Page images
PDF
EPUB

happy to meet with members individually after this hearing to address any specific questions you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. MICHAELS. I am deeply honored to be nominated by President Clinton to serve as Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health. Mr. Chairman, my written statement which I am summarizing today contains information about my knowledge and experience which have prepared me for the responsibilities of this important position.

The environment, safety and health challenges facing DOE today are extremely complex. However, DOE employs a truly world class, highly skilled, and technically qualified work force, both within the Office of Environment, Safety and Health and in the field operations, that is quite capable of meeting this challenge.

If confirmed, I will regularly call upon the counsel and advice of DOE experts in the areas of nuclear safety, health physics, radiation protection, and public health as I develop plans to improve safety. I will also look to the guidance and wisdom of members of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and their excellent staff on issues concerning our nuclear facilities.

In his statement to the committee last summer, Secretary Richardson said a top priority of his will be to protect the health and safety of workers, the public, and the environment. I know from subsequent discussions with the Secretary that he intends to meet that pledge. I am pleased that he has endorsed the concept of integrated safety management. The Department has suffered from vacillating approaches to safety over the years and I understand the concerns that we not return to the days of inspection-based multiple-layered safety regulation.

Integrated safety management is an approach that makes sense and has achieved consensus within the Department. I look forward to working with the Secretary to put this policy into place.

I would like to address two areas that I know are of interest to the committee: the health concerns of former DOE workers and the tragic accident that took place at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in July. I am aware that many Americans are becoming increasingly concerned that DOE operations have or will adversely affect their health, and citizens in Hanford, Oak Ridge, and other communities are calling on the Department for help.

While it is difficult and often frustrating to identify links between environmental hazards and human illness, I believe we owe these people some answers. DOE, working with the Department of Health and Human Services, has sponsored a large number of health studies that have provided valuable information about the occurrence of disease in exposed populations. I am aware that members of this committee and others have expressed concern about the value of DOE health studies and how that information has been conveyed to workers, and that budgetary resources for such efforts are and will continue to be

very

limited. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, it will be my intent, working with Congress and the public health agencies in the Department of Health and Human Services, to develop a stronger, more coherent DOE public health agenda, an agenda that sets priorities at each DOE site and is responsive to worker and community concerns. This will be done with the full and active participation of local, State, and Federal public health agencies and communities near DOE sites.

Senators, I believe we can draft an approach that both assures that public tax dollars are most effectively spent and the true health concerns of these communities are being met. I also agree with the view expressed by members of this committee that health studies require rigorous peer review before results are presented to workers or communities. I will work with my colleagues to assure that data from these studies are also presented in language understandable to the general public.

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to read the results of the investigation into the causes of the tragic July accident in Idaho. I know that some here are more knowledgeable about this event than I. I mention it today not to single out a particular DOE site, but because the accident illustrates so clearly what DOE must do to improve worker safety.

The accident involved a release of carbon dioxide from a fire suppression system that occurred while workers were preparing an electrical maintenance operation. Workers were prevented from escaping from this lethal environment. Heroic rescue efforts were made without respirators and at great personal risk. Limited oxygen supplies impeded treatment for injured workers. In the end, three workers were critically injured and a fourth was pronounced dead at a local hospital.

DOE's own investigation determined that the accident was completely avoidable. The most basic requirements of a safety management program—the policies, the procedures, hazard analyses, work controls, communications, and worker training needed to protect workers—were not properly established.

I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that as someone being considered for the job of chief safety officer at the Department of Energy, this came as a major disappointment. At the same time, however, I am convinced that this is a problem that can be solved.

Safety must become an integral part of every activity at the Department, whether it be operations, research, maintenance, or environmental restoration. Rigor and discipline must be applied to all work at DOE, at the high hazard nuclear facilities and at the nonnuclear and shutdown facilities as well.

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Energy has an overall safety record that on average exceeds that of private industry. But I agree with Secretary Richardson that this is not good enough. It will be my goal to achieve safety performance on par with the best of industry.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Senators, let me again say it is an honor for me to be nominated for this position and to be considered by the distinguished members of this committee. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Michaels follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF David MICHAELS, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF ENERGY FOR ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH Mr. Chairman, Senator Bumpers, other distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as you consider my nomination to be Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health at the Department of Energy. I know that the committee members have many pressing demands, especially at this time of year, and I am especially grateful for the effort you have made to schedule my hearing on such a timely basis.

I regret that I did not have the opportunity to meet with individual committee members in advance of this hearing, as planned. As the Chairman may know, less than a week ago, my wife gave birth to a beautiful baby girl. Needless to say, I had to remain in New York for this wonderful experience. While my wife could not be with us at this hearing, I am delighted that my mother-in-law and brother-in-law are here today. Let me assure the committee that I will be happy to meet with members individually after the hearing to address any specific questions you may have.

I am deeply honored to be nominated by President Clinton to serve as Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health. In my view, one can have no greater privilege in his career than to serve the public. Public service has been a long-standing tradition in my family, a tradition that I hope to pass on to my children and grandchildren. The many challenges and hurdles that I am sure I will face if confirmed will undoubtedly be offset by the many rewards I will realize in service to our Nation,

A few words about my background: I come to the committee as someone who has dedicated the entirety of his 20-year professional career to public health, both occupational health and environmental health. I hold Masters and Doctoral degrees in public health from Columbia University, and for the past seven years I have served as professor of community health at the City University of New York Medical School. In the course of my work, I have conducted investigations into health hazards facing various groups of workers from construction workers to press operators and bus drivers. I also directed a lung disease study involving 10,000 participants at 50 sites, and developed health hazards training programs for thousands of workers in public and private sectors. In addition, I had the opportunity to work with the Congress as a Robert Wood Johnson fellow with the House Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this experience will have direct relevance to the many safety, health and environmental challenges facing the Department of Energy today and in the years ahead. At the same time, I recognize that in many ways the hazards faced by DOE and its workers are unique. As the DOE complex continues to downsize and clean up facilities no longer in use, these hazards now incorporate more traditional worker safety concerns along with the more traditional nuclear hazards resulting from past operations. We also need to recognize the legitimate concerns of former workers and members of the public who feel that DOE operations have had an adverse impact on their health.

I know that the environment, safety and health challenges facing the Department of Energy today are extremely complex. I also know that DOE employs today a truly world-class, highly skilled and technically qualified workforce_both within the Office of Environment, Safety and Health and in the field operations—that is quite capable of meeting that challenge. If confirmed, I will regularly call on the counsel and advice of the DOE experts in the areas of nuclear safety, health physics, radiation protection and public health as I develop plans to improve our safety record. I will also look to the guidance and wisdom of the members of the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board and their excellent staff on the many issues involved at our nuclear facilities.

In his statement to the committee last summer, Secretary Richardson said that a top would be to protect the health and safety of workers, the public and the environment. I know from subsequent discussions with the Secretary that he intends to meet that pledge. I was pleased to see that he has endorsed the concept of Integrated Safety Management. I know that the Department has suffered from vacillating approaches to safety over the years, and I understand the concerns that we not return to the days of inspection-based, multiple-layered approaches to safety. Integrated Safety Management is an approach that makes sense, that has achieved consensus within the Department, and I look forward to working with the Secretary to put that policy into place.

I would like to address two specific areas that I know are of interest to the committee: brief discussion of health concerns of former DOE workers, and the tragic accident that took place at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in July.

I am aware that many citizens are becoming increasingly concerned that Department of Energy operations—from weapons testing in the 1950s to residents of communities like Hanford and Oak Ridge-have or will adversely affect their health, and they are calling on the Department for help. I know that there are many people

swers,

who are truly sick, and who sincerely believe that it is the Department of Energy that made them sick. While it is difficult and often frustrating to try to determine links between work hazards and illness, I believe we owe these people some an

I know that DOE, working with counterparts in the Department of Health and Human Services, has sponsored a large number of health studies over the past decade that have provided valuable information about the occurrence of disease in various populations. Such studies bear fruit in DOE's efforts to protect its workers and the public as it did with chronic beryllium disease. But because study results are focused on populations—not individuals—they may not provide the clear answers that people are looking for.

At the same time, I know that members of this committee and others have expressed concern about the value of DOE health studies and how that information has been conveyed to workers. We also know that budgetary resources for such efforts are and will continue to be very limited.

If confirmed as Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, it would be my intent-working with Congressional and the various public health agencies in the Department of Health and Human Services—to develop a stronger, more coherent public health agenda surrounding DOE operations that sets priorities at each DOE site and is responsive to worker and community concerns. We would do this with full and active participation of local, State and Federal public health agencies and communities near our sites. I believe that we can craft an approach that both assures that public tax dollars are being most effectively spent and that the true health concerns of the community are being met. I also fully agree with the view expressed by members of this committee that health studies require rigorous peer review before results are presented to workers or communities. I will also work with my colleagues to be sure that information from these studies is presented in a manner understandable to the general public.

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to read the results of the investigation into the causes of the tragic July accident at Idaho. I know that some here are more knowledgeable about this tragic event than I. I mention it today not to single out a particular DOE site, but because I was struck about how the accident illustrated so clearly what we have to do at DOE to improve our record of worker safety.

The accident involved a release of carbon dioxide from a fire suppression system that occurred while workers were preparing for electrical maintenance in a major building. Workers were prevented from escaping; initial rescue attempts were made without respirators and at great personal risk; limited oxygen supply impeded treatment for injured workers. At the end, three workers were critically injured, another, pronounced dead at a local hospital.

DOE's own investigation determined that the accident was avoidable. Corrective actions and improvements in hazard analysis and work controls were not completed or consistently applied. The most basic requirements of a safety management program—the policies, procedures, hazard analysis, work controls, communications, and training needed to protect workers—were not properly established.

I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that as someone being considered for the job of chief safety officer at the Department of Energy, this came as a major disappointment. At the same time, however, I am convinced that it is a problem that can be fixed. As I mentioned earlier, the Department of Energy, after years of debate, has settled on Integrated Safety Management as its safety policy. That policy was recently endorsed by Secretary Richardson.

Simply put, it means that safety becomes an inseparable part of every activity in the Department, whether it be operations, research, maintenance, or environmental restoration. It means that rigor and discipline must be applied to all our work at DOE—both the high-hazard nuclear facilities and the non-nuclear and shutdown facilities as well. It means that five basic principles—define the work, analyze the hazards, control the hazards, work within controls, and feedback for continuous improvement-must be consistently and effectively applied. It will be our goal-along with that of Secretary Richardson—to make that happen.

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Energy has an overall safety record that, on average, exceeds that of private industry. But I agree with Secretary Richardson that that is not good enough. It will be our goal to achieve safety performance on a par with the best in industry, and to meet our commitments to know the health consequence of DOE operations.

Mr. Chairman, let me say again that it is an honor for me to be nominated for this position and to be considered by the members of this committee. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Michaels.

a

I'm going to go down the line and take other statements at this time.

Ms. Gottemoeller.

TESTIMONY OF ROSE EILENE GOTTEMOELLER, NOMINEE TO

BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY FOR NONPROLIFERATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY

Ms. GOTTEMOELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today as the President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation and National Security at the U.S. Department of Energy. I assure you that, if confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I will continue to work closely and effectively with your staffs and with the members of this committee, as I have done in the past. Furthermore, I would like to thank you, Chairman Murkowski, and the staff of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for expeditiously moving my nomination forward after it was formally announced by the White House just over a week ago.

The Department plays a vital role in fulfilling the administration's commitment to nonproliferation and reducing national and international threats from weapons of mass destruction. Our approach to reducing the danger to the United States from such weapons involves preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction materials, technology, and expertise, detecting the proliferation of materials—weapons of mass destruction worldwide, reversing the proliferation of nuclear weapons capabilities, and responding to weapons of mass destruction emergencies. We particularly draw upon 50 years of science and technology expertise from the Department of Energy and its national laboratory complex to help in achieving these goals.

Today, I would like to highlight a few of our key programs and accomplishments. I will begin with our arms control program. Mr. Chairman, the Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation continues its efforts to limit the use of fissile materials worldwide, enable transparent and irreversible nuclear arms reductions, strengthen the nonproliferation regime, and control nuclear-related exports.

We have had landmark international successes this past year in supporting the U.S. Government's arms control and nonproliferation goals. In early September, Secretary Richardson and Senator Domenici participated in a ribbon-cutting ceremony at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport to mark U.S.-Russian cooperation to combat the trafficking in nuclear materials.

Last week, Secretary Bill Richardson and Russian Minister of Atomic Energy Yevgeny Adamov signed an agreement on the Nuclear Cities Initiative. Drawing on our extensive U.S. Government experience, the initiative is a cooperative effort to diversify the economy of the ten closed cities of the Russian nuclear arsenal as the Russians downsize their nuclear weapons complex. The agreement establishes a framework and a legal basis for the initiative and facilitates the participation of multiple Russian and U.S. agencies.

Senator Bingaman has already made reference to our materials protection, control, and accounting program, a program in which the Department of Energy scientists and engineers are working

« PreviousContinue »