Page images

maybe meet with your staff to see whether or not either the work that's been done or the work that could be done would address your concerns.

Having said that, I think that everyone is interested in complying with the law.

Senator CRAIG. Of course we are, and I thank you for that. That's adequate. Your willingness to look into it, to work with our staff, to report back on this, is important. Maybe it'll add a little sensitivity to the issue down at the Department.

But when you have that kind of resource laying idle because, in my opinion, the Secretary doesn't like the law, so he doesn't want to enforce it, and every time he does he gets on a soapbox and demagogues it, that's a bit frustrating to hardworking folks who invest a lot of money and think they are in compliance with the law, only to find out that it is being ignored by the very person who by

th is charged with the responsibility of administering it.

But that's a bit of a frustration that we've watched over the last several years. So your examination of that would be appreciated.

Mr. Michaels, one last question of you. Senator Domenici spoke about our frustration over the potential of regulating our laboratories into a rather stand in place status, without being able to get a lot done at times or not being able to move forward for years and years and spending literally tens of hundreds of millions of dollars to get something done that in the end didn't need to be done.

We, Congress, through the Federal Facilities Compliance Actand I voted for that act, thought it was the right thing to do. I think it deserves to be re-examined again.

But we also, in relation to trying to show to the world that what we did we did safely at DOE facilities, we brought EPA into the circle, and we waltzed around with them and spent a lot more money to actually confirm that what had already been done had been done with a great deal of safety and human security involved.

Maybe that brings a level of comfort to some, but it obviously didn't change the attitude of others that we were hoping to address their attitude on. In your relationship with the Department, have we given EPA too much authority in certain areas?

Mr. MICHAELS. Senator, you raise an interesting question. I actually don't have much experience directly in this, but it's certainly one that I will look at very carefully. Obviously, I'll be working within the statutes, but would be happy to confer with you once I look at it further to investigate it, and to take your advice and see if I can move the regulation in a way that the laboratories are properly regulated and not overly regulated.

Senator CRAIG. I believe that that is something that all of us are going to be looking at in the future. As dollars become more scarce, we certainly don't want the activities to become less safe. At the same time, if we're just piling on dollars thinking that it makes good political sense, when in the end the work was done well and little adjustments were made by that actual piling on, then we are wasting money and it deserves our review of that.

I think that as we look at these new initiatives that should be launched, that this administration is taking some interest in, and with short and scarce dollars to fund existing programs, we ought

[ocr errors]

to be looking at how we're doing them in a way to make sure that they're done right, but with a sense of cost efficiency to them.

To all of you, thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Craig.

I have a couple of questions left. First for Mr. David Michaels. Are you familiar with the dilemma associated with Amchitka?

Mr. MICHAELS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. You nodded your head a little startled. As you know, many of the nuclear tests were conducted in the Nevada test site, but the largest underground test occurred in my State of Alaska at Amchitka in the Aleutian Islands. And at the Department of Energy's request, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health performed a review last year of the available records documenting any radiation exposure to workers at Amchitka. Unfortunately, the report concluded that, because workers' exposures were not consistently measured and recorded, it would not be possible to establish a linkage between radiation exposures and alleged cancers now occurring in those Amchitka workers.

It's my understanding that in 1997 you were involved in reviewing a similar issue regarding exposures of the Rocketdyne nuclear facilities in California and the work force there. Because there is so much missing information, it's been suggested that medical surveillance programs of Amchitka workers should be initiated. Monitoring these workers would add to our knowledge. Is this a logical step and would you support that, or is it too much time gone by to have any real meaning?

Mr. MICHAELS. Mr. Chairman, I think it may be a logical step. I'm familiar with the situation. I haven't read the NIOSH report. However, if confirmed, I would be eager to meet with representatives of the former DOE workers at Amchitka and other stakeholders and, in light of their concerns, re-examine the exposure data and medical data to determine whether either epidemiologic studies or medical surveillance are justified.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there another type of study that you would suggest for the Amchitka workers, or is this approach probably as good as any?

Mr. MICHAELS. Well, those are the two—the two directions would be either to do epidemiology to determine whether there is excess risk or, if we think the exposure data are sufficient to suggest there's excess risk without looking at medical information, then it would be appropriate to move to medical surveillance.

Again, it would depend on what the data show. But I promise I will personally look at that and I certainly have some experience doing that.

The CHAIRMAN. I'm going to move over to NEPA now and talk a little about the Yucca Mountain repository and the fact that the Department of Energy intends to evaluate alternatives to building a repository. First, do you believe that the Department of Energy is directed by Congress to do something specific, and that is build a repository, and that the Department of Energy still has to evaluate alternatives to that action in an EIS?

Mr. MICHAELS. Sir, I don't actually know the specific statutes. I can't answer your question directly. I'm certainly committed to making sure that we do all of our work and that the work that's done under my auspices follows the letter of the law passed by Congress, and as that proceeds I certainly would welcome the opportunity to confer with you further on that and to seek your counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, what concerns us is the cost of the Department of Energy's compliance with NEPA because it's grown by leaps and bounds over the last 10 years. I'm told that the DOE preparation on the programmatic environmental impact statement for spent fuel is, well, it's as much as the Start investigation, $40 million. And that doesn't cover the cost of storing the fuel. That's just the cost of the environmental analysis. It keeps a lot of folks busy, doesn't it?

Mr. MICHAELS. Mr. Chairman, I share your concerns that environmental impact statements be done in as cost efficient and prompt manner as possible. I understand that it has been a serious issue in the past and the Department is improving its performance in this area, and I certainly will work very hard to ensure

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I guess what we feel on the committee needs to be done is bringing some common sense and practicalities into the process of implementation of the NEPA process. I mean, somebody's got to get a hold of it and say enough is enough. You can continue to leave it open-ended and all the contractors and consultants in the world are going to be very pleased, and in the meantime the taxpayer is going to shake his or her head and say, you know, how many experts do you need to make an evaluation?

I have several questions for the witnesses that I indicated would be forthcoming. So I'll just leave you with that threat, and wish you a good day. I'm told that additional questions for the record would be submitted to the Chief Counsel's office by 5 o'clock this afternoon. So there is some end to this process.

I wish you a good day and thank you for your response to our questions and your statements as well, and we look forward to we have a business meeting next Thursday-next Tuesday, and hopefully we'll be able to move along the process.

(Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]



Informational Statements


11561 Clara Barton Drive Fairfax Station, Virginia 22039

Eljay B. Bowron served as the 18th Director of the U.S. Secret Service. He was selected from the ranks of the agency's career special agents. Mr. Bowron has more than 25 years of law enforcement experience in a number of capacities, continuing a law enforcement legacy established within his immediate family.

Mr. Bowron began his career as an officer with the Detroit Police Department following in the footsteps of his father and brother who were both career officers. He later pursued a position with the Secret Service and was appointed as a special agent with the Chicago Field Office in 1974.

Mr. Bowron rose to the managerial level of the Secret Service after demonstrating his investigative ability in several high-profile, complex criminal investigations. He excelled in the investigative areas of counterfeiting, fraud, and protective intelligence. As Director of the Secret Service, Mr. Bowron was responsible for protecting the integrity of the nation's financial systems, as well as protecting the President, other federal officials, and visiting world leaders. Under his leadership, the Secret Service strengthened its investigations of financial institucion fraud in the United States and abroad, helped design the new counterfeit-resistant currency, and improved controls against fraudulent payments in federal entitlement programs. He also facilitated security arrangements for such high-profile events as the Pope's visit to the United States, the 1996 Olympics, and the United Nations' 50th anniversary celebration, which brought 150 world leaders to New York City.

Since retiring from the Secret Service, Mr. Bowron has continued to serve in an executive capacity within the law enforcement community. first, as the Deputy Inspector General, Social Security Administration, and currently as the Assistant Comptroller General, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. General Accounting Office. In each of these assignments, Mr. Bowron's experience has contributed to the development of sound investigative operations that are critical to the oversight of government programs.

A native of Detroit, Michigan, Mr. Bowron received a bachelor's degree in criminal justice from Michigan State University in 1973. He has since completed Executive Development courses at the George Washington University and the Center for Creative Leadership. In addition, Mr. Bowron served as a member of the Executve Committee, International Association of Chiefs of Police; the Treasury Executive Career Advisory Panel; the National Law Enforcement Committee, Martin Luther King Center for Creative Non-Violence: and the Board of Advisors, Presidential Classroom. and as the National Chairman, Boy Scouts of America Law Enforcement Exploring Committee.

He has also been the recipient of a number of awards including the Distinguished Presidential Rank Award; the Semper Fidelis Award, Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation; and several Senior Executive Service performance awards.

He and his wife, Sandy, have one son, who is a freshman at the Catholic University of Amenca

53-248 99 - 2

[blocks in formation]

U.S. Secret Service Training 1974


1974 GW University Executive Development Program



1988 Center for Creative Leadership


Cert. 1991
List below all positions held since college, including the title and description of

name of employer, location, and dates.
Officer, Detroit Police Dept., Detroit, Michigan 8/73-7/74



[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »