[Senate Hearing 113-795]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-795
HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF JEFFERY M. BARAN AND STEPHEN G. BURNS TO
BE MEMBERS OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-199 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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 THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Zak Baig, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Waxman, Hon. Henry, U.S. Representative from the State of
California..................................................... 2
Inhofe, Hon. James, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...... 3
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland... 6
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama...... 7
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 8
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 10
Markey, Hon. Edward, U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts 16
Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska....... 18
WITNESSES
Baran, Jeffrey M., Nominated to be a member of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.......................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........ 23
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Booker........................................... 24
Senator Markey........................................... 24
Senator Vitter........................................... 28
Senator Inhofe........................................... 43
Senator Barrasso......................................... 45
Senator Sessions......................................... 46
Senator Crapo............................................ 48
Senator Wicker........................................... 50
Senator Fischer.......................................... 51
Burns, Stephen G., Nominated to be a member of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.......................................... 53
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........ 58
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Booker........................................... 59
Senator Markey........................................... 60
Senator Vitter........................................... 63
Senator Inhofe........................................... 82
Senator Barrasso......................................... 82
Senator Sessions......................................... 84
Senator Crapo............................................ 86
Senator Wicker........................................... 88
Senator Fischer.......................................... 89
HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF JEFFERY M. BARAN AND STEPHEN G. BURNS TO
BE MEMBERS OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Whitehouse, Cardin, Markey,
Inhofe, Barrasso, Sessions and Fischer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Good morning.
Today, the EPW Committee is considering two nominees for
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Jeffrey Baran and Stephen
Burns.
These two nominees are qualified and accomplished
professionals who have demonstrated that they have the ability
to get the job done.
Mr. Baran has had more than 10 years of experience working
on nuclear energy issues in the House, including his current
role as Staff Director for Energy and Environment on the Energy
and Commerce Committee.
That is why we have been graced this morning by the
presence of Congressman Henry Waxman, one of my heroes in
politics. He is going to introduce one of our nominees.
I want to say that Mr. Baran has also spent more than 5
years as that committee's counsel and 5 years as counsel on the
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. At the Energy
and Commerce Committee, Mr. Baran was the lead staffer on 13
NRC hearings, including those related to NRC structure, nuclear
waste and post-Fukushima safety. He also worked on the
legislation related to the NRC and other nuclear issues.
On a personal note, I do want to say congratulations to Mr.
Baran and your wife on the birth of your son, Gus, on Friday.
That is a milestone you will never forget.
Over the past three decades, Mr. Burns has served in many
roles at NRC. Most recently, Mr. Burns served as General
Counsel from 2009 to 2012. He also served as senior staffer to
a former chairman and deputy director of the Region Operations
and Enforcement Division. Mr. Burns has played a critical role
in a wide range of NRC policy and enforcement activities.
Since 2012, Mr. Burns has been the head of legal affairs
for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's
Nuclear Energy Agency.
We all know NRC's mission is ``to ensure the safe use of
radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while
protecting people and the environment.'' I want to repeat that
because I think it is worth repeating. The NRC's mission is
``to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials for
beneficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the
environment.''
I believe the experience and understanding of both the
nominees of NRC's legal framework will serve them well in
supporting NRC's mission. Rather than take the committee's time
in expressing my concerns about what is happening in
California, I will ask both nominees, at the appropriate time,
if they will work with me.
We have a plant that is being decommissioned. They are
asking for all kinds of exemptions from safety rules. That
concerns me. We have another plant that has not met the
standards consistent with the new earthquake information that
we now know.
I have particular concerns but rather than go into them in
my opening statement, I will save them for later. I do want to
say in all the time that I have been here, I think these are
the two most qualified candidates I have seen.
That makes me really happy because this is really important
as our nuclear plants are aging. We need to make sure that they
are safe because frankly, if they are not safe and if they
cause problems, they are problems for the entire industry and
the industry's future. That is where I stand on it.
Senator Boxer. I know that Representative Waxman has other
things he must do so if it is OK with the committee.
Senator Inhofe. That is fine.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
We will turn to Representative Waxman. Welcome.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, very much, Madam Chairman and
members of the committee.
It is a great honor for me to be with you today to
introduce Jeff Baran, who I believe will be an enormously
effective NRC commissioner.
Jeff has had quite a week. Madam Chair, you alluded to the
fact that his son, Gus, was just born 4 days ago. It was a
question of timing because I think some thought the birth might
happen today and then he would have to make a choice of being
here or with the birth of his child. I would hope you would put
your official duties higher but you did not have to make that
choice. Also, today is the first day for his daughter, Mia, to
go to preschool.
Jeff was born and raised in Illinois, went to school in
Ohio, to grad school and then to law school at Harvard where he
met his wife, Michelle.
I can attest to the fact that he is a very effective,
reliable member of the staff. He worked with me when I was
chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In
that capacity, he worked on important legislation that had
strong bipartisan support.
Congressman Davis, who was chairman of the committee during
part of the time, worked on a bipartisan basis to get reform
legislation on contracting so that we could make sure we were
protecting the taxpayers of this country from waste, fraud and
abuse.
When I became chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, he came over to that committee and has worked on
energy issues where he has also been very skillful in crafting
bipartisan proposals with the Republicans on our committee.
He is an expert on the NRC and any other energy issues at
the Department of Energy. When he worked on legislation, he
looked for a way to build a consensus. A good example of that
was the pipeline safety bill of 2012. I think it passed the
House and the Senate unanimously.
He also had legislation to develop consensus adjustments to
efficiency standards for walk-in freezers and other appliances.
Also, the hydropower bill that President Obama signed into law
is an example of his efforts to reach a consensus on a
bipartisan basis.
Jeff is a fair and an open-minded person who listens to all
sides. He is able to take tough issues and work together with
his colleagues to get things done. I cannot think of anyone
from my own experience that is more skilled and collegial, who
will be a major asset as an NRC commissioner.
I want to introduce him to you and take my leave because my
committee is meeting at the same time.
Senator Boxer. Of course, Congressman.
Mr. Waxman. I would be happy to talk with any of you
privately about him to tell you the things I am not saying
publicly but all those things would be consistent with what I
have said today. I think he will do a great job. I urge you to
give him favorable consideration.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Congressman.
We will turn to Senator Inhofe and then Senator Cardin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I had a chance to visit with both nominees yesterday and
had a very thorough discussion of some of the problems that are
out there. I think they will work well together.
I was a little disturbed about the rapid process we are
using. There is an effort to even do this prior to the recess,
so I appreciate the fact that we had that time. Yet, I think
the questions for the record are going to be due by the end of
today, is my understanding, and then they have a 24-hour
turnaround. Normally, that process takes several days and
sometimes, several weeks.
We understand we are going to be moving on with this. We
usually provide about 2 weeks for us to craft questions for the
record but we are ready to do this now.
That said, there are a lot of problems at the NRC happening
right now. In 2003, when I was chairman of the Air
Subcommittee, I helped shepherd the 30 percent increase in the
NRC's budget.
I might add, I discussed this with both nominees, that at
that time, when I became chairman, at that time Republicans
were in majority and I chaired that subcommittee, they had not
had an Oversight Committee hearing in I think it was 12 years.
Mr. Burns, I think you were very much aware of what was going
on at that time.
We have changed that. We have had a chance to talk about
these things, to prepare and be a little more deliberate. As I
recall, we actually put out every three or 4 months, we were
going to have an oversight hearing with certain expectations. I
think that was a major improvement.
During that time, I helped shepherd a 30 percent increase
in the NRC's budget at its request to accommodate the expected
nuclear renaissance that we thought was coming. It was expected
at that time that four design certificates and 17 construction
and operating license applications would be considered by the
NRC.
At that time, the agency had about 1,500 employees
nationwide and the operating budget was about $300 million a
year. Today, the budget exceeds $1 billion a year and the
agency employees 3,800.
The agency has now grown above and beyond the 30 percent I
helped shepherd and has more than doubled. Since then, the
agency has had less than half the work that we anticipated at
that time to justify the increased budget. It has approved only
one design certificate and two new license applications.
A legitimate review of the agency's staff levels and
current workloads needs to be examined by the Commission. I
have talked with both of you about this and cuts need to be
made if current staffing levels cannot be justified when
compared to the mission and the needs of the NRC, then versus
now.
This simple question needs to be asked: can we do the same
job with 1,500 like we did before instead of the current 3,800
employees?
The main consequence of an overstaffed NRC, in my opinion,
is over regulation. I talked about this. They sit around there
with nothing to do and not enough to do. They have a lot of
people so what do they do? Their tendency is to regulate more.
I think this is what we are looking at right now.
Many of these new regulations have been in response to the
Fukushima disaster in Japan. While each rule by itself may not
be considered costly, when added to the many other orders and
regulations being considered, the cumulative costs skyrocket.
This has become particularly problematic for the industry
as it has struggled to regain its footing during a season of
intense competition and shaky profitability, making the
industry increasingly sensitive to the expensive regulations.
The NRC needs to recognize this and take into full
consideration as it considers its existing regulations and any
new ones. This is kind of similar to the EPA, what they propose
for its air rule, Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act says they
are supposed to keep track of their regulations and their
cumulative costs.
You are supposed to be doing the same. I think that is very
important. The EPA has not been doing this but the EPA is an
adversarial agency. That is not the situation today. They do
not try to understand the needs of industry and the American
people. They always have a political axe to grind.
The NRC has not been that way and should not become that
way. We expect more from the NRC and those are the things that
I spoke privately with you about in my office. They were things
I think you need to address and I look forward to the testimony
of our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator
from the State of Oklahoma
Mr. Burns and Mr. Baran, thank you for being here. Madam
Chairman, while I appreciate that we're having this hearing
today, I'm concerned about the expedited timeline on which
we're considering these nominees. The President nominated them
just before the August recess, and there was an effort on the
part of this Committee to conduct the confirmation hearing
during the last week of the session--and before the Committee
received any of the paperwork from the nominees.
While we were able to delay the hearing until now, the
timeline is still rushed. I don't believe everyone on the
Committee has even had the opportunity to meet with the
nominees in person, and yet it's my understanding that the
Questions for the Record will be due tomorrow, turned around in
24 hours by the nominees, and then we'll have a business
meeting to mark them up and send them to the floor on Thursday.
Usually we provide about 2 weeks for Members to craft their
QFRs and then consider the nominees only after Members have
received satisfactory answers back. That said, we have a lot of
problems at the NRC right now. Back in 2003, I helped shepherd
a 30 percent increase in the NRC's budget--at its request--to
accommodate the expected nuclear renaissance. It was expected
at that time that 4 design certificates and 17 Construction and
Operating License Applications would be considered by NRC.
At that time, the agency had about 1,500 employees
nationwide, and the operating budget was about $300 million per
year. Today, the budget exceeds $1 billion per year and the
agency employs 3,800 people. The agency has now grown above and
beyond the 30 percent I helped shepherd. It's more than
doubled. And since then, the agency has had less than half of
the work that we anticipated--it has approved only one design
certificate and two new license applications.
A legitimate review of the agency's staff levels and
current workloads needs to be examined by the Commission, and
cuts need to be made if current staff levels cannot be
justified when compared to the mission and needs of the NRC.
This simple question needs to be asked: can we do the same job
with 1,500 like we did before, instead of with our current
3,800? The main consequence of an overstaffed NRC is
overregulation, and we've seen this with the relaxed
perspective the agency has taken on the cumulative cost of its
regulations. Many of these new regulations have been in
response to the Fukushima disaster in Japan, and while each
rule by itself may not be considered costly, when added to the
many other orders and regulations being considered, the
cumulative costs skyrocket.
This has become particularly problematic for the industry
as it has struggled to regain its footing during a season of
intense competition and shaky profitability, making the
industry increasingly sensitive to expensive regulations that
do little--if anything--to actually improve their safe
operation. NRC needs to recognize this and take it into full
consideration as it considers its existing regulations and any
new ones. This is something the EPA is supposed to do for its
air rules. Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act says they are
supposed to keep track of their regulations' cumulative cost.
EPA has not been doing this, but EPA is an adversarial agency.
They do not try to understand the needs of industry and the
American people. They always have a political axe to grind. NRC
hasn't been that I way--and it should not become that way. I
expect more from the NRC, and I hope you two appreciate where I
am coming from.
Again, thank you again for being here; I look forward to
asking you questions.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
I just want to reassure my colleagues on both sides that
Senator Vitter and I worked on how to handle these openings
together. We never went forward until we got his approval. It
is because we have two vacancies and he urged us to apply the
same sense of urgency.
Senator Inhofe. I was not complaining about it. It was just
an observation.
Senator Boxer. I know, and it is a very legitimate
observation, but we did have a resignation and someone who was
not reappointed. I just want to reassure the committee that we
would never have done this if we didn't have the agreement of
Senator Vitter.
Also, Senator, you have pointed out many times the lack of
oversight but since I became chairman, we have done nine
oversight hearings. I just wanted to make that clear for the
record.
Senator Whitehouse has agreed to allow Senator Cardin to go
first because of his schedule, plus he is going to introduce
Mr. Burns.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Madam Chair, first of all, thank you for
accommodating this hearing. Let me thank Senator Whitehouse for
allowing me to go next so I can get the introduction of Mr.
Burns shortly after Congressman Waxman introduced Mr. Baran.
We welcome both of you and your families and we thank you
both for your willingness to serve our country. We know it is a
family event, public service, so we also thank your families
for this.
As the Senator from Maryland, I take great interest in NRC
since it is headquartered in Rockville, Maryland. Maryland has
two nuclear reactors at Culvert Cliffs. It is a matter of great
importance to Maryland.
NRC is an independent agency that neither promotes nor
hinders nuclear power but regulates it in the most efficient
and effective way, recognizing the need for public safety and
our environment. I strongly support its mission. I am pleased
our two nominees are willing to serve in this extremely
important position.
Mr. Burns is a dedicated public servant who spent 33 years
at NRC before becoming the head of Legal Affairs for the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, a
nuclear energy agency in Paris, a position he has held since
2012.
Mr. Burns was NRC's general counsel from 2009 to 2012,
deputy general counsel from 1998 to 2009, and associate general
counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration from 1994
to 1998.
I would emphasize that Mr. Burns was promoted to general
counsel by then NRC Chairman, Dale Klein, a Republican. He
works across party lines very effectively.
Steve Burns also served at NRC as director of the Office of
Commission Appellate Adjudication from 1991 to 1994, executive
assistant to the then NRC chairman, Kenneth Carr from 1989 to
1991, legal assistant to Commissioner Carr from 1986 to 1989
and deputy director of the Regional Operations and Enforcement
Division from 1986 to 1991. He began his career at NRC as an
attorney in the Regional Operations and Enforcement Division in
1978.
I went through all that because I don't think we can find
anyone who has more experience with NRC than Mr. Burns. He has
devoted his life to these issues.
He received his BA from Colgate University, his JD from the
George Washington University Law Center and has been a long
time resident of the State of Maryland and we are very proud of
that, except for the time that he lived in Paris because of his
duties at OECD. We will forgive you for your leaving us for
that short period of time.
I know that Christopher, your son, is here. You have a
daughter, Allison, who I have been told was a member of the
field hockey championship in our State. Congratulations to her.
Steve Burns and his wife, Joan, have been active in local
community organizations such as the PTA, Boy Scouts and their
church.
Madam Chair, I doubt if we could find a more qualified
individual to fill this extremely important role. I am very
proud to introduce Stephen Burns to the committee. I would urge
his favorable consideration.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Senator Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank our nominees. I enjoyed the opportunity to meet
with you and discuss my ideas, insights and concerns about the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is a very, very important
commission. You would be taking seats that have been held by
very competent persons.
It was said earlier that you two are the most qualified
nominees we have had. I don't think that is accurate really.
Former NRC Commissioner George Apostolakis, who is being
replaced, is a member of the National Academy of Engineering
and has a PhD in Engineering Science and Applied Mathematics.
He received awards for his contributions to nuclear safety
before his nomination and was a noted risk analysis expert, the
kind of background you would look for Former NRC Commissioner
William Magwood, IV, who is being replaced, served for many
years as the Department of Energy's Nuclear Energy Director.
That is the work he focused on and helped arrest the decline in
nuclear energy engineering in the United States. At the time of
his nomination, he was familiar with the technical and
technological aspects of the nuclear industry.
I feel we have a lawyer who comes from a little different
background. Mr. Baran served as a staff member to Congress.
They did have some oversight of nuclear issues but that wasn't
your primary duty. Senator Waxman referred to the pipeline
safety legislation, hydropower legislation, not focused
primarily on nuclear issues. Mr. Burns, you have a long resume
as a legal staffer.
I expressed my concern to you about the memo for then
Chairman Jaczko authorizing him to assume emergency powers that
I think was unwise. I do not believe the accident in Japan
justified giving a legal opinion, whether he exercised it or
not fully, but you gave a legal opinion that would authorize
him to execute decisions on behalf of the NRC without
consulting other members. I think that was a mistake.
I am also concerned about the court criticism of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's actions with regard to Yucca
Mountain. I think some of the efforts you made there legally
have been criticized in that regard.
Gentlemen, I know nothing bad about you personally. You
have a general appreciation for the issues relevant to this
institution. It is not in my view the perfect resume.
I understand Senator Reid thinks he has great influence
over this commission and these nominees are a part of his
involvement. He certainly has opposed Yucca Mountain. We spent
$15 billion preparing that site and still have not yet had it
operational.
In conclusion, thank you for your willingness to serve. You
are entitled to fair and just consideration. I served with
Senator Inhofe when I first came to the Senate on that
committee, when he chaired that subcommittee. We spent a lot of
time talking about nuclear issues for America.
I believe that nuclear power has to be a part of the mix.
We have 50 to 60 years where not one American has been killed
or made ill even as a result of a nuclear power accident. It
represents 60 percent of the carbon free electricity generated
in America.
This commission, at this critical time, has the potential
for good to help this industry survive and be successful in a
safe way and it can go in the other direction. It can burden
the industry so much that it cannot be successful in the
future.
If you are confirmed, I hope you will understand the
gravity of the office you would be undertaking and understand
these issues as you do your work and would be willing to resist
political and emotional pressures and do the right thing for
the country.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
We will now turn to Senator Whitehouse.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Just briefly.
As chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Subcommittee, I just want to say that I support both of these
nominees.
I share Senator Sessions' sentiment regarding the carbon
free nature of nuclear power and would urge these candidates,
if they are confirmed, to make sure that the Commission is not
an undue impediment, particularly to the development of new
nuclear technologies like thorium reactors, traveling wave
reactors and small modular reactors.
I think there is enormous promise in those, particularly in
ones that can burn through our existing nuclear waste and turn
it back into healthy power and energy rather than sitting there
as poisonous and dangerous waste.
Also, I will urge them both to be active on the safety
side. Here I have a Rhode Island interest. Rhode Island is
within the 50 mile ingestion exposure pathway for both the
Pilgrim and Millstone nuclear plants which are not located in
our State but, as I said, we are in the risk area for them if
things go wrong.
I think it is very important that the NRC be active in
making sure that the operators of these plants are
energetically participating in the safety and potential
evacuation measures that need to be established and in place in
case there is an event.
It is not exactly what the industry wants to lead with so I
think it is important for the NRC to be a strong voice in that
area.
Based on conversations I have had with both applicants, I
think they understand my views and I am prepared to support
their nominations.
May I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be made
a matter of record?
Senator Boxer. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Whitehouse follows:]
Statement of Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Senator
from the State of Rhode Island
Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter, for
holding this hearing to consider the nominations of Jeffery
Baran and Stephen Burns to serve as members of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
One of the NRC's most important functions is to ensure our
country's active and retired reactors are safe and secure. We
don't have any nuclear power plants in Rhode Island, but we are
within the 50-mile Ingestion Exposure Pathway of the Millstone
nuclear power station in Connecticut and the Pilgrim nuclear
power station in Massachusetts. Both plants sit on the Atlantic
Coast, where they face increasing risks from extreme weather
events, coastal flooding, and sea-level rise, caused by carbon
pollution changing our atmosphere and oceans. Ensuring these
facilities can withstand natural disasters or other emergencies
is important to Rhode Island, especially in the face of rising
threats from climate change.
The Fukushima disaster reminds us that technology at the
world's nuclear facilities has remained largely stagnant over
the past sixty years, despite significant scientific advances
and how high the stakes are. In the U.S., our nuclear fleet is
aging, and in the last few years, many reactors have gone
offline.
An aging and retiring fleet raises questions about safety,
but also presents new challenges. When nuclear reactors close,
other power sources generally must fill the gap. To reduce
carbon pollution--particularly, to meet the targets outlined in
the President's Climate Action Plan--we must explore all
potential options and technologies for zero-carbon power. This
includes the continued, safe use of our existing reactors, and
investing in advanced nuclear technologies, such as small
modular reactors and traveling wave reactors, which may be able
to produce abundant energy while generating less carbon
pollution.
The NRC has an important role to play in the implementation
of advanced nuclear technologies by promptly reviewing new
reactor designs and applying the lessons learned from disasters
like Fukushima to ensure that designs are safe.
The nominees before us are eminently qualified and up to
the task.
Jeff Baran is a long-time congressional aide who has
significant energy expertise, including through his work on the
House Energy and Commerce Committee, where he helped oversee
NRC's programs, policies, licensing, and budget. Mr. Baran has
a strong record of working on bipartisan legislation, including
bills to address pipeline safety, drilling safety, electric
grid security, electric grid reliability, medical isotopes,
hydropower licensing, and energy efficiency. His congressional
experience, knowledge of nuclear issues and the energy sector
more broadly, and his willingness and ability to work across
the aisle will serve him, the NRC, and this Committee well as
we work to address our nation's nuclear challenges.
Stephen Burns is also well qualified to serve as an NRC
Commissioner. His more than thirty years of experience working
at NRC, including as General Counsel, speak to his immense
knowledge of the agency and the issues it faces, as well as his
dedication to public service. Mr. Burns has worked for multiple
NRC Chairmen and dozens of Commissioners over his career, and
will be a strong addition to the NRC as a Commissioner himself.
If they are confirmed, the NRC will benefit from the
independent judgment and expertise of both Jeff Baran and
Stephen Burns. I welcome the nominees to our Committee today,
and am pleased to support their nominations.
Senator Boxer. Senator Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to have this hearing today on
the two nominees to sit on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Congratulations to both of you on your nominations.
First, let me say that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is
vital to ensuring nuclear safety. It is important for this
committee to make sure this mission is carried out effectively.
Although there are some who may question policy decisions
made by the Commission, I believe, Madam Chairman, that we have
come a long way from where the Commission was just a few years
ago under the previous chairman.
I am always concerned that the progress the NRC has made
could be undone if we don't have qualified individuals in all
the commissioner slots on the Commission. For example, the
Administration failed to renominate Commissioner Apostolakis to
continue his tenure on this Commission.
I don't understand the rationale for this at all. I agree
with Senator Sessions. He was a vital member of the Commission
with years of experience and the President failed to renominate
him. It appears that politics, not qualifications, were at the
heart of the decision.
In an article that appeared in Politico on August 27
entitled, ``How Reid Holds Veto Power Over Obama,'' the article
describes the Majority Leader's strong influence in
micromanaging the selection of nominees to the NRC as well as
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for political gain.
The article states, ``The Nevada Democrat's unusually tight
grip on nominations for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has given him an
effective veto power over the people Obama appoints to their
five-member leadership boards. They, in turn, have advanced
policy priorities important to his State from blocking the
proposed nuclear waste site in Yucca Mountain to opening the
electrical grid to more wind, solar and geothermal plants
across the west.''
Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this
article from Politico be included in the record.
Senator Boxer. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. We do need to maintain a full, qualified
slate of commissioners who continue to protect our communities
by ensuring nuclear safety. This is best achieved by having
experienced commissioners who aren't removed and called names
on the Senate floor because they don't share the Majority
Leader's narrow political agenda.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is an important asset to
overseeing nuclear power. The Commission can ensure that
nuclear energy can continue to be an important part of
America's energy mix. It is safe, baseload power that runs 24
hours a day, 7 days a week. Nuclear energy also can make
America energy secure and energy independent.
In my home State of Wyoming, uranium is in abundance. If we
can continue to develop this resource, we can have a steady
supply of domestic fuel stock to power American homes and
businesses for years to come.
If we are to have a true, all out, all of the above energy
strategy, we must continue with building new nuclear power
plants. This is essential to the future of nuclear power in
America.
What we cannot do is hamper nuclear power by over
regulating the plants that we have running today. We must
strike a balance to ensure the safety of our communities while
continuing to ensure the viability of nuclear power.
We need to have nominees who will support policies that
ensure nuclear safety while allowing nuclear energy to continue
to be a vital part of our Nation's energy mix.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I look forward to the testimony.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Markey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for
calling this very important hearing to consider the nominations
of two highly qualified individuals to serve as Nuclear
Regulatory commissioners.
I have served on one of the NRC's oversight committees for
more than 38 years. Throughout that time, I have seen many fine
and dedicated chairmen, commissioners and staff work valiantly
to ensure the safety and security of this Nation's nuclear
facilities.
While I have often been a critic of many of the agency's
actions, throughout most of that time, I have been able to get
the answers to the questions as well as the materials which I
have needed in order to conduct my oversight and legislative
responsibilities.
Regrettably, that changed about 2 years ago after I sent a
series of oversight letters requesting information about
serious safety allegations brought to my office by
whistleblowers. Instead of answering the letters, the
Commission altered its policy on how it would communicate with
Congress going forward.
It said that individual Senators would no longer be
entitled to receive non-public documents from the agency, even
if the materials being requested were about a nuclear reactor
located in the Senator's State.
I was successful in reversing this misguided decision
legislatively. The law now requires the NRC to abide by its old
policy but the agency is still refusing to comply with this law
and will not respond to many of my information requests about
serious safety and security matters.
At the same time, the NRC is also confronted with other
serious challenges. It is nowhere near finished implementing
the safety measures recommended by its top experts following
the Fukushima meltdowns.
It is facing a number of newly decommissioning reactors for
the first time in many years and has to address the spent fuel
that is filling the spent fuel pools at reactor sites to
capacity.
It is increasingly coming under fire for ignoring the
safety or security warnings of its own employees who are then
retaliated against because they raised the concerns in the
first place.
There is nothing more certain to undermine confidence in an
agency, and by extension the nuclear power sector as a whole,
than this dangerous combination of secrecy, stalling and
whistleblower retaliation.
I am very hopeful that the two of you can help the agency
restore some of that confidence and I am grateful to you both
for agreeing to take on this responsibility. You are both
dedicated and qualified professionals with this expertise and
experience that a strong regulator needs.
Mr. Baran has worked closely with me and with my staff for
years and we have worked on many issues together. For example,
we worked together to include the nuclear energy provisions in
the Waxman-Markey bill. That passed through the House of
Representatives with the endorsement of the Nuclear Energy
Institute.
We also worked together on the passage of the Markey-Waxman
bill to increase the domestic supply of medical isotopes and
the passage of a second bill with Fred Upton through the House
where we upgraded the security of our electric grid so that it
would not be vulnerable to cyber attack.
In each one of those instances, all of this expertise is
directly relevant to the job for which he is sitting here as a
nominee. He is a consummate professional, unfailingly
knowledgeable and with an uncanny ability to devise a
bipartisan compromise when no one believes compromise is
possible.
If confirmed, I know he will also have a strong
appreciation for what information Congress needs to do its job.
I also want to congratulate you on the birth of your son
last Friday. Congratulations. It has been a big week in your
family.
Mr. Burns, you have a long and distinguished career at the
NRC. You have worked for many chairmen and with many
commissioners. You started at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
in 1978, just 3 years after the birth of the agency.
As we all know, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was
created because there was a concern that the Atomic Energy
Agency had the responsibility of promoting nuclear power and
regulating it simultaneously. It was considered to be an
inherent conflict of interest so the NRC had to be created to
just focus on the safety agenda.
I think you brought a wealth of information right from the
very beginning of this agency serving in a very distinguished
way. I congratulate you and I hope you can receive the
unanimous support of this committee.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Fischer?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank the nominees for being here today and
for your willingness to serve the public. We appreciate it.
We, unfortunately, were unable to meet ahead of today's
hearing so I would like to take this opportunity to share a bit
about my home State of Nebraska and our perspective on nuclear
energy issues.
Nebraska has the unique distinction of being the only State
in the Union where every single home and business receives
electric service from publicly owned utilities. We are proud of
our 100 percent public power system which delivers affordable
and reliable electricity to all Nebraskans.
Our State is fortunate to enjoy electricity costs that are
well below the national average thanks in part to nuclear
energy. We receive more than a quarter of our State's
electricity from two nuclear power plants. Our citizens
appreciate access to this clean and affordable energy source.
The continued success of nuclear operations in Nebraska is
dependent upon the cooperation of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
One of the two nuclear plants in Nebraska, the Omaha Public
Power District's Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station, recently
sustained an extended outage of 987 days. The plant worked
closely with NRC to ensure a safe restart and has been back up
and running since December 2013.
Fort Calhoun remains under increased oversight as a part of
its restart but is working to return to the standard reactor
oversight process at the earliest opportunity. The continued
support of NRC to reach this goal as quickly as possible is
very important.
We are also hopeful that following a process of more than 7
years, the license renewal for the Crow Butte Uranium Mining
Operation will be completed. Also pending before the NRC are
license applications for development of tree expansionsites in
Nebraska so our nuclear fuel resources can be safely developed
for years to come.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission plays an important role
in ensuring the safety and security of our nuclear power and
inspiring the public trust and confidence that we have in our
system. As the NRC does its work, it is critical that the
Commission adheres to its principles of good regulation:
independence, openness, efficiency, clarity and reliability.
Now, more than ever, we need an agency that will put these
principles into practice from the implementation of new safety
enhancements to the review and approval to licensing requests.
There is a great deal at stake for the U.S. nuclear industry.
I look forward to continuing our discussion on these issues
and again, I offer my gratitude to the nominees for your
willingness to serve.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Now we turn to Mr. Baran for his opening statement.
By the way, we will put your full statement in the record.
If you can keep it to 5 minutes, that would be great.
STATEMENT OF JEFFERY M. BARAN, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Baran. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today before
the Environment and Public Works Committee.
I am honored to have been nominated by President Obama to
serve on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I am deeply grateful to Congressman Waxman for his kind
words and support. For more than a decade I have had the
privilege of working for one of the most accomplished
legislators in our Nation's history. It has been a tremendous
opportunity and I appreciate it.
I also want to thank my wife, Michelle, our 3-year old
daughter, Mia, and our newborn son, Gus.
It is a pleasure to be here with my fellow nominee, Steve
Burns. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with
Steve as well as Chairman Macfarlane and Commissioners Svinicki
and Ostendorff.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates 100 commercial
nuclear reactors operating in 31 States. These reactors
generate about 20 percent of the electricity in the United
States, providing low carbon baseload power.
NRC also oversees dozens of research and test reactors,
thousands of nuclear materials licenses and a number of other
fuel cycle facilities such as uranium recovery sites,
enrichment facilities and fuel fabrication facilities.
NRC has the vital mission of protecting public health and
safety, promoting the common defense and security and
protecting the environment. That mission has never been more
important.
The Commission is implementing lessons learned from the
Fukushima accident. Five new reactors are being built while
five older reactors are retiring. The Commission is facing a
range of other challenging licensing and policy matters.
If confirmed, I would approach the issues before the
Commission with an open mind and a collegial attitude. My
approach is to hear from all interested parties, understand the
facts and then work to find solutions with broad support.
I am proud of my track record of working with my Democratic
and Republican colleagues and the Energy and Commerce Committee
staff, as well as a range of stakeholders to develop bipartisan
legislation that gets enacted into law.
During the last few years, I played a significant role in
negotiating bills that have become law with overwhelming
bipartisan support, including the Pipeline Safety bill and
bills on energy efficiency, hydropower and medical isotopes. I
welcome the opportunity to bring my demonstrated consensus
building approach to the Commission.
If confirmed, I believe that my policymaking and legal
experience would be an asset to the Commission. On the Energy
and Commerce Committee staff, one of my primary areas of
responsibility has been oversight of NRC.
I have worked on a range of NRC issues including new
reactor licensing, existing reactor oversight and
decommissioning, high level waste and low level waste, imports
of nuclear material and exports of nuclear technology and
uranium mining, milling and enrichment issues.
Over the years, I have had the privilege of being briefed
by NRC senior managers and technical staff on numerous
occasions. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to work
with these highly skilled professionals, benefiting from their
insights and expertise.
After working for Congress for more than a decade, I have a
deep respect for the importance and value of congressional
oversight. If confirmed, I will do everything I can to ensure
that the committee has the information it needs to meet its
oversight responsibilities.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baran follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Baran.
Mr. Burns.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN G. BURNS, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Burns. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
It is a pleasure to be here before you. I thank you and the
members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
I am honored to have been nominated by the President to
serve as a commissioner on the NRC and if confirmed, I pledge
that I will dedicate myself to the critical safety and security
mission of the agency and to work well with my fellow
commissioners, including Mr. Baran as well as the existing
commissioners, Dr. Macfarlane and Commissioners Ostendorff and
Svinicki, and to cooperate with the committee in fulfilling its
important oversight role.
I want to thank my family, particularly my wife, Joan, who
is watching in Paris today via video and my son, Chris, who is
here with me, and my daughter, Allison, for their support and
encouragement as I appear before you today.
I want to express my appreciation to former colleagues with
whom I have worked over the years at the NRC for their best
wishes and their support for my nomination.
My professional life reflects a tradition of public service
in my family. It goes back to my grandfather who was a
volunteer fireman in White Plains, New York and my father, who
after graduating from West Point, served a career in the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. After retiring from the military, he
served local governments in West Chester County, New York and
two towns in Massachusetts.
I learned from my father the importance of integrity and
honesty in carrying out one's responsibilities. I have tried to
incorporate those values in whatever position I have been
assigned.
As Senator Cardin noted, I retired as a career employee
from the NRC in 2012 before taking on my current post at the
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency in Paris. I joined the NRC in 1978
in its honors attorneys program and as noted, spent a career
there.
I was provided tremendous opportunities as a young lawyer
to work with NRC technical staff on a number of critical issues
facing the agency such as the implementation of safety
improvements after Three Mile Island and enhancements to NRC's
enforcement and investigations programs.
An important experience for me was my onsite support to an
NRC incident investigation team in its evaluation of the loss
of feedwater incident at the Davis-Besse plant in 1985, one of
the most significant events after the Three Mile Island
accident.
These early years at the agency taught me the importance of
good communication and cooperation with the NRC staff to
support the NRC's mission. I served on the staff of
commissioner and later chairman Kenneth M. Carr, a retired Navy
admiral who had served on the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear
submarine, who later commanded the Atlantic Submarine Fleet.
As his legal advisor and later chief of staff, I was deeply
involved in efforts to adopt licensing reform proposals that
are now applied to new reactor licensing under NRC regulations,
as well as to adopt the maintenance rule and establish a
framework for license renewal.
After his term ended in 1991, I became the head of the new
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication which the
Commission had established to assist it in taking more direct
responsibility for adjudicatory matters that came before the
agency.
In organizing the office, I focused on establishing a
process that would allow the Commission to reach timely
decisions on adjudicatory matters.
When I returned to the Office of General Counsel in 1994, I
served as associate general counsel and then deputy general
counsel for many years. In these positions, I was senior
counsel to the executive director for Operations and managed
the legal staff responsible for providing advice on licensing
and enforcement matters, personnel and contracting matters and
representing the staff in agency adjudications.
I served on a number of agency task forces on significant
issues to involve the implementation, for example, of the
agency's license renewal rule.
The Commission approved Chair Dale Klein's appointment of
me as general counsel in 2009. As general counsel, I managed a
staff of some 110 employees to provide legal services across a
range of agency activities.
I was always mindful of the responsibility to support all
commissioners in carrying out their duties. I always sought to
ensure that my advice reflected due consideration of the
relevant legal principles.
As you know, since 2012, I have been at the NEA in Paris. I
have been working with international partners who are members
of the agency in accomplishing the NEA's mission to help the
safe, environmentally friendly implementation of nuclear power
for countries who choose to do so.
During my work at the NEA, I have noticed the tremendous
esteem in which the international community holds the NRC. If
confirmed, I believe with my experience at NRC and NEA, I will
strive to continue to try to achieve that same reputation at
the NRC.
I have enormous respect for the staff, I have enormous
respect for the commissioners and I will promise you that I
understand the importance of ensuring the strength and
integrity of the institution to carry out its mission.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
We have dwindled down to a precious few, as they say, but
we now see Senator Sessions back so we will have a little more
excitement.
Let me say to both of you, first of all, thank you so much
for bringing Chris here. I am sure his proud knows no bounds in
carrying on the tradition of family service. I know Gus has
many more interesting things to do than to be here today. I
just want to say I appreciate the family values that you bring
to your world and to work. We appreciate it.
Instead of asking you this particular open-ended question,
I am going to ask you to please write it today. The question
is, can you briefly write about how your experience and
qualifications will contribute to your ability to serve as an
NRC commissioner in a very objective way and how your
experience will lead you to fostering a collegial atmosphere?
We all know there was a period of time, different people on
this committee blame other people for it but that is not the
way, we want to make sure that we can disagree and not be
disagreeable because there may be some times when there is
disagreement.
We have that on this committee. Senator Inhofe and I are
very dear friends; Senator Sessions and I have a very warm
relationship even though we disagree. That is important. If you
could write that to us, brief, I don't need a whole biography,
just an answer and that would be great.
I am sorry that Senator Barrasso had to leave. He did bring
up an issue that Senator Reid was interested in this. So am I.
I don't want to surprise anyone when I say this but I don't
think it comes as a big surprise that a Majority Leader of
either party is interested in what appointments the President
makes.
You can go all the way back to the original Majority
Leaders because they set the agenda. If they feel uncomfortable
with the appointments, it is uncomfortable for them.
I just want to say whether Mitch McConnell was the Majority
Leader, Harry Reid, Bob Dole, Tom Daschle, just in the time I
have been here we have had several from both parties, they all
cared about who the commissioners are. It is not a big
surprise. Majority Leaders care.
That is the system. If we don't like the system, we can
take away the power from Majority Leaders to have any opinion
and to schedule. Frankly, that is the one power they have, to
schedule. That is a bigger issue than just saying Senator Reid
cares about this. Of course he cares about this for obvious
reasons in his State.
We all care about our States first and foremost. That is
the way it is. I wanted to really make that point.
Recently, the public learned that NRC's former senior
inspector at the Diablo Nuclear Power Plant in California told
NRC unequivocally that the Diablo Canyon is not in compliance
with the seismic safety requirements of its license.
I am not going to ask you for details because you don't
know any of the details. I just want to ask you in general, as
a general matter, do you believe that reactor operators have to
comply with the requirements specified by the NRC in their
operating licenses?
Mr. Baran. Yes.
Mr. Burns. Yes.
Senator Boxer. I think that is important because NRC makes
the decision and then I think they should enforce it.
The other question has to do with the decommissioning of a
plant that we have, the San Onofre. So many millions of people
live in the area and we have an issue that deals with the
operator asking to be relieved from certain safety
requirements.
I am not asking your opinion on it. If you are successful,
would you be open to meeting with me and others and talking
about the safety of the decommissioning. Would you be willing
to meet with me as I would meet with all the commissioners?
Mr. Baran. Absolutely.
Mr. Burns. Certainly.
Senator Boxer. That is good.
Last has to do with the withholding of documents which I
think is critical. We are going to ask you before you leave if
you will make these documents available to us? I am sure you
will answer yes, everyone does, but meanwhile, we have a real
problem. We cannot get documents. The NRC has told me there is
a separation of powers and this committee doesn't deserve
certain documents.
I am going to ask you each to answer. Do you believe that
NRC's oversight committees should get information they ask NRC
to give them? In other words, should our committee and any
other committee of Congress that asks you, should we get those
documents pursuant to well established congressional oversight
authority and will each of you work with me and others on the
committee to improve NRC's responsiveness to Congress, whether
it is about the budget, a particular facility or any question.
We have different questions. Will you work with us and have
openness because I have not seen that coming from the
Commission lately?
Mr. Baran. Yes, Madam Chairman. I make that commitment to
you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Mr. Burns. Yes, Madam Chairman. I will work with you. In my
past experience, I have worked through a lot of issues and
sometimes tough document issues with committees. In my view,
the Congress has an important oversight role and we should try
to help in that role.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I say to both of you gentlemen, in my opening statement, I
talked about my concern over the cumulative effect of costs to
industry, to providers, to stakeholders, to the public of all
these rules. When we complained about this, as I said in my
opening statement, about the EPA that it is more of an
adversarial relationship, that is one that they have a
political agenda.
You guys should not. I think this is something that rather
than forcefully say we need to have this, that you should be
doing it anyway. It is my understanding there are some 50 rules
or regulations now that would be in some level of progress. I
certainly do not understand where we are with these.
On these and any others, I would ask for your commitment to
come up with the costs, with the cumulative effect of these
regulations.
Mr. Baran. Thank you, Senator.
My understanding is that the NRC staff is currently looking
at the cumulative effects question and has had a series of
public meetings on that topic. If confirmed, I look forward to
reviewing their findings when they are submitted in the coming
months.
The NRC's focus is on nuclear safety but there are built-in
regulatory mechanisms to make sure that the costs and benefits
of requirements being considered are fully evaluated and that
is the right approach.
Senator Inhofe. We all agree that your function is to
provide and ensure safety. However, that does not happen in a
vacuum. Would you make a commitment insofar as that is
concerned, Mr. Burns?
Mr. Burns. Yes, I will commit to looking at that issue in
cooperation with my fellow commissioners. I have prior
experience with the backfitting rule. As I was leaving the
agency in 2012, the idea of doing a more focused effort to
consider cumulative effects was under consideration. I will
commit to doing that.
Senator Inhofe. That is good.
When you try to explain this to someone who is outside of
Washington, they don't understand it. I have tried. I am at
fault because I was the chairman at that time of the
subcommittee that jurisdiction of preparing for a major
increase in nuclear activity on behalf of the NRC that they get
themselves prepared for that with the staff.
They went from 1,500 to 3,800 people. Let me think about
that. That is more than double, 1,500 to 3,800 people. The
budget actually tripled from $300 million to $1 billion. Now,
instead of having the anticipated 1,700 construction and
operating licenses, we have 2.
This should be a no-brainer. It is not your fault but you
are faced with this now. I want to see some kind of response to
this. Is one of the responses to bring it back down to the
previous levels before in terms of personnel and costs? What do
you think, Mr. Baran?
Mr. Baran. The NRC staff is taking a look at this very
issue.
Senator Inhofe. Wait a minute. You are having the staff
look at the issue as to themselves, the justification of staff.
I am not sure that is a real objective process, is it?
Mr. Baran. My understanding is they are taking a 5-year
look and trying to make sure that resources, including
personnel, are matched in a good way with the workload. That
assessment is going to be presented to the Commission.
Senator Inhofe. If that occurs, there are jobs for 5 years
then, is that what you are saying?
Mr. Baran. It is a policy issue that would be decided at
the Commission level with the input of the staff currently
taking a look at the staffing levels and how that matches up.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Burns?
Mr. Burns. Senator, I think, as Mr. Baran noted, I think
the Commission's responsibility is to take a hard look at what
the staff valuation. My experience is staff always is providing
to the Commission proposed budgets through the budget cycle and
the budget processes.
I agree with you that you have to take a hard look at what
the agency's priorities are and the work it has on its plate
and ensure it is focused on the safety mission. To the extent
there are licensing issues before it, it should ensure those
are adequately addressed.
My commitment to you is I am willing to take that hard look
to assure the agency's resources are focused in the right way.
Senator Inhofe. Madam Chairman, my time has expired but my
last question has to do with Fukushima. Should I go ahead and
do that or save that for another round? What is your
recommendation?
Senator Boxer. We are not going to do another round so go
right ahead.
Senator Inhofe. A lot of the regulations being considered
by the NRC today are in response to the Fukushima disaster in
Japan. I think one thing that often gets lost in the discussion
is how different our cultures and regulatory structures are. In
many ways our system is always well protected against an
accident like that happening here at home.
In some areas, it has to do with who can make the decision
and in other areas, it has to do with our experience from 9/11.
Could each of you discuss how the Japanese and the U.S.
cultures and regulatory models are different? I mentioned this
to both of you in the office, but it needs to be in the record.
Would you do that?
In other words, where are we that it is different from
Fukushima and the regulatory system that was found at that time
in Japan?
Mr. Burns. Senator, as you and I discussed yesterday, very
quickly, there are two things. One, I think the U.S. learned
the lessons of the importance of a strong regulator and a
separate regulator in the 1970's, both when the NRC was created
out of the AEC, as Senator Markey referenced, and also the
lessons coming out of Three Mile Island.
In terms of what I will call the institutional structures,
I think that was very important to the United States.
The second thing I would say is, as you note, there are a
number of things the U.S. and the NRC did after 9/11 that I
think had benefits across the board. Some of those things were
not adopted in Japan. I think we benefited from that.
There are things that the agency has under consideration. I
don't know the particular status of them, but those are things
I think we need to look at to make sure the commitments the
agency made to follow through and make decisions on are done.
I would agree with you. I think there are some things that
we were in good stead and it is assured that those things are
strong and if need be, to be built upon.
Senator Inhofe. Do you agree with that, Mr. Baran?
Mr. Baran. Yes, I do.
Senator Inhofe. Just for the record, you might send me the
specifics you are talking about which we probably already have
but I want them coming from you. Would you do that?
Mr. Baran. OK.
Mr. Burns. Certainly.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
I was able to insert language into last year's omnibus
appropriations bill that reversed NRC's efforts to withhold
information from Congress and restore the old document policy.
I am disappointed to say that the NRC is currently breaking
that law.
That is because NRC is withholding documents that I have
requested on a range of important issues, including the
circumstances under which NRC allowed Chinese nationals
unescorted access to Westinghouse nuclear reactors at the very
same time that other Chinese spies were hacking into
Westinghouse.
If you are confirmed, do each of you commit to following
the law which calls for NRC to provide non-public documents to
members of NRC's oversight committees and members who are
asking for information about reactors located in their States
or near their States?
Mr. Baran?
Mr. Baran. The 2011 internal Commission procedure which you
earlier referred to is the hold procedure. It ensured that
documents were available not just to the committee but to
individual members of the committee, to Senators or House
members who had facilities in their districts or States.
I believe that was the right policy. The appropriations
bill makes it clear that is the policy that is now in effect.
Senator Markey. Mr. Burns?
Mr. Burns. I was familiar with working under the old
procedures and I am comfortable working under those old
procedures.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Fukushima reminded us of the devastating effect of a
nuclear reactor meltdown. Radiation from the accident was
detected over 1,000 miles away. Land contamination continues to
keep tens of thousands of people from returning to their homes.
Cleanup cost estimates continue to rise with industry admitting
it will cost over $100 billion.
Meanwhile, in the United States, we have packed so much
radioactive waste into spent fuel pools that even NRC studies
conclude that spent fuel fires could spread as much
contamination as a meltdown of an operating reactor.
The spent fuel pools at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, for
example, is currently holding nearly four times the amount of
waste it was designed to hold.
According to NRC and other studies, if the water were to be
drained from a spent fuel pool causing the spent fuel to heat
up and catch fire, the consequences could be worse than a
nuclear meltdown at an operating reactor.
Do you agree that the more spent fuel is stored in these
pools, the faster it could heat up and ignite if the pool's
water was drained? Mr. Baran?
Mr. Baran. Yes.
Senator Markey. Mr. Burns.
Mr. Burns. Certainly the issue has to be looked at, whether
or not in terms of the capacity of the pools and particularly
what I will call the relative, not fresh fuel, but how recently
it has been in the reactor. You certainly need to look at that
to assure that the pools are safe or take measures otherwise.
Senator Markey. Isn't it also true that the more fuel which
is in the pool, the greater the potential consequences if a
spent fuel fire were to occur? Mr. Baran?
Mr. Baran. Yes, I believe that is correct.
Senator Markey. Mr. Burns.
Mr. Burns. Again, consistent with my last answer, again, I
think it depends on how recently the fuel has been there but it
is something you need to look at and be concerned about.
Senator Markey. Isn't it true that storing the fuel in dry
casks storage containers would remove the need for pumps and
other equipment needed to keep the pools full of water and
would also greatly decrease the likelihood of a spent fuel
fire? Mr. Baran?
Mr. Baran. The dry casks are passive systems, so you
wouldn't require pumps and other devices to have them operate.
Senator Markey. Mr. Burns.
Mr. Burns. I would agree that they are more passive
systems.
Senator Markey. A recent NRC study that concluded that the
spent fuel could be stored in spent fuel pools indefinitely
only fully evaluated the risk of a major earthquake, ignoring
other large scale disasters and terrorist attacks. They said
the probability of other events is so low that they don't even
need to evaluate them.
Do you agree that it is possible for other large scale
disasters, such as a major hurricane or ongoing terrorist
attack, to both cause damage to spent fuel pools and make it
more difficult to quickly get necessary equipment to a site to
repair the damage? Mr. Baran?
Mr. Baran. I would agree that as a general matter, if it is
a natural disaster situation, that makes response more
difficult for spent fuel pools and other aspects of the
facility.
Senator Markey. Mr. Burns?
Mr. Burns. Generally, you have to take account of the types
of potential threats that you have, whether that is a security
threat or a range of natural disasters that may be potentially
experienced at that site. I agree that you need to look at
those things.
Senator Markey. That is why I recently introduced the Dry
Cask Storage Act which gives plants 7 years to remove all of
the waste that can be removed from the pool and put it into
safer dry cask storage, provides funding to help offset the
cost and increases the size of emergency planning zones around
plants that choose not to remove the waste from their pools.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Senator, do you need more time? Because we
are finishing up the round. I will give you another minute or
two like I gave Senator Inhofe. I will do that for all
colleagues.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
A recent National Academy of Sciences report said that the
NRC should actively seek out and act on new information about
hazards that have the potential to effect nuclear plant safety,
including extensive flooding and geomagnetic disturbances which
could affect large portions of the electric grid.
The report also pointed out that extreme events like these
can produce severe accidents at nuclear plants that damage
reactor cores and stored spent fuel.
Do you agree that the NRC should, as a general rule,
evaluate a full range of realistic threats to reactors and
spent fuel pools? Mr. Baran?
Mr. Baran. Yes.
Mr. Burns. Yes.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Mr. Burns, you have been counsel at the agency for 33
years?
Mr. Burns. In different roles, yes, Senator.
Senator Sessions. How would you describe congressional
creation of the NRC and its independent status?
Mr. Burns. How would I describe it?
Senator Sessions. Yes, the concept of the independent
Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
Mr. Burns. I think what the Congress did is it tried to
establish an agency like other independent regulatory agencies
that existed in terms of a multimember commission, bipartisan
in the sense that you weren't dominated by persons from one
party or the other.
The other thing it did, actually more so under the
reorganization plan that President Carter adopted after the
Three Mile Island accident, you have the basic principle in the
original legislation and the reorganization plan about what I
will call majority rule, that basically the Commission decides
matters of policy, adjudications and things like that.
In the reorg plan, you have a plan for the chairman in
certain areas but basically, it is majority rules, the rule of
three, if you will.
Senator Sessions. With regard to the concept of the agency,
you are open to hear from politicians, American citizens, and
special groups but you hold the responsibility, do you not, as
an entity to do an independent job, a non-political job in
making the decisions that protect the safety and effectiveness
of the nuclear power industry?
Mr. Burns. I think that is the strength of the agency and
the structure that is created. I think you are saying that is
part of the intention.
Senator Sessions. The Chairman talked about Senator Reid
and every Senator has a right to be critical and be aggressive
with regard to this commission or any other commission.
However, a commission has a duty, let me ask you, Mr. Baran, to
listen to the inputs from politicians or even Senator Reid.
Then you are required to make an independent judgment, are you
not?
Mr. Baran. That is correct.
Senator Sessions. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Burns. I would agree.
Senator Sessions. Just looking at the Politico article from
2 weeks ago, one commissioner referring to Senator Reid keeping
score against members of the Commission who didn't act as he
approved and saying one commissioner was forced out last month
and another is due to depart Sunday after it became clear he
would have trouble winning a new term, partly because of their
stances on Yucca where Mr. Reid felt strongly and because they
joined a revolt against former agency chairman, Gregory Jaczko,
a one time Reid aide.
Reid has spent the past 2 years repeatedly trashing one of
the commissioners, Commissioner Magwood, calling him a disaster
and I won't read the other things he said about him.
Are you prepared to take the heat and do the right thing no
matter what some Senator would say about it?
Mr. Burns. Yes, Senator, I am. Going back to your question
on structure, that is one of the reasons that the agency is
structured with terms of a specific length because that is one
of the things that enhances the independence of the
commissioners who serve in those positions.
Senator Sessions. A lot of people worried about that.
Do you understand, Mr. Burns, that Congress has established
Yucca Mountain as the depository for nuclear waste? Is that the
law of the United States?
Mr. Burns. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act is the law of the
United States, yes.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Baran and Mr. Burns, is it your duty
as Commission members to comply with the law of the United
States?
Mr. Baran. Yes, it is.
Mr. Burns. Yes.
Senator Sessions. Will you do so?
Mr. Baran. Yes, I will.
Mr. Burns. Yes, I will comply with the law of the United
States.
Senator Sessions. With regard to the disclosures, this is
an independent agency that has certain responsibilities to
conduct its business properly. It has certain internal
deliberations. I assume there are rules at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission on what should be disclosed and what
should not be disclosed, are there not? Will each one of you
answer that yes or no?
Mr. Baran. That is addressed in the internal Commission
procedures, yes.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Burns?
Mr. Burns. Yes, it is addressed there, but also it is
governed by the Sunshine Act and some other administrative
statutes that govern the agency's operations.
Senator Sessions. I understand the chairman and the
committee found certain requests from Congress to be improper
and have not disclosed certain documents. They have disclosed
many. Consistent with the regulations, will you comply with the
regulations even though Senators or other groups might ask that
you produce documents that, if produced, would be in violation
of the regulations duly established by the agency?
Mr. Baran. The committee and the Congress generally have an
important oversight role. I believe the NRC should work to make
sure that the committee has the information it needs to perform
its constitutional oversight responsibilities.
Senator Sessions. Does that trump the rules of the
committee on disclosure or should you change the rules before
you disclose?
Mr. Baran. I don't think there is anything about the rules
that prevents disclosure.
Senator Sessions. Of everything?
Mr. Baran. I think there could be particularly sensitive
documents where it is important to have discussions between the
Commission and the committee about how the Commission can best
ensure the committee gets the information it needs to perform
its duties.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Burns? Do you comply with the rules
of the committee on disclosure or not?
Mr. Burns. The rules of the Commission?
Senator Sessions. Yes, the Commission.
Mr. Burns. The rules of the Commission. I think the rules
of the Commission are there to guide how the agency responds to
it but those rules have to conform to what other basic legal
principles that apply, for example, communication with the
Congress.
Senator Sessions. Presumably the Commission established its
rules considering those things and they believe their rules
comply with other laws. You were the counsel there. Is that not
true?
Mr. Burns. Right. I operated under the rules of the
Commission in 2011 which basically said in difficult questions
about disclosure of documents to the Congress, we should be
discussing that with the committees and trying to reach
accommodation.
I agree with you that the rules essentially are intended to
conform to the general legal principles. Again, those are often
a difficult area, particularly in communications with the
committee.
Senator Sessions. Apparently there is an honest
disagreement between the Commission and the committee and some
of our members on some of these issues. I don't know the
details. I respect my colleagues' desire to find out all that
they can find out but I also respect there are rules that are
to be complied with.
Thank you for that. I will submit some more written
questions but I think this is a very important commission. It
is important to the future of the country and I hope you will
conduct yourselves as independent, responsible leaders and not
be pushed around as a result of political pressure.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I think my distinguished colleague's questioning to both of
you about the legal rules and the legal analysis relating to
the matter of the ongoing congressional oversight of this
committee helps explain why you are qualified for this position
and why the legal expertise and the congressional oversight
experience that Mr. Burns and Mr. Baran respectively bring will
be valuable assets to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it
goes about its business.
My questions have to do with the two topics I mentioned in
my opening statement. I understand it is the Department of
Energy, not the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that is
primarily involved in developing new nuclear technologies and
trying to help move us toward a more carbon free energy
posture.
As I understand it, there are ways, particularly where
private institutions are involved, that the NRC does have a
role. Could you explain that role, either of you, and let me
know what your feeling is about the extent to which your
organization, as I said in my opening statement, not become an
undue impediment to the development of these important new
technologies. Let me start with Mr. Baran.
Mr. Baran. I think the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
primary function in this regard is to make sure it has an
efficient and effective licensing process for new reactors and
for new reactor designs.
For example, for small modular reactors, there is a design
certification application expected next year and then another
that is likely to come the following year. I think it is
important for NRC to be thinking ahead of what are the
potential novel issues that may be presented by those new
designs and start that process early, start having
conversations early with the potential applicants so there can
be expeditious consideration of those applications when and if
they are submitted.
Senator Whitehouse. I think the question, to use your
words, should be thinking ahead and starting early, is really
at the crux of this because if somebody is interested in
putting the investment into developing one of these
technologies, to them the regulatory cost and burden down the
road is a black box that they can put no value on, either in
time or money, then that could be an impediment to going
forward.
Even if they could see into the black box, they would
actually know that this is doable. The fact that it is a black
box, the fact there have not been early conversations, the fact
they don't have any sense that the development of those
technologies would be welcomed, could itself be the barrier.
I would hope that both of you would agree that would be a
very unfortunate, unnecessary and almost improper barrier under
these circumstances. Mr. Burns?
Mr. Burns. Yes, I would agree. The important thing, I think
for the Commission and what I would commit to looking at if
confirmed, is the question of the clarity with which the agency
either expresses its rules or the applicable criteria for these
types of designs.
We know basic safety requirements but how do you move
through, are the processes there, is the one step licensing
really an appropriate process for a prototype or is there a
more staged license where you make safety decisions that
eventually get you a holistic decision at the end?
Those are the types of things I think if you are looking at
the generation for and some of these designs, you are probably
going to want to at least consider how you would do that if
people come forward, as you say.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you both commit that you will put
your attention to those questions as members of the Commission?
I don't want this to be just happy answers in a congressional
committee and then when you are over there, it is back to the
black box or the black hole or whatever you want to call it.
Mr. Burns. No, I commit to do that.
Mr. Baran. Yes. It should not be a black box.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you very much.
Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have some questions for both of you gentlemen.
The NRC's timely review of license submittals is critical
to the success of our domestic uranium industry. I mentioned
that in my opening statement.
At present, in Nebraska, there are multiple relicensing
proposals and new license applications that have, to date,
taken 7 years. That is a long time to review.
I have written to the Commission to encourage swift action
in order to protect the economic environment of the communities
that have relied for decades on these operations, operations
that safely and responsibly produce critical fuel for our
Nation's domestic nuclear and energy industry.
In response, the Commission has stated that the reviews are
continuing, but that it may take another full year before a
final decision is made.
Should you be confirmed, will you commit to working with me
and my office to engage in these licensing and relicensing
efforts so that a final decision is rendered in a timely and
efficient manner?
Mr. Baran. Yes, if confirmed, I would be happy to work with
you and take a look at that issue.
Mr. Burns. I would be happy to look at that. Again, I think
it is not unlike the question Senator Whitehouse asked about
assuring that the process is fair but also efficient.
Senator Fischer. Are you aware of the issue I just spoke
about? Have you had any contact with the problems we are
facing?
Mr. Burns. Not recently, no.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
In a recent vote by the NRC on filtered vents, we have seen
Commissioner Magwood express concern with approaches to
regulation that rely upon qualitative instead of quantitative
factors. He described such an approach as an extraordinary step
that goes well beyond previous NRC guidance.
He also noted that Chairman Macfarlane's analysis in that
vote could be used to justify essentially any regulatory
change.
Can you tell me your view of the proper use of qualitative
factors in regulatory decisionmaking by the NRC?
Mr. Baran. I think over the years, when the NRC has done
its cost benefit analysis, typically, as I think most agencies
do, it focuses primarily on the quantitative elements of that
but it also in the past has considered qualitative factors as
well. I think it is important in some cases to consider
qualitative factors.
As you point out, that can be challenging because it is not
the same enterprise as when it is strictly quantitative. I
think there is a role for it on certain occasions but I do
think it has to be done carefully.
One of the factors that came up in that particular vote, I
believe, was just defense in-depth, the idea that some concerns
that NRC looks at are very low probability but high consequence
events and sometimes a strictly quantitative review of that can
leave out important factors.
Senator Fischer. You would say it is within the NRC's
guidance that those qualitative factors should be looked at?
Mr. Baran. My understanding is that the guidance does
provide for the consideration of qualitative factors.
Senator Fischer. You would disagree with the commissioner
who made those statements, then?
Mr. Baran. It has been a while since I read that particular
vote and I don't know that Commissioner Magwood would say it
never makes sense to examine qualitative factors, but I think
there can be a role for both quantitative and qualitative.
Senator Fischer. Mr. Burns?
Mr. Burns. I am actually not familiar with that particular
vote that Commissioner Magwood weighed in on.
Historically, my recollection is that the agency, over the
years, tried to apply sort of the best decisionmaking methods,
whether what they originally called the deterministic method to
more risk informed. When you went risk informed, you do have
the consideration of qualitative factors. Again, that may be
vote dependent or issue dependent.
You want to make sure that you have a good grounding in the
technical analysis that you have but there may be qualitative
factors. I would be happy to look at that and be sensitive to
that. Unfortunately, I just cannot comment on the particular
filtered vent issue.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Just one more question if I
have time?
Senator Boxer. Go ahead.
Senator Fischer. On May 19, 2014, the Commission acted on
an NRC staff recommendation regarding three specific
recommendations arising from the near term task force report's
suggestion to review whether the NRC should establish a
logical, systematic and coherent regulatory framework for
adequate protection that appropriately balances defense, in-
depth and risk considerations.
The three staff recommendations were approved by the
Commission even though the NRC staff also acknowledged that
these changes are not needed to maintain safety of nuclear
power reactors.
Do you agree with the action that was taken by the
Commission?
Mr. Burns. Again, I am not sure exactly what they did. I
recall that the No. 1 task force recommendation was this notion
of looking more holistically. I think importantly, the agency
needs to carry out, in the particulars applied to particular
plants, particular licensing or safety issues, what it does.
There may be some benefit in making a greater coherence.
Again, I would be happy to look at that. I am just not familiar
with exactly what they did.
Senator Fischer. If these requirements are imposed on
nuclear reactors and it hasn't been shown that you are going to
see any enhancement of safety, do you think it appropriate to
require that then and the cost involved for those reactors?
Shouldn't we have to prove it is for safety concern when we
have an argument going on, not an argument but a discussion
going on between staff and the Commission and it is moved on
anyway?
Mr. Burns. Yes, and I think you need to have something that
provides a justification for what you are doing and that there
is a benefit to it. As I said, I am not familiar with the May
vote. I am familiar with the issue that may have led to it from
the original task force report.
I would be happy to take a look at that. Generally, I think
you want to get to a point where it makes sense for what you
are doing that there is a safety benefit for it.
Senator Fischer. Right. We are all concerned for the
safety. I think we all agree upon that, but when requirements
are made by government with no proof of benefit, I have
concerns with the cost.
Mr. Baran, would you like to reply as well, please?
Mr. Baran. I am not familiar with that particular vote but
I would note that the NRC has something called a backfit rule
which says if you are going to apply a new regulatory
requirement to an existing facility, in that situation unless
that new requirement is necessary for adequate protection of
public health and safety, the benefits of that requirement
would need to exceed the cost.
Senator Fischer. Thank you both very much. Again, thank you
for being here today.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
I am going to ask each of you a question that I have to ask
all nominees. There are three questions, yes or no.
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee and other
appropriate committees of the Congress, and provide information
subject to appropriate and necessary security protection with
respect to your responsibilities?
Mr. Baran. Yes.
Mr. Burns. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Do you agree to ensure that testimony,
briefings and documents in electronic and other forms of
communication of information are provided to this committee,
its staff and other appropriate committees in a timely manner?
By that, I mean all members of this committee regardless of
party?
Mr. Baran. Yes.
Mr. Burns. Yes, I do.
Senator Boxer. Three, do you know of any matters which you
may or may not have disclosed that might place you in a
conflict of interest if you are confirmed?
Mr. Baran. No.
Mr. Burns. No.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
I am going to place in the record Section 6 of the Nuclear
Waste Policy because it is important. I wish I had the chance
to discuss this with Senator Sessions, but I will talk with him
about it.
Section 6 of the Nuclear Waste Policy only allows agencies
to spend the money Congress gives them for Yucca. In 2010, for
the 2011 year, all Congress gave NRC was $10 million that was
requested to close out Yucca. That is what the Commission did
and did not vote to overturn that decision.
I think it is important. It keeps coming back like a bad
dream, but the fact is Congress voted the money and it was only
$10 million. That was enough to shut it down. I wanted to get
that in the record.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. I want to say to both of you I am so
impressed with your experience. I also appreciate the attitude
you bring here because you are seasoned professionals and
understand that there are disagreements. We just want from you
what you think is the right thing for this industry in terms of
safety.
Of course my colleague, Senator Inhofe, makes a point. We
also have to make sure we look at how we are putting together
these regulations and whether they make sense or not.
I want to thank both of you.
I hope to move this very, very quickly. It will be up to
everyone to cooperate on that.
I want to thank Senator Vitter in particular for really
helping us move this forward. It was very magnanimous of him.
He said to me, well, I hope you will cooperate when we want to
move people forward. Of course, we will.
We are going to move on this on Thursday and have a vote.
We will let everyone know. We need your answers yesterday.
Thank you very much.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]