[Senate Hearing 109-1036]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-1036
NOMINATIONS OF MOLLY O'NEILL AND
DALE KLEIN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
THE NOMINATIONS OF MOLLY O'NEILL, TO BE AN ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND DALE KLEIN, TO BE A MEMBER OF
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
__________
MAY 17, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-278 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free(866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
Page
MAY 17, 2006
OPENING STATEMENTS
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 11
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas. 5
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 3
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 8
Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois...... 10
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 6
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 8
WITNESSES
Klein, Dale, nominated to be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission..................................................... 15
Committee questionnaire...................................... 59
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 57
Senator Jeffords......................................... 55
Senator Obama............................................ 57
Senator Voinovich........................................ 56
O'Neill, Molly, nominated to be an Assistant Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 13
Committee questionnaire...................................... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 25
Senator Obama............................................ 37
Senator Thune............................................ 36
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter, Mary Alice Baish, associate Washington affairs
representative, American Association of Law Libraries; Emily
Sheketoff, executive director, American Library Association,
Washington Office; Douglas Newcomb, CAE, chief policy officer,
Special Library Association.................................... 100
Review, Business Case for Information Services: EPA's Regional
Libraries and Centers, January 2004 I6085-102..................
NOMINATIONS OF MOLLY O'NEILL AND
DALE KLEIN
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
628, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James Inhofe (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Warner, Voinovich, Jeffords,
Carper, Clinton, Lautenberg, and Obama. Also present: Senator
Hutchison.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. We are going to go ahead. We have a policy
here that no other committee has, and that is we start on time.
I don't care even if you don't show up; we are going to start
without you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Today we will be conducting a hearing to
consider two highly qualified nominees: Molly O'Neill to be
Assistant Administrator at the EPA for Environmental
Information and Dr. Dale Klein to be a member of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Molly O'Neill comes before the committee
having served as the State Director of the National
Environmental Information Network for the Environmental Council
of States. She certainly understands what EPA's Office of
Information is all about, and she will be able to hit the
ground running.
I would like to applaud the EPA's recent efforts to find
ways to reduce the compliance burden associated with the Toxic
Releases Inventory, or the TRI. Last fall, the EPA proposed
allowing certain TRI reporters to use the shorter TRI form.
This move would save an estimated 165,000 hours of burden each
year, while retaining 99 percent of the current long form data
at the national level. This is the type of streamlining the
Agency should consider, and I encourage you, Molly, to do that.
Dale Klein has been nominated to be a member of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the President has announced his
intention to designate Dr. Klein as Chairman of the NRC. Dr.
Klein is currently assistant to the Secretary of Defense for
Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs. Dr. Klein
has significant experience in the nuclear world; he is a
tenured professor at the University of Texas, where he has
worked in its nuclear program for nearly 30 years, and has
served on the Texas Radiation Advisory Board.
He has been a regulator; he has been part of the regulated
community, where he oversaw the licensing of a university
nuclear reactor. I think that is very important; not just to
have the experience as a regulator, but also experience as a
regulated. I went through that myself for 30 years in the
private sector, and that is what drove me to Washington.
I have to say this, Dr. Klein.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. In 1998, as Chairman of the Nuclear
Subcommittee, I began a series of hearings. Prior to that time,
I was Chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air. We had not had
a hearing on the NRC for 12 years. I don't care what the
bureaucracy is, if you go without a hearing for a period of
time, it gets out of hand. We did that and they were very
cooperative, and we totally changed that and streamlined it and
had some very positive results.
We need to confirm the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when
the committee votes for Dr. Klein's confirmation. We also
include on the agenda both Commissioners Lyons and Jaczko. So
that will fill the committee, and that is what we want, to have
a full committee.
So I want to thank the nominees for coming.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
Today we will be conducting a hearing to consider two highly
qualified nominees: Molly O'Neill to be the Assistant Administrator at
EPA for Environmental Information, and Dr. Dale Klein to be a member of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Molly O'Neill comes before the committee having served as the State
Director of the National Environmental Information Network for the
Environmental Council of the States. She certainly understands what
EPA's Office of Information is all about and she will be able to hit
the ground running.
I would like to applaud the EPA's recent efforts to find ways to
reduce the compliance burden associated with the Toxic Release
Inventory, or TRI. Last fall, EPA proposed allowing certain TRI
reporters to use the shorter TRI Form. This move would save an
estimated 165,000 hours of burden each year while retaining 99 percent
of current long form data at a national level. This is the type of
streamlining the Agency should consider and I encourage you, Ms.
O'Neill, to continue to look for other areas where you can create
efficiencies and reduce burdens while maintaining environmental
protection.
Dale Klein has been nominated to be a member of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the President has announced his intention to
designate Dr. Klein as Chairman of the NRC. Dr. Klein is currently the
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and
Biological Defense Programs. Dr. Klein has significant experience in
the nuclear world. He is a tenured professor at the University of Texas
where he has worked in its nuclear program for nearly 30 years and has
served on the Texas Radiation Advisory Board. He has been a regulator;
he has been part of the regulated community where he oversaw the
licensing of a university nuclear reactor; and he has managed a large
Federal Government office with enormous responsibilities. He is the
perfect fit to be Chairman of the NRC.
In 1998, as Chairman of the Nuclear Subcommittee, I began a series
of oversight hearings of the NRC. The hearing I held in 1998 was the
first held by this committee in years. When I began conducting
oversight of the NRC, I did so with the goal of changing the
bureaucratic atmosphere at the NRC. By 1998, the NRC had become an
Agency of process, not results. If the Agency was to improve it had to
employ a more results-oriented approach--one that was risk-based and
science-based. I am pleased that in the last 8 years, we have seen
tremendous strides. This approach has made the NRC a lean and more
effective regulatory agency. I do want to take a moment to acknowledge
the service of the current Chairman of the NRC, Nils Diaz, as he has
been a driving force behind much of the positive changes at the Agency.
After nearly a decade of serving on the Commission, Chairman Diaz has
decided to step down. He will be missed and I want to publicly thank
him for his service. It will now be up to Dr. Klein to continue that
progress. If nuclear, and more specifically NEW nuclear, is going to
play an increasing role in this Nation's energy mix, the NRC must do
its job effectively. They need to continue the effort at risk-based
regulations, enforcement actions and programs. It is not only important
that we continue the progress on relicensing, we have to make sure that
the NRC can handle licenses for new plants. These are major challenges
facing the Commission.
We need a full and confirmed Nuclear Regulatory Commission. When
the committee votes on Dr. Klein's confirmation, we will also include
on that agenda both Commissioners Lyons and Jaczko.
Dr. Lyons and Dr. Jaczko are currently serving under recess
appointments that will expire at the end of this Congress. The NRC has
significant challenges ahead and we cannot ask for the Commission to
function up to our expectations if we do not have a full and confirmed
commission in place.
I want thank the nominees for being here today and for your
willingness to serve. It is my hope that we can have you confirmed in
the very near future.
Senator Inhofe. I recognize the Ranking Minority Member,
Senator Jeffords, for an opening statement. As soon as that is
completed, I think Senator Hutchison wants to be here for one
introduction of Dr. Klein and maybe some other introductions.
Senator Jeffords.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today we have two nominees before us. The first, Dale
Klein, has been nominated to serve as Commissioner of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The mission of the NRC is one of
the most vital functions carried out by the Federal Government.
I will be asking questions to ensure that the nominee shares my
view: the top priority for NRC is safety.
Mr. Klein has been nominated to join the NRC at a time
when, I believe, public confidence in the Commission needs to
be bolstered. Fortunately, and to the NRC's credit, we have not
had a serious nuclear accident at any of our Nation's nuclear
facilities. But problems on several plants, including a plant
in my home State of Vermont, have left the public wondering
about the effectiveness of our regulatory system. We are asking
the public to accept continued and expanded nuclear power
generation. To do that, we need to earn their confidence that
the NRC is ensuring that nuclear plants operate well and
safely. I will be looking for assurances from the nominee that
he is committed to this goal.
Ms. O'Neill, it will be your role to lead EPA's Office of
Environmental Information. This office is critical for the
Agency's mission and for helping the public understand and
improve environmental conditions where they live and work and
play.
I am deeply concerned, however, that the Bush
administration seems intent on undermining the public's right
to know about environmental conditions in their communities.
Last year, the Administration proposed to shield polluters by
throwing out the requirement that industry disclose toxic
releases every year. Instead, the Administration would have
them report toxic releases only every other year.
The EPA has also proposed to exempt the thousands of
facilities from reviewing how much toxic waste was released and
where it went. According to the EPA's own data, over 1,400
facilities that released cancer-causing materials in 2003 would
be able to hide their emissions under this proposal. It is
therefore not surprising that officials from 23 States
submitted comments in opposition to this proposal.
The Toxic Release Inventory Program has proven to be one of
the most successful environmental statutes. By shining a light
on toxic releases across the Nation, the volume of toxic
material released annually has fallen by an estimated 59
percent since the disclosure requirement went into effect in
1988. But now this Administration wants to dim that light.
Just this week we learned of a new assault on the public's
right to know. The Washington Post reported that funding cuts
under President Bush's fiscal year 2007 budget would force EPA
to close its network of regional libraries. These libraries
play an important role in informing the public, and their
disclosure would be another example of this Administration's
disturbing trend of blocking access to public information.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that this document, a 2004 EPA review
which points to the overwhelming cost benefits of the library
system, be placed into the record.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection, I expect that will be
done.
[The referenced document follows on page 85.]
Senator Jeffords. From my perspective, it is critical that
the head of the EPA's Office of Environmental Information be
committed to preserving the public's right to know about
environmental conditions in their communities.
I look forward to exploring your views on this issue and
learning, in particular, whether you support the
Administration's proposal.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from the
State of Vermont
Thank you Mr. Chairman, today we have two nominees before us. The
first, Dale Klein, has been nominated to serve as a Commissioner of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The mission of the NRC is one of
the most vital functions carried out by the Federal Government. I will
be asking questions to ensure that the nominee shares my view: the top
priority for the NRC is safety.
Mr. Klein has been nominated to join the NRC at a time when, I
believe, public confidence in the Commission needs to be bolstered.
Fortunately, and to the NRC's credit, we have not had a serious nuclear
accident at any of our Nation's nuclear facilities. But problems at
several plants, including a plant in my home State of Vermont, have
left the public wondering about the effectiveness of our regulatory
system.
We are asking the public to accept continued and expanded nuclear
power generation. To do that, we need to earn their confidence that the
NRC is ensuring that nuclear plants operate well and safely. I will be
looking for assurances from the nominee that he is committed to this
goal. Ms. O'Neill, it will be your role to lead EPA's Office of
Environmental Information. This office is critical for the Agency's
mission, and for helping the public understand and improve
environmental conditions where they live, work and play.
I am deeply concerned, however, that the Bush administration seems
intent on undermining the public's right to know about environmental
conditions in their community. Last year, the Administration proposed
to shield polluters by throwing out the requirement that industry
disclose toxic releases every year. Instead, the Administration would
have them report toxic releases only every other year. The EPA also
proposed to exempt thousands of facilities from revealing how much
toxic waste was released and where it went. According to EPA's own
data, over 1,400 facilities that released cancer-causing materials in
2003 would be able to hide their emissions under this proposal. It is
therefore not surprising that officials from 23 States submitted
comments in opposition to this proposal.
The Toxic Release Inventory Program has proven to be one of the
most successful environmental statutes. By shining a light on toxic
releases across the Nation, the volume of toxic material released
annually has fallen by an estimated 59 percent since the disclosure
requirement went into effect in 1988. But now, this Administration
wants to dim that light.
Just this week, we learned of a new assault on the public's right-
to-know. The Washington Post reported that funding cuts under
President's Bush fiscal year 2007 budget would force EPA to close its
network of regional libraries. These libraries play an important role
in informing the public, and their closure would be another example of
this Administration's disturbing trend of blocking access to public
information. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this document, a 2004 EPA review
which points to the overwhelming cost benefits of the library system,
be placed in the record. From my perspective, it is critical that the
head of EPA's Office of Environmental Information be committed to
preserving the public's right-to-know about environmental conditions in
their communities. I look forward to exploring your views on this issue
and learning, in particular, whether you support the Administration's
proposals.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Jeffords. We are looking
forward to the opening statements of our other Members, but,
with their permission, we will go now to a special introduction
that Senator Hutchison is going to make of Dr. Klein.
Senator Hutchison.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Jeffords, Senator Warner, Senator Voinovich,
Senator Lautenberg.
I am so pleased to be here because I am introducing a
personal friend who I think also has stellar qualifications for
the position of Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Before entering public service, Dr. Klein served as vice
chancellor for Special Engineering Programs at the University
of Texas System. He also was chairman and executive director of
the Amarillo National Research Center.
President Bush then selected him, in 2001, to act as
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical,
and Biological Defense Programs. His vast experience with
nuclear policy, coupled with his vision for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission will enable Dr. Klein to serve as a
valuable asset to our country. His qualifications, experience,
and integrity make him the very strongest candidate for this
position.
At a time when our Nation is at increasing risk from
nuclear threats and we also are trying to improve and develop a
nuclear program for energy sources for our country, he is the
perfect person, with his knowledge of nuclear policy, to try to
bring all of that to fruition.
He is joined today by his wife Rebecca Klein, a former
chairman of the Texas Public Utility Commission and a great
public servant in her own right. She has been an outstanding
public servant, as has Dr. Klein, and I so hope that you will
act expeditiously on his nomination. I know he will be a huge
asset for us.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. I know they
appreciate your presence here today. You may be excused if you
need to.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this nomination hearing.
Unfortunately, I am not able to stay because I am
introducing my good friend, Rob Portman, to the Homeland
Security and Government Affairs Committee for his nomination to
be Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I wish that
I could be here for this entire hearing, because it brings
together two subcommittees that I chair.
As chairman of the subcommittee that oversees Government
management in the Federal workforce, I want to make sure that
we have the right people with the right knowledge and skills at
the right place at the right time. I am especially concerned
about this for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission because I also
chair the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and
Nuclear Safety, which oversees the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
I welcome our nominees, Dr. Dale Klein for Chairman of the
NRC, and Ms. Molly O'Neill for Assistant Administrator of EPA's
Office of Environmental Information. I thank you both for your
willingness to serve and, even more importantly, I thank your
families for their sacrifices.
This is one of the most challenging times, Mr. Chairman,
for the NRC, as the industry is actively pursuing to build new
nuclear powerplants for the first time in decades. I just got
an update on that, and it looks like we have, at this stage of
the game, a possibility of 15 to 18 new applications coming in
for nuclear powerplants in this country, which is the first
time this has happened in my lifetime in terms of being here in
the Senate. Mr. Chairman, you know it wouldn't have happened
without the passage of the Energy bill last year.
At the same time, the Agency will have to deal with a wave
of retirements, as more than 30 percent of its workforce will
be eligible to retire. More than ever, the Commission needs
strong and able leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I met with Dr. Klein last week, and we had a
detailed discussion about his qualifications and vision for the
Commission. I believe that Dr. Klein has the right mix of
technical, policy, and management experience to serve as NRC's
chairman. His significant management experience at department
events, combined with the years he spent in academia, make him
uniquely qualified for the position.
I just want to mention for the record, Mr. Chairman, that
when he was over at DOD, he oversaw some 2,400 employees,
including 20 career SES managers, and a $6 billion budget. At
the NRC he will have a few more employees, 3,300, but a $760
million budget. As you know, Mr. Chairman, from your
longstanding interest in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
thing that we really need there is management, management,
management, and I really think that Dr. Klein is qualified to
get the job done there for us.
I am pleased with his stated commitment to instilling
regulatory stability at the NRC with a focus on milestones and
deliverables. I appreciate his balance to push the NRC as a
regulator that ensures the safe operation of the existing fleet
of nuclear plants without stifling the growth of nuclear power.
This committee has spent a considerable amount of time and
oversight in our legislation, and I don't want to see the
progress eroded, as it is vitally important for this country's
environmental, energy, and economic well-being.
Dr. Klein, I look forward to working with you as you take
on your challenges at the NRC. We held an NRC oversight hearing
in my subcommittee in March, and we are planning more before
the end of the year.
One last thought before I have to leave, Mr. Chairman. The
NRC currently has two recess-appointed Commissioners, Greg
Jaczko and Pete Lyons. With the challenges facing the
Commission, I am very concerned about the situation and believe
they should be confirmed as expeditiously as possible, along
with Dr. Klein. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that is your
position on this, and I urge the committee and Senate to act
quickly so that we have a full Commission and Dr. Klein can get
rolling.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from the
State of Ohio
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this very important nominations
hearing.
Unfortunately, I am not able to stay because I am introducing my
good friend, Rob Portman, to the Homeland Security and Government
Affairs Committee for his nomination to be Director of the Office of
Management and Budget.
I wish that I could be here for this entire hearing because it
brings together two subcommittees that I chair. As chair of the
subcommittee that oversees government management and the Federal
workforce, I want to make sure that we have the right people with the
right skills running our Nation's Agencies. I am especially concerned
about this for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission because I also chair
the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety which
oversees them.
I welcome our nominees--Ms. Molly O'Neill for Assistant
Administrator of EPA's Office of Environmental Information and Dr. Dale
Klein for Chairman of the NRC. I thank you both for your willingness to
serve, and even more importantly, I thank your families for their
sacrifices.
This is one of the most challenging times for the NRC as the
industry is actively pursuing to build new nuclear powerplants for the
first time in decades. At the same time, the Agency will have to deal
with a wave of retirements as more than 30 percent of its workforce
will be eligible to retire. More than ever, the Commission needs strong
and able leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I met with Dr. Klein last week and we had a detailed
discussion about his qualifications and vision for the Commission. I
believe that Dr. Klein has the right mix of technical, policy, and
management experience to serve as NRC's Chairman. His significant
management experience at the Department of Defense combined with the
years he has spent in academia makes him uniquely qualified for this
position.
I am pleased with his stated commitment to instilling regulatory
stability at the NRC with a focus on milestones and deliverables. I
appreciate his balanced approach toward the NRC as a regulator that
ensures the safe operation of the existing fleet of nuclear plants
without stifling the growth of nuclear power. This committee has spent
a considerable amount of time on oversight and on legislation, and I do
not want to see that progress eroded as it is vitally important for
this country's environmental, energy, and economic well-being.
Dr. Klein, I look forward to working with you as you take on these
challenges at the NRC. We held an NRC oversight hearing in my
subcommittee in March and are planning more before the end of this
year.
One last thought before I have to leave. The NRC currently has two
recess-appointed Commissioners--Greg Jaczko and Pete Lyons. With the
challenges facing the Commission, I am very concerned about this
situation and believe that they should be confirmed as expeditiously as
possible along with Dr. Klein. Mr. Chairman, I understand that this is
also your position. I urge this committee and the Senate to act quickly
so that we have a full Commission.
Again, I thank the witnesses for being here today and for their
desire to serve this country.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Voinovich.
We are joined by our senior member of this committee,
Senator Warner, who is also the Chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee.
Senator Warner.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
always heartening at these hearings to see and read the
dossiers of the selections by the President. In this instance
two very eminently well experienced, qualified individuals. I
would like to note that Ms. O'Neill is a graduate of Virginia
Tech, an outstanding institution in the Commonwealth of
Virginia. You have my vote.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. Mr. Klein, I had a very excellent meeting
with him, and I was reassured, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee
really wants to try and in no way marginalize safety, but see
what we can do to cut down the amount of time necessary to get
the permits and other regulatory conditions met by the private
sector as we, as a Nation, hopefully move more and more in the
direction of developing, for power purposes, our nuclear
energy. So I hope this nominee is able to work with his
colleagues and effect that.
We also talked about one of the means to do it whereby the
Commission pick three or four standard designs of a plant, well
known, well proven designs, certainly from the safety
perspective. But that might be a contributing factor to
reducing the amount of time, which now takes longer to get the
permits than to build the plant. So I am encouraged by this
nominee and his desire to help this Nation bring into greater
balance its energy resources such that nuclear makes an
increased contribution.
I thank the Chair and the Ranking Member.
Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you very much for that
excellent statement.
Senator Lautenberg, thank you for deferring to Senator
Warner. You are recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Always I know where my seniority
stands, Mr. Chairman. I was happy to defer to my colleague, my
esteemed colleague.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding this hearing and giving us
an opportunity to learn more about these two nominees. If
confirmed, they will have the opportunity to positively affect
the lives and the safety of millions of Americans.
First, regarding the NRC. Now, I support the use of nuclear
energy, which is a far different thought than I or many of us
had in years past. But the reality has come home, and we just
can't depend on the same old way of energizing our needs. So I
support the use of nuclear energy. It provides 54 percent of
New Jersey's electricity.
I also believe--and I had an opportunity to meet with Dr.
Klein yesterday. I think we had a meeting of the minds
generally. Because the safety factor must always come first,
and I think Dr. Klein shares that view--he will have a chance
to talk about it--and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
most important assignment must always be to protect the public
health and safety.
The NRC is a watchdog on the nuclear power industry. This
is not to suggest they have any evil, but we have seen what
happens when mistakes are made in nuclear power generation. We
just can't have a cheerleader, we have to have someone, we have
to have the inspector looking very carefully at what is going
on. The American people have concerns about nuclear energy, and
it has been decades since a new nuclear facility was approved
in our country. In order for nuclear power to remain a viable
energy option, the industry needs to be open and honest with
the public, and the NRC needs to ensure the views of the public
and the States are fully considered.
Now, one of the nuclear facilities in our country, in New
Jersey is Oyster Creek. It is the oldest operating nuclear
plant in the United States, and the plant owners want to renew
the operating license for 20 more years. As the NRC considers
that request, it should give the people and the government of
New Jersey a chance to air their views in public hearings on
the record. The NRC must always protect the interests of the
public, and it must protect whistleblowers who take the risk of
exposing potential safety hazards in nuclear plants, and the
risk is a job risk or an assignment risk. So we have to respect
those sources if they come to us.
Now, I look to Dr. Klein's statement on the remainder of
the hearing and learning more deeply about his views.
Our other nominee was chosen to head EPA's Office of
Environmental Information. That office has the critical
responsibility to implement the Toxic Release Inventory. The
TRI program requires industry facilities across the country to
report the amount of toxic chemicals that they store,
manufacture, transport chemicals, and what might be released
into the environment. This program is a cornerstone of our
Federal Right-to-Know Law and has helped to keep citizens aware
of the exposures and risks they face in their communities.
Now, last year, EPA proposed several changes to this
program that would reduce the amount of information available
to people, to States and first responders across this country.
Now, my home State of New Jersey, home to lots of chemical and
fueled processing facilities, we have opposition within our
State, as there is in 22 other States, at the reduction, the
notion that we would reduce the time cycles and the standards
for reporting.
New Jersey estimates that EPA's proposal would exempt more
than 100 facilities in our State from requirements to report
toxic chemical releases to the public, and these include
facilities that discharge carcinogens such as arsenic, styrene,
and chromium. EPA has also informed Congress that it intends to
require reporting of this information on a biannual basis, once
every 2 years, rather than annually, and that would make it
harder for citizens to know what is happening in their
communities.
Now, I helped create the TRI program in the aftermath of
the tragic release of a deadly chemical cloud in Bopal, India.
The public's right to know about chemicals stored and released
into their environment is too important to be gutted. So I
strongly oppose the changes that EPA and the Office of
Environmental Information have proposed to the Toxic Release
Inventory program, and I look forward to hearing the nominees'
views on this important topic.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding this meeting. I, like
Senator Warner, have a hearing on the next occupant of the OMB
director seat, so please excuse me. I will submit questions in
writing.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Obama.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Senator Obama. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
this hearing today. I would like to welcome the nominees and
their families.
As my colleagues know, the State of Illinois ranks No. 1 in
the number of nuclear powerplants; we have 11. Unfortunately,
in recent months, Illinois has also achieved the distinction of
being the first in the Nation to record a series of tritium
leaks at these plants. I had the opportunity to meet with Dr.
Klein and have a brief discussion about this. I know that the
scientific evidence suggests low levels of tritium don't pose a
significant public health hazard, but as I indicated to Dr.
Klein in our meeting, that is not the issue. The issue is
whether neighboring communities have a right to know about
these leaks, even if they don't pose a significant hazard.
My constituents who live near these plants just want timely
and complete information about any leaks so they can properly
evaluate the environment where their families live. As a parent
of two young daughters, I can certainly understand these
concerns. When there is a 3-million-gallon leak of tritiated
water, as occurred both in 1998 and 2000 in Will County, IL, I
don't think it is unreasonable to expect that the leak will be
made public right after it happens, not 7 years later.
So to address a serious problem, Mr. Chairman, I introduced
this Nuclear Release Notification Act in March, that is, Senate
bill 2348, to reform NRC notification requirements for
residents who live near nuclear plants. My bill is very simple,
it simply says that State and local officials should receive
prompt notification after any unplanned leaks.
I was pleased earlier this month that the nuclear industry
announced its members would voluntarily provide such
notification to State and local officials, and I welcome the
decision, but it begs the question if industry itself
understands and accepts the importance of greater openness and
transparency. I don't understand why we shouldn't make the
notification mandatory, and not just voluntary.
I know that NRC is conducting its own review on what
notification should be required, and that review is set to be
completed in September. My hope is that we will get a
commitment to adopt these mandatory disclosure proposals. I
hope that will be one of the recommendations in the report in
September.
Dr. Klein, I understand that you may not have been willing
to make this commitment yet. I would like to make this
commitment made soon, because as I indicated to you in our
meeting, even if it turns out that these releases are not
harmful, because of public perceptions, neighboring communities
can end up seeing their property values affected significantly;
they may not be able to sell their home. There is a lot of
misinformation floating around as a consequence of the
unwillingness to share this information.
Let me just finally end, Mr. Chairman, by echoing something
that my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, stated
with respect to Ms. O'Neill. I am somewhat concerned and
unclear as to why we have seen a proposal from the office that
you will be heading regarding TRI reporting. It is not clear to
me why we have proposed the changes that have been proposed
with respect to making the reporting less consistent and
reducing the amount of information that is collected in certain
areas.
Again, I am somebody who actually believes that nuclear
power is an important component in our overall energy
portfolio, but I think that, given past fears, the only way
that we are going to be able to move this industry forward is
to make sure that everybody is properly informed. So my hope is
that on both these fronts we make some progress, and I look
forward to working with the nominees in this regard.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Obama.
We have a vote that has just opened. What I would like to
do is hear the opening remarks of Senator Carper, and then we
will have a very short recess. It takes about 10 minutes to get
over there and back.
Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to see Dr. Klein. Thank you for visiting with
me yesterday and congratulations on your nomination.
I want to welcome Ms. O'Neill today to our hearing.
In my brief comments today, I want to focus on nuclear
energy. I believe that a renaissance is underway in nuclear
power. I welcome that. Today, some nine companies or groups of
companies have developed applications or are developing
applications for new nuclear powerplants with the intention of
filing those applications, I am told, with the NRC in the next
couple of years.
In addition, many of the current nuclear plants that we
already have--I think there is about 100 or so--have renewed
their licenses to continue to operate, and we expect the rest
of the current fleet to apply for renewals soon. Although the
Department of Energy continues to push back its time line, I
believe we can assume that in the not too distant future they
will apply for a license to operate a nuclear waste repository.
I believe that the future of the nuclear industry literally
begins and ends with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The
responsibility that the Commission shoulders is a big
responsibility and one that I believe that the Commission
manages, for the most part, quite well. As I said earlier, I am
a believer in nuclear power and nuclear energy, and I am
heartened by its resurgence, though I acknowledge that there
are serious concerns about the disposal of nuclear waste.
While there has been a lot of discussion about this nuclear
renaissance, I am concerned that our focus on potential new
plants may have resulted in our forgetting about some of our
current plants that are already in existence. The public trust
in nuclear power must be reassured, and that assurance must
start with our current fleet of plants. When I was Governor of
Delaware, I would oftentimes tell my staff and cabinet--in
fact, our motto was, ``if it isn't perfect, make it better.''
On balance I believe our existing nuclear powerplants have
performed well, but we all know they haven't been perfect.
Over the past year, we have been faced, as Senator Obama
says, with tritium leaks not only in Illinois, but in New
Jersey, across the river from Delaware, by unplanned shutdowns,
by lost fuel rods, and by a number of other problems. I believe
the NRC must work hard to make sure that every nuclear
powerplant in the United States strives every day for
perfection.
We are all aware that the coming years are going to require
a significant increase in our energy productions, hopefully a
cleaner energy than we have had in the past. I believe that
most of us are aware of the need for the United States to have
a broad portfolio of energy sources, and I believe nuclear must
maintain a prominent place in that portfolio.
To make sure that nuclear power fulfills its future
promise, the NRC must faithfully fulfill its current oversight
mission.
Dr. Klein, as I said to you yesterday, I think you have
been nominated for an important post, a very important post at
a very important time for our country. We look forward to
hearing your testimony following our vote, and that of Ms.
O'Neill. If you are confirmed, I certainly look forward to
working closely with you and your colleagues on the Commission.
Again, welcome and thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Carper.
We now have a 10-minute recess. Don't leave. We will be
right back.
Molly, when we get back, you are going to introduce Mama,
OK?
[Laughter.]
[Recess.]
Senator Inhofe. We will start with Dr. Klein's family
introduction, since I think he only has one, then we will get
to Molly, OK?
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Dr. Klein, do you have someone you would
like to share with us today?
Mr. Klein. I certainly do, Senator. As you know from the
military perspective, you have CICs, you know, commanders in
chief. My commander in chief of the house, my wife, Becky.
Senator Inhofe. Becky, stand up so we can see you. Nice to
have you here, Becky.
Molly?
Ms. O'Neill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a very large
contingent here, as you have witnessed.
Senator Inhofe. As you introduce them, I will ask them to
stand up until you finish your introductions.
Ms. O'Neill. Certainly.
Senator Inhofe. Start with mama.
Ms. O'Neill. My mother, Pam O'Neill, is present; my aunts
and uncles, Kate and Chuck Wall from Lynchburg, VA; Amelia Kriz
from Annapolis, MD; and my brother surprised me by flying in
last night with my oldest nephew, so Ted and Kieran O'Neill are
here from Seattle, WA. And I thank them for coming.
Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you all for coming in, and you
can be very, very proud of Ms. O'Neill today.
Why don't we go ahead and, before we start, let me just--is
Nils Diaz here in the audience? I thought he might be here, but
he is not. I was going to make--in fact, I will make a comment
about him. He has had 10 years of great service. The changes
that we advocated back when I mentioned that there had not been
a hearing in 12 years, he was primarily responsible for all of
the improvements that we have experienced. I want to pay
special tribute to him now for his 10 years of service. He has
decided to step down, and he has been a great asset, too, to
this committee and to the whole system that we are talking
about and addressing today.
Why don't we start, ladies first, and if you would start
with your opening statement. I think we will be joined by other
members coming back from voting. Unfortunately, we do have
other votes that are coming back, one of which is one of my
amendments, so we will have to kind of wade through this.
Ms. O'Neill.
STATEMENT OF MOLLY O'NEILL, NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. O'Neill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Jeffords, if he were here, I would extend my----
Senator Inhofe. He will be right here.
Ms. O'Neill [continuing]. And distinguished members of the
committee, it is both a privilege and honor to come before you
as President Bush's nominee to be the Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Environmental Information and Chief
Information Officer for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. I have environmental program and information technology
experience, and also a passion for ensuring environmental
decisions and policy are based on defensible data.
I come from a strong and supportive family. I would like to
take this opportunity to thank the members of my family, as
well as my friends and colleagues, for their continuing
support.
All of my professional experience is rooted in supporting
environmental protection. I began my career collecting
environmental samples, visited dozens of industry facilities
and reviewed countless analytical results. I spent 8 years
working with State environment department leaders to improve
their business to redesigning their business processes and
incorporating technology without compromising the integrity and
outcome of the programs.
Over the past 4 years, I served as the State Director of
the National Environmental Information Exchange Network. I know
my reputation on developing the partnerships in the States,
collaborating with EPA, and working with new technologies on
this project is one of the reasons I am before you today.
In my testimony today, I would like to share my thoughts on
managing information at the Federal and environmental levels.
The Federal Government is comprised of more than 100 agencies
and thousands of subagencies and programs. The complexity of
relationships with other levels of government, as well as the
private, non-profit, and university sectors, is daunting and
system communication barriers continue to exist.
Given these complexities, the challenge is how we use
information technology to better serve the government and the
American citizen. The President's Management Agenda, through
the advancement of the Federal Enterprise Architecture, is the
blueprint for how agencies can share data better in the future.
I believe that CIOs at all levels of government must align
investments to create system interoperability required to
provide the American public with government services,
especially in times of crises. The prospect of the Federal
Government providing leadership on interoperability is one of
the most profound actions it can take in this decade. It will
also take strong leadership and a willingness to share and
adopt best practices, tools, and systems between Agencies.
With respect to environmental data, I am fortunate that EPA
has built a strong foundation with three major programs,
namely, Environmental Indicators, the National Environmental
Information Exchange Network, and Enterprise Architecture.
The Assistant Administrator for the Office of Environmental
Information has the responsibility to ensure environmental data
is shareable and accessible, quality is not compromised,
systems are secure from today's threats, and data can be turned
into meaningful information. The foundation has been set and
great strides have been made. That said, for EPA to be more
responsive to the American public's questions on the
environment, progress needs to continue in all of these
programs I mentioned.
If confirmed, I will focus on improving data quality and
access to environmental information. It is my vision that
scientists will make decisions based on historical and real
time data. Government Agencies will have access to
environmental data in daily processes, as well as in times of
national emergencies.
I grew up part of a military family. My late father,
Lieutenant Colonel Vincent O'Neill, was a first generation
Irish American who graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and
served proudly for more than 20 years as an officer in the U.S.
Marine Corps. He was a highly decorated war hero, serving two
tours on the ground in combat in Vietnam. When I became an
adult, he shared his belief with me that every citizen should
perform some type of service to his country, whether it is
military, government, or public. Giving back makes this country
great. Even though I have worked in the private sector for most
of my career, I want you to know I believe in my father's
philosophy.
I am now ready, enthusiastic, and committed to this
opportunity to serve. I am confident that I can utilize my
experience and leadership skills to advance the Agency in
meeting the challenges and opportunities that lay ahead. If
confirmed, I intend to support the President's E-Government
agenda. I will also support Administrator Johnson in
accelerating the pace of environmental protection while
maintaining our Nation's economic competitiveness. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee,
Members of Congress, and Administrator Johnson to improve the
environment and to be responsive to information needs.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I would
be happy to take any questions.
Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you, Ms. O'Neill. Don't ever
apologize for having experience in the private sector; that is
one of the things I like about both nominees today, you have
had that experience. Thank you.
Dr. Klein.
STATEMENT OF DALE KLEIN, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Klein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Jeffords, and committee members, it is an honor to appear
before you today as President Bush's nominee for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
In addition to thanking my wife for coming today, I would
also like to thank Senator Hutchison for her introduction.
The current Commissioners have laid substantial groundwork
to help prepare the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the
challenges it faces in the coming years. Challenge is the
appropriate word. The next several years will be perhaps the
most significant in decades in terms of regulating the civilian
use of nuclear materials.
This challenge is all the more important when viewed
through the lens of what is happening in the energy arena. The
global energy supply can affect both the U.S. economy and U.S.
interests. Oil and natural gas prices are at levels never seen
before. There are forecasts that U.S. energy electric demand
will rise by 50 percent in just over two decades. Clearly,
nuclear energy has a role to play in meeting that demand.
The charge of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to
``license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of byproduct,
source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate
protection of the public health and safety, promote the common
sense and security, and protect the environment.''
In meeting that mission, regulatory stability is a crucial
element. The NRC must clearly define the requirements. It must
respond in a timely manner. I believe the groundwork laid by
the Commission will be the key to providing the necessary
regulatory stability.
The challenges ahead for the NRC are substantial: dealing
with the impending wave of applications for new reactors,
overseeing their construction, and simultaneously ensuring the
existing plants receive high standard of regulatory oversight
set by the NRC is extremely important. The already high
security of nuclear facilities must be maintained.
There is a challenge to the Agency of dealing with a
potential application by the Energy Department for a high level
waste repository. Both this committee and the Appropriations
Committee have been very supportive of the Commission.
Continued support will be essential to help ensure that the
licensing process moves smoothly. If confirmed, you have my
assurance I will work closely with you and members of this
committee on these issues.
Ensuring that the current fleet of commercial nuclear
powerplants receive the proper level of scrutiny during the
coming decade, as new plants are licensed and built, will
require a continued focus by the NRC on quality oversight. If
confirmed, I can assure you that I intend to see that the
lessons learned from the past are institutionalized in the NRC.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, while much of my
background is technical in nature, I am an experienced
administrator who believes in milestones and deliverables. My
goal is to make sound decisions, based on sound science and
sound public policy. If confirmed, I look forward to working
with this committee and the challenge of being an NRC
commissioner.
This concludes my statement, and I look forward to your
questions.
Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you. Thank you, Dr. Klein.
I will go ahead and start with questions. One of the
Senators in opening statements made the comment there are some
nine applications. I think there are actually more than that
right now. A sense of agreement that we seem to have on a
bipartisan basis is that we are not going to really resolve our
energy crisis in this country without the nuclear component. We
have said it many times and I know that has a lot of
popularity. It wasn't always the case, but it is now. It is
looked upon as being safe, clean, and abundant and inexpensive.
So speaking for myself, and I am sure others share this same
notion, we want to get there as quickly as possible.
You are stepping in at a time, and particularly in the
position you are going to be in, when there are going to be a
lot of applications to deal with, and I would like to get a
pretty good idea from you as to your timing. I know this is all
new to you right now, but maybe that is good. Maybe you can
look at it with less of a bureaucratic view. What kind of
timing do you think you could put on some of these
applications? Do you have some general ideas you can discuss
with us?
Mr. Klein. Well, Mr. Chairman, having been regulated in the
past as a licensee, I think it is very incumbent upon the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish clear requirements
and then to respond in a timely manner. One of the issues that
I think the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can do that will help
expedite difficulties in the past is to have standardized
processes, both the environmental site issues and also a
standardized plant process. With those two issues, I believe
that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can expedite license
applications with no compromise on safety and ensure public
confidence.
The current guidelines that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission staff has indicated is that if they have a complete
application, they believe they can review an application in 30
months. What I would like to see is once that process is
completed, I would like to look carefully at the decisions made
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to see what process
improvements can be made to make that on a more timely manner
with no compromise on safety.
Senator Inhofe. Like what?
Mr. Klein. I think one of the issues would be to look at a
concept called lean six sigma, where you look at lean issues to
make sure that all the processes that you do are risk-based;
that you look at the big issues; that you don't get caught up,
so to speak, down in the weeds; that you look at the important
issues, give clear guidance; and you have a trained staff that
will respond quickly and appropriately.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Mr. Klein. So I think looking at all the requirements is--
--
Senator Inhofe. Well, here is what I would like to do, not
here at this meeting, but after you get settled in, just
because you all know so much more about this than I do. I would
like to see kind of a little calendar of events on things and
reasonable expectations when different things can be done,
reviews and hearings and whatever goes into the process, so
that maybe we can visit, maybe even have a hearing on this as
to how we can expedite this. I think it is very important that
we do it as quickly as possible.
You commented on a risk-based approach, and I had a
question on that, but you covered that, I think, in your
opening statement.
Security at nuclear facilities is something that we have
always been concerned about here, and I would ask if you agree
that it is important that there be a clear distinction of
responsibility in protecting these facilities between the
licensee, State, local, law enforcement, and Federal
Government.
Mr. Klein. Mr. Chairman, security is very important at
nuclear plants because they are perceived to be a target. From
my current position at the Department of Defense, I am
responsible for the nuclear security of other nuclear assets
that the Government has, so we have a very comprehensive
program, and I believe that your comment is very appropriate.
There should be certain requirements that the utilities
have to provide. Once that level is exceeded, then the State
and also the local enforcements should pick up the
responsibility, and then finally the Federal Government. So it
has to be a shared responsibility where the private industry,
the local, State and Federal Governments are involved.
Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you. That is good. I had an
opportunity to visit with both of you in my office and most of
my questions were answered. You used a term. See, I have to
call you Molly. It sounds wrong, but I was telling your mama
that I have both a daughter and a granddaughter named Molly, so
it just makes me happy. I am the Chairman, so I can do that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Is that Senator Clinton?
Senator Clinton. Yes, sir. Some of the names----
[Laughter.]
Senator Clinton. I think that is good.
Senator Inhofe. I particularly liked one of the phrases you
used. You said decisions made on defensible data. One of the
things that bothers me more than anything else is all the--we
are inundated with flawed science in this committee, and it
comes from all directions. People with their own agenda, they
want to believe in some outcome, so they doctor up the science
so it agrees with their particular philosophy.
I would ask you, first of all, if you are in this position,
when you are confirmed, if you will make every effort to
analyze data, analyze information, and where it is not
accurate, to come forth and be very honest about that. Any
thoughts about that?
Ms. O'Neill. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. You may call me Molly
any time you want.
Senator Inhofe. All right. I appreciate that.
Ms. O'Neill. Data quality is a really important thing to
me, and if I am confirmed, that is one of the focus areas for
me. I know, having worked with scientific reports and working
with State environmental agencies, it is a real struggle, and
it is a struggle not unique to necessarily the environmental
business, per se, but for all science-based work.
Part of that is because we sort of have a history of paper
files and we have a history of moving data around a little bit
in different ways, and we really have had a lack of data
standards on the environmental side up until about 5 years ago,
when we started to really collaborate (the States and the EPA
and the tribes) on data standards. I will tell you that if I am
confirmed, that will be a focus, because as a scientist myself,
I struggle with it and I care about it.
Senator Inhofe. That is good. I appreciate that.
Oh, that is right, I forgot about the required questions. I
will ask each of you to respond so that we can get you
recorded.
Are you willing to appear at the request of any duly
constituted committee of Congress as a witness?
Mr. Klein. Yes.
Ms. O'Neill. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. Do you know of any matters which may or may
not have thus far been disclosed that might place you in any
conflict of interest if you are confirmed to this position?
Ms. O'Neill. No.
Mr. Klein. No.
Senator Inhofe. OK. Very good.
Senator Jeffords.
Senator Jeffords. Ms. O'Neill, in your testimony you stated
that ``If confirmed, I will focus on improving data quality and
access to environmental information.'' As you know, the EPA
recently proposed converting the annual toxic release corporate
disclosure requirement into an every other year report and
allowing thousands of facilities to withhold details of their
pollution volumes and waste management practices.
Based on what you know about EPA's Toxic Release Inventory
proposal, do you support this rule? In particular, would you
withdraw this proposal if confirmed?
Ms. O'Neill. Senator Jeffords, thank you for the question.
I believe right now the EPA is considering and engaging
stakeholders on the concept of alternate year reportings, but
it has not been proposed as a rule yet. I will tell you I am an
advocate for community right-to-know. I think the program has
been phenomenally successful and I think the data points to it.
It is a good program for a couple of reasons. One, it
provides data to the American citizens that they need and their
communities, and the second is it really holds industry
accountable and allows them to gauge how they are doing from a
pollution prevention perspective. So it is a very important
program.
So as EPA moves through the stakeholder involvement
process, I am sure that they will be obtaining comments on this
proposed option for changing the rule. I can tell you that, if
I am confirmed, I will work with you and this committee to
understand the issues here, engage a lot of stakeholders in
this, because this really is important before moving ahead. I
do believe it is important and I do believe in the Community
Right-to-Know Act, and I do believe it needs external
stakeholder, citizen, regions, and State input before moving
forward.
Senator Jeffords. Ms. O'Neill, I have expressed my concern
about the President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal, which
reduces funding for the EPA library network. Should this
proposal be enacted, what are your plans to preserve and ensure
access to the 25,000 maps, 3.5 million microfilm objects, and
the more than a half million books and reports currently housed
at the 28 libraries nationwide that will either close or
experience severe cutbacks?
Ms. O'Neill. Senator Jeffords, the first time I actually
became aware of this is when I read an article in the
Washington Post this week about the funding cut for the
libraries, and, to be honest with you, I really don't know,
from an EPA perspective, where the budget comes from in terms
of what compromise the entire universe of EPA libraries,
whether it is a portion here, a portion there, so it is hard
for me to comment on the actual specific funding cut per se.
But I will tell you that I have been a consumer of these
library services when I was in the private sector. I went to
them, I used the technical documents and maps. It was important
service.
So moving forward, the other key to this is the recognition
that we can take technical documents and make them available
online, and clearly, as a person with a technology background,
I support making things available online because it does
provide more access to those reports in many ways. Instead of
having one person or two people checking out those documents,
you could have 100 people looking at those documents at the
same time.
That said, there is an element to this that often
technologists forget, which is the human factor. Not everyone
has access to online capabilities, yet, they need access to the
reports. So if I am confirmed, I will look at this issue to
make sure that the average scientist, the average citizen who
needs access to these things, the average consultant out there
who needs to use these to make decisions will have those same
rights and abilities to look at that information.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Dr. Klein, some have argued that the NRC should limit
access to security information at powerplants across the board,
even when such information is not classified. Do you believe
the NRC should limit public disclosure of non-safeguarded
security information?
Mr. Klein. Senator Jeffords, I think we have to be careful
about what information we provide to the public and for
potential use by terrorists. But if it is not safeguarded, if
there is not a security issue and a safety issue, I believe the
policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be one of
openness.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. All right, well, thank you, Senator
Jeffords. You will have an opportunity to ask other questions.
Senator Clinton, if you would like to include an opening
statement at this time, feel free to do so.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
just submit a statement for the record, if that is appropriate.
I want to thank Dr. Klein and Ms. O'Neill for being here
today.
Dr. Klein, thank you for meeting with me yesterday. It was
one of those meetings on the run because I had to go vote, and
you were a great sport to kind of run down the hall with me and
jump in the elevator and go over to the Capitol.
As we discussed, Indian Point, the nuclear powerplant near
where I live in New York, has been a steady stream of mishaps
and bad news since September 11th. Just in the last year we
have had repeated failures of emergency sirens, leaks of
contaminated water from spent fuel pools, and other problems.
Yesterday we had a report about a worker onsite who had been
exposed to a radiation dose above regulatory limits.
Now, all of these issues erode public confidence in Indian
Point, in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and because of the
high profile of the plant, being so close to the major media
market in the world, it undermines confidence in nuclear power
in general. So I have consistently pushed the NRC and the plant
owner to do a better job.
You know, my first concern is obviously the safety and
peace of mind of my constituents. But I also believe that the
NRC needs to assert itself more at Indian Point and elsewhere
if we expect to be able to move forward with new nuclear plant
applications in our country, because I think, as the Chairman
pointed out, there are applications waiting; there are a number
of reasons why nuclear power is being seen as a more favorable
potential source of energy, because of climate change concerns,
primarily. But it is also clear that there are unresolved
safety, cost, waste, and proliferation issues, and we have to
get ahead of these because, otherwise, I think whatever
potential benefit there could be from nuclear power will be
derailed.
That is why I continue to believe that an independent
safety assessment along the lines that I have proposed in my
legislation with respect to Indian Point is in everybody's best
interests. That idea is also supported on a bipartisan basis by
a number of my House colleagues who represent districts in the
vicinity of Indian Point, as well as local elected officials,
again, both Democrats and Republicans.
This independent safety assessment would result in an
extremely thorough review of the plant's operations, as well as
its evacuation plans, which any person that looks at the
potential for evacuation from the area surrounding Indian Point
reaches the conclusion that there is just no way to do it. This
is hilly terrain, narrow roads, isolated areas that would be
difficult to evacuate.
So I was pleased when Chairman Diaz, sitting where you are,
Dr. Klein, made a commitment to me at the last EPW Committee
oversight hearing that the NRC would conduct an enhanced
inspection at Indian Point. But as I mentioned yesterday, the
information that I have received from the NRC thus far is
unsatisfactory. The March 28 letter I received from Chairman
Diaz was vague; it did not address the issue of emergency
preparedness in any effect. I wrote back on April 3d expressing
my dissatisfaction with the response and asking for more
details about what the NRC is in fact proposing to do. I am
still waiting for a reply.
So what I want from you today is a commitment to help
provide specific information about what the NRC has planned at
Indian Point, and a commitment to work with me and my
congressional colleagues and local officials whom I represent
to work out a plan for enhanced oversight that will address
legitimate public concerns about safety, emergency planning,
and evacuation. We really need to develop a plan that everyone
can support.
So, Dr. Klein, would you commit to working with me to
develop a plan for an assessment at Indian Point that covers
safety, emergency planning, and evacuation?
Mr. Klein. Well, Senator Clinton, I think you brought up
some very good points. I think it is very important for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to have credibility among the
general public. If confirmed, I will certainly work with you to
make sure that we address the needs and concerns that you have.
I think it is very important to realize that the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission should have those practices and policies
for all of their plants, including Indian Point. So I think it
is very important that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have
policies and procedures to work with all of our constituents,
and certainly those members of this committee that have
facilities in their State.
So what I often times tell people when issues come up,
there are usually three reasons: communication, communication,
and communication. So I intend to, if confirmed, meet with
members of this committee often, meet with all of the public in
areas for which nuclear plants are located to find out what
issues are on people's minds, and what we can do to ensure
their confidence that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is
doing their job.
Senator Clinton. I thank you very much for that response,
Dr. Klein.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is an important part of putting
together any approach to additional nuclear plant sightings. We
have to be sure that the NRC has the staff, has the expertise,
has the communication skills, the technical abilities that will
be necessary to really answer questions and build confidence in
this approach. So I appreciate Dr. Klein's answers and I look
forward to working with you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Clinton. If you have any
further questions--there are just three of us--feel free to
take some more time. Would you?
Senator Clinton. I would appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Go ahead.
Senator Clinton. Because I wanted also to associate myself
with the remarks of my colleagues earlier with regard to the
EPA's proposed changes to the Toxics Release Inventory, and I
appreciate your response, Ms. O'Neill. As I understand it, the
EPA is justifying this rule change on the grounds that it will
be, ``a burden reduction'' for some companies. But based upon
the numbers that the EPA sent in response to an information
request from this committee, it appears that the average cost
saved for businesses is about $2.32 a day for one part of the
rule and $2.83 for the second part.
So I think that if you are looking at any cost benefit
analysis, withholding, hiding you could even say, details of
thousands of pounds of chemicals, some of which we know are
carcinogens, from citizens really does undermine what has been
the trend over the last 30 years, which you very eloquently
supported, the right to know.
I feel strongly about this because I am convinced that we,
in the next decade, will turn our attention much more
aggressively to understanding the environmental connections
between illness and exposures. We obviously know that, you
know, exposure to lead leads to lead poisoning, which has
terrible impacts on children's IQ and their behavior and so
much else. We know that we can trace specific problems with
mercury. We know that.
But what we don't know is all of the impact of these
chemicals. We certainly don't know the impact of their
combinations. I have a particular interest in this because,
post-9/11, we are seeing the results of the exposures from
ground zero. When the World Trade Center and the nearby
buildings collapsed, they released into the atmosphere millions
and millions of tons of all kinds of contaminants, we know
asbestos, PCBs, everything you can imagine that was there.
I think we were really inadequate in our response. The EPA,
in my view, mislead my constituents by saying that the air was
safe, and we now have a very high percentage of firefighters,
police officers, emergency workers, construction workers and
others who are suffering from severe respirator distress of all
kinds. In fact, we just had recently an autopsy on a 34-year-
old New York City police detective who died and the New Jersey
coroner said it was related to the exposures that he
encountered.
So obviously, that is an acute example of what I am
concerned about. But every single day we are exposed to things.
We have no idea what they are doing to our chromosomal makeup,
what they are doing to our lungs. I mean, we just don't know.
So I am heartened by the fact that you agree the public
does have a right to know, and I hope that you will really take
a hard look at this step backwards, because we should be moving
forward and we should figure out a way that we can do that in
an appropriate risk-based analysis, cost-benefit analysis. But
let us not withdraw information or withhold and hide
information, because I think citizens deserve to have it and,
increasingly, researchers, physicians, public health officials,
others who are trying to sort out all these chronic diseases we
are suffering from need to have it as well.
So could I just one more time hear a commitment to working
with us to try to figure out what it is we are breathing and
drinking and being exposed to as we move forward?
Ms. O'Neill. Senator Clinton, you certainly have my
commitment, if I am confirmed, to sit down with you and talk to
you about these issues. I do think they are very important, and
I actually share your passion for linking environmental data to
health effects and indicators.
I personally have been working on some of those issues
through the National Environmental Information Exchange
Network, actually sharing environment data with health
departments at the State level so that we can look at these
trends for birth defects and things like that. So it is a
passion of mine as well. I really think that that is what
science is about, protecting the environment. It also is the
link to the human health aspect of it, and that is why access
to data is so important.
Senator Clinton. Well, I appreciate your passion, because
you know, I mean, it is something that I feel so strongly
about. You know, I think we need to get ahead of this because
you mentioned birth defects, and we don't collect the data in
the right way. We often collect health data and we look at it
geographically. We don't look at it occupationally, for
example.
We are starting to see some compelling evidence about some
of the linkages between everyday chemicals that people work
with and birth defects at a much higher than expected rate
among the children of those people in various professions and
occupations. So I really appreciate that and I look forward to
working with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Clinton.
Senator Jeffords, do you have any more questions for either
of the witnesses?
Senator Jeffords. Yes.
Dr. Klein, if you are confirmed, during your service, the
NRC may proceed to process a permit for the Yucca Mountain
Project. Doing so would require adding new expertise to the
Commission that it has not traditionally had. Will you share
with the committee your thoughts on that issue?
Mr. Klein. Well, Senator Jeffords, I think any time you
have a regulatory body like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
it is extremely important to have a very technically qualified
staff to be able to review and evaluate the issues both for
Yucca Mountain and for reactor safety. Obviously, from the
NRC's perspective, they have not received a license application
from the Department of Energy, but, if confirmed, I would hope
that the NRC would be able to respond to a timely application
with the right qualified individuals from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Ms. O'Neill, when EPA issued its State of the Environmental
Report in 2003, concerns by the White House prompted the EPA to
remove the section discussing the risks of global climate
change. As the President's nominee to head EPA's Office of
Environmental Information, how would you respond to an effort
by political leaders to alter data provided by EPA's
scientists?
Ms. O'Neill. Senator Jeffords, I appreciate the question. I
was not involved in developing the first State of the
Environment Report, as you might know, since I didn't work at
EPA, but I thought it was a very good first attempt. I really
can't comment on whether climate change or global warming was
taken out. I really wasn't involved in that, so I really don't
have a comment on it. But I can tell you, if I am confirmed as
the Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information, I
will support the Agency in making sure that we have the data
available to report out on indicators such as climate change.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. OK, well, thank you, Senator Jeffords.
Thank you, Molly and Dr. Klein, for the time that it has taken
for you to be here and having your family here. We appreciate
it very much. It has been an excellent hearing. I would say
this. Normally, we have a few more people show up, but we have
a lot of anxiety taking place on the floor right now, and I
think you understand that.
So we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Molly Ann O'Neill, Nominated to be Assistant
Administrator, Office of Environmental Information, Environmental
Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, and distinguished members of the
Committee. It is both a privilege and honor to come before you as
President Bush's nominee to be the Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Environmental Information and Chief Information Officer for
the United States Environmental Protection Agency. I have environmental
program and information technology experience and also a passion for
ensuring environmental decisions and policy are based on defensible
data.
I come from a strong and supportive family. I am proud to introduce
my mother, Pam O'Neill, and my aunts and uncles, Chuck and Kate Wall
and Carey and Amelia Kriz, who are here supporting me today. I would
also like to take this opportunity to thank the members of my family as
well as my friends and colleagues for their continuing support.
All of my professional experience is rooted in supporting
environmental protection. I began my career collecting environmental
samples, visited dozens of industrial facilities and reviewed countless
analytical results. I spent 8 years working with State environmental
department leaders to improve their business by redesigning their
business processes and incorporating technology without compromising
the integrity and outcome of the programs. Over the past 4 years, I
served as the State Director of the National Environmental Information
Exchange Network. I know my reputation on developing the partnerships
in the States, collaborating with EPA, and working with new
technologies on this project is one of the reasons I am before you
today.
In my testimony today, I would like to share my thoughts on
managing information at the Federal and environmental levels. The
Federal Government comprises more than 100 agencies and thousands of
subagencies and programs. The complexity of relationships with other
levels of government as well as the private, non-profit, and university
sectors is daunting and system communication barriers continue to
exist.
Given these complexities, the challenge is how we use information
technology to better serve the government and the American citizen. The
President's Management Agenda, through the advancement of the Federal
Enterprise Architecture, is the blueprint for how agencies can share
data better in the future. I believe that CIOs at all levels of
government must align investments to create system interoperability
required to provide the American public with government services,
especially in a crisis. The prospect of Federal Government providing
leadership on interoperability is one of the most profound actions it
can pursue in this decade. It will also take strong leadership and a
willingness to share and adopt best practices, tools, and systems
between Agencies.
With respect to environmental data management, I am fortunate that
EPA has built a strong foundation with three major programs, namely
Environmental Indicators, the National Environmental Information
Exchange Network, and Enterprise Architecture.
The Assistant Administrator for the Office of Environmental
Information has the responsibility to ensure environmental data is
sharable and accessible, quality is not compromised, systems are secure
from today's threats, and data can be turned into meaningful
information. The foundation has been set and great strides have been
made. That said, for EPA to be more responsive to the American public's
questions on the environment, progress needs to continue in all of the
programs I mentioned.
If confirmed, I will focus on improving data quality and access to
environmental information. It is my vision that scientists will make
decisions based on historical and real time data. And, Government
Agencies will have access to environmental data in daily processes as
well as in times of national emergencies.
I grew up part of a military family. My late father, Lt. Col.
Vincent O'Neill, was a first generation Irish American who graduated
from the U.S. Naval Academy and served proudly for more than 20 years
as an Officer in the United States Marine Corps. He was a highly
decorated war hero serving two tours on the ground in combat in
Vietnam. When I became an adult, he shared his belief with me that
every citizen should perform some type of service to his or her
country--whether it is military, government, or public. Giving back
makes this country great. Even though I have worked in the private
sector for most of my career, I believe in my father's philosophy.
I am now ready, enthusiastic and committed to this opportunity to
serve. I am confident that I can utilize my experience and leadership
skills to advance the Agency in meeting the challenges and
opportunities that lay ahead. If confirmed, I intend to support the
President's E-Government agenda, and I will support Administrator
Johnson in accelerating the pace of environmental protection while
maintaining our Nation's economic competitiveness. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with this Committee, Members of Congress, and
Administrator Johnson to improve the environment and to be responsive
to information needs.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am
happy to take any questions.
______
Responses by Molly O'Neill to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question 1. On January 13, 2006, EPA provided information that I
requested on the potential implications of EPA's proposed changes to
the Toxic Release Inventory program. EPA's responses were based on the
most current information available, the 2003 report year data. Data is
now available from the 2004 reporting year. As such please update EPA's
response to my November 10, 2005 letter, using the 2004 reporting year
data.
Response. Below you will find the information you requested based
on the 2004 TRI data that was not available when Ms. O'Neill responded
to the Committee's earlier questions on May 22, 2006.
Because the data are extensive, we are providing a very short
summary paragraph in answer to each of the four questions. (Please
note: the Excel file attached contains four separate ``sheets''--one
for each of the four questions posed that totals 500 pages in length.)
Assuming these analyses are intended to project the impacts of the
proposed rule issued on October 4, 2005, please be aware that EPA
cannot predict such impacts with absolute certainty because the
proposal did not affect the general 1-million-pound limit on
manufacture, process, or use of the chemical imposed for those who use
Form A. This information is not reported to EPA, and so we are unable
to predict whether a given facility meets the criterion. Further,
experience has shown that many facilities that are eligible for Form A
choose instead to use Form R for various reasons.
For ease of reference, please note: The enclosed CD-ROM labeled
Molly O'Neill Confirmation QFR, contains several data files. Within the
file titled ``Jeffords Update with 2004 TRI Data'' there are four
tables. Each table corresponds to one of the questions posed below.
``Table 1--Additional Facilities that could have used Form A if
proposed rule were in affect'' responds to Question 1. Table 2--
``Facilities that Reported Releases of TRI Chemicals Classified as
known or probable Carcinogens in IRIS or NTP 11th Report on
Carcinogens'' responds to Question 2. ``Table 3--Facilities Report of
at least one PBT chemical with total annual reportable quantities <500
lbs., but no releases'' responds to Question 3. Table 4--``500 pounds
but <5000 lbs. production related waste for 2004; greater than reported
for the same chemical for 2000'', responds to Question 4. [The CD-ROM
is retained in Committee's file.]
(1) Request: A state-by-state list of the facilities that reported
releases of at least one chemical between 500 and 4,999 pounds in
production-related waste in 2004, and their TRI releases, by chemical,
to each environmental medium.
The requested list on Table 1, under Jeffords Update with 2004 TRI
Data. For 2004, 6,284 facilities filed 11,707 Form R reports for
approximately 294 individual TRI chemicals or chemicals listed in TRI
chemical categories (e.g., chromium compounds) that reported >500
pounds, but 5,000 pounds of production-related waste.
(Note: Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) chemicals are
not included in the attached analysis for this request since the
proposed regulation requires that PBT chemicals have less than 500
pounds of production-related waste in addition to having zero releases
to change from Form R to Form A reports.)
(2) Request: Of the facilities listed in response to question 1, a
state-by-state list of any facilities that reported releases of
chemicals that are classified as known or probable (likely) carcinogens
in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System or the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program's Eleventh Report
on Carcinogens.
Of the 6,284 individual facilities and approximately 294 chemicals
identified under Request 1 above, 1,360 of these facilities (about 22
percent) filed a total of 1,517 Form R reports for 56 individual TRI
chemicals or chemicals belonging to a TRI chemical category that are
currently classified as known or probable (likely) carcinogens in
either EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database or the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology
Program's Eleventh Report on Carcinogens. The full results of the
analysis are presented in Table 2.
(3) Request: A state-by-state list of facilities that reported at
least one chemical of up to 500 pounds of persistent, bioaccumulative
production-related waste in 2004, and their TRI releases, by chemical,
to each environmental medium.
For 2004, 1,809 facilities (less than 9 percent of all facilities
that filed Form R reports in 2004) filed 2,394 Form R Reports for at
least one TRI-listed PBT chemical (other than dioxin or a dioxin-like
compound) for which there were no releases to air, land or water, and
for which quantities in production-related waste (i.e., quantities
recycled, used for energy recovery, or treated for destruction) were
500 pounds or less. The results of this analysis are presented in Table
3 of the attached file.
(Note: EPA analyzed only those reports that showed 0 pounds of
``releases and other disposal'' and 500 pounds or less of ``other waste
management''; i.e., quantities recycled, used for energy recovery, or
treated for destruction, in order to provide results consistent with
the regulatory proposal, which would require zero releases for PBT
chemical reports to be submitted on Form A rather than Form R. In
addition, the analysis does not include dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds because they are excluded from the changes in the proposed
rule.)
(4) Request: A state-by-state list of facilities that reported at
least one TRI-tracked chemical between 500 and 4,999 pounds in
production related waste in 2004 at greater quantities than the company
reported in the 2000 TRI. Please indicate the percentage increase.
Of the 23,675 individual facilities that filed at least one report
(Form R or Form A) to EPA for the 2004 reporting year, 2,284 (about 10
percent) reported quantities between 500 and 5,000 pounds in total
production related waste for at least one TRI-listed chemical that were
greater than the quantities that the same facilities reported for the
same chemicals for reporting year 2000. The detailed results, including
the percentage increase of these quantities, are presented in Table 4
of the attached file.
Total production related waste consists of quantities disposed of,
or otherwise released into the environment; recycled; used for energy
recovery; or treated for destruction. While these facilities reported
increases in total production related waste from 2000 to 2004, these
increases do not necessarily mean increases in environmental releases
of TRI chemicals--they could also be attributed to increases in
quantities recycled, used for energy recovery, or treated for
destruction.
(Note: The analysis does not include PBT chemicals, because PBT
chemicals would be ineligible to switch to Form A unless the report
showed zero pounds of releases and total production related waste was
less than 500 pounds.)
Question 2a. The Toxic Release Inventory program includes data on
toxic releases that are not related to production activities, such as
accidents, spills or periodic activities like maintenance or equipment
rebuilding (currently reported as ``non-production toxic waste''). Is
this correct?
Response. Yes, the TRI information includes quantities (from
Section 8.8 of the TRI Form R) that shows the quantity released to the
environment as a result of remedial actions, catastrophic events, or
one time events not associated with production processes.
Question 2b. If EPA's TRI proposal is promulgated as a final rule,
would industrial facilities still disclose the same amount of
information on releases of non-production waste?
Response. If EPA's proposal of October 4, 2005 is promulgated as a
final rule, facilities would continue to provide this information on
Form R. In that proposal, EPA specifically asked for comment on whether
the Section 8.8 amounts should count towards the amount used to
determine eligibility for Form A. The Agency is considering comments on
that issue and will make a decision as part of the final rule.
Question 2c. The Toxic Release Inventory program includes data on
toxic releases that are not related to production activities, such as
accidents, spills or periodic activities like maintenance or equipment
rebuilding (currently reported as ``non-production toxic waste'').
Please provide information regarding the number of facilities, by
state, that reported releases of non-production toxic waste and the
chemicals and volumes involved, using data from the most recent
reporting available (2004 data).
Response. Please find on the CD-ROM the document titled ``Jeffords
Facilities Reporting Non-Production Waste.'' [The CD-ROM is retained in
committee's file.]
Question 3. Aside from the TRI database, are there other
centralized, publicly accessible national databases that contain
information on annual toxic releases? If so, are these databases
comparable in scope and specificity? Please explain any differences.
Response. EPA maintains several data systems that contain some
information on releases of toxic chemicals. The various data systems
vary in terms of scope of chemicals covered and frequency of reporting.
EPA has provided a chart that summarizes the various systems and
their attributes:
Release and Transfer Databases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Database........................ Toxics Release National Emissions Permit Compliance Biennial Hazardous
Inventory (TRI). Inventory (NEI). System (PCS). Waste Report (BR)
Type of information............. Release and waste Release Release Waste generation
management data. (emissions) data. (discharge) data. and management
data
Media........................... Air, land, water.. Air............... Water............. Land (direct
measures only
available for
wastes disposed
of in landfills)
Reporting Frequency............. Annually.......... Every 3 years Varies (monthly, Biennially
(triennially). quarterly, or
annually).
Sources of data................. Facilities covered Various sources: Facilities Individual
under EPCRA mostly estimates regulated by generation sites
Section 313. from state and NPDES under the and TSDFs
local agencies; Clean Water Act. regulated under
TRI is one source. RCRA Sections
3002 and 3004
(large generators
only)
Basis for estimates............. Emissions factors, Emissions factors, Monitoring results Hazardous waste
mass balance mass balance are submitted by manifest forms
calculations, calculations, facilities to the and operating
engineering monitoring data. permitting records.
estimates, authority in
monitoring data. discharge
monitoring
reports.
Chemical coverage/thresholds.... 666 toxic All criteria air Pollutants of Reporting by
chemicals and pollutants (CAPS) three different ``wastestreams''
chemical and their types: five consisting of one
categories; precursors and conventional, 126 or more RCRA
Manufacturing: all hazardous air priority toxic hazardous waste
25,000 lbs./yr.; pollutants pollutants, and codes (565 waste
Processing: (HAPs); about 520 non-conventional codes in all,
25,000 lbs./yr.; chemical pollutants some
Otherwise use: compounds in all. (pollutants corresponding to
10,000 lbs./yr.; cannot always be chemicals, some
lower thresholds mapped to not)
for PBT chemicals. specific
chemicals).
Industry coverage............... Only certain SIC All major Any point source Large quantity
codes are industrial discharging a generators
covered, sources and pollutant into (LQGs)\1\ and
facilities must nonpoint sources. waters of the permitted
have >10 FTEs. United States. treatment,
storage and
disposal
facilities
(TSDFs)
Accessibility................... Available on the Data files are Available on the BR data files
Internet through available on Internet through available on
EPA's Envirofacts EPA's Emissions EPA's Envirofacts EPA's FTP
and TRI Explorer, Inventory Web and ECHO systems. Internet server;
as well as TOXNET page and can be National Biennial
and RTKNET. imported into any Reports available
database program. on EPA's
hazardous waste
pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LQGs: generate in any single calendar month >1000 kg of RCRA hazardous waste, >1 kg of acute hazardous waste, or
>100 kg of spill cleanup material contaminated with acute hazardous waste
Question 4. Please provide a list of each chemical included in the
TRI program that is also included in EPA's Hazardous Air Pollutant
program. Of these chemicals, please provide a list of any chemical that
EPA believes may be a concern to human health or the environment when
released by a facility at volumes under 5,000 pounds annually.
Response. Please find on the CD-ROM document titled ``Jeffords HAPS
that are TRI Chemicals.'' [The referenced document follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.005
Question 5. EPA has described its TRI proposal as a burden
reduction initiative. Yet small businesses that have less than 10
employees are already exempt from the TRI program. In addition,
reporting companies would still need to calculate their emissions to
determine if they qualify for the proposed exemption. Using EPA's
estimates provided on January 13, 2006, facilities eligible for this
burden reduction would save less than $2.50 a day. Isn't it worth the
cost of a slice of pizza to empower communities with information about
toxic releases in their neighborhood?
Response. I am a firm believer in the concept of making information
available to the public so that they can make informed decisions about
their daily lives where they live, work and play. I believe that right-
to-know and burden reduction are not mutually exclusive. If I am
confirmed by the Senate, I would be happy to work with the Senator and
the Committee to discuss this proposed action in greater detail.
Question 6a. There have been increasing complaints in recent years
that EPA is denying Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) fee waivers from
a range of public interest organizations that previously received such
fee waivers routinely. Has EPA's policy or implementation of FOIA fee
waivers changed in recent years?
Response. The Agency informs me that EPA has not changed its policy
concerning the granting of fee waivers. The Agency is following
established EPA FOIA regulations, the Department of Justice guidance on
fee waivers, the Office of Management and Budget requirements that
Federal Agencies should collect fees when appropriate, (52 Fed Reg.
1002 (March 27, 1987)) and applicable case law. EPA grants all fee
waivers that meet the criteria set out in these rules. In making fee
waiver determinations, a Federal Agency must look at the facts
presented by the requester with each individual request and make a
determination on a case-by-case basis.
EPA has informed me that it has made changes in the Agency's
process for reviewing fee waiver requests over the last several years.
First, all fee waiver decisions at headquarters are now made by the
National FOIA Staff and approved by the Agency FOIA Officer in
consultation with the U.S. Department of Justice, when appropriate. EPA
centralized its fee waiver decisions as a means of bringing more
consistency to the process. Second, the office with national
responsibility for FOIA responses and fee waivers is now focused on
consistently ensuring that each requestor provide sufficient
information to meet all the criteria for a fee waiver. As a result, fee
waiver decisions are made objectively by knowledgeable staff based
solely on information provided by the requester to justify the request
for a fee waiver.
Question 6b. There have been increasing complaints in recent years
that EPA is denying Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) fee waivers from
a range of public interest organizations that previously received such
fee waivers routinely. For each of the last 10 years, please provide a
breakdown of how many fee waiver requests were received and how many
were granted.
Response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Fee
Year\1\ (CY) Waiver Requests Grants Denials No fees assessed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006\2\......................... 152 47 4 101
2005............................ 580 199 187 194
2004............................ 511 335 162 14
2003............................ 647 159 475 13
2002............................ 433 149 278 6
2001............................ 626
2000............................ 595
1999............................ 598
1998............................ 576
1997............................ 480
1996............................ 448
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Prior to 2002, the system used to track Agency FOIA requests did not record final disposition of requests for
fee waivers.
\2\January 1, 2006--May 5, 2006.
Question 7. In response to my question on the future of the EPA
Library Network, you emphasized your belief in internet technology as a
means of sharing environmental information. In many rural parts of the
country, however, including my home State of Vermont, high-speed
internet access and basic computer technology is not always readily
available. If confirmed, what steps will you take to guarantee the
right of all Americans to access public information and to increase
opportunities to do so?
Response. I am committed to ensuring that all citizens have access
to public information from EPA. One way the public can access EPA
information is through their local or university libraries. I have been
informed by EPA that its Library plan will include a commitment to
working with local and university libraries to provide interlibrary
loan services to the public. If confirmed, I will work to help ensure
that local and university libraries have the information and tools
needed to search EPA's Online Library System for information sources
and the means to request information via interlibrary loans. In
addition, EPA can work with librarians to teach them how to navigate
the EPA Web site to find information electronically far their local
constituents.
Question 8a. Across the country, communities in the vicinity of the
high risk chemical facilities utilize Risk Management Plans mandated by
the Clean Air Act to prepare for and act in response to accidents and
other emergency situations. These plans must be publicly available
under law and are often obtained at regional EPA libraries.
Furthermore, a 2004 EPA report (EPA 260-R-04-001) concludes in the
first sentence of its Executive Summary, ``The Environmental Protection
Agency's network of regional libraries provides substantial value to
the Agency, its professional staff, stakeholders, and the public.
Calculated conservatively, the benefit-to-cost ratio for EPA library
services ranges between 2:1 and 5.7:1.''
If regional EPA libraries close or become otherwise unavailable to
supply these documents, what actions do you believe the Office of
Environmental Information should take in order to continue to uphold
community right-to-know protections under the Clean Air Act and other
environmental reporting statutes?
Response. I have been informed by EPA that only three Regions' Risk
Management Plan (RMP)/Offsite Consequence Analysis (OCA) reading rooms
are located in Regional library space that may be affected by the
library budget reduction. If I am confirmed, I will work with the
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response to ensure the rooms are relocated and the public continues to
have access to the information they need.
Question 8b. Please provide a copy of the Agency's short- and long-
term plans for closing EPA libraries and maintaining the same quality
of access through alternative means, including budget and
digitalization, storage and document dissemination. If the
aforementioned information does not currently exist, will you commit to
developing a long-term information services plan within the next 3
months for use by the Committee?
Response. In response to important trends, the Environmental
Protection Agency's budget request for FY 2007 includes a proposed $2
million reduction to OEI's library budget. Reductions will affect the
Headquarters and Regional libraries, which comprise 11 of the 26
libraries in the EPA library network. First, for the past several years
there have been fewer and fewer people physically visiting the EPA
libraries. Second, during this same period more and more researchers
are finding the resources the need on-line, and accessing them through
desktop services. Recognizing these trends, EPA has been looking at
ways to more efficiently and effectively deliver our library services.
The proposed solution is entirely consistent with the Agency's long-
standing policy of using new computer technology to provide services at
less expense, and our experience in creating ``enterprise solutions''
to meet other needs and reduce unnecessary redundancy. EPA commits to
provide information on the proposed solutions when available.
OEI has established a senior level Library Steering Committee
comprised of representatives from Headquarters offices and a subset of
the Assistant Regional Administrators to develop and oversee the
transition to a new model of library services.
One area in which EPA plans to achieve greater efficiencies in its
library program is through streamlining some of its physical library
collections and moving toward a new model that is focused on providing
delivery of library services electronically and leveraging services
offered by other libraries in the network, such as the EPA libraries in
Research Triangle Park, NC and Cincinnati, OH.
The physical library space at Headquarters and various other
locations may be closed and walk-in services reduced. Staff in
Headquarters and affected regions will be able to obtain services via
electronic means from other libraries in the EPA Network. EPA employees
will continue to have online access to key journals and publications
from their desktops, and they will have access to interlibrary loan and
reference/research services. In addition, the Online Library System
(OLS), the catalog of all the holdings in EPA's libraries, will
continue to be available to staff.
EPA is committed to providing the public with access to
environmental information. The public will also continue to have access
to the Online Library System (OLS), the catalog of all the holdings in
EPA's libraries, and will be able to obtain over 13,000 unique EPA
documents (titles) in electronic format through the EPA National
Environmental Publications Internet site and over 4,000 EPA titles in
hardcopy, free of charge, through the National Service Center for
Environmental Publications (NSCEP). In addition, the public will
continue to be able to access EPA publications via interlibrary loan by
working with a requesting library.
The goal of the EPA's plan is to ensure a smooth transition to a
new model of library services.
Question 9a. A January 2004 EPA report entitled, ``The Business
Case for Information Services'' notes, ``The Agency is shifting away
from producing printed materials, yet lacks a controlled repository of
either paper or electronic documents.''
In your opinion, what steps should the Agency take to safeguard
documents and other materials for future use, both paper and
electronic, especially those which are unique?
Response. I have been informed by EPA that its library plan will
include information on steps for safeguarding unique EPA documents. In
addition, I have learned that EPA is establishing some repository
libraries to house documents from libraries that are closing. The
repositories will ensure that documents from libraries that are closing
will be maintained and available for interlibrary loan.
Question 9b. In terms of the number of items, what is the current
makeup of EPA's estimated backlog for digitizing important paper-only
documents?
Response. EPA currently has 13,000 documents digitized. EPA
Headquarters is working with the Regions to identify the estimated
number of unique documents that still need to be digitized.
Question 9c. How do you plan to manage this backlog?
Response. I understand EPA's library plan will include guidelines
on prioritizing which unique documents should be digitized first.
Question 10. What is EPA's policy on preserving electronic
information? How is the current policy sufficient to make certain that
all information that EPA creates can reasonably be made available as
required by law?
Response. I have learned from EPA that in April of this year the
Agency issued a new Records Management Policy. This Policy establishes
principles, responsibilities and requirements for managing EPA's
records, including records in electronic format, to ensure that the
Agency is in compliance with Federal laws and regulations, EPA policies
and best practices for managing records. The Policy requires that all
electronic records, including electronic mail records, be maintained in
the enterprise-wide electronic content management system when it
becomes available. The Policy also requires that electronic records be
printed and filed in a paper recordkeeping system until an enterprise-
wide electronic content management system (ECMS) is available.
I have also learned from EPA that they are going to begin the
development of an information access policy to ensure that any new
documents produced in hard copy are also produced in electronic format.
The policy will also establish guidelines for ensuring that all new
electronic documents are catalogued in EPA's Online Library System and
made available to the public.
Question 11. How many full-time employees work for the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Environmental Information? What is the
approximate annual budget for the Office of Environmental Information?
How has your experience prepared you to manage this office as the
Assistant Administrator?
Response. The Office of Environmental Information (OEI) consists of
approximately 400 employees. The FY 06 operating plan is approximately
$277 million.
As to my experience in preparation for leading the Office of
Environmental Information, I have 15 years of resource management
experience in the private and non-profit sectors. This includes
planning, development, allocation, and management of budgets,
infrastructure and personnel. I have worked closely with senior
regulatory managers to incorporate technology to serve as a tool to
improve business processes. My technical experience coupled with my
management experience has helped prepare me to manage the Office of
Environmental Information.
______
Response by Molly O'Neill to an Additional Question from Senator Thune
Question. The office to which the President has nominated you is
the Agency's lead in moving towards a greater use of electronic data
collection. As you may be aware, the largest continuous paperwork
burden that the EPA places on those who are regulated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), is the hazardous waste
manifest system that tracks wastes from ``cradle to grave''. I am
working with members of this Committee in a bi-partisan manner to draft
legislation to authorize regulated entities to submit electronic
manifests as a way to provide more transparency and efficiency when it
comes to the tracking of hazardous waste. As a staff person at the
Association representing hazardous waste officials, I understand you
are familiar with the effort to authorize electronic manifests. Can we
look to your office to vigorously support our efforts to establish an
electronic manifest system?
Response. The Agency informs me that the electronic manifest
project falls under the jurisdiction of the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. I am, however, a firm believer in using technology
solutions to better achieve mission goals. If I am confirmed as
Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer, the Office of
Environmental Information will play a key partnership role to enable
this important project to be both a mission and technical success.
______
Responses by Molly O'Neill to Additional Questions from Senator Obama
Question 1. Under EPA's proposal, one environmental group estimates
that Illinois will have 207 facilities that no longer have to report
detailed pollutant information. Is it your belief that members of those
communities no longer have a right to know what is being discharged
into their communities?
Response. I bring a strong personal commitment to providing the
broadest possible access to information that may impact our
communities. If confirmed, I will work with you and the Committee to
balance burden reduction while continuing to provide the public with
information about toxics in their communities.
Question 2a. EPA's proposal includes exempting facilities that emit
less than 500 pounds of persistent bioaccumulative toxins annually from
reporting requirements. Are lead and mercury included among those
persistent bioaccumulative toxins that will be now exempted?
Response. As I understand what EPA proposed on October 4, 2005,
lead and mercury would be eligible to use a ``short form'' (Form A) in
lieu of the longer Form R, under certain conditions. First, facilities
wanting to use Form A could have no releases of lead or mercury (or any
persistent, bioaccumulative or toxic chemical) to the environment.
Second, the facility could conduct treatment or recycling, on or
offsite, in amounts not to exceed 500 lbs.
Question 2b. You have been working with the States in information
management for the past 4 years. Do you think State environmental and
health officials would support giving up access to data on such
persistent environmental toxins in their communities?
Response. It is my understanding that several State officials did
comment on the proposed rule. If confirmed, I would carefully consider
all of the public comments, including comments from State environmental
and health officials. In general, I believe the State environmental and
health officials can understand the Agency's desire to balance burden
reduction with continuing to provide the public with information about
toxics in their communities.
Question 3. EPA has proposed reducing TRI reporting requirements
and closing down EPA libraries, beginning with EPA's library in
Chicago. If confirmed, will you work with members of this Committee to
ensure that all Americans have access to pertinent EPA data? If
confirmed, will you work with members of this Committee to examine the
full implications of EPA's proposal to reduce TRI reporting?
Response. If confirmed I will certainly work with the Committee or
any individual Senator to discuss access to EPA data as well as the
proposed TRI rule.
Question 4a. At a recent briefing given to Environment and Public
Works Committee members' staff on the 2004 Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) data, the EPA staff indicated that ``lead and lead compounds
disposal or other releases increased by 25 million pounds or 6 percent
from 2001 to 2004'' largely because the metal mining sector had an
increase of 10 percent during that period. It is not clear why that
increase has occurred. Are these facilities directly mining for lead or
is the lead a by-product of other mining activities?
Response. EPA advises that over 8,000 facilities reported lead
releases in 2004. Just 12 facilities reported under SIC code 1031: Lead
and Zinc Ores Metal Mining: EPA cannot say with certainty whether there
is primary mining of lead at these facilities, but believes that the
vast majority of lead releases are associated with mining for other
metals, including gold.
Question 4b. Where were the 25 million pounds disposed?
Response. The 25 million pounds are generally contained as trace
elements in waste rock and were disposed of mainly on-site at (near the
area from which the rock was originally extracted) metal mining
facilities, primarily in surface impoundments or other land disposal.
Question 4c. What are the risks of exposure for children and women
of childbearing age from the different disposal methods used for mined
lead?
If children and women of childbearing age are facing an increased
risk of exposure due to increased mining activities, are there
additional steps EPA can take to reduce that risk?
Response. The fate and transport, including exposure risk; of
environmental contaminants is complex and can only be rigorously
assessed on a site-specific basis. However, in general, mining is
conducted in remote areas and waste rock is redeposited near the area
where it was mined. If confirmed, I will work with you and the
Committee to examine these issues.
Question 5. The briefing materials indicate that 189 million pounds
of lead were recycled offsite by electronic/electrical equipment
manufacturers. How does that statistic compare with the most recent
estimates of lead sold nationwide in electronics and electrical
components annually? The EPA briefing indicated that total production-
related waste managed by the electronic/electrical equipment sector
increased by 14 percent between 2003 and 2004, reversing a downward
trend. Please address why that trend may have changed and are there
steps EPA can take to increase lead component recycling in electronics?
Response. EPA noted in its briefing materials that of 1.2 billion
pounds of lead total production-related waste from all sources, about
63 percent was recycled in 2004. Total production-related waste for
lead decreased by less than 1 percent from 2003 to 2004, and decreased
about 2 percent from 2001 to 2004. These are very complex questions
which will require discussion across the Agency. If confirmed, I will
work with the Committee to examine these issues.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.021
Statement of Dale E. Klein, Nominated to be a Member of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Jeffords and Committee Members, it is
an honor to appear before you today as President Bush's nominee for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
I want to acknowledge the presence of my wife, Becky.
The current Commissioners have laid substantial groundwork to help
prepare the NRC for the challenges it faces in the coming years.
Challenge is the appropriate word. The next several years will be
perhaps the most significant in decades in terms of regulating the
civilian use of nuclear materials.
This challenge is all the more important when viewed through the
lens of what is happening in the energy arena. The global energy supply
can affect both the U.S. economy and U.S. interests. Oil and natural
gas prices are at levels never before seen. Domestic and global demand
continues to rise. There are forecasts that U.S. electricity demand
will rise by 50 percent in just over two decades. Clearly, nuclear
energy has a role to play in meeting that demand.
The charge of the NRC is to ``license and regulate the Nation's
civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to
ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the
common defense and security, and protect the environment.''
In meeting that mission, regulatory stability is a crucial element.
The NRC must clearly define the requirements. It must respond in a
timely manner. I believe the groundwork laid by the Commission will be
the key to providing the necessary regulatory stability.
The challenges ahead for the NRC are substantial: dealing with the
impending bow wave of applications for new reactors, overseeing their
construction, and simultaneously ensuring that existing plants receive
the high standard of regulatory oversight set by the NRC. The already
high security of nuclear facilities must be maintained. And there is
the challenge to the Agency of dealing with a potential application by
the Energy Department for a high level waste repository. Both this
Committee and the Appropriations Committee have been very supportive of
the Commission. Continued support will be essential to help ensure that
the licensing process moves smoothly. If confirmed, you have my
assurance I will work closely with you and the Members of this
Committee on these issues.
Ensuring that the current fleet of commercial nuclear powerplants
receive the proper level of scrutiny during the coming decade--as new
plants are licensed and built--will require a continued focus by the
NRC on quality oversight. If confirmed, I can assure you that I intend
to see that the lessons learned from the past are institutionalized in
the NRC.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, while much of my background
is technical in nature, I am an experienced administrator who believes
in milestones and deliverables. My goal is to make sound decisions,
based on sound science and sound public policy. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with this Committee and the challenge of being an
NRC commissioner.
This concludes my statement. I look forward to your questions.
______
Responses by Dale Klein to Additional Questions from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. In April 2005, the National Research Council, part of
the National Academy of Sciences, released a report on the security of
spent fuel storage at nuclear plants. I would like your views about how
you will work to address a number of issues it raises.
What, in your view, are the next steps that the Commission should
undertake to provide additional guidance to our Nation's nuclear
facilities on dealing with cooling accidents?
Response. While I am not familiar with the details of that report,
my background as a scientist and an engineer will guide me as I study
ways to further protect nuclear facilities in the event of accidents.
If confirmed, I intend to work with this Committee closely as we
identify further improvements.
Question 2. The last chapter of the National Research Council
report suggests that the Commission's controls on information may be
inhibiting security improvements. Representatives of the study team,
and industry were frustrated by the Commission's restrictions on
sharing data that could help with ``early actions to address identified
vulnerabilities.''
Will you describe, for the Committee, your general view about both
public and utility access to information regarding the security of
nuclear material?
Response. The NRC is an Agency that makes available to the public
thousands of documents every year. Public access to information is key
to maintaining confidence in the workings of the government. However,
in addition to public access, it is imperative that security
information is protected using the need-to-know standard. As a Nation,
we need to be mindful that guidelines are established for a reason and
that terrorists should not have access to security information.
Question 3. Would you share with the Committee your views about the
type and scope of peer review you believe is needed when studies show
that nuclear materials at powerplants or other facilities licensed by
the NRC may be vulnerable to terrorist attacks?
Response. Protecting nuclear facilities is an imperative. If
confirmed, security will be a top priority for me. I look forward to
working with all relevant experts to ensure nuclear facilities are safe
and secure.
______
Responses by Dale Klein to Additional Questions from Senator Voinovich
Question 1. What do you consider to be the most important
priorities and challenges facing the Agency as you take the helm at the
NRC?
Response. If confirmed, I believe my most important priority and
challenge will be the continued safe operation of the existing nuclear
plants and other licensed facilities while meeting the expected new
license applications. Secondly, my next most important priority will be
to ensure regulatory stability. In order to do this, the NRC should
establish clear requirements and process applications in a timely
manner.
Question 2. During your tenure in this appointed position, what key
performance goals do you want to accomplish, and how would this
Committee know whether you have accomplished them?
Response. My key performance goals will be safety and timely
response metrics. I look forward to reviewing the Agency's strategic
plans and goals to ensure that the performance standards are
appropriate. After these performance metrics are established, it is
important to measure the results and to communicate these results to
the Committee.
Question 3. Going forward, NRC's relationship with other Federal
Agencies and State/local governments will be absolutely critical in
accomplishing its mission. Please describe your thoughts and plans on
how you intend to work on this issue.
Response. In my current assignment as the Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense
Programs, I have interfaced with several Federal Agencies and State/
local governments. The best way to accomplish this mission is through
good communications, stating clearly what is needed and being
responsive to the needs of the other Federal Agencies and State/local
governments.
Question 4. One of the things that I have highlighted is the need
for the NRC to improve and be more proactive in its public relations
efforts. I would like to get your thoughts on how a regulatory agency
such as NRC can improve in this area.
Response. Public relations and public education are extremely
important. It is not the role of the NRC to be an advocate for nuclear
technology, but the NRC should not be an impediment. The NRC needs to
be a credible source of information and the NRC needs to communicate
its findings in a clear and understandable manner to all stakeholders.
If confirmed, I expect to look closely at the number of people at the
NRC involved in public relations/public education and evaluate what is
being done and determine if the resources are appropriate. I plan to
reach out to all constituencies by meeting with a variety of
stakeholders.
Question 5. It goes without saying that your relationship with
Congress will be critical in ensuring success for the Agency.
Specifically, describe any experience you have in working on a
bipartisan basis to identify statutory changes that can improve program
efficiency and effectiveness, as well as in fostering and responding to
legislative oversight.
Response. During the last several years as the Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense
Programs, I worked in a bipartisan way in many areas. This included the
RRW (Reliable Replacement Warhead), the Chemical and Biological Defense
Program, and the Chemical Demilitarization Program. If confirmed, I
expect to have a proactive bipartisan effort with the House and Senate
staff members, staff Committee members, and elected officials. I am a
strong advocate for communication. It is important that those involved
in legislative oversight understand the NRC's programs and it is
important for the NRC to understand the goals of those involved in
legislative oversight.
Question 6. To become a high-performance organization, an agency
needs senior leaders who are drivers of continuous improvement. As
Chairman of the NRC, how do you intend to motivate career employees, or
any employees for that matter, to achieve excellence?
Response. As an educator, I have been involved in motivating
students for over 25 years. The same concepts apply to motivating
employees. Clear goals need to be established by senior management and
yearly individual performance metrics should be established. Employees
should be empowered and encouraged to make decisions, to be proactive,
and to have a strong sense of personal responsibility. If confirmed,
there are two programs used at DoD that I intend to evaluate their
applicability at the NRC: Lean Six Sigma for Service and Crucial
Conversations.
Question 7. High-performance organizations draw on the strengths of
employees at all levels and maintain honest two-way communications.
Based on your experience, how would you assess your Agency's capability
for two-way communication, and what preliminary ideas do you have to
promote such communication in your Agency?
Response. My experience in the past on previous commissions and in
the university system has well positioned me to promote communications
to achieve consensus with respect to ideas. The best way to enhance
honest two-way conversations is by having a system in place that
encourages such communications. However, equally important as having a
system is how it is implemented and tracked. All the NRC Commissioners
need to have an ``open door'' policy for communications, especially the
Chairman. The NRC staff should always feel that their views are heard
because, at the working level, the staff are often more knowledgeable
on issues to be addressed.
______
Responses by Dale Klein to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
Question 1. California's San Onofre nuclear plant is in close
proximity to earthquake faults. If confirmed, what will you do to
ensure that nuclear facilities are well-protected against earthquakes?
Response. The NRC has stringent safety requirements involving
earthquakes at all licensed facilities, and any new facility will be
required to meet the Agency's strict standards with respect to that
danger. If confirmed, ensuring the safety of existing and new
facilities will be a top priority.
Question 2. A March 2006 report by the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) concluded that there is considerable room for improvement
in the NRC's activities to promote nuclear plant security. Do you
believe that the NRC and nuclear plant owners and operators could do a
better job ensuring nuclear plant security? What improvements to the
existing measures do you support?
Response. The safety and security of all facilities is vital to our
Nation. Since September 11, 2001, I understand that the NRC and the
industry have made great strides in increasing security at the
facilities. Not only do the plant operators and the NRC have a role, I
believe security is a shared responsibility. Local, State and Federal
officials all have a role to play in nuclear plant security. If
confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the security measures taken to
date.
______
Responses by Dale Klein to Additional Questions from Senator Obama
Question 1. At the Braidwood facility in Will County, IL, the
failure to monitor and control the release of radioactive materials
into the groundwater would appear to be a violation of 10 CFR 50.36a.
(a) Why has this regulation not been enforced? (b) Does the NRC plan to
take any actions against Exelon for failure to notify the public of the
tritium releases in 1998 and 2000? (c) When instances of failure to
notify the public occur, what processes are in place at NRC to deter
future occurrence of such instances by licensees?
Response. While I have not been fully briefed on this matter, I
believe transparency with the public is key. If confirmed, I will be
briefed on the inspection report and discuss this matter with all
involved. I pledge to you that the NRC will provide the appropriate
oversight on this issue.
Question 2. If you are confirmed for this position, will you commit
to supporting mandatory public disclosure of unplanned releases, as I
have suggested in S. 2348?
Response. I support early public disclosure even if safety is not
an issue. I am not fully knowledgeable of the pros and cons of
mandatory public disclosure. If confirmed, I look forward to working
closely with you and your staff on this issue.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2278.065