tell us what went into your thinking?
And, obviously, the Administrator was involved, too. I am
not saying she was not involved. But if I am correct, it was
you who issued the December 9 memo?
Mr. Fields. That is correct, Senator. I will be happy to
describe what led to that policy change.
Senator Chafee. And particularly, I am concerned about
giving the extension at all. My own view is, you set deadlines,
and you and the Agency had constantly said you were going to
stick by the deadline, which is fine.
Mr. Fields. Right.
Senator Chafee. But go to it.
Mr. Fields. You are right. We did issue a policy, signed
jointly by me and the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance, Steve Herman, on December 9, to
change our enforcement and compliance assistance strategy, for
how we address underground storage tanks.
We did not change the deadline. We would have to amend the
regulations in order to change the deadline. But I want to tell
you what led to the change in policy.
We determined that there were significant changes in the
projections of the number of people that would be in
noncompliance from our earlier projections. In December, 1997,
one year before the deadline, we were projecting that roughly
15 percent of the universe would be in noncompliance, about
165,000 tanks.
As we were approaching the December, 1998 deadline, we were
discovering and we were projecting that 350,000 tanks would be
in noncompliance, more than double the number of tanks that we
were projecting a year earlier.
So that, obviously, caused some issues. We were concerned
with the reality of a more than double noncompliance universe
than we were projecting a year earlier. So that was a
consideration that informed our judgment that we had to do
something to bring those into compliance.
Second, we recognized that a lot of those people that were
still in noncompliance, the 350,000, were small businesses,
moms and pops, that had not taken the steps to bring their
tanks into compliance, and critical local government service
organizations, like fire departments, police departments,
hospitals, et cetera.
So given the large number of people that were going to be
noncomplying by December 22, 1998, and the makeup of some of
those people, we said, what is the best way, how do we focus
our resources, and bring those remaining tanks into compliance;
550,000 had been brought into compliance; 1.2 billion had
closed during that 10-year period. How do we get these last
350,000 into compliance?
And so we then decided that we needed a combination of
enforcement activity and compliance assistance activities to
bring that remaining universe into compliance.
So we formulated with the Administrator and the Enforcement
Office and my office a dual strategy which said, high
enforcement priority will be the Federal Government, first of
all. We have got to set a good model and get our act together.
So the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, we have
got to make sure we are meeting the deadline. Large, multiple
complex facilities and facilities near sensitive ecosystems
would be high priorities.
And last, we said, for the mom and pop, and the local
government support services, we would use compliance
assistance. They would have to self-disclose, tell us that they
are in noncompliance, and we would issue a penalty to them, and
put them on a compliance agreement to bring their tanks into
compliance.
We thought that was the best approach to bringing these
remaining, roughly 300,000, tanks into compliance as quickly as
possible. That is the thinking that led to this.
I recognize, you are right, Senator, it was a policy
change. As I have communicated to your staff, in the future, I
want to make sure we have a better process for communicating
when the Agency makes major policy pronouncements, that we have
an opportunity to discuss and inform this committee ahead of
time, and have a dialog about it.
But that is what led to our change in policy, those
considerations.
Senator Chafee. Well, yes, there is no question that the
change in policy did cause deep concern with me and others.
It is my understanding, however, that the facts I have are
somewhat different from the facts that you have described. And
that is, the number of tanks that were not meeting the
standards.
Let us see, in the summer of 1998, we have information that
shows over 536,000 tanks, 60 percent of all the underground
storage tanks, were not equipped to meet the upgrade
requirements. That was back in the summer of 1998, the summer.
In the fall, it appears, as of November, 1998,
approximately 395,000 would be out of compliance. In other
words, it was not more. It was fewer, which does not conform
with the situation as you have outlined it, previously.
Mr. Fields. Well, I agree the data fluctuated through the
year. The fact is, Senator, that as I stated earlier, that we
were projecting on December, 1997, 165,000 tanks would be in
noncompliance, 15 percent of the universe.
As we were approaching the deadline, in November, 1998, we
were now projecting 350,000. I can not speak for what the
numbers were, throughout the year.
I do want to point out those numbers vary. For example, I
have got data here now that I can provide to the record that
shows that in 13 States that said they had a certain percentage
of tanks in compliance on December 22, 1998, they now have
reduced the number of tanks that they say were in compliance.
Some States, for example, said 75 percent of the tanks in
our universe were in compliance. They now tell us that that was
wrong. The number really should have been 55 percent. So the
numbers varied during the year.
I did not track the numbers throughout the year. But all I
can tell you is that during the fall of 1998, I was seeing that
the numbers had more than doubled, from what had been
communicated to me in December 1997.
And that was a consideration. It was not the only
consideration. But the fact that we had a large number of tanks
that were in noncompliance, what is the best strategy for
bringing them into compliance, considering the make-up of that
universe, small mom and pops, you know, Federal Government
facilities, large complex facilities--what is the best
strategy?
Given you have got 300,000 tanks, and we all, this
committee, and me, as well, share a common goal, what is the
best approach to getting all of the two million tanks that
existed in 1988 into compliance as quickly as possible? A great
job has been done, all except 300,000, and what is the best
approach to do that?
I can not quibble over, you know, how the numbers
fluctuated. But all I know is that the numbers had more than
doubled from a year earlier.
Senator Chafee. OK, fine, thank you. My time is up.
Senator Baucus?
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Mr. Fields.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, and this is just in passing,
that the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, in
October, 1998, did an analysis of this deadline.
And it concluded that it would have some effect, not great
effect, if it were enforced vigorously, but that the loss of
all service stations in the communities may have economic
health effects, even though fuel might be made available in
nearby communities.
The point being, in rural States, where a station goes
down, it causes great hardship. It is kind of like the theory
of perspective reimbursement in hospitals. You know, the
theory, the patient survived, but some could always go to the
next hospital. But in rural areas, that just does not apply.
Mr. Fields, I would like you to just outline for us and
remind us of some of the administrative reforms that you are
part of and helped put together in the Superfund Program. What
are some of the things that you have done to help speed
cleanups and get rid of some of the paperwork, and helped make
the program more efficient?
Mr. Fields. Sure, Senator, I will be happy to give you some
examples of that. We implemented, as I indicated, three rounds
of administrative reforms during the last 6 years.
The reforms all had different themes. In the first round of
reforms, we focused on how we can be more fair. We implemented
a lot of reforms on de minimis settlements, and how we can get
more small parties out of the system, mixed funding, and
allocation pilots that we would test new ways to be more fair
to parties involved in the system.
The second round of reforms was focused on Brownfields, and
how we can foster more economic redevelopment of sites, while
we are assessing them and cleaning them up. And that led to the
Brownfields Action Agenda.
And the third round of reforms was focused on how we could
speed the pace of cleanup, how we could provide more
consistency.
And that led to, for example, the updating of the remedy
initiative that led to saving time and money, based on new
science and technology, more than a billion dollars over 3
years, the National Remedy Review Board that has saved more
than $43 million in terms of looking at more than 30 site
remedies, implementing presumptive remedies to speed up
cleanup, soil screening levels for more than 100 chemicals
commonly found at Superfund sites, guidance on future
anticipated land use, so we would probably consider industrial
versus commercial versus residential land use in making remedy
decisions.
Those are just examples of some of the reforms we have
implemented. We think they have had a tremendous impact. Our
data shows that we have saved more than 20 percent in time.
It now takes an average of 8 years, from the time a site is
put on the NPL until construction is complete. We have saved
tremendous costs. And I think we would be judged by most people
to be more fair.
Senator Baucus. Could you give us some idea of how much of
a cost reduction and how much of a delay in time?
Mr. Fields. A 20 percent reduction in time--we have gone
from 10 years to 8 years in the time it takes to go through the
Superfund process.
We have saved 20 percent, on the average. The average cost
of a Superfund site cleanup now is $20 million; whereas, 5 or 6
years ago, it was $25 million, on the average, for a Superfund
site cleanup. We have saved more than a billion dollars in
projected costs in the future, from the updating remedies
initiative.
So I think those are just some examples, and even we have
gotten letters and endorsements from the regulated community
that agree that those reforms are working, and time is being
saved, and cost is being saved, as well.
Senator Baucus. Were you involved in the Anaconda Oil Works
project?
Mr. Fields. Yes, I was.
Senator Baucus. Could you explain that to the committee,
please? I think that is quite a success story.
Mr. Fields. That is a tremendous success story. And that is
a contaminated mine property in Butte, Montana. That site was
cleaned up, and construction is underway. But we were
successful in working with the responsible party, with the
State, with the community.
We were able to take contaminated mining area, and working
with Jack Nicklaus, it was converted into a world class Jack
Nicklaus golf course.
And that is a tremendous success story and an example of
how we want to turn Superfund sites into recycled, valuable
property for the future. And I think the Anaconda is a great
success story.
And Jack Nicklaus has indicated, by the way, he wants to
work with us on some more Superfund sites, based on his
experience with the Anaconda site.
Senator Lautenberg. Do they want to go farther, or
something?
Senator Baucus. That is right. It is a higher altitude.
They could go a little farther, there.
What remains to be done? What can be done administratively?
Mr. Fields. Well, we want to continue the administrative
reforms we have implemented over the last 6 years. We believe
that the primary new focus, administratively, ought to be on
just the example used just cited, of the Anaconda site and the
golf course example.
We have seen, over the years, that there have been many
examples like that where we have been able to take a
contaminated Superfund site, using the Brownfields model, and
turn it into a productive reuse, commercial or economic or
recreational or ecological, in that community.
We want to now move forward in looking at how we can
recycle, redevelop, reuse more of these Superfund sites. I
think that is going to be the next major administrative focus
for us at EPA, how we can marry up environmental cleanup and
economic redevelopment at the same time.
Senator Baucus. That is a good point, instead of just plain
cleaning up the site and leaving it there, it is getting a win/
win out of it.
Thank you, very much.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator Baucus.
Now there is a vote on. I think it is best for us to recess
here, and go over and vote. I will be back and we will get
started as soon as I get back. So we will have a little break
here.
[Recess.]
Senator Chafee. We are waiting for Senator Baucus. And
until he gets here, I have a couple of questions I will ask
you, Mr. Fields.
Getting back to the underground storage tanks and the
enforcement which, as you know, has been troubling to me, the
6-month extension, now that, presumably, would take it from
December 22 up to June 22. Am I right?
Mr. Fields. That is correct.
Senator Chafee. And, therefore, what your plans are--now, I
understand Administrator Browner was in on this decision, if I
understand the situation correctly.
In other words, I think she has indicated that her concerns
were more with the so-called mom and pops, and with the local
communities, where they have the fire station and police
station tanks. Am I correct in that? That was what seemed to
motivate her.
Mr. Fields. That is correct, Senator. Obviously, when we
shared with her the 300,000-plus people that were in
noncompliance, we pointed out that roughly 100,000 of those
tanks were likely to be small businesses, mom and pops, and
some local governments that provide fire, police, et cetera,
services.
So, yes, that was a strong consideration for the
Administrator. She was concerned about the population that you
just mentioned.
Senator Chafee. But now what is going to happen, before you
know it, June 22 will be with us, you know. That is 5 weeks
away. What is going to happen then?
Mr. Fields. Well, June 22, Senator, in response to your
letter and your inquiry on your concern about this issue, we
made clear to all the regulated community, that effective June
23, that day we will obviously make all local governments, all
small businesses, a high enforcement priority.
Those that have not self-disclosed, paid a penalty, and
entered into a compliance agreement with EPA, they become a
high enforcement priority, also. And your letter to us prompted
us to make clear that very clear policy in our communication to
the regulated community. So they will become a high enforcement
priority, as well.
We feel that the 6 months is more than enough opportunity
for those people who legitimately want to take steps to come
into compliance to let us know about it, take action to do so.
If they do not do it by June 22, they become a high enforcement
priority, as well.
Senator Chafee. OK. Senator Wyden, do you have a statement
or some questions? The time is yours.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate your thoughtfulness, and I will be brief.
Let me just say to the nominee that the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response is going to play a key role in
connection with what is my top priority on this committee, and
that is deepening the Columbia River Channel.
Chairman Chafee and Senator Baucus both have been
enormously helpful to me. I think the Chairman knows this goes
back to the days with Senator Hatfield. This is something that
he felt very strongly about.
And there is great concern that if EPA decides to list the
Portland Harbor, which is, of course, a part of the project, as
a Superfund site, that could throw a very large wrench into the
works, possibly setting back the deepening project for several
years.
Now to prevent that from happening, I want to make it
clear, I wish to work with you and your office to see if there
is not a less bureaucratic alternative to a Superfund listing
that ensures both that the harbor gets cleaned up, and allows
the channel deepening project to move forward without a delay.
For example, my State has submitted a fairly lengthy
proposal to you all, asking for the opportunity to take the
lead in cleaning up the site, without a formal Superfund
listing.
Another option would be to segment the deepening project.
That way, deepening would proceed on the 103 miles of the
Columbia Channel, where there is no contaminated sediment, and
the entire project would not be held up because of the
possibility of a five mile stretch of the Willamette that is
not essential for the deepening project.
In short, before we vote on your nomination, I would very
much appreciate the chance to meet with you in my office to
discuss in detail these options. They are of enormous
importance to our region.
As I say, Chairman Chafee and Senator Baucus have been
extraordinarily helpful to this senator on this project. And as
the Chairman knows, it does go back to the days of Senator
Hatfield, when it was his top priority, as well, for our
region.
So if you would like to comment at this time, Mr. Fields,
that would be welcome. But I would like the chance, before we
vote on your nomination, to meet with you in my office to
discuss these matters in some detail.
Mr. Fields. Senator Wyden, I pledge to you that we will
have that meeting expeditiously.
And, apparently, I learned during the break that there was
some confusion. I guess our staff did not know that your office
had not received the communication that we wanted to meet with
you actually prior to this hearing. And I apologize for that
not occurring.
But I assure you that I am aware of the situation around
Portland Harbor. And I know that we are considering our various
options; one of which is the State's option of State deferral
of the site, and not putting it on the NPL; and, you know,
looking at an option of the NPL, as well.
We have gone various ways on that. And we have been able to
be flexible. And we recognize the importance of redevelopment.
As I shared earlier, before the break, a major focus of our
agenda here now and in the future, in the next couple of years,
is going to be how we can recycle and how we can redevelop more
contaminated property.
So whichever option allows us to help facilitate both
cleanup and re-use and redevelopment, and creation of
infrastructure in that area, we would be very supportive of.
I will set up a meeting with you to discuss your concerns,
your position on this, and make sure we carefully weigh all
that before any final decision is made.
Senator Wyden. I was raised to be very, very cautious about
ever hearing an ``F'' word. But when you say ``flexibility''
you are talking about the word we want to hear in our part of
the world on this.
And we believe that there is a way to clean up the harbor,
and go forward with this channel deepening project that both
Chairman Chafee and Senator Baucus have been so helpful on. And
so we will look forward to that meeting.
And I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Yes, it would be helpful to move right
along with setting up that meeting. Because, as with all
nominations, I like to bring them up and move along.
And there will be some delay here, because I think there
will be some written questions to the witness. And then he will
have to have a chance to respond to them. But if you could set
up that fairly soon.
Senator Wyden. Absolutely.
Senator Chafee. And let me know when you have completed it,
if you would.
Senator Wyden. Thank you. We will do it right away.
Senator Chafee. OK. Senator Baucus?
Senator Baucus. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fields, you have testified that cleanups have been
completed at 599 of the sites of the NPL. For what percentage
of sites have remedies been selected?
Mr. Fields. We have selected remedies at more than 90
percent of the sites, the non-Federal sites on the National
Priorities List. That is a substantial number of sites. We are
estimating that by the end of next year, remedies at over 1,100
sites will have been signed.
So at a lot of the Superfund sites, remedies have been
selected. And we have got construction completed at more than
45 percent of the sites on the National Priorities List.
Senator Baucus. So what work remains to be done; how much?
Mr. Fields. Well, I would make five quick points on that
point. There is a lot that we have done. We see a lot of
progress has been made in this program.
At the end of this current fiscal year, fiscal year 1999,
we will have roughly 700 sites that we have to bring to
construction completion. We will continue to still need to do
about 200 to 300 removal actions a year, at Superfund sites and
non-NPL sites around the country.
We want to continue the pace of doing 85 construction
completions a year, up through 2005. We will have to invest
some resources in post-closure care; that is, 5 year reviews,
operation and maintenance at sites, as well. And there will be
some limited numbers of listings.
But, bottom line, in 2005, 85 percent of the current NPL
will have construction complete. So I think we do see some
light at the end of the tunnel. Substantial progress has
already been made.
And we see, over the next 5 years, a substantial amount of
work being done because of the reform agenda that we have
implemented in Superfund.
Senator Baucus. If this Congress does not pass the
Superfund Bill, how much delay will that cause, or what will
that prevent you from doing?
Mr. Fields. Well, we, as an Administration, have suggested
to Congress targeted legislative reform that we would support.
And we think that there is bipartisan support by Democrats and
Republicans for liability relief for prospective purchasers,
innocent land owner liability relief, contiguous property
owners, and small generators and transporters of municipal
solid waste.
We, however, do believe, with that limited, targeted
legislative reform that we would hope Congress would agree to
support, we do believe that there needs to be a reinstatement
of the taxes. We need that to have a source of funding to get
our job done.
We believe that roughly $1.5 billion a year is going to be
needed over the next 5 years to continue the job of completing
85 constructions a year, doing 200 to 300 removals, et cetera.
Senator Baucus. How much is left in the trust fund?
Mr. Fields. At the end of this current fiscal year we are
in right now, we will have about $1.4 billion left in the trust
fund. At the end of fiscal year 2000, which is the next year
beginning October 1st, we will have roughly $485 million
remaining in the trust fund.
Senator Baucus. Since the tax is not being collected now,
what is that, partly interest, and what other sources of
revenue?
Mr. Fields. Well, the revenues are where we obtained cost
recovery and some interest payments. But the bottom line is,
that balance will run out in the middle of fiscal year 2001, at
the current time, unless Congress provides either reinstatement
of the taxes, or some alternative source of funding for the
Superfund program.
Senator Baucus. What is your reliance quotient on the
balance being made up with general revenue?
Mr. Fields. Well, we are concerned about a substantial
contribution from general revenues footing the bill for
Superfund toxic waste cleanup.
Historically, as you know, Congress has given us about $250
million a year in general revenues to fund this program. And
the rest has been paid for out of taxes into the trust fund.
We believe that is an appropriate balance, 85 percent
coming from the trust fund, 15 percent from general revenues.
We do not believe the American taxpayer ought to foot the bill
for toxic waste cleanup. So we would be opposed to a system of
all of Superfund cleanup being funded by general revenues.
Senator Baucus. So, basically, general revenue has supplied
about $250 million a year. Is that correct?
Mr. Fields. That is correct.
Senator Baucus. And if the tax is not reinstated, over the
5-year period, what would the total general revenue
contribution have to be?
Mr. Fields. Well, on the average, I mean, as I said, we
would run out of money. The trust fund balance expires midway
into 2001.
Senator Baucus. You are going to keep the same $1.5
billion?
Mr. Fields. We are talking $1.5 billion a year, roughly,
over, let us say, a 4-year period. We are talking there about
$6 billion in general revenues just, you know, over a 4-year
period, plus some amount that would come out of general
revenues and fiscal year 2001 which, roughly, is going to be
another billion.
So you are talking $7 billion; $7 billion would be needed
to fund the program out of general revenues, if we did not
reinstate taxes from 2001 through 2005.
Senator Baucus. I have another question. I know my time has
expired, Mr. Chairman.
But some of the oil companies say why should they have to
pay any more because, at least they say, that most of their
sites have been cleaned up.
Mr. Fields. Well, you know, that is a judgment we have got
to make regarding how toxic waste cleanups ought to be done. We
think that the fairest mechanism is to have some contribution
through taxes into the fund.
I have heard that same issue regarding the oil companies
and chemical companies and others that are contributors to
contamination at some of our most toxic sites around the
country. We think they ought to be footing most of the bill, as
opposed to the American taxpayer.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Warner?
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
friend, the Ranking Member. And Mr. Fields, we welcome you.
Mr. Fields. Thank you, sir.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. As privileged as you are to claim the great
State of Virginia; it is my State. And when I look back over
your record, first your educational background, and your
experience, I say to myself, the President and the
administrative EPA selected wisely.
Mr. Fields. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Warner. And we are fortunate that a man of your
distinction is willing to devote himself to public service. My
guess is that you could triple your income on the outside, if
you wished to do that. We have got you now. We are going to
keep you a while.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. This is a great committee. And from time to
time, you will come before it to give us your valuable advice
and guidance as to how best to solve the almost insolvable
problem that you are willing to take on.
I wish you luck, and that of your family.
Mr. Fields. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Senator Chafee. He has his family with him, Senator, his
mother, father, son, and wife are all present. He has got a
cheering section there.
Senator Warner. Well, when he does not get home for supper
on time, bear with us.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Fields. Senator Warner, I just want to say, I know you
have been very busy with Kosovo and other matters involving
foreign policy.
It really deeply pleases me, and it is tremendously
gratifying to have the support of my home State senator. And I
thank you for taking the time to even come here, given your
busy schedule. And I thank you for your support.
Senator Warner. Well, thank you, and I wish you luck. And
that is an awesome amount of paper that you have in front of
you there.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. I find, just rely on your own experience
and good judgment.
Mr. Fields. Well, Senator Chafee has a lot of questions,
and I had to have a lot of answers here today.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. Well, what is more, Senator Warner, Mr.
Fields was educated in a Virginia institution.
Senator Warner. That is right.
Senator Chafee. Virginia Polytechnic University, which I
guess is called Virginia Tech. Is that correct?
Senator Warner. Yes, Virginia Tech.
Mr. Fields. That is correct, sir.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Fields, I want to ask you about the
Basel Convention. Now that is a convention that deals with the
shipment of hazardous waste from nation to nation, across
nation's boundaries. And they are going to meet in December, in
Basel, Switzerland, this coming December, which is not so far
away.
And I am concerned that the United States will arrive there
without having ratified the convention, because the
Administration has not proposed to us any legislation to do
that.
And here is a situation where we need leadership from the
Administration. And we have been waiting several years for the
Administration's proposal on ratifying that convention.
Now it is my understanding that EPA is working with the
State Department and the Commerce Department on a draft bill.
So my question to you is, when do you think we will receive
that?
And I just do not want a situation to develop that you send
up some draft in September and October, and then somebody will
blame Congress for failing to enact it by the time you meet in
December. We have got to have the thing some time in advance to
consider. These things just do not going flying through the day
they are received.
So my question to you is, what is going on, and maybe you
do not know. Maybe you are going to have to reply in writing.
But if you do know, I would be interested in what is taking
place as far as sending up to us a document for us to ratify
the Basel Convention.
Mr. Fields. Yes, Senator, we are working with those
departments. There is an inter-agency work group, as you
indicated, made up of State Department, EPA, Commerce,
Department of Justice, and various other agencies, on this. We
are drafting legislation, and are going to be giving Congress a
draft bill.
We will work with your staff to set up a meeting next week
to talk about what we may develop and provide to you that would
meet your needs.
Our initial schedule was to develop a draft legislative
package and get it to you, and the House of Representatives, as
well, by September. Your staff have communicated to me that
that might be a problem in terms of your December deadline and
the meeting coming up.
So we will be meeting with your staff, Senator Chafee, to
talk about what we need to provide to you and what timeframe,
so it meets your needs to develop legislation that this
committee needs to consider.
So the current schedule would probably result in it getting
to you too late, based on what you have indicated. We will work
with your staff to see if we can provide what you need in a
more timely way, in terms of legislative language.
There are some issues that the inter-agency work group has
resolved, and we are very clear on that. There are other issues
which we are still having debate within the Administration, and
we are not there, yet.
But we will have a meeting with your staff next week to
talk to you about where we are, to talk about those pieces that
we are clear on, and those pieces that are going to take more
time.
And then we can work out a mutually agreeable schedule as
to what we need to provide to your committee to meet your
legislative agenda for the remainder of this year.
Senator Chafee. Well, that will be very helpful. We have
all discovered that everything takes longer than you think
around here. And receiving this in September just would be
unacceptable, and so the sooner the better. And we look forward
to your meeting with our folks in connection with that.
Now in your testimony, you said you plan to reinvent the
retro-corrective action program, administratively. You have
touched on this a little bit, but what are some of the
specifics that you have?
Mr. Fields. We want to adopt the Superfund model of how we
might reinvent RCRA. We want to, rather than finalizing
regulations for corrective action, for example, under Superpart
S of RCRA, we want to issue policy and guidance on how we can
more effectively implement RCRA corrective action in a
streamlined way, taking advantage of those best approaches that
States and others have adopted over the years.
We will be establishing, just like we did for Superfund,
numeric annual goals that regions and States have to achieve in
the way of RCRA corrective action cleanups to meet our 2005
goals.
We will be putting on training workshops for our States on
the most innovative way in which RCRA corrective action can be
done.
We will be looking at a resource initiative for the future
in terms of what resources we are going to need to meet our
commitments for the out-years for RCRA corrective action.
Right now, the current budget has $47.5 million for RCRA
corrective actions. We want to look at a potential budget
initiative for future years to be able to meet our goals for
the next 7 years.
We have got specific annual goals that we will be providing
to our regions and States, up through 2005. And we will be
putting together an administrative reform agenda that allows us
to achieve those goals annually, as well as the ultimate end
point in 2005.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Fields, there are two obligatory
questions I will ask you. One is, will you, at the request of
committees from Congress, appear before the committee that
requests you to appear?
Mr. Fields. Yes, sir.
Senator Chafee. And, second, do you know any reason, that
has not been disclosed to us, why you would not be suitable for
this position?
Mr. Fields. I know of no such reason, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Fine. All right, I do not think we have any
further questions. There may be some questions come up in
writing to you. If you could get those answered in writing
rapidly, and get back to the committee, that would be very
helpful to us.
Thank you very much, Mr. Fields. We thank your family for
their attendance. That completes the hearing. Thank you.
Mr. Fields. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Timothy Fields, Jr., Nominated to be Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, and Distinguished Members of the
Committee, as a career public servant for almost 28 years, I am honored
to be here today to testify before this Committee. My family and I are
grateful and honored that President Clinton has nominated me for the
position of Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I look
forward with great enthusiasm to the opportunity for new challenges as
an EPA Assistant Administrator in the direction of our waste management
and environmental cleanup programs.
I am especially proud to have my family with me here today--my
wife, my son and my parents. I thank my colleagues and many friends for
their presence and support!
A search for common ground
Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, and Members of the Committee. I began
my career with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1971. A lot
has changed at the EPA since that time. What has not changed is my
dedication to public service and my strong commitment to EPA's mission
to protect public health and the environment. I know that public
service is a special calling for me.
In some ways, I believe that finding solutions to today's
environmental problems is more difficult than in years past. When I
began my career, EPA's job was to write dozens of regulations to
implement the new environmental laws passed by Congress. Now, with its
important regulatory programs in place, EPA is more focused on
approaches that not only protect the public and our environment, but
also do it more efficiently, with less red tape, less process and in
``plain English.'' We must weigh the needs and concerns of all
stakeholders and search for consensus.
One thing that I have learned in my years at EPA is that we in the
Federal Government do not have all of the answers. I am committed to
looking beyond Washington, D. C., for solutions that are good for
public health and the environment, good for business and good for our
State, local and tribal partners. I am convinced that if we work
together, we can find solutions that will work for everyone.
Superfund--getting results
As Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for 3 years, and as
Acting Assistant Administrator during the past 2 years, I have had the
opportunity to put some of these new solutions to work. A major
priority for me is continued Superfund reform. Cleaning up Superfund
sites continues to be of utmost importance to the Agency. I am pleased
to tell you that, because of your high priority focus on Superfund and
the Clinton Administration's Superfund administrative reforms, we are
implementing Superfund far differently today than 6 years ago.
Significant program improvements have occurred. We have completed
cleanup construction at 599 sites. We have settled with more than
18,000 small parties, offered $145 million in orphan share funding,
accelerated cleanup by 20 percent and significantly reduced the cost of
clean up, saving over $1 billion in future costs through remedy updates
at more than 200 sites over the past 3 years. We are now achieving 85
construction completions per year. At this pace, we will have completed
cleanup construction at 85 percent (1,180 sites) of existing National
Priorities List (NPL) sites by 2005.
I will continue to work on administrative reforms to strengthen the
Superfund program, and with Congress on legislative reforms that will
address the specific statutory changes that would improve the program.
We must continue to aggressively implement our reforms so that cleanups
continue to be faster, fairer and more efficient than ever before. We
must refine and update our reforms so they continue to work well. We
need to also recognize that many of these Superfund sites, with a
little work, creativity and commitment can become valuable assets to
the community. We have already seen many old Superfund sites
transformed into parks, retail businesses, and golf courses. I would
like to work with our State and local partners and give them the tools
they need, in conjunction with the private sector and affected
communities, to turn even more Superfund sites into productive
properties.
Our goal should be to build on our Superfund successes and cleanup
the remaining Superfund sites and any newly discovered sites as quickly
as we can. Targeted legislative changes to clarify the liability of
prospective purchasers, innocent landowners, contiguous property owners
and small generators and transporters of municipal waste would be
helpful. That coupled with reinstatement of the Superfund taxes will
give us what we need to finish our job.
Brownfields--a shining success
One of the most successful examples of what we can do when we work
together is brownfields. In the brownfields program, we did not
promulgate any new regulations. We did not tell State or local
governments, businesses, or communities what to do. They told us what
they needed. And we tried to help. The approach is working. In the
short 4-year history of our brownfields program, we have developed
partnerships with 250 communities across America through grants to
State and local governments. Through this effort, over $ 1 billion
worth of investments has found its way into local economies, creating
more than 2,500 jobs and improving the quality of life in hundreds of
neighborhoods across the nation. I will continue to build on this
success. In fact, this year EPA will provide support to more than 70
additional communities, up to $200,000 each, to assess their brownfield
sites, and 63 additional communities, up to $500,000 each, to help
establish their own revolving loan funds for cleaning up their
brownfield sites. What began as a modest EPA initiative has been
expanded by the support of other Federal, State and local government,
and private partners to become a strong mechanism for assessing,
cleaning up, and redeveloping brownfield properties.
Reinventing Hazardous Waste Programs
I hope to use the success of the brownfields program as a model for
other programs within the Of lice of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. One of my top priorities is to reinvent the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action program
administratively, much as we did in Superfund, and I welcome the
opportunity to work with you and others in achieving this goal. The
RCRA corrective action program is the remediation program for
facilities that treat, store, or dispose of RCRA corrective action
hazardous wastes and have potential environmental contamination.
In RCRA corrective action, we have a huge task ahead of us. We have
about 1700 high priority RCRA corrective action sites that need to be
addressed. Our Government Results and Performance Act goal directs us
to control human exposure at 95 percent of these sites by 2005. This
means that EPA and the States, collectively, will have to address an
average of 185 sites per year for the next 7 years.
This is a tall order, but I am ready to provide the leadership to
meet this challenge. States are largely responsible for providing
oversight in cleaning up these sites, and one of my first initiatives
will be to redouble our efforts to work even more closely with States.
I will personally look for every opportunity to talk to State
officials, to listen to their concerns and wherever possible, to
support their ideas for improving the program. I will continue to look
for administrative ways to cut red tape and unnecessary requirements.
We must focus our regulations and guidance on results and not process.
The recently promulgated Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (Media)
and the Post Closure Rule are both good examples of how we can achieve
this goal. I am also committed to helping States take full advantage of
the flexibility already available in RCRA. For that to happen, State
and regional officials must first know where they have discretion. And
we have taken some initial but important steps to get the word out. We
have developed a comprehensive training program for regional and State
officials that defines the flexibility in our rules and guidance, and
have established national, regional, and State goals for cleanup.
Finally, we are also in active negotiations to attempt to settle
litigation on one of the Agency's critical regulatory reforms, the
Corrective Action Management Rule. I am hopeful that these negotiations
will result in a rule that remains a flexible and valuable tool for
protective, efficient cleanups. Through all of these efforts, I believe
we can reinvent our RCRA cleanup program, and I look forward to working
with you on these actions.
Underground Tanks--working toward compliance
Another top priority is compliance with underground storage tank
regulatory requirements. As you know, after a 10-year phase in period,
on December 22, 1998, the statutory deadline passed for upgrading
underground tanks to prevent drinking water, groundwater and soil
contamination. While 1.2 million tanks have been taken out of operation
and another 635,000 tanks have been upgraded or replaced over the past
10 years, many tank owners are not yet in compliance. However, our
latest estimates are that 77 percent of the nation's tanks are in
compliance. We want to work with the States to ensure that the
remaining tanks are brought into compliance.
Risk Management Plans
I will continue to work with this Committee and others on effective
implementation of the Risk Management plan (RMP) regulations.
Consistent with a recent judicial stay of the RMP regulations by the U.
S. Court of Appeals as applicable to propane facilities, EPA intends to
issue an interim administrative stay of the June 21 , 1999, RMP rule
effective date as it applies to flammable hydrocarbon fuels, including
propane, butane, ethane, propylene, and ethane (natural gas), stored in
quantities greater than 18,000 gallons. EPA believes that facilities
that store fuels in excess of this threshold present a risk to American
communities, and should be required to submit an RMP.
Regarding Off-site Consequence Analysis (OCA) data, EPA has
announced that it will not post OCA information on the Internet in
light of the FBI concerns that such information could represent a
national security risk. EPA does not intend to release OCA data until a
responsible approach to address the national security concerns has been
developed and is in place. EPA is working with DOJ, FBI, and other
Federal agencies to develop a responsible approach to making OCA
information available to the public that addresses the security
concerns. The interagency group is considering both legislative and
non-legislative options and expects to complete its work very soon.
Conclusion
Of course, OSWER is responsible for many other important
activities. Our Federal facilities cleanup oversight, and emergency
preparedness, prevention, and response functions are critical. And our
work on counter-terrorism, innovative technologies, recycling, waste
minimization and pollution prevention will continue to be important to
me and the Agency.
Finally, I would like to thank the employees of the Of lice of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response and EPA's Regional Offices and
Laboratories who work hard to implement the Superfund, Brownfields,
RCRA, Underground Storage Tank, Chemical Emergency Preparedness and
Prevention, Federal Facilities, Technology and Oil Pollution Programs
on a daily basis. These are the talented and dedicated Federal
employees who are critical to the success of these programs. I pledge
my support to them as we work together to provide safe and healthy
environments for ourselves, our children and grandchildren, and future
generations.
In closing, let me thank you again for your time and the
opportunity to appear before you. I look forward to working with this
Committee and I will be happy to answer your questions.
__________
Responses by Timothy Fields to Additional Questions from Senator Chafee
Question 1. Your written testimony states that one of your ``top
priorities is to reinvent the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) corrective action program administratively.''
Question A. What are the specific areas or problems that you
believe need to be addressed in this reinvention effort?
Response. The RCRA Cleanup Reforms are the Agency's primary focus
in identifying and reducing impediments in the corrective action
program. At times, RCRA cleanups have suffered from an emphasis on
process and a lack of clarity in cleanup objectives. More specifically,
the impediments or disincentives to timely and cost-effective RCRA
cleanups include:
Multiple reporting and review requirement of the corrective
action process.
Disagreements over cleanup objectives between EPA, State
agencies, and companies.
Lack of incentive for companies to perform cleanups apart
from economic advantages, such as selling or redeveloping the
property.
The application of certain RCRA requirements, such as land
disposal restrictions (LDRs), minimum technological requirements
(MTRs), and permitting, when applied to the cleanup of remediation
waste.
Question B. What specific changes do you plan to make to the
corrective action program? In particular, what elements of the proposed
Subpart S regulation do you expect to implement?
Response. In the near-term, EPA plans to focus on the following
administrative reforms to the corrective action program. Most of these
components derive from the Subpart S effort.
Development of performance-based guidance during 1999 that
clarifies general short-term cleanup objectives and includes
recommendations on how to gauge when they have been achieved.
Implementation of additional guidance and an extensive
training effort in 1999 and 2000 that emphasize environmental
results instead of the process, and that highlight existing
flexibility in the corrective action program which can be used to
accelerate cleanups.
Fostering maximum use of program flexibility by actively
encouraging States to adopt the regulatory flexibility in the
recent VIR-media and Post-Closure rules, and by encouraging the use
of a broad range of appropriate authorities and approaches for
expediting corrective action.
Enhancing community involvement in RCRA cleanups, including
providing detailed information on cleanup progress for individual
facilities on the Corrective Action website.
Question C. Do you plan to issue regulations to effect your changes
to the corrective action program, or will you rely on guidance
documents? If you intend to rely on policy memoranda and guidance
documents, how do you plan to ensure compliance with the Congressional
Review Act?
Response. EPA does not plan to make extensive regulatory changes.
If there is a subsequent need for some targeted regulations, the Agency
will pursue them on an as-needed basis. We have concluded that
promulgating a comprehensive set of RCRA regulations at this time could
unnecessarily disrupt the 33 States authorized for the RCRA Corrective
Action Program, as well as those State programs that currently are
undergoing review for authorization. Through the RCRA Cleanup Reforms
described above in the response to Question 1B, we hope to develop a
new atmosphere of partnership and cooperation among regulatory
authorities, industry, and stakeholders.
EPA plans to announce its intention not to take final action on
most of the proposed Subpart S rule [July 27, 1990 (55 FR 30798)] for
corrective action -for solid waste management units (SWMUs) at
hazardous waste management facilities in the near future. EPA is taking
that action because, among other reasons, the Agency has determined
that such regulations are not necessary to carry out the Agency's
duties under sections 3004(u) and (v).
EPA plans to rely on guidance and outreach to effect changes in the
corrective action program. If EPA does determine that regulations are
necessary, any final regulations will be submitted to both Houses of
Congress and GAO as required by the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
Since the enactment of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 that included the CRA, (SBREFA), Pub. L. 104-121,
EPA consistently has interpreted the CRA as applying only to Agency
actions that contain binding legal requirements, regardless of what
those documents are titled or whether those documents are subject to
statutory notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements. Thus, EPA has
submitted to both Houses of Congress and to GAO under the CRA not only
final regulations promulgated by the Agency, but also documents labeled
``guidelines'' that contain binding legal requirements, unless the
document is expressly exempted from CRA coverage pursuant to 5 U.S.C
Sec. 804(3).
In general, however, EPA does not intend its policy statements and
guidance documents to be binding and they have no birding legal effect
on the public. We prepare and issue these documents to provide
information regarding an EPA regulation or enforcement position that
may be useful to EPA employees and/or the public. The RCRA Corrective
Action guidance that EPA already has issued is not legally binding.
Moreover, at the present time, EPA does not plan to issue legally
binding guidance with respect to the RCRA corrective action program.
Nonetheless, EPA intends to send to the Congress and GAO courtesy
copies of all non-binding RCRA corrective action guidance documents as
they are issued.
Question D. Are there specific problems or concerns relating to the
corrective action program that you believe require legislation to
address? If so, what are those problems or concerns and are you
prepared to commit the staff and resources to work with this committee
to address those problems and concerns?
Response. In 1993, EPA issued the Corrective Action Management Unit
(CAMU) regulations to address RCRA remediation waste issues. EPA
currently is exploring possible settlement of the litigation
challenging these regulations. In the past, uncertainty over the
litigation challenging the CAMU rule has led to discussion of
legislation. Currently, EPA is waiting for the outcome of the
settlement process before assessing the need for any legislative fixes
to address RCRA remediation waste issues. Any dialog about whether
there is a need for new legislation should consider this settlement
process, RCRA regulations promulgated last year, and the RCRA Cleanup
Reforms. Obviously, I will work with the committee to address
remediation waste problems and concerns.
Question 2. In your testimony, you made a commitment to improve
communications with this committee and, in particular, to consult with
the committee before the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
announces or implements significant changes in policy. How do you plan
to implement that commitment? For example, how will this new commitment
affect your office's actions with respect to any policy decision made
on the Subpart S regulations or the proposed modification to the CAMU
rule?
Response. OSWER has frequent communications with the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee, and intends to continue these
communications, particularly with respect to important changes in
policy, such as those pertaining to implementation of the RCRA Cleanup
Reforms (an outgrowth of the Subpart S Regulations) or any further
changes to the CAMU regulations. For instance, OSWER continues to brief
the committee on the progress of the CAMU and Subpart S regulations.
With regard to the Subpart S regulation, EPA expects to issue by early
Sumner a notice announcing its intention not to take action on most
provisions of the 1990 Subpart S proposal. EPA offers to brief the
committee on this decision and its alternative plan for guidance. I
have also asked my staff to brief committee staff on our plans for a
Superband Recycling Initiative. Finally, I will have my two deputies
meet with committee staff on a periodic basis to discuss OSWER
activities.
Question 3. In February, 1999, Administrator Browner testified
before the committee regarding EPA's fiscal year 2000 budget. The
committee recently receded answer'' to a number of followup questions.
The following questions seek additional information regarding OSWER
budget priorities and plans that were lacking in the initial responses
we received.
There is evidence that the Superfund National Priority List program
is starting to ``wind down.'' For example, the General Accounting
Office reported in November that there were 232 sites nationwide that
either EPA, the States or both believed would eventually be listed on
the National Priority List.
Question A. You sense as the national program manager for
Superfund. Do you agree that the scope of future additions to the
Superfund NPL is likely to be closer to the 232 new additional site
level projected in the November GAO report, a report that EPA concurred
in, or will it be much larger or smaller than that? Please respond in
detail.
Response. For clarification, the GAO report referenced in your
questions did not contain any projections of the number of sites to be
added to the NPL in the future. It would be accurate to say that the
report identified 232 sites that State and Federal responders believed
might be placed on the NPL. Moreover, the Agency continues to discover
new sites every year. In fact, of the 26 sites newly proposed to the
NPL this year, only 7 were identified as likely NPL candidates in the
GAO report; 3 were even identified in the GAO category of ``unlikely to
be placed on the NPL'' in the GAO study. Fifteen of the 26 were either
among sites needing further investigation or were newly discovered.
Several factors are likely to affect the number of sites listed on
the NPL in the future. Perhaps the biggest single variable is the
percentage of sites States clean up. Likewise, private party cleanups
can reduce the number of NPL listings. The willingness of States to
support NPL listings is another key variable that also will affect how
many sites are listed. Over the past 6 years, we have listed an average
of 26 sites each year on the NPL. Last year, we proposed 34, and in
fiscal year 1999 we may list up to 40 sites on the NPL. Therefore, I
believe the GAO report reflects a reasonable estimate of the number of
fixture NPL candidates over the next 5 years.
Question B. The written response from Ms. Browner's hearing stated
that ``significant work'' remains at existing sites and that you do not
know how many more sites will be added to the NEIL beyond the 40 new
sites expected this year. However, both the Congress and EPA must make
some assumptions about the future size of the program, such as funding
levels, staffing levels, and anticipated remedial contractor
requirements. Does your office have any strategies, studies, estimates,
or plans that address the future of the program beyond fiscal year
2000? Please provide the committee with copies of all relevant
documents.
Response. EPA expects to achieve 1,180 construction completions
through 2005, assuming an annual appropriation of $1.5 billion, and 85
construction completions each year. This projection is based on a
combination historical performance, planning estimates contained in
EPA's information systems, budget assumptions, and strong focus on an
increased pace to achieve cleanups at NPL sites. The methods to
implement the Agency's goals are presented in the President's annual
submission of the proposed Superband budget to Congress. This budget
includes contractor and staff resources for cleanup/response
enforcement, management and support, and research, as well as resources
for other Federal agencies that carry out Superfund-related functions.
As stated in the Administrator's earlier response, we do not know
how many sites we will list on the NPL each year. In order to maximize
cleanups and environmental benefits, we depend on a number of
approaches in addition to the NPL. We are committed to working tenth
our state partners to determine what sites are most appropriate for the
NPL. We will list sites on the NPL only after considering several
factors, such as whether a site presents a serious threat to human
health and the environment, whether a state requests EPA to list a
site, or whether a state is unable or unwilling to conduct the cleanup.
EPA's commitment to states also Includes maintaining a strong site
assessment program, not merely as a tool to list NPL sites, but as a
way to encourage potentially responsible parties to work closely with
States to achieve cleanups in lieu of NPL listing. As indicated in the
response to the last question, the average number of listings has been
26 per year. However, there may be up to 40 this year. Therefore, a
range of 26 to 40 sites per year is a reasonable assumption and
generally consistent win the universe in the GAO report. EPA also
foresees having a substantial role in post-construction related
activities at NPL sites to ensure that implemented remedies remain
protective in the future. As more sites complete construction, the use
of resources will increasingly shift toward compliance and
environmental monitoring and response work at facilities where waste
remains place. Four documents related to the future of the program are
attached: 1) elements of the Agency's Strategic Plan, 2) a table from
the President's Budget Appendix, 3) Superfund elements of a multi-year
briefing for the Deputy Administrator, and 4) the Superband Contracts
2000 Decision memorandum.
Question C. EPA's response to my February questions state that EPA
expects to continue the current pace of cleaning up 85 sites per year
through 2004. Over the past 6 years, however, you have only added 26
new sites per year to the list. Is your 85 facility per year figure
based on a facility-by-facility analysis of where each site stands in
the cleanup process and/or is it based on historical averages and
assumed funding levels? Please provide the committee with copies of all
relevant documents, such as the names of the specific facilities and
their projected construction completion dates, assumptions regarding
funding or additions to the National Priority List, and any supporting
data upon which such projections are made.
Response. EPA's projection of completing construction at 85 sites
per year is based on a combination of historical performance, planning
estimates contained in EPA's information systems, budget assumptions,
and strong focus on an increased pace to achieve cleanups at NPL sites.
As sites move through the Superfund pipeline, an increasing number of
sites have construction underway. Assuming stable finding for the next
six fiscal years, the program believes that, on the basis of sites
currently under construction or with plans for construction, an average
of 85 sites per year will reach the construction completion milestone.
Attached ore two lists of sites where construction completion may be
met by 2005. The first is the list of sites we are tracking as
candidates for construction completion in fiscal year 1999. The second
list provides the candidate pool for additional construction
completions in fiscal year 2000 through BY 2005, based on planning
data. It is important to note that these data are projections (i.e.,
assuming optimal construction schedules, the availability of All
Finding, completion of critical tasks), and estimates become less
reliable when forecasted beyond 2 years. Also attached is the
Superfund/Oil Program Implementation Manual which outlines the planning
and implementation procedures for the Superband program.
Question 4. Several followup questions from the February hearing
addressed funding levels for RCRA corrective action. I asked how many
more sites might have their human health or groundwater releases
controlled if EPA devoted an additional $15 or $30 million to the
corrective action program. EPA did not answer the question and merely
said the levels in the ``President's Budget are adequate.'' That
response is not satisfactory.
In answering the following two questions, please assume an equal
number of groundwater and human health releases are addressed. Also
please account for any costs associated with the operation of the
program in the 33 states with delegated authority. Please consult with
committee staff if further clarification is needed in formulating a
response.
Question A. Please provide the committee with a detailed estimate
of how many additional sites could have their human health threats or
groundwater releases controlled if Congress provided additional funding
of $10, $20, or $30 million dollars for this purpose?
Response. We believe Finding included in the President's fiscal
year 2000 budget is adequate to keep the program on track to meet our
2005 GPRA Environmental Indicator goals. However, the Agency is
currently conducting an internal mid-year review to deterrmme
accomplishments to date. Part of that review will focus on whether
accomplishments to date and projected commitments will ensure that we
achieve our 2005 targets. If it is determined that the 2005 targets are
not achievable, the Agency plans to use the fiscal year 2001 budget
process arid the strategic plan revision process to make appropriate
revisions. This approach directly reBects the revision process outlined
u1 GPRA and OMB guidance and other materials.
In response to your specific questions, we have provided below our
estunates of additional progress that could be achieved in the event
that an additional $10 million, $20 million, or $30 million dollars
were available in the fiscal year 2000 budget. These estimates are very
rough given the time constraints and they include EPA and State
resources. It should be noted that, unlike Superfund, neither EPA nor
the States can directly implement cleanups at Corrective Action
facilities; therefore, the pace of a cleanup is not as directly under
the regulator's control. We also are assuming that the funding level
increase will remain stable for at least 5 years so that progress made
1 year on moving a site toward meeting envirorunental indicators (EIs)
will not be lost by budget cuts and the inability to maintain staff who
are working on the facilities.
The Agency is currently on an aggressive schedule to address human
exposures at 95 percent of the high priority facilities by 2005.
Therefore, we would apply any additional resources to addressing
groundwater controls at these facilities. It must be recognized that as
we approach the last of the high priority facilities, the groundwater
controls will become increasingly difficult to attain since these will
be the largest facilities with the most complex and challenging
groundwater contamination. Therefore these last sites will require
proportionally more resources and will require significantly more time
to stabilize. Here are our estunates for achieving additional
environmental indicators for groundwater releases controlled by the
year 2005 given these caveats and assumptions:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate of Additional Facilities
Additional Funding for Achieving Achieving Ground Water Releases
Environmental Indicators Controlled by 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$10 million....................... 150
$20 million....................... 200
$30 million....................... 230
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question B. Please provide the committee with a detailed estimate
of how many additional sites could have their human health threats or
groundwater releases cleaned up if Congress prodded addffional funding
of $10, $20, or $30 million dollars for this purpose?
Response. The ultimate goal of the RCRA corrective action program
is to achieve final cleanup at all RCRA facilities. However, our near-
term objective has been to stabilize the worst sites in order to
prevent human exposures and to stem the migrat.on of groundwater
contamination. Consequently, we have not directly analyzed ache
resources required to bring RCRA facilities to final cleanup, and
therefore any estunate of outputs is highly speculative. We believe the
most usefull way, at this time, to estimate the final cleanup costs is
to look at the experience of the Superfund program. Specifically, we
believe the EPA oversight costs associated with a Potentially
Responsible Party (PRP) cleanup may be an appropriate representation of
the costs and timing that will be incurred for a RCp.A corrective
actionsite. In the Superfund program, it takes an average of 8 years
from the time a site is listed on the NPL to reach the point where
construction is completed for the final remedy. We evaluated the
pricing model for Superfund sites, and made some adjustments to reflect
differences between the two programs to more accurately project
possible RCRA outputs. The following table presents the estimated
number of additional cleanups by 2008 that might result Dom the
additional finds levels presented in your question. (Of course, between
now and 2008 we expect to bring a number of facilities to construction
of final remedies under current funding levels; however, we do not have
projections of this number.) The following estimates assume stable
funding through the 8-year period necessary to complete the cleanup
work at these sites.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Estimate of Additional
Additional Funding for Final Facilities With Construction
Remedy Selection Completion by 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$10 million....................... 90
$20 million....................... 180
$30 million....................... 270
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Responses by Timothy Fields, Jr. to Additional Questions from Senator
Inhofe
Regarding the HWC MACT Standards
Question 1(a). In the latest letter Senator Wyden and I sent you on
the hazardous waste combustion MACI Standard, we asked if you had data
on cement kilns and feed rates. Your response again refers us to data
from a single experimental incinerator. Does the Agency have any data
on cement kilns and feed rates, not incinerators, and was this data
used in the rulemaking process?
Response. The data we provided (cement kiln emissions and feedrate
data for the semi-volatile metals (SVM), i.e., lead and cadmium) were
used in the rulemaking process to confirm our engineering judgment that
there is a positive relationship between metals feedrate and metals
emissions. Our judgment is based, in part, on the fact that metals we
not destroyed by combustion in a cement kiln and that they do not
partition solely to the cement or cement kiln dust based on studies we
reported to Congress in 1994. Therefore, we concluded that metal
emissions must increase as metal feedrates increase. I have attached
the ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards CODA):
Volume III: Evaluation of Metal Emissions Data base to Investigate
Extrapolation and Interpolation Issues, April 1991.'' In this document,
Figures 15-20, 22a, 22b, and 27 all contain SVM metals emissions and
feedrate relationship data.
We highlighted the information on this one specific incinerator in
our response because this is the only data we have from a facility
specifically attempting to document the relationship between metals
feedrate and emissions. This positive relationship also holds Rue for
data we have Tom some cement kilns (see relationship in Figure 15 and
general increase in emissions with feedrate in Figures 17, 22a, and 22b
for cement kilns).
Question 1(b). If you do not have separate data on cement kilns,
then please explain how the incinerator data was used for the cement
kiln standards considering the Agency felt the differences between the
Do categories was great enough to warrant separating cement kilns and
incinerators into two separate categories.
Response. The incinerator data can be used to determine the
positive relationship between emissions and feedrate for all types of
combustors because the relationship between metals emissions and
feedrate is the same for all types of combustion systems. To detennme
the relationship between metals feedrate aIld emission rate, we
evaluated the theoretical potential for emissions and the empirical
data in the HWC data base. We concluded that there must be some pe of
direct, positive relationship between metals feedrate and emissions.
Metals cannot be destroyed in the combustion process, and assuming the
system must reach some type of equilibrium, metals cannot accumulate in
the system without reaching a saturation limit. Additionally, the
theory predicts that the relationship will be proportional -over a
large range of feedrates (an increase in feedrate produces a consistent
incremental increase in emissions). A flat or negative relationship
(that emissions decrease as feed increases) is not physically possible.
Although there are some additional data that would support this, we
could not be sure that the additional data had been obtained under
sufficiently controlled conditions that are required for the purpose of
demonstrating the relationship. Therefore, we concluded that the
available data for an individual combustor confirms a positive
relationship between SVM feedrate and emissions.
In 1992, the Agency established separate source categories for
Portland cement manufacturing arid hazardous waste incineration as
major emitters of hazardous air pollutants. These sources have
fundamental differences in design and operation that can affect the
types and concentrations of some hazardous air pollutants and control
measures. For example, Portland cement ldlos have much higher
ernission?s of organic HAPs that are attributable to desorphon from raw
material than h?dous waste incinerators. Further, although controlling
the feedrate of metals and chlorine is a practicable control measure
for hazardous waste incinerators, existing Portland cement kilns cannot
practicably control the feedrate of metals and chlorine in raw
matenals. (Hazardous waste fuel metal content is controllable.)
Question 2. In our latest letter, eve also asked you for materials
on the technical objections the Air of lice might have raised to your
approach. You refused to produce the material claiming it is
``deliberative''. Because this MACT standard is different from all
previous MACT standards which have been issued by the Office of Air and
Radiation, it is important for the committee to understand the
rationale used to develop this standard, in particular the rationale
differences between this standard and the other MACT standards. Unless
the Administration is claiming ``executive pnviIege'' please provide
the committee with any documents involving disagreements or
``nonconcurrences'' between EPA's Office of Air and Radiation and EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response pertaining to the SVM
standard for cement kilns.
Response. The requested documents are attached. These documents
represent predecisional discussions, often at the staff level, and
contain the normal give and take of technical and scientific debate.
Ultimately, all of the staff reached a consensus regarding the approach
contained in our current draft of the final rule, and the Office of Air
and Radiation concurred on the rule.
We believe it would be extremely harmful to the Agency if these
materials were released to the public by the committee. It would chill
filture legitimate scientific and policy debate within the Agency,
could suggest that final decisions have been made when the decision
process is not complete, and dramatically and unnecessarily increase
our workload (by generating questions from the public regarding the
content of these documents that will be answered in our flak rule and
docket). It would be particularly unfortunate to create this
distraction for the Agency at a time when we must focus on completing a
mle that already has taken well beyond the date that we promised in
order to settle litigation on this subject.
Question 3. Please explain why the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response has had the lead responsibility for the lIWCMACI
standard instead of the Office of Air and Radiation. ID particular
please explain why your Office had the lead for this standard and not
the MACT standards for municipal solid waste or the medical
incinerators.
Response. OSWER has had the responsibility under RCRA for emissions
from incineration of hazardous waste for over 20 years and has thereby
developed specialized scientific and technical expertise. Under Section
3004 (a) and (q) ofthe 1984 amendments to RCRA, the EPA was assigned
the direct responsibility to establish air emission standards for
hazardous waste incinerators and kilns burning hazardous waste as fuel.
General authority to address emissions from hazardous waste
incinerators has existed in RCRA since 1976. OSWER, as the EPA office
charged with implementing these requirements, issued its first
regulation for incinerators in 1981. Therefore, given OSWER's
historical role in writing air emission standards for these types of
facilities it was logical that OSWER would take the lead responsibility
for the HWC MACT standards. The Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
agreed to support OSWER in the development of the CAA MACT standards in
two ways--generally applicable engineering principles applicable to
combustion and ad pollution control devices, if and when appropriate,
and also with respect to the procedures used to determine MACT Boors
and beyond the floors.
For municipal solid waste incinerators and medical incinerators,
OSWER has no expertise in regulating air emissions from these sources
and OAR has that type of previous experience in assessing control
options for these source cakgones, therefore, the Agency has used OAR
to develop the MACT standards for this class of units. Each of these
decisions is weighed with respect to experience, current workload, and
other administrative factors to make sure that the Agency's resources
are deployed in a reasonable and effective manner.
Regarding the Risk Management Plans
Question 1. Because the Administration has been so late in
responding to the security concerns will you issue a stay for the
reporting deadline for all respondents to match the stay the Court gave
the propane industry, until the security issue can be properly
addressed?
Response. On May 7, 1999, the Department of Justice transmitted to
you and other Members of Congress a dray bill entitled ``Chemical
Safety Information and Site Security Act of 1999.'7 This draft
legislation is the product of an interagency group, convened by the
Department of Justice which included representatives Dom the
Environment Protection Agency, the Ounce of Management and Budget, the
National Secunty Council, and several components of the Departnent of
Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The proposal
would continue to permit appropriate dissemination of the offsite
consequence analysis information, within some limits, without
introducing unnecessary risks to public safety. We hope that it will be
considered quickly and enacted.
Since facilities have had 3 years to address risk management
program requirements, the Agency does not believe that a stay in the
reporting deadline would be in the best interest of chemical safety.
The Agency already has received voluntary submission of approximately
500 Risk Management Plans.
Question 2. In my followup questions to the March 16, 1999 Risk
Management Plan Hearing I asked you:
``During the hearing, eve had testimony from the President's of the
American Fawn Bureau and the National Propane Gas Association
contradicting the EPA estimates of the number of facilities which will
be required to report on propane. Apparently the North Carolina
Depa'l'. . ent of Environmental Resources has estimated that 11,000
farm facilities in North Carolina alone will be required to report.
Please provide an updated EPA estimate of the number of propane
facilities (all types of facilities) and an explanation for the
discrepancies in the estimates.''
You responded by stating that the American Farm Bureau and the
National Propane Gas Associatior' had contradicted each other. If you
reread their statements you will see that they did not contradict each
other. The Farm Bureau's 10 percent figure was used to illustrate the
estimated costs. Please reexamine your response to this question and
provide the updated estimate.
Response. EPA assumed from your origins followup question that the
10 percent figure in the American Farm Bureau (AFB) testimony was not
only illustrating their estimate of the cost of the Risk Management
Program (RMP) rule but was also an estunate of the number of farms
covered by the Rum rule, since it contradicts EPA's estimates EPA also
asks Congress to recogruze that the information in correspondence
between the North Carolina Department of Agnculture and EPA has been
mix-characterized and used incorrectly in cost and covered universe
estimates. The National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) testimony
states: ``The Worth Carolina3 Department [of Agriculturel sent a letter
to EPA on November 9J 1998 stating that in North Carolina,
approxiInately 11,000 farms use propane to cure tobacco. In other
words, a single propane user sector--farmers--of a single propane use--
curing tobacco--in a single state totals nearly 33 percent of EPA's
entire national estimate for propane.'' (Emphasis in original). NPGA
does not misquote the letter, but the reader is led to believe that all
11,000 farms handle more than 10,000 pounds of propane and would be
covered by the RMP rule But the letter itself never reaches this
conclusion Additional data subsequently received from the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture makes it clear that far fewer than
11,000 farms are actually covered by the RMP rule North Carolina
indicated that only 155 farms (of all types) have greater than 5,000
gallons (about 21,000 pounds) of propane in a single tank or greater
than 4,000 gallons aggregate (about 17,000 pounds)--No data was
available on the number of farms having more than 10,000 pounds but
less then 17,000 pounds, or the number of faIms having less than 10,000
pounds of propane Therefore, to estimate the number of farms
potentially covered by the RMP rule nationwide (those handling more
than 10,000 pounds), EPA used the 155 North Carolina farms as a basis
along with state-by-state propane sues data and the knowledge that
North Carolina consumes far more propane for farm use than the national
average. EPA believes using e North Carolina and propane sales data
this way creates a reasonable estimate of the number of fanns
potentially covered by the RMP rule. EPA recognizes that more than l SS
farms in North Carolina may handle more Man 10,000 pounds of propane;
however, even if an exact count were available, basing a national
esbrnate solely on North Carolina data would grossly overestimate the
number of farms potentially covered because North Carolina consumes
more propane for farms than all other states. Our current estimates of
the number of facilities, including farms, handling more than 10,000
pounds of propane are as follows:
Estimate of propane facilities covered by the RMP rule tenor to the
court stay):
Number of Retail facilities = 12,500
Number of Non-fann Users = 16,100
Number of Farms = 5,300
Total= 33,900
______
Responses by Timothy Fields, Jr. to Additional Questions from Senator
Smith
Question 1. You are aware of my concerns regarding parties left
facing joist and several liability after EPA settles with de minimis
and other parties. EPA opposed bi-partisan legislation last year that
would have established a fair share allocation system dealing fully
with this problem. As you know, I am especially concerned about third-
partr contribution actions vhere PRPs who have signed Consent Decrees
with EPA sue parties who did not join in the settlement.
EPA's current policy--letting some polluters off the hook and
providing inadequate orphan share to others--exacerbates rather than
ameliorates the system's unfairness. As you know, mandatory orphan
share, mixed funding agreements and forgiveness of past costs do not
fully address the unfair contribution suit problem. What new ideas have
you developed since our meeting to help those victimized by large PRPs
in third-party contribution suits?
Response. Through EPA's Arlministrative Reforms, the Agency has
succeeded in making Superfund fairer and cutting litigation for small
parties. For example, through Administrative Reforms we have developed
our Municipal Solid Waste Settlement Policy, which allows generators
and transporters of municipal solid waste to settle with the Agency for
a flat rate of $5.30 per ton. In addition, we have instituted the
Orphan Share policy, under which we provide a contribution in lieu of
insolvent and defunct parEes at each eligible settlement, up to 25
percent of the cost of the proposed remedy. The President has
continuously requested additional funds for this purpose each year as a
part of EPA's budget. Our de minimrs Id de micromis policies continue
to be effective in protecting parties from contribution suits--we have
settled with over 18,000 of these parties. Finally, we continue to
approve ability-to-pay settlements, for those parties who can show
financial hardship, in order to provide contribution protection to
these parties.
Even so, in some circumstances panes that should never have been
subject to the Superband liability web are unfairly targeted by large
PRPs in third-party contribution suits. Legislation to exempt innocent
landowners, prospective purchasers, contiguous property owners, and
small businesses arid homeowners that sent household waste hom CERCLA
liability would provide more fairness and Neatly reduce third-party
litigations against small parties. EPA also supports giving the Agency
authority to spend $200 million a year to provide orphan share Finding
to encourage settlements at Superfine sites.
Question 2. EPA's Superfund Reforms Annual Report fiscal year 1998
concludes that flexibility in the fair share allocation process to
address site-specific issues is critical. EPA supported a prescriptive
bill in the 103d Congress. Would EPA support legislation containing a
more flexible allocation system in this Congress?
Response. As part of its Superfiind Administrative Reforms, EPA
undertook 12 pilot allocation projects to 'test drive' the allocation
provisions of the 1 03rd Congress. Our experience with the pilots has
shown us that prescriptive, mandatory allocations are generally not
conducive to reaching expedient settlements. In addition, at many
sites, allocations are simply not necessary, and may lead to delays and
increases in transaction costs for all pardes involved. As a result, a
statutory allocation system is not something we find that the Superfine
program needs now. EPA also supports giving the Agency authority to
spend $200 million a year to provide orphan share fundLng to encourage
settlements at Superband sites. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget
reque fits $200 million for orphan share finding.
Question 3. The GAO testified earlier third year before the House
in a hearing at which you also appeared. GAO testified that
``completion of construction at existing sites'7 and reducing new
entries into the program was EPA's top Superfund priority. Do you agree
with GAO's characterization in this regard? If not, why not?
Response. Completion of cleanup construction at existing Superfine
sites has been and continues to be the top priority for the program The
Agency's 1997 Strategic Plan has identified construction completions as
a major goal for the program. EPA has not identified ``reducing new
envies into the program'' as a top Superfi'nd priority, as GAO seems to
have stated. EPA Administrator Browner and others have noted, however,
that the program is maturing. Evidence of this is the fact that the
slumber of sites added to the CERCLIS Inventory for Superband
assessment has declined in recent years. As late as the mid-1 990's,
over 1,000 sites were added to CERCLIS annually. The average for the
past 2 years was approximately 500 sites per year.
Question 4. EPA agreed ``with the basic findings and
recommendations'' of a November 1998 GAO report stating that there are
still 3,036 sites awaiting an NPL listing decision lay EPA, 73 percent
of which have been in CERCLIS for more than a decade.
Question A. How many of those sites will be the subject of a
listing decision this year?
Response. Since March 1998 (when the GAO began their audit), EPA
has proposed 60 sites to the NPL. Slightly under half of these proposed
sites came from the GAO survey universe of 3,036 sites. EPA is working
win States to make decisions on the remaining sites in the audit
universe over the next several years, but until we have consulted with
all the States, we cannot provide a definitive schedule for completion
of this effort.
As an immediate response to the audit, EPA identified nearly 600
sites that could potentially require removal actions, performed file
reviews of these sites, and determined that 47 of these sites needed an
onsite assessment. Those 47 sites are currently being scheduled for
inspections, to determine what, if any, removal activities are needed.
Question B. When do you anticipate completing the evaluation of the
remaining sites?
Response. EPA anticipates that the evaluations for some regions
(those with approximately 100 sites) will be completed next year. For
several regions with a larger number of sites, however, the evaluations
will take several years. These evaluations also must be prioritized
with evaluations of other sites not part ofthe GAO audit universe.
(States identify about 500 sites a year that need assessment.)
To avoid duplication of effort, and enhance the role of States in
the process, EPA is holding meetings with State officials in an effort
to divide up the GAO universe and allow States to take e lead on many
of the GAO audit sites. EPA will then assess the remaining sites. Some
of these discussions are occurring now and EPA and States will need to
establish individual schedules based on resource and funding
constraints. EPA committed to GAO that the Agency would prepare a
status report by 2/28/00 on how regions and States are proceeding.
Question C. GAO further stated in their November 1998 report that
EPA regional employees and other officials believe 1,234 of those sites
are ``unlikely'' to become eligible for the NPL. What is your estimated
schedule for archiving those sites?
Response. EPA agreed to archive those sites that are not eligible
for the NPL by the end of Fiscal Yew 1999. EPA did not agree to
immediately archive other sites in the ``unlikely'' categoric that are
generally undergoing State cleanups. Archiving this group is
appropriate only after the cleanup has been completed. Indeed, some
States have asked that EPA keep these sites in CERCLIS until cleanup is
complete, to help ensure that those cleanups are completed
successfully. Moreover, while many sites in that category refight be
safely archived, EPA will need to evaluate each site individually. So
far, EPA has proposed 9 sites to the PAL that were included in the
Unlikely to be eligible'' category. The States supported the listing in
all 9 cases.
Question D. GAO recommended that EPA and the States ``should
develop a Joint strategy for addressing these sites.'' EPA specifically
concurred in this recommendation.
I. When will you have this strategy finished?
II. With which State organizations are you working?
Response. EPA regions are working win each State to assign leads
for each ofthe sites in the audit. We will issue a status report by
February 28, 2000, and will have all sites assigned as soon as these
discussions me completed. In addition to working with each of the
affected States, we have discussed our plans with the Association of
State and Temtorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) newell.
D(a). Please consult with committee staff during development of
this strategy.
Response. I will have my stay consult with the committee staff as
we develop this strategy.
Question 5. In response to questions submitted after the budget
oversight hearing on February 24, EPA stated that it expects to list 40
sites on the NPL this year, even though historically the average has
been 26. In fact, EPA expects to achieve this 53 percent increase in
site listings at the same time EPA's budget request is 30 percent less
than it was last year. That appears to be a reallocation of resources
and priorities based on a combination of increased efficiencies through
your administrative reforms and the fact that the cleanup program is
ramping down.
Question A. How many site assessments did EPA, either by contract
or cooperative agreement, perform in fiscal year 1998?
Response. See table below.
Question B. How many site assessments do you anticipate performing
in fiscal year 1999?
Response. See table below.
Number of Superfund Site Assessments Funded by EPA
(Contractors and Cooperative Agreements)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1998 FY 1999
Assessment Type (Actual) (Estimate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-CERCLIS Screening \1\..................... 1,205 1,006
Preliminary Assessment \2\.................... 330 387
Site Inspection \3\........................... 549 704
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source SCAP-13 Report
\1\ Pre-CERCLIS Screening activities involve cursory evaluations to
erasure that only sites requiring Federal Superband assessment work
get added to the EPA's Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation
and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) data set.
\2\ Preliminary Assessments involve collection and review of available
technical and site history information at sites added to CERCLIS to
determine whether a threat or potential threat exists.
\3\ Site Inspections involve collection and review of more detailed
data, ant generally include additional sampling information to confirm
the presence of hazardous waste.
Question C. What are your projections for annual site assessments
for fiscal years 2000-2005?
Response. While EPA has not made projections for the specific
number of site assessments in the future, we have estimated the number
of final assessment decisions through fiscal year 2005 as part of the
Agency's reporting under the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA). Final assessment decisions are tracked to ideate y sites with
completed Superfund site assessment activities (e.g., no further
action, deferral to RCRA, proposal to the NPL, etc.) Final assessment
decisions are an end product of individual assessment activities, such
as Preliminary Assessments and Site Inspections.
The following table shows the number of find site assessment
decisions made in fiscal year 1998 and the number of decisions we
estimate for each year from fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2005
as part of our GPRA planning efforts.
Final Assessment Decisions Developed for GPRA Reporting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Final Site Assessment
Fiscal Year Decisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1998........................... 486 (Actual)
FY 1999........................... 530 (Estimate)
FY 2000........................... 530 (Estimate)
FY 2001........................... 530 (Estimate)
FY 2002........................... 530 (Estimate)
FY 2003........................... 530 (Estimate)
FY 2004........................... 530 (Estimate)
FY 2005........................... 530 (Estimate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question D. What are your projections for annual listing decisions
in fiscal years 2000-2005?
Response. It is hard to project fixture listing decisions on a
year-by-year basis since there are so many variables involved in making
listing decisions. In addition to technical site conditions, we believe
it is important to consider factors such as State support, cleanup work
performed by potential responsible parties, and Federal finding and
staffing resources when projecting fixture listing decisions. More
recently, we've raised our internal fiscal year 1999 estimate of new
proposals of up to 40 sites. The average number of listings for the
past 6 years has been 26 per year, so a range of 26 to 40 sites per
year for fiscal years 2000-2005 appears to be a reasonable estimate.
Question 6. Your testimony and EPA's ``Superfund Reforms Annual
Report for fiscal year 98'' estimates future cost reductions or savings
of more than $1 billion due to remedy reforms. The Annual Report states
that ``EPA expects these savings estimates to increase as regions
complete their analyses.''
Question A. Given that this reform was initiated in 1995 and
average cleanup time ranges between 8 and 10 years, should we
anticipate realizing the bulk of those life-cycle cost savings during
the next 5 years?
Response. The more than $1 billion estimate reflects savings from
two administrative reforms, Remedy Updates (over $1 billion from more
than 200 reviews) and the National Remedy Review Board (over $40
million from 33 reviews). The timing of the savings and the beneficiary
of the savings vary from site to site. Remedy Update savings are most
likely to accrue faster because the proposals are for updates to
existing Records of Decision (RODs) for sites/projects that can be in
the design or construction phases, or in operation and maintenance
(e.g., ground water pump/treat actions). Reviews by the National Remedy
Review Board (NRRB) occur during or after the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study, but prior to ROD signature. These savings will occur
during Be remedy implementanon phase and in most instances would be
within the 5-year window cited. For both Remedy Updates and CURB
Reviews, the beneficiaryy of the savings can either be the Superfund
Trust Fund for a fund-financed response, or a Potentially Responsible
Party or over Federal Department when they are financing the remedy.
Question B. At how many other sites do you expect to replicate
these savings?
Response. Remedy Updates and the NRRB remain active reform
initiatives under the Superfund process. The NRRB has reviewed an
average of about 12 sites per year and we expect that trend to
continue. Remedy Updates have averaged about 65 updates per year for
the past 3 years and we hope they will continue at a similar pace,
depending on the demand.
Question C. What additional savings do you expect to realize
through administrative reforms in remedy selection and other areas?
Response. As noted above, we expect Remedy Updates and NRRB reviews
to continue. It is anticipated that these projected annual cost savings
will continue to be several hundred million dollars. Remedy selection
guidance reforms (e.g., Presumptive Remedies), are intended to
streamline the response process or clarify performance expectations and
improve consistency, thereby saving both time and money. Over
Administrative Reforms have, and will continue to result in cost
reductions for PRPs undertaking response actions. These include
guidance on future land use, streamlining PRP oversight, and orphan
share compensation.
Question 7. There are currently 1,264 sites on or proposed for the
NPL. The GAO report referenced above, in which EPA concurred, states
that a maximum of 232 sites are likely to be added to the NPL. EPA's
answers to questions for the record ofthe February 24th budget
oversight bearing stated goals of:
40 site listings per year;
85 construction completions per year, and
completing construction at 1180 sites by the end of fiscal year
2005
Assume that all of the sites GAO expects to be added are added to
the NPL. Please provide this committee with estimates for Superfund
funding needs in light of the GAO data, projections for construction
completions, and any future expected cost savings due to remedy or
other administrative reforms. Please provide separate estimates for
direct response action costs, indirect costs, and inter-agency
transfers.
Response. EPA expects to achieve 1,180 construction completions
through 2005, assuming an annual appropriation of 1.5 billion. This
projection was based on a combination of historical performance,
planning estimates contained in EPA's information systems, budget
assumptions, and strong focus on an increased pace to achieve cleanups
at NPL sites. The methods to implement the Agency's goals are presented
in the President's annual submission of the proposed Superband budget
to Congress. This budget includes contractor and staff resources for
cleanup/response, enforcement, management and support, and research, as
well as resources for other Federal agencies that carry out Superfund-
related functions.
As stated in the Administrator's earlier response, we do not know
how many sites we will list on the NPL each year. In order to maximize
cleanups and environmental benefits, we depend on a number of
approaches in addition to the NPL. We are cornrrutted to working with
our State partners to determine what sites are most appropriate for the
NPL. We will list sites on the NPL ordy after considering several
factors, such as whether a site presents a serious threat to human
health and the environment, whether a State requests EPA to list a
site, or whether a State is unable or unwilling to conduct the cleanup.
EPA's commitment to States also includes maintaining a strong site
assessment program, not merely as a tool to list NPL sites, but as a
way to encourage potentially responsible parties to work closely with
States to achieve cleanups in lieu of NPL listing. EPA also foresees
having a substantial role in post-construction related activities at
NPL sites to ensure that Implemented remedies remain protective in lhe
future. As more sites complete construction, the use of resources will
increasingly shift toward compliance and environmental mornitoring and
response work at facilities where waste remains in place.
The fiscal year 1999 enacted $1.5 billion budget includes $1.005
billion for contractor and staff resources for cleanup/response, $145
million for EPA enforcement, $135 million for management and support,
including audits, $40 milhonfor research and-development, and $175
Bullion for other Federal agencies that catty out Superfitud-related
functions. We expect the proportions of Superfund resources allocated
to each of these categories to remain stable through EY 2005.
Although we expect Superfund Reforms, such as Remedy Updates and
National Remedy Review Board reviews, to continue through 2005, it is
not possible to project the level of estunated savings fiom future
actions. Remedy selection guidance reforms (e.g., Presumptive Remedies)
are intended to streamline the response process or clanfy performance
expectations and unprove consistency, thereby saving both time and
money. Other Adrninistrative Reforms did, and will continue to, result
in cost reductions for PRPs who undertake response actions.
__________
EPA's Strategy for Enforcement of Regulatory Requirements Applicable to
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities
august 10, 1998
This document describes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) strategy for enforcing the regulatory requirements applicable to
underground storage tanks (USTs)as of December 1998. EPA will work with
States and, as necessary, augment State efforts by taking Federal
action.
This document was developed jointly by EPA's Office of Underground
Storage Tanks (OUST) and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA), in concert with Regional Office UST program managers and
enforcement coordinators.
Background
By December 22, 1998, all USTs installed before December 22, 1988
that are not already protected against corrosion, spills, and overfills
must be upgraded, replaced, or properly closed. The EPA Administrator
has already announced that the Agency will not extend the deadline.
Other UST regulatory requirements, including those for release
detection, financial responsibility, and reporting and remediation of
UST releases will remain in effect. In the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), EPA's requirements appear in 40 CFR Part 280.
EPA can enforce the Federal requirements in States and territories
that do not have EPA's approval to run their own UST programs in lieu
of the Federal program, and in Indian Country. In approved States and
territories, EPA can enforce State regulations that were included in
the State Program Approval process, even if they are more stringent
than the corresponding Federal regulations. The Agency cannot enforce
State regulations that are broader in scope than the Federal
regulations, e.g., those applicable to UST systems not covered by the
Federal regulations, such as heating oil tanks for direct consumptive
use.
EPA's goal is full compliance with the 1998 requirements as quickly
as possible.EPA does not and will not condone non-compliance. EPA's
regulations do not provide for a grace period in which violations can
be corrected without a penalty . By December 1998, UST owners/operators
will have had 10 years to comply with these requirements. During this
10-year period, EPA conducted extensive outreach activities to inform
the regulated community of the upcoming 1998 technical requirements and
provided compliance assistance to owners and operators of UST
facilities. Given the threat that sub-standard tanks pose to human
health and the environment, EPA believes it is essential to ensure that
violations are promptly corrected.
What EPA expects States to do
The philosophy that has guided the UST program since its inception
is that States have the primary responsibility for implementation and
enforcement of UST regulations (except in Indian Country). EPA
therefore has devoted a major share of its UST resources to supporting
and helping strengthen State programs and will continue doing so.
EPA expects States to take the lead in securing compliance with the
1998 UST requirements. EPA recognizes that States can use various
enforcement activities to achieve compliance. These enforcement
activities can include filing administrative or judicial actions or
immediately stopping operation of a non-complying tank (e.g., by using
their ``red tag'' authority). Some States do not have statutory
authority to assess and collect penalties administratively and must
initiate a judicial action if penalties are to be assessed. While the
judicial process may be time-consuming, States should use their
enforcement authority to demonstrate to UST owners and operators that
they cannot ignore UST requirements with impunity.
In the months leading up to the December 1998 deadline, EPA expects
that States generally will continue to monitor and enforce compliance
with UST requirements already in effect, including those for release
detection; remind UST owners/operators of their obligation to upgrade,
replace, or properly close sub-standard UST systems; make UST owners/
operators aware that enforcement action will be taken against those who
miss the deadline; and, in concert with EPA Regional Offices, develop
plans for post-deadline compliance and enforcement activity.
EPA expects that States will expeditiously identify non-complying
UST facilities, including marketers and non-marketers, after the
deadline and require those facilities to be promptly upgraded,
replaced, or properly closed.
States with UST programs that lack UST regulations or a fixed
deadline for upgrading, replacing, or closing sub-standard UST systems
should work with EPA Regional Offices to develop procedures for dealing
with violations; such procedures may include referring cases to EPA for
appropriate action.
EPA will continue to assist States
EPA is prepared to assist States in carrying out their UST
compliance and enforcement responsibilities by continuing its own
extensive outreach to UST owners/operators; helping States train UST
inspectors; fostering exchanges of information among the States about
effective means of securing compliance; and supporting States' efforts
to design and implement cost-effective ways of increasing their field
presence.
When EPA will take action
Under RCRA Subtitle I, EPA has the authority to and will inspect
UST facilities in order to assess compliance with the UST regulations.
While EPA may take enforcement actions in all States, its activities
will be concentrated in States that have less active UST enforcement
programs. EPA also will try to be responsive to requests from any State
for support in dealing with Federal agencies or other UST owners-
operators who are resistant to State compliance efforts.
Factors the Agency will consider in deciding when and where to
conduct inspections will include UST compliance levels and the level of
States' compliance and enforcement presence. EPA's Regional Offices
will be responsible for selecting the States in which Federal action
will be undertaken. Regional Offices will have continuing communication
with States about the status of State compliance and enforcement
activities. EPA will give notice to State officials before undertaking
UST inspections or initiating UST enforcement actions (other than
issuance of field citations) in accordance with the agreements States
have with EPA (e.g., State Program Approval Memorandums of Agreement).
Because EPA believes it is essential that Regional Offices have
latitude in deciding where to initiate Federal actions, the Agency will
not establish criteria for such decision-making. Some degree of
consistency from one Regional Office another is nevertheless important;
EPA believes that such consistency can be achieved through ongoing
communication between EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices. .
EPA will continue to monitor and enforce UST compliance in Indian
Country. Enforcement activities in Indian Country generally will be
guided by this strategy. UST facilities not owned and operated by
Native American Tribes will be subject to enforcement action in the
same manner as UST facilities elsewhere in the U.S. Tribally owned and
operated UST facilities will be subject to enforcement action in
accordance with EPA's Indian Policy Implementation Guidance issued on
November 8, 1984.
EPA will also conduct UST inspections and issue administrative
penalty orders or field citations at Federal facilities using newly
clarified Subtitle I authorities. RCRA provides penalty and order
authority to EPA for use against Federal agencies for violations of UST
requirements. States should also inspect Federal facilities and, as
appropriate, issue compliance orders.
How EPA will deal with non-compliance
After December 22, 1998, it will be illegal to operate UST systems
that are not equipped to protect against corrosion, spills, and
overfills. Owners/operators who miss the deadline must bring sub-
standard UST systems into compliance by upgrading, replacing, or
closing them. If EPA finds them in violation, they will be subject to
monetary penalties for periods of non-compliance.
EPA's goal is to ensure that sub-standard UST systems are brought
into compliance by the regulated community. When UST owners and/or
operators fail to comply with the 1998 deadline requirements, EPA will
initiate enforcement actions to ensure prompt compliance with the UST
regulations. EPA's position is not to allow continued operation of sub-
standard UST systems after December 22, 1998. Toward that end, EPA
takes the position that sub-standard UST systems should be temporarily
closed until the work necessary to upgrade, replace, or permanently
close them is completed. Alternatively, EPA may refer the matter to the
State UST implementing agency where a State has the authority to shut
down such an UST facility without initiating administrative or judicial
proceedings.
In pursuit of its goal, EPA will use all the enforcement tools
available for dealing with UST violations, including, administrative
and judicial enforcement actions. Judicial enforcement actions are
particularly appropriate in situations involving recalcitrant parties.
The Agency may use field citations in some circumstances for a limited
period of time after the December 1998 deadline. In situations where
the inspection shows that a release has occurred or is occurring, EPA's
regulations require owners/operators to take immediate action to
prevent any further release, as well as other steps to respond to the
release. EPA can use RCRA Secs.7003, 9003(h), or 9006, to issue
administrative orders to require cleanup or initiate judicial action
requesting temporary or permanent injunctive relief. EPA can also use
Sec. 9005 information request letters to gather information from
owners/operators of UST facilities.
Temporary closure and upgrading after 1998
UST owners/operators can comply with the Federal regulations by
upgrading, replacing, or properly closing (either permanently or
temporarily) their sub-standard USTs. During the time in which an UST
system is temporarily closed, it is permissible to upgrade, replace, or
permanently close it. If the period of temporary closure of a sub-
standard UST system extends past December 22, 1998, the UST must be
upgraded or replaced before it can be legally operated.
EPA's regulations allow a sub-standard UST system to remain in
temporary closure for a maximum of 12 months unless the owner-operator
completes a site assessment and obtains an extension from the
responsible UST implementing agency; States and the EPA are not obliged
to grant such extensions. EPA's position is that sub-standard UST
systems, that have not been granted an extension by the implementing
agency, should not remain in temporary closure beyond December 22,
1999, even if the USTs were placed into temporary closure after
December 22, 1998.
Other Settlement and Enforcement Policies
In appropriate circumstances, EPA may use the Agency's ``Interim
Policy on Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses'' (June 3,
1996)(61 FR 27984)(Small Business Policy); ``Policy on Flexible State
Enforcement Responses to Small Community Violations'' (November 22,
1995)(Small Community Policy); ``Supplemental Environmental Projects
Policy'' (May 1998)(SEP Policy) and the Ability to Pay guidances, in
settlements of UST enforcement cases. These policies can be used for
settlement purposes only; they are not used for pleadings or at
hearings or trials. Copies of the EPA settlement policies are also
available through EPA's Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/OECA.
This document does not establish or modify any regulatory
requirements; it provides guidance on policies and procedures but does
not constitute final Agency action on any matter. It also is not
intended, and cannot be relied upon, to create any right, benefit, or
trust responsibility enforceable by any party in litigation with the
United States.
__________
Memorandum--Environmental Protection Agency
December 9, 1998
Subject: EPA's Inspection and Compliance Assistance Priorities For
Underground Storage Tank Systems Not Meeting The 1998 Deadline,
From: Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
To: Timothy Fields, Jr., Acting Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
To: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
This memorandum clarifies some aspects of the August 10, 1998
memorandum entitled, ``Underground Storage Tank 1998 Deadline
Enforcement Strategy.'' In particular, this memorandum provides EPA
Regional Of flees guidance on the subsection of the strategy entitled
``When EPA will take action'' which contained the following:
Because EPA believes it is essential that Regional Offices have
latitude in deciding where to initiate Federal actions, the Agency
will not establish criteria for such decisionmaking. Some degree of
consistency from one Regional Office to another is nevertheless
important; EPA believes that such consistency can be achieved
through ongoing communication between EPA Headquarters and Regional
Offices.
As part of that ongoing communication, today's memorandum reflects
a continuing assessment of UST compliance levels and the best ways for
EPA to use its limited resources to reach underground storage tank
(UST) program environmental goals. The attached document provides
further background information on this subject and States EPA's Federal
inspection priorities for Regional Offices.
Our primary concern remains finding the most efficient way to
ensure that USTs do not leak by meeting standards for protection from
spills, overfills, and corrosion. Working in partnership with States,
we believe that focusing EPA's resources over the next 6 months on
compliance assistance activities, especially for small businesses and
local governments, and high priority inspections is the most effective
approach to reaching our environmental goals of protecting human health
and the environment from substandard USTs. Since the UST program's
inception, EPA has been sensitive to the need for balancing our
environmental goals with concerns about unduly impacting small
businesses and local governments.
While we are not extending the deadline, we believe it necessary to
set priorities to reach most effectively the environmental goals of the
Federal UST program. If you have any comments on this memorandum,
please contact Joan Olmstead (202) 564-4018 in the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance or Sammy Ng (703) 603-7166 in the
Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
______
Supplemental Information Regarding the August 10, 1998 Enforcement
Strategy
december 9, 1998
This document pertains to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) strategy for enforcing the regulatory requirements
applicable to underground stooge tanks (USTs) as of December 1998.
Background
December 22, 1998 marks 10 years that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's regulations for underground stooge tanks (USTs)
have been in effect. During this time, the UST program has
significantly reduced the threat to human health and the environment
posed by USTs:
Over 1.2 million substandard USTs in service in 1988 have
been taken out of operation, thus removing them as sources of leaks;
and
Of the 892,000 USTs currently in operation, approximately
500,000 USTs meet tough federal standards that protect human health and
the environment.
EPA would like to recognize those parties that have come into
compliance by upgrading, replacing or closing their tanks. Their
efforts help to reduce the threat of petroleum and hazardous substances
being released into the environment.
EPA has also made every effort during the past 10 years to alert
UST owners about the 1998 deadline:
EPA has distributed over 1.4 million compliance
assistance documents, many of which were focused on timely compliance
with the 1998 requirements;
EPA, States, and industry have used and continue to use
web sites, telephone hotlines, ``Mining, and conference presentations
to broadcast UST compliance information; and
Many State UST programs and professional/trade
associations have used EPA compliance assistance materials (or adapted
them or made their own materials), distributing several hundred
thousand documents to their constituents.
Despite these efforts by EPA, States, and industry to effect full
compliance, it has become clear that a significant number of USTs will
not be in compliance by December 22, 1998. For some, it is a matter of
poor planning and the unavailability of equipment and contractor
assistance. For others, it may be a lack of financial resources. EPA
will undertake a number of efforts to address this situation.
Providing Additional Compliance Assistance and Setting Inspection
Priorities
With the deadline imminent, EPA will undertake several efforts to
address the many USTs that will not be in timely compliance.
State Partnership: In developing policies to assure compliance with
the 1998 deadline, EPA has worked very closely with the States to
assure that we take appropriate and fair action against those owners
and operators that have failed to comply with the law. In doing so, EPA
continues to recognize that the States are the primary enforcers of
this law and that many States have enforcement authorities that are
more extensive than those of the federal government.
Compliance Assistance: Given the large number of facilities that
remain in noncompliance, EPA will continue its compliance assistance
efforts, especially for small businesses and local governments. EPA
will continue to assist UST sectors in their compliance efforts by
providing compliance assistance information and helping to identify
available sources of financing for UST upgrading, closing, or
replacement. Owners and operators of USTs are encouraged to take
advantage of available financing to upgrade or replace their USTs as
expeditiously as possible. Some States have developed assistance
programs for UST owners with many programs targeted to small
businesses. These programs include grants, direct loans, and loan
guarantee programs. In addition, the Federal Government has several
programs that may provide assistance to UST owners (including Small
Business Administration, RUMI Development Administration, Economic
Development Administration, and Administration for Native Americans).
For more information, please see EPA's publication entitled ``Financing
UST Work: Federal and State Assistance Programs.''
Disclosure and Self-Correction: For those government agencies,
businesses and other owners and operators of facilities that will not
be in compliance by the deadline, EPA continues to encourage them to
disclose their violations pursuant to EPA's ``Incentives for Self-
Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of
Violations'' (Dec. 22, 1995)(60 FR 66706)(Audit Policy), EPA's
``Interim Policy on Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses'' (June
3, 1996)(61 FR 27984)(EPA's Small Business Policy), or similar State
policies. EPA's Audit Policy encourages regulated entities to
voluntarily discover, promptly disclose, expeditiously correct and
prevent violations of Federal environmental requirements in order to
mitigate gravity penalty amounts by 75 percent and in some cases up to
100 percent. Owners and operators of underground storage tanks should
recognize that disclosure of violations to EPA under the Federal Audit
Policy does not provide protections from State enforcement action.
Indeed, except for disclosures from facilities in New York, Idaho,
Hawaii, and Indian Country, EPA will share all disclosures with the
appropriate State agency and consult with them before resolving any
violations.
Owners and operators of facilities located in New York, Idaho,
Hawaii, and Indian Country should send their disclosures to the
appropriate Regional EPA office for Audit Policy consideration (see
attached list of contacts). Facilities located in States with Audit
Policies that meet the Federal criteria articulated in the Feb. 14,
1997 memorandum entitled, ``Statement of Principles Effect of State
Audit Immunity/Privilege Laws On Enforcement Authority for Federal
Programs,'' should send their disclosure to their appropriate State
regulatory agency.
High Federal Enforcement Priority: During the first 6 months
following the deadline, EPA will focus its federal inspection resources
in areas that can produce the greatest environmental and human health
benefit. In particular, EPA will focus its resources on:
Federal facilities;
Owners and operators of multiple UST facilities;
Owners and operators of large facilities with multiple
USTs; and
Facilities that are endangering sensitive ecosystems or
sources of drinking water by failing to upgrade, replace, or close
USTs.
These UST owners are strongly urged to move quickly to come into
compliance, as they could be subject to State enforcement actions or
citizen suits. In addition, many fuel distributors have told EPA that
they may not deliver fuel to USTs that have not been upgraded or
replaced.
Low Federal Enforcement Priority: During the first 6 months
immediately after the deadline, EPA will not focus its Federal
inspection resources on the following types of UST facilities:
Small UST facilities (generally four or fewer tanks)
owned and operated by one person not owning or operating other
regulated UST facilities; and
USTs owned or operated by local governments and States
(including public service entities such as school districts, fire
departments, and police departments).
Small businesses and local governments are strongly urged to move
quickly to come into compliance, as they could be subject to State
enforcement actions or citizen suits. In addition, as noted above, many
fuel distributors have told EPA that they may not deliver fuel to USTs
that have not been upgraded or replaced.
EPA has established policies for small businesses (``Interim Policy
on Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses'') (June 3, 1996)(61 FR
27984) (EPA's Small Business Policy) that allow qualifying parties a
waiver of most penalties for prompt disclosure and correction. For
example, small businesses that step forward to identify violations and
agree to upgrade, replace or close USTs can expect to pay a minimal
civil penalty in the first few months of 1999. That is because the
Agency generally recovers only the economic benefit associated with
delayed investment in compliance, which in the first few months after
the deadline is quite small. The longer compliance is postponed,
however, the more economic benefit accumulates, so small businesses and
local governments are urged to correct problems within the next 6
months.
This document does not establish or modify any regulatory
requirements; it provides guidance on policies and procedures but does
not constitute final Agency action on any matter. It also is not
intended, and cannot be relied upon, to create any right, benefit, or
trust responsibility enforceable by any party in litigation with the
United States.
EPA Audit Policy Contacts
Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) Suzanne Parent (617) 565-3351
Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI) John Wink (212) 637-3918, (212) 637-4035
Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV) Samantha Fairchild (215) 814-2627
Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN) Bill Anderson (404) 562-
9655
Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI) Tinka Hyde (312) 886-9296
Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX) Barbara Greenfield (214) 665-2210
Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE) Becky Dolph (913) 551-7281 Region 8 (CO,
MT, ND, SD, UT, WY) Michael Risner (303) 312-6890
Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV) Leslie Guinan (415) 744-1339
Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA) Jackson Fox (206) 553-1073
Violations in more than one EPA Region--David Nielsen (202) 564-
2270
__________
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Washington, DC, 20510, December 22, 1998.
The Honorable Carol Browner, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
401 St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Administrator Browner: I am writing to express my deep
concerns regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (``EPA's'')
revised enforcement strategy with respect to leaking underground
storage tanks. I believe that this enforcement strategy is
unjustifiable and inconsistent with the Agency's responsibility to
protect the environment from the threats associated with leaking
underground storage tanks.
As you know, on December 9, 1998, Steve Herman, the Assistant
Administrator of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance,
and Tim Fields, the Acting Administrator of the Of lice of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, issued a memorandum purportedly clarifying the
Administration's enforcement strategy with respect to the December 22
deadline for upgrading or replacing leaking underground storage tanks.
As I read the memorandum, however, it effectively extends the
compliance deadline for at least 6 months for the owners of certain
tank facilities. Specifically, it States, among other things, that
``EPA will not focus its Federal inspection requirements'' on tank
facilities ``owned or operated by local governments and States.'' The
effect of this non-enforcement policy will be to allow, and even
encourage, governmental owners of a large number of noncomplying
underground storage tanks to continue to ignore the requirements of the
law, even where there might be significant environmental risk, for
another 6 months. There is no justification for distinguishing between
public and private tanks. Furthermore, your staff has acknowledged that
this apparent 6 month grace period could be extended. That is simply
unacceptable.
Owners of underground storage tanks have had 10 years to come into
compliance with the requirement to upgrade, replace or close leaking
tanks. The regulated community has supported this requirement and now
legitimately expects the deadline to be strictly enforced. Thousands of
private owners of tanks have invested significant resources to comply
with the deadline; some have even gone out of business in order to
avoid noncompliance. EPA's new enforcement strategy is fundamentally
unfair to all of those tank owners who in good faith have complied with
the law. There can be no legitimate reason, for example, to exempt the
City of New York from fully complying with the deadline, when smaller
tank owners in the private sector have been forced to invest in
upgrading or replacing their tanks.
I recognize that EPA has limited resources to enforce the
underground storage tank program. I also recognize that EPA's
enforcement strategy does not bind the States, although it is troubling
that at least a few have indicated that they will follow EPA's lead.
Thus, while I would support a strategy that targets EPA enforcement
resources on those facilities that present the greatest threat to the
environment, I cannot support a strategy that arbitrarily distinguishes
between publicly and privately owned facilities for enforcement
purposes. That is neither good public policy, nor good environmental
policy.
It is my hope that you will immediately withdraw this new
enforcement strategy and clarify that the Agency will indeed strictly
enforce the December 22 deadline. Affirmation of a strong enforcement
policy will not prevent the Agency from exercising sound prosecutorial
judgment or relying on compliance assistance where appropriate. At the
same time, it will sends a strong message that no one is exempt from
the underground storage tank requirements.
I look forward to your personal attention and response to this
matter.
Sincerely,
John H. Chafee.
__________
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency,
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460, February 15, 1999.
The Honorable John H. Chafee
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-6175
Dear Senator Chafee: Thank you for your letter of December 22,
1998, to Administrator Carol Browner in which you expressed concerns
regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) ``revised
enforcement strategy'' with respect to leaking underground storage
tanks.
Let me begin by saying that EPA fully intends to implement the
August 1998 national enforcement strategy for underground storage tanks
(USTs) which we developed with a great deal of input from the States.
We have not extended the December 22, 1998 deadline for upgrading,
replacing, or closing substandard USTs for any group of facilities.
USTs that do not meet these requirements are in violation of Federal
and State regulations. What our December 9, 1998 memorandum stated is
how EPA plans to use its limited resources to most effectively enforce
the UST deadline in the near term. Thus, for the first 6 months after
the deadline EPA will focus its limited enforcement and inspection
resources on high priority facilities which we believe potentially pose
a greater risk to public health and the environment, while continuing
to offer compliance assistance to smaller facilities and State and
local government-owned facilities that are committed to upgrading. This
assistance will not be provided to facilities that do not intend to
bring their tanks into compliance.
Under the Agency's implementation of these enforcement priorities
during this period, lower priority facilities are not exempt from
requirements, but will be given more flexible compliance terms if they
disclose violations to the Agency promptly, by no later than February
12. The longer facilities wait during the 6-month period to disclose
violations to EPA, the less favorable the compliance conditions are
likely to be. After June 22, 1999, those facilities specified as lower
enforcement priority in the December 9 memorandum?will be considered to
be high enforcement priorities. We believe that encouraging prompt
self-disclosure and entering into agreements with expeditious
compliance schedules, as well as penalties that recover the economic
benefit of noncompliance, will allow EPA to bring more facilities into
compliance than would be possible with inspection and enforcement
actions alone.
You expressed specific concerns regarding the placement of local
and State governments as a low enforcement priority. EPA believes that
there are public interest reasons for treating local and State
governments differently than similarly sized private businesses for a
limited period of time (e.g., in order not to disrupt fuel availability
for police, emergency vehicles, hospitals or school buses). However,
the December 9 memorandum clearly States that high Federal enforcement
priority facilities include ``[I]ocations that are endangering
sensitive ecosystems or sources of drinking water by failing to
upgrade, replace, or close'' an UST. Thus, State and local government
facilities that pose a significant public health or environmental risk
will be a high priority for Federal enforcement. Therefore, we believe
our policy allows us to focus on the facilities of greatest health and
environmental concern. At this time EPA is working with a number of
localities seeking to self-disclose tank violations, including large
metropolitan areas and smaller municipalities. The Agency will actively
work to put these government entities on aggressive schedules that will
ensure prompt compliance. Again, our interest is in ensuring that vital
local services are maintained while the environment is protected from
substandard USTs.
Since December 22, 1998, we have become aware of certain local
governments and small businesses that have contractors onsite
upgrading, replacing, or closing their tanks. Some of these have self-
disclosed that they are in violation of the UST deadline, and are
entering into compliance agreements to bring affected tanks into
compliance. While these tanks were not in compliance by December 22,
1998, we believe the best course of action is to allow these entities
that self-disclosed a short period of time to bring their tanks into
compliance with the UST regulations and pay a small penalty.
Another important clarification is that the policy stated in the
December 9 memorandum only affected EPA actions. It did not affect in
any way State enforcement policies and priorities. In fact, the vast
majority of States are following their previously determined strategies
which include doing inspections, taking enforcement actions and, in
those States with the authority, ``red-tagging'' (e.g., stopping fuel
deliveries to) noncompliant tanks.
I am encouraged by your support of a strong enforcement program for
underground storage tanks. We have worked very hard and well over the
past 10 years with all the States to implement the UST program. We will
continue to work with the States to ensure full compliance with the
regulations as soon as possible.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, or your
staff may call George Hull at 202-260-7808.
Yours truly,
Timothy Fields, Jr., Acting Assistant Administrator.
__________
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission,
February 17, 1999
The Honorable John Chafee, Chairman
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
U.S. Senate
Senate Dirksen Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Chafee: I am writing to urge your swift action in
approving the nomination of Timothy Fields, Jr. as Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste at the Environmental Protection Agency.
In his capacity as Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste,
he has worked with representatives of member States of the Interstate
Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). The IOGCC is a Congressionally
chartered Compact of 30 oil and gas producing States. The IOGCC, from
1991 until earlier this year, worked closely with the EPA on a multi-
stakeholder program to upgrade State regulatory programs for oilfield
waste. The program was extremely successful and was cited by a White
House task force as a model of Federal-State cooperation.
The State review process was stopped because of one stakeholder's
refusal to participate and EPA's reluctance to allow alternate
participants. Mr. Fields made time to meet with State's representatives
and assured the States that EPA was committed to the State review
process. At a time when one stakeholder group's representatives were
attempting to hold up the process, Mr. Fields assured the States that
EPA would not allow the process to be held hostage by one group. If
confirmed, the States are confident that Mr. Fields will play an
important role in revitalizing and funding the State review process.
EPA relationships with the States are critically important, and Mr.
Fields has demonstrated his willingness to work with State government
toward positive results. He is a fine public servant, committed to
progress, Nat just bureaucracy.
Sincerely,
Christine Hansen, Executive Director.
__________
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials
Washington, DC 20001, March 2, 1999.
The Honorable John H. Chafee, Chairman
Environment and Public Works Committee
U.S. Senate
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senators Chafee and Baucus: The purpose of this letter is to
convey the support of the Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) for the nomination of Mr. Timothy
Fields, Jr., to be the Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
We have not made such a recommendation in over 10 years, and would not
normally do so for a Presidential appointee. However, Mr. Fields is a
career employee of USEPA, and an individual with whom we have been
associated for over a decade, and we feel obliged to share our
confidence in him with the Committee.
ASTSWMO is an association representing the waste program managers
of the States and Territories. Our members are State employees engaged
in the professional management of the regulatory and cleanup programs
associated with hazardous waste, solid waste, State Superfund and
remediation, underground storage tanks, and minimization, reduction,
and recycling activities within their States and Territories. They are
career employees, with backgrounds in engineering, technical
management, and other sciences. ASTSWMO is a nonpartisan organization,
and we focus primarily on fulfilling our mission; to enhance and
promote effective State and Territorial programs and to influence
national decisionmaking on waste policies. We have testified before
'the Committee and its Subcommittees on a number of occasions, and your
staff has often consulted with our members as legislative proposals
affecting RCRA and CERCLA are developed.
Mr. Fields is well known to our members, having risen through the
ranks at USEPA and worked closely with them in program offices over a
number of years. We were happy to see him elevated to Deputy Assistant
Administrator, and then Acting Assistant ; Administrator of OSWER. We
are delighted that he' has now been nominated to hold that position on
a permanent basis. The reason for our strong support is simple, he is
someone we trust to' continue to listen to. us, consider our input, and
to come to an objective, informed decision. We have not always agreed
with Mr. Fields in the past ?and there are certain to be occasions of
disagreement in the future, but we know that his judgments are fair and
professional. Mr. Fields goes out of his way to seek consultation with
regulators and stakeholders outside the Federal family, and we think
that is one of the principal reasons he is held in such high esteem.
Certainly, he has the professional training and extensive background
which give him exceptional expertise in the science and implementation
of the full range of waste programs he will manage as Assistant
Administrator. But many people have those professional skills, and what
singles him out to us is his honesty, candor, and openness. We trust
him to do the right thing.
We urge the Committee to favorably report his nomination to the
Senate, and to support the Senate's rapid confirmation of this
remarkable individual. Thank you for your attention to our views.
Sincerely,
James L. Warner, President,
ASTSWMO.
__________
Petroleum Marketers Association of America
Arlington, VA 22209, March 9, 1999.
The Honorable John H. Chafee
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-6175
Dear Senator Chafee: We writing on behalf of the Petroleum
Marketers Association of America (PMAA) to express support for
nomination of Timothy Fields for Assistant Administrator of the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Mr. Fields is a fair-
minded and dedicated agency professional.
PMAA is a trade association that represents over 8,000 small
business marketers of petroleum products nationwide. Collectively,
these marketers sell nearly half the gasoline, over 60 percent of the
diesel fuel and approximately 85 percent of the home heating oil
consumed in the U.S. annually. Most of the marketers that PMAA
represents operate underground storage tanks regulated under the
jurisdiction of 40 CFR 280. Our members are undoubtedly the largest
faction regulated by this and other solid waste programs. As such we
feel strongly about quality tank programs at the Federal level, managed
by thoughtful, competent and fair-minded officials.
Over the course of the program the last few years. Mr. Fields has
been responsive to industry concerns about implementation and
enforcement of the tank requirements and compliance deadline. Although
PMAA is still disappointed with the promulgation of the December 9,
1998 enforcement memorandum and are not always in full agreement with
decisions made by Mr. Fields and other personnel within the agency, we
have been particularly impressed with his willingness to maintain lines
of communication with industry representatives. his serious
consideration of industry concerns, his high level of accountability,
and his ability to draw consensus from a large number of different
parties.
We urge you to move forward with the approval of Timothy Fields as
Assistant Administrator of OSWER. Thank you for your consideration of
this very important manner.
Sincerely yours.
Dan Gilligan, President.
Kristin Manos, Esq., Government Affairs Counsel.
__________
Environmental Technology Council,
Washington, DC 20005, April 26, 1999.
Chairman John Chafee,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Environmental Technology Council, the
association representing the hazardous waste treatment and disposal
industry, would like to urge that the Senate to give its advice and
consent to the nomination of Timothy Fields, Jr. as Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Our trade association is a creation of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, one of the most important programs operated by the
Environmental Protection Agency. We believe having an experienced
Assistant Administrator is critical for this program to run efficiently
and to protect the public health and environment.
Mr. Fields has been acting in this position for more than a year.
But his experience with the solid waste law is even far more
impressive. He helped draft what became the key to RCRA, Subtitle C,
over 25 years ago and his been in the Solid Waste office since its
inception. Throughout his 27-year career, he has proven himself more
than capable as he moved up the rungs in supervisory and staff
positions of the Solid Waste Office.
Complimenting his experience in RCRA is his experience in the
Superfund program where he held key positions that accelerated the
remediation work of that program. It is difficult to imagine that
another candidate could bring the wealth of experience to this position
that Mr. Fields brings.
We urge the Senate to promptly act on his confirmation.
Very truly yours,
Scott Slesinger, Vice President for Governmental Affairs.
NOMINATIONS OF RICHARD MESERVE, PAUL L. HILL, MAJ. GEN. PHILLIP R.
ANDERSON, SAMUEL E. ANGEL, AND BRIG. GEN. ROBERT GRIFFIN
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:03 p.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Chafee, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Murkowski and
Crapo.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. Good afternoon, everyone.
The purpose of today's hearing is to consider five
nominations. The first nomination is Dr. Paul L. Hill, Jr. to
be reappointed as a member and Chairperson of the Chemical
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. He is to be followed by
Dr. Richard Meserve, nominated for appointment as a member of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The third nomination is that
of Major General Phillip R. Anderson, U.S. Army, to be
appointed as President and Member of the Mississippi River
Commission; followed by two nominations those of Mr. Sam
Epstein Angel, and Brigadier General Robert H. Griffin, U.S.
Army, to be appointed as members of the Mississippi River
Commission. All of the nominees, in my judgment, are well
qualified for the positions.
I welcome our five nominees and also welcome Dr. Meserve's
wife, Marty. We also, of course, welcome Senator Byrd.
The purpose of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board is to investigate chemical accidents and report the
facts, circumstances and cause or probable cause of any
accident or release resulting in a fatality, serious injury or
substantial property damage.
The President has nominated Dr. Paul L. Hill, Jr. for
reappointment as Chairperson and member of the Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board. Dr. Hill has been serving as
Chair and member of the Board since 1994 and has over 20 years
of professional experience in chemical safety, regulation, and
public policy development. Prior to his current position, he
was President and CEO of the National Institute for Chemical
Studies.
He has served the State of West Virginia in several
capacities--Science Advisor the West Virginia Water Resources
Board and Deputy Administrator of the Department of Natural
Resources.
He holds B.S. and M.S. Degrees from Marshall University and
a Ph.D. from the University of Louisville.
Now to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which is an
independent regulatory commission responsible for ensuring
adequate protection of the environment, public health and
safety, common defense and security with respect to the use of
nuclear materials for civilian purposes in the U.S.
Dr. Richard Meserve has been nominated by the President to
a member of the NRC. If confirmed, I understand the President
intends to designate Dr. Meserve as the new Chairman.
Dr. Meserve is currently a part of the DC law firm of
Covington & Burling, Chairman of the National Academy of
Sciences Committee seeking to upgrade the protection of nuclear
weapon materials in Russia. He was formerly a law clerk to
Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court. Dr. Meserve received a
B.A. Degree from Tufts, J.D. from Harvard Law School, Ph.D. in
Physics from Stanford.
Since the flood of 1928, the primary function of the seven-
member Mississippi River Commission has been to implement,
construct and operate the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project. This involves the development and execution of flood
protection programs comprised of river dredging, levy
construction, and water distribution along the Mississippi
River.
The President has nominated Major General Phillip R.
Anderson to be President and Member of the Commission;
currently serving as Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Engineer Division, Mississippi Valley, Vicksburg; previously
Director of Military Programs, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
Deputy Commanding General and Assistant Commandant of the
United States Army Engineer Center. He served as leader of our
engineering forces in Haiti in June and November 1995.
He received his B.S. from the Virginia Military Institute;
his M.S. from the University of Chicago of Illinois in Civil
Engineering; his M.A. in International Relations from Salve
Regina College in Rhode Island.
The second Presidential nomination to the Commission is Mr.
Sam Epstein Angel to serve as a member. He was first appointed
to the Commission in 1979 and reappointed in 1980. He is from
Chicot County, he is an Arkansas planter and ginner. He has
served as President of Epstein Land Company, Epstine Gin
Company in Lake Village, Arkansas since 1980, as well as the
Chicot Warehouse Inc. in Eudora, Arkansas.
Since 1970, he has been Commissioner of the Chicot County
Watershed District. He is a former commissioner of the Chicot
County Rural Development Authority.
Brigadier General Robert H. Griffin is the third nominee to
the Commission. He has served as Commanding General for the
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division,
since 1996. Prior to that, he was Commander of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Mobile,
Alabama. He commanded the 864th Engineer Battalion which
included service in Desert Storm.
He receives his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering and M.S. in
Civil Engineering from Auburn University and an M.B.A. from
Long Island University, CW Post.
Senator did you have a statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean
Air, Property Rights, Wetlands and Nuclear Safety, we have some
jurisdiction over all of these appointments. So I am very
interested in these and I have heard a lot of good things.
My major concern is I have had the honor of talking to Dr.
Meserve in my office and we have many mutual friends out there.
He comes very highly recommended. We have a lot of problems
there. We did not offer any oversight for the first 2, maybe 2
\1/2\ years that I chaired this committee but we got into it.
Just in the last year we have had two oversight hearings and we
were actually planning to have one today and did not because we
thought he would need to be on the job for a while before we
get into some of the issues that we are going to be discussing.
I am concerned about the relicensing process and I am
pleased that the NRC is currently on track to process the first
two applications within 2 years. However, we are going to have
to find some way, as you and I talked in my office, of
streamlining this process in order to accomplish the
relicensing commitments we field in the next short period of
time.
We are interested in the 5-year strategy, are anxious to
get that. We got off to a slower start and I hope you will make
that one of your top priorities.
One of the things I do want to spend some time on and we
can do this during question and answer is something that we
addressed in our committee. We do have a commitment, it is my
understanding, that there is going to be a new approach to the
fee system so that the licensees will only be participating in
those things from which they either inure some type of benefit
or are subject to jurisdiction.
There is approximately $40 to $50 million of functions that
are performed by the NRC that have nothing to do with industry.
I want to be sure that we have a clear understanding, as you
and I had when we visited in my office, that anything that does
not affect the licensee should have to go through the normal
appropriations process.
We will have a chance to address this during question and
answer time. I am looking forward to these confirmations.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
Senator Lautenberg, do you have anything you want to say?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
I welcome our nominees today. I am happy to see Senator
Byrd here. I am always anxious to hear what he says because
what he says is always supported by knowledge, experience and
memory which I am trying to emulate. That is going to be pretty
hard unless I am about a 486K or something like that.
Senator Chafee. If you stay around this place for 46 years,
you will get it.
Senator Lautenberg. I remember all the kings of England,
the periods they served, how they died, starting with 1066 or
the establishment of the Roman Senate, and a few other things,
Mr. Chairman. I am impressed with the candidates we have for
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as the Chemical
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Each of these nominees
brings terrific credentials and I am pleased we are going to be
hearing from them.
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board is of
particular interest to me because the chemical industry in New
Jersey is a significant industry, one in which we take pride
and one that we treasure. We also want to be safe. The Board
was created to help assure those operations do meet the
standards we set for safe operations. The Board was authorized
by the Clean Air Act in 1990 but not until fiscal year 1998
were funds appropriated. Two days after the Board was able to
open its doors in January 1998, there was a serious explosion
at a factory in Nevada that killed four people and the Board
was off to its first investigation.
The recommendations that resulted from that investigation
have been adopted by the State of Nevada in the form of State
law. The report on that investigation and two others completed
have been used by various organizations for training purposes
and carefully studied by industry, government, labor and
community groups alike.
I know the reports on the other investigations that are
currently underway will be solid and make a contribution to the
safer manufacture and use, storage, et cetera of chemicals.
That is the exact vision we had for the Board when we created
it.
The first concern I do have, Mr. Chairman, is that we are
not allowing the Board to do its job, to grow to the size it
needs to be to adequately carry out its mission. This year, in
fact, the Board had to stop beginning new investigations mid-
year. We should not permit that to happen. The underfunding of
the Board may be an unavoidable consequence of starting an
agency from scratch but we cannot do that much longer. Too much
is riding on the work of this agency.
I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to hearing the testimony of
these witnesses. I thank you for holding this hearing.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator.
If Dr. Hill and Dr. Meserve would come forward. Senator
Byrd, it is my understanding that you would like to introduce
Dr. Hill. We look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT C. BYRD,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe and
Senator Lautenberg.
You are very busy men and I consider a privilege to be here
this afternoon to introduce Dr. Hill. I knew Theodore Green and
served with him, I served with John Pastori, I served with Bob
Kerr, A.S. Mike Monroni and you are both very worthy Senators
to follow in their footsteps.
You have made a mistake, Mr. Chairman. You are retiring too
early. I would say the same thing about Senator Lautenberg. I
have been talking to him trying to get him to change his mind.
Nevertheless, that will be a conversation for another day.
I appreciate the opportunity to come here and I thank you
and the members of your committee for your courtesies.
I welcome this opportunity to present to you this afternoon
my constituent, the Honorable Paul L. Hill. I served with
Lester Hill from Alabama, a great Senator. Benjamin Hill was a
great Senator. I did not serve with him; that was before my
time. Benjamin Hill was a great Senator, a great orator and I
am confident that Dr. Hill will be just as illustrious and just
as capable in his field as the two Senators Hill that I
mentioned were in theirs.
Dr. Hill is the current Chairman of the U.S. Chemical
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and has recently been
renominated, as you have pointed out, by the President with my
support, to serve a second term as Chairman.
Dr. Hill holds a PhD from the University of Louisville and
B.A. and M.A. of Science Degrees from Marshall University in
West Virginia. I attended Marshall when it was a college, not a
university. I attended one semester. I took eight courses, 22
hours and made eight As at Marshall University. I was a little
late in receiving my baccalaureate, I received it 5 years ago
at the age of 76. My baccalaureate was in political science. I
received my law degree in 1963 at the age of 45 but I am proud
always to say that I am an alumnus of Marshall University, age
76.
We learn a lot more when we go to school late as I had to
do. So Dr. Hill comes as someone who attended Marshall
University.
Dr. Hill, you are not the only man around here who was a
great physics major. I have two grandsons that are physics
majors from the University of Virginia which has a very strong
Physics Department. My third grandson, who is the second
physics major in my family, married last Saturday and is off to
Hawaii.
Dr. Hill has dedicated 20 years of his career to chemical
safety, regulation and public policy. This includes 7 years as
President and CEO of the National Institute of Chemical Studies
located in Kanawha Valley of West Virginia which is also home
to a thriving chemical industry on which the State and the
Nation depend.
Jacob worked 7 years for Rachel and when Jacob went to
claim Rachel after working for Laben for 7 years, the father-
in-law did not give him Rachel, the father-in-law gave him
Leah, Rachel's sister. The Scriptures say that she was weak-
eyed. So you worked there 7 years but these gentlemen are not
going to make you work 7 more as Laben did. He required Jacob
to work 7 more years before he could finally get Rachel.
It is in this capacity that I am most familiar with Dr.
Hill's abilities. The chemical industry is a critical component
of the West Virginia economy but we all know that many
chemicals are sensitive and volatile, and that chemical
accidents which pose significant threats to life and the
environment can and do occur. When they do occur, public outcry
for immediate remedy is often at odds with the viability of the
business involved.
Dr. Hill established his credibility within the field of
chemical safety by working with government, industry and the
public to better manage chemical risks while still sustaining
environmentally responsible economic growth in the industry.
Thoughtful, studious and capable, Dr. Hill has demonstrated
calm and effective leadership, not only in more mundane, day-
to-day circumstances, but also in the highly charged emotional
atmosphere that accomplishes the real life nightmare of a
chemical accident.
In 1993, when the President began looking for candidates
for the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. I
had no hesitation in bringing Dr. Hill's interest in serving on
the Board to the Administration's attention. I was very pleased
that the President and this committee also recognized Dr.
Hill's qualifications to lead this new, independent agency.
However, for the first 3 years of his 5-year term as Chairman,
delays in providing funds to initiate the Board's activities
kept that body from serving its appointed role.
I hope that my colleagues here will look favorably on Dr.
Hill's nomination to a second term as Chairman of the U.S.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. I believe they
will. I know Senator Chafee is a very tough Chairman but he is
fair. I know Mr. Inhofe is also a man of great courage and is a
hard worker. I served with him on the Armed Services Committee
and I have great respect for him as well. Senator Lautenberg is
my colleague on the Appropriations Committee and I have had the
great pleasure and privilege of serving with him on that
committee for many years.
In his year-and-a-half tenure, Dr. Hill has led a board
which, while still in its infancy, has as its mission to ensure
the safety of workers and the public by eliminating chemical
accidents. To date, the Board has investigated 22 chemical
accidents and has completed reports on three. The Board's
initial research indicates that on average, 253 Americans die
each year as a result of chemical accidents. Dr. Hill knows
that and he knows this is unacceptable and that the success of
his tenure will be measured by the Board's effectiveness in
reducing chemical accidents by finding out their cause and by
helping to find solutions to prevent similar accidents from
occurring in the future.
In West Virginia and other States across the country with a
high concentration of chemical plants, the existence of this
board provides greater peace of mind both to the people who
work in the plant and to those families living near the
highways and railways that transport the chemicals. Dr. Hill
has proven that through diligence, cooperation and forethought,
dangerous situations can be avoided and lives can be protected.
I am proud to introduce a man of Dr. Hill's caliber because
in doing so, I also put my own name on the line. I hope the
committee will express confidence in his abilities to guide the
organization and its next 5 years by approving his
renomination.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleagues on the
committee who serve with you for this opportunity.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator Byrd.
Obviously your support for Dr. Hill is very beneficial to him,
not that he was in trouble but having your support is a
splendid thing.
I know you are extremely busy so if you would like to
retire now, that would be acceptable. I don't think anyone has
any questions of you.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wish you good luck, Dr. Hill.
Mr. Hill. Thank you.
Senator Byrd. I also wish the other gentlemen who are
nominees equally good luck.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator Byrd.
You each have a statement and all of the statements will be
included in the record. Some of the statements are a little
lengthy, so if you can stay in the 5-minute area, that would be
helpful. It would help your cause.
I don't think there is anyone here to introduce Dr. Meserve
is my understanding.
Mr. Meserve. That is correct.
Senator Chafee. Go ahead, Dr. Hill. Give us your statement.
STATEMENT OF PAUL L. HILL, JR., NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO
BE A MEMBER AND CHAIRPERSON OF THE CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD
INVESTIGATION BOARD
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honorable members of
this committee.
It is certainly an honor for me to appear before you today
to answer any questions you might have and certainly an honor
to have been introduced by Senator Byrd. As he said, he first
recommended me to the Administration some time ago and indeed,
I am honored to appear before you today to answer any questions
you have.
Humble as I am that the President of the United States has
placed his confidence in me by submitting my name again for
nomination and confirmation by you, I want to assure the
Committee and the Congress as a whole, that I will continue to
dedicate myself as a partner with the Congress in fulfilling
the Board's mandate.
As Senator Byrd pointed out, I have been allowed to serve
as Chairman of the Board only for a short period of time.
During the startup phase, however, much has been accomplished
of which I am very proud. There is much, much more work to do,
however, to live up to the mandates as the Congress pointed out
back in 1990.
Although this has not been an easy task by any means and
certainly a lot of challenges lie ahead, I look forward to the
opportunity to meet these challenges if confirmed for a second
term. Further, if the Committee would entertain engaging its
oversight function, I would readily participate in the
opportunity to explore various issues and challenges relative
to improving chemical safety. In so doing, my approach to
implementation of the Congress' intent could be aired with
those directly involved with the Board's statutory authorities
and indeed, its very existence.
I think this goes along with Senator Lautenberg's previous
comments that there are certain activities that are defined by
the statute which obviously in our American society are
interpreted by different parties in different ways. Our
stakeholders obviously raise those issues and that is the
reason why I think it is good to air these issues before the
Congress so that we can be clear that we are together and on
the right track to achieving what the Congress laid out.
When I appeared before you last, there was no Board. There
existed a statute and there were three nominees with the
concept of a new agency and a new task that was considered
necessary and needed. Today, we have a staff. We have four
board members and a staff of 22. If there has ever been a from
the ground-up organization, the Chemical Safety Board is it.
After nearly 21 months of existence, the Board could still
be called a virtual agency. We exist in temporary space, we
rent our furniture, we borrow technical expertise from other
Federal agencies and we outsource the majority of our
administrative functions. Still, in spite of these hurdles, in
21 months we have done what no one else can remember doing for
a long period of time and that is create a Federal agency from
scratch.
We took on a businesslike approach in what we felt the
philosophy of the Congress would be for a 21st century agency,
that is to be lean, to be accountable and to be service-
oriented. We have allowed that philosophy to go throughout and
pervade every action that we have taken on at the agency. We
have many accomplishments. As I said, I am very proud and some
of the figures you have heard from others present today,
including Senator Lautenberg's remarks about the Nevada
experience where our recommendations led to a direct impact at
the State level to incorporate the new findings into
requirements that we think will save lives. Indeed, I am very
proud of that action. We are also investigating eight
additional major incidents to date and several other minor
incidents which have resulted in 33 fatalities and nearly 50
injuries in this country.
Various other accomplishments include our work on Y2K.
Working with Senators Bennett and Dodd, at their request, we
compiled information relative to the impact of the Y2K bug, as
it is called, on chemical safety at large industrial
facilities. We have tried very hard to address that issue
within our limited capability in the startup year.
There is clearly much more to do, Senators, but I have
placed a lot of emphasis on results-oriented activities with my
staff. I clearly appear before you today because I want to
continue in this capacity and we are moving forward toward
prevention as our number one goal. We cannot change those
events, chemical accidents, but we can learn from them to
increase our preventative capability.
I have mentioned some other things as well, such as an
oversight hearing, perhaps some additional modifications of our
legislation that I think would be helpful in the interest of
cost effectiveness now that we've had 21 months of experience.
I am honored to be here today and in closing, let me say
that I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak to you
today, answer any questions you have and look forward to the
opportunity of working with the committee in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Dr. Hill.
There are two questions that I will be asking each of the
nominees.
Are you willing at the request of any duly constituted
committee of Congress to appear in front of it as a witness?
Mr. Hill. Yes, sir.
Senator Chafee. Do you know any matters which you may or
may not have thus far disclosed which might place you in any
conflict of interest if you are confirmed?
Mr. Hill. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. It is curious to me how you select which
accidents you are going to investigate. You can't do them all.
Mr. Hill. That's correct.
Senator Chafee. I understand it sounds impossible, but am I
correct in saying there are some 60,000 accidental releases
annually in the U.S.?
Mr. Hill. That is the number of reports recorded through
other Federal agencies, through OSHA, the National Response
Center, etc. That is an average number annually where there is
a report of a chemical spill of some type. Some of those are
small events; others are quite large.
Senator Chafee. What do you do, you get these coming in
obviously and some of them are very minor, as you suggest, but
suppose you have three come in a month in which there was at
least one fatality, what do you do? How many can you handle?
Mr. Hill. It is a very difficult situation right now, Mr.
Chairman, given that we're still trying to build the
infrastructure to support the agency in its function, but I
feel that as we are now approaching that point of having the
basic infrastructure in place, I need to add more
investigators. Fully a third of my staff now is dedicated to
technical work on the investigations. I have requested, through
my appropriations process, increasing that number significantly
over a period of years.
Back to your original question, how we select those, we
began by looking at the statutory language itself and clearly
fatalities are the first thing that is mentioned by the
Congress in the statutory language. We began by saying if there
is a fatality, that is a higher importance than other types of
events.
Clearly, we are not able to address even the ones with
multiple fatalities. We can look at some of those, but we
certainly can't look at them all. We would like to be able to
do so, but resources prevent us from doing so right now.
Other things we look at are the level of significance and
the opportunity to learn from these events. If we see safety
system failures that are applicable across a broader industry,
then we feel we can provide value added by looking at those
types of events.
We are formalizing a process right now where a month from
now we are scheduling a stakeholder group meeting to put
together a more formalized selection criteria process but right
now, we've been following the statute.
Senator Chafee. Do you find the chemical companies
receptive to your recommendations? Say Company A has a
fatality, so you investigate it and come to a conclusion in
some fashion of why it was caused. Then, I presume you have
some system for circulating this among the chemical industry,
so Company B finds out. I don't know how you circulate your
discovery investigations and your results but presumably you
come up with a conclusion that such and such a procedure was a
dangerous one and should be avoided.
Mr. Hill. Yes, sir.
Senator Chafee. In a way, you're sort of like OSHA, I
suppose. Is chemical Company B receptive to your suggestions?
Mr. Hill. Yes, sir. They have been very receptive. In fact,
one of the things the industry has pointed out to us is that
the ability to collect this information under our statutory
authorities protected from some of the liabilities that
companies face in sharing their own information is a big
benefit to them. That is, in cases where say we investigate an
accident at a refinery, then the findings can be shared with
all the other refineries in the country and the entire segment
of industry such that they don't make the same mistakes. We
publish that information on our web site, we distribute the
reports very broadly and we contact the trade associations of
those organizations to make sure that information gets out. We
share it with the States and any other potential business that
might have a similar operation where we can provide that
learning.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Senator Lautenberg?
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Hill, we are pleased to have you with us today. The GAO
I understand has done a review of the committee's functioning.
What did they find and what has been the response to those
findings?
Mr. Hill. After we were in operation for the first 9
months, Senator, GAO did an audit of our startup functions. We
had actually talked to GAO within the first few weeks of our
operation. In the effort, as I indicated earlier, to start a
new agency, we were looking for all the advice and input we
could find about how to properly do that and meet all the
Federal requirements and ensure that we were doing so.
One of the primary findings of GAO dealt with our
contracting services. The indicated in those first 9 months, we
had not issued a written, key emphasis on the word written,
document detailing our contracting procedures. That's not to
say that we had any contract problems or it's not to say that
we were not following Federal contract procedures. Indeed, we
were following the ones at General Services Administration
which was handling that. That was one of the major findings
which we have addressed.
Another finding dealt with their suggestion that we review
our staffing and how those staff positions were allocated. We
have done that. I communicated directly with GAO.
Senator Lautenberg. How you were staffing with the budget
that you had or how you might staff if you had the full budget
you needed?
Mr. Hill. It dealt with the staffing that we had, Senator.
The fact that we had staffing allocated to various functions of
the agency in order to support it and there were some
comparisons between our agency and NTSB, which is our sister
agency.
We felt we had addressed that and indicated that indeed we
plan to grow the agency all in the technical area to do more of
that work in the future now that we have established the basic
infrastructure.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you have any idea of the population
of chemical--I don't want to say companies as much as sites--
around the country where material that could be hazardous
exists? Do you have any idea how many of those there are?
Mr. Hill. We do not have a precise number, Senator, at this
time. I can tell you that through some of the work that EPA did
on the risk management planning process, which is also
contained in the Act, very near our language, and which we will
be reviewing as directed by the Congress, that EPA had some
66,000 facilities that are covered by that particular rule.
Certainly I don't think that's a comprehensive number because
the Congress directed us to look at all chemical compounds and
even make recommendations about the chemicals that go on the
list. I would say it is significantly larger than that.
Senator Lautenberg. How many employees might you guess
would be included in that world?
Mr. Hill. You mean employees of the private firms?
Senator Lautenberg. yes.
Mr. Hill. Certainly hundreds of thousands.
Senator Lautenberg. I was struck by the fact that you said
there 60,000 on average incidents a year, and correct me my
recollection is wrong?
Mr. Hill. Those are incidents that are reported to Federal
agencies today. Yes, that's the average number.
Senator Lautenberg. So based on the estimate of 66,000
facilities, and you say it's larger, could there be an incident
almost in every facility--I mean 60,000 incidents over a
population of 66,000 facilities is a terrible record.
Mr. Hill. It is a sizable number, Senator, no question
about it. Again, there has to be a significance associated with
those but again, we're not looking at just facilities that
manufacture chemicals, although they are a big player, but we
look at, as the Act says, warehouses, storage facilities,
disposal facilities, transportation, there's a sizable number
in that data base that are attributed to transportation.
I have to tell you that the data has some problems with it
in that we have not had a comprehensive assessment at the
Federal level of just some of the figures you're asking for.
Senator Lautenberg. Would you be able to do that if we
raised the funding to the level requested, I think $6.5 million
and the request is for $12 million?
Mr. Hill. That's correct. Yes, sir, one of the things we
want to do is give the Congress a better read on exactly what
this problem looks like, how big, how small, what areas we
should invest our resources in and today, as I told my
Appropriations Committee in the House in February, I can't tell
you if warehouses are more of a problem than refineries or if
chemical manufacturers are more of a problem than warehouses.
The information has not been kept in such a way that allows us
to answer those questions. We are proceeding with that very
issue by trying to consolidate this information and collect new
sources that we can report to the Congress.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you have a reliable figure for the
number of fatalities or injuries that occur each year?
Mr. Hill. Yes, sir. On the average, as Senator Byrd said,
there are 256 I believe is the average number annually that we
have associated with chemical spills.
Senator Lautenberg. Fatalities?
Mr. Hill. Fatalities, and many, many hundreds of injuries
on top of that, thousands actually.
Senator Lautenberg. To wrap up, Dr. Hill, the State of
Nevada adopted the Board's recommendations?
Mr. Hill. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. Can you briefly tell us what those
recommendations or statutes are that resulted from those
recommendations?
Mr. Hill. Yes. When we completed our investigation of
Sierra Chemical Company in Nevada last year, we made
recommendations to the State--Nevada is a State OSHA plan which
has authority for investigations and inspections of those
facilities--that the individuals who conduct those inspections
be trained in understanding the chemical safety issues
particular to the explosive chemicals industry. They did not
have anyone on staff who knew that industry well enough to
really know what they were looking at when they went in.
We recommended they improve training for their own workers
as well as increase the frequency of inspections. Some of those
facilities, and Nevada has several, are only inspected on a
very infrequent basis.
Another recommendation was that the safety information
provided to the employees in the plant be provided in their
native language. As it turns out, the vast majority of the
individuals who worked at that plant were Hispanic who neither
spoke nor read English. However, all the safety information to
warn them of hazards they were working around on a daily basis
was all in English. Therefore, those individuals did not
comprehend their risk situation. We recommended that they be
trained in their native language and moved through that
process.
The State of Nevada legislature, as well as the Governor's
office, took up those recommendations. The Governor actually
acted before the legislature and did an executive order on some
of these items, then the State legislature passed laws that
were signed this spring that incorporated those concepts.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. I have no questions of Dr. Hill.
Senator Chafee. Senator Crapo?
Senator Crapo. I have no questions for Dr. Hill.
Senator Chafee. Dr. Hill, thank you very much.
There is a very nice letter in here about your work in
Contra Costa County, California. This is a recently dated
letter that they had a very serious situation and you were
helpful?
Mr. Hill. Yes, sir, I was just there last week and held a
public hearing.
Senator Chafee. I must say it was a serious situation. She
says in her letter, ``When another even more fatal accident
occurred''--if it was more fatal than the other one, that was
very fatal.
Mr. Hill. I think they had one fatality and then the next
incident they had four.
Senator Chafee. Fine. Thank you very much.
You can be excused.
Dr. Meserve, is your wife here? Did you want to introduce?
Mr. Meserve. Yes, my wife is here.
Senator Chafee. We'd be happy if you want to introduce her.
Mr. Meserve. I'm joined today by my wife, Marty Meserve, if
she would stand.
Senator Chafee. We welcome you here.
I suspect you're making some sort of sacrifice here. When
someone goes from Covington & Burling to a Federal job, some
sacrifice is involved, I suspect. Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD MESERVE, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE
A MEMBER OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Meserve. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear today at this hearing on
my nomination. As Senator Chafee has indicated, the President
has stated his intention if I am confirmed to designate me as
Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I have provided a written statement and I will offer now an
abbreviated version. Let me just say a few words about myself
and then offer my thoughts as I contemplate the possibility of
joining the NRC.
As Senator Chafee has indicated, I am a partner in the law
firm of Covington & Burling, which I joined as an associate in
1981. I turned to the practice of law after completing a Ph.D.
in Applied Physics and I have used my scientific training in a
legal work. This has included work on nuclear-related issues.
As an attorney who has worked with the NRC, I have a
familiarity both with its procedures and with the substance of
its work. I have also served on a number of committees of the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering that have focused on nuclear issues.
I believe that my educational background and my
professional experience will reinforce each other in ways that
should be helpful in the conduct of the Commission's work.
Rather than take further time here today to discuss my
professional career in greater detail, I have submitted my
resume as an attachment to the statement.
Let me turn now to my views as I contemplate the
possibility of joining the NRC. As I am sure this committee is
fully aware, we are in the midst of a significant restructuring
of the utility industry. In a growing number of States, the
competitive market determines the price for electricity and
thus profitability for all forms of generation is dependent on
achieving economically efficient operations. This has important
implications for the NRC's work.
First, and most important, it reinforces the need for the
NRC to fulfill its obligation to demand safe operations by
licensees. The NRC must assure that the pressures to reduce
costs do not become incentives to cut corners on safety. The
NRC must ensure that its licensees meet the agency's safety and
environmental requirements.
Second, in a time of sensitivity to costs, the NRC has a
particular obligation to regulate efficiently, to regulate in a
fashion that imposes the minimum degree of burden consistent
with getting the job done. This implies a judicious approach,
both to new regulatory initiatives, making sure the benefits
outweigh the costs, and a willingness to cast a cold appraising
eye on existing policies and programs. Moreover, managerial
oversight is necessary to make sure that the policy decisions
made in the agency's conference rooms are translated into
practice at the operational level.
Third, it is incumbent on the NRC to reach decisions in
appropriate ways. Decisions must be fair and be perceived to be
fair. They must be appropriate for the particular task at hand
and they must be efficient and timely. For example, if a
process is so needlessly time-consuming and inefficient, the
delay itself determines the outcome and the goal of fairness is
not being met and the Commission has failed in its obligations.
At the same time, however, there should be no slighting of
the significant role that Congress gave to the public in NRC
processes. Thus, as the NRC carries out its regulatory
activities, it must be conscious of the need to include the
affected public in ways that are meaningful and that contribute
to efficient decisionmaking.
Finally, at a time when the Commission has a variety of
important matters to which it must attend, I am mindful of the
fact that Congress created the NRC as a multimember commission.
Each member should gain the benefit of the other members'
expertise and ideas, thereby allowing more informed and
thoughtful decisions than any one commissioner could provide
alone.
I understand this places a special obligation on the
Chairman. In addition to taking a leadership role, the Chairman
has a special responsibility to listen to his or her colleagues
and to work for consensus.
I believe the NRC has made progress in all of these areas
in recent times and I believe there are grounds for optimism
about the future. I see an agency well aware of its duties to
protect the public health and safety under law. I see an agency
that has worked to improve its communication with members of
the public, the regulated industry and with the Congress. I see
an agency that is taking advantage of improvements in
analytical tools and information to focus on those aspects of
industry operations that are most significant. In short, I see
an agency on the right track.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with my colleagues
on the Commission to build on the achievements of the recent
past. I would be pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe has some scheduling challenges, so Senator,
if you'd like to proceed now?
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
First of all, I'd like to congratulate the NRC in
processing the first two relicensing applications so quickly
even though you had nothing to do with it. We are looking for
great things from you too. I think the hard part is going to
be, as you and I discussed, that you will have at least ten of
these to be working at one time.
I really believe that it's going to be necessary to make
changes and streamline the operation in order to do that. Do
you agree with this and do you have any ideas as to where to
start with streamlining the operation or the process?
Mr. Meserve. Senator Inhofe, the relicensing process which
is a very important activity that the NRC has underway. As you
indicated, there are two obligations that are in the pipeline
now. I think there are going to be several others, as you
indicated, that will be emerging over the years. Of course the
licensees themselves will determine whether and when to start
the relicensing process.
The NRC has to do these efficiently and has to do them in a
timely fashion, as I indicated in my statement. Not having been
on the inside of that process, I don't come to the job with the
knowledge of how to assure that happens, but I understand the
importance of making sure such applications go forward.
Senator Inhofe. You and I also talked about the 5-year plan
and the necessity to come up with a real comprehensive 5-year
plan which wasn't done. I think you are probably aware that the
GAO looked at the first attempt and it was not adequate.
First of all, when do you think you will have a 5-year
plan? Have you talked among your colleagues?
Mr. Meserve. I am aware of the issue in general but I am
not aware of the schedule for the plan.
Senator Inhofe. You haven't talked about how long it would
take?
Mr. Meserve. My understanding is that the Government
Performance and Results Act requires a strategic plan and I
believe that is underway. It's my understanding, and I may be
mistaken about this, that there is some suggestion in draft
language in the House Appropriations Bill about a different
kind of plan. I've not seen the specifics of that language and
exactly how that relates to the strategic plan.
Senator Inhofe. It's my understanding that both plans are
trying to get to the same thing. I guess the request I'd make
is that when you do determine when that time would be, say
anytime in the next few weeks, I'd like to have you share with
me what your timing is going to be and also a commitment that
we will be advised during the development of this plan with
documents so that we will have an idea of where we are going.
One of the things that I know we don't like on this
committee and other committees too is to wait and not have any
idea of what is in the making. We like to be kind of a part of
the development in being advised as you move along. Does that
sound reasonable?
Mr. Meserve. Senator Inhofe, I appreciate that the Chairman
and Commissioners have an obligation to keep the Congress
informed of their work and I intend to fulfill that obligation.
Senator Inhofe. The other area we talked about when we had
a committee meeting before my subcommittee before we started
some oversight was that we had something I wanted to see
terminated and that is the entire funding for the operation of
the NRC coming from the licensees. While there are functions
that are performed that do not either inure to the benefit or
the regulation of those licensees and I feel very strongly that
amount, which I think is in the neighborhood of $40 to $50
million, as soon as that is determined, should have to go
through the normal process and not be a charge to the
licensees.
That's a very strong feeling that I have and we have talked
about this. Do you agree conceptually that we should do that?
Mr. Meserve. I agree, conceptually. Obviously I think there
is a fairness issue here. The licensees ought not to be charged
fees for things that do not benefit them directly.
I've not been in the middle of this appropriations process,
as you can appreciate. There is also a public interest in
making sure there is sufficient funding for the NRC to fulfill
the obligations with which it is charged. I would hope there is
a way that the NRC, working with the Congress, can find a way
to make sure there is no conflict between those two principles.
I don't think there should be, but there may be, and I hope to
be able to work with you and your colleagues in the Congress to
make sure we can resolve any such conflict.
Senator Inhofe. You indicate you're not familiar with the
appropriations process. There is a process and that process is
to present your case through that process to the Appropriations
Committee or the appropriate subcommittee, justify your case in
making your appeal for the appropriations.
What I don't want to happen is to assume that we can go
along and if you're not successful and don't meet the criteria,
and you're not successful in getting an appropriation, assuming
you can go right back to business as usual and start assessing
the licensees for those functions to which they have no
involvement or interest or benefit. That's my concern. Do you
agree with that?
Mr. Meserve. I agree it is certainly a concern. My
impression is--and again I will defer to your greater knowledge
on this--that there may be a difference in view in the
Appropriations Committee with regard to whether funding for
those activities which benefit the public as to whether that
should come from the general revenue. I'm not in a position to
say how that should be resolved. That's something I would hope
we could get some help from you and others in the Congress in
trying to make sure that it is resolved.
There are some NRC activities that do not benefit the
licensees in which they have a fair and equitable argument that
they shouldn't be paying for. That's not to say that those are
not appropriate for the NRC to do. There are some things, like
the supervision of the Agreement States, which is an NRC
obligation under the statute, that does require making sure the
NRC has the capacity to do the job. Similarly, there are
benefits to the United States I believe from various of the
international activities of the NRC.
I hope that we don't find ourselves in a position where
being able to fulfill all of the obligations properly and
efficiently puts such a crunch in the agency that it can't do
it's job well.
Senator Inhofe. But you see, during the normal
appropriations process, those things are all considered. One of
the major considerations is that it's something mandated by
statute. If it is, obviously the Appropriations Committee would
respond. In fact, everything you mentioned is something that is
a part of the process of going through that appropriations
process.
I want to get this started and this is one of the first
reforms when we started our oversight here a couple of years
ago that I wanted to be sure that we were able to achieve. All
I want from you is the commitment that you will try to achieve
this and you will work with us.
What I don't want to happen is to have you folks go through
the appropriations process and they determine that this
something that should not and does not deserve funding, then
assume you can go right back to the licensees and say, they're
here anyway. That's my concern.
Mr. Meserve. I understand your concern. I look forward to
the opportunity to work with you on it.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. Senator Crapo?
Senator Crapo. Dr. Meserve, the questions I have relate to
the handling of the procedural approach to Yucca Mountain as we
set the various standards for regulation and hope to ultimately
open and operate Yucca Mountain.
It's my understanding that the EPA's recently proposed
water quality standards for Yucca Mountain's project are
extremely stringent and beyond that which are reasonable or
even what was expected and if they become applicable and law,
they could pose a serious problem with regard to the
implementation of operations at Yucca Mountain.
I'm not going to ask you to comment on that conclusion, but
I think there is a very strong question which is one which
arose from the same type of issues with the opening and
operation of the WIPP facility in New Mexico about whether the
EPA is the proper authority to be establishing the regulatory
standards for these types of facilities or whether those
standards are more properly the jurisdiction and expertise of
the NRC. Do you have an opinion on that?
Mr. Meserve. Certainly they are within the expertise of the
NRC. The NRC has a longstanding involvement with setting
radiation related standards and safety standards and great
experience in doing so with very competent and capable staff.
There have been disputes over the years, as I understand
it, between EPA and NRC on standard-setting matters. The state
of play is one that Congress created with regard to the Yucca
Mountain. EPA is designated the responsibility, statutory
responsibility, to establish standards and then NRC is to
fulfill the implementation of those standards.
It seems to me there is some redundancy but it's one that
Congress created. I would hope if I am confirmed to serve as
the Chairman that we would find a way to at least resolve some
of the conflicts that have existed over the years with EPA.
Senator Crapo. Do I understand you to say that if Congress
were to adjust the law or to change the jurisdictional
responsibilities, that the NRC does have the expertise and
ability to set, establish and properly manage these standards?
Mr. Meserve. I have not obviously served in the position
but as someone on the outside looking at the NRC and having
worked with the NRC on various issues, it's been my perspective
that they are very capable and competent in the radiation
standard area.
Senator Crapo. With regard to the issue of working to
address the redundancy and difficulty to make sure we can move
forward with reasonable standards that are workable for the
intended purpose of the facility, do you intend, if confirmed,
to take a forceful role in assuring whether it's EPA standards
or NRC standards or both that the standards that are adopted
are reasonable and workable standards?
Mr. Meserve. The NRC doesn't have control over the EPA
standards, so that aspect of the standards is the predicate
within which the NRC must operate. It would be my intention--
obviously one commissioner alone does not determine this--to
establish standards for Yucca Mountain that are appropriate to
the circumstances and provide adequate protection of the public
health, safety and environment. That would be the starting
point for what the Congress has a right to expect from the
Commission. It would be my intention to try my best to fulfill
that obligation.
Senator Crapo. Do you have a position on whether the
Congress should leave jurisdiction with the EPA or should move
jurisdiction to the NRC on this issue?
Mr. Meserve. I don't have an informed opinion on that, not
having served on the NRC and not having worked directly with
the EPA on that issue at this moment. That would be something I
would expect I will be learning if I am confirmed.
Senator Crapo. I am sure if you are confirmed that this is
going to be an issue we will deal with and very closely.
Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. I have the same two questions for you. Are
you willing at the request of any duly constituted committee of
Congress to appear in front of it as a witness?
Mr. Meserve. Yes, sir.
Senator Chafee. Do you know of any matters which you may or
may not have thus far disclosed which might place you in any
conflict of interest if you're confirmed?
Mr. Meserve. No, I do not.
Senator Chafee. This committee has had some hearings on the
NRC wherein the NRC has been criticized by both industry and
environmentalists for its regulatory policies. Do you think the
NRC can improve its effectiveness so as to allow efficient
industry operations while ensuring public safety? In other
words, is safety and efficiency mutually exclusive?
It does seem to me as somebody watching this that in the
United States there are no new plants under construction. Am I
correct in that?
Mr. Meserve. That's correct.
Senator Chafee. Part of it is obviously due to the lower
price per kilowatt hour and that's understandable. It's a
difference of 12 cents for nuclear new construction and 3 cents
for gas. Does that sound right?
Mr. Meserve. I think it varies from one part of the country
to another.
Senator Chafee. You and I discussed this briefly in the
office the other day and it seems to me that the regulations
are sort of a moving target. Anybody would be a bold person I
think, any power company would be quite bold to undertake
construction nowadays because it just seems to go on
interminably, the regulations and the difference in cost but
that's not going to be there forever.
So we see what happens in France where more than 50 percent
of the power is generated by nuclear power.
Mr. Meserve. I think it's a higher percentage than that.
Senator Chafee. And higher than that. Germany likewise,
very substantial. I don't know what it is but very substantial.
Do you see anything changing this? Obviously you can't affect
the price of natural gas, but do you think these things are
mutually exclusive, that safety means tremendous delay?
Mr. Meserve. There are several thoughts I have had as you
have asked the question. I don't think that safety and
efficiency are mutually exclusive. I think that the NRC has
started on the process of trying to adjust its regulatory
system so that the most significant risks are addressed to cut
out regulation that isn't serving any function.
They have been doing this in a process they call risk-
informed regulation and they have some pilots underway that for
the most part, to the extent they have been completed, have
worked out well. They are going to provide the foundation for
changing the regulatory system.
These initial pilots are going is something that is going
to be very important in trying to find a way to have the
regulatory system operate more efficiently and thereby minimize
needless costs that industry is asked to bear in order to
assure safety.
Senator Chafee. At the end of the whole thing, you've got
what to do with the waste material?
Mr. Meserve. That's right.
Senator Chafee. Which hasn't been solved.
You are going into a challenging position and we're
delighted. You are well prepared for it and I think the
President has chosen widely.
Thank you for your testimony.
General Anderson, Mr. Sam Angel and General Griffin, if you
could come forward, we'd appreciate it.
Gentlemen, we welcome you. I am a great admirer of the
Corps of Engineers. I've seen the work you have done around the
world, not only in the U.S. I don't know whether you gentlemen
ever served in Saudi Arabia?
General Anderson. Mr. Chairman, I did. We both did.
Senator Chafee. I must say the Saudis are unqualified in
their admiration for the U.S. Corps of Engineers. I guess they
have had some people take advantage of them over there and they
look to the Corps as straight shooters, honest and I've heard
them give you tremendous praise. That is just one section of
the world and you have done wonderfully elsewhere.
I hope you knew that you were well received in Saudi
Arabia. I suspect you did.
General Anderson. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. General Anderson, why don't you proceed
with any comments you have.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL PHILLIP R. ANDERSON, U.S. ARMY,
NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE PRESIDENT AND MEMBER OF THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION
General Anderson. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, I'm honored to appear before you as the nominee for
president and member of the Mississippi River Commission. I'd
like to make an abbreviated statement about the Mississippi
River Commission, the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project
and my qualifications for the position for which I've been
nominated.
The Mississippi River Commission established by act of
Congress on June 28, 1879, consists of seven members all of
whom are appointed by the President of the United States
subject to confirmation by the Senate. Three members are Corps
of Engineers officers, one of whom serves as president; one
member is from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; and three members are from the civilian sector,
two of whom must be civil engineers.
From its inception in 1879, the Commission has been charged
with the task of planning and implementing a program of flood
damage reduction projects and navigation improvements on the
Mississippi River. More recently, project purposes have been
expanded to include environmental restoration.
As established in 1879, the Commissioners were to serve as
advisers in planning and implementing water resource projects
and programs on the Mississippi River between the Head of
Passes below New Orleans to its headwaters. Since 1928, the
Commission has focused on the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1928 to be
implemented under the oversight of the Commission.
The MR&&T Project extends generally from the confluence of
the Ohio River to the Head of Passes below New Orleans and
covers portions of seven States. It receives water from all or
portions of 31 States or roughly 41 percent of the contiguous
United States.
A major flood on the lower Mississippi River would have
catastrophic effects on the inhabitants of the Mississippi
Valley and the economy of the Nation were it not for the
protection provided by the levees and other flood control works
along the mainstem of the Mississippi and the Atchafalaya
Rivers.
In addition, the navigation features of the project help to
maintain the river for shipping import and export commodities
between inland ports and world markets.
Reorganization of the Corps of Engineers in April 1997
placed the entire length of the Mississippi River within one
division of the Corps of Engineers. I serve as the Commander of
the Mississippi Valley Division. Command of the division office
traditionally has also included duties as President of the
Mississippi River Commission. The reorganization of the Corps
now allows management of the Mississippi River as a single and
unified system and enables the President and members of the
Commission to more effectively serve as advisers to the Chief
of Engineers as authorized in the 1879 legislation.
In regard to my personal qualifications, I'd like to
mention that I am a licensed professional engineer in the
Commonwealth of Virginia and since July 1997, I have served as
Commander of the Mississippi Valley Division and also as
President-designee of the Mississippi River Commission. In this
position, I have led and managed the Corps' water resources
program in the Mississippi River Valley.
If confirmed to the position, Mr. Chairman, I would look
forward to playing a key role in the continual improvement of
the Mississippi River system and the MR&T Project by applying
the most modern practices in water resources engineering. I
would also look forward to being the president of a commission
that not only focuses on the traditional roles of safely
passing the Mississippi River Basin floodwaters to the Gulf of
Mexico, plus providing a safe and dependable navigable
waterway, but also incorporates programs and projects for
environmental protection and restoration.
This completes my prepared statement and I'd be pleased to
respond to any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much. You certainly have an
impressive biography. I was looking at it here. We're delighted
that you've been nominated for this position.
I was looking over the names of those who serve on the
Commission with you.
Mr. Angel?
STATEMENT OF SAM E. ANGEL, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE A
MEMBER OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION
Mr. Angel. Mr. Chairman, in the essence of time, and with
your permission, since my statement was almost the same as
General Anderson's, I would just like to state my
qualifications.
Senator Chafee. Yes, please do.
Mr. Angel. I have served on the Mississippi River
Commission since September 1979. This confirmation will provide
my third consecutive 9 year appointment to this vital
commission. I firmly believe that my experience since 1979 and
partnering with local interests, the local levee boards, and
Federal, State and area agencies and organizations justifies my
reappointment to the Mississippi River Commission.
I am a native of Lake Village, Arkansas and was reared
adjacent to the Mississippi River. I feel that the many years
of living and working in this area and also being affiliated
with the Commission has given me vast knowledge of the
Mississippi River and the various problems associated with it.
It has been my privilege to meet many people over the
years, both in the lower valley and recently in the upper
valley to discuss with them their concerns regarding this
powerful river.
I have served as President of Epstein Land Company and
Epstein Gin Company in Lake Village, Arkansas since 1980. I am
a commissioner of the Chicot County Watershed District and
former Commissioner of the Chicot County Rural Development
Authority and the Southeast Arkansas Levee District.
I currently serve as director of the Cotton Warehouse
Association and the Southern Cotton Gin Association, along with
local, State and national farming organizations.
I attended Louisiana State University and the University of
Arkansas at Monticello. I served with the Army National Guard
from 1957 to 1965, and with the United States Army from 1961 to
1962.
If confirmed to this position, I look forward to continuing
to play a key role in the continual improvement of the
Mississippi River system the MR&T Project by applying the most
modern practices in water resources engineering.
I would also look forward to renewing my membership on the
Commission that not only focuses on the traditional roles of
safely passing the Mississippi River Basin floodwaters to the
Gulf of Mexico, plus providing a safe and dependable navigable
waterway but also incorporates program and projects for
environmental protection and restoration.
I have attached a complete biography on myself and a
current list of members of the Mississippi River Commission.
This completes my statement. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
Now we will go to General Griffin.
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT H. GRIFFIN, U.S. ARMY,
NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE A MEMBER OF THE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER COMMISSION
General Griffin. I will also abbreviate my abbreviated
statement. I have a written statement for the record as well.
Among my qualifications, I am also a registered
professional engineer licensed in Virginia and as a former
District Commander in Mobile District and Chief of Staff for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Headquarters, I believe I've
gained valuable experience in the project operation and
authorization process.
One important role of the Commission is to consider affects
the tributary basins. As a recent Commander of the Northwestern
Division, I was intimately involved in responsibilities for the
Missouri River Basin, one of the major tributaries of the
Mississippi River. I have since moved in the last 2 months and
am now the Commander of the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division
with responsibilities for the Ohio River. I have been serving
as a member-designee in my former capacity for almost 3 years
next month. I believe that will bring a unique perspective to
the Commission discussions for ongoing and future projects.
Additionally, my time spent in the Pacific Northwest, as
Senator Crapo well knows, although he left, provided great
experience for me in developing projects while considering
environmental issues.
If confirmed, I look forward to participating in the
continuing operation and improvement of the Mississippi River
System.
That concludes my remarks subject to any questions you may
have of me.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
I think both General Anderson and Mr. Angel mentioned
environmental concerns in connection with all this. What do you
say about the criticisms that the channelization--this is old
stuff to you and I'm sure you've got answers to it--of the
Mississippi as opposed to not letting it flood into the actual
area has been overdone and there should be greater releases
into the swamplands, wetlands. Is that just oversimplification?
Do you have any comments on that, General Anderson?
General Anderson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would tell you that
we have a balancing act in the Mississippi River Commission of
looking at flood control and navigation as well as
environmental protection. With respect to our responsibilities
for navigation and flood control, it is necessary in the lower
valley to limit the meandering of the river that has happened
in our history so as to reduce the flooding and keep the river
within the leveed system that we have.
We've been very successful at that. We've invested in the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project $10 billion since the
start of the work but we have received $226 billion in flood
damage reduction as a result.
Senator Chafee. Are these major floods that have been taken
care of?
General Anderson. Yes, sir. With respect to your question
about the levee system and with the revetments to keep the
river from meandering, what about the sediments that
traditionally flowed downstream and helped to build the Delta
in the Louisiana area? Clearly, there has been a loss of
wetlands, coastal wetlands in the Louisiana area. The
Commission recognizes that and so we are proceeding with
freshwater diversion projects that will take advantage of the
water that's rich in nutrients and sediments to try to restore
some of these lost wetlands.
We are on the front end of a 10-year study called ``Coastal
2050'' where we're looking to do more of these freshwater
diversion projects to protect the coastal wetlands of
Louisiana. So it's a balancing act, Mr. Chairman, and we try to
meet our environmental, navigation and flood control
responsibilities together.
Senator Chafee. Do you have thoughts on that, Mr. Angel?
Mr. Angel. I certainly agree with General Anderson. We take
a balanced view of almost everything we do. We give just as
much attention to the environment, as we do flood control and
navigation, but I think you have to incorporate all three in
our Commission.
Senator Chafee. I'd ask each of you the questions I've
asked the others. Are you willing, at the rest of any duly
constituted committee of Congress to appear in front of it as a
witness?
General Anderson. I am, sir.
Mr. Angel. I am, sir.
General Griffin. Yes, sir.
Senator Chafee. Do you know of any matters which you may or
may not have thus far disclosed which might place you in any
conflict of interest if you are confirmed?
General Anderson. No, sir.
Mr. Angel. No, sir.
General Griffin. No, sir.
Senator Chafee. Obviously you gentlemen have had vast
experience in these areas and have impressive backgrounds. I
will say that I am concerned about the environmental aspect
you've discussed. You're going to learn something from the
study you're undertaking; that's the whole purpose. It's not a
delaying action and so I commend you for that and thank you all
for coming this afternoon.
With that, we will conclude our hearing.
That completes the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important nomination
hearing. I look forward to hearing from the nominees today, and hope
that we can move forward in confirming qualified individuals to
positions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board, and the Mississippi River Commission.
These agencies serve critical public roles. For example, the Chemical
Safety and Hazards Investigation Board, serves an essential function
providing independent investigation of chemical accidents, and exerting
oversight to prevent future catastrophes. I was a strong supporter of
the Board since its inception, and advocated strongly with my colleague
Senator Lautenberg for adequate funding for the Board.
I am particularly interested in hearing from Mr. Richard Meserve,
the nominee for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As a supporter of
nuclear power, I believe that a strong NRC is essential to maintaining
public confidence in the industry. In recent years I have worked
closely with the Commission to address some serious concerns that arose
after problems at the Millstone nuclear plants in Connecticut. I was
very pleased at the efforts that former Commissioner Dr. Shirley
Jackson made to conduct extensive safety reviews, and to oversee the
plants in preparation for a restart this year. The NRC has played a
very important role in ensuring public health and safety protections
are in place at nuclear facilities in my State and around the country.
I will also be interested to hear Mr. Meserve's views regarding the
NRC's efforts to move toward risk-informed regulation. Certainly it
seems to make sense to prioritize safety concerns, and to effectively
leverage limited resources. However, I also view it as essential that
the NRC respond to some issues raised by a recent GAO report, which
found that the NRC needs to develop more specifics on how the
Commission will define and implement risk-informed regulation, and
improve the base of knowledge regarding the condition of individual
plant conditions and modifications. It is essential to ensure that
information sharing in the area of safety does not suffer as we move to
a competitive nuclear industry.
I have several questions I would like to ask the Mr. Meserve in
preparation for his pending nomination, and hope that, if confirmed,
Mr. Meserve will continue the strong leadership that was shown by his
predecessor.
Again, I look forward to hearing from all the nominees this
morning. Thank you.
__________
Statement of Hon. Robert C. Byrd, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia
Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, and Members of the Committee, I thank
you for the opportunity to introduce to you this afternoon my
constituent, the Honorable Dr. Paul L. Hill. Dr. Hill is the current
Chairman of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board,
and has recently been renominated by the President, with my support, to
serve a second term as Chairman.
Dr. Hill holds a Ph.D. from the University of Louisville and
Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees from Marshall
University in West Virginia. Dr. Hill has dedicated 20 years of his
career to chemical safety, regulation, and public policy. This includes
7 years as President and CEO of the National Institute of Chemical
Studies located in the Kanawha Valley of West Virginia, which is also
home to a thriving chemical industry on which the State and the world
depend.
It is in this capacity that I am most familiar with Dr. Hill's
abilities. The chemical industry is a critical component of the West
Virginia economy. However, we all know that many chemicals are
sensitive and volatile and that chemical accidents which pose
significant threat to life and the environment can and do occur. When
they do occur, public outcry for immediate remedy is often at odds with
the viability of the business involved. Dr. Hill established his
credibility within the field of chemical safety by working with
government, industry, and the public to better manage chemical risks
while still sustaining environmentally responsible economic growth in
the industry. Thoughtful, studious, and effective, he has demonstrated
calm and effective leadership not only in more mundane, day-to-day
circumstances, but also in the highly charged emotional atmosphere that
accompanies the real-life nightmare of a chemical accident.
In 1993, when the President began looking for candidates for the
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, I had no
hesitation in bringing Dr. Hill's interest in serving on the Board to
the Administration's attention. I was very pleased that the President
and this Committee also recognized Dr. Hill's qualifications to lead
this new independent agency. However, for the first 3 years of his 5-
year term as Chairman, delays in providing funds to initiate the
Board's activities kept that body from serving its appointed role. 1
hope that my colleagues will look favorably on Dr. Hill's nomination to
a second term as Chairman of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board.
In his year and a half tenure, Dr. Hill has lead a Board which,
while still in its infancy, has as its mission to ensure the safety of
workers and the public by eliminating chemical accidents. To date, the
Board has investigated 22 chemical accidents, and completed reports on
three. The Board's initial research indicates that on average, 253
Americans die each year as a result of chemical accidents. Dr. Hill
knows that this is unacceptable and that the success of his tenure will
be measured by the Board's effectiveness in reducing chemical accidents
by finding out their cause and helping to find solutions to prevent
similar accidents from occurring in the future.
In West Virginia and other States across the country with a high
concentration of chemical plants, the existence of this Board provides
greater peace of mind both to the plant workers and to those families
living near the highways and railways that transport the chemicals. Dr.
Hill has proved that, through diligence, cooperation, and forward-
thinking, dangerous situations can be avoided, and lives can be
protected.
I am proud to introduce a man of Dr. Hill's caliber, and I hope
that you will express confidence in his abilities to guide this worthy
organization in its next 5 years by approving his renomination.
Thank you again for this opportunity.
__________
Statement of Paul L. Hill, Jr., Nominated by the President to be
Chairman of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Chairman Chafee, Senator Baucus. Honorable members of this
Committee.
It is an honor for me to appear before you to answer questions by
which you may assess my capability to continue to serve as the Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer of the Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board (Board or CSB). I am further honored that it was
Senator Robert C. Byrd, who first recommended me for this position.
Humbled as I am that the President of the United States has placed
faith in me by again submitting my nomination to you for confirmation,
I want to assure you that I will continue to dedicate myself to working
as a partner with Congress in fulfilling the Board's mandate. My goal
is to continue to build a 21st Century model of good government.
I have been allowed to serve as Chairman of the Board for only a
short period of time. During this startup phase, however, much has been
accomplished for which I am extremely proud. There is much, much more
work to do. Although this has not been easy and many challenges lie
ahead, I look forward to the opportunity to meet these challenges if
confirmed for a second term. Further, if the Committee would entertain
engaging its oversight function, I would readily participate in the
opportunity to explore various issues and challenges relative to
chemical safety. In so doing, my approaches to implementation of
Congress' intent could be aired with those who were directly involved
in creating the Board's statutory authorities and, indeed, its very
existence.
a short tenure
In its short 21-month history, the Board has undertaken several
major investigations as much to learn and exercise various approaches
to conducting investigative work as to determine cause. These
activities have helped to chart the course and protocols for how
investigations and safety programs will be structured in the future.
Just last week I chaired a public inquiry into a tragic, fatal incident
which not only cost human lives but also raised serious economic
concerns for its impact on the community, State and Nation through loss
of production. Exercises such as this one have allowed the Board to
explore various mechanisms to achieve its safety mission and fully
assess the potential impact of our important work.
When I appeared before you last, there was no Board. There existed
only a statute, three nominees and the concept of a new agency to
perform a new and necessary function. For the past 2 years I have
guided the Board as it moved from concept to concrete. On January 5,
1998, our initial staff of 4, including one other Board member and me,
opened our doors for business in 4 small offices. By May of last year,
we had hired additional staff and outgrown that space, necessitating a
move to the space we now occupy. Today, the Board has 4 members and 22
full-time staff.
If there has ever been a truly ``from-the-ground-up' development of
a Federal agency, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board is
it. After nearly 21 months in existence, the Board could still be
called a virtual agency. We exist in temporary space, rent our
furniture, borrow technical expertise from other Federal agencies and
outsource the majority of our administrative functions. When the
members of the House Appropriations subcommittee wished me ``good
luck'' at my first appropriations hearing in early February 1998, none
of us knew the extent of luck I would need. Still, in spite of the
hurdles, in 21 months we have done what almost no one in government can
remember happening: we created a Federal agency from scratch. Beginning
with an exhaustive search, we determined there is no manual, book or
``how to'' guide for new agencies. Today, we could write one.
Fortunately for me and the other Board members, we attracted a handful
of seasoned, senior Federal employees to the staff. These employees
were able to compliment the experience that I and several other members
brought from outside the government.
Together, we took a business-like approach to this daunting task,
following a plan and operating philosophy reflecting our belief that
Congress expects government in the 21st Century to be lean, accountable
and service oriented. We carefully reviewed not only the statute
authorizing the Board but its extensive legislative history as well. In
developing the agency, we made every attempt to reflect the Congress'
charge to build on capabilities within the government. As the Board
continues to evolve in concert with this mandate, we have signed
interagency agreements and contracts to better utilize Federal
resources that are already in place.
many accomplishments
Although we might be a virtual agency, our impact has been anything
but virtual. Three days after opening our doors we initiated our first
investigation that culminated in a report containing recommendations
subsequently adopted and codified in State statute. We have issued
reports on three chemical incidents, which caused 7 deaths and 14
injuries. The average time for completion of these reports was less
than 12 months from the date of the incident or about one report for
every 7 months of our existence.
These reports made a total of 28 recommendations to 13 different
entities. The first report, involving the Sierra Chemical Company,
resulted in the State of Nevada enacting legislation incorporating
CSB's recommendations addressing bilingual training requirements,
increased frequency of inspections of explosives manufacturing
facilities, and piecemeal payment for workers in that industry.
Recipients of recommendations resulting from the other 2 investigations
(involving Union Carbide Corporation and Herrig Brothers Inc.) have
implemented a number of the recommendations and have notified the CSB
that they are considering how to best address the remaining ones. The
CSB is currently investigating an additional 8 major chemical
incidents. These incidents, which occurred in 7 different States,
caused 33 deaths and approximately 50 injuries.
The CSB has produced investigation reports that are being widely
circulated and have been used nationally and internationally by
stakeholders for a variety of chemical safety purposes not originally
envisioned. Two examples include: use of a report by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to train its agents on how to conduct
investigations; use of a report by the Safety Officer with the
Hagerman, Idaho Fire Protection District to direct relocation of a
potentially dangerous 14,000-gallon propane tank.
The CSB has garnered positive support from stakeholders as a result
of its investigations and the resultant reports. For example, the
Herrig Brothers report was widely praised by the fire and emergency
response communities. As a result of its reports, the CSB has been
repeatedly asked to give presentations to various groups, including the
National Governors' Association.
At the Senate's behest, the CSB produced a major report on chemical
safety preparedness as related to the Y2K computer issue. In connection
with this report, the CSB hosted the first chemical industry workshop
on the Y2K problem and its effect on chemical safety. The workshop
involved national experts from industry, labor unions, and government
agencies.
The CSB has developed a mechanism to provide the Federal Government
its first ever look at the magnitude of reported chemical incidents in
the United States. Although other agencies have suggested this was not
possible or feasible, the CSB consolidated information from 5 key data
bases maintained by other Federal agencies on reported chemical
incidents. The CSB is now in a position to begin to answer the question
of ``how big is the problem?'' and, ``what impact are Federal agencies
having on reducing the number and severity of chemical incidents?''
This work also has given the CSB valuable information for use in
deciding how to regulate the reporting of chemical accidents at the law
requires us to do.
much more to do
The CSB is today functioning though a still-developing organization
that has implemented mission-critical programs as well as addressed
governmentwide administrative requirements. It has relied on its
business plan and operating philosophy to build what is coming to be
recognized as an atypical government agency.
It may seem we've come a long way in 21 months. But, I can tell the
Committee today something I only suspected when I was confirmed in
1994. Collectively, we have a long, long, long way to go to achieve
what the Congress directed in 1990 be done. What I also now recognize
and have begun to experience over the past 21 months is the enormous
number of hurdles or obstacles that are placed, either deliberately or
by chance, before us. We now have a better handle on the magnitude of
the problem of reported chemical accidents based on our study of the
government's own records. We know there are an average of 60,000 events
annually involving accidental releases of chemicals, but we don't know
why they occur. We know there are many Federal laws and regulations in
place to prevent chemical incidents, but we don't know how effective
they are. We know on average 256 people die in the United States each
year in chemical accidents, but we don't know causes of these
fatalities. We know that the United States has the greatest safety
system of standards, rules, technology and worker training in the
world, but we don't know what the system's failures are or its most
basic trends.
The Board has begun and will continue to work on a variety of
fronts to seek answers to these questions. Some have intimated that the
Board should only conduct accident investigations as the sole source of
these answers. This is errant thinking for two reasons. First, the
Congress directed the Board to work with a variety of stakeholders and
use a variety of mechanisms to gather, assess, and communicate safety
information. Second, if the Board were to rely on its own
investigations as the sole source of information, it would take either
decades of work to build an ``information trust'' (data base) or
enormous numbers of taxpayer dollars to collect information in a more
rapid fashion, or both. While no one would question that the central
mission of the Board must be accident investigation, the Agency cannot
and will not make a major contribution to chemical safety without use
of other mechanisms for enhancing safety. By assessing the existing
government data bases and providing advances, communications, and tools
to industry, policymakers and others exploring chemical safety, the
Board will further expedite progress in chemical safety at a lower cost
to the government.
While the CSB's partners are making a significant contribution, the
government must bear certain unavoidable costs for independent
investigations. With its current resources and small staff, the Board
is challenged to conduct enough quality investigations to make a
significant contribution to the national ``safety system''. Certainly,
individual cases and issues are being addressed. However, given the
sheer numbers, the technical complexity and the resources required for
each case, direct incident investigation cannot be the sole approach.
Should the Board conduct more investigations than it currently does?
Yes. Without question, the Board has only begun to look at the variety,
characteristics and distribution of chemical accidents in American
commercial and industrial facilities. As our resources grow, so too,
will the investigative workload.
I submitted an original business plan to the Congress in late 1997
which projected a phased approach to enhancing the Board's
investigative capacity. While it ambitiously called for a number of
investigations during the startup years, the plan also recognized it
would take both infrastructure development and increased resources to
produce timely, credible and accurate investigation reports. Only now
does the Board have a fledgling infrastructure in place. With 22 staff
members, the Board is poised to add staff and move ahead with focused
investigations. My initial projections for both agency accomplishments
and investigative products were predicated on building an
infrastructure to support the investigative function. Again, I look
forward to the opportunity to discuss accomplishments to date and a
strategic plan with the Committee.
I have emphasized that communication of results plays a pivotal
role in the Board's effectiveness. Laws and regulations, while
necessary, are not enough. Dry, technical reports placed on the
government's shelves are not enough. In contrast, I have placed special
emphasis on ``plain English'' communication. The effectiveness of all
safety information rests on the commitment of industry leaders and
facility operators to ensure that equipment functions properly,
employees are well-trained and supervised, and well designed operating
policies and procedures are established and followed. Only people can
make those differences. But in order for people to take actions that
do, indeed, make the desired difference, they must have factual, timely
information made available to them. In recognition of this need, and to
ensure that the work of the Board finds its way into the hands of those
who bring about change, I have placed major emphasis on direct and
rapid dissemination of the Board's findings and recommendations.
Effective communication is especially applicable to chemical
workers. Adequate knowledge of chemical risks and proper equipment
operation and maintenance will prevent accidents. Chemical workers are
not dispensable, they are vital to the success of safe chemical
management. The Board will continue to pay particular attention to
worker safety.
In addition to worker and industrial communication, an equally
important aspect is a focused effort on improving communication between
government, industry and the public. Technical competence is often lost
on the public due to the lack of appropriate communication skills. In
my experience, the American people want to know what risk they face
from chemicals in plain understandable terms. Likewise technical
individuals often cannot comprehend the fears and concerns of a
nontechnical public. While the very issues are technical in nature,
they are also often steeped in basic miscommunication. The Board is
already placing practical information and recommendations not only in
the hands of regulators but also in the hands of the American people so
that technical and nontechnical issues are clearly understood. In light
of the positive response we routinely receive in this area, I remain
convinced that communication programs are absolutely essential for the
Board.
To fulfill our responsibilities, it is critical that the Board
establish a collaborative relationship with many partners in chemical
safety. Our website is continuously disseminating new information
generated by our work so we can assist our stakeholders and they, in
turn, can assist us. By adopting this partnership philosophy, the Board
is leveraging the work of others as Congress encouraged us to do. This
allows us to provide maximum benefits in the shortest time possible,
and avoid duplicative or unnecessary operating and research
expenditures.
continuing the challenge
Chemical safety is critical to the success of the chemical industry
and the communities where chemical facilities are located. The work of
this Board, therefore, is vitally important. Understanding the causes
of serious chemical releases is necessary for release prevention
efforts to be fully effective. My experience with the chemical industry
and the affected public has been very positive. I am confident that I
and the Board will continue to receive complete cooperation and
assistance from all concerned groups, individuals, and government
agencies as we continue to evolve as an organization and implement our
statutory mission.
Clearly, I appear before you today because I want to continue in my
current capacity. My plans for the direction of the Board remain quite
straightforward. All activities must be conducted with chemical release
prevention as the goal. The role of the Board in investigation is not
to assign blame but is instead to provide a critical tool for accident
prevention. While we, as well as other agencies, will try to anticipate
all contingencies, it is impossible to prevent all chemical releases.
Determining probable cause of chemical releases is important in order
to identify, catalogue and correct previously unidentified problems. I
have directed my staff to conduct as thorough investigations as
available resources will allow and to focus their efforts on prevention
of similar releases in the future. Prevention is a mission I've devoted
my career to achieving. I feel very strongly that the Board should
continue this pursuit.
committee oversight
Congress has set a formidable task before the Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation Board: to make the world of chemicals safer and
the world safer from chemicals. If confirmed, I intend to continue
devoting my energies to accomplishing that task. With your support, I
am confident the Board members and staff already in place will be able
to move our Nation toward this worthy goal, and, in the process, build
on the emerging recognition and respect for the Board as a credible and
competent chemical accident investigative agency.
I've now had nearly 2 years of experience working to implement the
Congress' directives to the CSB contained in the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. Today, I ask that the Committee consider in the
near future a few minor modifications to the Board's statutory language
in the interest of efficiency and cost effectiveness. I have shared my
suggestions with Committee staff and vetted the concepts with several
major stakeholders resulting in broad support for such modifications.
New agencies are not started everyday. It is my desire to keep the
Congress directly and adequately informed of my agency's progress and
development as a new component of the government. While you have
entrusted that management charge to me over the past 2 years, I would
welcome the opportunity to provide the Committee greater details,
should the Committee confirm me for a second term. An oversight hearing
or a meeting to discuss proposed statutory modifications would give all
parties the opportunity to review the intent of Congress as we move
forward to meet that intent.
If confirmed as Chairman, I intend to continue seeking the finest
staff available to assure that the critical safety issues presented by
the manufacture and use of chemicals in this country are properly
evaluated, investigated and addressed. The President, Congress, the
chemical industry, the chemical workers and the American public expect
and deserve no less. I am honored to have been nominated by the
President to continue this important work. I pledge to you my total
dedication to successfully managing an efficient and effective agency.
Thank you for permitting me to address this Committee. I welcome
the opportunity to answer any questions you may have and look forward
to working with you in the future.
______
__________
Responses by Paul Hill to Additional Question From Senator Lieberman
Introduction and question: Since the Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board was created, it took several years to secure
funding to ensure a quick and effective startup of the Board. Some
argue that the Board's functions could be incorporated into OSHA and
EPA. With your experience on the Board since 1994, you no doubt have a
clear picture of the historical debate over the role of the Board and
ideas of where it could be most effective in protecting the public.
What is your view of appropriate role of the Chemical Safely and
Hazard Investigation Board in terms of coordinating with other
agencies?
Response. The CSB coordinates its work during investigations with
over Federal, State and local agencies to the maximum extent possible.
We share factual information and, unless an interviewee objects,
conduct single interviews with all interested parties present. Our
deliberations on causes and recommendations are not shared, however.
After the Board Members have approved the final report on a given
accident, the full document is made available to all parties.
While interagency coordination is expected and possible, the CSB
investigations and associated reports are work products that cannot be
expected from others. The CSB has been recognized, including by
Congress itself in the Clean Air Act (as amended) legislative history
as the only agency that can do the work Congress envisioned when it
wrote the legislation. Neither EPA nor OSHA are able to conduct
independent accident investigations akin to the CSB's. There are a
couple of reasons for this fact.
First, as the Senate acknowledged, it would be unlikely
that these agencies would be forthcoming when, as a result of an
investigations their own programs and rules could be found at fault.
For exactly the same reasons, Congress removed the NTSB from DOT to
ensure there would be completely independent assessment of the safety
systems governing transportation. Congress further segregated both the
NTSB and the CSB from executive branch control by making them
independent agencies answerable to the Congress directly. This is in
keeping with our checks and balances of democracy.
Second, EPA and OSHA (as well as DOT and FAA), as
regulatory agencies, have a unique role incompatible, in many respects,
with accident investigation as performed by the CSB. Regulations which
implement EPA and OSHA's statutory authorities are traditionally
prescriptive, requiring regulated entities to adhere to only those
standards included in existing rules. In turn, the regulatory agencies
evaluate those entities' compliance with the specific safety
requirements and cite violations of statute or regulation; however, in
the absence of statutory authority to do so, system failures not
covered by regulatory provisions are not cited even when noted. In
contrast, there are no restrictions on what the CSB may examine in the
course of its investigations. The investigations are aimed at
determining compliance with or violation of regulations, but at
discovery of all safety system failures, including those which may not
have been recognized or could not be addressed by the regulatory
agencies in the past. The CSB's goal is to improve the safety system by
looking beyond what may or may not be in place today.
Third, there is a basic incompatibility between
regulatory enforcement and scientific investigation for the purpose of
obtaining new knowledge about safety system failures. New knowledge is
predicated upon a thorough understanding of the chemical process and
relies upon a non-threatening interactive exchange of information
between the company and the investigative body. EPA and OSHA, because
of their statutory direction to take enforcement action if violations
are uncovered, do not offer any incentive for companies to provide
voluntary information, assistance, or cooperation in any way. (A 1995
report by GAO reported that regulatory agencies could do the job now
being done by the CSB only lathe companies cooperated.) By late 1997
when the Congress funded the CSB, it was common knowledge among major
chemical industries that participating in EPA-OSHA accident
investigations by volunteering information in excess of what was
required under current law would result in potentially more penalties.
As the result of this lack of industry cooperation--the investigations
and He reports issued by the SPA and OSHA were called ``superficial'',
``uninformative'' and deemed to be of little value to anyone. They were
denounced by every major labor union, He environmental community and
major industry groups alike.
In contrast to problems faced by EPA and OSHA, the CSB has found
industries to be much more cooperative during the course of CSB
investigations and eager to learn, through CSB's recommendations, how
to improve safety performance. This is due in no small part to a
provision in the legislation barring use of CSB's findings in private
legal proceedings, directions to the CSB that it is not to affix blame,
and the fact that the CSB is not a regulatory body and, therefore, does
not impose penalties or perform any other enforcement function. Beyond
making recommendations to industry, the CSB can identifier shortcomings
in regulatory agencies' programs and make recommendations to them as
well.
The CSB must serve an overarching leadership role in accident
investigation. Regulatory agencies still leave their defied role:
measuring compliance, identifying violations ant assessing penalties.
The CSB will continue to coordinate its investigations with regulatory
agencies to ensure each agency is allowed to efficiently and
effectively perform its statutory function. The CSB will continue to
share with enforcement agencies the factual information gathered at
accident sites. It has signed interagency agreements with. OSHA and EPA
that state (1) this is its policy, (2) there will be a coordinated
Federal approach, led by the CSB, to gather facts, share information
and communicate with the media, and (3) after the facts hare been
Wagered the CSB will conduct an independent analysis, broader in scope
than investigations conducted by to regulatory authorities due to the
CSB's authorities, to determine safer system failures.
We have learned over the past 21 months of operation that only
through the CSB's independent, broad scope approach to the conduct of
investigations will it be possible to uncover the causes of and means
of preventing accidents and to make information deemed credible
available to all who can benefit from it.
__________
Statement of Richard A. Meserve, Nominated by the President to be a
Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear today at this hearing on my nomination to be a
member of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). As I
believe you know, the President has stated his intention, if I am
confirmed, to designate me as the Chairman of the Commission. Let me
say a few words about myself and then offer my thoughts as I
contemplate the possibility of joining the NRC.
I am a partner in the law firm of Covington & Burling, in
Washington, D.C., which I joined as an associate in 1981. I turned to
the practice of law after completing a Ph.D. in applied physics, and I
have used my scientific training in my legal work. Over most of my
years in private practice, this has included work on nuclear-related
issues. As an attorney who has worked with the Agency, I have a
familiarity both with the procedures of the NRC and with the substance
of its work. I have also served on a number of committees of the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Academy of
Engineering that have focused on nuclear issues. For example, I
recently served as chairman of a committee that examined the protection
of nuclear weapons materials in Russia and previously, in the aftermath
of Chernobyl accident, I chaired an NAS committee that examined safety
issues associated with the DOE reactors. I thus also have experience
arising from my pro bono activities that bear on the NRC's mission. I
believe that my educational background and my professional experience
will reinforce each other in ways that should be helpful in the conduct
of the Commission's work. Rather than take further time here today to
discuss my professional career in greater detail, however, I have
submitted my curriculum vitae as an attachment to my written statement.
Let me turn now to my views as I contemplate the possibility of
joining the NRC. As I am sure this Committee is fully aware, we are in
the midst of a significant restructuring of the utility industry. In a
growing number of States the competitive market determines the price
for electricity and thus profitability for all forms of electricity
generation is dependent on achieving economically efficient operations.
This has important implications for the NRC's work.
First, and most important, it reinforces the need for the NRC to
fulfill its obligation to demand safe operations by licensees. The NRC
must assure that the pressures to reduce costs do not become incentives
to cut corners on safety. I understand that the principal statutory
responsibility of the Commission is the protection of the public's
health and safety and of the environment. The NRC must ensure that its
licensees meet the agency's safety and environmental requirements.
Second, in a time of sensitivity to costs, the NRC has a particular
obligation to regulate efficiently to regulate in a fashion that
imposes the minimum degree of burden consistent with getting the job
done. This implies a judicious approach both to new regulatory
initiatives--making sure that the benefits outweigh the costs--and a
willingness to cast a cold, appraising eye on existing policies and
programs. The fact that a given program may have made excellent sense
in 1979 or even 1989 does not mean that it still makes sense in 1999.
Moreover, managerial oversight is necessary to make sure that the
policy decisions made in the agency's conference rooms are translated
into practice at the operational level so that the benefits of informed
policy are actually achieved.
Third, it is incumbent on the NRC to reach decisions in appropriate
ways. Decisions must be fair, and be perceived to be fair; they must be
appropriate for the particular task at hand; and they must be efficient
and timely. For example, if a process is so needlessly time-consuming
and inefficient that delay itself determines the outcome, then the goal
of fairness is not being met and the Commission has failed in its
obligations. Here again, we have to be prepared to adjust processes to
changing needs. At the same time, however, there should be no slighting
the significant role that Congress gave to the public in NRC processes.
The NRC staff and the regulated industry benefit from public
participation because the public may often illuminate issues in ways
that would otherwise escape scrutiny. Moreover, the American public
will not accept the legitimacy of decisions that derive from processes
from which it has been excluded. Thus, as the NRC carries out its
regulatory activities, it must be conscious of the need to include the
affected public in ways that are meaningful and that contribute to
sound and efficient decisionmaking.
Finally, at a time when the Commission has a variety of important
matters to which it must attend, I am mindful of the fact that Congress
created the NRC as a multi-member Commission. Each member of the
Commission should gain the benefit of the other members' expertise and
ideas, thereby allowing more informed and thoughtful decisions than any
one Commissioner could provide alone. I understand that this places a
special obligation on the chairman: in addition to taking a leadership
role, the chairman has a special responsibility to listen to his or her
colleagues and to work for consensus and collegiality.
I believe that the NRC has made progress in all these areas in
recent times and I believe that there are grounds for considerable
optimism about the future. I see an agency well aware of its duties to
protect the public health and safety under the law. I see an agency
that has worked to improve its communications with members of the
public, the regulated industry, and with the Congress. I see an agency
that is taking advantage of improvements in analytical tools and
information to focus on those aspects of industry operations that are
most risk significant. In short, I see an agency that is on the right
track. If confirmed, I look forward to working with my colleagues on
the Commission to build on the achievements of the recent past.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have for me.
Thank you.
richard a. meserve
Employment Experience
Partner, Covington & Burling, 1981-present (associate through
1984):
Legal practice involving issues with substantial technical content,
including environmental and toxic-tort litigation, nuclear licensing,
and counseling of scientific societies.
Legal Counsel, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive
Office of the President, 1977-81:
Responsibility for policies related to the health of science,
industrial innovation, energy, and space.
Law Clerk, Justice Harry A. Blackmun, U.S. Supreme Court, 1976-77.
Law Clerk, Judge Benjamin Kaplan, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court, 1975-76.
Education
Harvard Law School: J.D., magna cum laude (1975).
Harvard Law Review, editor and senior editor
Ames Moot Court Competition (member of winning team)
Stanford University: Ph.D., Department of Applied Physics (1976).
Tufts University: B.A., magna cum laude (1966).
Phi Beta Kappa
Sigma Xi
Policy Studies
Chairman, National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Balancing
Scientific Openness and National Security (1999-present)
Chairman, National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Protection,
Control, and Accountability of Nuclear Materials in Russia (1998-1999)
Chairman, National Academy of Sciences, Committee on the
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (1995-1997)
Chairman, National Academy of Sciences, Committee on
Declassification of DOE Information (1994-95)
Chairman, National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Fuel Economy
of Automobiles and Light Trucks (1991-92)
Chairman, National Academy of Sciences, Committee to Provide
Interim Oversight of the DOE Nuclear Weapons Complex (1988-89)
Chairman, National Academy of Sciences, Committee to Assess
Technical and Safety Issues at DOE Reactors (1986-88)
Member, National Academy of Sciences, Panel on Scientific
Responsibility and the Conduct of Research (1989-92)
Member, National Academy of Sciences, Panel on the Impact of
National Security Controls on International Technology Transfer (1984-
86)
Member, National Academy of Sciences, Panel on Scientific
Communication and National Security (1981-82)
Member, Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government,
Task Force on Judicial and Regulatory Decision Making (1992-93)
Member, Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government,
Task Force on Nongovernmental Organizations in Science and Technology
(1991-92)
Other Professional Activities
Member, Advisory Committee, Court Appointed Scientific Experts (a
demonstration project of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science) (1999-present)
Vice-Chairman, National Academy of Sciences, Board on Energy and
Environmental Systems (1993-present)
Member, National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Geosciences,
Environment and Resources (1997-present)
Member, Board of Directors, Carnegie Institution of Washington
(1992-present)
Member, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board; Chairman, Openness Task
Force (1996-present); Chairman, Task Force on Fusion Energy (1999-
present)
Member, Board of Directors, Tech Corps (1995-present)
Member, Council and Executive Committee, American Academy of Arts
and Sciences (1997-present)
Faculty Member, University of Virginia School of Law, Graduate
Program for Judges (1994, 1997)
Chair, American Bar Association, Science and Technology Section,
Life and Physical Sciences Division, Physical Sciences (1991-present)
Member, Board of Overseers for the Arts and Sciences, Tufts
University (1994-present)
Chairman, Advisory Council of the Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory (1989-1999)
Member, Advisory Board of the MIT Center for Technology, Policy and
Industrial Development (1988-present)
Chairman, AAAS-ABA National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists
(1988-94)
Member, The American Physical Society, Panel on Public Affairs
(1988-90)
Member, Advisory Board, MIT Lincoln Laboratory (1994-1999)
Honors
Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1994)
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989)
Fellow, The American Physical Society (1989)
Responses of Richard Meserve to Questions from Senator Lieberman
Question 1. In March of this year, the GAO issued a report that I
requested with Senator Biden, assessing the NRC's efforts to devise a
strategy to advance a risk-informed approach to regulation. The report
found that some utilities do not have current and accurate design
information for their plants that is a prerequisite for a risk-informed
safety strategy. I have long advocated for better use and enforcement
of design specific safety initiatives.
What steps do you envision the NRC taking to verify that utilities
use plant design as the basis for their operating and safety
initiatives?
Response. I understand that the NRC has identified the need for
additional guidance to licensees both to provide a clear definition of
what constitutes design information that must be maintained by
licensees as the basis for operations and to clarify how that
information should be updated to reflect changes to the facility. That
guidance needs to be completed in a timely manner. As the Commission
implements its new reactor oversight process, it should take steps to
focus licensee and NRC resources on significant plant issues,
including, where appropriate, maintenance of plant design information.
What other major problems with respect to safety do you see that
remain?
Response. Various indicators show that the safety performance of
the nuclear industry has improved in recent years. But, as I indicated
in my testimony before the Committee, the restructuring of the industry
has important implications for the NRC's work. It is necessary for the
NRC to have effective mechanisms in place so as to assure that the
pressures to reduce costs do not become incentives to cut corners on
safety.
Question 2. The NRC recently issued a report finding that a former
senior engineer at the Millstone nuclear plant violated Federal safety
regulations and willfully lied to the NRC about it. However, the NRC
cannot fine the company because the 5 year statute of limitation
expired. While NRC maintained that the report was delayed due to
complexities of the issues, the public remains concerned that the NRC
did not conduct a timely investigation, thereby hindering enforcement
of safety.
What will the NRC do to improve its track record with investigating
and enforcing serious safety violations?
Response. The NRC should make sure that it focuses on potentially
significant violations or allegations of wrongdoing and gives their
resolution priority in the investigative and enforcement process. In
the example you mention, simply tracking the application of the statute
of limitations to the violations under investigation would help
investigators and enforcement staff to keep sight of the need for
resolution of the investigation and would allow them to take steps to
preserve the agency's enforcement options.
Question 3. Connecticut is currently in the process of auctioning
off its nuclear generating assets, and Northeast Utilities recently
announced that they don't expect to bid on the Millstone plants. The
citizens of Connecticut have worked hard to correct management and
safety problems at the plant over the years. I believe--unlike others,
who have raised concerns that the NRC over regulates--that the NRC
plays a critical role in maintaining public confidence that the plants
are safe.
What role would the NRC play in overseeing the transition of
ownership of the Millstone plants? How will NRC ensure that the
mistakes of the past are not repeated?
Response. The NRC is required to approve transfers of ownership or
control of plant licenses in accordance with Section 184 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The NRC's regulations provide for an
appropriate review of the technical and financial qualifications of a
new owner or operator and also offer opportunities for public comment
or hearing on proposed transfers. In light of the history of the
Millstone plants, I believe that the NRC should seek to ensure that the
plants, whether under existing or new management, sustain improvements
in operations and in the work environment. I understand that both
Millstone units are currently under enhanced monitoring through
additional dedicated inspection resources and close NRC senior regional
management oversight.
Question 4. Dr. Jackson took some major actions to make the NRC
more responsive to problems raised by whistleblowers at nuclear plants.
I believe that the NRC needs to continue to do more to keep improving
safety, taking aggressive enforcement action where appropriate, and
holding nuclear plant licensees accountable for correcting problems in
a timely manner.
Do you have any plans for improving NRC's record protecting workers
from suppression of concerns about plant performance and safety?
Response. I believe it is important for the NRC to intervene
promptly if we identify concerns about a worker's ability to raise
issues of plant performance and safety without fear of retribution. The
NRC has identified the existence of a safety-conscious work environment
as one of the central elements in its new process for assessment of
reactor performance. This should remain a key element of the assessment
process.
Do you think that legislative authority is needed to improve
whistleblower protections?
Response. I understand that several years ago the NRC identified
improvements which could be made to the protections for whistleblowers,
including several changes to the provisions of Section 211 of the
Energy Reorganization Act. This section provides for redress by the
Department of Labor of retaliatory actions against employees for
raising safety issues with their employers or the NRC. If confirmed, I
will review this matter.
Question 5. As you are aware, the Price-Anderson act is scheduled
to be reauthorized in 2002. Last year, the NRC submitted a statutorily
mandated report to Congress that concluded that the Price-Anderson
nuclear insurance statute has proved to be successful, and should be
renewed for another 10 years with other modest, if any changes. I am
interested in your views on the Act, and the role protecting the public
from liability in the event that there is a nuclear accident.
Do you generally support the NRC's conclusions (in the report to
Congress on the Price-Anderson nuclear insurance statute)? Do you agree
with the NRC's report conclusion that Price-Anderson has assured that,
in the unlikely event of an accident, the public will be promptly and
equitably compensated for any resulting liabilities?
Response. I am familiar with the Price-Anderson Act and its
purposes and functions, although I am not yet fully conversant in the
NRC's report to Congress on the Act that was submitted last year. I,
thus, cannot address the conclusions or recommendations in that report.
I do understand that the Act has established a system to provide ample
and prompt compensation for public liability claims arising from a
nuclear incident.
______
Responses of Richard Meserve to Additional Questions from Senator
Thomas
Question 1. Recognizing the continuing fragile state of the
domestic uranium recover industry, would you favor Commission policies
that seek to limit dual regulation of such facilities?
a. In particular, would you support NRC's relinquishing
jurisdiction over in-situ leach wellfields since these facilities are
adequately regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
administered by the States?
b. Would you support NRC's using its Federal preemption authority
under the Atomic Energy Act to move forward with the final disposal of
uranium (11e2) byproduct material?
Response. A regulatory agency must always be sensitive to the need
to regulate in a manner that imposes the minimum degree of burden
consistent with getting the job done. Where more than one regulatory
agency is involved in the oversight of an industry, it is important for
each agency to ensure that the requirements it imposes provide needed
protection of the public's health and safety and the environment and,
to the maximum extent possible, are not inconsistent with obligations
imposed by other agencies.
I understand that the Commission has before it a series of decision
documents laying out various options for addressing the specific
questions you have raised, as well as others, relating to the uranium
recovery industry. I am not sufficiently familiar with these issues to
provide a specific response at this time as to my own views. If
confirmed, however, I will study these issues carefully. I pledge to
work with my fellow Commissioners to see that the Commission resolves
these issues in a comprehensive manner in an effort to bring
consistency, clarity and efficiency to the requirements governing the
uranium recovery industry.
Question 2. Under the current fee system, NRC is required by the
Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act to recover approximately 100
percent of its fees from licensees. This system requires licensees to
pay for agency services they do not benefit from. These services
include the following activities: international activities; agreement
state oversight; fee exemption for nonprofit educational institution;
licensing and inspection activities associated with other Federal
agencies; cost not recovered due to an exemption of or small entities;
regulatory support for agreement States; and others.
The lack of reasonable relationship between annual fees and
services rendered by NRC is exacerbated as more States become Agreement
States and more sites are decommissioned. This situation leaves fewer
NRC licensees to bear an even greater share of the burden. The NRC
needs to determine an equitable way of dealing with this scenario that
is already playing out in the uranium recovery area.
Would you be willing to support an aggressive request to Congress
to resolve the inequities caused by the current fee system?
Response. Although there can be inequities which result from the
current requirement for the NRC to recover all of its budget authority
through fees, the various NRC programs are important if the NRC is to
fulfill its statutory obligations. As a result, resources to support
them must be found. I have pledged to work with the Committee to find
an appropriate solution to this problem.
__________
Statement of Major General Phillip R. Anderson, Nominated by the
President to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am honored to appear
before you as the nominee for president and member of the Mississippi
River Commission.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief statement about the
Mississippi River Commission, the Mississippi River and Tributaries
(MR&T) project, and my qualifications for the position for which I have
been nominated.
The Mississippi River Commission, established by Act of Congress on
June 28, 1879, consists of seven members, all of whom are appointed by
the President of the United States subject to confirmation by the
Senate. Three members are Corps of Engineers officers, one of whom
serves as president; one member is from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; and three members are from the civilian
sector, two of whom must be civil engineers.
From its inception in 1879, the Commission has been charged with
the task of planning and implementing a program of flood damage
reduction projects and navigation improvements on the Mississippi
River. More recently, project purposes have been expanded to include
environmental restoration. This task continues to be conducted in
concert with the myriad of political institutions, individuals, and
public entities which have major interests in seeing that the water
resources needs and opportunities of the Mississippi Valley are
evaluated, planned, designed, constructed, and maintained.
As established in 1879, the Commissioners were to serve as advisers
in planning and implementing water resource projects and programs on
the Mississippi River between the Head of Passes below New Orleans to
its headwaters. Since 1928, the Commission has focused on the
Mississippi River and Tributaries project, authorized by the Flood
Control Act of May 15, 1928, to be implemented under oversight of the
Commission. The WRIT project extends generally from the confluence of
the Ohio River to the Head of Passes below New Orleans and covers
portions of seven States. It receives water from all or portions of 31
States and part of two Canadian provinces, or roughly 41 percent of the
contiguous United States. Effective planning, design, construction, and
operation of the widespread and complex MR&T project have been assisted
greatly by the Commission's active consultation with the public,
particularly on its semiannual lower Mississippi River inspection
trips, and by the high degree of professionalism that has been
developed in its staff.
A major flood on the lower Mississippi River would have
catastrophic effects on the inhabitants of the Mississippi Valley and
the economy of the Nation were it not for the protection provided by
the levees and other flood control works along the mainstem of the
Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. Many have noted that the
comprehensive project on the lower river provided for passage of major
floods in 1973, 1983, 1997, and other years without the extensive
damage suffered in the upper river area during the 1993 and 1995 flood
events.
In addition, the navigation features of the project help to
maintain the river for shipping import and export commodities between
inland ports and world markets.
Reorganization of the Corps of Engineers in April 1997 has placed
the entire length of the Mississippi River within one Division of the
Corps of Engineers. I serve as Commander of this Mississippi Valley
Division of the Corps. Command of the Division office traditionally has
also included duties as President of the Mississippi River Commission.
The reorganization of the Corps now allows management of the
Mississippi River as a single and unified system and enables the
President and members of the Commission to more effectively serve as
advisers to the Chief of Engineers as authorized in the 1879
legislation.
The Commission members have been active as advisers to the Corps on
the Upper Mississippi River since the reorganization.
The Commission conducted inspection trips on the Upper Mississippi
River in August 1997, 1998, and 1999, holding a series of public
meetings in the St. Paul, Rock Island, and St. Louis Districts each
year, in addition to the semiannual inspection trips and public
meetings in the Memphis, Vicksburg, and New Orleans Districts.
In regards to my personal qualifications, I am a graduate of the
Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, Virginia, where I was
commissioned in 1970 into the Corps of Engineers. I hold Master's
degrees in civil engineering from the University of Illinois in
Champaign/Urbana and international relations from Salve Regina
University in Newport, Rhode Island. I am also a graduate of the U.S.
Army Command and General Staff College and the Naval War College. I am
a licensed professional engineer in the State of Virginia.
Since July 1997, I have served as Commander of the Mississippi
Valley Division and also as president designee of the Mississippi River
Commission. In this position, I have led and managed the Corps' water
resources program in the Mississippi River Valley. The boundary of the
Mississippi Valley Division extends from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico,
includes portions of 12 States, and encompasses 370,000 square miles.
The program and activities overseen by the Mississippi Valley Division
and Mississippi River Commission are conducted by district offices
located in St. Paul, Rock Island, St. Louis, Memphis, Vicksburg, and
New Orleans.
I have served over 28 years in the uniformed military service as an
Army Engineer. I have commanded at all levels from platoon through
Division. I served as Liaison Officer and Assistant Resident Engineer,
Saudi Arabia District, and also as a project engineer in the Louisville
District. I was the Executive Officer for the Chief of Engineers at the
Headquarters office of the Army Corps of Engineers in Washington, D.C.,
and Land and Naval Facilities Program Manager, Supreme Headquarters,
Allied Powers Europe.
While assigned to the U.S. Army Engineer School at Fort Leonard
Wood, I served as Director of Training, Chief of Staff, and Deputy
Commanding General. Before my assignment to the Mississippi Valley
Division, I served as the Director of Military Programs at the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters.
If confirmed to the position, Mr. Chairman, I would look forward to
playing a key role in the continual improvement of the Mississippi
River system and the MR&T project by applying the most modern practices
in water resources engineering. I would also look forward to being the
president of a Commission that focuses not only on the traditional
roles of safely passing the Mississippi River Basin floodwaters to the
Gulf of Mexico, plus providing a safe and dependable navigable
waterway, but also incorporates programs and projects for environmental
protection and restoration.
Mr. Chairman, for your information, I have attached a complete
biography on myself and a current list of members of the Mississippi
River Commission.
This completes my prepared statement, and I would be pleased to
respond to any questions.
mississippi river commission members
MG Phillip R. Anderson \1\, President
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Designated, but not confirmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi River Commission
P.O. Box 80 Vicksburg, MS 39181-0080
(601) 634-5750/FAX 634-5666
Mr. Sam E. Angel \1\
Epstein Gin
P.O. Box 748
Lake Village, AR 71653
(870) 265-5382/5383/FAX 265-5690
Mr. R. D. James
Riley Cotton Company
810 Maple Street
New Madrid, MO 63869
(573) 748-5574/5345/FAX 748-2041
Mr. William Clifford Smith
T. Baker Smith 6 Son, Inc.
P.O. Box 2266
Houma, LA 70361
(504) 868-1050/FAX 853-0109
BG Robert H. Griffin \1\, Commander U.S. Army Engineer Division,
Great Lakes and Ohio River
P.O. Box 1159
Cincinnati, OH 45201-1159
(513) 684-3002/FAX 684-2085
BG Carl A. Strock \1\, Commander U.S. Army Engineer
Division, Northwestern
P.O. Box 2870
Portland, OR 97208-2870
(503) 808-3701/FAX 808-3706
RADII Nicholas A. Prahl \1\, Director
Atlantic and Pacific Marine Centers
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
439 West York Street
Norfolk, VA 23510
(757) 441-6168/FAX 441-6495
(non-voting position)
COL Wm. David Brown, Secretary
Mississippi River Commission
P.O. Box 80
Vicksburg, MS 39181-0080
(601) 634-5752/FAX 634-5666
__________
Statement of Sam Epstein Angel, Nominated by the President to be a
Member of the Mississippi River Commission
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am honored to appear
before you as the nominee for member of the Mississippi River
Commission.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief statement about the
Mississippi River Commission, the Mississippi River and Tributaries
(MR&T) project, and my qualifications for the position for which I have
been nominated.
The Mississippi River Commission, established by Act of Congress on
June 28, 1879, consists of seven members, all of whom are appointed by
the President of the United States subject to confirmation by the
Senate. Three members are Corps of Engineers officers, one of whom
serves as president; one member is from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; and three members are from the civilian
sector, two of whom must be civil engineers.
From its inception in 1879, the Commission has been charged with
the vital task of planning and implementing a program of flood damage
reduction projects and navigation improvements on the Mississippi
River. More recently, project purposes have been expanded to include
environmental restoration. This task continues to be conducted in
concert with the myriad of political institutions, individuals, and
public entities which have major interests in seeing that the water
resources needs and opportunities of the Mississippi Valley are
evaluated, planned, designed, constructed, and maintained.
As established in 1879, the Commissioners were to serve as advisers
in planning and implementing water resource projects and programs on
the Mississippi River between the Head of Passes below New Orleans to
its headwaters. Since 1928, the Commission has focused on the
Mississippi River and Tributaries project, authorized by the Flood
Control Act of May 15, 1928, to be implemented under oversight of the
Commission. The MR&T project extends generally from the confluence of
the Ohio River to the Head of Passes below New Orleans and covers
portions of seven States. It receives water from all or portions of 31
States and part of two Canadian provinces, or roughly 41 percent of the
contiguous United States. Effective planning, design, construction, and
operation of the widespread and complex MR&T project have been assisted
greatly by the Commission's active consultation with the public,
particularly on its semiannual lower Mississippi River inspection
trips, and by the high degree of professionalism that has been
developed in its staff.
The MR&T project is truly of national significance. For example, a
major flood on the lower Mississippi River would have catastrophic
effects on the inhabitants of the Mississippi Valley and the economy of
the Nation were it not for the protection provided by the levees and
other flood control works throughout the project area. Many have noted
that the comprehensive project on the lower river provided for passage
of major floods in 1973, 1983, 1997, and other years without the
extensive damage suffered in the upper river area during the 1993 and
1995 flood events.
In addition, the navigation features of the project are essential
to maintaining the river for shipping import and export commodities
between inland ports and world markets. In short, the navigation
features of the MR&T project are essential in peace time and vital to
our national defense in times of emergency.
Reorganization of the Corps of Engineers in April 1997 has placed
the entire length of the Mississippi River within one Division of the
Corps of Engineers. The Commander of this Mississippi Valley Division
of the Corps also serves as President of the Mississippi River
Commission. The reorganization of the Corps now allows management of
the Mississippi River as a single and unified system and enables the
Commissioners to more effectively serve as advisers to the Division
Commander and the Chief of Engineers as authorized in the 1879
legislation.
The Commission members have been active as advisers to the Corps on
the Upper Mississippi River since the reorganization. The Commission
conducted inspection trips on the Upper Mississippi River in August
1997, 1998, and 1999, holding a series of public meetings in the St.
Paul, Rock Island, and St. Louis Districts each year, in addition to
the semiannual inspection trips and public meetings in the Memphis,
Vicksburg, and New Orleans Districts.
In regards to my personal qualifications, I have served on the
Mississippi River Commission since September 1979. This confirmation
will provide my third consecutive 9-year appointment to this vital
Commission. I firmly believe that my experience since 1979 in
partnering with local interests, levee boards, and Federal, State, and
area agencies and organizations justifies my reappointment to the
Mississippi River Commission.
I am a native of Lake Village, Arkansas, and was reared adjacent to
the Mississippi River. I feel that the many years of living and working
in this area and also being affiliated with the Commission have given
me a vast knowledge of the Mississippi River and the various problems
associated with it. It has been my privilege to meet many people over
the years, both in the lower valley and recently in the upper valley,
to discuss with them their concerns regarding this powerful river.
I have served as president of Epstein Land Company and Epstein Gin
Company in Lake Village since 1980. I am a commissioner of the Chicot
County Watershed District and former commissioner of the Chicot County
Rural Development Authority and Southeast Arkansas Levee District. I
currently serve as Director of the Cotton Warehouse Association and
Southern Ginners Association, among other local, State, and national
farming organizations.
I attended Louisiana State University and the University of
Arkansas at Monticello. I served with the Army National Guard from 1957
to 1965 and the United States Army from 1961 to 1962.
If confirmed to the position, Mr. Chairman, I would look forward to
continuing to play a key role in the continual improvement of the
Mississippi River system and the MR&T project by applying the most
modern practices in water resources engineering. I would also look
forward to renewing my membership on a Commission that focuses not only
on the traditional roles of safely passing the Mississippi River Basin
floodwaters to the Gulf of Mexico, plus providing a safe and dependable
navigable waterway, but also incorporates programs and projects for
environmental protection and restoration.
Mr. Chairman, for your information, I have attached a complete
biography on myself and a current list of members of the Mississippi
River Commission.
This completes my prepared statement, and I would be pleased to
respond to any questions.
__________
Statement of Brigadier General Robert H. Griffin, Nominated by the
President to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission??
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am honored to appear
before you as the nominee for member of the Mississippi River
Commission.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief statement about the
Mississippi River Commission, the Mississippi River and Tributaries
(MR&T) project, and my qualifications for the position for which I have
been nominated.
The Mississippi River Commission, established by Act of Congress on
June 28, 1879, consists of seven members, all of whom are appointed by
the President of the United States subject to confirmation by the
Senate. Three members are Corps of Engineers officers, one of whom
serves as president; one member is from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; and three members are from the civilian
sector, two of whom must be civil engineers.
From its inception in 1879, the Commission has been charged with
the task of planning and implementing a program of flood damage
reduction projects and navigation improvements on the Mississippi
River. More recently, project purposes have been expanded to include
environmental restoration. This task continues to be conducted in
concert with the myriad of political institutions, individuals, and
public entities which have major interests in seeing that the water
resources needs and opportunities of the Mississippi Valley are
evaluated, planned, designed, constructed, and maintained.
As established in 1879, the Commissioners were to serve as advisers
in planning and implementing water resource projects and programs on
the Mississippi River between the Head of Passes below New Orleans to
its headwaters. Since 1928, the Commission has focused on the
Mississippi River and Tributaries project, authorized by the Flood
Control Act of May 15, 1928, to be implemented under oversight of the
Commission. The MR&T project extends generally from the confluence of
the Ohio River to the Head of Passes below New Orleans and covers
portions of seven States. It receives water from all or portions of 31
States and part of two Canadian provinces, or roughly 41 percent of the
contiguous United States. Effective planning, design, construction, and
operation of the widespread and complex MR&T project have been assisted
greatly by the Commission's active consultation with the public,
particularly on its semiannual lower Mississippi River inspection
trips, and by the high degree of professionalism that has been
developed in its staff.
A major flood on the lower Mississippi River would have
catastrophic effects on the inhabitants of the Mississippi Valley and
the economy of the Nation were it not for the protection provided by
the levees and other flood control works along the mainstem of the
Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. Many have noted that the
comprehensive project on the lower river provided for passage of major
floods in 1973, 1983, 1997, and other years without the extensive
damage suffered in the upper river area during the 1993 and 1995 flood
events.
In addition, the navigation features of the project help to
maintain the river for shipping import and export commodities between
inland ports and world markets.
Reorganization of the Corps of Engineers in April 1997 has placed
the entire length of the Mississippi River within one Division of the
Corps of Engineers. The Commander of this Mississippi Valley Division
of the Corps also serves as President of the Mississippi River
Commission. The reorganization of the Corps now allows management of
the Mississippi River as a single and unified system and enables the
Commissioners to more effectively serve as advisers to the Division
Commander and the Chief of Engineers as authorized in the 1879
legislation.
The Commission mashers have been active as advisers to the Corps on
the Upper Mississippi River since the reorganization. The Commission
conducted inspection trips on the Upper Mississippi River in August
1997, 1998, and 1999, holding a series of public meetings in the St.
Paul, Rock Island, and St. Louis Districts each year, in addition to
the semiannual inspection trips and public meetings in the Memphis,
Vicksburg, and New Orleans Districts.
In regards to my personal qualifications, I earned a Bachelor of
Science degree in Mechanical Engineering and a Master's degree in Civil
Engineering, both from Auburn University in Alabama. I also hold a
second Masters degree in Business Administration from Long Island
University in Greenvale, New York. In addition, I am a graduate of the
U.S. Army War College and the U.S. Army Command and General Staff
College. I am a registered professional engineer in the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
I have served more than 28 years in the uniformed service as an
Army Engineer. I have served continuously in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers since 1992 as District Engineer of the Mobile District, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters Chief of Staff, Division Commander
for the Northwestern Division in Portland, Oregon, and presently as
Division Commander for the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division in
Cincinnati, Ohio.
In my previous assignment as Commander of the Northwestern Division
from December 1996 until July 1999, I directed all Corps of Engineers
water resources activities in an area comprising about one-quarter of
the land area of the United States. Included in this area were water
management responsibilities in the Missouri River Basin, a significant
tributary of the Mississippi River.
As Commander of the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division, I am
tasked with directing all Corps of Engineers water resources activities
in the Great Lakes and Ohio River basins, an area of over 355,300
square miles, including all or parts of 17 States. The program includes
planning, construction, and operation of navigation structures on the
Ohio River and Great Lakes system and flood control projects throughout
both basins. This work also includes hydropower, environmental
protection and restoration, water conservation, recreation, and
disaster assistance.
Some of my major command and staff assignments other than within
the Corps of Engineers has included Battalion Commander, 864th Engineer
Battalion, Fort Lewis, Washington, and Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, plus
command and staff positions with engineer units both in the United
States and abroad.
If confirmed to the position, Mr. Chairman, I would look forward to
playing a key role in the continual improvement of the Mississippi
River system and the MR&T project by applying the most modern practices
in water resources engineering. I would also look forward to being a
member of a Commission that focuses not only on the traditional roles
of safely passing the Mississippi River Basin floodwaters to the Gulf
of Mexico, plus providing a safe and dependable navigable waterway, but
also incorporates programs and projects for environmental protection
and restoration.
Mr. Chairman, for your information, I have attached a complete
biography on myself and a current list of members of the Mississippi
River Commission.
This completes my prepared statement, and I would be pleased to
respond to any questions.
NOMINATIONS OF GLENN McCULLOUGH, SKILA HARRIS AND GERALD V. POJE
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:03 p.m., in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John H. Chafee
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Chafee, Baucus, and Lautenberg.
Senator Chafee. I want to welcome everyone here this
afternoon for the hearings. We have several Senators who will
make introductions. In order to accommodate their heavy
schedules, I am going to ask that they proceed first.
Senator Cochran, we welcome you here and look forward to
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. THAD COCHRAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate
very much your convening this hearing.
It is my pleasure to recommend and present to the committee
today Glenn McCullough of Tupelo, Mississippi, who has been
nominated to serve on the Board of the Tennessee Valley
Authority. With his experience as mayor of the first TVA city,
and as director of the Appalachian Regional Commission Office
in Mississippi, and as a person who has been involved in
economic development and industrial development in our State,
Glenn McCullough is very well suited and qualified to serve on
the Board of the Tennessee Valley Authority. He has good
judgment, he is honest, he has proven that he is a hard worker
and can be very effective in public service. I am looking
forward to his serving on the Board because I am confident that
he will serve with distinction and be a very effective and
truly outstanding member of this board.
He has credentials and educationally he graduated from
Mississippi State University, and Tupelo City Schools. He is
someone who is widely respected and very popular in North
Mississippi.
We are very pleased to be here today and to join Senator
Lott, Congressman Wicker, and Congressman Pickering in
recommending him to the committee.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator.
I have no questions. If you have further appointments,
please feel excused if you so choose.
Senator Cochran. I think I am going to stay here and see
what the Congressmen say to be sure they do it right.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. We will now hear from Senator Thompson.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRED THOMPSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE
Senator Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to be here today to introduce Ms. Skila
Harris, who has been nominated to fill one of the two current
vacancies on the TVA Board.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this
hearing so expeditiously and for allowing me to be here today.
I know you are aware of the critical importance of the
Tennessee Valley Authority to my home State of Tennessee and I
appreciate your willingness to let Members from the valley
participate in this process.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the TVA Board is comprised of
three directors each serving 9-year terms. However, since May
18 of this year, TVA has had just one sitting board member--one
person responsible for running a $7 billion utility. That is
not a good set-up. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it
is asking for trouble. For this reason, it is important that we
get a full complement of TVA directors as soon as possible.
Again, I commend you for holding this hearing and I hope we
can do our due diligence as quickly as possible so that we can
get two new board members confirmed before we adjourn for the
year.
Mr. Chairman, although she is not a Tennessee native, Skila
Harris is quite familiar with the Volunteer State and with TVA.
She is a native of Bowling Green, Kentucky and she earned an
undergraduate degree in Government from Western Kentucky
University and a master's degree in Legislative Affairs from
George Washington University. She lived in Nashville for a
number of years where I met her and her husband, Fred Graham.
During this time she served as vice president for development
and compliance at the Steiner-Leff Iron and Metal Company. From
1993 to 1997, Ms. Harris served as special assistant to the
Vice President and Chief of Staff to Mrs. Gore.
She also served in the Department of Energy during both the
Carter and Clinton Administrations, most recently as executive
director of the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board. In that
capacity, she oversaw the work of the Tennessee Valley
Authority Advisory Committee, a group made up of various
stakeholder groups interested in the future of TVA in a
competitive electricity market.
I believe that she is a person of intelligence,
sensitivity, and common sense and she has done very well in all
the jobs she has taken on to this point.
Mr. Chairman, TVA is facing major challenges as we prepare
to enter the 21st century. The U.S. economy is changing and the
way Americans buy and sell electricity will inevitably change
with it. It may not be this year and it may not be for 5 more
years, but change is coming and TVA must be ready to face that
change in a way that does not leave the people in the Tennessee
Valley worse off.
One of the things that TVA must do to prepare for the new
millennium is modernize its management policies. Recently I
have expressed deep concern about an ongoing dispute between
TVA management and the TVA inspector general. But problems go
much deeper than that. TVA needs some new blood and I believe
that Skila Harris and Glenn McCullough will provide it.
I have met with each of these nominees privately and we
have had some very candid exchanges. The good news is that they
still want the job.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thompson. I am hopeful that if confirmed they will
view the job of TVA director as a contract with the citizens of
the Tennessee Valley--the people TVA was created to serve--and
that they will do their best to return to TVA a focus on this
unique mission of public service.
I look forward to hearing from them and for the opportunity
to ask questions.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing us to be here
today.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator Thompson.
Again, if you have appointments you would like to leave for
now, that would certainly be understandable.
Senator Thompson. I am going to stay awhile.
Senator Chafee. You want to check and see what these
Representatives are going to say?
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. Representative Pickering, why don't you
proceed?
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES PICKERING, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Mr. Pickering. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a great day to be here and a great day for Glenn
McCullough and his family. I know I join Senator Cochran,
Senator Lott, and Roger in welcoming the McCullough family
here--Glenn's wife, one of his sons, and his father.
Senator Chafee. Is the family here? Please rise so that we
can see you. We are very glad you are here.
[Applause.]
Senator Chafee. We are very glad they are here.
Please proceed.
Mr. Pickering. It has been some time since the President
has appointed a Mississippian--1962, in fact, was the last time
Congressman Frank Smith was appointed by President Kennedy. So
this is a day that Mississippians celebrate for the importance
that TVA is and to now have someone on the Board from
Mississippi to bring the balance.
Senator Thompson, I do not know if you are aware, but we
made an agreement in the last Congress--as we looked at the
economic development, the non-TVA and non-power appropriation,
and the debt restructuring, we said that we would do this. But
in exchange for that, Tennessee must give their offensive
coordinator to the University of Mississippi.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pickering. They have sent him down and he is now
leading us into the top 25. And that they also must give Archie
Manning's last son to Ole Miss--and that happened as well.
There are a few other agreements, but we will keep that non-
public.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pickering. But in all seriousness, Glenn McCullough has
a great background and great experience. Working with ARC and
economic development in private business, he is a mayor of one
of the leading communities recognized all over the country for
what they have done as a progressive community in education and
infrastructure and economic development. He brings a wealth of
experience and great talent and the right vision for TVA to go
into the 21st century. We could not be more proud of Glenn
McCullough and to have his leadership and his representation
for TVA, for Mississippi, and for the whole valley and the
other States in the region. He will do a tremendous job.
It is with great pride that I recommend and encourage the
adoption and confirmation by the Senate of Glenn McCullough to
the TVA Board.
Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
Representative Wicker?
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Mr. Wicker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say at the outset that it is a rare and
distinct privilege for Congressman Pickering and me to be down
at this end of the Capitol Building to testify before your
committee today and I appreciate the opportunity to come and
say a few words of testimony.
It is hard for me to express how delighted I am to see this
day arrive and see my good friend, Glenn McCullough, be
nominated and hopefully confirmed by the U.S. Senate. No doubt
there were significant negotiations which led to this day, but
I can only say that both the Administration and the Senate
leadership have done themselves proud with the nomination of
both Skila Harris and Glenn McCullough. I support them and am
glad to be here and offer this testimony today.
I have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, which I ask to
be submitted to the record at this point.
Senator Chafee. Without objection, your prepared statement
will appear in the record.
Mr. Wicker. Let me just say that I am here wearing a couple
of hats. I am here as chairman of the Congressional TVA Caucus.
I am also here as a friend of Glenn McCullough, someone who
actually graduated from a leadership class in Lee County with
Glenn McCullough back in the early 1980's. I am his
representative in Congress. He is my mayor. I know him well and
can vouch for his outstanding leadership abilities.
You are going to like Glenn McCullough, Mr. Chairman. I
have seen him work. I have seen him work as mayor, as State
director of the Appalachian Regional Commission, and also just
as a community leader and volunteer. You have already met his
outstanding family. He is going to make us an outstanding
member of the Board.
Glenn McCullough governs through cooperation. He leads by
example and by conciliation. He listens to reason. I think he
will be able to help assist in smoothing the waters on the
Tennessee Valley Authority Board. You are going to find him to
be a fine board member. He is better known in Mississippi now
than he is throughout the rest of the valley. But I can tell
you without fear of contradiction that within a year's time he
is going to be quite popular with people interested in
efficiently priced electricity and economic development and job
creation throughout the TVA Region. He is going to make us an
outstanding board member and I appreciate the opportunity to
come before you and endorse him today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
We appreciate you all coming here. If you all have further
appointments, obviously you are excused now and I thank you for
coming.
Senator Thompson, would you like to come up here and join
in any questions?
Senator Thompson. If I may.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. The purpose of today's hearing, as you can
gather, is to consider three nominations. The first two
nominees are Mayor Glenn McCullough, Jr., and Ms. Skila Harris
to be appointed members of the Tennessee Valley Authority. The
third nominee is Dr. Gerald Poje to be reappointed as a member
of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
After we hear from the nominees, we will have a panel to
take testimony on the TVA and some of the important issues
before it.
I welcome our three nominees as well as Senator Lott. I
think Senator Lott is planning to be here--I know that is his
intention. And we are so pleased that Senator Cochran and
Senator Thompson, plus Representatives Pickering and Wicker are
here today to introduce Mayor McCullough and Ms. Harris.
The TVA, a wholly owned government corporation, conducts a
unified program of resource development for the advancement of
economic growth in the Tennessee Valley region. The Authority's
program of activities includes flood control, navigation and
development, electric power production, recreation improvement,
and forestry and wildlife development.
I am one of the few people around here, I suspect, who is
old enough to remember when TVA was created. I think it was
about 1933 and it was the brainchild of President Roosevelt and
it was looked on as extremely visionary and a bold undertaking
at the time dealing with the course of the Tennessee River
Valley.
The President has nominated Mayor Glenn L. McCullough for
appointment as a member. Mr. McCullough has served as mayor of
Tupelo since 1997, serves on the executive committee of the
Mississippi Municipal League, and Governor's task force for
economic development planning.
Ms. Harris has served in the Department of Energy during
both the Carter and Clinton Administrations and has over 12
years experience in the field of energy. Prior to her current
position, she was executive director of the Secretary of
Energy's Advisory Board where she managed the work of the
Tennessee Valley Advisory Committee.
The Chemical Safety and Hazardous Investigation Board's
task is to investigate chemical accidents and report the facts,
circumstances, and the cause or probable cause of any
accidental release resulting in a fatality, serious injury, or
substantial property damages.
The President has nominated Dr. Gerald V. Poje for
reappointment as a member of the Board. He has served as a
member since January 1998 and is a specialist in toxicology and
policies dealing with chemical hazards. He has worked with the
Inter-Governmental Forum on Chemical Safety and the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Furthermore, it promotes global remediation and contingency
planning around the Y2K problem.
The final panel this afternoon will focus on TVA policy, on
the TVA Customer Protection Act introduced by Senators
McConnell and Bunning. It has been some time since this
committee has held any TVA hearings, and frankly, they are
overdue. There are many questions to ask of TVA. How does TVA's
mission compare to its mission in 1933? Is TVA serving its
constituency--the ratepayers in the valley--as fairly and
effectively as possible? Is it time for TVA to undertake some
reforms?
I want to commend Senator McConnell for introducing S.
1323, which in my view offers many common sense suggestions for
the committee's consideration. Senator Thompson, too, has
offered suggestions to his Government Affairs Committee dealing
specifically with the appointment process for TVA's inspector
general.
I look forward to both Senators participation this
afternoon.
Now we will hear from Senator Baucus, if you have a
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming the
nominees. TVA and the Chemical Safety Board are two very
important agencies. I congratulate the nominees and families
and thank them in advance for the service they will be
providing to our country and look forward to hearing from each
of them.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator Baucus.
We are delighted to be joined by Senator Lott. We know that
this is a matter of intense concern to you and we appreciate
you taking time from your busy schedule. Should you have some
kind of statement, now would be a good time.
STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI
Senator Lott. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be placed in the
record.
Senator Chafee. Without objection, your prepared statement
will appear in the record.
Senator Lott. Mr. Chairman, the Tennessee Valley Authority
is a very important institution in our whole region of the
country. It is important to Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky,
and Alabama. It has provided a lot of great service to the
people in that region--not just power--but also very important
development and leadership over many, many years. They
desperately need now a full complement of leaders. There are
two vacancies on the Board. And they have a lot of very
important decisions that they are going to have to make in the
near future. A lot of the things we will be considering in the
not too distant future here in the Congress will require a real
aggressive participation and input from the TVA.
Senator Thompson and I had lunch 2 or 3 weeks ago and we
talked about our interest in and our concern about TVA and how
important it is to our State and our whole mid-south part of
the country. So I am glad that you are moving forward
expeditiously with these nominees. I am particularly pleased to
be here in support of the nomination of Glenn L. McCullough,
Jr., the mayor of Tupelo, Mississippi, to be one of the new
members of the Board.
I congratulate Ms. Harris for her selection. I think the
two of them will bring a breath of experience to the Board and
give them a full three-member board that they need desperately
and that this will be a positive accomplishment.
Glen and I have been good friends for a long time. He is an
outstanding young man that has accomplished an awful lot in his
relatively young life. He comes from a great family that have
perhaps already been introduced. His father ``Cotton''--as he
is affectionately known--his mother Ms. Lanier McCullough, his
sister Sarah, his sister Mary Conner Adcock, her husband David,
and their son Shaw. Where is Shaw? I want to see Shaw.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lott. There he is back there. He is a good-looking
young man.
I am glad the whole family is here in support of this very
fine nominee.
Tupelo, in some areas, is better known as the birthplace of
Elvis Presley. In fact, Elvis is actually still there, as you
know.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lott. It is also one of the outstanding small
cities in America and has received a lot of recognition over
the years. Under Mr. McCullough's administration it has twice
won the overall award for innovations in municipal government
from the Stennis Institute of Government at Mississippi State
University. In particular, Tupelo was selected for outstanding
performance in community policing and neighborhood
revitalization.
In the past, it has been selected as one of the most
outstanding cities in America. In fact, it was selected as one
of the ten most livable all-American cities in the Nation. So
this is really an outstanding community. They have had
leadership politically, but more importantly, they have had
leadership in their civic community. When Tupelo has a problem,
they have a group of people in that town that will come
together and find a solution. They will just do it.
This city has been written up at least twice in recent
years by the Wall Street Journal as one of the most dynamic
developing towns in the country. It is now referred to as the
Tupelo Model. But it required outstanding leadership in the
mayor's office and Glenn has certainly done that. He has been
innovative.
Before he went in as mayor, he was the Mississippi director
of the Appalachian Regional Commission. So he worked with the
communities throughout that region. He is already familiar with
the region. He has been in every one of those towns. He has
worked on projects of all kinds, economic development, water
projects, highway needs--all of that. He has already been
through that on a regional basis.
So he has the elected experience, the poignant experience
there at ARC, and before that he was a businessman. So I think
he has all the credentials you need to be a real leader at TVA.
Beside that, I found from my own experience that he is a
dynamic speaker. He can talk about a vision of what needs to be
done for our State and our country.
I am delighted to be here and support his nomination. He
did have one youthful indiscretion. He went to Mississippi
State University--but I must say, so did John Stennis--and
seemed to do quite well with that background. But I know he is
going to be an excellent member of the TVA and I support his
nomination.
In fact, I support the nomination of both of these
candidates for TVA. We need them desperately. If this committee
will act expeditiously, I can assure the Senators and the
Senate that I will make sure that their nominations are
considered expeditiously in the full Senate.
Good luck to you. I know you will both do an excellent job,
as well as the other nominee here today, too.
Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator Lott. I know
you have a busy schedule, so if you have to leave, we will
certainly understand.
Let's start with Mayor McCullough.
STATEMENT OF GLENN L. MCCULLOUGH, JR., NOMINATED BY THE
PRESIDENT TO BE APPOINTED AS MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Mr. McCullough. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am humbled by the remarks from our majority leader,
Senator Lott, as well as Senator Cochran and Congressman Wicker
and Pickering.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor
for me to appear before you as nominee for the Tennessee Valley
Authority Board of Directors. I thank the President for this
nomination. I am grateful for the support of my sponsors,
Mississippi's senior Senator Thad Cochran and Senate Majority
Leader Trent Lott. I have been fortunate to have the constant
encouragement and friendship of my Congressman and Chair of
TVA's congressional caucus, Roger Wicker, as well as
Congressman Chip Pickering.
I also want to express my thanks to staff members who have
assisted in this process.
As a native of Tupelo, Mississippi, the histories of my
family and TVA are intertwined, just as they are for millions
of others all across the seven-State service area. As it has
been mentioned, my father vividly remembers being among the
thousands at Tupelo's Robin's Field in 1934 when President
Franklin Roosevelt ceremoniously turned the switch illuminating
the first electric light in the first city in the region to
contract with TVA for its power.
Senator Chafee. I think Roosevelt was sitting in an open
car. I can remember it clearly. The top was folded down and
people didn't fully realize at the time how crippled he was,
but he sat in the car the Senator from Tennessee was behind
him. He threw some kind of a switch and everything started.
Mr. McCullough. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, that is the way it
happened. My father remembers the speech the President
delivered after that event. It was very historic.
My home town of Tupelo became known as the first TVA city
and it is a designation that we still celebrate.
Just as Tupelo takes pride in its relationship with TVA, I
take pride in my role with the TVA family, for I identify with
TVA in its commitment to strong personal relationships, to
reliable and affordable electricity, and to dedicated public
service.
First, personal relationships. The TVA family prioritizes
not only its internal relationships with employees and
distributors, but also its external relationships with
customers and Congress itself. I understand TVA's valuing
personal relationships.
My faith in God is the anchor of my life. I am blessed with
a wonderful family whom I love, and they have been introduced
to you today. I treasure my friendships. Strong relationships
require faith and support to thrive. I believe in the wisdom
and feasibility of the TVA Act. If confirmed, I pledge to honor
its principles of environmental stewardship, power generation,
and development to serve the public interest. I respect TVA's
relationships with you and your colleagues, and I will seek to
fortify those relationships by listening to you and learning
from you.
Second, electric power generation. TVA has a great product:
reliable electric power generated, sold, and delivered by
talented people to the consumer at the lowest feasible cost.
Two-thirds of my professional life has been spent in private
business. I know that the essence of business is producing,
selling, and delivering a product which will meet the
customers' needs. I do not have all the answers to the complex
and critical issues facing the industry today, but I will work
with you, as TVA's owners, toward ensuring a strong TVA for the
next century.
Third, public service. The heart of TVA is public service.
Certain obligations accompany this role, including
accountability, a basic, but easily forgotten tenet of
leadership.
As mayor of Tupelo and as a member of the Appalachian
Regional Commission and the Community Development Foundation, I
have learned how TVA's development projects have improved our
region so that people, through their own initiative and
industry, can attain a better quality of life. From personal
relationships that serve the public interest to the business of
electric power, to a commitment to public service, I am here
with optimism and enthusiasm to serve.
I agree with one of Mississippi's most revered statesmen,
the late Senator John C. Stennis, when he said, ``Opportunity
will never chase you around the block. Opportunity will never
meet you on the street and force itself upon you. But
opportunity is there for those who are willing and able to meet
it halfway.''
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, members of the
Senate, I am willing to serve as a director on the TVA Board.
And if you deem me able, we will go to work to make good things
happen. It would be an honor for me to join Skila Harris and
Chairman Crowell on the Board.
Thank you for your consideration.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Mayor McCullough.
Ms. Harris?
STATEMENT OF SKILA HARRIS, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE
APPOINTED AS MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY
Ms. Harris. Let me begin by thanking Senator Thompson for
taking time to be here this afternoon and for his generous
introduction.
I also want to express my appreciation to you, Mr.
Chairman, and the other members, for this opportunity to appear
before you.
In preparing for this hearing, I have though about your
constitutional responsibility to judge the merit of nominees. I
appreciate and respect the seriousness with which you carry out
that responsibility. I can assure you that, if confirmed, my
service as a TVA director will be undertaken with the same
devotion to my statutory responsibilities. I will be a full-
time director committed to making judgments and taking actions
consistent with accountable management, fiscal responsibility,
smart planning, and conscientious stewardship of natural
resources, all in service to the Tennessee Valley.
I want to express my deep appreciation to the President and
the Vice President for the opportunity they have given me to
serve. This nomination is an honor for me and my family. My
late father, Skiles Browning Harris, and my mother, Dorothy
Harris--who is in Bowling Green beaming her support to me as
well as my brother--my husband, Fred Graham, and my sister,
Linda Harris, are both here in the audience.
All my entire family was born in the Tennessee Valley. My
parents were born before TVA brought power to that region. I
was raised on the vivid hardship stories of what life was like
in the valley before electricity. However, the passage of time
and my work in the energy business has added reality to those
reminiscings that I was raised on.
I recognize the challenges facing TVA in many areas, but
especially those posed by the emerging era of electric
competition. In fact, I served as staff director--as was
mentioned--of the Department of Energy's Tennessee Valley
Electric System Advisory Committee. The committee included
representatives from diverse groups who shared a common and
sometimes contentious interest in TVA's future in a competitive
environment.
I think the inclusive approach used during this process is
a good model for TVA. Decisions made by TVA impact the lives of
nearly 8 million citizens in the service area. It is important
for TVA to understand that the citizens understand what TVA is
doing and TVA needs to understand the interests and concerns of
the citizen.
I see TVA as a corporate public servant dedicated to public
good. In making the transition to a competitive market, the TVA
Board has an obligation to make sure that the benefits of
competition accrue to the citizens of the valley and that they
have a safe, reliable, and environmentally sound source of
electricity to sustain the economic health of the region and
the quality of their lives.
The Board must also fulfill its responsibilities to manage
the resources of Tennessee River Valley in a way that provides
for flood prevention, year-round navigation, protection of
public health, the environment, and recreational uses. The
philosophy of the TVA Act dictates a fundamental balance across
crucial resource management decisions.
Just as the challenges facing Congress today are different
than those it faced at its beginning, the issues before TVA
today are different and perhaps more complex than they were in
the 1930's. The mission, however, is the same: to serve the
region and the Nation for the greater public good. I hope to
have the opportunity to work along with Chairman Crowell and
Mayor McCullough as TVA continues to carry out its mission and
meet today's new challenges.
Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
Senator Lautenberg, do you have a statement you would like
to make?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. I will try to be very brief, Mr.
Chairman.
I did want to welcome Dr. Poje to this discussion and I
congratulate the other two nominees for TVA. It was an
excellent presentation.
I just want to say that during his tenure on the Chemical
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Dr. Poje has focused
especially on reducing risks of accidents associated with the
Y2K computer problems. He has convened an expert workshop on
Y2K and chemical safety and participated in lots of the forums
involving leaders from industry, insurance companies,
regulatory agencies, and others. He has also worked with the
Inter-Governmental Forum on Chemical Safety and Organization
for the OECD to promote global remediation and contingency
planning around Y2K problems. He has also been a board member
on the scene of two of the Board's chemical accident
investigations.
As one of the original two board members, I appreciate the
work through the years it has taken to create this Federal
agency from scratch.
Mr. Chairman, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board has done a good job and they are finally getting some
momentum because they finally got funding. It is hard to have
an agency or board without any money.
The thing is moving and I am pleased to recommend Dr. Poje
and hope that his confirmation will take place expediently.
Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
We will now hear from Dr. Poje.
STATEMENT OF GERALD V. POJE, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE
REAPPOINTED AS MEMBER OF THE CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD
INVESTIGATION BOARD
Mr. Poje. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the committee. Thank you very much, Senator
Lautenberg, for that introduction.
I come here requesting your confirmation for my nomination
to serve a full 5-year term on the Chemical Safety Board. Our
board is an independent Federal agency with the important
mission of ensuring the safety of workers and the public by
preventing industrial accidents. We are not an enforcement or
regulatory body, but a scientific investigatory organization.
Beyond the investigation of incidents, the Board is charged
with the conduct of safety research. Additionally, the Board
can advise on actions that can be taken to improve safety, and
we are asked to recommend regulatory actions to public
agencies, such as the USEPA and OSHA.
I am a specialist in toxicology, one of the technical
qualifications specified for board membership in CSB's enabling
legislation. I received my doctoral degree from New York
University and then conducted research and developed curricula
in toxicology and environmental sciences as a professor on the
faculty of Miami University in Ohio.
Prior to joining the Chemical Safety Board, I directed
international programs in public health for the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, serving as senior
adviser to the director of NIEHS and the National Toxicology
Program.
A primary function of the Chemical Safety Board is to
investigate significant chemical incidents for the purposes of
preventing their recurrence. I have worked closely with fellow
board members and senior staff to complete three investigative
reports: the Sierra chemical explosion involving a
manufacturing institution for explosives, the nitrogen
asphyxiation incident at Union Carbide, and the Herrig Brothers
BLEVE, a boiling liquid explosive vapor explosion.
In March 1998 I served as the board member in Louisiana at
the Sonat Exploration explosion and fire that claimed four
lives. That investigation is nearing completion.
I also served as the lead board member on the investigative
team examining the Tosco Refinery incident that killed four
workers and seriously injured a fifth worker earlier this year.
Our board has just completed a board of inquiry and public
hearing in Martinez, California regarding that incident. We are
nearing the end of a 30-day open request for additional
evidence, a procedure that occurs as a prelude to completion of
investigations.
While the Board seeks to promote prevention through the
primary mechanism of an incident investigation, the Agency is
also directed to conduct prevention research toward the same
purpose. I have worked with senior staff and organized a major
meeting earlier in 1998, the first major multistakeholder
meeting we have had as a board on the issue of chemical
accident prevention research.
Since its inception, I have overseen the Board's efforts on
reducing the risk of incidents associated with the Y2K computer
problems. The Y2K problem is significant in the chemical
manufacturing and handling sector, posing unique risk to
business continuity and to worker and public health and
safety--sometimes out of proportion to the size and staffing of
the businesses.
Many facilities have internal and external dependencies on
automated equipment. In the past week, leading chemical
manufacturers in Charleston, West Virginia--including Rhone-
Poulenc, DuPont and Monsanto Co.--announced plans to
temporarily halt operations on New Year's Eve as a precaution
against accidents.
At the request of Senators Bennett and Dodd of the U.S.
Senate Special Committee on Y2K, our board convened an expert
workshop on chemical safety on this issue. This culminated in
the release of the Chemical Safety Board's first research
report and recommendations. As an outgrowth of that endeavor, I
have testified twice in the U.S. Senate regarding chemical
safety and Y2K, the first request for our new board to provide
technical safety information to this legislative body.
The Board has worked with EPA and seven trade associations
of chemical handling industries to produce and distribute a
special guidance document for small and mid-sized enterprises
to prevent untoward incidents associated with the Y2K problem.
I have sent copies of our report to the Governors of the
States and territories requesting their attentiveness to this
problem. With the Senate's special committee, the Board
promoted a special focus on chemical safety at the President's
Council on Y2K. Tomorrow there will be a press briefing on that
effort.
In summary, our board has enormous promise for the health
and safety of Americans, as indicated by the impact over our
very brief, less than 2-year history. I believe that I have
made significant contributions the last 2 years, yet much more
work remains to be done over the next 5 years if the CSB is to
reach its full potential.
I would consider myself privileged and honored if this
committee concurs with the President's confidence in my
qualifications and allows me to become part of that endeavor.
Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
The two obligatory questions I will ask of all three of
you: Are you willing, at the request of any duly constituted
committee of Congress, to appear in front of it as a witness?
Mr. McCullough. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Harris. Yes, I am, sir.
Mr. Poje. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Do you know of any matters which you may or
may not have thus far disclosed which might place you in any
conflict of interest if you are confirmed in this position?
Mr. McCullough. No, sir.
Ms. Harris. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Poje. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Mayor McCullough, what is the population of
Tupelo?
Mr. McCullough. It is 36,000 people, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. And I presume your position as mayor is a
full-time job?
Mr. McCullough. It is, yes, sir.
Senator Chafee. If you are confirmed in this position as a
member of the TVA Board, will you continue as mayor?
Mr. McCullough. If the Senate confirms me, sir, upon taking
the oath of office to serve on the Board of TVA, I would submit
a letter resigning as mayor.
Senator Chafee. It is not clear to me whether being a
member of the Board is full-time or not, but I guess it is
pretty much a full-time job.
Mr. McCullough. Mr. Chairman, it is. And I would be willing
to devote full-time service.
Senator Chafee. How about you, Ms. Harris?
Ms. Harris. Yes, sir.
Senator Chafee. Last year, this committee learned at the
last minute of a proposal to refinance TVA's Federal Financing
Bank debt. That proposal was not subject to any hearing or
public scrutiny. It was not brought to the attention of this
committee, which has oversight of TVA. Instead, it was inserted
into the Omnibus Appropriation Bill and became law.
As a result of that proposal, TVA will save itself nearly
$1 billion over the next 10 years. The taxpayer, however, will
lose nearly $1 billion over the next 10 years.
I must say, as chairman of the committee with jurisdiction
over TVA, I would like some assurance from each of you that TVA
will bring its proposals to this committee for scrutiny. You
have both spent years in public service and understand the
importance of following the legislative procedure for the
benefit of the public. I hope you will agree that we should not
repeat the process of last October.
I would appreciate your assurances on that.
Mr. McCullough. Mr. Chairman, if I am confirmed, I would
make every effort to work with you and the members of this
committee and provide all information relevant to TVA in
advance.
Senator Chafee. Ms. Harris?
Ms. Harris. I certainly agree with that, sir. And I think
that this is an important commitment I would be willing to make
as a new board member.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Last year, the TVA chairman and the TVA inspector general
have engaged in a very public and damaging dispute over certain
credit card charges and who has the authority to do what. The
dispute was cataloged in a GAO report issued at the request of
Senator Thompson, who I think spoke for all of us when he said
that the matter had been ``badly mishandled''.
I want to ask both of you the following questions: If
confirmed, will you work to ensure the independence of TVA's
inspector general and support legislation to that end?
Mr. McCullough. Mr. Chairman, I support the independence of
the inspector general at TVA. Yes, sir.
Ms. Harris. Yes, sir. I think that is an important
component to accountability.
Senator Chafee. We have had some difficulty, as I
understand it, with some extravagances down there and $56,000
of private plane bills and $11,000 of hotel bills that have
come to light as a result of the GAO report. It seems to me
that we all must remember--as I think both of you said in your
opening statements--that this is a public service. As public
servants, I think all members of the Authority should act in
that fashion.
Mr. McCullough. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Dr. Poje, I understand there are some
60,000 accidental chemical releases in the United States.
Mr. Poje. That is one estimate that has been given, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Chafee. That seems so high, but nonetheless, how do
you prioritize which ones you are going to investigate?
Mr. Poje. That is a crucial issue, Mr. Chairman. The Board
has tackled that issue most recently. In fact, we have a team
organized that had a major meeting yesterday to discuss this
very important issue of how you select your highest priority
incidents for investigation.
We anticipate that we will have a draft proposal on that
matter available and subject to a stakeholder discussion. We
hope to bring in representatives from the industry, from labor
unions, from environmental organizations, and from regulatory
bodies to help us be guided by the best wisdom possible on
utilizing resources that are insufficient for investigating
every fatality or every serious incident. We want to choose the
ones that provide us with the greatest leverage potential for
preventing recurrence across the broadest spectrum of the
industry.
The incidents we have examined so far are leading us to the
conclusion that we have to have some stronger criteria for the
selection process.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
Senator Baucus?
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We all wish you well, obviously. But I must say that my
impression of TVA over the years is an entity that is a little
loose. It is not of the highest reputation. It is fraught with
personnel problems or management problems or expense problems.
It just does not seem to be a top-flight outfit. That is just
my impression.
I am wondering the degree to which any of you have the same
views. Are you aware of the problems that have been in the
press or the GAO reports, et cetera?
Ms. Harris. Certainly, as a person interested in the
Tennessee Valley, I am aware of what has been in the public
domain. But also I think what gets less attention is the record
of effectiveness that TVA has in the actual operation of its
power industry.
Obviously, there are avenues to improve almost anything.
But I think one of the things TVA needs to do is to make sure
that it is focused on its business, that it demonstrates that
it is accountable to the people in the Valley and the people of
the Nation. But I think one thing that generally is recognized
is that its actual operations are run well, that it has a good
safety record in recent years. I think that is the most
important area.
Senator Baucus. Why did you take this job? Is it something
you sought? Did somebody come to you? I am curious what
happened here.
Ms. Harris. Sir, I was born and raised in the Tennessee
Valley. I have spent most of my professional career in the
energy business. It is very seldom that you have an opportunity
to serve a region that you care very deeply about in a field
that you obviously have a great deal of interest in. It really
is an opportunity for me to marry those two interests in my
life. I actually think it is a wonderful opportunity and I am
very excited about it.
Senator Baucus. I can appreciate that, but given some of
the problems at TVA, what can you say to assure us--other than
words--that a year from now we are not going to hear about
these problems nearly as much as we have?
What are your goals? What do you hope to accomplish there?
Is there some reorganization scheme? Is there something you
have in mind to address TVA so that it is run even more
efficiently than it is--in your judgment--or in my judgment so
that it is run efficiently? Other than just noble words, what
can you point to?
Ms. Harris. I think that if you focus on the mission of the
Agency, if you attend to good, sound management practices, if
you are keen on fiscal accountability and responsibility, I
think it is just simple, basic, good business, and sound
judgment. I think that is an important contribution I can make
to the organization. I think it would go miles to help it.
Mr. McCullough. Senator, you raise a good point. In
response, I would point out that TVA 2 years ago initiated a
10-year financial improvement plan and it is already paying off
with some results. Part of that was congressional action to try
to work down the debt that we currently have. It seems to me
that that plan has put a focus on specific measurements and we
are more precisely measuring our performance in debt management
and reduction. At the same time, the plan is intended really to
lower the rates by 2007.
If we can be that precise in taking a look at the overall
management and operation of the Agency at every level, at
providing stewardship for the 652-mile Tennessee River, in our
outreach to the communities and economic and community
development--just increase the focus--coordinate that with a
more effective communication with you and with your colleagues
in the Congress. In recent months, I think it has been very
difficult for the Agency to communicate as effectively as we
might have if we had had a full board.
Chairman Crowell is one, and he has been stretched awfully
thin trying to direct this agency. I would do what I could to
more effectively communicate.
Senator Baucus. I do not know the answer to the next
question, but the question is: Do you know whether TVA has a
higher nuclear power debt reduction component as a percentage
of gross revenue or profits, compared with the private industry
average? Do you have any idea?
I ask the question because I know there are some nuclear
power amortization costs after you pay it off and it reminds me
of a similar problem in the northwest--huge costs--where the
officials decided to build these big nuclear power plants. The
huge cost is transferred to the taxpayer and the ratepayer.
Frankly, it is a bit irritating because this was a decision
by a public servant unaccountable to anybody, but who made
decisions that reeked havoc upon ratepayers in the region. TVA
is basically a public entity.
I am just wondering what the public power administration
ratio of nuclear power amortization costs to gross revenue or
profits is compared with the private sector average.
Mr. McCullough. Senator, I do not know a comparative ratio
between TVA's debt service to the nuclear part of our
generation compared to investor-owned utilities. But I would
point out that since 1959 TVA has not been supported with any
taxpayer dollars.
Senator Baucus. After $1 billion.
Mr. McCullough. The refinancing plan that Congress
approved--but other than that, there has not been any
congressional appropriation to fund the power generation part
of TVA's business.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that. But still the ratepayers
pay for the mistakes.
Mr. McCullough. You are correct, yes, sir.
Senator Baucus. I will stop here, but I encourage you--I
can tell you are very dedicated public servants. But I am
encouraging you to get to the bottom of this thing so that TVA
has a stellar reputation.
Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Senator Thompson?
Senator Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you again for allowing me to participate here
today.
Listening to my colleagues, I sometimes feel like the
father of a child who misbehaves. I know they need a good
spanking, but I hate to see anybody else jump on them.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thompson. I think that a couple of the points that
have been made need to be reiterated and maybe put in a little
bit of focus.
You are coming on the Board at a unique time and you are
going to be facing some unique challenges--challenges from the
outside in terms of deregulation and where TVA fits into all
this. Congressman Bryant is doing good work over on the House
side. He and his colleagues are coming up with ideas and
potential solutions--people who still think the taxpayers are
paying for TVA.
While I certainly am sympathetic with going through the
regular process, the problem with last year and the refinancing
of the FFB debt was that the people in the valley were going to
be the only people in America paying for flood control and
navigation on major waterways. The Federal Government does not
have any problem taking care of other parts of the country, but
they were going to step back away from that obligation down in
this part of the country and this part of the country alone.
So this refinancing is not something where the money is
going to the ratepayers' benefit down in the area, it is
basically going to maintain TVA support for the non-power
programs which have been zeroed out up here. And the land and
water stewardship programs in other parts of the country the
Federal Government seems to have no problem with.
But that is always going to be there. It has always been
there. The detractors--the people who have legitimate
concerns--but recently you have seen in addition to that more
criticism concerning the challenges from the inside because
there have been some self-inflicted wounds down there.
We have talked about them privately. When people constantly
read about consultants and public relations expenses and
foreign travel and entertainment and all that, you had better
well be sure that they can be justified. TVA in many respects
is a unique entity, but it has less oversight than almost any
other entity. Some call it a governmental entity, some call it
a quasi-governmental entity. The ratepayers really have no
control over it. The States certainly do not. The Federal
Government--especially now that we do not have the purse
strings of the non-power funding--seems to have less and less
oversight.
So it makes it even more important that board members are
very, very careful about their responsibilities. It really
increases your responsibilities, I think, because of that
situation.
The last controversy down there with respect to the
inspector general--in the scheme of things, maybe that was not
a tremendously important thing in a lot of people's eyes, but
it was unseemly and it added on to a lot of other questionable
things. The Board did not acquit itself well there at all.
I hope we have learned that this inspector general needs to
be appointed by the President, not the TVA Board, an inherent
conflict of interest there. We have introduced legislation to
that effect. Hopefully, we will get your support with regard to
that. The inspector general needs to be removable by the
President, not by his boss or the chairman of the TVA Board.
All those things are going on now and they are up in the
air at a time when you are coming on board. So it makes it even
more important that each of you exercise your own independent
judgments. You are both professional people. You are
accomplished in your own histories and your professional lives.
I know you have exercised your independence before.
This is no reflection on anyone else, but the tendency has
been in times past to have a strong chairman and a couple of
other people who wander in and vote but perhaps did not give it
full-time treatment. This is a full-time job.
I understand both of you realize and understand that it is
a full-time job.
Again, I agree with Mr. Crowell on many things and disagree
with him on some things. It is no reflection on him. But the
chairman has no authority that you do not have. He maybe able
to do a few ministerial things, but nothing that amounts to
anything--as I can see--under the Act.
Do you agree with that?
Mr. McCullough. Yes, sir.
Ms. Harris. Yes, sir.
Senator Thompson. You are there as full board members with
equal authority and you need to apply your own good judgment,
business, and common sense to that job.
With regard to the outside challenges, I would be
interested in your vision as to the future of TVA in a
deregulated environment. There seems to be a consensus that
there are big problems with Memphis and Knoxville.
Have you all had a chance to look at that? Where do you see
us going there? Where do we need to go with regard to this new
environment we are going into, the attempt to reach a consensus
and these people who seem to not be able to become a part of
that consensus?
Can each of you comment on that?
Mr. McCullough. Senator, I only have a broad understanding
of this title that is now in Congress. I would say that it
would be incumbent upon me to reach out to every distributor
throughout the 80,000 square miles and to see what resources
TVA can bring to bear to make those communities--whether
Memphis, Knoxville, a community in Kentucky, or Alabama, or
Mississippi--we must work with the people at home to create an
environment that would stimulate private capital investment,
job growth, and a higher quality of life.
I think that is our responsibility, to maximize the impact
that the resources of TVA can bring to a community, in addition
to having a power rate that is competitive in a world economy.
We do not just compete throughout America. We have to have
power rates that make our products and services competitive
with those in Europe or Asia.
So I think we need to take a really broad look at the
impact as far as power rates are concerned, but we must work
with the 159 distributors in those communities and bring all
the resources we can to bear to create successful communities
throughout the valley. If we are able to do that--and if we are
able to play our role in progress in those communities--it
seems to me that TVA will have a bright future in the next
century.
Ms. Harris. I have been pleased by the flexibility that TVA
has expressed for some of its contractual relationships with
the distributors. I think that the organization has already
recognized that in a competitive environment it is going to
have to have different types of relationships built on
different qualities than in the past.
I think in particular a contribution TVA can make in a
competitive environment is that it has a requirement to serve
everyone. We may need a model for how in a competitive
environment you do have universal service. In the airline
industry, we have seen that some communities lost airline
service when there was deregulation. We do not have that luxury
for electricity.
The American public has come to expect not only
electricity, but reliable, low-cost electricity. So I think
that TVA is going to be an excellent model for the rest of the
country to learn from about how you run a utility in an
environment that is competitive, but yet providing universal
service. I think that is another component. I think we must
look at our distributors and over them greater flexibility, but
I think it is a great opportunity for TVA to shine in a
competitive environment.
Senator Thompson. Both of you have obviously given that
substantial consideration. I think you are going to make
excellent additions to the Board. It is not only an opportunity
for TVA, but it is an opportunity for you to build a legacy
there to kind of turn the corner here and get this thing back
up to where it needs to be.
They are doing a lot of good things in a lot of good areas
down there. We have not sold the positive part of this very
well. I think both of you will be Ambassadors for the good
news, but also be willing to face up to the not-so-pleasant
news and do something about it.
I congratulate you and thank you.
Mr. McCullough. Thank you, Senator.
Ms. Harris. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Now it is my intention to have a vote on reporting out
these nominations as soon as reasonably possible, so we will
move along with considerable speed.
Mr. McCullough?
Mr. McCullough. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask for 1 minute
of personal privilege, my family has been presented, and Laura,
my wife, is also with us, and our sons Vance Hudson and Glenn
Thomas. I just wanted to recognize them.
Senator Chafee. We are delighted they are here. We are
very, very pleased. Certainly, they have a lot to be proud of
in their father and husband.
Mr. McCullough. Thank you, Mr. Chairman??
Senator Chafee. Thank you all very much.
That concludes this hearing. We will reconvene in a few
minutes to examine the issues on the TVA addressed in the bill
offered by Senator McConnell.
[Note: The proceedings of the hearing held by the Committee
on Environment and Public Works on bill S. 1323 are published
separately.]
[Whereupon, at 4:01 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State of
Oklahoma
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are having today's nomination
hearing for the TVA positions as well as Dr. Gerry Poje for the
Chemical Safety Board. Dr. Poje testified at my Subcommittee Hearing on
Y2K and I am glad he has been reappointed to the Board.
?I am also pleased we are having this hearing on the Tennessee
Valley Authority. TVA is a subject within my Subcommittee, and
unfortunately due to so many pressing issues we have been unable to
hold an Oversight hearing before now.
Like many in Congress, I believe the monopoly of the TVA is a
dinosaur in today's electric power business. Due to actions by State
legislatures and Congress, the electric marketplace is changing at a
rapid pace. While we may not have reached consensus on how best to
proceed, action by the States or Congress is going to lead toward
deregulation of the electric industry. With all other aspects of the
electric industry changing, I believe the time has come for TVA to
change as well.
In light of the deregulation debate, I believe TVA's government
protected monopoly has outlived it's usefulness. For too long, problems
at TVA have been ignored or swept under the carpet -although I am not
sure how it is possible to ignore a $28 billion dollar debt. The debt
refinancing plan which was attached to last year's Omnibus
Appropriations Act was wrong and should not have occurred. In bypassing
the committee of jurisdiction, it is estimated that it cost the
taxpayers over $1 billion dollars. These actions have simply become too
large for Congress or the American people to remain silent. Created
during the New Deal when only 15 percent of rural America enjoyed
electricity, it is time for the reign of this bloated bureaucracy to
come to an end. I believe the legislation before the committee today is
a step in the right direction and long overdue.
__________
Statement of Hon. John W. Warner, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia
Mr. Chairman, as the only member of the Environment and Public
Works Committee who can claim state interest in the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), I am pleased to support Ms. Skila Harris and Mayor
Glenn McCullough to the TVA Board of Directors.
TVA's importance to Virginia is unmistakable. Fifteen counties in
Southwestern Virginia make up a large portion of the Tennessee River
Watershed. Virginia is the home to the headwaters of five tributaries
of the Tennessee River. These include the Powell River, Clinch River,
North Folk Holston, South Fork Holston and Beaver Creek.
The first dam that TVA ever built, Norris Dam, continues to provide
flood control and recreation opportunities in Southwestern Virginia.
Both the Clear Creek and Beaver Creek Dams are located in Washington
County, Virginia. Although neither produces hydropower, they are vital
to the community for both flood control and recreation.
TVA continues to serve Powell Valley Electric Cooperative with
wholesale power. Over 7000 consumers enjoy affordable rates throughout
Lee and Scott counties.
In short, TVA is an important and valued presence in Virginia,
hence my interest in assuring quality men and women fill its Board of
Directors.
I am confident that Ms. Harris and Mayor McCullough will fight to
assure that Virginians as well as the 8 million customers being
serviced by TVA will continue to receive quality service at affordable
rates. I am pleased to support their nominations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
__________
Statement of Hon. Roger F. Wicker, U.S. Representative from Mississippi
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it is my honor to come
before you today to speak on behalf of one of my constituents, Mayor
Glenn McCullough of Tupelo, Mississippi, and in favor of his nomination
to the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. As
Chairman of the Congressional TVA Caucus, I believe Glenn McCullough
will make an excellent member of the Board and will have a dramatic and
positive influence on this agency.
To me, Glenn McCullough is many things--my friend, my hometown
Mayor, my neighbor. I have know Glenn, his wife Laura and his two sons,
all of whom are here today, for many years. He and I have worked
closely on a variety of issues and projects important to our community
and the State of Mississippi. His reputation is unblemished, and he is
held in the highest esteem first and foremost for his personal
characteristics, his impressive achievements, and ability to work with
people from all walks of life.
Glenn's experience, background, knowledge, and work ethic make him
uniquely qualified for this position. As the Mayor of Tupelo, and
formerly Mississippi's representative to the Appalachian Regional
Commission, he has been actively involved in both the State and Federal
legislative processes. In these capacities, Glenn has worked with TVA
and other Federal and State agencies in a bi-partisan manner which has
been both constructive and tremendously effective for this region of
the country. From his service with the Appalachian Regional Commission,
Glenn has a keen understanding of what is required to achieve results
in a multistate setting.
He understands the role of today's TVA, its past, and its future,
from a public policy perspective as Mayor of the City of Tupelo, which
holds the distinction of being the first city to contract with TVA to
supply electricity. Glenn recognizes the deep-seated relationship
between TVA and its wholesale distributors, whether they be
municipalities or electric power associations.
As a businessman, Glenn McCullough knows firsthand the positive
effect that affordable and reliable energy has on economic development,
job growth, and the subsequent benefits to the quality of life for a
region which has historically been underdeveloped.
The depth and breadth of Glenn's experience make him an ideal
candidate to lead TVA in a positive direction. His commitment and
dedication will be of invaluable service to the 8 million customers in
the seven-State TVA region. His willingness to listen and cooperate
with Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle will be
increasingly important as the debate over electricity restructuring
moves forward.
I wholeheartedly support the nomination of Glenn McCullough, Jr.,
to the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and
respectfully urge his swift approval.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address this
Committee today.
__________
Statement of Hon. Bill Frist, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee
Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to introduce Ms. Skila Harris to the
Environment and Public Works Committee as a nominee for Director of the
Tennessee Valley Authority. I have known Ms. Harris for a number of
years, and I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with her when she was
an assistant to both the Vice President and Mrs. Gore, as well as
during her tenure at the Department of Energy.
Mr. Chairman, as you well know, the Tennessee Valley Authority has
seen its fair share of controversy over the past several years.
Moreover, having only one director in place over the past several
months has placed a strain on TVA's management. I am sure that the
Committee is well aware of the very public dispute between the current
Chairman and the TVA Inspector General.
Adding two new directors to TVA's board is essential to TVA, and
will increase the accountability of TVA to the people of the Valley. In
addition, I personally believe that expanding the Board from three
full-time members to nine part-time members, and a full time Chief
Executive, will better allow the Board to address TVA's future, both in
terms of accountability and competitiveness.
As you well know, TVA faces serious problems and challenges
including over $26 billion in debt, an uncertain future in a
deregulated energy market, and continued challenges in land and water
management. As we look to address these problems and face the issues of
the future, operations which are in the best interest of the rate
payers must remain the highest priority.
TVA has met tremendous success over the past, and is viewed as more
than just a benevolent hand providing economic opportunity and security
to a once-depressed region. TVA is now an integral part of the region's
identity. In the minds of Tennesseans, TVA is credited with bringing
the region out of poverty, and opening the Tennessee River system to
commercial navigation.
TVA is at a crossroads. TVA needs, and the citizens of the Valley
deserve, the best possible leadership over the next 10 years.
__________
Statement of Glenn L. McCullough, Jr., Mayor, City of Tupelo,
Mississippi, Nominated by the President to be a Member of the Tennessee
Valley Authority
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor for me to
appear before you as a nominee for the Tennessee Valley Authority Board
of Directors.
I thank the President for this nomination. I am grateful for the
support of my sponsors, Mississippi Senior Senator Thad Cochran and
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott; and I have been fortunate to have
the constant encouragement and friendship of my Congressman and Chair
of TVA's Congressional Caucus, Roger Wicker, and Congressman Chip
Pickering.
As a native of Tupelo, Mississippi, the histories of my family and
of TVA are intertwined--just as they are for millions of others across
the seven State TVA service area. My father vividly remembers being
among the thousands present at Tupelo's Robin's Field in 1934 when
President Franklin Roosevelt ceremoniously turned the switch
illuminating the first electric light in the first city in the region
to contract with TVA for its power supply.
My hometown of Tupelo became known as the ``First TVA City,'' a
designation we still celebrate.
And just as Tupelo takes pride in its relationship with TVA, I take
pride in my role in the TVA family; for I identify with TVA in its
commitment to strong personal relationships; reliable, affordable
electricity; and dedicated public service.
first . . . . . personal relationships
The TVA family prioritizes not only its internal relationships with
employees and distributors, but also its external relationships with
customers and Congress itself. I understand TVA's valuing personal
relationships.
My faith in God is the anchor of my life. I am blessed with a
wonderful family whom I love (introductions).
I treasure my friendships. Strong relationships require faith and
support to thrive. I believe in the wisdom and feasibility of the TVA
Act. If confirmed, I pledge to honor its principles of environmental
stewardship, power generation, and development to serve the public
interest. I respect TVA's relationships with you and your colleagues,
and I will seek to fortify those relationships by listening to you and
learning from you.
second . . . electric power generation
TVA has a great product: Reliable electric power generated, sold,
and delivered by talented people to the consumer at the lowest feasible
cost.
Two-thirds of my professional life has been spent in private
business; and I know that the essence of business is producing,
selling, and delivering a product which will meet the customers' needs.
I don't have all the answers to the complex and critical issues facing
this industry; but I will work with you, as TVA's owners, towards
ensuring a strong TVA for the twenty-first century.
third . . . . . public service
The core of TVA is public service. Certain obligations accompany
this role, including accountability--a basic, but easily forgotten
tenet of leadership.
As Mayor of Tupelo and a member of the Appalachian Regional
Commission, I have learned how TVA's development projects have improved
our region so that people, through their own initiative and industry,
can attain a better quality of life.
From personal relationships that serve the public interest, to the
business of electric power, to a commitment to public service, I am
here with optimism and enthusiasm for this opportunity to serve.
I agree with one of Mississippi's most revered statesmen, the late
Senator John C. Stennis, when he said,
``Opportunity will never chase you around the block. Opportunity
will never meet you on the street and force itself upon you. But
opportunity is there for those who are willing and able to meet it
halfway.''
I am willing to serve as a Director on the TVA Board; and if you
deem me able, we will go to work to make good things happen.
It would be an honor for me to join fellow nominee, Skila Harris,
and Chairman Crowell on the board.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Responses of Glenn L. McCullough to Additional Questions from Senator
Inhofe
Question 1: Last year, my subcommittee dealt with the issue of
Ozone/Particulate Matter standards. At that time, TVA Chairman Craven
Crowell testified TVA compliance costs would be in the billions. TVA is
now close to bringing one nuclear facility on-line, yet still has
other--facilities in a dormant state. First, I would like to know what
you intend to do with these clean burning facilities in light of the
enormous costs facing TVA?
Response. To respond to this question, I have consulted with the
Tennessee Valley Authority. TVA has informed me that there are no
immediate plans to complete any nuclear facility or to restart Browns
Ferry Unit 1. TVA is conducting a study to determine the need for new
generation capacity to meet the projected demands of fine service area.
Part of this study, I am told, will focus on the feasibility of
bringing nuclear generation on line.
Obviously, this issue involves billions of dollars, immense
resources, as well as environmental considerations. If confirmed as a
director of TVA I will work with the committee to ensure that TVA's
response to this issue reflects prudent logic.
Question 2: Does TVA intend so sell off the entire existing nuclear
facilities and apply this to debt reduction?
Response. TVA's management has told me that there are no plans to
sell existing nuclear facilities and that the study presently underway
should provide information pertinent to the future of TVA's nuclear
units now idle.
Question 3: In light of the current Congressional debate over
nuclear waste and Yucca Mountain, I would like to hear your views of
this issue.
Response. If confirmed as a TVA Director, I would be responsible to
the people of the Tennessee Valley and to Congress for the cost
incurred since 1982 us contributions to the Nuclear Waste Fund, the
effect of TVA's spent final stage or the ratepayers, as well as proper
regard for the environment.
I understand that TVA currently maintains spent nuclear fuel pools
at three separate plant locations and that current finite storage
capability is a problem for every nuclear-owning utility in the nation.
My view is that the solution to this issue will be determined by
Congress, the Administration, and partner agencies by identifying the
location for long-term storage of fuel. I am advised that Yucca
Mountain is the current site under consideration.
If confirmed to the TVA Board, I pledge to work with the Congress
and. this committee toward progress or this issue.
Question 4: Last year, the TVA's debt was restructured through the
omnibus Appropriations Bills, bypassing this committee. I want both of
your assurances that in the future the TVA Board will work with this
commmittee.
Response. If confirmed to the TVA Board, I promise to do my best to
work closely with the Environment and Public Works Committee members as
you perform your responsibilities.
Question 5. Standard & Poor's credit rating agency recently stated
that ``were Congress to enact the Administrations restructuring bill,
it may be construed as indicative of diminished Congressional support
of SOYA debt and could have implications for TVA's rating.'' If
Congress were to let TVA outside the fence today, without
Congressionally mandated protections and artificial competitive
advantages, do you feel that TVA would survive in a competitive market?
Why or why not? If so, do you believe TVA should operate under the same
restrictions as other utilities?
Response. TVA exists today and its purpose for the future is to
meet the mission as specified in the TVA Act; TVA's debt is secured in
three (3) ways:
1. TVA's effectiveness in meeting its obligations under the TVA Act;
2. The economic viability and projected growth of the TVA service
area; and??
3. Ultimately, the TVA ratepayers as security for the debt.
I believe in any discussion of restructuring the net effect on
TVA's distributors, customers, consumers, the people and the
environment of the Tennessee Valley has to be a primary consideration.
Question 6. Do you support the appointment of an independent
Inspector General?
Response. Yes.
Question 7. What specific steps should be taken to bring
accountability to TVA management?
Response.
1. Confirm nominees to the board.
2. Evaluate and measure the performance of TVA's operations and
business activities.
3. Improve internal and external communication processes??
Thank you for your consideration. I am willing to serve on the TVA
Board because I desire to make a positive difference and if confirmed,
I look forward to working with you and the committee members toward
this end.
__________
Statement of Skila Harris, Nominated by the President to be a Member of
the Tennessee Valley Authority
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the other Members of the committee for
this opportunity to appear before you.
Preparing for this hearing, I have thought about your
Constitutional responsibility to judge the merits of nominees. I
appreciate and respect the seriousness with which you carry out that
responsibility. I can assure you that, if confirmed, my service as a
Director of the Tennessee Valley Authority will be undertaken with the
same seriousness and commitment to providing for the power needs of the
Tennessee Valley, to promoting economic development and to managing
environmental resources.
I will be a full time Director committed to making judgments and
taking actions consistent with accountable management, fiscal
responsibility, smart planning, and conscientious stewardship of
natural resources--all in service to the Tennessee Valley region.
I want to express my deep appreciation to the President and the
Vice President for the opportunity to serve they have given me. This
nomination is an honor for me and my family. My late Grandparents, Jim
and Myrtle Lester and Tessie and Minnie Harris and my late Father,
Skiles Browning Harris and my Mother, Dorothy Lester Harris--who is
beaming her support to me from Bowling Green--were born in the
Tennessee Valley before TVA brought electricity to the region. Also a
native of the Valley, I was raised on vivid, hardship stories about
life during those early days.
The passage of time and my work in the energy business have added
reality to those reminiscings. I recognize the challenges facing TVA in
many areas but especially those posed by the emerging era of electric
competition. In fact, I served as staff director of the Department of
Energy's Tennessee Valley Electric System Advisory Committee. The
committee included representatives from diverse groups who share a
common and sometimes contentious interest in TVA's future in a
competitive environment.
I think that the inclusive approach used during this process is a
good model for TVA. Decisions made by TVA impact the lives of the
nearly 8 million citizens in its service area; it is important for TVA
to understand their interests and concerns and for those citizens to
understand and support TVA's plans and decisions.
I see TVA as a corporate public servant, dedicated to the public
good. In making the transition to a competitive market, the TVA Board
has an obligation to make sure that the benefits of competition accrue
to the citizens of the Valley and that they have a safe, reliable, and
environmentally sound source of electricity to sustain the economic
health of the region and the quality of their lives.
The Board also must fulfill its responsibilities to manage the
resources of Tennessee River Valley in a way that provides for flood
prevention, year-round navigation, protection of public health and the
environment, and recreational uses. The philosophy of the TVA Act
dictates a fundamental balance across crucial resource management
decisions: balance in managing TVA's power program, TVA's dams and
reservoirs, and the cumulative impact on the environment and the
economy.
Just as the challenges facing Congress today are different from
those it faced in its first years, the issues before TVA today are
different and perhaps more complex than they were in the 1930's. The
mission, however, is the same--to serve the region and the nation--for
the greater public good.
I hope to have the opportunity to work along with Chairman Crowell
and Mayor McCullough, as TVA continues to carry out its mission and
meet today's new challenges.
Thank you very much.
______
Responses of Skila Harris to Additional Questions from Senator Chafee
Question 1. Last year, my subcommittee dealt with the issue of
Ozone/Particulate Matter standards. At that time, TVA Chairman Craven
Crowell testified TVA compliance costs would be in the billions. TVA is
now close to bringing one nuclear facility on-line, yet still has other
facilities in a dormant State. First, I would like to know what you
intend to do with these clean-burning facilities in light of the
enormous costs facing TVA?
Response. TVA's current 10-Year Plan does not envision completion
of any of TVA nuclear facilities or restart of the Browns Ferry Unit 1.
However, TVA is undertaking a major study of the need for new
generation facilities. The study will include analysis of the cost-
effectiveness of completing or restarting these nuclear units. If I am
confirmed, the results of this study and other business considerations
will influence my view of the best options for these facilities.
Question 2. Does TVA intend to sell off the existing nuclear
facilities and apply this to debt reduction?
Response. My understanding is that there are no plans to sell
existing nuclear facilities. However, as part of a study to assess new
generation needs, TVA is analyzing the cost-effectiveness of starting
up nuclear units currently not operating.
Question 3. In light of the current Congressional debate over
nuclear waste and Yucca Mountain, I would like to hear your views on
this issue.
Response. TVA operates five nuclear units located at three separate
plant locations in the Tennessee Valley--Browns Ferry, Sequoyah and
Watts Bar. In my briefings I learned that spent nuclear fuel from each
of these facilities is currently maintained in storage pools located
onsite.
TVA shares the same problem of every nuclear-owning utility in the
nation--onsite storage is finite. I have been told that since 1982, TVA
has continuously contributed to the Nuclear Waste Fund, which funds the
construction of a permanent repository for the nation's nuclear waste
at Yucca Mountain. Unless there is some technological breakthrough or
new scientific evidence suggests otherwise, it appears that Yucca
Mountain is the best option for permanent fuel storage.
Question 4. Last year, the TVA's debt was restructured through the
Omnibus??
Appropriations Bills, bypassing this Committee. I want both of your
assurances that in the future the TVA Board will work with this
Committee.
Response. As I testified during the confirmation hearing, I can
assure you that as a TVA Board member I will work closely with the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as it performs its
oversight responsibilities.
______
Responses of Skila Harris to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. Standard and Poor's credit rating recently stated that
``were Congress to enact the Administration's restructuring bill, it
may be construed as indicative of diminished Congressional support of
TVA debt and could have implications for TVA's rating.'' If Congress
were to let TVA outside the fence today, without Congressionally
mandated protections and artificial competitive advantages, do you feel
that TVA would survive in a competitive market? Why or why not? If so,
do you believe TVA should operate under the same restrictions as other
utilities?
Response. The issues raised by these questions are extremely
important and equally complicated. If I am confirmed, I will work to
develop the intimate understanding of TVA's operating and financial
inter-working and market dynamics needed to respond knowledgeably to
these questions. As I gain insight into the impact of different timing
and regulatory scenarios on TVA competitiveness, I will share with the
Committee my thoughts on these and other relevant issues.
Question 2. Do you support the appointment of an independent
Inspector General?
Response. I support greater objectivity and independence for TVA's
Of lice of Inspector General. Based on my experience in the Federal
Government, appointment by the President of the Inspector General
increases independence and objectivity. If confirmed, I will pursue and
support this and other steps to enhance accountability, strengthen
management, and encourage fiscal responsibility.
Question 3. What specific steps should be taken to bring greater
accountability to TVA management?
Response. I believe accountability and openness are closely linked.
If confirmed, I will encourage the Board and senior managers to find
innovative means to make more information available. The additional
scrutiny invited by greater openness will encourage accountability and
increase understanding of TVA and its missions.
__________
Statement of Gerald V. Poje, Nominated by the President to be a Member
of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee
for today's opportunity to appear before the Committee regarding my
nomination to serve a full 5-year term on the Chemical Safety Board. I
am Gerald V. Poje, Ph.D., one of four members currently serving on the
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). Nearly 5
years ago President Clinton nominated me to the Board, and the U.S.
Senate confirmed that nomination on October 7, 1994. The Board was not
funded until November 1997, and therefore I have served less than 2
years as a Board member.
The Chemical Safety Board holds enormous promise for the health and
safety of Americans as indicated by the impact it has had during its
very brief operating history. Yet, much more remains to be done over
the next 5 years before this new Federal agency reaches its full
potential. I would consider myself privileged and honored if this
Committee concurs with the President's confidence in my qualifications
and allows me to become part of that endeavor.
The Chemical Safety Board is an independent Federal agency with the
important mission of ensuring the safety of workers and the public by
preventing or minimizing the effects of industrial and commercial
chemical incidents. Congress modeled the CSB after the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which investigates aircraft and
other transportation accidents for the purpose of improving safety. The
CSB is not an enforcement or regulatory body. Like the NTSB, the CSB is
a scientific investigatory organization with responsibility for finding
ways to prevent or minimize the effects of chemical incidents at
commercial and industrial facilities. Beyond investigation of
incidents, the Board is charged with the conduct of safety research.
Additionally, the Board can advise Congress, industry, labor, and
others on actions that can be taken to improve safety, and we are asked
to recommend regulatory actions to public agencies such as the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Labor.
Qualifications
I am a specialist in toxicology one of the technical qualifications
specified for Board membership in CSB's enabling legislation. I
received my doctoral degree from New York University, and then
conducted research and developed curricula in toxicology and
environmental science as a professor on the faculty at Miami University
of Ohio. My research focused on the chronic health impacts of acute
chemical exposures on biological systems.
I have extensive knowledge of policies regarding the safe
management of chemical hazards. Prior to joining the Chemical Safety
Board, I directed international programs and public health for the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), serving as
senior adviser to the director of NIEHS and the National Toxicology
Program on disease prevention, health promotion, environmental justice,
and international environmental health research activities. I
coordinated minority health programs, and served on departmental and
Federal interagency task forces on environmental justice, migrant
health and Brownfields Redevelopment. In addition, I also served on
U.S. delegations to intergovernmental meetings on chemical safety. As a
U.S. delegate, I helped forge consensus on contentious issues, such as
endocrine disrupting substances and helped promote the development of
international information networks to enhance global understanding of
chemical hazards and their risks.
Prior to joining the Board, I testified before Congress on
pollution prevention policy, Clean Air Act legislation, chemical
accident prevention, and groundwater protection policies. I am a member
of the Collegium Ramazzini, an international society of distinguished
toxicological and safety experts, and a member of the American Public
Health Association. I serve as an adviser to the National Association
of City and (county Health Officials regarding community environmental
health assessments. I have lectured on chemical hazards and policies to
reduce their risks before community, labor, business, and government
audiences in North America, Latin America, Europe, and Asia.
I have also served as Vice President for Research at Green Seal
where I directed research investigations into the environmental impacts
of consumer products, evaluated life-cycle analyses, wrote criteria for
voluntary environmental standards, and organized and chaired public
hearings. As a senior scientist for the National Wildlife Federation, I
managed multiple projects that researched, developed technical reports,
and implemented activities regarding the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, groundwater protection, pesticide
risk reduction, and pollution prevention.
board accomplishments
I. Investigation Efforts
A primary function of the Chemical Safety Board is to investigate
significant chemical incidents for the purpose of preventing their
recurrence. I have worked closely with fellow board members and senior
technical staff to complete three investigative reports: the Sierra
Chemical Explosion, Nitrogen Asphyxiation incident at Union Carbide,
and the Herrig Brothers BLEVE incident. In March 1998, I served as the
Board member on scene near Pitkin, Louisiana at the Sonat Exploration
explosion and fire that claimed four lives. That investigation is
nearing completion.
I also serve as the lead Board member on the investigative team
examining the Tosco Refinery incident that killed four workers and
seriously injured a fifth worker in February of this year. Our Board
has just completed a Board of Inquiry and public hearing in Martinez,
CA regarding that incident. We are nearing the end of a thirty-day open
request for additional evidence, a procedure that occurs as a prelude
to completion of the investigation.
Two important challenges confront the Chemical Safety Board's
investigative efforts: first, the number of incidents demands that we
select only the most important incidents to investigate; second, the
unique nature of the work requires that we establish a specific
Chemical Safety Board protocol for conducting investigations.
Unfortunately, America experiences a greater number of deadly
chemical incidents than the Board is staffed or funded to investigate.
I have worked with senior staff and the lead Board Member who are
preparing a draft report on incident selection criteria. The CSB will
host a major roundtable discussion with our stakeholders on November 9,
1999 to finalize our selection procedures.
The CSB's investigation realm is unique. We are a non-regulatory,
scientific and technical Federal agency whose primary effort is to
promote prevention of incidents in the private sector. While conceived
in light of the National Transportation Board model, CSB lacks parallel
authority to conduct preliminary fact-finding by employing relevant
technical experts from among the key stakeholders. Other Federal
agencies have developed investigation protocols that are either
regulatory driven (i.e., OSHA and EPA) or are similar to self-
investigatory efforts in the private sector (i.e., DOE and DOD).
Neither model is appropriate for the CSB. Consequently, I have reviewed
major investigation protocols from the public and private sector to
find the best practices to employ in the CSB's protocol. The CSB Board
and staff will be preparing our own investigation protocol, based on
elements of these other protocols and on lessons from our own completed
and on-going Board investigations.
II. Research Efforts
While the Board seeks to promote prevention through the primary
mechanism of incident investigation, the agency is also directed to
conduct prevention research toward the same purpose. In May, 1998 I
worked with senior staff to organize and convene a Chemical Safety
Board meeting on Chemical Accident Prevention Research, as the first
multi-stakeholder meeting sponsored by the Board. I represent the
Chemical Safety Board on the White House Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources Subcommittee on Toxics and Risk: an activity that
seeks to harmonize Federal research efforts. In addition, I participate
in the Chemical Safety Program Assessment Project that seeks to set and
implement national goals for accident prevention though a public-
private partnership organized by the Mary Kay O'Connor Center for
Process Safety at Texas A&M University.
Since the Board's inception, I have overseen the Board's efforts on
reducing the risks of incidents associated with Year 2000 (Y2K)
computer problems. The Y2K Problem is significant in the chemical
manufacturing and handling sector, posing unique risks to business
continuity and worker and public health and safety, sometimes out of
proportion to the size and staffing of the business. According to the
U.S. EPA, 85 million Americans live, work, and play within a 5-mile
radius of 66,000 facilities that handle regulated amounts of high
hazard chemicals. Many of these facilities have internal and external
dependencies on automated equipment. In the past week leading chemical
manufacturers in Charleston, WV, including Rhone-Poulenc, DuPont,
Monsanto Co. and Ashland Chemical., announced plans to temporarily halt
operations New Year's Eve as a precaution against toxic accidents when
the calendar turns from 1999 to 2000.
At the request of Senators Bennett and Dodd of the U.S. Senate
Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, the CSB convened
an expert workshop on Y2K and Chemical Safety. As coordinator of this
effort, I involved leaders from industry, equipment vendors, insurance
companies, regulatory agencies, research agencies, universities, labor
organizations, environmental organizations, trade associations,
professional engineering associations, and health and safety
organizations. This culminated in the release of the CSB's first
research report and recommendations: The Year 2000 Issues: Technology
Problems and Industrial Chemical Safety, which included the following
findings: Large enterprises with sufficient awareness, leadership,
planning, financial and human resources are unlikely to experience
catastrophic failures and business continuity problems unless their
current progress is interrupted or there are massive failures of
utilities. The situation with small and mid-sized enterprises is
indeterminate, but efforts on the Y2K problem appears to be less than
appropriate based upon expert analysis. While the impact of the Risk
Management Plans should be positive, there are no special emphases or
even specific mention of Year 2000 technology hazards in either U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or Occupational Safety and Health
administration regulations regarding process safety
Federal agencies are aware of and involved in Year 2000 technology
and chemical safety issues. However, significant gaps exist, and there
do not appear to be specific plans to address these gaps.
As an outgrowth of this endeavor, I have testified twice in the
U.S. Senate regarding chemical safety and Y2K: the first requests for
the CSB to provide technical safety information to this legislative
body. The Board worked with the EPA and seven trade associations of
chemical handling industries to produce and distribute a special
guidance document for small and mid-sized enterprises. I transmitted
copies of our report to the Governors of States and territories
requesting their attentiveness to this problem. In conjunction with the
Senate Special Committee, the Board promoted the initiation of a
special focus on chemical safety at the President's Council on Y2K.
Most recently, I helped develop and promote a Y2K Awareness Training
module for the hazardous materials work force available through the
NIEHS.
In the international arena, I worked with the Intergovernmental
Forum on Chemical Safety, the World Health Organization's International
Programme on Chemical Safety, and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development to promote global awareness, remediation,
and contingency planning around Y2K problems. I continue to interact
with these organizations to improve preparedness in the chemical
sector.
Summary
In summary, the Chemical Safety Board has enormous promise for the
health and safety of Americans as indicated by the impact over our very
brief history. I believe that I have made significant contributions to
the Board over the last 2 years. Yet, much more work remains to be done
over the next 5 years if the CSB is to reach its full potential. I
would consider myself privileged and honored if this Committee concurs
with the President's confidence in my qualifications and allows me to
become part of that endeavor.