[Senate Hearing 114-353]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-353
BUSINESS MEETING
=======================================================================
MEETING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
May 18, 2016
__________
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
21-325 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 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
Ryan Jackson, Majority Staff Director
Bettina Poirier, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MAY 18, 2016
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 2
LEGISLATION
Text of the manager's substitute amendment to S. 2795 offered by
Senator Inhofe................................................. 4
Text of the amendment offered by Senator Gillibrand.............. 52
Text of the amendment to S. 2754 offered by Senator Inhofe....... 62
S. 2816, a Bill to reauthorize the diesel emissions reduction
program........................................................ 65
S. 1479, a Bill to amend the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to modify
provisions relating to grants, and for other purposes.......... 66
S. 921, a Bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
establish a nonregulatory program to build on and help
coordinate funding for restoration and protection efforts of
the 4-State Delaware River Basin region, and for other purposes 79
S. 2754, a Bill to designate the Federal building and United
States courthouse located at 300 Fannin Street in Shreveport,
Louisiana, as the ``Tom Stagg Federal Building and United
States Courthouse''............................................ 93
H.R. 3114, an Act to provide funds to the Army Corps of Engineers
to hire veterans and members of the Armed Forces to assist the
Corps with curation and historical preservation activities, and
for other purposes............................................. 96
Approved Committee Resolutions..................................100-132
Nomination of Jane Toshiko, of Maryland, to be Assistant
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency........... 133
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2016
U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:39 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James Inhofe
(chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Barrasso, Capito, Crapo,
Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Sullivan, Carper, Cardin,
Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker and Markey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. The meeting will come to order.
Today, the Environment and Public Works demonstrates once
again that we are working to get things done. At the conclusion
of my opening statement, I am going to brag a little bit on
what all we have gotten done, because we are the committee that
does things.
I am pleased we were able to reach a great bipartisan
compromise on the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization
Act. After all, innovation has come to the nuclear industry.
There are many new companies, nuclear startups, in fact, that
are pursuing concepts that advance safety and so forth.
You know what I think I will do? I am going to submit this
for the record because everybody knows what it is in it.
Anyway, we have several bills today. I want to say
something about our Committee, and I say this really on behalf
of Senator Boxer and myself. We have, as Majority, and I am
sure when you were Majority you did the same thing, have weekly
meetings of the chairmen of the committees. When it gets around
to my turn I always say now we will hear from the committee
that gets things done, unlike the other committees.
In this Committee, we have the 5-year surface
transportation bill, first one since 1988; water research, the
WRDA bill; a bill that we are going to be doing today, chemical
safety; Water Resources Research Amendments; the Grassroots
Rural and Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act;
National Estuary Program, and that was by Whitehouse and
Vitter, do we have broad extreme support on all ends on these
bills; the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative; Long Island
Sound Restoration; Lake Tahoe Restoration; Kennedy Center
reauthorization; multiple namings after different leaders;
regulatory relief bills; consideration of nearly 100 GSAs.
Anyway, it comes down to about 31 total that we have done
in this Committee alone, so I want to say to my friends on the
Committee, on the Democrat side and the Republican side, that
you are doing great work, and better work that any of the other
committees are doing.
With that, I will turn it over to Senator Boxer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I agree with that. I am
grateful to members on both sides. And I think that our
friendship has been very important. We know what we can't do
and we know what we can do. If there were bumper strips that
each committee had, ours would say ``EPW: The Committee That
Does,'' because we do well. Now, I wish we could do a little
bit more given, should I dare say it, climate change, but since
that is not an area where we can work together, we have made up
for it in other areas.
Senator Inhofe. It kind of creeps into every statement. But
that is fine.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. I told you I would not say climate change.
Senator Inhofe. Well, you did say it.
Senator Boxer. In any event, I do want to thank you so much
for this markup today. Senator Carper's Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act of 2016 will reauthorize the enormously
successful DERA program.
Senator Inhofe. Which is another demonstration of working
together.
Senator Boxer. His and yours.
It provides grants to reduce air pollution by retrofitting
or replacing diesel equipment. This program has delivered, and
I think it is important that we note this, it has delivered an
estimated $12.6 billion in health benefits and saved countless
lives. That is what we can do in this Committee.
I am proud, also, to be a co-sponsor of the Brownfields
Utilization, Investment and Local Development Act, called the
BUILD Act. This legislation reauthorizes EPA's brownfields
program, which helps revitalize communities with contaminated
waste sites. It is estimated that there are more than 450,000
brownfields in the U.S.
So when we cleanup and reinvest in these properties, we
increase local tax bases, we facilitate job growth, and we
allow redevelopment of formerly contaminated lands. And I
remember when we first did this brownfields bill, it is really
a landmark bill; it adds to the other landmark bills that this
Committee is known for.
We will also consider a bill introduced by Senators Carper,
Booker, and Gillibrand to help restore the Delaware River
Basin, and a bill to authorize a program at the Corps to hire
veterans to assist with historic preservation activities. I
strongly support these bills.
Today's agenda also includes a bill to encourage
development and approval of advanced nuclear reactors, and to
reform the NRC's fee structure. I had significant concerns with
the introduced bill, which would have reduced transparency
during the approval process for new nuclear reactors and
limited the ability of NRC to collect the fees necessary to
carry out its oversight responsibilities. I appreciate the work
by several Senators on the manager's amendment that we will
consider. This amendment addresses some of the most serious
concerns in the introduced bill; however, I believe there is
more work to be done on this bill and I look forward to working
with the bill's sponsors as this legislation moves forward.
So, with that, I look forward to today's markup.
Senator Inhofe. That is great, Senator Boxer. I think we
are all looking forward to the Oklahoma City Thunder defeating
Golden State tonight, so we have a lot to look forward to,
don't we?
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. The Committee stands adjourned.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. You know, the last ones who bragged about
that lost games two, three, and four, so watch out.
Senator Inhofe. Oddly enough, we do have 11 here, we have a
quorum. This can be a very quick meeting, and I hope that you
will stay. We do need 11 for passage of either legislation or
to be reported out. We need 7 to approve amendments, but we
really don't have very many amendments down here.
So we are going to start with the consideration of a list
of bipartisan bills. We are going to begin with S. 2795, the
Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. That is
probably the one that drew the most attention here. So, to
begin with, I am going to call up the manager's substitute
package, which was circulated already and everyone has had
access to it. This substitute will be considered the original
text for the purpose of the amendment. This is a bipartisan
package of amendments to S. 2795, co-sponsored by Senators
Crapo, Whitehouse, Booker, Carper, and Markey, that
incorporates several bipartisan modifications negotiated with
these Senators on the NRC fees, modernizing NRC procedures, and
the feasibility of extending the duration of the uranium
recovery licenses, which is important to Senator Barrasso and
several others.
[The text of the manager's substitute amendment to S. 2795
offered by Senator Inhofe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Does any Senator seek recognition to talk
about this? Then I will be asking for a motion.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Yes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I
support this amendment, appreciate the efforts of the bill's
sponsors to address some of the concerns in the introduced
bill.
This manager's package removes a harmful provision in the
introduced bill that would have removed a requirement for a
mandatory hearing prior to approving nuclear licenses or
permits. In light of the Fukushima disaster, this is the wrong
approach, and I am so pleased this provision was removed.
The manager's amendment also provides NRC with increased
flexibility to adjust fees to meet its safety responsibilities.
While these changes improve the introduced bill, I believe more
needs to be done to ensure the bill does not place an increased
burden on taxpayers and to make sure NRC has sufficient
resources to meet its safety mandates.
So I support this amendment and I will probably vote no on
the bill in the hopes that we can work together as it moves to
the floor.
Senator Inhofe. All right.
Senator Carper. Excuse me, excuse me. Let's start on this
side.
Any comments on this manager's amendment?
Senator Crapo. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Inhofe. Senator Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. As one
of the original co-sponsors of this bill, I want to thank all
of our members on the Committee for working in a bipartisan way
to move this forward, particularly yourself as the other
Republican original co-sponsors, and Senators Booker and
Whitehouse, and, frankly, Senator Carper, who we worked with
very closely on this as well, to try to move forward and find
the right compromises to move this very critical legislation
forward.
I have a statement, but if I could just put my statement in
the record.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
Senator Crapo. I commend all of us on the Committee for the
good faith and the good work that we have done to move this
legislation forward.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. My thanks to you and
particularly Senator Crapo for your good work on this effort. I
was pleased to join as a co-sponsor of the manager's amendment
that we have just been discussing.
If I could, I just want to take a minute. I have a concern
with the language in the bill that takes away the requirement
that the industry continue to fund the budget of the NRC by at
least 90 percent. When we take that requirement away, the
industry is not happy with that requirement. They haven't been
happy for a while, as you know. If we take that requirement
away in order to fund the NRC, we are just going to have to
fund it out of other appropriations. So I do that with some
trepidation. I am not going to offer the amendment, not going
to call for a vote, but I think it is something that we need to
think about: is this really what we want to do?
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate your discussing your amendment
and appreciate more that you are withdrawing it.
Senator Carper. Which do you appreciate the most?
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. All right, anyone else on this side want to
comment about this?
Senator Boxer. Can I speak on Senator Carper's point?
Senator Inhofe. Well, let's see if anyone else on your side
wants to be heard.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to
thank you and Senator Crapo and Senator Booker for the original
work that moved us along. We had a very good hearing on the
original bill. There was some concern expressed by the Union of
Concerned Scientists about safety and transparency, and I just
want to report that they have said that, ``We do not believe
the revised bill,'' the manager's amendment, ``will have any
major detrimental impact on public safety and transparency. The
bill authors have done well to balance their desire to reform
the licensing process without subjugating the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to congressionally oppose mandates,
allowing the NRC to retain the flexibility it needs to
independently regulate in the public interest.''
Reaching that point has been important for us and I
appreciate the flexibility that everybody has seen to get here.
I think we remain open to bipartisan amendments that will allow
this process to go forward. This isn't the end of the process;
it is an important stage in it. We look forward to working with
all of our colleagues. But I do think this is a really
important step forward, and that there are new technologies,
including technologies that will allow us to turn what is now
hugely costly and dangerous nuclear waste into potentially
valuable nuclear fuel; and pursuing that is, I think, an
important goal for our Country, and I thank again the Chairman
and the Ranking Member for their leadership in this process.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. I just want to thank Senator Booker and
the other sponsors for taking one of my concerns into account
by adding a comment period so that communities could have a
chance to be heard on the placement of plants. It is very
important to New York State specifically.
There is another comment I have that we didn't have time to
include, but I would like to have us consider it on the floor,
which is to require new plants to have a robust evacuation
plan; and not just one they do themselves, but one that can be
certified by FEMA, or both.
I say this because we have a nuclear facility that has 17
million people within 50 miles. So if Indian Point had any
disaster of any kind, there is no possible way to evacuate 17
million people today. And I have been asking NRC to focus on a
better plan to actually work on how many lives could we save in
the instance of a disaster, and they have not given it to me.
So I really think it is important.
In rural areas, super easy. We have nuclear plants in areas
in upState New York where you can evacuate everyone very
quickly because it is a rural area with wide-ranging roads and
very robust systems to get people away from a disaster. But
what we saw after Superstorm Sandy is a warning. What happened
after Superstorm Sandy was the water levels rose within two
feet of overcoming the nuclear plant. So if it had risen any
further, it could have diluted the plant. And there was no way
to evacuate because, because of the storm, power lines were
knocked down and made most road systems inoperable.
So even the 10 mile evacuation zone could not have been
evacuated if there was a disaster due to Hurricane Sandy. And
it is just a forewarning that when storms happen, all systems
break down, and the road system was wiped out.
So I urge this Committee and members on the floor to add an
amendment to have a robust review when you are creating the
plant, setting up the plant, what is your evacuation plan in
the instance of a disaster.
Senator Inhofe. First, Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. I want to just echo some of the thanks,
especially Senator Crapo. I want to thank Senator Inhofe and
Senator Whitehouse, as well, for a lot of the original work on
this, as well as the team effort from a lot of folks who helped
continually to improve this bill.
This is what we really should be doing, not just working
together, but working together to innovate. Next generation
nuclear is not the nightmarish realities that we see in a lot
of the challenges around the globe and here at home, and some
of the difficulties that Senator Gillibrand is rightfully
pointing out. If we are going to have and embrace a carbon-free
future, or to decarbonize, nuclear is going to have to be a
part of it if we are looking to do that very quickly.
So I am very excited that we are showing pro-innovation
efforts right here and right now, and I just, again, want to
thank. This has been a great experience for me, to work in such
bipartisan fashion to develop such a strong bill, so thank you
very much.
Senator Inhofe. Good. Thank you.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thanks.
I am disappointed that we didn't get to vote on Senator
Gillibrand's evacuation amendment, and also Senator Carper's
amendment. I just want to take a minute. The work on this bill
was terrific. This bill has more work to be done. I stood at
San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant that has been shut down, but it
is not decommissioned yet. There is more than 5 million people
within a few miles of this facility. I said to the sheriff,
what happens in case of emergency, and she said just look at
the road. And, of course, it is bumper-to-bumper because it is
Southern California. Forget it. Forget it. And this bill
doesn't address that.
This bill doesn't address funding, Senator Carper is
absolutely right. You take away the funding. And we know, from
working on the chemical bill, how important it is. If we expect
the NRC to its job, we expect them to be able to have the
funding. This is a step back. While we take a beautiful step
forward in terms of the future, because I agree we are looking
for a carbon-free future, and I have always said if nuclear is
safe, it is definitely part of the answer. But if you don't
have anything in there about evacuations, if you take away the
source of funding, where are they going to get the funding? We
are just struggling over funding constantly.
So that is why I do look forward to this bill coming to the
floor. I do intend to be heard. I do intend to work with my
colleagues to make this bill better. And if we can make it
better, frankly, just in these two areas, I think it will fly
through.
I am hopeful that we can work more on this and I do so
appreciate the bipartisan work that went into it. From where it
started to where it is now is night and day, and I just want to
make it that much better when we deal with the fees and we deal
with the evacuations, because it is very frightening.
Also, last, I know Senator Gillibrand has a critical
amendment, critical amendment dealing with safety at the
plants, and I hope it passes, because if it passes it will give
this bill many more legs. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. All right, others who want to be heard?
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, just one last point, if I
could. I am going to make a unanimous consent request.
The reason why I didn't ask for a vote on the amendment
regarding the funding is because there are changes that I
sought in the bill and we were able to work out. So in the
spirit of compromise we didn't push for the recorded vote on
the 90 percent amendment.
However, the congressional Research Service has provided us
with an analysis of the language, and I would like to submit
that document. This is with respect to funding. I would like to
submit their documents for the record on this bill, please.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. Chairman, at least month's hearing I raised two
concerns about the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization
Act. Specifically, I was concerned that the bill's repeal of
the mandatory hearing for new construction and operating
licenses would undermine the public's access to important
safety information. I also stated my concern about the bill's
cap on the NRC's collection of fees, which I felt could
undermine the Commission's safety and security mission by
reducing its access to needed resources.
Over the last few weeks the co-sponsors of the bill worked
closely with me to address both of these issues. The manager's
amendment to this bill removes the repeal of the mandatory
hearing and it strengthens the NRC's authority to waive the cap
on fees if that cap may undermine safety or security. Together,
the changes that were included to improve on the safety issues
raised by the Union of Concerned Scientists resulted in
proposed changes that have considerably improved this
legislation.
I want to thank Senators Inhofe and Crapo, Senators Booker,
Whitehouse, Murkowski and Fischer for their willingness to work
in a bipartisan manner to address those concerns. The bill's
authors balanced their desire to enable nuclear innovation by
reforming the NRC's licensing process with the public interest
in nuclear safety.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Markey. Before you came
in, you were acknowledged and praised for all of your
bipartisan help on this bill.
Does anyone seek recognition for the purpose of an
amendment to the manager's amendment?
Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment
addresses a very specific issue to this nuclear plant we have
in New York State called Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, in
Westchester County, New York. It is 36 miles from Manhattan.
And within 50 miles it has more than 17 million people.
As some of you might know, there has been a series of
safety issues at Indian Point spanning many years, but the most
recent problem tops them all. Two months ago the owners of
Indian Point reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that
a number of bolts and plates in the Unit 2 reactor were
degraded.
These bolts are vital to the safety and operational
function of the plant. The bolts hold together metal plates
that direct cooling water as it flows through the reactor core.
Degraded bolts could allow plates to gap or even separate,
providing pathways for water to bypass the reactor core. If the
cooling water leaks out, you can imagine what happens to the
core.
And we are not talking about a couple of bolts; we are
talking about 227 bolts out of 832. That is 27 percent. This is
the worst case of degradation ever found in a nuclear power
plant.
After this failure was reported to the NRC in March, we
learned that the NRC never required this equipment to be
sufficiently inspected since the reactor began operating in the
mid-1970's. No part of a nuclear plant should go four decades
without sufficient inspection, especially for this problem,
which was well known by both the industry and the NRC.
What else could be degraded within these reactors? Why did
so many bolts degrade? Did the threads where the bolts were get
stripped? Were the plates damaged from movement or friction as
a result of the degraded bolts?
We don't know the answers to any of these questions yet.
The so-called root cause analysis is still being performed and
will take a few more months to be completed. In the meantime,
the NRC is going to allow a restart of Unit 2 in June.
Opponents of this amendment are going to say that we will
set a precedent for the NRC handling the degraded bolts issue.
My response to that argument is that is a very good thing. The
NRC should be taking this issue much more seriously.
Therefore, on behalf of our 17 million constituents who
live within range of the plant, I offer this amendment to force
the NRC to finish the root cause analysis before allowing Unit
2 reactor to restart. In addition, this amendment would require
the NRC to move up the date for inspection for Unit 3 so that
it is completed by the end of 2016. Until Unit 3 is also
inspected, we have no way of knowing whether similar
degradation is happening in that reactor. That is a gamble that
I am not willing to take on behalf of so many millions of New
Yorkers.
So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
And, Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper has suggested a voice
vote for this, and I accept that.
[The text of the amendment offered by Senator Gillibrand
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. All right.
Let me just make a couple comments. I know the sincerity,
the concern that you have. You have expressed that. And our
staff has reached out to try to find an acceptable compromise
with regard to the amendment, and I still want to do that.
Senator Gillibrand has raised serious concerns and I want to
find a serious solution that establishes accountability and
transparency about the safety at Indian Point. But that takes
more time than a 24-hour amendment filing deadline allows.
I have directed, and I know this is something that you
want, Senator Gillibrand, my staff to request a bipartisan
briefing from the NRC as soon as possible, I mean immediately,
and I will be there, in order to gain a clear picture of what
is being done and the extent of the issue with other plants.
That is a necessary first step to understand how to craft a
solution without causing unintended consequences.
I don't think we should set a precedent of substituting our
judgment for the NRC's when it comes to determining plant
safety. So I would oppose that but work very closely with you
and try to accommodate a solution.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I truly appreciate your
interest in this and the fact that you are going to personally
study it. I do want to say that this is not a 24-hour deal. The
last time we had a hearing, we did right here, Senator
Gillibrand brought it up to the NRC. I remember it like it was
a yesterday, though it was quite a while ago.
The bottom line is hundreds of degraded and cracked bolts
were found. This isn't some theory; this is a fact. They were
found in reactor vessels at the Indian Point Nuclear Power
Plant in New York, and her amendment would ensure that the
safety concerns raised by this discovery are fully addressed at
Indian Point. I share her concern about the safety of this
plant and believe similar plants have the same issue, and they
may not know it. In fact, degraded bolts were discovered at the
Salem Nuclear Power Plant in New Jersey.
So I am writing to the NRC today to ask the Commission to
determine whether the issue identified at Indian Point and
Salem could be a problem at other nuclear plants. Diablo Canyon
in California has the same exact design, so it is important
that NRC look at similar plants. So if it is New York and it is
New Jersey with the same design as California, I think it may
be more of a problem than we know.
And I appreciate Senator Gillibrand's leadership on the
issue. I hear she is not going to ask for a recorded vote, but
I would like to be noted in the record as having supported it,
and I will share my letter that I write with everyone who is
interested. But this is not an overnight 24-hour deal; this is
a deep concern. I watched my colleague's face as she talked.
You are talking about millions of people, and here we sit. We
can do something about it, but, oh, no, we are going to do a
voice vote and it won't go anywhere today. I think that is a
mistake.
In closing, let me say this. If nuclear power is going to
take its place, it had better be safe. So when you find
something that is not safe, you are not helping the industry to
turn away. You help the industry when we make every move to
make nuclear power safe. People are not stupid. They look at
Fukushima; they see what happened. Some remember Three Mile
Island and other disasters.
So when we make it safe, we make it acceptable. When we
walk away from safety and we take away the money that is used
to make it safe, I think we are undermining what we are trying
to do here, which is to get a carbon-free alternative. That is
how strongly I feel about it.
Senator Inhofe. Anyone want to be heard? Senator Sullivan?
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to mention a
principle that I know that we try to focus on in this
Committee. It is actually very important to me, given my State.
On issues of very local concern, that the Committee here give
the members a lot of leeway.
So this seems to be a very local concern. And when I have
raised local concerns about my State, I have asked in this
Committee for my colleagues to give the Senator from the State
leeway on the issue because you know more about it and maybe
care more about it than any other members. Unfortunately, that
hasn't always happened, at least with regard to some Alaska
issues, because they seem to be nationalized.
So I am sympathetic to this amendment because it is local.
She knows more about it, Senator Gillibrand knows more about it
than probably anyone else, and cares more about it than
probably anyone else.
But I am also understanding, Mr. Chairman, of your concern
about setting a precedent that this Committee somehow
substitutes its judgment for the NRC's judgment on safety.
There is no doubt that the experts are at the NRC, not here.
So I am just wondering if there is any way that there could
be language in this amendment that absolutely makes it clear
that this is not a precedent, this is a one-time issue that
addresses, that we are not going to get involved in overriding
the NRC. But I am sympathetic to a colleague who is raising an
issue of very local concern that she knows more about than
anyone else, and I would welcome that precedent on this
Committee when issues that come up with regard to other States
that are very important to the members here, that we get a
little leeway on those kind of topics, because they certainly
come up a lot with regard to my State, and we don't always get
that leeway.
Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, all my
amendment does it ask the NRC to look at it. So we are just
saying this is something you must look at before you restart.
So we are trying to give the ball to the NRC. The industry
doesn't want the oversight. It is the industry who says you
can't tell us what to do on safety.
But the only oversight we have is the NRC, so I am
specifically asking, NRC, please insert yourself here because I
am so worried about it, and you haven't looked at this in three
decades. So I am asking the NRC to take some jurisdiction away
from the industry, who doesn't want anyone to look at their
stuff. That is why I am trying to give it to them, not us. I
just said please look at this because I am so worried.
And I have no one else who is able to look at it; they are
the only body that could go in and say we are not worried
because it is 30 percent degraded and 50 percent is the
breaking point. I need them to say that. I need them to know
that and say it is not worrying to us. I think 30 percent is
really close to 50, so that scares the heck out of me. So I
just want the NRC to take jurisdiction on this, so I am giving
it to them.
And it can be a one-time thing. We can put a statement in
that this is not precedent-creating, if that is amenable.
Senator Inhofe. OK.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. I just want to respond to Senator Sullivan.
We are going to be sitting down with them, all collectively, to
make sure we get something done on this. And, of course, then
we have the floor. So I hear you and that is exactly what I
think we are doing.
Yes, Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Just very briefly. You have made a very
generous offer to Senator Gillibrand and I just urge her to
accept that, and let's just do a good quick deep dive, not like
in a couple of months, but like right away. I am not sure how
soon this bill is going to be on the floor, but it is
imperative that whatever come out of that discussion, we be
able to reflect that in the bill on the floor when it comes to
the floor.
There are two options here: one, we don't vote on this or
we vote it down or whatever, do what you are talking about
doing and then say we are going to address it on the floor, or,
two, I think follow Senator Sullivan's advice, which I think is
very good, and vote for it on a voice vote, then do what you
are talking about doing. And the outcome, I think, will be the
same. I think this will maybe impart a greater sense of urgency
to get some changes that I think need to be made, and I suspect
you do too.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Did you want to seek recognition, Senator Booker?
Senator booker. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
First of all, I just want to say, again, I am excited about
this bill because it is looking to the future, new innovation
that doesn't pose these kinds of threats that we are dealing
with. But that said, if any one of us lived in the shadow of
this nuclear plant and you had this kind of failure of the
bolts, that large of a percentage, it really is frightening.
I sat here as Senator Gillibrand questioned during that
hearing, and you were receiving wholly unsatisfactory answers,
and what disturbed me was a lack of urgency about this specific
plant. If any of us lived in the shadow of that, we would want
to know the root cause of this problem.
And now I represent the same metropolitan area that Senator
Gillibrand represents and, as you said, this is an isolated
incident in terms of the dramatic number of bolts, but 18 bolts
were found to be deficient in a New Jersey plant. So what she
is asking for is what any of us, if we or our families lived in
the shadow of that plant. We are not afraid of information.
Let's just have some more transparency about why you have such
a large percentage of bolts at this one plant.
I don't want it to take away from the forward-looking bill
that we have to embrace future technology and innovation in the
nuclear area that is going to help us to be more carbon-free,
that is going to help create plants that actually eat this kind
of fuel, that do many of the opposite things we are afraid of.
But what Senator Gillibrand is asking for, demanding, has not
received a satisfactory response, in my opinion, and that is
why I support her amendment.
Senator Inhofe. And I appreciate that.
And thank you, Senator Carper, for your compliment. We are
very sincere about wanting to get together on this, and I think
we will.
Before us we have the Gillibrand amendment. Is there a
motion?
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Senator Sullivan. Just one other thought, and I don't know
if it is acceptable to Senator Gillibrand, but your commitment,
as Senator Carper mentioned, to really get the NRC here, have
them ask questions that satisfy her, and if they don't do that,
then I think a number of us would be amenable to voting for
this amendment on the floor.
Senator Inhofe. I agree with that.
Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Senator Gillibrand. So I did ask them. We had the NRC here
and I asked them all the questions we would ask, and their
answers were horrible. They basically said, it is not our
concern; we don't have a concern; industry standard is we have
redundancy. But they couldn't tell me what level of redundancy
was safe. They couldn't tell me that 30 percent was unsafe or
safe. They didn't have information.
We told the NRC in advance, this is exactly what Kirsten is
going to ask you about, so please be prepared with answers. We
had to request answers for the record we have not received yet.
So they are stonewalling. And, yes, we will have them in again,
we will ask the same questions, and now they will have more
notice to prepare the answers they should have prepared months
ago.
But their answer was we are not worried and we are not
going to do this, it is not our job. And they are our only
overseeing organization. They are the only one who could tell a
plant we are concerned about this, we want you to do a little
more. And if they are unwilling to use that authority, when I
am desperately asking them please use that authority, I feel
they are not doing their jobs. They are avoiding authority,
which is absurd. They are the only safety net we have.
So we had the hearing, we had it, and I used my time to
drill down and I got nothing. And Senator Boxer was here during
that time, so she knows they were really nothing answers, side
steps; we don't know, we are not sure, we will get you that for
the record. But they couldn't tell me what level of failure is
safe. They couldn't tell me.
So it is stressful because, again, we can pass this now
into the base bill, we can say it is not precedent-setting, and
then I will get my answer for Indian Point, or we could do it
on the Senate floor. But when you do it on the Senate floor,
you don't have the level of expertise that this Committee has.
They are not going to have the benefit of this discussion. They
are not going to have the benefit of hearing NRC's answers,
which I will circulate for you so you can satisfy yourself that
they did not come prepared and did not give satisfactory
answers. It is up to this Committee.
But I appreciate what you said, Senator Sullivan, I just
think it is a safety risk that I am so frightened about, and I
just wish this Committee could help me protect those 17 million
people from something that we don't know whether it would
happen or not.
Senator Inhofe. Well, Senator Gillibrand, I anticipate we
are going to have a big crowd that is going to make sure that
history doesn't repeat itself on this when we have our meeting
with them, and hopefully we will have the same number of people
here. And I will be there and make sure that we do.
Senator Boxer. When are you doing that?
Senator Inhofe. I stated as soon as possible, but I would
say immediately.
Senator Boxer. Good.
Senator Inhofe. So we will do that.
Let's go ahead. You requested a voice vote. The Gillibrand
amendment, is there a motion on the amendment? Second?
Senator Boxer. Second.
Senator Inhofe. All in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Senator Inhofe. Opposed, no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Senator Inhofe. The ayes do appear to have it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. I am going to call for a roll call. Clerk,
call the roll.
The Clerk: Mr. Barrasso.
Senator Inhofe. Oh, wait a minute. Barrasso, no by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Senator Booker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Boozman?
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer?
Senator Boxer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Capito?
Senator Capito. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Carper?
Senator Carper. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Crapo?
Senator Crapo. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Fischer?
Senator Fischer. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Gillibrand?
Senator Gillibrand. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
Senator Markey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
Senator Rounds. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Sanders?
Senator Boxer. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan?
Senator Sullivan. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Vitter?
Senator Inhofe. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse?
Senator Whitehouse. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Wicker?
Senator Wicker. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9----
Senator Inhofe. I need to vote.
Senator Cardin: Mr. Chairman?
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Senator Cardin: Can I be recorded aye in person?
Senator Inhofe. Yes, of course.
And you didn't call my name.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Inhofe. No.
Senator Boozman. Mr. Chairman, could you be recorded also
as a no in person?
Senator Inhofe. Live. A live no. Senator Boozman.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9, the nays are 11.
Senator Inhofe. OK.
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, may I just make a comment?
Senator Inhofe. Let me finish with the vote here.
Senator Sullivan. Oh, I am sorry.
Senator Inhofe. The motion is not agreed to.
Senator Sullivan. I know I started this conversation and I
just want to say I certainly want to work with Senator
Gillibrand on this, and if she is not satisfied after you--I am
sure the NRC is watching this debate, and if they come back and
they are not answering the questions to her satisfaction, I
certainly would commit to voting yes on this amendment when it
comes to the floor. And I just wanted to mention that.
Hopefully we will get it resolved before it comes up, but if it
doesn't come to the point where she is satisfied for her
constituents, I certainly would be inclined to give her the
leeway to vote yes on this amendment if and when it comes to
the floor.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
Other amendments to the manager's amendment?
Senator Crapo. Mr. Chairman, could I just also make a post-
amendment comment here?
Senator Inhofe. Of course.
Senator Crapo. As I understand the issue, and I don't
profess to be the expert on it, one of the problems we have is
that in order to do the work that the NRC would need to do on
this reactor, as your amendment would require, Senator
Gillibrand, the reactor needs to be shut down. And that is a
very expensive process to engage in, and my understanding is
there is already a scheduled shutdown in March of next year.
Senator Gillibrand. That is Unit 3. So Unit 2 is already
shut down, they already shut it down, so it is about restarting
it June 1, I think. So we are just saying please investigate
those baffle bolts before you restart, since it has already
been shut down.
Senator Crapo. On Unit 2.
Senator Gillibrand. On Unit 2.
Senator Crapo. So it's already shut down.
Senator Gillibrand. It is already shut down.
Senator Inhofe. All right.
Now, is there a motion to adopt the substitute manager's
amendment to S. 2795 and report S. 2795, as amended, favorably,
to the Senate? Second?
Senator Rounds. Second.
Senator Inhofe. The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Inhofe. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Senator Booker. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Boozman?
Senator Boozman. Yes.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer?
Senator Boxer. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Capito?
Senator Capito. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Carper?
Senator Carper. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Crapo?
Senator Crapo. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Fischer?
Senator Fischer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Gillibrand?
Senator Gillibrand. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
Senator Markey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
Senator Rounds. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sanders?
Senator Boxer. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Senator Inhofe. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan?
Senator Sullivan. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Vitter?
Senator Inhofe. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse?
Senator Whitehouse. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Wicker?
Senator Wicker. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Inhofe. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 17; the nays are 3.
Senator Inhofe. And it is agreed to.
If there is not objection, we are going to hit all the rest
of them en bloc. There is no amendments. There is only one
amendment filed, and that is mine, which is a technical
amendment to the title on S. 2754. So I would move that
amendment to S. 2754. Is there a second?
Senator Rounds. Second.
Senator Inhofe. Any objection?
[No audible response.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. It is agreed to.
Does any member wish to speak on the remaining items?
Senator Carper. Just one thing. I just want to thank you
for taking up the mantle that George Voinovich provided great
leadership in diesel emission reduction. I thank Senator Boxer
for her kind words. Everybody is a part of this bill. This is
something we can be very, very proud of, and thank you all.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Others who want to be heard? Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
You and I, we don't agree on climate change, but we do
agree that we have to be committed to cleaning up old
industrial contaminated sites so that they can be reused, and I
want to thank you for your leadership on this bill and in
partnering with Senator Boxer and with Senator Rounds and
Booker and Crapo on this important piece of brownfields
legislation. There are an estimated 15 million acres of
potentially contaminated land in America, and in places where
long industrial histories like Massachusetts we have nearly a
century's worth of toxic materials that have accumulated in
sites all across our Country.
The BUILD Act is critical to cleaning up the decades of
abuse our lands have experienced at the hands of corporate
polluters. Cleaning up brownfield sites is a win-win for the
Country, helping to create jobs and spur economic activity
while revitalizing underutilized and polluted lands. The
brownfield grants authorized in the BUILD Act will give
communities and businesses a chance to return economic
stability to under-served and economically disadvantaged
neighborhoods through the assessment and cleanup of abandoned
industrial and commercial properties, places where
environmental cleanups and new jobs are most needed. Many of
those sites may also be good candidates for solar and wind and
biomass energy production facilities.
While we still have a long way to go toward cleaning up the
decades of abuse sustained by our Nation's lands, I am proud to
have partnered here with my colleagues on this Committee to
ensure that these brownfield sites are no longer part of the
problem, but will be part of a clean energy solution, and I
hope that my colleagues will all support this important bill
today.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Markey. I want to say
you mentioned brownfields. Of course, that is one of the things
we are acting on right now, and there is no better model for
it, I would invite everyone to come to Oklahoma City, maybe
after the game tonight, and see the Bricktown in Oklahoma City
that is exactly what we should be doing all over America, and
we are going to be able to do more of that with this.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Chairman, as a Rhode Island member
on the Committee, I just wanted to put in a word of
appreciation for the Senators Chafee, father and son, who
championed this brownfield legislation for so many years. Of
course, I will be glad to support it, but their work is
entitled to some recognition.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask to be added
as a co-sponsor of S. 1479, the brownfields legislation? Thank
you.
Senator Inhofe. Anyone else want to be heard? If not, is
there a motion to report S. 2816, S. 1479, S. 921, S. 2754, as
amended, and H.R. 3114, the GSA resolutions and the nomination
of Jane Nishida, en bloc? Is there an objection? If not, is
there a motion?
Senator Carper. So move.
Senator Inhofe. Is there a second?
Senator Capito. Second.
Senator Inhofe. All those in favor, say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Senator Inhofe. Opposed, no.
[No audible response.]
Senator Inhofe. The ayes have it and they are adopted.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Now, without objection, the legislation and resolutions and
nomination are reported favorably to the Committee. Any
Committee member wishing to have their vote registered in the
negative for an item in that bloc, as long as it doesn't affect
the result of the vote, may do so. Simply notify our staff.
I ask unanimous consent that the staff have authority to
make technical and conforming changes to the measure approved
today.
With that, our meeting is at an end. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:25 a.m. the committee was adjourned.]