Pursuant to Section 101(b)(1) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, I hereby certify and report that the information required by 5 CFR 2634.606(a) with respect to earned income and honoraria, as set forth in my Financial Disclosure Report (SF-278) dated March 2, 1993 is current as of April 30, 1993. I further certify that I have transmitted copies of this report to the Designated Agency Ethics Official of the Department of the Interior and to the Office of Government Ethics. Subscribed and sworn before me on this 30th day of April 1993. Kathleen O. St. Piure Notary Public My commission expires: April 14, 1994 The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources I agree to abide by the recusal policy of the Committee dated May 6, 1993. Sincer John D. Leshy APPENDIX II Responses to Additional Questions RESPONSES OF Thomas P. GRUMBLY TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JOHNSTON 1. COST CONTAINMENT Question. The Environmental Remediation and Waste Management program is expected to cost well over $100 billion. The Department's budget request for this program goes up every year and is nearly $6.5 billion for FY 1994 alone. What actions do you plan to take to bring these costs under control? Answer. If confirmed I will establish quantifiable cost objectives within my program and assure that management and cost controls are used effectively to achieve the outcomes we both expect. Our performance will be measured by the containment of costs within established cost objectives. Managers will be held accountable at all levels for the success of the program. 2. PROGRESS Question. What do you see as the principle obstacles to cleaning up contaminated sites? Answer. The major obstacles include the magnitude and complexity of the cleanup task, incomplete land use planning, unspecified cleanup standards, the lack of costeffective cleanup technologies, excessive focus on characterization of sites rather than cleanup of sites, and the uncertainty surrounding the availability of treatment and disposal sites. Question. What steps do you propose to overcome those obstacles? Answer. As indicated in my opening statement, I believe there are five major priorities that must be our focus to move the program forward: effectively address the truly urgent risks that exist at our sites; put in place a system that is "in control" managerially and financially; focus on outcomes; effectively develop technologies that address the major technical and scientific obstacles to progress; and, develop a much stronger partnership between the Department and those individuals, institutions, such as EPA, state regulators and citizen groups that have the ability to either help us advance or to stymie our progress. It is my intention, if confirmed, to develop specific plans for implementation of these priorities during the first several months of my tenure. 3. SENSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS Question. A large share of our cleanup dollar may be spent trying to meet unreasonable and unnecessary standards. Last year, this Committee discovered that about half the cost of characterizing Yucca Mountain was attributable to trying reduce carbon-14 releases from the high-level nuclear waste repository to a fraction of natural background levels. We tried to fix that in the Energy Policy Act by requiring the National Academy of Sciences to recommend more sensible healthbased standards. In addition, last week, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Department of the Environment bill to require the new Department to perform a comparative risk analysis, based on the best available scientific data, before issuing new regulations. Are you familiar with these provisions? Answer. Yes, I am familiar with the provisions dealing with comparative risk analysis contained in the Senate amendment, and I support its overall objectives of developing and using the best science before issuing the regulations. Question. What else needs to be done to make sure that our cleanup efforts are directed at sensible, realistic, health-based standards? Answer. If confirmed, I would take steps to ensure that our cleanup efforts are directed at sensible, realistic, health-based standards. The Department needs to continue improvement of risk evaluation methodologies including the Department's understanding of exposure pathways and human dose/response. In order to establish sound standards, we must try to understand the risks posed by the contaminants. We must develop standards that take into consideration site-specific issues including background concentrations, land use issues, and technological limitations. 4. SETTING PRIORITIES Question. How do you intend to set priorities among competing cleanup needs? Answer. First, I would seek an external independent evaluation of health and environmental threats of the defense complex. Following such a comprehensive evaluation, it would be my intention to work with states, regulators, citizens and other stakeholders to understand those threats. Decisions could then be made based on a broad understanding of risks along with other considerations, including such factors as statutory mandates, environmental equity, and worker health and safety. The Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee (Keystone) Report has a number of valuable insights and recommendations to support this approach and provides a good example of how parties can be brought together to address competing interests. Question. Should site cleanup plans continue to be formulated in isolation from each other, through site specific consent agreements, or should the Department establish a comprehensive plan that sets priorities based upon the health risks and environmental hazards posed by each site? Answer. I believe we need a comprehensive examination of the health risks and environmental hazards at each of those sites as a basis and perspective for entering into future agreements or reexamining existing agreements at specific sites. Question. Will this require renegotiation of existing site agreements? Answer. Individual compliance agreements may need to be renegotiated, but only after comparing and understanding competing potential risks and funding availability. 5. FEDERAL FACILITIES COMPLIANCE ACT Question. Are you familiar with the law Congress passed last year giving EPA and the states the right to fine DOE for failing to meet environmental requirements? Answer. Yes, I am. The Federal Facility Compliance Act was enacted to bring all Federal facilities into compliance with applicable Federal and State hazardous waste laws, to waive Federal sovereign immunity under those waste laws, and allow the imposition of fines and penalties. Question. Is there a danger that DOE's cleanup priorities are going to be set through lawsuits, with the most aggressive attorney general determining which sites get cleaned up first? Answer. Litigation does affect the Department's ability to conduct program activities and set priorities. I would like to hope, however, that States and other interested parties will work with the Department to ensure that cleanup priorities reflect the need to protect human health and the environment, and that immediate threats to the environment are cleaned up first. 6. "KEYSTONE REPORT" Question. Are you familiar with the report of EPA's "Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee" (known as the "Keystone report")? Answer. Yes, I am familiar with the Report entitled "Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee”, which is known as the "Keystone Report". Question. Does it provide any useful advice? Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convened the Federal Facility Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee to discuss the need to develop national environmental and funding priorities for cleanup at federal sites. EPA asked the Keystone Center to facilitate the dialogue. Participants included representatives of federal agencies including DOE; tribal and state governments and associations; as well as local and national environmental, community, and labor organizations. The Committee's report does provide useful advice in the areas of information exchange, public involv the establishment of site-specific advisory boards funding shortfalls. Several of the recommende** S recomme local le of |