Panel Grills Wilson Choice for Pollution Agency Post

Citing testimony that state reports designed to protect public health had been delayed and watered down, a state Senate committee Monday grilled Gov. Pete Wilson’s choice to run the agency responsible for investigating risks associated with pollutants.

The Senate Rules Committee put off a final vote on Richard Becker, Wilson’s nominee who has been heading the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. However, Becker appeared to lack the necessary votes to win confirmation.

What’s more, the intense three-hour questioning was an indication of the Legislature’s diminishing confidence in the Wilson administration’s handling of environmental issues.

Unless he is confirmed, Becker would have to leave office in September.

Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), the Rules Committee chairman, cited Becker’s endorsements from industry groups and opposition from environmentalist groups, and said: “You begin to see a pattern.”

“I don’t see a smoking gun, but I see a lot of empty bullet casings,” Lockyer said.

In his own defense, Becker said that under his tenure, the agency has issued major reports documenting the ill-effects of secondhand tobacco smoke, arsenic, lead and diesel exhaust.

“I will not compromise science,” Becker said.

Becker, 42, a toxicologist who has a lengthy list of degrees and published studies, won endorsements from some scientists and from the agricultural industry and manufacturers.

“He insists on objectivity at all times,” said William Campbell, president of the California Manufacturers Assn.

Perhaps the most damaging testimony came from Jennifer Mann, a scientist who quit the agency in April after seven years. Mann testified that there was “little political interference [with scientists] until the appointment of Dr. Becker.”

“Dr. Becker had a political agenda,” Mann said.

In her testimony, Mann cited a long-delayed report on the hazards of airborne lead, a heavy metal that causes brain damage in children. The report was begun in 1991, and an initial draft was completed in 1994. Although it needed only minor revisions, a final report was not issued until October 1996.

Mann attributed the delays to Becker’s intervention, and said he larded the final report with “caveats and qualifiers.” Although lead has been removed from gasoline and paint, it remains a key component of batteries and aviation fuel. Mann said she believes that Becker acted to “appease the lead industry.”

Becker insisted that he was trying to ensure that the report was of the highest quality and included the latest data.

Other witnesses attacked the agency under Becker’s leadership for initially dropping a study of asthma in Lompoc, and for limiting a study of toxins in fish caught in San Francisco Bay.

The California Assn. of Professional Scientists, the union for state scientists, took the lead in opposing Becker’s confirmation, saying in a letter to Lockyer that Becker “has lost sight of the purpose and mission” of the office.

“Scientific studies have been revised by management,” said the letter by the union, which for the first time came out against a gubernatorial nominee. “The scientists have also been prohibited from speaking to public interest groups.’

Lockyer and other senators homed in on a policy that sought to require that the agency’s scientists destroy records that might contradict the agency’s final reports.

The agency dubbed it the “records retention policy.” Lockyer called it the “records destruction policy” and the “shredder policy.” Sen. Ruben Ayala (D-Chino), another committee member, called the policy “infamous.”

The agency scrapped the policy in October after scientists protested it and the Natural Resources Defense Council sued to block its implementation.

Although the policy was adopted before Becker became director, Lockyer read an internal memo at the hearing showing that when he was a deputy director, Becker commanded that agency scientists carry it out, and rescinded it only after his agency was sued.

When Becker insisted that he acted quickly to scrap the policy when he was appointed by Wilson in September, Lockyer said, “To tell us somehow you’re blameless is disingenuous.”

“I’m not being disingenuous,” Becker replied.

In an interview, Lockyer charged that Becker was involved in a “cover-up that continues, as recently as this week,” and said the Senate’s request for documents was stymied.

“These are serious [charges]; they are potentially criminal,” Lockyer said. “They are certainly charges that [if true, make him] unfit for appointment to high office.”