S. HRG. 115–44 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF KRISTINE 

SVINICKI (REAPPOINTMENT), ANNIE CAPUTO 

AND DAVID WRIGHT TO BE MEMBERS OF 

THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, 

AND THE NOMINATION OF SUSAN BODINE 

TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE 

ASSURANCE OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 13, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF KRISTINE SVINICKI (REAPPOINTMENT), ANNIE CAPUTO AND DAVID WRIGHT TO BE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR 

COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGULATORY COMMISSION, AND THE NOMINATION OF SUSAN BODINE TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

26–002 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–44 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF KRISTINE 

SVINICKI (REAPPOINTMENT), ANNIE CAPUTO 

AND DAVID WRIGHT TO BE MEMBERS OF 

THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, 

AND THE NOMINATION OF SUSAN BODINE 

TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE 

ASSURANCE OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 13, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

KAMALA HARRIS, California 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 13, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Graham, Hon. Lindsey, U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina ............ 2 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 2 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 4 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 10 

WITNESSES 

Svinicki, Kristine, nominated to be Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (reappointment) ...................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Response to an additional question from Senator Booker ............................ 15 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 15 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 21 

Senator Sullivan ........................................................................................ 32 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 34 

Caputo, Annie, nominated to be a member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 43 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 45 

Senator Sullivan ........................................................................................ 78 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 81 

Wright, David, nominated to be a member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 90 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 96 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 101 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 111 

Senator Sullivan ........................................................................................ 135 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 138 

Bodine, Susan, nominated to be Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .... 309 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 311 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 315 

Response to an additional question from Senator Cardin ............................ 318 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 318 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 322 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 333 

(1) 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF KRISTINE SVINICKI (REAPPOINTMENT), ANNIE 

CAPUTO AND DAVID WRIGHT TO BE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION, AND THE NOMINATION OF 

SUSAN BODINE TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT 

AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE OF THE U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Inhofe, Capito, Boozman, Wicker, 

Ernst, Sullivan, Carper, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey, 

Duckworth, and Harris. 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. 

Today, we will consider the nominations of three individuals to 

serve as members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

Kristine Svinicki, current member and Chair of the NRC; Annie 

Caputo, Senior Policy Advisor on this Committee’s majority staff; 

and David Wright, President, Wright Directions, LLC. 

We will also consider the nomination of one individual, Susan 

Bodine, Chief Counsel on this Committee’s majority staff, to serve 

as Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance—OECA—at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

I applaud the President’s nomination of such experienced Americans and dedicated public servants. The four nominees before us 

today are all well qualified candidates. Three are well known to 

members of this Committee and staff. One is not well known, and 

that is why Senator Lindsey Graham is here today to bring to the 

attention of the Committee the nominee from his home State of 

South Carolina. 

Senator Graham, if it is OK with you, based on schedules, I 

would hope you could make an introduction at this time. 

2 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY GRAHAM, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is my pleasure to introduce David to you. We served together 

in the South Carolina House of Representatives for 2 years, so I 

have known David for a long time. His mother, Irene, is with him. 

This is a big day for the Wright family. I want to thank the President for nominating David to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

He is a graduate of Clemson University. We celebrated their national championship yesterday at the White House. Go, Tigers. 

David has an incredible background in terms of the subject matter. He was on the South Carolina Public Service Commission from 

2004 to 2013. South Carolina, per capita, has the most nuclear 

power of any State in the nation. We are a pro-nuclear power 

State. I think David understands the issues surrounding nuclear 

power as well as anyone in the country. 

From 2008 to 2009 he was President of the Southeastern Association of Regulatory Commissioners. In 2011 and 2012 he was 

President of the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners. 

David understands the nuclear industry as well as anyone I know. 

The President chose wisely. Again, South Carolina’s nuclear footprint is very large. 

He has been a mayor, so he knows how to get along with people. 

If you are going to be a successful mayor, you have to make things 

win-win. 

I could not recommend more highly to you David Wright. I want 

to thank the President. All of us in South Carolina are proud. He 

will hit the ground running because he knows the subject matter. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Graham. We 

appreciate it. I know with a busy schedule, you probably have additional obligations. At this time, you are excused. Thank you for 

being with us today. 

Of the nominees this morning, two have been previously reported 

by this Committee and confirmed by the Senate by voice vote. 

Ms. Svinicki has served as a member of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission for more than 9 years, including the last 6 months as 

the Chair. She was confirmed as a member in 2008. She was reported by this Committee by voice vote in December 2007 and confirmed by the Senate by voice vote on March 13, 2008. 

She was re-nominated to a second term in 2012. Again, she was 

reported successfully by this Committee by voice vote and confirmed by the Senate by voice vote 8 days later. She was designated as the NRC’s Chair by President Trump in January 2017. 

Before joining the NRC, Ms. Svinicki served in various staff positions in the U.S. Senate, including with the Armed Services Committee, where she concentrated on defense science and technology 

policy and defense related atomic energy activities. 

She also worked as a nuclear engineer at the Energy Department 

and as an energy engineer for the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. 

3 

She was honored with the Woman of the Year Award by the 

Women’s Council on Energy and Environment in 2013 and the 

Presidential Citation Award by the American Nuclear Society 

twice, in 2012 and 2006. 

Ms. Caputo has spent more than 20 years advising Congress and 

industry on nuclear energy matters. She has served as a policy advisor for this Committee and for the House Energy and Commerce 

Committee for the past 12 years. 

Before that, she worked for Exelon Corporation as a Congressional Affairs Manager. In 2013 the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure 

Council honored Ms. Caputo with its Meritorious Service Award. 

In response to Ms. Caputo’s nomination, the Vice President of 

the Clean Energy Program at Third Way, a think tank once labeled 

as ‘‘radical centrists’’ by the New York Times, stated of the nominee, ‘‘She has consistently worked with members on both sides of 

the aisle to promote effective nuclear regulation and is well respected across partisan lines for her expertise, professionalism, and 

competence. Few people are more qualified to fill this role at the 

NRC.’’ 

Mr. Wright has served as member and Chairman of the South 

Carolina Public Service Commission, as President of the Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, and as 

President of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. He is Chairman Emeritus of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, a group that includes State utility regulators and 

State attorneys general focusing on addressing nuclear waste policy 

matters. 

He has served as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives and as Councilman and Mayor of the Town of Irmo, 

South Carolina. He has also owned and operated several different 

businesses and been honored with various awards. 

Ms. Bodine served as Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response from 2006 to 2009. 

She was reported by this Committee by voice vote on July 20, 2005, 

and confirmed by the Senate by voice vote later that year. 

She previously served as Staff Director of the House Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, and as an attorney in private practice. 

Today’s nominees will fill critically important roles in protecting 

Americans’ public health and safety. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ensures that nuclear power plants, nuclear materials, and 

waste are handled and used safely and securely. 

The EPA’s role, specifically the one being discussed today, is responsible for enforcing our nation’s environmental laws, including 

the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Superfund. The need for 

nuclear and environmental safety protection is bipartisan. We need 

to move quickly on these nominations. 

Unless today’s NRC nominees are confirmed by June 30th, the 

NRC will lose its quorum. This will degrade the NRC’s collective 

ability to fulfill its mission of licensing and regulating the nation’s 

civilian use of radioactive materials to protect public health and 

provide for safety and security. The Committee must act to restore 

the NRC to a full slate of Commissioners expeditiously. 

4 

Similarly, the EPA does not have a Senate-confirmed Assistant 

Administrator of OECA. The Committee must act to confirm this 

nominee to lead OECA quickly, so that our environmental laws are 

rigorously enforced so that polluters are held accountable. 

I can think of no better candidate to take on the critical task of 

leading OECA and enforcing our nation’s environmental laws than 

Susan Bodine. Past EPA officials, notably from both Republican 

and Democratic Administrations, have praised Susan’s nomination. 

Mathy Stanislaus, a former Obama EPA Assistant Administrator, said, ‘‘Ms. Bodine understands both the internal side of the 

Agency and the proper balance of enforcement and would be a 

‘standup person.’ ’’ 

Ben Grumbles, a former George W. Bush Assistant Administrator and currently the Maryland Secretary of the Environment, 

said, ‘‘She is tough and fair and committed to public service.’’ 

Elliott Laws, a former Clinton Assistant Administrator, said, 

‘‘Bringing in someone with her knowledge of the Agency and the 

issues facing it can only be a positive.’’ 

John Cruden, a former Obama Justice Department Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, said, ‘‘Susan is dedicated to the rule of law, a lawyer with 

great integrity, and she understands the critical importance of effective and timely enforcement.’’ 

I will now turn to Ranking Member Carper for his statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to start off by welcoming each of our four witnesses to today’s hearing. I want to welcome your families as well, your 

spouses, sons and daughters, mothers, and any other friends and 

family that might be in the room. 

Several of our witnesses, Mr. Chairman, have talked about their 

core values and where they came from. They actually remind me 

a lot of ours. So, Ms. Irene, thank you for raising this kid and sending him our way. 

Thank each of you for your past public service and for your continued willingness to serve in these new capacities. For Kristine, 

it is not a new capacity, but to continue to serve. The jobs to which 

you have been nominated are very important to the health and 

safety of the American people. 

Mr. Chairman, as we have discussed, I am concerned that we do 

not have parity in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission nominees 

before us today. It is critical for the Commission to have consistent 

leadership from both political parties, especially as the industry 

faces a challenging future. 

I hope we can find a path, as we discussed, to ensure that the 

White House re-nominates Commissioner Jeff Baran and that the 

Committee pairs consideration of his nomination with some or all 

of the NRC nominees before us. 

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, the minority members of this 

Committee remain deeply disappointed, not with these witnesses or 

their families, but disappointed that the Committee has not received complete written responses from Administrator Pruitt to 11 

5 

oversight letters that Democratic members have sent the EPA this 

year. 

In fact, we recently learned that the White House has instructed 

Federal agencies not to respond at all to oversight requests from 

Senators who are not Chairmen. Such a directive harms both parties and takes us further from the truth. 

You do not have to take my word for it. Our colleague, Senate 

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, sent a letter to 

President Trump just this past Friday admonishing the directive, 

noting, ‘‘It harms not just the members who happen to be in the 

minority party at the moment, but also members in the majority 

party who are not currently Chairmen. It obstructs what ought to 

be the natural flow of information between agencies and the committees, which frustrates the constitutional function of legislating.’’ 

I am sure that my colleagues on both sides of this dais can agree 

that preventing Senators from performing their oversight responsibilities is simply unacceptable. In fact, this Committee has a tradition of ensuring that oversight requests receive responses as part 

of the confirmation process. I would like to share two short examples with you this morning. 

First, in 2013 Republicans insisted on responses to five requests 

as part of former Administrator Gina McCarthy’s confirmation 

process. The Republican minority sought information on the Agency’s compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, the availability of outside scientific research, the use of economic analysis, 

and lawsuit settlements. 

Republican members of EPW boycotted the first business meeting on Administrator McCarthy’s nomination because they believed 

that the EPA had not been responsive to their requests. We may 

have another poster here. On that day, Mr. Chairman, you noted, 

‘‘The new nominee to be EPA Administrator has been extremely 

unresponsive with the information we requested.’’ You went on to 

add, ‘‘We’re simply requesting that Ms. McCarthy and this Administration honor its commitment to transparency—that’s what they 

promised.’’ 

In order to help obtain this information, at that time, I personally called the EPA and implored the Agency to respond to Senator 

Vitter and to the Republican members of this Committee. Ultimately, EPA did so. 

By the time the McCarthy nomination reached the Senate floor, 

EPA had sent at least five letters and provided more than 1,300 

pages of documents and data. In the end, after 136 days, Gina 

McCarthy was confirmed without a filibuster. 

Second, in 2009 Republican requests for information and economic analysis delayed Senate floor consideration of Bob 

Perciasepe’s nomination to be Deputy EPA Administrator for almost 6 months. Last Congress, I am told that Republicans sent at 

least 156 oversight letters to EPA’s Air Office alone and that all 

of them received responses. 

We have another chart that refers to EPA’s 2015 responses. Additionally, in calendar year 2015, EPA received 884 letters from 

lawmakers seeking a response from the Agency. That same year, 

EPA received 60 document requests from Congress and one subVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:13 Jul 13, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26002.TXT SONYA
6 

poena. The Agency also made EPA officials available to testify at 

40 hearings. 

In 2015 alone with all of those incoming requests, EPA, under 

Gina McCarthy’s leadership, sent 276,510 pages of documents to 

Congress. One more time, that is 276,510 pages. 

Colleagues, while our asks may not be welcomed by this Administration, I do not believe they are unreasonable, nor are they unprecedented. 

Oversight should not be a partisan issue. As Senator Inhofe and 

then-Chairman Inhofe noted in 2015, lack of timely and complete 

responses from agencies ‘‘frustrate[s] Congress’ ability to fulfill its 

constitutional duty to perform oversight of the executive branch.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I would say you were right then, and you are right 

today. 

Absent a heartfelt commitment by EPA to provide complete and 

timely responses to our current information requests, I will find it 

very difficult to support moving forward with the consideration of 

any EPA nominees. 

I do not make such a statement lightly, I make it with no sense 

of joy, but the nominations we are discussing today are important 

ones. They deserve our attention, just as our inquiries from the minority side deserve the attention of this Administration. 

Let me close by saying, the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance is an indispensable ‘‘cop on the beat,’’ safeguarding the public’s health and our country’s environment. The office’s actions drive reductions in toxic air pollution as well as the 

clean up of our land and our waterways. Last year, I am told EPA’s 

enforcement work required companies to invest $13.7 billion in 

such actions. 

Turning to the NRC, following the lead of former Committee 

Chairman Jim Inhofe, Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked to 

strengthen the ‘‘culture of safety’’ within the U.S. nuclear energy 

industry for years. 

In part due to our collective efforts, the NRC leadership, and the 

Commission’s dedicated staff, the NRC continues to be the world’s 

gold standard for nuclear regulatory agencies. However, that does 

not mean we can become complacent when it comes to nuclear safety and our NRC oversight responsibilities, a perspective that I am 

certain is shared by every member of this Committee. 

In closing, I look forward to hearing how each of the nominees 

before us today will fulfill the responsibilities of the positions to 

which they are nominated. I hope they will share with the Committee their commitment to ensure that these agencies remain vigilant and devoted to the protection of all Americans and that you 

will be responsive to the legitimate questions we may ask of you 

from time to time. 

Thank you all for joining us today. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

7 


26002.001

Statement of Ranking Member Tom Carper 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing on the Nomination of Susan Parker Bodine to be Assistant Administrator for the 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and Chairman Kristine Svinicki, Annie Caputo and David Wright to be 

Members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

June 13, 2017, !O:OOAM 

Let me begin by welcoming each of our four witnesses to today's hearing. Thank you for 

your past public service and for your continued willingness to serve. The jobs to which you 

have been nominated are very important to the health and safety of the American people. 

Mr. Chairman, as we have discussed, I am concerned that we do not have parity in Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) nominees before us today. It is critical for the Commission 

to have consistent leadership from both political parties, especially as the industry faces an 

uncertain future. 

I hope we can find a path to ensure that the White House re-nominates Commissioner Jeff 

Baran, and that the Committee pairs consideration of his nomination with some or all of 

the NRC nominees before us. 

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, the minority members of this committee remain deeply 

disappointed that the Committee bas NOT received complete written responses from 

Administrator Pruitt to eleven oversight letters that Democratic Members have sent the 

EPA. 

In fact, we have recently learned that the White House has instructed federal agencies not 

to respond at all to oversight requests from Senators who are not Chairman. Such a 

directive harms both parties, and takes us further from the truth. 

And you don't have to take my word for it either. Our colleague, Senate Judiciary 

Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, sent a letter to President Trump just this past 

Friday, admonishing the directive, noting, 

"It harms not just the Members who happen to be in the minority party at the moment, but 

also, Members in the majority party who are not currently Chairmen. It obstructs what 

1 
8 


26002.002

ought to be the natural flow of information between agencies and the committees, which 

frustrates the Constitutional function of legislating." 

I am sure that my colleagues on both sides of this dais can agree that preventing Senators 

from performing their oversight responsibilities is simply unacceptable. 

In fact, this Committee has a tradition of ensuring that oversight requests receive responses 

as part of the confirmation process. I'd like to share two short examples. 

First, in 2013, Republicans insisted on responses to five requests as part of former 

Administrator Gina McCarthy's confirmation process. The Republican minority sought 

information on the agency's compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, the 

availability of outside scientific research, the use of economic analysis, and lawsuit 

settlements. 

Republican Members of EPW boycotted the first business meeting on Administrator 

McCarthy's nomination because they believed that the EPA had not been responsive to 

their requests. On that day, Mr. Chairman, you noted that, and I quote, "The new nominee 

to be EPA Administrator has been extremely unresponsive with the information we 

requested." You went on to say, "We're simply requesting that Ms. McCarthy and this 

Administration honor its commitment to transparency- that's what they promised." 

In order to help obtain this information, I personally called the EPA and implored the 

agency to respond to Senator Vitter and to the Republicans on this Committee. Ultimately, 

EPA did so. 

By the time the McCarthy nomination reached the Senate floor, EPA bad sent at least five 

letters and provided more than 1,300 pages of documents and data. In the end, after 136 

days, Gina McCarthy was confirmed without a filibuster. 

Second, in 2009, Republican requests for information and economic analysis delayed 

Senate floor consideration of Bob Perciasepe's [Pur-cha-SEPP-ec] nomination to be Deputy 

EPA Administrator for almost six months. 

Last Congress, I'm told that Republicans sent at least 156 oversight letters to EPA's Air 

Office alone, and that all of them received responses. Additionally, in calendar year 2015, 

EPA received 884letters from lawmakers seeking a response from the agency. That same 

year, EPA received 60 document requests from Congress and one subpoena. The agency 

2 
9 


26002.003

also made EPA officials available to testify at 40 hearings. And in 2015 alone, with all of 

those incoming requests, EPA, under Gina McCarthy's leadership, sent 276,510 pages of 

documents to Congress. One more time- 276,510 pages. Colleagues, while our asks may 

not be welcomed by this administration, they are not unreasonable, nor are they 

unprecedented. 

Oversight should not be a partisan issue. As Senator Inhofe and then-Chairman Inhofe 

noted in 2015, lack of timely and complete responses from agencies "frustrate[s) Congress' 

ability to fulfill its constitutional duty to perform oversight ofthe Executive 

Branch .•• " You were right then, and you are right today. 

Absent a heartfelt commitment by EPA to provide complete and timely responses to our 

current information requests, I will find it very difficult to support moving forward with 

the consideration of ANY EPA nominees. 

I do not make such a statement lightly or with any sense of joy, but the nominations we are 

discussing today are important ones. They deserve our attention, just as our inquiries 

deserve the attention of this administration. 

The EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance is an indispensable "cop on 

the beat," safeguarding the public's health and our country's environment. The office's 

actions drive reductions in toxic air pollution as well as the clean-up of our land and our 

waterways. Last year, EPA's enforcement work required companies to invest $13.7 

billion dollars in such actions. 

Turning to the NRC, following the lead of former Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, Mr. 

Chairman, you and I have worked to strengthen the "culture of safety" within the U.S. 

nuclear energy industry. In part due to our collective efforts, and to the NRC leadership 

and the Commission's dedicated staff, the NRC continues to be the world's gold standard 

for nuclear regulatory agencies. However, that does not mean we can become complacent 

when it comes to nuclear safety and our NRC oversight responsibilities, a perspective that 

I'm certain is shared by every member of this Committee. 

In closing, I look forward to hearing how each of the nominees before us today will fulfill the 

responsibilities of the positions to which they are nominated. I hope they will share with the 

Committee their commitment to ensure that these agencies remain vigilant and devoted to 

the protection of all Americans. Again, let me thank each of our witnesses for joining us 

today and for your willingness to serve your country in these important positions of trust. 

3 
10 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

As you and I have discussed, I believe the Administration should 

and has a responsibility to answer members’ questions. The Obama 

administration, I believe, went out of its way to avoid answering 

my specific oversight requests, responses that I never received, and 

I found it very disturbing. 

With respect to the Committee’s oversight function, I believe it 

is critically important. I agree the executive branch agencies must 

be required to respond to the Committee’s reasonable oversight requests. 

I understand that so far the EPA, this is the Trump Administration, so far has received 416 letters and has answered 386 to date. 

That is only since January 20, 2017. That is what I understand, 

and we will get the specific breakdown. 

As Chairman, I am going to work to ensure that the executive 

branch agencies under the current Administration work diligently 

and expeditiously to respond to the Committee’s reasonable oversight requests in compliance with all laws, rules, policies, precedents, and practices. 

Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just say that I appreciate the fact that I can say some 

things about two of my favorite people, whom I have worked with 

for a long period of time. I have to say this, by comparison with 

the responsive attitude they have always had, some of the other 

people did not look so good in the past. 

Yet, we have watched people like Pruitt, for example, having 

gone through this thing and not only being grilled and asked questions to an unreasonable extent, but when it came time for his 

questions on the record, he had to endure 1,600 questions. That is 

unheard of. You guys are not going to have to do this. That would 

not be fair at all. 

Let me say this. I have worked with both Annie Caputo and 

Susan Bodine for many, many years. I have noticed, Annie, you 

have your husband, AJ, with you, and your son, Owen. I see that 

cute little girl; hold your hand up. That is Abbey. I remember when 

Abbey was born. That is how long I have known these people. 

Annie joined my EPW staff in 2007. Because her experience and 

expertise in the nuclear area are so well known, she has been 

called upon by members of the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party. Her expertise was valuable to me in the aftermath 

of the nuclear accident at Fukushima and in my work to ensure the 

NRC issued timely decisions on new nuclear plant licenses. Most 

recently, she has been central in developing the bipartisan Nuclear 

Innovation Act. 

Similarly, Susan Bodine has been so valuable to me. As a staffer, 

she was the general counsel for our Committee for the last few 

years. Prior to that, she had experience and tenure in the EPA during the George W. Bush administration. She was critical to me and 

my staff when we worked on the famous Tar Creek Superfund site 

in northeastern Oklahoma. I think, at the time, that was the most 

11 

devastating Superfund site in America, and we waded through 

that. 

In the last Congress, Susan was a large part of the team that 

put together the FAST Act, the Water Infrastructure Act and the 

Chemical bill. In fact, we had a meeting at 12:15 p.m. every 

Wednesday with the leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, and 

the Chairmen of the committees. When my turn came, I would say, 

‘‘Now a report on the Committee that actually does things,’’ and 

that is this Committee. That is true. We did. 

Susan will be an asset to the Agency where she previously 

worked. She knows the laws that govern the EPA. 

I thank you again for allowing me to speak on behalf of these two 

individuals that have served the Committee and me so faithfully 

over the years. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe. 

We would now like to welcome, congratulate, and hear from our 

nominees. I want to remind each of you that your full written testimony will be made a part of the record. I look forward to hearing 

the testimony. We ask that you keep your comments to 5 minutes. 

We will hear first from Ms. Svinicki. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTINE SVINICKI, NOMINATED TO BE 

CHAIRMAN, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (REAPPOINTMENT) 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member 

Carper, and members of the Committee. 

I am grateful to President Trump for nominating me to a third 

term of service on the Commission and was humbled by his request 

of me earlier this year to assume the role of the Commission’s 

Chairman. 

If the Senate acts favorably on my nomination, I would, once 

again, be privileged to continue this work, alongside my currently 

serving colleagues, Commissioners Baran and Burns. 

I also congratulate my fellow nominees to the Commission and 

wish them well in this confirmation process. I know them both to 

be individuals of great capacity and commitment and am confident 

that, if confirmed, they will apply themselves in full measure to 

supporting the NRC’s important mission. 

According to those keeping records at the NRC, this is my eighteenth appearance as a witness before this Committee; my third as 

a nominee. In light of that, the record of my views on relevant matters is well established. 

With the exception of Senators new to the Committee, it is likely 

that the votes I have taken and the positions I have established 

over this span of years provide adequate terrain for both agreement 

and disagreement with elements of my record. 

I state with sincerity that my appearances before your Committee and the exchange of sometimes pointed differences on issues 

have shaped me as a Commissioner. The members of this Committee have routinely challenged me to examine all dimensions of 

the issues, to apply the highest rigor to my consideration of all 

matters, and to continue to stay open to new information and new 

insights. 

12 

These exchanges reinforce the importance of never becoming 

complacent in my work, of maintaining an inquiring attitude, and 

being mindful always of the full weight of the solemn responsibilities entrusted to me. If you honor me with your approval of my 

nomination, I commit myself to continuing to approach my duties 

in this way. 

Of course, any contributions I have made to the NRC during my 

time there would not have been achieved without the hard work 

and commitment of the women and men of the NRC and their sustained efforts to advance the NRC’s mission under the law, that of 

ensuring adequate protection of public health and safety and promoting the common defense and security. 

Nearly 10 years into this journey, their commitment to this 

shared goal is what inspires and motivates me each day. Once 

again, I would like to take this opportunity to convey my personal 

gratitude to each of them for their contributions to whatever 

achievements I have had along the way and for their engagements 

with me over the years, which have helped to shape and form my 

views on so many important matters before the Agency. 

Chairman Barrasso, Senator Carper, and members of the Committee, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today 

and look forward to the Committee’s questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Svinicki follows:] 

13 


26002.004

Kristine L. Svinicki 

The Honorable Kristine L Svinicki was designated Chairman of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by President Donald J. Trump on 

January 23, 2017. She was sworn in for her second term as a Commissioner 

to a term ending on June 30, 2017. Her previous term as a Commissioner 

began on March 28, 2008. 

Ms. Svinicki has a distinguished career as a nuclear engineer and policy 

advisor, working at the state and federal levels of government, and in both the 

legislative and executive branches. Before joining the NRC, Ms. Svinicki 

spent over a decade as a staff member in the United States Senate advancing 

a wide range of policies and initiatives related to national security, science and 

technology, and energy and the environment She also served as a 

professional staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee for the 

Committee's former Chairman, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and, subsequently, 

for the Committee's ranking Republican member, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. 

There, Ms. Svinicki was responsible for the Committee's portfolio of defense 

science and technology programs and policies, and for the atomic energy 

defense activities of the U.S. Department of Energy, including nuclear 

weapons, nuclear security, and environmental programs. 

Previously, Ms. Svinicki worked as a nuclear engineer in the U.S. Department 

of Energy's Washington, D.C. Offices of Nuclear Energy, Science and 

Technology, and of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, as well as its 

Idaho Operations Office, in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Before that, she was an energy 

engineer with the State of Wisconsin at the Wisconsin Public Service 

Commission in Madison, Wisconsin. 

Born and raised in Michigan, Ms. Svinicki earned a bachelor's degree in 

nuclear engineering from the University of Michigan in 1988. She is a 

longstanding member of the American Nuclear Society, where she served two 

terms on the ANS Special Committee on Nuclear non-Proliferation. In 2006 

and 2012, the Society honored her with its Presidential Citation in recognition 

of her contributions to the nuclear energy policies of the United States and the 

regulatory framework guiding its development and use. She has served as a 

member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Task Force on 

Global Nuclear Materials Management, and as an Expert Advisory Panel 

Member to the NRC on assessing the future of regulatory research needs. 

She was selected as a Stennis Congressional Fellow of the 1 08th Congress, 

as a Brookings Institution Legis Congressional Fellow in 1997, and as the 

University of Michigan College of Engineering Alumni Society Merit Award 

recipient for Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences in 2009. 
14 


26002.005

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF 

KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, CHAIRMAN 

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

APPEARING AS A NOMINEE BEFORE THE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

JUNE 7, 2017 

Thank you Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee. 1 am 

grateful to President Trump for nominating me to a third term of service on the Commission and 

was humbled by his request of me earlier this year to assume the role of the Commission's 

Chairman. If the Senate acts favorably on my nomination, I would, once again, be privileged to 

continue this work, alongside my currently serving colleagues, Commissioners Baran and 

Burns. I also congratulate my fellow nominees to the Commission and wish them well in this 

confirmation process. I know them both to be individuals of great capacity and commitment and 

am confident that, if confirmed, they will apply themselves in full measure to supporting the 

NRC's important mission. 

According to those keeping records at the NRC, this is my eighteenth appearance as a witness 

before this committee; my third as a nominee. In light of that, the record of my views on 

relevant matters is well established. With the exception of Senators new to the Committee, it is 

likely that the votes I have taken and the positions I have established over this span of years 

provide adequate terrain for both agreement and disagreement with elements of my record. 

And 1 state with sincerity that my appearances before your Committee and the exchange of 

sometimes pointed differences on issues have shaped me as a Commissioner. The members 

of this Committee have routinely challenged me to examine all dimensions of the issues, to 

apply the highest rigor to my consideration of all matters, and to continue to stay open to new 

information and new insights. These exchanges reinforce the importance of never becoming 

complacent in my work, of maintaining an inquiring attitude, and being mindful always of the full 

weight of the solemn responsibilities entrusted to me. If you honor me with your approval of my 

nomination, I commit myself to continuing to approach my duties in this way. 

Of course, any contributions I have made to the NRC during my time there would not have been 

achieved without the hard work and commitment of the women and men of the NRC and their 

sustained efforts to advance the NRC's mission under the law- that of ensuring adequate 

protection of public health and safety and promoting the common defense and security. Nearly 

10 years into this journey, their commitment to this shared goal is what inspires and motivates 

me each day. Once again, I would like to take this opportunity to convey my personal gratitude 

to each of them for their contributions to whatever achievements I have had along the way and 

for their engagements with me over the years, which have helped to shape and form my views 

on so many important matters. 

Chairman Barrasso, Senator Carper, and members of the Committee, thank you. I appreciate 

the opportunity to appear today and look forward to the Committee's questions. 
15 


26002.006

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Hearing entitled, "Hearing on the Nominations of Kristine Svinicki 

(Reappointment), Annie Caputo and David Wright to be Members of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Nomination of Susan Bodine to be 

Assistant Administrator of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency." 

QUESTION 1. 

ANSWER. 

June 13, 2017 

Questions for the Record for Kristine Svinicki 

THE HONORABLE COREY BOOKER 

Some private sector companies are working on new technologies 

such as fusion reactors and sub-critical reactors that are not 

currently subject to NRC review. If NRC was to amend its definition 

of "nuclear reactor" to cover advanced reactors such as these, do 

you believe that NRC should subject these technologies to the 

existing regulatory framework designed for light water reactors, or 

would you expect that NRC would instead quickly develop a more 

appropriate risk based regulation for these types of inherently safer 

technologies? 

While the current regulations provide the NRC with sufficient flexibility to review and 

appropriately make conclusions on the safety and security on all reactor designs, the NRC 

acknowledges the potential inefficiencies for non-light water reactor (LWR) applications 

reviewed against existing LWR criteria. Therefore, the NRC is enhancing its existing framework 

in a technology-neutral manner to increase efficiency, timeliness, and predictability of non-LWR 

reviews. If reconfirmed as Chairman, I commit to continuing to support these efforts. 

QUESTION2. 

THE HONORABLE EDWARD MARKEY 

The 2005 Energy Policy Act includes a provision, which I authored, 

that mandates that the NRC conduct security inspections at U.S. 

nuclear power plants. These inspections must include force-onforce exercises, where a mock adversary force conducts a simulated 

attack on a power plant to probe potential gaps in the plant's 

security. 

These exercises allow the NRC to ensure that nuclear power plants 

are adequately protected against terrorists or other bad actors. The 

alternative -of having plant operators run their own exercises -

would not only violate the law, but it would also create a clear 

conflict of interest, and undermine public safety. 

In the past, the nuclear industry lobbied the NRC to get rid of its 

force-on-force exercises in favor of exercises conducted by power 

plant operators. In effect, this would have nuclear power plant 

operators inspect themselves, in violation of the law. 
16 


26002.007

ANSWER. 

Do you support security evaluations of nuclear power plants that are 

conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and not by 

licensees? 

Section 1700 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, requires the NRC to conduct 

triennial security evaluations at facilities designated by the Commission. These security 

evaluations must include a force-on-force (FOF) exercise that simulates security threats in 

accordance with the Design Basis Threat to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, the 

Commission must mitigate any potential conflict of interest that could influence the results of an 

FOF exercise. Section 1700 does not specifically state that the NRC must conduct these FOF 

exercises. If the NRC was petitioned to amend its regulations to have licensee-conducted FOF 

exercises, the Commission would need to determine whether that proposal would meet the 

requirements of Section 1700 in order for such a change to be permissible. This determination 

has not been made. 

QUESTION3. 

ANSWER. 

When Entergy announced its intention to cease operations at the 

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

promised that the closure would "not relieve [Entergy] of the 

responsibility of running that plant as safely as possible until the 

end of its life." 

But in the last several months, the NRC has broken that promise by 

providing Pilgrim with exemptions from critical safety upgrades. 

After the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, the Fukushima NearTerm Task Force recommended a series of safety upgrade for 

America's nuclear fleet. The NRC opted to accept these 

recommendations, and apply them to reactors of the same design as 

Fukushima, like Pilgrim. 

Among the critical safety upgrades were the requirement to 

reevaluate and address the risk of earthquakes and floods. The 

other critical safety upgrade was to install hardened containment 

vents capable of operating under severe accident conditions. These 

are meant to prevent the release of radioactivity in the event of a 

terrorist attack or severe accident. 

But instead of requiring Entergy to carry out these commonsense 

safety upgrades, the NRC provided Pilgrim with exemptions 

Do you believe that providing exemptions from NRC safety 

regulations to U.S. nuclear plants increases public confidence in the 

safe operation of those plants? 

The practice of considering exemptions is a well-established part of the NRC's regulatory 

process that allows licensees to address site-specific situations or implement alternative 

approaches for circumstances not necessarily contemplated in the regulations. A key part of 

the NRC's review of an exemption request is the determination that granting the exemption will 

not present an undue risk to the public health and safety and is consistent with the common 

defense and security. This determination, combined with the NRC's inspection oversight of the 

licensee's implementation of safety regulations, license requirements, and the conditions of the 

exemption, provide assurance that the safe operations of facilities to which an exemption has 

been granted will be maintained. 

2 
17 


26002.008

QUESTION4. 

ANSWER. 

Do you intend to continue granting exemptions to nuclear plants 

that have announced their intention to shut down operations? 

The NRC considers the use of exemptions to be an appropriate and essential part of our 

regulatory program. Exemptions allow licensees to address site-specific situations or implement 

alternative approaches for circumstances not necessarily contemplated in the regulations or to 

seek regulatory relief from existing requirements to address special circumstances, such as 

when application of the regulation in the particular circumstance is not necessary to achieve the 

underlying purpose of the rule, or to avoid undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in 

excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted. The exemption process also 

allows the NRC to grant appropriate regulatory relief that permits permanently shut down power 

reactor licensees to develop programs that are commensurate with the site-specific risks, and to 

focus resources on decommissioning, while continuing to maintain adequate measures to 

protect the health and safety of the public and not endanger common defense and security. 

Several reactors in the U.S. are transitioning to decommissioning. During the transition period, 

numerous site-specific licensing actions are required to revise the plant's licensing basis to 

reflect the diminished potential for accidents and reduced risk after permanent shutdown and 

defueling. The NRC's current process establishes an appropriate regulatory framework for 

decommissioning a plant; however, the NRC has initiated a decommissioning rulemaking that 

could reduce the numerous licensing actions needed during the transition period. The proposed 

rule will be provided for Commission consideration in 2018. Until the rulemaking is complete, 

NRC and licensees will continue to follow the existing licensing action approach to transition to 

decommissioning, which may include granting site-specific exemptions on a case-by-case 

basis. 

QUESTION 5. 

ANSWER. 

The recent National Academies of Sciences report on lessons 

learned from the Fukushima nuclear disaster noted that the risk of a 

spent nuclear fuel fire may actually rise at a decommissioned 

nuclear plant, because "the pool may be filled to near capacity and 

some plant safety systems may be inoperable." Yet the Commission 

has made it a habit of providing exemptions to decommissioned 

reactors from emergency response and security regulations. 

Exempting these plants from NRC rules wholesale permits the 

nuclear industry to lower the safety margin at decommissioned 

reactors, which continue to have dangerous spent nuclear fuel on 

site. 

Do you agree that the danger of accidents at spent-fuel pools at 

decommissioned reactors warrants the application of all emergency 

response and security regulations that are designed to protect 

against spent fuel fires? 

While NRC regulations support the agency's statutory mission to promote the common defense 

and security and to protect the health and safety of the public, a licensee may at times seek 

exemptions from emergency planning or security requirements to reflect the lower risk and 

reduced security focus associated with a power reactor being permanently shut down. These 

exemption requests are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and are granted only if a licensee 

demonstrates that the applicable regulatory criteria in 10 CFR § 50.12(a) or 10 CFR § 73.5 are 

met. 

3 
18 


26002.009

QUESTIONS. 

ANSWER. 

In June 2016, I wrote to the NRC to urge the Commission toreexamine and address the risk to public safety posed by 

overcrowded spent-fuel pools at commercial reactors, in light of two 

reports that identified serious gaps in the NRC's previous analysis. 

A fire in a densely-packed spent-fuel pool could result in health and 

economic consequences comparable to those caused by an 

accident at an operating reactor, including the displacement of 

millions of people and untold economic damage. These risks could 

be much reduced by transferring spent fuel to dry casks, which are 

more resilient against accidents or attacks. 

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Lessons Learned 

from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for Improving Safety and 

Security of U.S. Nuclear Plants, recommends that the NRC "perform 

a spent fuel storage risk assessment to elucidate the risks and 

potential benefits of expedited transfer of spent fuel from pools to 

dry casks." Do you intend to carry out this recommendation? If not, 

why not? 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has previously evaluated expediting the 

transfer of spent fuel from pools to dry casks. Based on the staff's assessment, the 

Commission decided that, due to the low risk to public health and safety from spent fuel pool 

storage, additional regulatory action is not needed. The agency's evaluation was supported by 

several studies of spent fuel storage, for both pools and dry cask storage, performed or 

sponsored by the NRC. The NRC also evaluates operational experience and risk assessments 

performed by the scientific and international community, industry, and members of the public to 

ensure the risks posed by spent fuel pools and dry cask storage are understood and are 

adequately addressed by regulatory requirements. In addition, the NRC staff participates in 

international activities associated with assessing and addressing potential issues related to the 

storage of spent fuel. The NRC staff reassessed the NAS recommendation and found that 

existing studies and ongoing activities noted above are sufficient to support regulatory decisions 

on the safety and security of spent fuel pools. 

QUESTION7. 

ANSWER. 

The NAS report recommended that the NRC "strengthen their 

capabilities for identifying, evaluating, and managing the risks from 

terrorist attacks," and that the NRC's spent fuel storage risk 

assessment "should address accident and sabotage risks." Do you 

agree with the NAS recommendation that the NRC must fully 

account for the risk of terrorism and sabotage in its re-assessment 

of spent-fuel risks? If not, why not? 

Plant security is one of many topics within the NRC's risk-informed, performance-based 

framework that is assessed in combination with, but not fully integrated into, probabilistic risk 

assessment models. The NRC has used and will continue to use risk insights in the security 

area to ensure an appropriate level of security is maintained at NRC-regulated facilities. 

Security issues were extensively assessed in studies and regulatory analyses following the 

terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As a result, enhanced security requirements were 

4 
19 


26002.010

established to reduce the risks of radiological sabotage at nuclear power plants, including 

consideration of spent fuel pools. 

QUESTIONS. 

ANSWER. 

What steps, if any, will you support to strengthen the NRC's 

capabilities for identifying, evaluating, and managing the risk of 

terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities, including spent-fuel storage 

sites? 

The NRC works in close cooperation with other Federal agencies to continually assess the 

possible nature and likelihood of security threats, and determine if changes to plant security 

programs are needed. In addition, the NRC and industry response to the September 11, 2001, 

terrorist attacks included plant changes as part of mitigating strategies to maintain or restore 

core cooling, containment, and spent fuel pool cooling capabilities under the circumstances 

associated with loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions or fire. The NRC staff 

assessed the NAS recommendation and did not identify a need to initiate new activities or to 

otherwise redirect resources to revise existing programs or to accelerate initiatives to enhance 

the use of risk assessment techniques in the security area. 

QUESTIONS. 

ANSWER. 

As the Fukushima disaster demonstrated, a major release of 

radioactivity at a nuclear plant could have significant societal 

effects. As such, to fully capture spent-fuel storage risks, the NAS 

report recommended that the NRC's analysis "[c]onsider societal, 

economic, and health consequences" of a spent-fuel fire, as well as 

the direct risks of radioactive release. Do you agree with this 

recommendation? If not, why not? 

The NRC staff evaluated changing its approach to analyzing severe accident scenarios and 

related costs and benefits of new regulatory requirements after the accident at the Fukushima 

Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan. The staffs 2012 assessment was provided to the 

Commission in the publicly available report, "Consideration of Economic Consequences within 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Regulatory Framework,"(SECY-12-0110). At that 

time, the Commission determined that major changes such as those cited in the NAS 

recommendation were not needed to support its regulatory decisions on whether new 

requirements were needed for operating nuclear power plants. Further, in performing economic 

analyses, the NRC does consider public health, occupational health, environmental 

considerations, and property impacts. 

QUESTION 10. According to the NAS report, the NRC "has not carried out an 

independent examination of surveillance and security measures for 

protecting stored spent fuel," as recommended by the NAS's 2006 

report. As such, the 2016 NAS report recommended that the NRC 

fulfill this recommendation, and that the NRC's analysis "should 

include an examination of the effectiveness of [the NRC's] programs 

for mitigating insider threats." Do you support carrying out an 

independent examination, as recommended by both NAS studies? If 

not, why not? 

5 
20 


26002.011

ANSWER. 

The NRC establishes strategic goals and measures and issues routine reports regarding its 

performance related to its safety and security goals. In the security arena, the NRC also works 

closely with other Federal agencies to identify and address possible threats. In addition to the 

NAS studies, the NRC has obtained independent assessments in the security area from the 

NRC's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), 

and other oversight bodies. Further, the staff routinely assesses information gained from 

operating experience, the inspection program, insights from drills and exercises, and the 

agency's participation in various international activities. Therefore, after evaluating the NAS 

recommendation, the NRC staff concluded that another independent assessment is not 

necessary, given that the NRC's requirements to ensure security of nuclear power plants and 

spent fuel storage will continue to be the subject of independent reviews by the OIG, GAO, and 

other organizations. The staff will also continue to benefit from independent insights gained from 

interactions with other Federal agencies, international bodies, licensees, and other 

stakeholders. 

QUESTION 11. 

ANSWER. 

According to an article in the May 26 issue of Science magazine, the 

NRC's previous assessment of spent-fuel risks ignored the potential 

damage from a spent fuel fire beyond 50 miles of a plant, despite the 

fact that a significant portion of the radiation exposure would occur 

beyond that radius. Failing to account for this factor led the NRC to 

underestimate the destruction of a spent fuel fire. Do you support 

inclusion of contamination and other effects beyond 50 miles in the 

NRC's assessment of spent fuel fire risks? 

The NRC will continue to evaluate any new information that arises in this area and assess its 

impact to existing regulatory requirements. 

QUESTION 12. 

ANSWER. 

According to the Science magazine article, the NRC's previous 

analysis also assumed that, in the event of a spent fuel fire, 

contaminated areas could be effectively cleaned up within a one 

year timeframe, despite evidence from both the Chernobyl and 

Fukushima accidents. Do you support revising that assumption in 

any re-assessment by the Commission of spent-fuel risks? 

The NRC will evaluate any new information that arises in this area and assess its impact to 

existing regulatory requirements. 

QUESTION 13. According to the recent NAS study, under NRC rules, if the risk of 

prompt and cancer fatalities in the vicinity of a nuclear accident falls 

below a certain threshold, the NRC is not required to undertake a 

cost-benefit analysis of strategies for mitigating that risk. As a result 

of this rule, even though a spent-fuel fire could displace millions of 

people and result in trillions in economic damage, the NRC would 

not be required to evaluate the costs and benefits of strategies to 

mitigate such an event because it would not necessarily produce a 

significantly higher risk of fatalities in the immediate vicinity of the 

plant. To address this obvious deficiency, the NAS study cites 

experts who have suggested that the NRC should amend its rules by 

6 
21 


26002.012

ANSWER. 

setting a limit on the likelihood that a large number of people would 

be displaced for a long-term period following a release of 

radioactive fall-out. Do you support implementing such a rule? 

The NRC considers a broad range of costs and benefits when determining whether to require 

safety enhancements at nuclear power plants. The NRC's NUREG/BR-0184, "Regulatory 

Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook," directs that a value-impact analysis consider a wide 

range of attributes that could be affected by the proposed regulatory action (e.g., a proposed 

safety enhancement at a nuclear power plant). One of these attributes, discussed in Section 5 

of NUREG/BR-0184, considers changes to offsite property in various forms, including costs of 

evacuations and indirect impacts to tourism and other industries. This same analysis also 

considers interdiction measures, such as decontamination and cleanup costs. 

QUESTION 14. 

ANSWER. 

THE HONORABLE BERNARD SANDERS 

As you know, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station is in the 

process of decommissioning. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) requested comments on a draft regulatory basis ending this 

month to support a rulemaking that would amend NRC's regulations 

for the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors. The NRC's 

goals in amending these regulations would be to provide for an 

efficient decommissioning process; reduce the need for exemptions 

from existing regulations; address other decommissioning issues 

deemed relevant by the NRC staff; and support the principles of 

good regulation, including openness, clarity, and reliability. 

If confirmed, will you commit to supporting the following 

decommissioning requirements for the decommissioning 

rulemaking? If not, why? 

The enhancement of community involvement by requiring 

licensees of decommissioning reactors to include state and local 

officials' input into licensees' decommissioning plans; 

that decommissioning funds are used strictly for statutorilyauthorized purposes; 

that spent nuclear fuel be removed from wet storage and placed 

into safer dry cask storage as quickly as possible; 

that the site of the plant is rapidly returned to beneficial use 

instead of decades after the plant ceases operations, and that 

licensees maintain or obtain the financial resources necessary to 

do so; and 

that all emergency preparedness and response, and security 

resources and licensing requirements, remain in place until all 

the spent nuclear fuel is placed into safer dry cask storage or 

removed from the site. 

At this stage of the rulemaking process, as a member of the Commission, voicing support for 

specific issues could impede the open and transparent rulemaking process employed by the 

7 
22 


26002.013

staff as it engages with the public and stakeholders in formulating the draft and final rule, which 

NRC Staff will then present to the Commission for its consideration. 

QUESTION 15. 

ANSWER. 

What do you believe should be the process for reviewing and 

processing public comments in the rulemaking and other formal 

proceedings? How should public comments be weighed by the 

Commission against comments from the industry? 

The NRC Staff adheres closely to the Administrative Procedure Act in all aspects of its 

rulemaking process. This includes the notice and comment process whereby NRC Staff 

engages with the public to receive comments on its proposed rules. Each comment is 

independently evaluated by the NRC Staff as it refines the draft rule into the final rule. If 

confirmed, I will continue to support the NRC Staff in this process and ensure that the Staff 

closely adhere to the requirements in the Administrative Procedures Act. 

QUESTION 16. 

ANSWER. 

How should the NRC educate the public about the existence and 

meaning of the ongoing decommissioning rulemaking process? 

What should be NRC's plan for community outreach for the 

remainder of this decommissioning rulemaking process? 

The NRC extends opportunities to participate in the agency's regulatory process, including 

rulemaking activities, to a diverse body of stakeholders and the general public. Typically, the 

public is given 75 to 90 days to provide written comments for consideration on rulemaking 

actions. The NRC uses the government-wide Web site http://www.regulations.gov to provide an 

easy way for members of the public to access and comment on NRC rulemaking actions. 

In the case of the decommissioning rulemaking, the NRC issued An Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in November 2015. The NRC received 161 public comment submissions, 

which are being considered as part of the development of the regulatory basis for the proposed 

rule. A proposed rule is expected to be provided for the consideration of the Commission in 

May of next year. If the proposed rule is approved by the Commission, the NRC will 

subsequently seek public comments to help inform the final rule. 

QUESTION 17. 

ANSWER. 

Should NRC plan public field meetings to gather comments or 

testimony from communities where nuclear plants are 

decommissioning now, or will be soon? If not, why? 

The NRC has hosted public meetings to discuss the decommissioning rule. While the NRC may 

not be able to host meetings near all the nuclear plants that have announced premature 

shutdown, the NRC offers stakeholders the option to participate in our public meetings in a 

variety of ways, for example, they can participate in person or via telephone conference. The 

agency has also expanded its use of Web conferencing to allow participation by anyone with 

access to a computer, minimizing travel costs and increasing opportunities for public 

involvement. 

QUESTION 18. What is the justification for the NRC to continuously waive its own 

regulations, especially those pertaining to the decommissioning 

8 
23 


26002.014

ANSWER. 

trust fund, even though it is working to create new decommissioning 

rules? 

A licensee may at times seek exemptions from emergency planning requirements to reflect the 

lower risk and reduced security focus associated with a power reactor being permanently shut 

down. These exemption requests are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and are granted only 

if a licensee demonstrates that the applicable regulatory criteria in 10 CFR 50.12(a) or 10 CFR 

73.5 are met. 

QUESTION 19. 

ANSWER. 

What justification is there for the NRC to approve withdrawals from 

Vermont Yankee's Decommissioning Trust Fund for spent fuel 

management when NRC's regulations expressly prohibit such use? 

(10 C.F.R. §50. 75 at FN 1.) 

Under NRC regulations, some licensees choose to place funds in their decommissioning trusts 

to pay for costs associated with spent fuel management and site restoration. Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station sought regulatory exemptions to use decommissioning trust funds for 

spent fuel management expenditures on the grounds that the amount of money projected to be 

in the fund exceeded the amount projected to be needed for radiological decommissioning. The 

NRC has approved the request to use these excess funds, consistent with the criteria set forth 

in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.12. 

In approving this exemption, allowing withdrawals from decommissioning trust funds for spent 

fuel management, the staff acted under the authority delegated to it by the Commission. The 

staff found the exemptions were authorized by law, concluded the exemptions presented no 

undue risk to public health and safety and were consistent with the common defense and 

security, and determined that special circumstances existed. 

QUESTION 20. 

ANSWER. 

Former NRC Chair Allison Macfarlane authored a paper in 2003 

along with other experts that concluded that dry cask storage offers 

compelling advantages over wet pool storage: it is safer and it is 

less prone to failure. They recommended that spent fuel should be 

transferred from wet pools to dry cask storage within five years of 

discharge to reduce the risk of fire and subsequent radioactive 

contamination of air and land. 

Do you have a position on dry cask versus wet pool storage? If 

confirmed, will you commit to supporting more studies of this 

issue? 

The NRC's responsibility is to ensure that spent nuclear fuel is managed safely and securely in 

either wet or dry storage. Both storage modes have been determined to be safe. In May of 

2014, the Commission approved the staffs recommendation not to pursue additional study to 

assess possible regulatory action to require expeditious transfer of spent fuel from nuclear 

power plants' spent fuel pools to dry cask storage. In my vote on this question, I noted the 

large body of evidence presented by the staff, and concluded that this record, taken as a whole, 

overwhelmingly supported the staffs recommendation. If reconfirmed, I would support more 

studies of this issue should new and significant information on this matter be developed. 

9 
24 


26002.015

QUESTION 21. 

ANSWER. 

State regulatory officials from Vermont have raised concerns that 

the NRC is less likely to consider commentary received from state 

and local governments on reactor license change requests, and 

NRC rulemaking and regulatory guidance efforts, than commentary 

from nuclear power plant operators (e.g. Entergy, Exelon and First 

Energy) and nuclear power industry organizations such as the 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). If confirmed, what steps would you 

take to assure that commentary and concerns expressed by state 

and local governments, or other nuclear power plant stakeholders, 

are given consideration equal to that already enjoyed by nuclear 

power plant operators and their supporters? 

Under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the 

NRC has an obligation to provide stakeholders, including state and local governments, with an 

opportunity to participate in rulemakings and adjudications and must consider the input from all 

entities in developing the final agency action. As an additional matter, the agency frequently 

makes its guidance documents available to members of the public for a similar opportunity to 

comment. The State of Vermont has often participated in these activities, and last year 

prevailed in its adjudicatory claim that the agency staff should have prepared an environmental 

assessment for an exemption request related to the Vermont Yankee decommissioning fund. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station), CLI-16-17, 84 NRC 99 (2016). If reconfirmed, I commit to ensuring that 

the agency continues to meet its legal obligation to consider input from interested stakeholders 

in an even-handed manner. 

QUESTION 22. 

ANSWER. 

To date, nuclear power plants that have permanently shut down 

have been permitted to eliminate their offsite Emergency Planning 

Zones (EPZs) roughly 15 to 20 months after cessation of power 

generation. The risk of a spent fuel fire resulting from a significant 

loss of spent fuel pool water inventory is greatly reduced, but a 

reduction in risk is not an elimination of risk. A reduced risk of a 

spent fuel fire still requires a significant offsite emergency response 

that requires drills or exercises to demonstrate proficiency in 

response and funding to maintain essential emergency response 

equipment and staff. If confirmed, will you support maintaining 

offsite EPZs for permanently shut down nuclear power plants until 

such time that all spent fuel is removed from onsite spent fuel 

pools? 

Following the permanent removal of all spent fuel from the reactor vessel, the range of events 

that can have significant offsite consequences is greatly reduced. As a result, some 

decommissioning licensees have requested relief from emergency planning requirements that 

do not reflect the reduced risk. If these exemptions are granted, licensees must continue to 

maintain an onsite emergency plan addressing the declaration of an emergency up to the 

second-lowest classification level ("Alert"), capability to notify licensee personnel and offsite 

authorities of emergencies, onsite exercises with the opportunity for offsite response 

organization participation, arrangements for offsite response organizations (i.e., law 

10 
25 


26002.016

enforcement, fire and medical services) that could respond to onsite emergencies, and 

coordination with designated offsite government officials following an event declaration so that, 

if needed, offsite authorities can implement appropriate response actions. If reconfirmed, I will 

continue to approve exemptions that are authorized by law and maintain an appropriate level of 

safety at the facility in question, subject to the NRC staffs specific evaluation. 

QUESTION 23. 

ANSWER. 

When NRC staff respond to concerns raised by state or local 

government officials, or individual concerned citizens, they rely 

heavily on references to voluminous regulatory documents which 

are difficult to follow, or use jargon that only makes sense to other 

NRC staff. If confirmed, what actions would you consider taking to 

facilitate clear communication by NRC officials with lay members of 

the public? 

The Commission has directed staff to make greater use of plain language when speaking to the 

public, particularly about high profile events, such as the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi 

in Japan. In addition, the NRC's Executive Director for Operations has issued guidance to the 

staff on improving the quality of documents, emphasizing clarity of writing and the use of plain 

language, with links to training opportunities. Finally, the agency held approximately 1,000 

public meetings last year, at many of which members of the public had opportunities to ask the 

technical staff questions or engage in discussions before or after the meeting. These meetings 

provide an important opportunity for members of the public to better understand regulatory 

issues. If confirmed, I will continue to emphasize the need for clear communications, consistent 

with the Principles of Good Regulation. 

QUESTION 24. 

ANSWER. 

One significant source of frustration for state and local 

governments, and individuals who are following nuclear power plant 

decommissioning efforts, is that the process of complete 

decommissioning and site restoration is under the jurisdiction of 

multiple federal agencies in addition to the NRC, such as the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the 

Department of Transportation, and the Department of Homeland 

Security, just to name a few. If confirmed, what steps would you take 

to assure that the scope of regulatory authority of all federal 

agencies with jurisdiction is clear to all stakeholders? 

As discussed above in response to question 23, the NRC has undertaken extensive efforts in 

recent years to improve the clarity of its communications with interested stakeholders. If 

reconfirmed, I will continue to support these efforts. 

QUESTION 25. What do you believe is the future of nuclear power in this country? 

11 
26 


26002.017

ANSWER 

Nuclear power is likely to provide some fractional component of U.S. energy supply in the future 

at levels dependent on economic and other factors outside of the NRC's jurisdiction. 

QUESTION 26. 

ANSWER 

If confirmed, what role do you believe you should play-if any-as 

Commissioner in supporting the nuclear power industry? 

As an independent agency, the NRC does not play a promotional role for the nuclear power 

industry. The mission of the NRC under law is to license and regulate the Nation's civilian use 

of radioactive materials to protect public health and safety and promote the common defense 

and security. 

QUESTION 27. 

ANSWER 

According to recent Energy Information Agency estimates, the 

generating capacity from nuclear power will drop from 20 percent to 

11 percent by 2050. If confirmed, how will you ensure safety during 

this time of mass decommissioning? 

The NRC ensures that safety requirements are being met throughout the decommissioning 

process by reviewing decommissioning or license termination plans, conducting inspections, 

and monitoring the status of activities to ensure that radioactive contamination is reduced or 

stabilized. The agency's previous experience in the 1990s, and currently, with groups of 

nuclear power plant ceasing operations before the end of their license terms and 

decommissioning at the same time, provided lessons learned regarding the safety oversight 

program for decommissioning sites. As more facilities complete decommissioning, the NRC has 

implemented those lessons learned in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the 

safety oversight program for decommissioning sites and is currently undergoing rulemaking to 

further increase effectiveness and efficiency. If reconfirmed, I will continue to support these 

activities. 

QUESTION 28. 

ANSWER. 

Most of the plants currently being decommissioned across the U.S. 

are doing so because they are not economically competitive. Some 

have proposed easing safety and other regulatory burdens to help 

the economic viability of the nuclear fleet. If regulations on existing 

and new power plants are decreased, how will you ensure the safety 

of our nuclear fleet? 

While the Commission is aware of the economic pressures resulting from competition in the 

energy sector generally, the Commission's role as a regulator is to ensure that the Nation's 

nuclear plants operate safely, consistent with the agency's health and safety mission. The NRC 

will continue to maintain adequate measures to protect the health and safety of the public and 

not endanger common defense and security. If reconfirmed, I will continue to support these 

efforts. 

QUESTION 29. If confirmed, how will you ensure the public safety of nextgeneration nuclear reactors that implement advanced technologies? 

12 
27 


26002.018

ANSWER 

NRC maintains communication with and awareness of the Department of Energy and private 

industry activities so that we are aware of new and emerging technologies. This enables NRC 

to address regulatory policy issues in a timely manner and to be prepared to engage in preapplication and licensing reviews to ensure the safety and security of licensed designs. 

Throughout the preparatory activities, we will ensure that the focus remains on safety NRC 

will independently verify applicant's data, determine safety margins, and explore uncertainties. 

If reconfirmed, I will continue to support these activities. 

QUESTION 30. 

ANSWER. 

How will the potential development of advanced nuclear 

technologies affect the problems NRC is currently confronting in 

storing spent nuclear fuel long-term? 

The NRC expects that its current regulatory structure provides the necessary flexibility through 

the use of a risk-informed, performance-based framework to accommodate on-site storage, 

potential offsite interim storage and, when available, geologic disposal of alternate waste forms 

arising from advanced reactor fuel cycles. 

QUESTION 31. 

ANSWER. 

Currently the U.S. has no permanent storage for spent nuclear fuel. 

Where do you anticipate that spent nuclear fuel from nextgeneration nuclear reactors will be stored? 

For spent fuel and high-level waste disposal, the NRC expects that the use of a risk-informed, 

performance-based framework would provide adequate flexibility to accommodate on-site 

storage, potential offsite interim storage and, when available, geologic disposal of alternate 

waste forms arising from advanced reactor fuel cycles. 

QUESTION 32. The March 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident prompted the NRC to 

review its own regulations. The Commission's Fukushima Task 

Force, consisting of NRC experts with 135 years of nuclear 

regulatory expertise among them, made a range of key 

recommendations for improving nuclear plant safety. The final 

report included 12 recommendations ranging from requirements to 

upgrade seismic and flood protections to protections against the 

long power outages that were the ultimate cause of the Japanese 

meltdowns. They also concluded that all of the recommendations 

were necessary for the "adequate protection" of nuclear power 

plants. 

Despite the repeated urging of its own experts, the Commission has 

so far refused to make these recommendations mandatory. What 

steps will you take to ensure that the Commission revisits this 

decision and does, in fact, adopt the Task Force's safety 

recommendations as mandatory? 

13 
28 


26002.019

ANSWER 

Following the issuance of the Task Force Report, the NRC staff prioritized the recommendations 

based on the urgency of the action and the need for additional information to develop an 

approach. The NRC staff has since evaluated all of the recommendations and developed an 

approach to addressing them. The orders, in particular, are mandatory. For example, the 

majority of plants are in compliance with the Mitigating Strategies Order, which requires plants 

to be able to maintain safety functions during long power outages. The need for upgrades for 

seismic and flooding protections will be determined on a plant-specific basis based on the 

results of ongoing evaluations; in many cases, plants have made interim improvements while 

the more detailed evaluations are being completed. The most safety-significant activities are 

either complete or progressing under clearly defined processes. If reconfirmed, I will continue to 

support the agency's plan for prioritizing and implementing the recommendations from the Task 

Force Report. 

QUESTION 33. 

ANSWER 

A paper published in Science last month by nuclear experts from the 

Union of Concerned Scientists and Princeton University argued that 

the NRC places the U.S. at risk of disasters like Fukushima because 

of problems in its approach to assessing the risks and benefits of 

safety improvements. The authors suggest that NRC should reform 

its risk assessments in the following ways (see below). Do you 

concur that these corrections to current NRC risk assessments are 

needed? If not, why? If so, how will you address these issues as a 

Commissioner, if confirmed? 

• Take into account the possibility of a terrorist attack in 

regulatory decisions such as the one on whether or not to 

require the nuclear utilities to remove spent fuel to dry cask 

storage after 5 years. 

• Take into account accident consequences beyond 50 miles of 

the site. 

Make assumptions concerning population relocation, and 

therefore property losses, after a nuclear accident consistent 

with the EPA's guidance concerning dose levels. 

Make realistic assumptions concerning the efficacy and speed of 

decontamination actions. 

Update the NRC's assumption concerning the value of a life lost 

to radiation-induced cancer by a factor of 2.5, as recommended 

by the NRC staff. 

Over the past several years, the NRC staff has evaluated these issues. In the first four cases, 

the staff has found that the agency's existing approach provides for reasonable assurance of 

adequate protection of public health and safety and common defense and security. The 

Commission has endorsed the staffs findings and recommendations in these matters. The staff 

is reviewing the article referenced in this question. The staffs proposal regarding the dollar per 

person-rem conversion factor (which is described in the fifth case above) remains under 

Commission review and deliberation. 

QUESTION 34. A February 2017 report by Union of Concerned Scientists stated, 

"Just as nuclear plant owners have down played and dismissed clear 

and present signs about safety culture problems at their plants, the 

data suggest that the NRC's management is just as dismissive of 

14 
29 


26002.020

ANSWER. 

indications that it has a poor safety culture." Are you concerned that 

staff at nuclear power plants and the NRC are reluctant to report 

safety problems because of the lack of trust between workforce and 

management? If so, how can NRC address the lack of a nuclear 

safety culture, and lessen risks to public and environmental safety? 

If not, what evidence do you have that NRC management maintains 

a robust safety culture? 

Safety and security are the primary pillars of the NRC's regulatory mission and consideration of 

both is an underlying principle of the Safety Culture Policy Statement issued in 2011. The 

Policy Statement communicated the Commission's expectations that individual nuclear power 

plants establish and monitor a positive safety culture commensurate with the safety and security 

significance of their activities. 

The NRC assesses our licensees' Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) through 

inspections, responses to allegations, and evaluation of performance deficiencies with a SCWE 

cross-cutting aspect. The NRC takes action, such as issuing chilling effect letters and orders, 

when it concludes additional actions are warranted to ensure that licensees take appropriate 

actions to foster a robust SCWE and safety culture. 

Internally, the NRC is committed to fulfilling our important safety and security mission, while 

continuing to nurture an environment that reflects the characteristics of a strong safety culture 

that encourages all NRC employees and contractors to raise concerns and differing views 

promptly without fear of reprisal. When recent NRC employee surveys and self-assessments 

indicated the need for additional action, NRC's management and staff partnered to develop an 

action plan that focuses on "fostering a greater climate of trust at the NRC" with the goals of 

strengthening the positive environment for raising concerns; promoting a culture of fairness, 

empowerment and respect across the agency; and establishing clear expectations and 

accountability for NRC leaders. I support these efforts. 

QUESTION 35. 

ANSWER. 

NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) is 

responsible for regulating activities which provide for the safe and 

secure production of nuclear fuel used in commercial nuclear 

reactors; the safe storage, transportation and disposal of high-level 

radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel; and the transportation of 

radioactive materials regulated under the Atomic Energy Act. The 

United States is facing a significant long-term problem in its 

disposal of nuclear waste. What do you envision as a potential 

solution, and what role should NRC play? 

The NRC's authority to regulate the storage, transportation, and disposal of high-level waste 

comes from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 

1974, as amended; and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. The NRC's role 

under its authority is that of ensuring safety during transportation and the safety of any facility 

proposed for such storage or disposal. Those same statutes provide the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) with the responsibility and authority for designing, constructing, operating, and 

decommissioning a permanent disposal facility for HLW, and potential interim storage facilities, 

under NRC licensing and regulation. In its role as a safety regulator, it is the NRC's 

responsibility to process any such application regardless of the methods and technologies 

15 
30 


26002.021

utilized for transportation, storage, or disposal. The NRC has previously licensed a private fuel 

storage facility, and has made progress in the review of a geologic repository for HLW 

disposal. NRC will follow the national policy debate on disposal of HLW, but the establishment 

of or modification to this policy is the domain of the Congress. 

QUESTION 36. 

ANSWER. 

Yes. 

QUESTION 37. 

ANSWER. 

President Trump's FY18 budget proposal would revive the approval 

process for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site. NRC's role in 

approving the Yucca Mountain site has been to assess DOE's 

license application to consider whether the proposed facility meets 

its regulatory requirements for geologic disposal of the waste. The 

NRC process also includes conducting a Safety Evaluation Report 

and adjudicatory hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing 

Board. Adjudicatory hearings for Yucca Mountain, which must be 

completed before a licensing decision can be made, remain 

suspended. If confirmed, will you ensure robust public comment and 

involvement in any decision on a potential solution to this country's 

significant long-term problem of nuclear waste disposal? 

According to the NRC, radioactive iodine 131 is the most toxic 

isotope used in medicine. Before 1997, patients receiving 

therapeutic doses of 1-131 for thyroid cancer had to be kept in 

radiological isolation until it was safe for them to go home and 

mingle with the public. In 1997, however, a radical deregulation by 

the NRC made outpatient treatment with 1-131 the norm. The U.S. is 

now an outlier in the world radiation protection community, with 

weaker controls than those not only of Europe and Japan, but also 

of Iran and Indonesia. We are a first-world country with sub-third 

world radiation protection for the public. 

During the Chairmanship of Allison Macfarlane, she and 

Commissioner Magwood sought to correct this situation, but lacking 

your support, their efforts failed. If reconfirmed, will you commit to 

correct this situation and address the need to protect the public 

from exposure to medical radioactive iodine contamination? 

The NRC believes the current criteria for the release of patients following radiation therapy 

contained in 10 CFR 35.75 adequately protect public health and safety. As directed in Staff 

Requirements Memorandum (SRM) COMAMM-14-0001/COMWDM-14-0001, "Background and 

Proposed Direction to NRC Staff to Verify Assumptions Made Concerning Patient Release 

Guidance," NRC staff has conducted additional research and is reevaluating its patient release 

regulatory requirements and guidance. The staff requested and is evaluating public input on 

this evaluation. The staff will provide their evaluation to the Commission in December 2017. 

QUESTION 38. The National Council on Radiation Protection and International 

Commission on Radiological Protection both declare that the 

maximum radiation dose to a member of the public from a licensed 

activity should be 100 millirems per year. Yet the NRC allows all 

16 
31 


26002.022

ANSWER. 

members of the public, including pregnant women and nursing 

mothers, to receive 500 millirems from released patients. If 

confirmed, will you commit to reconsidering the NRC's 500 millirems 

standard? 

The NRC has conducted additional research and is currently reevaluating the existing patient 

release regulatory requirements and guidance, as directed in SRM COMAMM-14-

0001/COMWDM-14-0001, "Background and Proposed Direction to NRC Staff to Verify 

Assumptions Made Concerning Patient Release Guidance." As part of this evaluation, the NRC 

staff is specifically looking at the allowable limits to pregnant women, nursing mothers, and 

children along with all members of the public. This evaluation includes input from a diverse 

group of stakeholders, including members of the public. The staff will provide its evaluation to 

the Commission in December 2017. 

QUESTION 39. 

ANSWER. 

Within the past two weeks, doctors at Pennsylvania State University 

published a paper analyzing 44 cases of thyroid cancer in the 

vicinity of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant and found convincing 

evidence that they showed signs of exposure to radiation. In 2002, 

as part of the response to the 9/11 disaster, Congress authorized an 

expansion from 10 to 20 miles of the radius within which the drug 

potassium iodide would be distributed. At the time, the NRC fought 

that expansion, and under President Bush, the law was not 

implemented. If confirmed, will you commit to a re-evaluation of the 

need for greater availability of potassium iodide in view of increased 

evidence of the sensitivity of the thyroid gland to the carcinogenic 

effects of radiation? 

The NRC believes that current emergency planning and protective measures-evacuation and 

sheltering--are adequate and protective of public health and safety. However, the NRC 

recognizes the supplemental value of potassium iodide and the prerogative of the States to 

decide the appropriateness of the use of potassium iodide by its citizens. The NRC is currently 

reviewing the paper published by Pennsylvania State University and will take regulatory action if 

it is warranted. 

QUESTION 40. The NRC used to be considered one of the top federal agencies in 

workplace satisfaction. Yet, according to index scores from the U.S. 

Office of Personnel Management's Federal Employee Viewpoint 

Survey, employee satisfaction at NRC is the worst since 2005 with 

declines of 3.5 points in just the last year (2015 to 2016). This drop in 

the last year represents one of the steepest declines among 

agencies of its size. Moreover, scores on leadership are consistently 

down across all categories, including senior leadership, 

empowerment, and fairness. Having served as a Commissioner 

since 2008, how would you explain these declines in workplace 

satisfaction? If confirmed, what will you do in your role as chairman 

to address these declines? 

17 
32 


26002.023

ANSWER. 

The agency maintains a clear focus on safety and security, and carrying out its core mission of 

protecting people and the environment, even as we continue to face a number of challenges, 

such as adapting to fact-of-life changes. The agency traditionally scores well above the 

government average in the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), but has seen a decline 

in overall scores over the past few years. However, in 2016, the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) still ranked the NRC in the top 10 among large agencies (i.e., agencies 

with 800 or more employees) in the areas of global satisfaction and employee engagement. 

The agency continues to evolve using data from the FEVS and the NRC Office of Inspector 

General Safety Culture and Climate Survey. The agency is also implementing an action plan 

that focuses on "fostering a greater climate of trust at the NRC" with the goals of strengthening 

the positive environment for raising concerns; promoting a culture of fairness, empowerment 

and respect across the agency; and establishing clear expectations and accountability for NRC 

leaders. If reconfirmed, I will continue to reinforce the continued progress on this action plan. 

QUESTION 41. 

ANSWER: 

The first of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's five Principles of 

Good Regulation is "Independence." What does that principle mean 

to you? 

The Principle of Independence means that nothing but the highest possible standards of ethical 

performance and professionalism should influence regulation. However, independence does 

not imply isolation. All available facts and opinions must be sought openly from licensees and 

other interested members of the public. The many and possibly conflicting public interests 

involved must be considered. Final decisions must be based on objective, unbiased 

assessments of all information, and must be documented with reasons explicitly stated. 

QUESTION 42. 

ANSWER. 

Yes. 

QUESTION 43. 

ANSWER. 

Yes. 

QUESTION 44. 

Would you agree that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

should not allow political meddling from Congress, other parts of 

the executive branch, or industry to interfere with the NRC's 

independent decision-making processes? 

Do you commit to zealously guard the independence of the NRC and 

oppose any efforts to undermine it? 

THE HONORABLE DAN SULLIVAN 

Earlier this spring the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

reported 8.512, the "Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization 

Act" on a strong bi-partisan vote. The findings and purposes of this 

bill provide a framework for these questions. 

In 8.512 the Committee found that one of the " ... impediments to the 

commercialization of advanced nuclear reactors ... " is the " ... 

durations associated with applying the existing nuclear regulatory 

18 
33 


26002.024

ANSWER. 

framework to advanced nuclear reactors. We further found that 

" ... license application reviews should be as predictable and efficient 

as practicable without compromising safety or security." And, that 

"the existing nuclear regulatory framework and the requirements of 

that framework have not adapted to advances in scientific 

understanding or the features and performance characteristics of 

advanced nuclear reactor designs." 

To address these findings 5.512 would establish " ... a program to 

develop the expertise and regulatory processes necessary to allow 

innovation and the commercialization of advanced nuclear 

reactors". 5.512 provides the NRC with ample time to develop that 

program so, even if the bill were enacted this year, it will not be fully 

in place for several years. 

Assuming that 5.512 is enacted, I would like to understand your 

views with respect to the application of the NRC's current regulatory 

authority to innovative nuclear technologies during the time 

between enactment and the establishment of this new program. 

Do you agree with the general findings of 5.512? If not, please 

explain. 

There are many similarities between the requirements of S.512 and the NRC's ongoing 

activities related to advanced reactors. In addition, the fundamental requirements in S.512 are 

complementary in concept to the NRC's ongoing activities. The NRC can review innovative, 

non-light water reactor designs using our existing regulatory framework. This approach would 

continue to ensure safe, secure, and environmentally responsible uses of nuclear power. 

However, the NRC is enhancing its existing framework in a technology-neutral manner to 

increase efficiency, timeliness, and predictability of such reviews. The NRC currently has 

significant ongoing and planned activities in the areas of advanced reactor licensing 

infrastructure, technical preparation, and stakeholder outreach. In addition, the NRC, in 

coordination with DOE, is training NRC staff to close technical skills gaps, and performing 

outreach activities to educate the new vendors on the regulatory process. I support these 

efforts. 

QUESTION 45. 

ANSWER. 

In this interim period, the Commission likely will be confronted with 

innovative and advanced nuclear technologies, e.g. subcritical 

technologies, which may not fit within the scope of the NRC's 

current regulations. The Atomic Energy Act vests the NRC with 

broad authority to determine the scope of its regulatory jurisdiction, 

including the discretion to issue additional regulations to bring new 

technologies within the scope of the existing regulatory framework. 

In the event you encounter such an issue while serving on the NRC, 

what views will guide how you exercise your discretion with respect 

to regulation of such new technologies? Will you regulate simply to 

regulate or will you insist that there be regulation only when it is 

needed to adequately address public health and safety risks? 

The NRC and its predecessor agency, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), have regulatory 

experience with non-light water reactor (non-LWR) designs, including licensing sodium fast 

reactors, sodium graphite reactors, and high temperature gas cooled reactors, and performing 

19 
34 


26002.025

pre-application reviews for additional non-LWR designs. The current regulations provide the 

NRC with sufficient flexibility to review and appropriately make conclusions on the safety and 

security on all reactor designs. The most important element of the review is for the vendor to 

readily demonstrate the safety of its design, especially for innovative or novel features. LWRspecific regulations that do not apply to non-LWR design features could be addressed through 

the use of the existing exemption process. In addition, policy issues can be addressed during 

pre-application interactions, which will allow the NRC to complete non-LWR reviews in a timely 

manner. If reconfirmed, I will continue to insist that NRC regulation be tied to protecting the 

public health and safety, promoting the common defense and security, and otherwise complying 

with applicable law. 

QUESTION 46. 

ANSWER. 

Nuclear industry activities frequently are subject to regulation by 

many different federal agencies which often have different 

perspectives and objectives. 

If you are presented with a situation in which regulation of a new 

innovative technology by other agencies appropriately addresses 

any public health and safety risks presented by that technology, will 

you insist that the NRC also regulate? 

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the NRC has a statutory obligation to 

"protect the health and safety of the public" and "promote the common defense and security" 

with respect to civilian applications of nuclear technology. Consequently, for any new 

technology, the Commission legally must have a reasonable basis for finding that these 

standards are met. Nonetheless, if compliance with existing regulations from another entity 

sufficed to ensure these standards were met, then I would not propose additional requirements 

beyond those required. 

QUESTION 47. 

ANSWER. 

THE HONORABLE SHELDON WHITEHOUSE 

Last year, NRC's budget included a $5 million request to build up the 

infrastructure for improving licensing of advanced reactor concepts. 

This request was appropriated in this year's Omnibus. 

Unfortunately, in this year's budget request NRC does not ask for 

additional funding for their advanced rector licensing work. 

Can you discuss what the NRC plans to do with the additional 

funding for advanced reactor licensing? 

The NRC is enhancing its existing regulatory framework to address non-LWR in a technology 

neutral manner as part of its vision and strategy for safely achieving effective and efficient NonLight Water Reactor (LWR) mission readiness. The FY 2018 budget does not include off-the fee 

based funding for advanced reactors, but does include very limited on-fee based funding for 

non-LWR infrastructure development and pre-application interactions. Examples of activities 

underway include the development of advanced reactor design criteria and the NRC issued 

draft regulatory guide "DG-1330, "Guidance for Developing Principal Design Criteria for NonLight Water Reactors," for formal public comment in February 2017. The NRC plans to issue a 

final regulatory guide at the end of 2017. In October 2016, the NRC issued a draft "Regulatory 

Review Roadmap for Non-Light-Water Reactors, which described flexible review options, 

including the use of a staged-review process and the use of conceptual design assessments 

20 
35 


26002.026

during the pre-application period. The NRC is working with stakeholders on a utility-led 

licensing modernization project supported by the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Energy 

Institute. White papers are being prepared by the utility-led working group and provided to the 

NRC staff as part of development of regulatory guidance for non-LWR applicants. The NRC 

staff is currently reviewing the first white paper on risk-informed performance based-licensing 

bases event selection. 

QUESTION 48. 

ANSWER. 

Why did NRC not ask for additional funding in the President's 

FY2018 budget to continue its work in this area? 

NRC's FY 2018 budget request was developed to ensure the agency can meet its mission and 

to be consistent with budgetary direction from the Administration. 

QUESTION 49. 

ANSWER. 

There have been tremendous advances in predictive modeling and 

simulation capabilities for new nuclear technologies that can yield 

new insights into new reactor behaviors and accelerate the licensing 

of new technologies. Will you help direct the NRC staff to embrace 

and adopt these tools? 

Yes. The NRC supports the appropriate use of computer models and simulation tools to 

evaluate the safety of nuclear technologies. Throughout the history of licensing nuclear 

technologies, the NRC has approved applications that rely on a combination of computer 

simulation modeling and experimental data to demonstrate compliance with NRC safety 

requirements. Given the importance of nuclear safety, sole reliance on computer simulation 

models needs to be approached deliberately. Computer simulation models need to be validated 

to assure that they appropriately model physical processes and accurately predict the results of 

phenomena of interest 

The NRC is currently evaluating several DOE computer simulation models for applicability and 

use for new and advanced reactor technologies. The NRC recognizes that computer simulation 

models can allow a greater number and range of issues to be analyzed. I will continue to be 

supportive of the NRC staff's use of appropriate evaluative tools to carry out the NRC's mission. 

QUESTION 50. 

ANSWER. 

The Chinese currently have 21 new nuclear reactors under 

construction. The Chinese regulatory system appears to be similar 

to the new, post-Fukushima Japanese system, where the nuclear 

regulatory body is housed in the Environment Ministry. Although it 

appears that the Chinese regulatory systems seems to have similar 

licensing and regulatory authority to that of the U.S. NRC, their 

ability to license reactors appears to be more efficient. 

Can you discuss whether the current regulatory licensing framework 

at NRC is different than the Chinese licensing system? If so, what 

are the differences? 

There are significant differences between the U.S. and Chinese regulatory licensing 

frameworks. The most significant differences appear to relate to transparency and public 

hearing rights. These differences are manifestations of our different systems of government. 

21 
36 


26002.027

QUESTION 51. 

ANSWER. 

Can you comment on what may be enabling the Chinese to be able 

to license 21 new reactors under their framework? 

The NRC's engagements with its counterpart in China have focused on technical safety issues 

rather than licensing framework, in light of the significant differences in governmental systems 

and national laws. 

QUESTION 52. 

ANSWER. 

Has the NRC looked at a cross comparison between the Chinese 

licensing process and the U.S. system? 

While the NRC has not performed a cross comparison between the Chinese and US licensing 

processes, it does participates in the Multi-National Design Evaluation Programme (MDEP), of 

which the US and China are members. MDEP is a 10-nation initiative with the goal of 

cooperating on safety design reviews of new reactors and identifying opportunities to harmonize 

and converge on safety licensing review practices and requirements. When appropriate, the 

NRC has applied lessons learned through this process and technical exchanges with the 

Chinese Regulator to its licensing process. 

QUESTION 53. 

ANSWER. 

The NRC budget includes $30 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund 

to fund activities for the proposed Yucca Mountain deep geological 

repository. DOE has been collecting fees since 1983 under the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to go into the Nuclear Waste Fund. 

Unti12010, DOE was collecting around $750 million a year (nearly 

$31 billion in total) into the fund. The fee program was stopped in 

2010 after the Obama administration backed away from the planned 

nuclear fuel repository at Yucca Mountain. 

If you are confirmed as Commissioner and Congress passes 

funding for Yucca Mountain licensing do you plan on moving the 

licensing process forward? 

Yes. If Congress provides funding, the NRC would continue its review of the construction 

authorization application for a repository at Yucca Mountain. 

QUESTION 54. 

ANSWER. 

If the licensing process for Yucca Mountain moves forward do you 

support reinstating the fee for the Nuclear Waste Fund? 

Under its statutory authorities, the NRC's role associated with Yucca Mountain is that of 

licensing and oversight to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety and to 

promote the common defense and security. As such, the NRC has no role regarding 

reinstatement of the fee. 

QUESTION 55. Do you believe that nuclear waste as a liability associated with it 

that should be quantified? Can you estimate what the liability of the 

existing nuclear waste stockpile might be? 

22 
37 


26002.028

ANSWER. 

Under its statutory authorities, the NRC's role associated with nuclear waste is that of licensing 

to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety and to promote the common defense 

and security. As such, the Commission has no jurisdiction regarding this matter. 

23 
38 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so much for your comments. 

Ms. Caputo. 

STATEMENT OF ANNIE CAPUTO, NOMINATED TO BE A 

MEMBER OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Ms. CAPUTO. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member 

Carper, and members of the Committee. 

I have been very thankful for the opportunity to work for Chairman Barrasso this year, continuing my service to the members of 

the EPW Committee under his leadership. 

I am also grateful to President Trump for nominating me to 

serve on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Public service is a 

privilege. If the Senate confirms my nomination, I will be honored 

to serve and very humbled to serve with such esteemed fellow colleagues as Chairman Svinicki, Commissioner Baran, Commissioner 

Burns and my fellow nominee, David Wright. 

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge my family. I want to 

thank AJ, my husband of 19 years, for his constant support of my 

public service, and our children, Owen and Abigail, who are our 

greatest blessings and who assured me they would be on their best 

behavior today. 

In preparing for today, I have spent time reflecting on what it 

would mean to take on the responsibility of the position of Commissioner and how key experiences in my life have prepared me for 

such a role. 

What I realized is several experiences closely echo the NRC’s 

mission, values, and principles of good regulation. 

First, my mother not only taught me right from wrong, but to 

distinguish between what is right and what is popular. This is a 

lesson that would guide me in the position to which I have been 

nominated. 

It is a lesson I believe is well articulated in the NRC’s Principle 

of Independence which states, ‘‘All available facts and opinions 

must be sought openly from licensees and other interested members of the public. The many and possibly conflicting public interests involved must be considered. Final decisions must be based on 

objective, unbiased assessments of all information.’’ 

Second, my brief service as a volunteer firefighter and emergency 

medical technician for the Snowmass Wildcat Fire Department 

showed me the importance of dedication to public health and safety, professionalism, teamwork, and the satisfaction of serving the 

community. It was here that the seed of public service was planted 

and took root. These are values that guide me to this day and are 

in keeping with the NRC values of commitment, respect, cooperation, and service. 

Third, my first job after graduating with my nuclear engineering 

degree was with Commonwealth Edison in Chicago. At the time, 

half of their nuclear plants were on the NRC’s ‘‘watch list’’ due to 

safety concerns. 

A man named Oliver Kingsley took on the role of President and 

transformed the organization’s performance based on the principle 

that safety and operations are inextricably linked: that operations 

excellence depends on a dedication to safety. 

39 

If a nuclear plant is not maintained with disciplined focus on 

safety, it will not run well. Safety is first. That is what I learned 

from Oliver Kingsley, and that is the mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

I have been privileged to serve in both the House and Senate for 

12 years, the majority of my career. In these roles, I have been continually challenged by Members to learn as much as I can. In doing 

so, I have seen the impressive expertise and professionalism of the 

NRC staff in action. I have no doubt the staff’s caliber and commitment is why the NRC is considered the gold standard for nuclear 

safety the world over. I have much to learn, and they have much 

to teach me if I am confirmed. 

Last, members have directed me to seek out the best policy and 

to work with bipartisanship to accomplish their goals. These experiences have developed my ability to work collegially to find agreement among different views and to craft solutions by working together. 

By sharing these experiences with you, I hope to provide you 

with insight into my character and how my values would guide my 

conduct as a Commissioner, if confirmed. It is humbling to be considered for such a serious responsibility. I would strive to execute 

that responsibility with integrity and professionalism, in a manner 

that earns the public’s trust, and in keeping with NRC’s mission, 

principles, and values. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Caputo follows:] 

40 


26002.029

ANNIE CAPUTO 

SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PCBLIC WORKS 

U.S. SENATE 

Annie serves as senior policy advisor for Chairman John 

Barrasso (R-\X'Y) on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. She is 

responsible for oversight and legislative issues related to nuclear technologies and the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. She also held this position for previous Chairman 

James Inhofe (R-OK) from 2007 to 2012 and from 2015 to 2016. 

From 2012 to 2015, Annie worked for the House Committee on Energy & 

Commerce assisting Chairman Fred Upton on nuclear energy issues. Her responsibilities 

included oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Department of Energy, 

briefing Members and staff on nuclear issues, making policy recommendations, and 

drafting legislation. Annie had previously worked for the Energy and Commerce 

Committee under Chairman Joe Barton from 2005 to 2006 with responsibility for 

nuclear energy provisions within the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Aside from public service, Annie worked in Exelon's Washington office as 

Congressional Affairs l\Ianager. Her responsibilities included strategy and 

communications on policy matters including nuclear energy, electricity restructuring, 

security, and other utility operations issues. Annie also worked as a consultant to Areva, 

Inc. during the early stages of their effort to develop the Eagle Rock uranium 

enrichment project. 

\'(lith a Bachelor's degree in nuclear engineering from the University of 

\Visconsin-Madison and a focus in communications studies, ;\nnie pursued a unique skill 

set for communicating issues related to all aspects of nuclear energy including safety, 

radiation, waste management and transportation, and fuel production. Earlier in her 

career, Annie was active in the American Nuclear Society, previously serving on the 

Board of Directors, the Finance Committee, and as Public Policy Chairman. 

Prior to her nuclear engineering education, Annie studied Chemical Engineering 

at Michigan Technological University. Upon leaving Michigan Tech, Annie moved to 

Aspen, Colorado, spending several years as a ski instructor and patroller, and 

volunteering with the Snowmass Wildcat Fire Department as a firefighter and emergency 

medical technician. 
41 


26002.030

STATEMENT OF ANNIE CAPUTO 

Committee on Environment and Pubic Works 

United States Senate 

June 7, 2017 

Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the 

Committee. I have been very thankful for the opportunity to work for Chairman Barrasso 

this year, continuing my service to the Members of the EPW Committee under his 

leadership. 

I am grateful to President Trump for nominating me to serve on the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. Public service is a privilege. If the Senate confirms my 

nomination, I will be honored to serve. 

Before I begin, I'd like to acknowledge my family. I'd like to thank AJ, my 

husband of 19 years, for his constant support of my public service. And our children, 

Owen and Abigail, who are our greatest blessings and who assured me they'd be on their 

best behavior today. 

In preparing for today, I have spent time reflecting on what it would mean to take 

on the responsibility of a commissioner and how key experiences in my life have helped 

prepare me for such a role. What I realized is several experiences closely echo the NRC's 

Mission, Values, and Principles of Good Regulation. 

First, my mother not only taught me right from wrong, but to distinguish between 

what's right and what's popular. This is a lesson that would guide me in the position to 

which I've been nominated. It is a lesson I believe is well articulated in the NRC's 

Principle oflndependence that states: 

"All m;ailable facts and opinions must be sought openly from licensees and other 

interested members of the public. The many and possibly conflicting public 

interests involved must be considered. Final decisions must be based on objective, 

unbiased assessments of all information ... " 

Second, my brief service as a volunteer firefighter and emergency medical 

technician for the Snowmass Wildcat Fire Department showed me the importance of 

dedication to public health and safety, professionalism, teamwork, and the satisfaction of 

serving the community. It was here that the seed of public service was planted and took 

root. These are values that guide me to this day and are in keeping with the NRC Values 

of Commitment, Respect, Cooperation, and Service. 

Third, my first job after graduating with my nuclear engineering degree was with 

Commonwealth Edison in Chicago. Half of their nuclear plants were on the NRC's 

"watch list" due to safety concerns. Oliver Kingsley took on the role of president and 

transformed the organization's performance based on the principle that safety and 

operations are inextricably linked: that operations excellence depends on a dedication to 
42 


26002.031

safety. If a nuclear plant isn't maintained with disciplined focus on safety, it won't run 

well. Safety first. That is what I learned from Oliver Kingsley and that is the mission of 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

I have been privileged to serve in both the House and Senate for twelve years, the 

majority of my career. In these roles, I have been continually challenged by Members to 

learn as much as I can. In doing so, I have seen the impressive expertise and 

professionalism of the NRC staff in action. I have no doubt the staffs caliber and 

commitment is why the NRC is considered the gold standard for nuclear safety the world 

over. I have much to learn and they have much to teach me. 

Lastly, Members have directed me to seek out the best policy, and to work with 

bipartisanship to accomplish their goals. These experiences developed my ability to 

work collegially to find agreement among different views and to craft solutions by 

working together. 

By sharing these experiences with you, I hope to provide you with insight into my 

character and how my values would guide my conduct as a commissioner, if confirmed. 

It is humbling to be considered for such a serious responsibility. I would strive to 

execute that responsibility with integrity and professionalism, in a manner that earns the 

public's trust, and in keeping with NRC's Mission, Principles, and Values. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and look forward to your questions. 
43 


26002.032

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Hearing entitled, "Hearing on the Nominations of Kristine Svinicki (Reappointment), 

Annie Caputo and David Wright to be Members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, and the Nomination of Susan Bodine to be Assistant Administrator of the 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency." 

Tuesday,June13,2017 

Questions for the Record for Annie Caputo 

THE HONORABLE THOMAS CARPER: 

QUESTION 1. It is very important to me that the NRC continues to strive for a 

culture of safety and continues to be independent in its decisionmaking. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure this 

culture of safety environment continues? 

ANSWER. 

I agree with you that a strong safety culture is important. Critically, from my observations, I 

believe the NRC staff is committed to fulfilling the agency's important safety and security 

mission, an important basis for agency safety culture. Beyond this, I understand the NRC has 

several programs in place to support raising differing views, without fear of retribution or 

retaliation, which can help nurture a strong safety culture. If confirmed, I will examine ongoing 

efforts to promote safety culture and look for opportunities to strengthen it further. 

QUESTION 2. What skills do you bring to the Commission that will enhance the 

NRC's ability to focus on safety? 
44 


26002.033

ANSWER. 

My degree in nuclear engineering gives me a foundational understanding of nuclear 

technologies and nuclear materials that are subject to NRC regulation. My industry experience 

inculcated in me a firm belief that safety and security must always come first. My ten years of 

experience as congressional staff supporting Members' oversight of the NRC has instilled in me 

a deep respect for the NRC's regulatory processes and the Commission's policy, rulemaking, 

and adjudicatory responsibilities. If confirmed, I believe these educational and work life 

experiences have well prepared me to support the NRC's statutory mission to protect public 

health and safety and the common defense and security. 

QUESTION3. 

ANSWER. 

At one time, the NRC was rated the best place to work in the federal 

government. Now, it is rated 12th for mid-size agencies. What will 

you do to boost morale for the NRC workforce? 

I will personally maintain and promote with the staff a clear focus on safety and security, and 

carrying out the NRC's mission of protecting public health and safety and the 

environment. Embracing and sharing an important mission like the NRC's is keystone upon 

which to build employee morale. Beyond that, I believe the agency should examine, to the 

extent it does not already do so, the findings of the study that ranked best places to work in the 

government and take action in the areas of weakness that were identified. 

QUESTION4. During the question and answer portion of your nomination hearing, 

you mentioned concerns about the NRC budget. It is my 

2 
45 


26002.034

ANSWER. 

understanding that the NRC is now looking at possible layoffs this 

summer and there is not much more fat to trim from the NRC's 

budget. As more reactors start the decommissioning process, that 

means less money coming into the NRC, what will you do to ensure 

the NRC has the appropriate funds to recruit the best people and is 

able keep up with the evolving workload? 

With the nuclear industry undergoing significant change, it remains a challenge to ensure the 

NRC is appropriately resourced with the right skill sets to manage shifts in the nature of its 

existing and anticipated workload. If confirmed, I will work with my fellow Commissioners to 

develop annual agency budget requests that fully support taking the actions necessary to fulfill 

the NRC's safety and security mission. 

THE HONORABLE ED MARKEY: 

QUESTIONS. The 2005 Energy Policy Act includes a provision, which I authored, 

that mandates that the NRC conduct security inspections at U.S. 

nuclear power plants. These inspections must include force-onforce exercises, where a mock adversary force conducts a simulated 

attack on a power plant to probe potential gaps in the plant's 

security. 

These exercises allow the NRC to ensure that nuclear power plants 

are adequately protected against terrorists or other bad actors. The 

alternative - of having plant operators run their own exercises -

3 
46 


26002.035

ANSWER 

would not only violate the law, but it would also create a clear 

conflict of interest, and undermine public safety. 

In the past, the nuclear industry lobbied the NRC to get rid of its 

force-on-force exercises in favor of exercises conducted by power 

plant operators. In effect, this would have nuclear power plant 

operators inspect themselves, in violation of the law. 

Do you support security evaluations of nuclear power plants that are 

conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and not by 

licensees? 

I understand that Section 170D of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended by the Energy Policy Act, 

requires the NRC to conduct triennial security evaluations at facilities designated by the 

Commission, which must include a force-on-force (FOF) exercise that simulates security threats 

in accordance the applicable design basis threat. If confirmed, this is an issue on which I will 

engage the NRC staff because of its importance to national security and public health and 

safety. 

QUESTIONS. When Entergy announced its intention to cease operations at the 

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

promised that the closure would "not relieve [Entergy] of the 

responsibility of running that plant as safely as possible until the 

end of its life." 

4 
47 


26002.036

ANSWER. 

But in the last several months, the NRC has broken that promise by 

providing Pilgrim with exemptions from critical safety upgrades. 

After the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, the Fukushima NearTerm Task Force recommended a series of safety upgrade for 

America's nuclear fleet. The NRC opted to accept these 

recommendations, and apply them to reactors of the same design as 

Fukushima, like Pilgrim. 

Among the critical safety upgrades were the requirement to 

reevaluate and address the risk of earthquakes and floods. The 

other critical safety upgrade was to install hardened containment 

vents capable of operating under severe accident conditions. These 

are meant to prevent the release of radioactivity in the event of a 

terrorist attack or severe accident. 

But instead of requiring Entergy to carry out these commonsense 

safety upgrades, the NRC provided Pilgrim with exemptions. 

Do you believe that providing exemptions from NRC safety 

regulations to U.S. nuclear plants increases public confidence in the 

safe operation of those plants? 

I understand that the NRC has a process allowing power reactor licensees to apply for an 

exemption from an NRC regulation. I understand that the NRC staff may grant such exemptions 

on a case-by-case basis if special circumstances are present and that granting the exemption 

will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety and that it is consistent with the 

common defense and security. If confirmed, I will review this issue with the NRC staff. 

5 
48 


26002.037

QUESTION7. 

ANSWER. 

Do you support the NRC granting exemptions to nuclear plants that 

have announced their intention to shut down operations? 

I understand that the NRC has an established process, and that the NRC staff may grant such 

exemptions on a case-by-case basis after performing a detailed technical safety analysis and 

determining that special circumstances are present and that granting the exemption will not 

present an undue risk to the public health and safety and that it is consistent with the common 

defense and security. If confirmed, I will review this issue with the NRC staff and closely 

monitor the status and progress of the agency's ongoing rulemaking efforts to improve the 

regulatory process for power reactors transitioning to decommissioning status. 

QUESTIONS. The recent National Academies of Sciences report on lessons 

learned from the Fukushima nuclear disaster noted that the risk of a 

spent nuclear fuel fire may actually rise at a decommissioned 

nuclear plant, because "the pool may be filled to near capacity and 

some plant safety systems may be inoperable." Yet the Commission 

has made it a habit of providing exemptions to decommissioned 

reactors from emergency response and security regulations. 

Exempting these plants from NRC rules wholesale permits the 

nuclear industry to lower the safety margin at decommissioned 

reactors, which continue to have dangerous spent nuclear fuel on 

site. 

Do you agree that the danger of accidents at spent-fuel pools at 

decommissioned reactors warrants the application of all emergency 

6 
49 


26002.038

ANSWER. 

response and security regulations that are designed to protect 

against spent fuel fires? 

I understand that the NRC staff has pertormed and published a number of studies and analyses 

on the topic of accident risk at spent fuel pools. The Commission has also required enhanced 

mitigation strategy capabilities through orders issued after the events of Fukushima. I 

understand that the staff considers such information when issuing exemptions from certain 

emergency preparedness and security requirements and making the required finding that such 

exemptions will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety and the common 

defense and security. If confirmed, I will review this issue with the NRC staff, and closely 

monitor the status and progress of the agency's ongoing rulemaking efforts to improve the 

regulatory process for power reactors transitioning to decommissioning status. 

QUESTIONS. In June 2016, I wrote to the NRC to urge the Commission to reexamine and address the risk to public safety posed by 

overcrowded spent-fuel pools at commercial reactors, in light of two 

reports that identified serious gaps in the NRC's previous analysis. 

A fire in a densely-packed spent-fuel pool could result in health and 

economic consequences comparable to those caused by an 

accident at an operating reactor, including the displacement of 

millions of people and untold economic damage. These risks could 

be much reduced by transferring spent fuel to dry casks, which are 

more resilient against accidents or attacks. 

7 
50 


26002.039

ANSWER. 

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Lessons Learned 

from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for Improving Safety and 

Security of U.S. Nuclear Plants, recommends that the NRC "perform 

a spent fuel storage risk assessment to elucidate the risks and 

potential benefits of expedited transfer of spent fuel from pools to 

dry casks." Do you support carrying out this recommendation? If 

not, why not? 

I understand that the NRC staff recently evaluated this specific NAS recommendation and 

concluded in a public paper to the Commission that the various analyses already performed or 

sponsored by the NRC staff were sufficient to support regulatory decisions on the safety and 

security of spent fuel pools. In that assessment the NRC staff also stated that it is continuing to 

gather regulatory and technical insights on the security of dry cask storage and is continuing to 

cooperate with other Federal agencies and international bodies to assess potential security 

threats and take action, if appropriate. If confirmed, I will engage the staff on the continuation of 

these efforts. 

QUESTION 10. The NAS report recommended that the NRC "strengthen their 

capabilities for identifying, evaluating, and managing the risks from 

terrorist attacks," and that the NRC's spent fuel storage risk 

assessment "should address accident and sabotage risks." Do you 

agree with the NAS recommendation that the NRC must fully 

account for the risk of terrorism and sabotage in its re-assessment 

of spent-fuel risks? If not, why not? 

8 
51 


26002.040

ANSWER. 

I understand that the NRC staff also evaluated this NAS recommendation and concluded that 

existing NRC security requirements and the NRC's continuous interactions with other Federal 

agencies to assess potential threats and take action, if appropriate, sufficiently addresses 

security-related risks to nuclear power plants, including terrorism and sabotage. The staff also 

stated it would continue to work with other Federal agencies, licensees, and other stakeholders 

to improve its risk assessment techniques and risk management in maintaining security at 

nuclear power plants. Because of its importance to national security and public health and 

safety, I will engage the staff on the continuation of these efforts, if confirmed. 

QUESTION 11. 

ANSWER. 

What steps, if any, will you support to strengthen the NRC's 

capabilities for identifying, evaluating, and managing the risk of 

terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities, including spent-fuel storage 

sites? 

I understand that the NRC continuously evaluates the potential risk posed by terrorism to NRClicensed facilities, including spent fuel storage sites, and that if the NRC determines that new 

information requires additional protection at NRC-licensed facilities, the NRC will impose 

additional security requirements at those sites. If confirmed, I will give this vital task of 

protecting national security and the public health and safety the attention it deserves. 

9 
52 


26002.041

QUESTION 12. 

ANSWER. 

As the Fukushima disaster demonstrated, a major release of 

radioactivity at a nuclear plant could have significant societal 

effects. As such, to fully capture spent-fuel storage risks, the NAS 

report recommended that the NRC's analysis "(c]onsider societal, 

economic, and health consequences" of a spent-fuel fire, as well as 

the direct risks of radioactive release. Do you agree with this 

recommendation? If not, why not? 

I understand that the NRC gives consideration to societal, economic, and health consequences 

of hypothetical severe accidents as part of its regulatory analysis process, and that there is an 

ongoing NRC effort to update is regulatory analysis guidelines for the consideration of economic 

consequences. If confirmed, I will review this topic with the NRC staff. 

QUESTION 13. According to the NAS report, the NRC "has not carried out an 

independent examination of surveillance and security measures for 

protecting stored spent fuel," as recommended by the NAS's 2006 

report. As such, the 2016 NAS report recommended that the NRC 

fulfill this recommendation, and that the NRC's analysis "should 

include an examination of the effectiveness of [the NRC's] programs 

for mitigating insider threats." Do you support carrying out an 

independent examination, as recommended by both NAS studies? If 

not, why not? 

10 
53 


26002.042

ANSWER. 

I understand that the NRC has conducted numerous studies over the years to assess potential 

risks from terrorist attacks, and that the agency continuously evaluates the risk posed by 

terrorism to NRC-licensed facilities, including spent fuel storage sites. I also understand that the 

NRC has an insider threat program. If confirmed, I will give this vital task of protecting national 

security and the public health and safety the attention it deserves. 

QUESTION 14. 

ANSWER. 

According to an article in the May 26 issue of Science magazine, the 

NRC's previous assessment of spent-fuel risks ignored the potential 

damage from a spent fuel fire beyond 50 miles of a plant, despite the 

fact that a significant portion of the radiation exposure would occur 

beyond that radius. Failing to account for this factor led the NRC to 

underestimate the destruction of a spent fuel fire. Do you support 

inclusion of contamination and other effects beyond 50 miles in the 

NRC's assessment of spent fuel fire risks? 

I understand that the NRC staff has previously documented its analysis of spent fuel risks 

resulting from the potential damage from a spent fuel fire in COMSECY -13-0030, and that as 

part of this analysis the NRC staff did perform sensitivity analyses that extended beyond 50 

miles. I understand that the NRC staff concluded from this analysis that regulatory changes 

were not appropriate. If confirmed, I will familiarize myself with their conclusions and engage 

the NRC staff on this topic. 

11 
54 


26002.043

QUESTION 15. 

ANSWER. 

According to the Science magazine article, the NRC's previous 

analysis also assumed that, in the event of a spent fuel fire, 

contaminated areas could be effectively cleaned up within a one 

year timeframe, despite evidence from both the Chernobyl and 

Fukushima accidents. Do you support revising that assumption in 

any re-assessment by the Commission of spent-fuel risks? 

I understand that the NRC staff has previously documented its analysis of spent fuel risks 

resulting from the potential damage from a spent fuel fire in COMSECY-13-0030. I understand 

that the NRC staff concluded from this analysis that regulatory changes were not appropriate. If 

confirmed, I will engage the NRC staff on this topic. 

QUESTION 16. According to the recent NAS study, under NRC rules, if the risk of 

prompt and cancer fatalities in the vicinity of a nuclear accident falls 

below a certain threshold, the NRC is not required to undertake a 

cost-benefit analysis of strategies for mitigating that risk. As a result 

of this rule, even though a spent-fuel fire could displace millions of 

people and result in trillions in economic damage, the NRC would 

not be required to evaluate the costs and benefits of strategies to 

mitigate such an event because it would not necessarily produce a 

significantly higher risk of fatalities in the immediate vicinity of the 

plant. To address this obvious deficiency, the NAS study cites 

experts who have suggested that the NRC should amend its rules by 

setting a limit on the likelihood that a large number of people would 

12 
55 


26002.044

ANSWER. 

be displaced for a long-term period following a release of 

radioactive fall-out. Do you support implementing such a rule? 

I am unfamiliar with the details of this issue. If confirmed, I will engage with the NRC staff on 

this topic. 

QUESTION 17. As you know, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station is in the 

process of decommissioning. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) requested comments on a draft regulatory basis ending this 

month to support a rulemaking that would amend NRC's regulations 

for the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors. The NRC's 

goals in amending these regulations would be to provide for an 

efficient decommissioning process; reduce the need for exemptions 

from existing regulations; address other decommissioning issues 

deemed relevant by the NRC staff; and support the principles of 

good regulation, including openness, clarity, and reliability. 

If confirmed, will you commit to supporting the following 

decommissioning requirements for the decommissioning 

rulemaking? If not, why? 

The enhancement of community involvement by requiring 

licensees of decommissioning reactors to include state and local 

officials' input into licensees' decommissioning plans; 

• that decommissioning funds are used strictly for statutorilyauthorized purposes; 

13 
56 


26002.045

ANSWER. 

that spent nuclear fuel be removed from wet storage and placed 

into safer dry cask storage as quickly as possible; 

that the site of the plant is rapidly returned to beneficial use 

instead of decades after the plant ceases operations, and that 

licensees maintain or obtain the financial resources necessary to 

do so; and 

• that all emergency preparedness and response, and security 

resources and licensing requirements, remain in place until all 

the spent nuclear fuel is placed into safer dry cask storage or 

removed from the site. 

I understand that the NRC's decommissioning rulemaking is currently ongoing and still in the 

early stages of the process. I understand that the NRC has published draft documents including 

preliminary options and recommendations for public comment associated with this 

rulemaking. If confirmed, I will give the various issues presented in your question full and 

impartial consideration as I review the staffs progress and conclusions as this rulemaking 

progresses during the course of my term. 

QUESTION 18. What do you believe should be the process for reviewing and 

processing public comments in the rulemaking and other formal 

proceedings? How should public comments be weighed by the 

Commission against comments from the industry? 

14 
57 


26002.046

ANSWER. 

I understand that the Administrative Procedure Act governs the process by which agencies 

solicit and respond to public comments in rulemaking proceedings. I also understand that the 

NRC has various internal policies and guidance relating to soliciting and responding to public 

comments. I understand that the NRC, as an independent agency, must consider and evaluate 

information it receives fairly and objectively regardless of the affiliation of the submitter. 

QUESTION 19. 

ANSWER. 

How should the NRC educate the public about the existence and 

meaning ofthe ongoing decommissioning rulemaking process? 

What should be NRC's plan for community outreach for the 

remainder of this decommissioning rulemaking process? 

I understand that the NRC uses various processes to educate and engage the public about its 

rulemaking activities, including the decommissioning rulemaking. For example, as with the 

decommissioning rule, the NRC can issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 

obtain and consider views from the public at the initial stage of the rulemaking process. I 

understand that the NRC has also held public meetings to raise awareness of this rulemaking 

and facilitate better public understanding. I understand that the NRC also has an Office of 

Public Affairs which routinely publishes press releases and performs other outreach to members 

of the public and provide updates on ongoing regulatory activities, including the 

decommissioning rulemaking. In all, I understand the importance of understandable and 

transparent communication with the public and, if confirmed, I will continue these efforts. 

15 
58 


26002.047

QUESTION 20. 

ANSWER. 

Should NRC plan public field meetings to gather comments or 

testimony from communities where nuclear plants are 

decommissioning now, or will be soon? If not, why? 

I understand that the NRC staff already does hold public meetings in the vicinity of a 

decommissioning facility in the early stages of the decommissioning process to discuss the 

licensee's planning, schedule, cost, and environmental impact information. 

QUESTION 21. 

ANSWER. 

What is the justification for the NRC to continuously waive its own 

regulations, especially those pertaining to the decommissioning 

trust fund, even though it is working to create new decommissioning 

rules? 

I understand that the NRC has an established process, and that the NRC staff may grant such 

exemptions on a case-by-case basis after performing a detailed technical safety analysis and 

determining that special circumstances are present and that granting the exemption will not 

present an undue risk to the public health and safety and that it is consistent with the common 

defense and security. If confirmed, I will review this issue with the NRC staff and closely 

monitor the status and progress of the agency's ongoing rulemaking efforts to improve the 

regulatory process for power reactors transitioning to decommissioning status. 

16 
59 


26002.048

QUESTION 22. 

ANSWER. 

What justification is there for the NRC to approve withdrawals from 

Vermont Yankee's Decommissioning Trust Fund for spent fuel 

management when NRC's regulations expressly prohibit such use? 

(10 C.F.R. §50. 75 at FN 1.) 

I am unfamiliar with the details of this issue. If confirmed, I will review the issue with the NRC 

staff. 

QUESTION 23. 

ANSWER. 

Former NRC Chair Allison Macfarlane authored a paper in 2003 

along with other experts that concluded that dry cask storage offers 

compelling advantages over wet pool storage: it is safer and it is 

less prone to failure. They recommended that spent fuel should be 

transferred from wet pools to dry cask storage within five years of 

discharge to reduce the risk of fire and subsequent radioactive 

contamination of air and land. 

Do you have a position on dry cask versus wet pool storage? If 

confirmed, will you commit to supporting more studies of this 

issue? 

The NRC has concluded that spent fuel storage in pools and dry casks are both safe. If 

confirmed, I will support examination of any new information on this topic. 

17 
60 


26002.049

QUESTION 24. 

ANSWER. 

State regulatory officials from Vermont have raised concerns that 

the NRC is less likely to consider commentary received from state 

and local governments on reactor license change requests, and 

NRC rulemaking and regulatory guidance efforts, than commentary 

from nuclear power plant operators (e.g. Entergy, Exelon and First 

Energy) and nuclear power industry organizations such as the 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). If confirmed, what steps would you 

take to assure that commentary and concerns expressed by state 

and local governments, or other nuclear power plant stakeholders, 

are given consideration equal to that already enjoyed by nuclear 

power plant operators and their supporters? 

I understand that the Administrative Procedure Act governs the process by which agencies 

solicit and respond to public comments in rulemaking proceedings. I also understand that the 

NRC has various internal policies and guidance relating to soliciting and responding to public 

comments. If confirmed, I will ensure that the NRC, as an independent agency, consider and 

evaluate information it receives fairly, transparently, and objectively, regardless of the affiliation 

of the submitter. 

QUESTION 25. To date, nuclear power plants that have permanently shut down 

have been permitted to eliminate their offsite Emergency Planning 

Zones (EPZs) roughly 15 to 20 months after cessation of power 

generation. The risk of a spent fuel fire resulting from a significant 

loss of spent fuel pool water inventory is greatly reduced, but a 

18 
61 


26002.050

ANSWER. 

reduction in risk is not an elimination of risk. A reduced risk of a 

spent fuel fire still requires a significant offsite emergency response 

that requires drills or exercises to demonstrate proficiency in 

response and funding to maintain essential emergency response 

equipment and staff. If confirmed, will you support maintaining 

offsite EPZs for permanently shut down nuclear power plants until 

such time that all spent fuel is removed from onsite spent fuel 

pools? 

I understand that the NRC staff has performed and published a number of studies and analyses 

on the topic of accident risk at spent fuel pools (such as NUREG-1738: 'Technical Study of 

Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-2161: 

"Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a 

U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor," COMSECY-13-0030: "Staff Evaluation and 

Recommendation for Japan Lessons Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent 

Fuel,"), and has also required enhanced mitigation strategy capabilities through orders issued 

after the events of Fukushima. I understand that the NRC staff considers such information 

when it evaluates the issuance of exemptions from certain emergency preparedness 

requirements and makes the required finding that the exemption will not present an undue risk 

to the public health and safety. If confirmed, I will review this issue the NRC staff, and closely 

monitor the status and progress of the agency's ongoing rulemaking efforts to improve the 

regulatory setting for power reactors transitioning to decommissioning. 

19 
62 


26002.051

QUESTION 26. 

ANSWER. 

When NRC staff respond to concerns raised by state or local 

government officials, or individual concerned citizens, they rely 

heavily on references to voluminous regulatory documents which 

are difficult to follow, or use jargon that only makes sense to other 

NRC staff. If confirmed, what actions would you consider taking to 

facilitate clear communication by NRC officials with lay members of 

the public? 

I understand that the NRC is committed to using clear, plain language in its communications 

with members of the public, and that, per the Plain Writing Act of 2010, the agency has internal 

plain-writing guidance and a Plain Writing Action Plan, and publishes annual reports on its 

implementation of these requirements. I understand the importance of the quality and clarity of 

communications with NRC stakeholders to ensure they are adequately informed of the agency's 

regulatory, licensing, and oversight activities. If confirmed, I will support the agency's continued 

efforts in this area. 

QUESTION 27. One significant source of frustration for state and local 

governments, and individuals who are following nuclear power plant 

decommissioning efforts, is that the process of complete 

decommissioning and site restoration is under the jurisdiction of 

multiple federal agencies in addition to the NRC, such as the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the 

Department of Transportation, and the Department of Homeland 

Security, just to name a few. If confirmed, what steps would you take 

20 
63 


26002.052

ANSWER. 

to assure that the scope of regulatory authority 'of all federal 

agencies with jurisdiction is clear to all stakeholders? 

I understand that the NRC currently has various Memoranda of Understanding with these 

federal agencies with respect to jurisdictional responsibilities and the overall regulatory 

framework of decommissioning and site restoration. If confirmed, I will work with the NRC staff, 

such as the Office of Public Affairs, to ensure that these responsibilities are communicated 

clearly with interested stakeholders and ensure that the public is adequately informed and 

engaged on these matters. 

QUESTION 28. What do you believe is the future of nuclear power in this country? 

ANSWER. 

I expect nuclear power will continue to be an element of the nation's diverse electric generation 

portfolio but at a somewhat diminished percentage for the next several decades. 

QUESTION 29. 

ANSWER. 

If confirmed, what role do you believe you should play-if any-as 

Commissioner in supporting the nuclear power industry? 

The NRC's only role is to ensure that the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning 

of commercial nuclear power plants satisfy the agency's regulatory standards. in a manner that 

21 
64 


26002.053

is protective of public health and safety and the common defense and security. If confirmed, I 

would have no other role. 

QUESTION 30. 

ANSWER. 

According to recent Energy Information Agency estimates, the 

generating capacity from nuclear power will drop from 20 percent to 

11 percent by 2050.1f confirmed, how will you ensure safety during 

this time of mass decommissioning? 

I understand that the NRC oversees the safety and security of reactors during decommissioning 

and currently has comprehensive regulations to ensure their safety and security during its 

decommissioning process. This regulatory framework includes safety, environmental, and 

financial reviews so that the NRC staff can assess decommissioning activities in areas such as 

financial assurance, training and qualification of licensee staff, decommissioning methods, and 

clean up criteria. I understand this oversight also includes independent NRC review and 

monitoring during major decommissioning activities and NRC verification of the site's final 

radiological conditions. If confirmed, I will work with the staff to ensure that the NRC's 

decommissioning regulatory framework continues to preserve the safety and security of these 

sites, even during a time of increasing decommissioning, and I will closely monitor the status 

and progress of the agency's ongoing rulemaking efforts in this area. Additionally, if confirmed, 

I will work with the Commission and with Congress to ensure that, if these EIA estimates are 

correct, the agency has adequate resources to respond to the increasing numbers of nuclear 

power plants entering decommissioning. 

22 
65 


26002.054

QUESTION 31. 

ANSWER. 

Most of the plants currently being decommissioned across the U.S. 

are doing so because they are not economically competitive. Some 

have proposed easing safety and other regulatory burdens to help 

the economic viability of the nuclear fleet. If regulations on existing 

and new power plants are decreased, how will you ensure the safety 

of our nuclear fleet? 

I understand that the NRC has a statutory responsibility to ensure there is reasonable 

assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and the common defense and 

security under the Atomic Energy Act of 1 954 and that the NRC does not consider cost when 

determining what is necessary for adequate protection. If confirmed, I will ensure that, to the 

extent the agency revises any regulations for new or existing power reactors, compliance with 

those regulations will continue to ensure reasonable assurance of adequate protection. 

QUESTION 32. 

ANSWER. 

If confirmed, how will you ensure the public safety of nextgeneration nuclear reactors that implement advanced technologies? 

I understand that in 2008 the Commission published a Policy Statement on the Regulation of 

Advanced Reactors, which established an expectation that advanced reactors will provide 

enhanced margins or safety and/or use simplified, inherent, passive, or other innovative means 

to accomplish safety and security functions. If confirmed, I will ensure that this policy is 

implemented and that the NRC staff is giving the appropriate consideration to the safety and 

23 
66 


26002.055

security of the design of advanced reactors and the development of a regulatory framework for 

advanced reactor designs. 

QUESTION 33. 

ANSWER 

How will the potential development of advanced nuclear 

technologies affect the problems NRC is currently confronting in 

storing spent nuclear fuel long-term? 

I understand that advanced nuclear technologies propose to use various fuel forms that will 

generate and potentially consume high-level radioactive waste. If confirmed, I will ensure that 

the NRC engages with necessary stakeholders including the Department of Energy, advanced 

reactor designers, industry organizations, international organizations, and the public, as the 

agency develops and implements any plans for the possible regulation of advanced reactor 

designs and related fuel cycle facilities, including those associated with storage of spent nuclear 

fuel. 

QUESTION 34. 

ANSWER. 

Currently the U.S. has no permanent storage for spent nuclear fuel. 

Where do you anticipate that spent nuclear fuel from nextgeneration nuclear reactors will be stored? 

In keeping with its mission to protect the public health and safety and the common defense and 

security, the NRC must ensure that spent fuel is stored safely. In the event that the storage of 

24 
67 


26002.056

spent fuel from next-generation reactors raises issues not previously anticipated, I will engage 

with the NRC staff to develop a full understanding and resolution of those issues. 

QUESTION 35. 

ANSWER. 

The March 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident prompted the NRC to 

review its own regulations. The Commission's Fukushima Task 

Force, consisting of NRC experts with 135 years of nuclear 

regulatory expertise among them, made a range of key 

recommendations for improving nuclear plant safety. The final 

report included 12 recommendations ranging from requirements to 

upgrade seismic and flood protections to protections against the 

long power outages that were the ultimate cause of the Japanese 

meltdowns. They also concluded that all of the recommendations 

were necessary for the "adequate protection" of nuclear power 

plants. 

Despite the repeated urging of its own experts, the Commission has 

so far refused to make these recommendations mandatory. What 

steps will you take to ensure that the Commission revisits this 

decision and does, in fact, adopt the Task Force's safety 

recommendations as mandatory? 

I understand that following the accident at Fukushima, the NRC assessed the operability of the 

US nuclear fleet and determined that it remained safe for the nuclear fleet to continue 

operations. The NRC also chartered a Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) to conduct a review of 

NRC requirements, programs, and processes and recommend any improvements to the NRC's 

25 
68 


26002.057

regulatory system. I understand that the Commission issued orders based on the 

recommendations of the NTTF to implement the most significant safety recommendations and 

that implementation of these safety enhancements are substantially completed. l understand 

the agency is currently engaged in a rulemaking effort that would make these and other NTTF 

recommendations required for all current and future nuclear power plants. If confirmed, I would 

continue to engage the NRC staff on this important topic of post-Fukushima actions. 

QUESTION 36. A paper published in Science last month by nuclear experts from the 

Union of Concerned Scientists and Princeton University argued that 

the NRC places the U.S. at risk of disasters like Fukushima because 

of problems in its approach to assessing the risks and benefits of 

safety improvements. The authors suggest that NRC should reform 

its risk assessments in the following ways (see below). Do you 

concur that these corrections to current NRC risk assessments are 

needed? If not, why? If so, how will you address these issues as a 

Commissioner, if confirmed? 

Take into account the possibility of a terrorist attack in 

regulatory decisions such as the one on whether or not to 

require the nuclear utilities to remove spent fuel to dry cask 

storage after 5 years. 

Take into account accident consequences beyond 50 miles of 

the site. 

• Make assumptions concerning population relocation, and 

therefore property losses, after a nuclear accident consistent 

with the EPA's guidance concerning dose levels. 

26 
69 


26002.058

ANSWER. 

Make realistic assumptions concerning the efficacy and speed 

of decontamination actions. 

Update the NRC's assumption concerning the value of a life lost 

to radiation-induced cancer by a factor of 2.5, as recommended 

by the NRC staff. 

I understand that the NRC staff has, in various studies and regulatory analyses, provided the 

Commission with its assessment of several of these issues. For example, in COMSECY-13-

0030, I understand the NRC documented its analysis of spent fuel risks resulting from the 

potential damage from a spent fuel fire, which included a sensitivity analysis extending beyond 

50 miles. In another example, I understand the staff has recently provided recommendation to 

the Commission in a public paper to update the NRC's guidance on the "Dollar Per Person-Rem 

Conversion Factor Policy," which is the agency's monetary valuation of the cancer mortality risk 

of radiation exposure. Additionally, I understand the NRC staff continuously monitors and 

assesses threat conditions and plant security associated with terrorist attacks, interacting and 

coordinating with other federal agencies, and that the NRC is committed to take appropriate 

actions to address this changing threat environments should new information ever indicate new 

risks to plants or spent fuel. If confirmed, I will engage with the NRC staff on these issues on an 

ongoing basis. 

QUESTION 37. A February 2017 report by Union of Concerned Scientists stated, 

"Just as nuclear plant owners have downplayed and dismissed clear 

and present signs about safety culture problems at their plants, the 

data suggest that the NRC's management is just as dismissive of 

27 
70 


26002.059

ANSWER. 

indications that it has a poor safety culture." Are you concerned that 

staff at nuclear power plants and the NRC are reluctant to report 

safety problems because of the lack of trust between workforce and 

management? If so, how can NRC address the lack of a nuclear 

safety culture, and lessen risks to public and environmental safety? 

If not, what evidence do you have that NRC management maintains 

a robust safety culture? 

I understand that the NRC has a policy statement which describes how it assesses a licensee's 

safety conscious work environment (SCWE) where employees are encouraged to raise safety 

concerns without fear of retaliation or retribution and where those concerns are promptly 

reviewed and resolved accordingly. I understand the NRC assesses licensees' SCWE and 

takes action when necessary through tools such as allegations, inspections, chilling effect 

letters, and orders. I also understand that internally, the NRC is committed to fostering an 

environment where the staff is free to raise concerns and offer differing views without fear of 

reprisal. If confirmed, I will continue to engage the NRC staff in these important ongoing efforts, 

both externally and internally, to promote the importance of a robust safety culture. 

QUESTION 38. NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) is 

responsible for regulating activities which provide for the safe and 

secure production of nuclear fuel used in commercial nuclear 

reactors; the safe storage, transportation and disposal of high-level 

radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel; and the transportation of 

radioactive materials regulated under the Atomic Energy Act. The 

28 
71 


26002.060

ANSWER. 

United States is facing a significant long-term problem in its 

disposal of nuclear waste. What do you envision as a potential 

solution, and what role should NRC play? 

National policy regarding solutions for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel is set by Congress and 

the President. In its regulatory role as an independent federal agency, the NRC must evaluate 

the safe and secure operation of high-level waste storage through its licensing and regulatory 

actions, as well as its oversight responsibility of licensees, consistent with the statutory direction 

set by the Congress and the President. 

QUESTION 39. President Trump's FY18 budget proposal would revive the approval 

process for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site. NRC's role in 

approving the Yucca Mountain site has been to assess DOE's 

license application to consider whether the proposed facility meets 

its regulatory requirements for geologic disposal of the waste. The 

NRC process also includes conducting a Safety Evaluation Report 

and adjudicatory hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing 

Board. Adjudicatory hearings for Yucca Mountain, which must be 

completed before a licensing decision can be made, remain 

suspended. If confirmed, will you ensure robust public comment and 

involvement in any decision on a potential solution to this country's 

significant long-term problem of nuclear waste disposal? 

29 
72 


26002.061

ANSWER. 

Yes. 

QUESTION 40. 

ANSWER. 

Within the past two weeks, doctors at Pennsylvania State University 

published a paper analyzing 44 cases of thyroid cancer in the 

vicinity of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant and found convincing 

evidence that they showed signs of exposure to radiation. In 2002, 

as part of the response to the 9/11 disaster, Congress authorized an 

expansion from 10 to 20 miles of the radius within which the drug 

potassium iodide would be distributed. At the time, the NRC fought 

that expansion, and under President Bush, the law was not 

implemented. If confirmed, will you commit to a re-evaluation of the 

need for greater availability of potassium iodide in view of increased 

evidence of the sensitivity of the thyroid gland to the carcinogenic 

effects of radiation? 

If confirmed I will engage with the NRC staff on this issue and any review or assessments the 

staff makes of this study. 

QUESTION 41. The NRC used to be considered one of the top federal agencies in 

workplace satisfaction. Yet, according to index scores from the U.S. 

Office of Personnel Management's Federal Employee Viewpoint 

Survey, employee satisfaction at NRC is the worst since 2005 with 

30 
73 


26002.062

ANSWER. 

declines of 3.5 points in just the last year (2015 to 2016). This drop 

represents one of the steepest declines among agencies of its size. 

Moreover, scores on leadership are consistently down across all 

categories, including senior leadership, empowerment, and fairness. 

If confirmed, what will you do as Commissioner to address these 

declines? 

If confirmed, I will personally maintain and promote with the staff a clear focus on safety and 

security, and carrying out the NRC's mission of protecting public hearth and the 

environment. Embracing and sharing an important mission like the NRC's is keystone upon 

which to build employee morale. I understand the NRC is implementing an action plan that 

focuses on "fostering a greater climate of trust at the NRC" with the goals of strengthening the 

positive environment for raising concerns; promoting a culture of fairness, empowerment and 

respect across the agency; and establishing clear expectations and accountability for NRC 

leaders. Beyond that, I believe the agency should examine, to the extent it does not already do 

so, the findings of the study that ranked best places to work in the government and take action 

in the areas of weakness that were identified. If confirmed, I would support these efforts. 

QUESTION 42. 

ANSWER. 

The first of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's five Principles of 

Good Regulation is "Independence." What does that principle mean 

to you? 

The NRC's Principle of "Independence" states: 

31 
74 


26002.063

"Nothing but the highest possible standards of ethical performance and professionalism should 

influence regulation. However, independence does not imply isolation. All available facts and 

opinions must be sought openly from licensees and other interested members of the public. The 

many and possibly conflicting public interests involved must be considered. Final decisions must 

be based on objective, unbiased assessments of all information, and must be documented with 

reasons explicitly stated." 

I strongly agree with this Principle and, if confirmed, I will personally adhere to it and promote 

the importance of independence in my interactions with NRC staff. 

QUESTION 43. 

ANSWER. 

Yes. 

QUESTION 44. 

ANSWER. 

Yes. 

Would you agree that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

should not allow political meddling from Congress, other parts of 

the executive branch, or industry to interfere with the NRC's 

independent decision-making processes? 

Do you commit to zealously guard the independence of the NRC and 

oppose any efforts to undermine it? 

32 
75 


26002.064

QUESTION 45. 

ANSWER. 

As a former executive for Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power 

plant operator, you have considerable ties to the nuclear industry. If 

confirmed, will you commit to recusing yourself on any matters that 

Exelon might bring before the NRC? 

If confirmed, I will consult with the designated ethics official at the NRC regarding the need to 

recuse myself from any particular matter in order to comply with the Ethics in Government Act of 

1978, Office of Government Ethics regulations, and Executive Order 13770. 

QUESTION 46. 

ANSWER. 

Please list all conference panels, meetings, public rallies, or other 

public events that you have attended at which nuclear energy or 

nuclear waste issues were discussed. 

For the 12 years working as a member of the professional staff of either the Senate 

Environment and Public Works Committee or the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I 

have attended many meetings and participated in many panels in the performance of my 

duties. Generally, the purpose of my attendance was to discuss the agenda of those 

committees with respect to nuclear issues. I attended those meeting on behalf of Senator John 

Barrasso, Senator James lnhofe, Congressman Joe Barton, or Congressman Fred Upton. 

Prior to my Congressional career, I was Congressional Affairs Manager for Exelon. In that role, 

I attended conferences and meetings on behalf of Exelon. I did not keep records of such 

conferences and meetings during that time period. However, I can recall attending conferences 

and meetings with the following organizations: 

33 
76 


26002.065

American Nuclear Society 

Department of Commerce 

Department of Energy 

Department of State 

Edison Electric Institute 

Electric Power Supply Corporation 

Energy Information Administration 

LES 

National Academies of Science 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

National Energy Resources Organization 

Nuclear Energy Institute 

U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council 

I don't recall attending conferences or meetings during my time as a consultant for Areva, Inc., 

in 2007. 

If confirmed, in meeting my obligations as a Commissioner I would seek to fully understand 

concerns raised by the broad spectrum of organizations and individuals, regardless of their 

affiliation, in my consideration of matters that come before the Commission, consistent with the 

NRC's Principles of Good Regulation and specifically the principle of "Independence." 

QUESTION 47. Please provide copies (written, audio, or video) of all speeches you 

have made concerning nuclear energy, nuclear safety, spent nuclear 

fuel, Yucca Mountain, nuclear waste, or other issues of relevance to 

the work of the NRC. 

34 
77 


26002.066

ANSWER. 

During my 12 years as a member of the professional staff of either the Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee or the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I have given 

speeches and participated in panels in the performance of my duties. Generally, the purpose of 

my attendance was to discuss the agenda of those committees with respect to nuclear 

issues. Such speaking engagements would have been on behalf of Senator John Barrasso, 

Senator James lnhofe, Congressman Joe Barton, or Congressman Fred Upton. 

To the best of my knowledge and recollection, the only speech meeting this description that I 

gave during my employment with Exelon or Areva, Inc., was "Nuclear Inside the Beltway" 

presented to the American Nuclear Society's Western Regional Student Conference in 1999 

(attached). 

QUESTION 48. 

ANSWER. 

Please provide a list of all organizations-with an interest in nuclear 

energy, nuclear waste, nuclear safety, or related matters-of which 

you are, or have been a member? 

To the best of my knowledge and recollection, the only organizations with an interest in nuclear 

energy, nuclear safety, or related matters that I have been a member of is the American Nuclear 

Society and the North American Young Generation in Nuclear. I am no longer a member of 

either organization with my memberships having lapsed over two years ago. 

QUESTION 49. Have you or any member of your immediate family received funding, 

either directly or indirectly, from organizations supporting the 

35 
78 


26002.067

ANSWER. 

licensing of Yucca Mountain as a repository for spent nuclear fuel or 

from organizations supporting the licensing new nuclear reactors? If 

so, please describe. 

I was employed by Exelon from February 10,1997, until February 11,2005. I was also a paid 

consultant to Areva, Inc., for five months in 2007. From February 14, 2005, until January 2, 

2007, and since May 30, 2007, I have been employed as a congressional staff member on 

committees with jurisdiction for oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

THE HONORABLE DAN SULLIVAN: 

QUESTION 50. Earlier this spring the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

reported S.512, the "Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization 

Act" on a strong bi-partisan vote. The findings and purposes of this 

bill provide a framework for these questions. 

In S.512 the Committee found that one of the " ... impediments to the 

commercialization of advanced nuclear reactors ... " is the" ... 

durations associated with applying the existing nuclear regulatory 

framework to advanced nuclear reactors. We further found that 

" ... license application reviews should be as predictable and efficient 

as practicable without compromising safety or security." And, that 

"the existing nuclear regulatory framework and the requirements of 

that framework have not adapted to advances in scientific 

understanding or the features and performance characteristics of 

advanced nuclear reactor designs." 

36 
79 


26002.068

ANSWER. 

To address these findings 5.512 would establish " ... a program to 

develop the expertise and regulatory processes necessary to allow 

innovation and the commercialization of advanced nuclear 

reactors". 5.512 provides the NRC with ample time to develop that 

program so, even if the bill were enacted this year, it will not be fully 

in place for several years. 

Assuming that 5.512 is enacted, I would like to understand your 

views with respect to the application of the NRC's current regulatory 

authority to innovative nuclear technologies during the time 

between enactment and the establishment of this new program. 

Do you agree with the general findings of 5.512? If not, please 

explain. 

I agree with the findings. 

QUESTION 51. In this interim period, the Commission likely will be confronted with 

innovative and advanced nuclear technologies, e.g. subcritical 

technologies, which may not fit within the scope of the NRC's 

current regulations. The Atomic Energy Act vests the NRC with 

broad authority to determine the scope of its regulatory jurisdiction, 

including the discretion to issue additional regulations to bring new 

technologies within the scope of the existing regulatory framework. 

In the event you encounter such an issue while serving on the NRC, 

what views will guide how you exercise your discretion with respect 

to regulation of such new technologies? Will you regulate simply to 

37 
80 


26002.069

ANSWER. 

regulate or will you insist that there be regulation only when it is 

needed to adequately address public health and safety risks? 

Should I encounter such an issue while serving on the NRC, my views would be guided by 

NRC's Principles of Good Regulation, particularly "Efficiency", "Clarity" and "Reliability." I would 

also look to recent precedent regarding the licensing of innovative and advanced nuclear 

technologies, such as the construction permit for the SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

application, a first-of-a-kind facility dedicated to medical isotope production. 

QUESTION 52. 

ANSWER. 

Nuclear industry activities frequently are subject to regulation by 

many different federal agencies which often have different 

perspectives and objectives. 

If you are presented with a situation in which regulation of a new 

innovative technology by other agencies appropriately addresses 

any public health and safety risks presented by that technology, will 

you insist that the NRC also regulate? 

Yes, consistent with NRC's statutory role mandated by Congress as the nation's sole regulatory 

authority for the licensing and oversight of commercial nuclear technology. 

38 
81 


26002.070

THE HONORABLE SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: 

QUESTION 53. 

ANSWER. 

Last year, NRC's budget included a $5 million request to build up the 

regulatory infrastructure for improving licensing of advanced 

reactor concepts. This request was appropriated in this year's 

Omnibus. Unfortunately, in this year's budget request NRC does not 

ask for additional funding for their advanced rector licensing work. 

a. Can you discuss what the NRC plans to do with the additional 

funding for advanced reactor licensing? 

b. Why did NRC not ask for additional funding in the President's 

FY2018 budget to continue its work in this area? 

c. There have been tremendous advances in predictive modeling 

and simulation capabilities for new nuclear technologies that can 

yield new insights into new reactor behaviors and accelerate the 

licensing of new technologies. Will you help direct the NRC staff 

to embrace and adopt these tools? 

a.- b. I am not privy to the FY2017 and FY2018 internal budgetary deliberations of the 

Commission. other than what has been made publicly available in the agency's Congressional 

Budget Justification. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the NRC is adequately funded for its 

existing and anticipated work relating to advanced reactor licensing. 

c. Yes, I will. 

39 
82 


26002.071

QUESTION 54. 

ANSWER. 

The Chinese currently have 21 new nuclear reactors under 

construction. The Chinese regulatory system appears to be similar 

to the new, post-Fukushima Japanese system, where the nuclear 

regulatory body is housed in the Environment Ministry. Although it 

appears that the Chinese regulatory systems seems to have similar 

licensing and regulatory authority to that of the U.S. NRC, their 

ability to license reactors appears to be more efficient. 

• Can you discuss whether the current regulatory licensing 

framework at NRC is different than the Chinese licensing 

system? If so, what are the differences? 

• Can you comment on what may be enabling the Chinese to be 

able to license 21 new reactors under their framework? 

Has the NRC looked at a cross comparison between the Chinese 

licensing process and the U.S. system? If not, would you 

commit to doing such a comparison? 

I am not familiar with the current regulatory licensing framework used by the Chinese nuclear 

safety and security regulatory body, nor am I aware of a cross comparison between the US and 

Chinese licensing system. If confirmed, I will engage with the NRC staff on this issue. 

QUESTION 55. The NRC budget includes $30 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund 

to fund activities for the proposed Yucca Mountain deep geological 

repository. DOE has been collecting fees since 1983 under the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to go into the Nuclear Waste Fund. 

40 
83 


26002.072

ANSWER. 

Until 2010, DOE was collecting around $750 million a year (nearly 

$31 billion in total) into the fund. The fee program was stopped in 

2010 after the Obama administration backed away from the planned 

nuclear fuel repository at Yucca Mountain. 

If you are confirmed as Commissioner and Congress passes 

funding for Yucca Mountain licensing do you plan on moving the 

licensing process forward? 

• If the licensing process for Yucca Mountain moves forward do 

you support reinstating the fee for the Nuclear Waste Fund? 

Do you believe that nuclear waste as a liability associated with it 

that should be quantified? Can you estimate what the liability of 

the existing nuclear waste stockpile might be? 

If confirmed as a Commissioner, I would have an obligation to follow the law and comply with 

Congressional direction provided in enacted appropriations legislation. Reinstatement of the fee 

for the Nuclear Waste Fund and quantification of nuclear waste liability are policy matters that 

would need to be resolved by Congress and the Administration. 

41 
84 


26002.073

Nuclear Inside the Beltway 

Annie Caputo 

Western Regional Student Conference 

April9, 1999 

ComEd AUI"comComp.Jin~ 

Electricity Restructuring 

Regulatory compact with utilities 

Cost-of-service regulation by the states 

Obligation to serve 

19 states implementing restructuring 

AZ, AR, CA, CT, IL, ME, MD, MA, MI, MT, 

NV, NH, Nl, NY, OK, PA, RI, VT, VA 

ComEd 

6/22/2017 
85 


26002.074

Electricity Restructuring 

Who ensures reliability? 

FERC, FERC w/states, ISO's, trans-co's 

Stranded cost recovery 

Prudent investments based on 

obligation to serve, regulator approved 

Competitive transition charges 

ComEd 

Electricity Restructuring 

Fair market 

Price spikes 

Regional differences 

Public Power 

Social obligations 

e.g. low income consumers 

Com Ed A U"'com Comp:my 

6/22/2017 

2 
86 


26002.075

Restructuring- Nuclear Issues 

Amend the Atomic Energy Act 

Foreign ownership 

Federal nuclear obligations 

Unfunded decommissioning obligations 

Spent fuel fees 

D&D fees for enrichment plants 

Com Ed A Urdoam Con>fMil~ 

Restructuring - Nuclear Issues 

Amend the tax code 

Allow tax-free transfer of 

decommissioning trust funds 

Amend bankruptcy code 

protect integrity of decommissioning 

funds in the event of bankruptcy 

Com Ed 

6/22/2017 
87 


26002.076

Spent Fuel 

Historically proposed legislation 

Interim storage 

Radiation standard for licensing the 

repository 

CornEd A Uolcom Comp;;.,y 

Spent Fuel - Budget Problem 

Program funding 

Every year: $660M paid in, $225M 

appropriated 

Nuclear Waste Fund balance of $88 

untouchable due to budget process 

Funding after "'2007 inadequate to 

complete repository in 2010 

CornEd 

6/22/2017 

4 
88 


26002.077

Spent Fuel - Veto Problem 

President will veto interim storage 

Over-ride votes in House, not in 

Senate 

DOE Secretary Richardson offers to 

accept title, responsibility, and costs 

Bipartisan efforts to compromise 

ComEd 

Global Climate Change 

Science uncertain 

Costs high 

Politically charged 

Tough international consensus 

process 

e.g. Clean Air Act 

Com Ed 

6/22/2017 
89 


26002.078

Global Climate Change 

Nuclear energy 

7% below 1990 emission levels? 

WITHOUT NUCLEAR?! 

Congressional support 

Japan's plan 

ComEd AUmcomC<ll1>f!any 

Beltway Sentiment 

A change of heart ... ? 

Com Ed 

6/22/2017 

6 
90 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so much for your comments. 

Now I would like to turn to Mr. Wright. You are next. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID WRIGHT, NOMINATED TO BE A 

MEMBER OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member 

Carper, and members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I would be remiss if I did not also thank Senator Lindsey Graham for his kind introduction earlier. 

I am humbled and honored to appear before you today as the 

nominee of the President to serve as a Commissioner on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is an honor and privilege, not just 

for me personally, but also for my family, my church, my community, my State, and all of the people I have worked and served with 

over the years. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, if I may, I would 

like to recognize my mother, Irene Wright, who is sitting behind 

me today. She gave birth to me on her 24th birthday, and next 

month, we will both celebrate the 62nd anniversary of her 24th 

birthday. I will let you all do the math. She is truly one of God’s 

angels living on this earth, and I get to call her Mom. 

June is a busy time of year for the Wright family. My oldest 

daughter, Kimberly, is wrapping up her year as a kindergarten 

teacher. My second daughter, Courtney, works for the State of 

South Carolina. She and her husband, Ray, are raising three wonderful children, my grandchildren. 

Senator Boozman, my oldest son, Austin, is a nursing home administrator working in Cabot, Arkansas. I believe I shared that 

with you. My youngest son, Andrew, a rising college sophomore, is 

in his last week as a Young Life Summer Camp counselor at Sharp 

Top Cove in Jasper, Georgia. Although the rest of my family is not 

able to be here in person today, I can feel each of them and their 

support. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, if confirmed, I 

look forward to working closely with my fellow nominees, Chairman Kristine Svinicki and Annie Caputo, as well as Commissioners 

Steve Burns and Jeff Baran, in carrying out the NRC’s mission of 

protecting public health and safety, promoting the common defense 

and security, and protecting the environment. 

I pledge to work closely with each member of the Commission in 

the spirit of collegiality. I believe we will work very well together. 

I look forward to developing a good working relationship with this 

Committee as you also fulfill your important oversight role. 

I have a broad and varied professional background in private 

business and in public life. Having been self-employed the majority 

of my adult life, I have also served in various elected positions in 

local and State government. 

Although we are all shaped by the entirety of the events and experiences in our lives, I am confident I find myself before you today 

because of my service on the South Carolina Public Service Commission. Since first elected in 2004, I served as a South Carolina 

Commissioner for nearly 10 years, where I also had the privilege 

to serve as Chairman. 

91 

During my tenure as a Commissioner, in 2008 I was diagnosed 

with stage 3 colon cancer. I had surgery and went through months 

of chemotherapy, but I did not miss very much time at the commission. It was during that time that I made the decision to do things 

I had not previously considered and to challenge myself in ways I 

might not have had it not been for that trial in my life. 

As a Commissioner, I was already active within the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, NARUC, where I 

was serving as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues 

and Nuclear Waste for 3 years. In June 2008 I was elected to serve 

as President of the 11-State Southeastern Association of Regulatory 

Utility Commissioners. 

In 2011 following a year serving as First Vice President, I was 

elected by my fellow commissioners to serve as the President of 

NARUC, the highest professional honor of my life until today. 

During my years as a Commissioner, including my service in 

leadership roles at the regional and national levels, I have been 

successful in building bridges and building consensus on issues, 

and in the creation and adoption of policy. 

If given the honor to serve the country in this position, I will approach my service as a Commissioner at the NRC no differently. 

I believe my regulatory background at the State level, along with 

my experiences in business and elected office, provide a sound 

foundation for considering matters that will come before me as a 

member of the Commission. 

If confirmed, I will approach my work as a Commissioner with 

an open mind and in a collegial manner. I will listen to all parties 

and al points of view, seek clarification where needed, endeavor to 

establish a complete record, base my decision on the facts before 

me, and work to build consensus among the Commissioners whenever possible. 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of 

the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:] 

92 


26002.079

David Wright 

President, Wright Directions, LLC 

On May 22, 2017, President Trump announced his intent 

to nominate David Wright to be a Member of the NRC 

for the remainder of a five-year term expiring June 30, 

2020. Mr. Wright is currently the President of Wright 

Directions, LLC, a strategic consulting and 

communications business in the energy sector. Mr. 

Wright previously served as a member and Chairman of 

the South Carolina Public Service Commission (SCPSC) 

from 2004-2013. He was elected to serve as President of 

the National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners (NARUC) for 2011-2012. Mr. Wright 

has owned and operated several different businesses, and 

served as a councilman, Mayor and a member of the 

South Carolina House of Representatives. A colon cancer survivor, Mr. Wright is active as an 

advocate for colon cancer awareness and education and is frequently asked to share his 

message with groups around the country. He received his bachelor's degree from Clemson 

University. Mr. Wright has four children and three grandchildren. He resides in Columbia, 

South Carolina. 
93 


26002.080

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. WRIGHT, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

June 13, 2017 

Thank you, Chainnan Barrasso, ranking Member Carper, and the mernbers of the 

committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. And, I would be remiss ifi did 

not also thank my home state Senator and my friend, Lindsey Graham, for his kind 

introduction of me to this committee. 

I am humbled and honored to appear before you today as a Presidential nominee of the 

President to serve as a commissioner on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is an 

honor and privilege, not just for me personally, but also for my family, my church and 

community, my state, and all of the people I have worked with, and served with over the 

years. 

Mr. Chainnan, and members of the committee, ifi may, I would like to recognize my 

mother, Irene Wright, whom is with me today. She gave birth to me on her 241h 

birthday ... and next month, we will both celebrate the 62"d anniversary of her 24t11 

birthday! I will let you all do the math. 

She is truly one of God's Angels living on this Earth ... and I get to call her Mom. 

June is a busy time of year for the Wright Family. My oldest daughter, Kimberly, is 

wrapping up her year as a kindergarten teacher. My second daughter, Courtney, is 

working for the State of South Carolina, and she and her husband, Ray, are raising three 

wonderful children- and my grandchildren. Senator Boozman, my oldest son, Austin, is 

a nursing home administrator working in Cabot, Arkansas; and, my youngest son, 

Andrew, a rising college sophomore, is in his last week as a Young Life Summer Camp 

counselor at Sharp Top Cove in Jasper, Georgia. Although my family is not able to be 

here in person today, I can feel each of them and their support. They are a gift from God 

and I am blessed to be their Dad. 

Mr. Chainnan and members of the committee, if eonfinned, I look forward to working 

closely with my fellow nominees, Chainnan Kristine Svinicki and Annie Caputo, as well 

as Commissioners Steve Bums and Jeff Baran, in carrying out the NRC's mission of 

protecting public health and safety, promoting the common defense and security and 

protecting the environment. I pledge to work closely with each member of the 

Commission in the spirit of collegiality, and I believe we will work very well together. I 

look forward to developing a good working relationship with this committee as you fulfill 

your important oversight role, too. 

One thing my mother taught and modeled for me was selflessness in service to others. 

She told me that when I volunteered or committed to something, to do so to the best of 

my ability. Work hard, do not quit, and never, ever give up. It was through her that I 
94 


26002.081

learned that as I helped others succeed and achieve their goals, I would find success and 

satisfaction for myself, too. 

I have a broad and varied professional background in private business and in public life. 

Having been self-employed the majority of my adult life, I have also served in various 

elected positions in local and state government. Although we are all shaped by the 

entirety of the events and experiences in our lives, I am confident I find myself before 

you today because of my service on the South Carolina Public Service Commission. 

2 

Since 2004, I served as a South Carolina Commissioner for nearly ten years, where I also 

had the privilege to serve as Chairman. 

During my tenure as a commissioner, in 2008, I was diagnosed with Stage 3 colon 

cancer. I had surgery and went through months of chemotherapy, but I did not miss very 

much time at the commission. For the record, my oldest daughter was diagnosed with 

Stage 3-c colon cancer a year after I completed treatments, but I will save that story for 

another time. It was during that time, though, that I made the decision to do things I had 

not previously considered, and to challenge myself in ways I might not have, had it not 

been for that trial in my life. 

As a commissioner, I was already active within the National Association of Regulatory 

Utility Commissioners (NARUC). I served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Nuclear 

Issues and Nuclear Waste for three years. 

I was our state's representative on the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition (NWSC), where 

I also served on the executive committee. In 2006, I was asked to serve as the NWSC's 

Chairman and I served in that role until I retired from state service in 2013. 

I had the honor of serving as President of the Southeastern Association of Regulatory 

Utility Commissioners (SEARUC) in June of 2008 and led that 11-state regional 

association until June 2009. 

In November 2010, I became first Vice-President ofNARUC and, in November 2011, I 

was elected by my fellow commissioners to serve as the President of NARUC the 

highest professional honor of my life- until today. 

During my years as a commissioner, including my service in leadership roles at the 

regional and national levels, I have been successful in building bridges and building 

consensus on issues, and in the creation and adoption of policy. In fact, the NARUC staff 

called me "Coach" during my year as president. If given the honor to serve the country in 

this position, I will approach my service as a commissioner at the NRC no differently. 

In establishing the Commission, the Congress wisely sought to bring together five 

individuals with diverse backgrounds and experiences. If confinned, I believe my 

regulatory background at the state level, along with my experiences in business and 

elected office, provide a sound foundation for considering matters that will come before 
95 


26002.082

3 

me as a member of the Commission. 

If confirmed, I will approach my work as a Commissioner with an open mind and in a 

collegial manner. I will listen to all parties, and points of view, seek clarification where 

needed, endeavor to establish a complete record, base my decision on the facts before me, 

and work to build consensus among the commissioners whenever possible. 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to your questions. 

##### 
96 


26002.083

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Hearing entitled, "Hearing on the Nominations of Kristine Svinicki (Reappointment), 

Annie Caputo and David Wright to be Members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, and the Nomination of Susan Bodine to be Assistant Administrator of the 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency." 

QUESTION 1. 

ANSWER. 

Tuesday, June 13, 2017 

Questions for the Record for David Wright 

THE HONORABLE THOMAS CARPER 

In your ethics agreement, you have stated that you will recuse 

yourself from agency matters that involve clients of your consulting 

firm, Wright Directions, and from several organizations that you 

participate, including the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, Nuclear 

Matters, and E4 Carolinas. Is that correct? 

Yes, as stated in my ethics agreement, upon confirmation, I will resign from my positions with 

the following entities: E4 Carolinas, the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, the Nuclear Matters 

Advocacy Council, and the lrmo-Chapin Recreation Commission. For a period of one year after 

my resignations, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter 

involving specific parties in which I know any of these organizations are a party or represent a 

party, unless I am first authorized to participate pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d). 

Additionally, upon confirmation, I will place my consulting LLC in an inactive status and cease 

engaging in any business through the LLC or providing any services for my former clients. I will 

not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in 

which I know a former client of mine is a party or represents a party for a period of one year 

after I last provided service to that client unless I am first authorized to participate pursuant to 

5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d). I also understand that there are additional restrictions that I will be 
97 


26002.084

subject to under the "Ethics Pledge" (Executive Order No. 13770), which will prevent me for a 

period of 2 years from the date of my appointment from participating in any particular matter 

involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to any of my former clients from 

the 2 years prior to my appointment, unless I first receive a waiver. I will abide by these 

restrictions. 

QUESTION 2. 

ANSWER. 

Please provide a list of your clients that you are working with, or 

have worked with in the past, through Wright Directions LLC. 

Clients who are associated with, or have been associated with David Wright Directions, LLC 

since its' formation in June 2013, are: Pepco Holdings, Inc., Edison Electric Institute, Nuclear 

Matters Advocacy Council, The SEFA Group, AAC-Utility Partners, Inc., and Energy Solutions. 

QUESTION 3. 

ANSWER. 

Do any of your clients, or organizations, in which you've worked 

with currently or the past have pending business before the NRC? If 

so, please provided detailed information on the client or 

organization and business. 

In 2016, I performed a compensated service for Energy Solutions through my LLC. The amount 

of income I received was below the reporting threshold of the OGE Form 278e, and thus, 

Energy Solutions is not listed on my financial disclosure form. However, I have been advised 

2 
98 


26002.085

that I may be restricted in my ability to participate in specific matters involving Energy Solutions, 

a former client, and will abide by those restrictions. Energy Solutions is the operator of two lowlevel waste disposal facilities (Barnwell, South Carolina and Clive, Utah) and also provides 

services to decommissioning nuclear power plants and so it may have business before the NRC 

at any given time. 

QUESTION4. 

ANSWER. 

Do any of your clients, or organizations, in which you've worked 

with currently or the past have lawsuits before the NRC? If so, 

please provided detailed information on the client or organization 

and the lawsuit. 

I am not personally aware of any lawsuits before the NRC with respect to any of my clients or 

previous organizations. 

QUESTION 5. 

ANSWER. 

Have you ever testified before Congress, if so, can you provide your 

testimonies? 

Yes (see attachments to question 5). To the best of my knowledge, and in date order, the 

appearances were: 

0810312006- U.S. Senate Energy & Nat. Res. Comm. "Nuclear Fuel Management & 

Disposal Act"; 

• 0912512008- U.S. Senate EPW Roundtable Meeting on Recycling Spent Nuclear Fuel; 

3 
99 


26002.086

02/10/2009 U.S. Senate Energy & Nat. Res. Comm. "National Renewable Portfolio 

Standard"; 

07/27/2010 U.S. House Budget Committee hearing on Yucca Mountain 

02/01/2012- U.S. House Energy & Commerce Comm., Subcommittee on Energy & the 

Environment- "Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's 

Nuclear Future" 

06/19/2012- U.S. House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy & 

Power- "American Energy Initiative: EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulations" 

QUESTION 6. 

ANSWER. 

It is very important to me that the NRC continues to strive for a 

culture of safety and continues to be independent in its decisionmaking. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure this 

culture of safety environment continues? 

I agree with you that a strong safety culture is important. Critically, from my observations, I 

believe the NRC staff is committed to fulfilling the agency's important safety and security 

mission, an important basis for agency safety culture. Beyond this, I understand the NRC has 

several programs in place to support raising differing views, which can help nurture a strong 

safety culture. If confirmed, I will examine ongoing efforts to promote safety culture and look for 

opportunities to strengthen it further. 

QUESTION 7. What skills do you bring to the Commission that will enhance the 

NRC's ability to focus on safety? 

4 
100 


26002.087

ANSWER. 

If confirmed, I believe what I have been exposed to, and learned, both in rny role as a state 

regulator, in private business, and as a baseball umpire for the past 45 years will help me as an 

independent regulator at the NRC. 

Having been self-employed the majority of my adult life, I believe I bring a skill set and life 

experiences that will help me be successful as an independent regulator. Not only do I have a 

broad and varied background in private business, I gained knowledge and experience serving in 

various elected positions in local and state government, as well. 

I was a public utility commissioner in South Carolina for nearly 10 years, so I understand the 

role of a regulator. If confirmed, I will approach my work as a Commissioner with an open mind 

and in a collegial manner. I will listen to all parties and points of view, seek clarification where 

needed, endeavor to establish a complete record, base my decision on the facts before me and 

work to build consensus among the commissioners whenever possible in implementing the 

NRC's mission of protecting public health and safety, promoting the common defense and 

security, and protecting the environment. 

QUESTIONS. 

ANSWER. 

At one time, the NRC was rated the best place to work in the federal 

government. Now, it is rated 121

h for mid-size agencies. What will 

you do to boost morale for the NRC workforce? 

5 
101 


26002.088

I will personally maintain and promote with the staff a clear focus on safety and security, and 

carrying out the NRC's mission of protecting public health and the environment. Embracing and 

sharing an important mission like the NRC's is an important foundation upon which to grow 

employee morale. Beyond that, I believe the agency should examine, to the extent it does not 

already do so, the findings of the study that ranked best places to work in the government and 

take action in the areas of weakness that were identified. 

QUESTION 9. 

ANSWER. 

During the question and answer portion of your nomination hearing, 

you mentioned the need to "right-size" the NRC. It is my 

understanding that the NRC is now looking at possible layoffs this 

summer and there is not much more fat to trim from the NRC's 

budget. As more reactors start the decommissioning process, that 

means less money coming into the NRC, what will you do to ensure 

the NRC has the appropriate funds to recruit the best people and is 

able keep up with the evolving workload? 

If confirmed, I will work with my fellow Commissioners to develop annual agency budgets that 

fully support taking all actions necessary to successfully fulfill the NRC's safety and security 

mission. 

THE HONORABLE EDWARD MARKEY 

6 
102 


26002.089

QUESTION 10. 

ANSWER 

The 2005 Energy Policy Act includes a provision, which I authored, 

that mandates that the NRC conduct security inspections at U.S. 

nuclear power plants. These inspections must include force-onforce exercises, where a mock adversary force conducts a simulated 

attack on a power plant to probe potential gaps in the plant's 

security. 

These exercises allow the NRC to ensure that nuclear power plants 

are adequately protected against terrorists or other bad actors. The 

alternative- of having plant operators run their own exercises -

would not only violate the law, but it would also create a clear 

conflict of interest, and undermine public safety. 

In the past, the nuclear industry lobbied the NRC to get rid of its 

force-on-force exercises in favor of exercises conducted by power 

plant operators. In effect, this would have nuclear power plant 

operators inspect themselves, in violation of the law. 

Do you support security evaluations of nuclear power plants that are 

conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and not by 

licensees? 

I understand that Section 1700 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended by the Energy 

Policy Act, requires the NRC to conduct triennial security evaluations at facilities 

designated by the Commission, which must include a force-on-force (FOF) exercise that 

simulates security threats in accordance the applicable design basis threat. If 

7 
103 


26002.090

confirmed, this is an issue on which I will engage the NRC staff because of its 

importance to national security and public health and safety. 

QUESTION 11. When Entergy announced its intention to cease operations at the 

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

promised that the closure would "not relieve [Entergy] ofthe 

responsibility of running that plant as safely as possible until the 

end of its life." 

But in the last several months, the NRC has broken that promise by 

providing Pilgrim with exemptions from critical safety upgrades. 

After the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, the Fukushima NearTerm Task Force recommended a series of safety upgrade for 

America's nuclear fleet. The NRC opted to accept these 

recommendations, and apply them to reactors of the same design as 

Fukushima, like Pilgrim. 

Among the critical safety upgrades were the requirement to 

reevaluate and address the risk of earthquakes and floods. The 

other critical safety upgrade was to install hardened containment 

vents capable of operating under severe accident conditions. These 

are meant to prevent the release of radioactivity in the event of a 

terrorist attack or severe accident. 

But instead of requiring Entergy to carry out these commonsense 

safety upgrades, the NRC provided Pilgrim with exemptions. 

8 
104 


26002.091

ANSWER. 

Do you believe that providing exemptions from NRC safety 

regulations to U.S. nuclear plants increases public confidence in the 

safe operation of those plants? 

I understand that the NRC has an established process, codified at 10 C.F.R. 50.12, 

allowing power reactor licensees to apply for an exemption from an NRC regulation. 

understand that the NRC staff may grant such exemptions on a case-by-case basis if 

the criteria within that regulation are met, including findings by the staff that special 

circumstances are present and that granting the exemption will not present an undue 

risk to the public health and safety and that it is consistent with the common defense 

and security. If confirmed, this is an issue on which I will engage the NRC staff. 

QUESTION 12. 

ANSWER. 

Do you support the NRC granting exemptions to nuclear plants that 

have announced their intention to shut down operations? 

I understand that the NRC has an established process, codified at 10 C.F.R. 50.12, 

allowing power reactor licensees to apply for an exemption from an NRC regulation. 

understand that the NRC staff may grant such exemptions on a case-by-case basis 

after performing a detailed technical safety analysis if the criteria within that regulation 

are met, including findings by the staff that special circumstances are present and that 

granting the exemption will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety and 

that it is consistent with the common defense and security. If confirmed, this is an issue 

9 
105 


26002.092

on which I will engage the NRC staff, and I will closely monitor the status and progress 

of the agency's ongoing rulemaking efforts to improve the regulatory setting for power 

reactors transitioning to decommissioning. 

QUESTION 13. 

ANSWER. 

The recent National Academies of Sciences report on lessons 

learned from the Fukushima nuclear disaster noted that the risk of a 

spent nuclear fuel fire may actually rise at a decommissioned 

nuclear plant, because "the pool may be filled to near capacity and 

some plant safety systems may be inoperable." Yet the Commission 

has made it a habit of providing exemptions to decommissioned 

reactors from emergency response and security regulations. 

Exempting these plants from NRC rules wholesale permits the 

nuclear industry to lower the safety margin at decommissioned 

reactors, which continue to have dangerous spent nuclear fuel on 

site. 

Do you agree that the danger of accidents at spent-fuel pools at 

decommissioned reactors warrants the application of all emergency 

response and security regulations that are designed to protect 

against spent fuel fires? 

I understand that the NRC staff has performed and published a number of studies and analyses 

on the topic of accident risk at spent fuel pools (such as NUREG-1738: "Technical Study of 

Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-2161: 

"Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a 

10 
106 


26002.093

U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor," COMSECY-13-0030: "Staff Evaluation and 

Recommendation for Japan Lessons Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent 

Fuel,"), and has also required enhanced mitigation strategy capabilities through orders issued 

after the events of Fukushima. I understand that the staff considers such information when it 

has issued exemptions from certain emergency preparedness requirements and making the 

required finding that the exemption will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. 

If confirmed, this is an issue on which I will engage the NRC staff, and I will closely monitor the 

status and progress of the agency's ongoing rulemaking efforts to improve the regulatory setting 

for power reactors transitioning to decommissioning. 

QUESTION 14. In June 2016, I wrote to the NRC to urge the Commission toreexamine and address the risk to public safety posed by 

overcrowded spent-fuel pools at commercial reactors, in light of two 

reports that identified serious gaps in the NRC's previous analysis. 

A fire in a densely-packed spent-fuel pool could result in health and 

economic consequences comparable to those caused by an 

accident at an operating reactor, including the displacement of 

millions of people and untold economic damage. These risks could 

be much reduced by transferring spent fuel to dry casks, which are 

more resilient against accidents or attacks. 

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Lessons Learned 

from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for Improving Safety and 

Security of U.S. Nuclear Plants, recommends that the NRC "perform 

a spent fuel storage risk assessment to elucidate the risks and 

potential benefits of expedited transfer of spent fuel from pools to 

11 
107 


26002.094

ANSWER. 

dry casks." Do you support carrying out this recommendation? If 

not, why not? 

I understand that the NRC staff recently evaluated this specific NAS Recommendation and 

concluded in a public paper to the Commission that the various analyses already performed or 

sponsored by the NRC staff were sufficient to support regulatory decisions on the safety and 

security of spent fuel pools. In that assessment the NRC staff also stated that it is continuing to 

gather regulatory and technical insights on the security of dry cask storage and is continuing to 

cooperate with other Federal agencies and international bodies to assess security threats and 

take action if appropriate. If confirmed, I will engage the staff on the continuation of these 

efforts. 

QUESTION 15. 

ANSWER. 

The NAS report recommended that the NRC "strengthen their 

capabilities for identifying, evaluating, and managing the risks from 

terrorist attacks," and that the NRC's spent fuel storage risk 

assessment "should address accident and sabotage risks." Do you 

agree with the NAS recommendation that the NRC must fully 

account for the risk of terrorism and sabotage in its re-assessment 

of spent-fuel risks? If not, why not? 

12 
108 


26002.095

I understand that the NRC staff also evaluated this NAS recommendation and concluded that 

existing NRC security requirements and the NRC's continuous interactions with other Federal 

agencies to assess possible threats sufficiently addresses security-related risks to nuclear 

power plants, including terrorism and sabotage. The staff also stated it would continue to work 

with other Federal agencies, licensees, and other stakeholders to improve its risk assessment 

techniques and risk management in maintaining security at nuclear power plants. Because of 

its importance to national security and public health and safety, if confirmed I will engage the 

staff on the continuation of these efforts. 

QUESTION 16. 

ANSWER. 

What steps, if any, will you support to strengthen the NRC's 

capabilities for identifying, evaluating, and managing the risk of 

terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities, including spent-fuel storage 

sites? 

I understand that the NRC continuously evaluates the risk posed by terrorism to NRC-licensed 

facilities, including spent fuel storage sites, and that if the NRC determines that new information 

requires additional protection at NRC-licensed facilities, the NRC will impose additional security 

requirements at those sites. If confirmed, I will give this vital task of protecting national security 

and the public health and safety the attention it deserves. 

QUESTION 17. As the Fukushima disaster demonstrated, a major release of 

radioactivity at a nuclear plant could have significant societal 

effects. As such, to fully capture spent-fuel storage risks, the NAS 

13 
109 


26002.096

ANSWER. 

report recommended that the NRC's analysis "(c]onsider societal, 

economic, and health consequences" of a spent-fuel fire, as well as 

the direct risks of radioactive release. Do you agree with this 

recommendation? If not, why not? 

I understand that the NRC does give consideration to societal, economic, and health 

consequences of hypothetical severe accidents as part of its regulatory analysis process, and 

that there is an ongoing NRC effort to update is regulatory analysis guidelines for the 

consideration of economic consequences. If confirmed, I will engage the staff on this topic. 

QUESTION 18. 

ANSWER. 

According to the NAS report, the NRC "has not carried out an 

independent examination of surveillance and security measures for 

protecting stored spent fuel," as recommended by the NAS's 2006 

report. As such, the 2016 NAS report recommended that the NRC 

fulfill this recommendation, and that the NRC's analysis "should 

include an examination of the effectiveness of [the NRC's] programs 

for mitigating insider threats." Do you support carrying out an 

independent examination, as recommended by both NAS studies? If 

not, why not? 

I understand that the NRC has conducted numerous studies over the years to assess potential 

risks from terrorist attacks, and that the agency continuously evaluates the risk posed by 

terrorism to NRC-licensed facilities, including spent fuel storage sites. I also understand that the 

14 
110 


26002.097

NRC has an insider threat program. If confirmed, I will give this vital task of protecting national 

security and the public health and safety the attention it deserves. 

QUESTION 19. 

ANSWER. 

According to an article in the May 26 issue of Science magazine, the 

NRC's previous assessment of spent-fuel risks ignored the potential 

damage from a spent fuel fire beyond 50 miles of a plant, despite the 

fact that a significant portion of the radiation exposure would occur 

beyond that radius. Failing to account for this factor led the NRC to 

underestimate the destruction of a spent fuel fire. Do you support 

inclusion of contamination and other effects beyond 50 miles in the 

NRC's assessment of spent fuel fire risks? 

I understand that the NRC staff has previously documented its analysis of spent fuel risks 

resulting from the potential damage from a spent fuel fire in COMSECY-13-0030, and that as 

part of this analysis the NRC staff did perform sensitivity analyses that extended beyond 50 

miles. I understand that the NRC staff concluded from this analysis that regulatory changes 

where not appropriate, and if confirmed I will familiarize myself with and engage the NRC staff 

on this topic. 

QUESTION 20. According to the Science magazine article, the NRC's previous 

analysis also assumed that, in the event of a spent fuel fire, 

contaminated areas could be effectively cleaned up within a one 

year timeframe, despite evidence from both the Chernobyl and 

15 
111 


26002.098

ANSWER. 

Fukushima accidents. Do you support revising that assumption in 

any re-assessment by the Commission of spent-fuel risks? 

If confirmed I will engage with the NRC staff on this topic. 

QUESTION 21. 

ANSWER. 

According to the recent NAS study, under NRC rules, if the risk of 

prompt and cancer fatalities in the vicinity of a nuclear accident falls 

below a certain threshold, the NRC is not required to undertake a 

cost-benefit analysis of strategies for mitigating that risk. As a result 

of this rule, even though a spent-fuel fire could displace millions of 

people and result in trillions in economic damage, the NRC would 

not be required to evaluate the costs and benefits of strategies to 

mitigate such an event because it would not necessarily produce a 

significantly higher risk of fatalities in the immediate vicinity of the 

plant. To address this obvious deficiency, the NAS study cites 

experts who have suggested that the NRC should amend its rules by 

setting a limit on the likelihood that a large number of people would 

be displaced for a long-term period following a release of 

radioactive fall-out. Do you support implementing such a rule? 

If confirmed I will engage with the NRC staff on this topic. 

THE HONORABLE BERNARD SANDERS 

16 
112 


26002.099

QUESTION 22. As you know, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station is in the 

process of decommissioning. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) requested comments on a draft regulatory basis ending this 

month to support a rulemaking that would amend NRC's regulations 

for the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors. The NRC's 

goals in amending these regulations would be to provide for an 

efficient decommissioning process; reduce the need for exemptions 

from existing regulations; address other decommissioning issues 

deemed relevant by the NRC staff; and support the principles of 

good regulation, including openness, clarity, and reliability. 

If confirmed, will you commit to supporting the following 

decommissioning requirements for the decommissioning 

rulemaking? If not, why? 

The enhancement of community involvement by requiring 

licensees of decommissioning reactors to include state and local 

officials' input into licensees' decommissioning plans; 

• that decommissioning funds are used strictly for statutorilyauthorized purposes; 

that spent nuclear fuel be removed from wet storage and placed 

into safer dry cask storage as quickly as possible; 

that the site of the plant is rapidly returned to beneficial use 

instead of decades after the plant ceases operations, and that 

licensees maintain or obtain the financial resources necessary to 

do so; and 

17 
113 


26002.100

ANSWER. 

that all emergency preparedness and response, and security 

resources and licensing requirements, remain in place until all 

the spent nuclear fuel is placed into safer dry cask storage or 

removed from the site. 

I understand that the NRC's decommissioning rulemaking is currently ongoing and still in the 

early stages of the process. I understand that the NRC has published draft documents including 

preliminary options and recommendations for public comment associated with this rulemaking. 

If confirmed, I will give the various issues presented in your question full and impartial 

consideration as I review the staffs progress and conclusions as this rulemaking progresses 

during the course of my term. 

QUESTION 23. 

ANSWER. 

What do you believe should be the process for reviewing and 

processing public comments in the rulemaking and other formal 

proceedings? How should public comments be weighed by the 

Commission against comments from the industry? 

I understand that the Administrative Procedure Act governs the process by which agencies 

solicit and respond to public comments in rulemaking proceedings. I also understand that the 

NRC has various internal policies and guidance relating to soliciting and responding to public 

comments. I understand that the NRC, as an independent agency, must consider and evaluate 

information it receives fairly and objectively regardless of the identity of the submitter. 

18 
114 


26002.101

QUESTION 24. 

ANSWER. 

How should the NRC educate the public about the existence and 

meaning ofthe ongoing decommissioning rulemaking process? 

What should be NRC's plan for community outreach for the 

remainder of this decommissioning rulemaking process? 

I understand that the NRC uses various processes to educate and engage the public about its 

rulemaking activities, including the decommissioning rulemaking. For example, as with the 

decommissioning rule, the NRC can issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 

obtain and consider views from the public at the initial stage of the rulemaking process. I 

understand that the NRC has also held public meetings to raise awareness of this rulemaking 

and facilitate better public understanding. I understand that the NRC also has an Office of 

Public Affairs which routinely publishes press releases and performs other outreach to members 

of the public and provide updates on ongoing regulatory activities, including the 

decommissioning rulemaking. In all, I understand the importance of understandable and 

transparent communication with the public and if confirmed I will continue these efforts. 

QUESTION 25. 

ANSWER. 

Should NRC plan public field meetings to gather comments or 

testimony from communities where nuclear plants are 

decommissioning now, or will be soon? If not, why? 

19 
115 


26002.102

I understand that the NRC staff already does hold public meetings in the vicinity of a 

decommissioning facility in the early stages of the decommissioning process to discuss the 

licensee's planning, schedule, cost, and environmental impact information. 

QUESTION 26. 

ANSWER. 

What is the justification for the NRC to continuously waive its own 

regulations, especially those pertaining to the decommissioning 

trust fund, even though it is working to create new decommissioning 

rules? 

I am only aware of the supporting justification that the NRC staff publishes at the time that it 

grants such exemptions, pursuant to the criteria established in 10 C.F.R. 50.12. 

QUESTION 27. 

ANSWER. 

What justification is there for the NRC to approve withdrawals from 

Vermont Yankee's Decommissioning Trust Fund for spent fuel 

management when NRC's regulations expressly prohibit such use? 

(10 C.F.R. §50. 75 at FN 1.) 

I am only aware of the supporting justification that the NRC staff published at the time that it 

grants this exemption, which was that the NRC approved the request consistent with the criteria 

established in 10 C.F.R. 50.12. 

20 
116 


26002.103

QUESTION 28. 

ANSWER. 

Former NRC Chair Allison Macfarlane authored a paper in 2003 

along with other experts that concluded that dry cask storage offers 

compelling advantages over wet pool storage: it is safer and it is 

less prone to failure. They recommended that spent fuel should be 

transferred from wet pools to dry cask storage within five years of 

discharge to reduce the risk of fire and subsequent radioactive 

contamination of air and land. 

Do you have a position on dry cask versus wet pool storage? If 

confirmed, will you commit to supporting more studies of this 

issue? 

It is the mission, duty and responsibility of the NRC to ensure that spent nuclearfuel is 

managed safely and securely in both wet pools and dry cask storage, and both have been 

determined to be safe. 

I would support additional review or studies of this issue should new information become known. 

QUESTION 29. State regulatory officials from Vermont have raised concerns that 

the NRC is less likely to consider commentary received from state 

and local governments on reactor license change requests, and 

NRC rulemaking and regulatory guidance efforts, than commentary 

from nuclear power plant operators (e.g. Entergy, Exelon and First 

Energy) and nuclear power industry organizations such as the 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). If confirmed, what steps would you 

take to assure that commentary and concerns expressed by state 

21 
117 


26002.104

ANSWER. 

and local governments, or other nuclear power plant stakeholders, 

are given consideration equal to that already enjoyed by nuclear 

power plant operators and their supporters? 

I understand that the Administrative Procedure Act governs the process by which agencies 

solicit and respond to public comments in rulemaking proceedings. I also understand that the 

NRC has various internal policies and guidance relating to soliciting and responding to public 

comments. If confirmed, I will ensure that the NRC, as an independent agency, consider and 

evaluate information it receives fairly, transparently, and objectively, regardless of the identity of 

the submitter. 

QUESTION 30. To date, nuclear power plants that have permanently shut down 

have been permitted to eliminate their offsite Emergency Planning 

Zones (EPZs) roughly 15 to 20 months after cessation of power 

generation. The risk of a spent fuel fire resulting from a significant 

loss of spent fuel pool water inventory is greatly reduced, but a 

reduction in risk is not an elimination of risk. A reduced risk of a 

spent fuel fire still requires a significant offsite emergency response 

that requires drills or exercises to demonstrate proficiency in 

response and funding to maintain essential emergency response 

equipment and staff. If confirmed, will you support maintaining 

offsite EPZs for permanently shut down nuclear power plants until 

such time that all spent fuel is removed from onsite spent fuel 

pools? 

22 
118 


26002.105

ANSWER 

I understand that the NRC staff has performed and published a number of studies and analyses 

on the topic of accident risk at spent fuel pools (such as NUREG-1738: "Technical Study of 

Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-2161: 

"Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a 

U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor," COMSECY-13-0030: "Staff Evaluation and 

Recommendation for Japan Lessons Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent 

Fuel,"), and has also required enhanced mitigation strategy capabilities through orders issued 

after the events of Fukushima. I understand that the NRC staff considers such information 

when it has issued exemptions from certain emergency preparedness requirements and making 

the required finding that the exemption will not present an undue risk to the public health and 

safety. If confirmed, this is an issue on which I will engage the NRC staff, and I will closely 

monitor the status and progress of the agency's ongoing rulemaking efforts to improve the 

regulatory setting for power reactors transitioning to decommissioning. 

QUESTION 31. When NRC staff respond to concerns raised by state or local 

government officials, or individual concerned citizens, they rely 

heavily on references to voluminous regulatory documents which 

are difficult to follow, or use jargon that only makes sense to other 

NRC staff. If confirmed, what actions would you consider taking to 

facilitate clear communication by NRC officials with lay members of 

the public? 

23 
119 


26002.106

ANSWER 

I understand that the NRC is committed to using clear, plain language in its communications 

with members of the public, and that, per the Plain Writing Act of 2010, the agency has internal 

plain-writing guidance and a Plain Writing Action Plan, and publishes annual reports on its 

implementation of these requirements. I understand the importance of the quality and clarity of 

communications with NRC stakeholders to ensure they are adequately informed of the agency's 

regulatory, licensing, and oversight activities. If confirmed I will support and continue the 

agency's ongoing efforts in this area. 

QUESTION 32. 

ANSWER. 

One significant source of frustration for state and local 

governments, and individuals who are following nuclear power plant 

decommissioning efforts, is that the process of complete 

decommissioning and site restoration is under the jurisdiction of 

multiple federal agencies in addition to the NRC, such as the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the 

Department of Transportation, and the Department of Homeland 

Security, just to name a few. If confirmed, what steps would you take 

to assure that the scope of regulatory authority of all federal 

agencies with jurisdiction is clear to all stakeholders? 

I understand that the NRC currently has various Memoranda of Understanding with these 

federal agencies with respect to jurisdictional responsibilities and the overall regulatory 

framework of decommissioning and site restoration. If confirmed I will work with the NRC staff, 

such as the Office of Public Affairs, to ensure that these responsibilities are communicated 

24 
120 


26002.107

clearly with interested stakeholders and ensure that the public is adequately informed and 

engaged on these matters. 

QUESTION 33. What do you believe is the future of nuclear power in this country? 

ANSWER. 

I am confident nuclear power will continue to provide part of the generation mix needed in the 

United States in the future, but its' levels will be dependent on economic and other factors 

outside of the NRC's area of jurisdiction and control. 

QUESTION 34. 

ANSWER. 

If confirmed, what role do you believe you should play-if any-as 

Commissioner in supporting the nuclear power industry? 

The mission of the NRC is to license and regulate the civilian use of radioactive materials in the 

United States to protect public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, 

and protect the environment. It is not the duty of a Commissioner or the NRC to support the 

nuclear power industry. The NRC is an independent agency. 

QUESTION 35. According to recent Energy Information Agency estimates, the 

generating capacity from nuclear power will drop from 20 percent to 

11 percent by 2050. If confirmed, how will you ensure safety during 

this time of mass decommissioning? 

25 
121 


26002.108

ANSWER. 

I understand that the NRC oversees the safety and security of reactors during decommissioning 

and currently has comprehensive regulations to ensure their safety and security during its 

decommissioning process. This regulatory framework includes safety, environmental, and 

financial reviews so that the NRC staff can assess decommissioning activities in areas such as 

financial assurance, training and qualification of licensee staff, decommissioning methods, and 

clean up criteria. I understand this oversight also includes independent NRC review and 

monitoring during major decommissioning activities and NRC verification of the site's final 

radiological conditions. If confirmed, I will work with the staff to ensure that the NRC's 

decommissioning regulatory framework continues to preserve the safety and security of these 

sites, even during a time of increasing decommissioning, and I will closely monitor the status 

and progress of the agency's ongoing rulemaking efforts in this area. Additionally, if confirmed, 

I will work with the Commission and with Congress to ensure that, if these EIA estimates are 

correct, the agency has adequate resources to respond to the increasing numbers of nuclear 

power plants entering decommissioning. 

QUESTION 36. Most of the plants currently being decommissioned across the U.S. 

are doing so because they are not economically competitive. Some 

have proposed easing safety and other regulatory burdens to help 

the economic viability of the nuclear fleet. If regulations on existing 

and new power plants are decreased, how will you ensure the 

safety of our nuclear fleet? 

26 
122 


26002.109

ANSWER. 

I understand that the NRC has a statutory responsibility to ensure there is reasonable 

assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and the common defense and 

security, and that the NRC does not consider cost when determining what is necessary for 

adequate protection. If confirmed I will ensure that, to the extent the agency revises any 

regulations for new or existing power reactors, that compliance with those regulations will 

continue to ensure such reasonable assurance of adequate protection. 

QUESTION 37. 

ANSWER. 

If confirmed, how will you ensure the public safety of nextgeneration nuclear reactors that implement advanced technologies? 

I understand that in 2008 the Commission published a Policy Statement on the Regulation of 

Advanced Reactors, which established an expectation that advanced reactors will provide 

enhanced margins or safety and/or use simplified, inherent, passive, or other innovative means 

to accomplish safety and security functions. If confirmed, I will ensure that this policy is 

implemented and that the NRC staff is giving the appropriate consideration to the safety and 

security of the design of advanced reactors and the development of a regulatory framework for 

advanced reactor designs. 

QUESTION 38. 

ANSWER. 

How will the potential development of advanced nuclear 

technologies affect the problems NRC is currently confronting in 

storing spent nuclear fuel long-term? 

27 
123 


26002.110

I understand that advanced nuclear technologies propose to use various fuel forms that will 

generate and potentially consume high-level radioactive waste. If confirmed, I will ensure that 

the NRC engages with necessary stakeholders including the Department of Energy, advanced 

reactor designers, industry organizations, international organizations, and the public, as the 

agency develops and implements any plans for the possible regulation of advanced reactor 

designs and related fuel cycle facilities, including those associated with storage of spent nuclear 

fuel. 

QUESTION 39. 

ANSWER. 

Currently the U.S. has no permanent storage for spent nuclear fuel. 

Where do you anticipate that spent nuclear fuel from nextgeneration nuclear reactors will be stored? 

I have not yet had the opportunity to be briefed by NRC staff and technical experts on issues 

related to the storage of spent nuclear fuel from next-generation nuclear reactors. If confirmed, I 

look forward to learning more detail about those issues. 

QUESTION 40. The March 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident prompted the NRC to 

review its own regulations. The Commission's Fukushima Task 

Force, consisting of NRC experts with 135 years of nuclear 

regulatory expertise among them, made a range of key 

recommendations for improving nuclear plant safety. The final 

report included 12 recommendations ranging from requirements to 

upgrade seismic and flood protections to protections against the 

28 
124 


26002.111

ANSWER 

long power outages that were the ultimate cause of the Japanese 

meltdowns. They also concluded that all of the recommendations 

were necessary for the "adequate protection" of nuclear power 

plants. 

Despite the repeated urging of its own experts, the Commission has 

so far refused to make these recommendations mandatory. What 

steps will you take to ensure that the Commission revisits this 

decision and does, in fact, adopt the Task Force's safety 

recommendations as mandatory? 

I understand that following the accident at Fukushima, the NRC assessed the operability of the 

US nuclear fleet and determined that it remained safe for the nuclear fleet to continue 

operations, and also chartered a Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) to conduct a review of NRC 

requirements, programs, and processes and recommend any improvements to the NRC's 

regulatory system. I understand that the Commission issued orders based on the 

recommendations of the NTIF to implement the most significant safety recommendations, that 

implementation of these safety enhancements are substantially completed, and the agency is 

currently engaged in a rulemaking effort that would make these and other NTTF 

recommendations required for all current and future nuclear power plants. 

If confirmed, as a Commissioner I would continue to work with and engage the NRC staff on this 

important topic of post-Fukushima actions. 

QUESTION 41. A paper published in Science last month by nuclear experts from the 

Union of Concerned Scientists and Princeton University argued that 

29 
125 


26002.112

ANSWER. 

the NRC places the U.S. at risk of disasters like Fukushima because 

of problems in its approach to assessing the risks and benefits of 

safety improvements. The authors suggest that NRC should reform 

its risk assessments in the following ways (see below). Do you 

concur that these corrections to current NRC risk assessments are 

needed? If not, why? If so, how will you address these issues as a 

Commissioner, if confirmed? 

Take into account the possibility of a terrorist attack in 

regulatory decisions such as the one on whether or not to 

require the nuclear utilities to remove spent fuel to dry cask 

storage after 5 years. 

Take into account accident consequences beyond 50 miles of 

the site. 

Make assumptions concerning population relocation, and 

therefore property losses, after a nuclear accident consistent 

with the EPA's guidance concerning dose levels. 

• Make realistic assumptions concerning the efficacy and speed of 

decontamination actions. 

Update the NRC's assumption concerning the value of a life lost 

to radiation-induced cancer by a factor of 2.5, as recommended 

by the NRC staff. 

I understand that the NRC staff has, in various studies and regulatory analyses, provided the 

Commission with its assessment of several of these issues. For example, in COMSECY -13-

30 
126 


26002.113

0030, I understand the NRC documented its analysis of spent fuel risks resulting from the 

potential damage from a spent fuel fire, which included a sensitivity analysis extending beyond 

50 miles. Additionally, for example, I understand the staff has recently provided 

recommendation to the Commission in a public paper to update the NRC's guidance on the 

"Dollar Per Person-Rem Conversion Factor Policy," which is the agency's monetary valuation of 

the cancer mortality risk of radiation exposure. Additionally, I understand the NRC staff 

continuously monitors and assesses threat conditions and plant security associated with 

terrorist attacks, interacting and coordinating with other federal agencies, and that the NRC is 

committed to take appropriate actions to address this changing threat environments should new 

information ever indicate new risks to plants or spent fuel. If confirmed, I will continue to engage 

with the NRC staff on these issues. 

QUESTION 42. 

ANSWER 

A February 2017 report by Union of Concerned Scientists stated, 

"Just as nuclear plant owners have downplayed and dismissed clear 

and present signs about safety culture problems at their plants, the 

data suggest that the NRC's management is just as dismissive of 

indications that it has a poor safety culture." Are you concerned that 

staff at nuclear power plants and the NRC are reluctant to report 

safety problems because of the lack of trust between workforce and 

management? If so, how can NRC address the lack of a nuclear 

safety culture, and lessen risks to public and environmental safety? 

If not, what evidence do you have that NRC management maintains 

a robust safety culture? 

31 
127 


26002.114

I understand that the NRC has policy statement that describes how it assesses a licensee's 

safety conscious work environment (SCWE) where employees are encouraged to raise safety 

concerns and where those concerns are promptly reviewed and resolved accordingly. I 

understand the NRC assesses and this SCWE and takes action when necessary through tools 

such as allegations, inspections, chilling effect letters, and orders. I also understand that 

internally, the NRC is committed to fostering an environment where the staff is free to raise 

concerns and offer differing views without fear of reprisal. If confirmed, I will continue to engage 

the NRC staff in these important ongoing efforts, both externally and internally, to promote the 

importance of safety culture within the nuclear safety and the agency. 

QUESTION 43. 

ANSWER. 

NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) is 

responsible for regulating activities which provide for the safe and 

secure production of nuclear fuel used in commercial nuclear 

reactors; the safe storage, transportation and disposal of high-level 

radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel; and the transportation of 

radioactive materials regulated under the Atomic Energy Act. The 

United States is facing a significant long-term problem in its 

disposal of nuclear waste. What do you envision as a potential 

solution, and what role should NRC play? 

National policy or solutions for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel is set by Congress and the 

President. In its regulatory role as an independent federal agency, the NRC must evaluate the 

32 
128 


26002.115

safe and secure operation of high-level waste storage through its licensing and regulatory 

actions, as well as its oversight responsibility of licensees. 

QUESTION 44. 

ANSWER. 

President Trump's FY18 budget proposal would revive the approval 

process for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site. NRC's role in 

approving the Yucca Mountain site has been to assess DOE's 

license application to consider whether the proposed facility meets 

its regulatory requirements for geologic disposal of the waste. The 

NRC process also includes conducting a Safety Evaluation Report 

and adjudicatory hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing 

Board. Adjudicatory hearings for Yucca Mountain, which must be 

completed before a licensing decision can be made, remain 

suspended. If confirmed, will you ensure robust public comment and 

involvement in any decision on a potential solution to this country's 

significant long-term problem of nuclear waste disposal? 

If confirmed, I will ensure that the NRC follows its established regulations and processes for the 

adjudicatory hearings, in line with any funding appropriated by Congress for the review and 

adjudication of the construction authorization application for a repository at Yucca Mountain. 

QUESTION 45. Within the past two weeks, doctors at Pennsylvania State University 

published a paper analyzing 44 cases of thyroid cancer in the 

vicinity of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant and found convincing 

33 
129 


26002.116

ANSWER. 

evidence that they showed signs of exposure to radiation. In 2002, 

as part of the response to the 9/11 disaster, Congress authorized an 

expansion from 10 to 20 miles of the radius within which the drug 

potassium iodide would be distributed. At the time, the NRC fought 

that expansion, and under President Bush, the law was not 

implemented. If confirmed, will you commit to a re-evaluation of the 

need for greater availability of potassium iodide in view of increased 

evidence of the sensitivity of the thyroid gland to the carcinogenic 

effects of radiation? 

If confirmed, I will engage with the NRC staff on this issue and any review or assessments the 

staff makes of this study. 

QUESTION 46. The NRC used to be considered one of the top federal agencies in 

workplace satisfaction. Yet, according to index scores from the U.S. 

Office of Personnel Management's Federal Employee Viewpoint 

Survey, employee satisfaction at NRC is the worst since 2005 with 

declines of 3.5 points in just the last year (2015 to 2016). This drop 

represents one of the steepest declines among agencies of its size. 

Moreover, scores on leadership are consistently down across all 

categories, including senior leadership, empowerment, and fairness. 

If confirmed, what will you do as Commissioner to address these 

declines? 

34 
130 


26002.117

ANSWER. 

Until confirmed, and actually at the NRC, it is not possible for me to develop a personal opinion 

or personal plan of action on the issue of employee satisfaction or morale. As an employer and 

as former leader of a state agency, I am cognizant of the need to get to know your employees, 

as well as what they do, how they feel about what they are doing, and listening to what they say 

in areas that will make them more productive for the overall good. If confirmed, I will become 

familiar with what the agency is already doing in this area, as well as what the agency's 

employee satisfaction goals are. 

QUESTION 47. 

ANSWER. 

The first of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's five Principles of 

Good Regulation is "Independence." What does that principle mean 

to you? 

There are five Principles of Good Regulation the NRC operates by. They are Independence, 

Openness, Efficiency, Clarity and Reliability. Each of them is important, but the first oneIndependence- is most important. 

I have umpired baseball for 45 years, where being independent is critical. An umpire has to 

fairly and impartially interact and manage a game being played between two teams. 

An independent regulator has to do much of the same things that an umpire does. An 

independent regulator can't do his or her job in a vacuum, though. An independent regulator 

should interact with ill! factions fairly and impartially. An independent regulator should let the 

docket unfold before him or her by building a complete record, collecting ill! of the facts, and 

understanding ill! points of view. Then, an independent regulator, much like an umpire, must 

pause, read, and assess what is contained in the record in order to make a decision that will 

35 
131 


26002.118

stand up to critique and review, because, like an umpire who does his job well, not everyone is 

likely to agree with every decision an independent regulator will make. 

QUESTION 48. 

ANSWER. 

Yes. 

QUESTION 49. 

ANSWER. 

Yes. 

QUESTION 50. 

Would you agree that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

should not allow political meddling from Congress, other parts of 

the executive branch, or industry to interfere with the NRC's 

independent decision-making processes? 

Do you commit to zealously guard the independence of the NRC and 

oppose any efforts to undermine it? 

Having served on the leadership council of Nuclear Matters, an 

industry advocacy group campaigning to "focus attention on the 

benefits offered by America's nuclear energy fleet," do you believe 

you can impartially adjudicate issues for the nuclear industry? If 

confirmed, do you commit to recuse yourself in cases where there is 

a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest? 

36 
132 


26002.119

ANSWER. 

Upon confirmation, I will resign from my positions with the following entities: E4 Carolinas, the 

Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, the Nuclear Matters Advocacy Council, and the lrmo-Chapin 

Recreation Commission. For a period of one year after my resignations, I will not participate 

personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which I know 

any of these organizations are a party or represent a party, unless I am first authorized to 

participate pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d). 

QUESTION 51. 

ANSWER. 

Please list all conference panels, meetings, public rallies, or other 

public events that you have attended at which nuclear energy or 

nuclear waste issues were discussed. 

To the best of my knowledge, and in date order, the appearances before Congress were: 

08/03/2006- U.S. Senate Energy & Nat. Res. Comm. "Nuclear Fuel Management & 

Disposal Act"; 

• 09/25/2008- U.S. Senate EPW Roundtable Meeting on Recycling Spent Nuclear Fuel; 

02/10/2009- U.S. Senate Energy & Nat. Res. Comm. "National Renewable Portfolio 

Standard"; 

• 07/27/2010- U.S. House Budget Committee hearing on Yucca Mountain 

• 02/01/2012- U.S. House Energy & Commerce Comm., Subcommittee on Energy & the 

Environment- "Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear 

Future" 

• 06/19/2012- U.S. House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy & 

Power- "American Energy Initiative: EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulations" 

37 
133 


26002.120

The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) usually has a meeting 

of the Subcommittee on Nuclear Waste and Waste Disposal at their three meetings each year, 

but their topics varied. 

The Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition (NWSC) usually meets once each year. 

Since August 2104, when I first joined the Nuclear Matters Advocacy Council, and prior to 

August 2016, I attended several meetings of the National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners, the Mid-Atlantic Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, various state 

Consumer Education Alliance 101 breakfast and lunch functions, the U.S. Women in Nuclear 

Region II Conference, National Federation of Women Legislators, Republican Lieutenant 

Governors Association National Meeting, the University of South Carolina, Greater Phoenix 

Chamber of Commerce, Republican Governors Association Corporate Policy Summit, Southern 

States Energy Board, American Legislative Exchange Council Annual Meeting, National 

Conference of State Legislators Nuclear Legislative Working Group. I have performed any duty 

or function, public or private, for the Nuclear Matters Advocacy Council since August 2016. 

QUESTION 52. 

ANSWER. 

Please provide copies (written, audio, or video) of all speeches you 

have made concerning nuclear energy, nuclear safety, spent nuclear 

fuel, Yucca Mountain, nuclear waste, or other issues of relevance to 

the work of the NRC. 

(See attachments to question 52) Copies of congressional testimony are also attached. 

38 
134 


26002.121

Presentations made on behalf of Nuclear Matters were generally the same, usually just 

substituting the name of the group and location where the presentation was being made, and 

possibly inserting some state-specific data. I have attached several of the presentations I could 

find. Last, I do not know of the existence of any videos or audios. 

QUESTION 53. 

ANSWER. 

Please provide a list of all organizations-with an interest in nuclear 

energy, nuclear waste, nuclear safety, or related matters-of which 

you are, or have been a member? 

The National Association of Regulatory Commissioners (NARUC), S.C. Public Service 

Commission, Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition (NWSC), Nuclear Matters Advocacy Council, 

and E4Carolina's. 

QUESTION 54. 

ANSWER. 

No. 

Have you or any member of your immediate family received funding, 

either directly or indirectly, from organizations supporting the 

licensing of Yucca Mountain as a repository for spent nuclear fuel or 

from organizations supporting the licensing new nuclear reactors? If 

so, please describe. 

39 
135 


26002.122

QUESTION 55. 

THE HONORABLE DAN SULLIVAN 

Earlier this spring the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

reported S.512, the "Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization 

Act" on a strong bi-partisan vote. The findings and purposes of this 

bill provide a framework for these questions. 

In 5.512 the Committee found that one of the " ... impediments to the 

commercialization of advanced nuclear reactors ... " is the" ... 

durations associated with applying the existing nuclear regulatory 

framework to advanced nuclear reactors. We further found that 

" .. .license application reviews should be as predictable and efficient 

as practicable without compromising safety or security." And, that 

"the existing nuclear regulatory framework and the requirements of 

that framework have not adapted to advances in scientific 

understanding or the features and performance characteristics of 

advanced nuclear reactor designs." 

To address these findings 5.512 would establish " ... a program to 

develop the expertise and regulatory processes necessary to allow 

innovation and the commercialization of advanced nuclear 

reactors". 5.512 provides the NRC with ample time to develop that 

program so, even if the bill were enacted this year, it will not be fully 

in place for several years. 

Assuming that S.512 is enacted, I would like to understand your 

views with respect to the application of the NRC's current regulatory 

authority to innovative nuclear technologies during the time 

between enactment and the establishment of this new program. 

40 
136 


26002.123

ANSWER. 

Do you agree with the general findings of 5.512? If not, please 

explain. 

I have not had an opportunity to become fully briefed by the NRC staff and technical experts on 

their activities in the areas of technical readiness, regulatory readiness and communications in 

the Advanced Reactor technology space. If confirmed, this is an area of great interest and I look 

forward to learning where the NRC is in preparing for these technologies and reactor designs 

within the scope of the agency's safety and security mission. 

QUESTION 56. In this interim period, the Commission likely will be confronted with 

innovative and advanced nuclear technologies, e.g. subcritical 

technologies, which may not fit within the scope of the NRC's 

current regulations. The Atomic Energy Act vests the NRC with 

broad authority to determine the scope of its regulatory jurisdiction, 

including the discretion to issue additional regulations to bring new 

technologies within the scope of the existing regulatory framework. 

In the event you encounter such an issue while serving on the NRC, 

what views will guide how you exercise your discretion with respect 

to regulation of such new technologies? Will you regulate simply to 

regulate or will you insist that there be regulation only when it is 

needed to adequately address public health and safety risks? 

41 
137 


26002.124

ANSWER. 

I have not had an opportunity to become fully briefed by the NRC staff and technical experts on 

their activities in the areas of technical readiness, regulatory readiness and communications in 

the Advanced Reactor technology space. If confirmed, this is an area of great interest and I look 

forward to learning where the NRC is in preparing for these technologies and reactor designs 

within the scope of the agency's safety and security mission. 

QUESTION 57. 

ANSWER. 

Nuclear industry activities frequently are subject to regulation by 

many different federal agencies which often have different 

perspectives and objectives. 

If you are presented with a situation in which regulation of a new 

innovative technology by other agencies appropriately addresses 

any public health and safety risks presented by that technology, will 

you insist that the NRC also regulate? 

The role of the NRC is that of licensing to ensure adequate protection of public health and 

safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment. If 

confirmed, I will want to be briefed by NRC staff and technical experts on how the NRC works 

with other agencies in this area. 

42 
138 


26002.125

QUESTION 58. 

ANSWER. 

THE HONORABLE SHELDON WHITEHOUSE 

Last year, NRC's budget included a $5 million request to build up the 

regulatory infrastructure for improving licensing of advanced 

reactor concepts. This request was appropriated in this year's 

Omnibus. Unfortunately, in this year's budget request NRC does not 

ask for additional funding for their advanced rector licensing work. 

a. Can you discuss what the NRC plans to do with the additional 

funding for advanced reactor licensing? 

b. Why did NRC not ask for additional funding in the President's 

FY2018 budget to continue its work in this area? 

c. There have been tremendous advances in predictive modeling 

and simulation capabilities for new nuclear technologies that can 

yield new insights into new reactor behaviors and accelerate the 

licensing of new technologies. Will you help direct the NRC staff 

to embrace and adopt these tools? 

a. The NRC is enhancing its existing regulatory framework to address non-LWR in a 

technology neutral manner as part of its vision and strategy for safely achieving effective 

and efficient Non- Light Water Reactor (LWR) mission readiness. The FY 2018 budget 

does not include off-the fee based funding for advanced reactors, but does include very 

limited on-fee based funding for non-LWR infrastructure development and preapplication interactions. Examples of activities underway include the development of 

advanced reactor design criteria and the NRC issued draft regulatory guide "DG-1330, 

"Guidance for Developing Principal Design Criteria for Non- Light Water Reactors," for 

43 
139 


26002.126

formal public comment in February 2017. The NRC plans to issue a final regulatory 

guide at the end of 2017. In October 2016, the NRC issued a draft "Regulatory Review 

Road map for Non-Light-Water Reactors, which described flexible review options, 

including the use of a staged-review process and the use of conceptual design 

assessments during the pre-application period. The NRC is working with stakeholders 

on a utility-led licensing modernization project supported by the Department of Energy 

and the Nuclear Energy Institute. White papers are being prepared by the utility-led 

working group and provided to the NRC staff as part of development of regulatory 

guidance for non-LWR applicants. The NRC staff is currently reviewing the first white 

paper on risk-informed performance based-licensing bases event selection. 

b. I am not privy to the FY2017 and FY2018 internal budgetary deliberations of the 

Commission, other than what has been made publicly available in the agency's 

Congressional Budget Justification, but if confirmed I will work to ensure that the NRC is 

adequately funded for its anticipated work relating to advanced reactor licensing. 

c. Yes. 

QUESTION 59. The Chinese currently have 21 new nuclear reactors under 

construction. The Chinese regulatory system appears to be similar 

to the new, post-Fukushima Japanese system, where the nuclear 

regulatory body is housed in the Environment Ministry. Although it 

appears that the Chinese regulatory systems seems to have similar 

licensing and regulatory authority to that of the U.S. NRC, their 

ability to license reactors appears to be more efficient. 

44 
140 


26002.127

ANSWER. 

a. Can you discuss whether the current regulatory licensing 

framework at NRC is different than the Chinese licensing 

system? If so, what are the differences? 

b. Can you comment on what may be enabling the Chinese to be 

able to license 21 new reactors under their framework? 

c. Has the NRC looked at a cross comparison between the Chinese 

licensing process and the U.S. system? If not, would you 

commit to doing such a comparison? 

a. I do not know the differences between the U.S. and Chinese regulatory licensing 

frameworks, nor have I had the opportunity to be briefed by NRC staff and technical 

experts on what is already know. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the 

differences in this area. 

b. Not being confirmed at this time, and not having an opportunity to look at this difference 

with the NRC staff and technical experts, anything I might suggest would be hazarding 

just a guess. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about why these differences 

exist. 

c. I do not know the differences between the U.S. and Chinese regulatory licensing 

frameworks, nor have I had the opportunity to be briefed by NRC staff and technical 

experts on what is already know. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the 

differences in this area. 

QUESTION 60. The NRC budget includes $30 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund 

to fund activities for the proposed Yucca Mountain deep geological 

repository. DOE has been collecting fees since 1983 under the 

45 
141 


26002.128

ANSWER. 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to go into the Nuclear Waste Fund. 

Until 2010, DOE was collecting around $750 million a year (nearly 

$31 billion in total) into the fund. The fee program was stopped in 

2010 after the Obama administration backed away from the planned 

nuclear fuel repository at Yucca Mountain. 

a. If you are confirmed as Commissioner and Congress passes 

funding for Yucca Mountain licensing do you plan on moving the 

licensing process forward? 

b. If the licensing process for Yucca Mountain moves forward do 

you support reinstating the fee for the Nuclear Waste Fund? 

c. Do you believe that nuclear waste as a liability associated with it 

that should be quantified? Can you estimate what the liability of 

the existing nuclear waste stockpile might be? 

a. Should the Congress fund the Department of Energy to proceed with the License 

Application, then, the NRC should follow the law, as well, and prepare for the review of 

the license application. 

b. The NRC would not play a role with regard to reinstatement of the fee. 

c. The NRC is a safety regulator and would not have any jurisdiction regarding the liability 

questions asked. The role of the NRC is that of licensing to ensure adequate protection 

of public health and safety and to promote the common defense and security. 

46 
142 


26002.129

Attachment for 

Question 5 
143 


26002.130

I Statement Before the Senate Environment and Public Works 

2 Roundtable Meeting on Recycling Spent Nuclear Fuel 

3 

4 My name is David Wright. I am a legislatively-elected Commissioner of the 

5 South Carolina Public Service Commission. Although I am here today officially 

6 representing myself as a South Carolina Commissioner, it is also worth noting that I am 

7 also chairman of the Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues and Waste Disposal of the 

8 Electricity Committee of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

9 (NARUC), chair of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Committee (NWSC) and a national co10 chair of the Yucca Mountain Task Force (YMTF) There has been considerable discussion 

ll about, and interest in, future technologies surrounding nuclear waste disposal, including 

12 recycling, in which all these groups have a great deal of interest. 

13 Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to thank you for hosting this 

14 roundtable discussion today, and I would like to thank you for your leadership on this 

15 issue. But, if I might, I would like to single out Senator Domenici of New Mexico for a 

16 moment. 

17 Senator Domenici has carried large and heavy buckets of water on 'all-things18 nuclear' for many years. l-Ie has truly been a steady voice, providing consistent leadership 

19 on nuclear issues, nuclear waste disposal and even reprocessing. 

20 I have a personal story. 

21 The Senator may not remember this, but on January 24th of this year, a meeting 

22 was held in his office to discuss some ideas he had about reprocessing which led to the 

23 recent introduction of his SMART bill. 
144 


26002.131

I was supposed to be present for that meeting but, fortunately or unfortunately, 

2 depending on your point of view I guess, I was diagnosed with colon cancer and had 

3 colon surgery performed the day before the meeting. The following morning, on .January 

4 24'h, feeling as good as I could after major surgery, Karen Billups patched me into the 

5 meeting via telephone from my hospital bed. Senator Domenici, you could not have been 

6 more considerate of me that morning. Thank you for that. 

7 Also, sir, 1 wish to thank you for your many years of public service to your state 

8 and to this country. I can assure you, that you, and the leadership you have provided, will 

9 be truly missed. 

I 0 l appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. The issues that 

II you arc addressing in this roundtable are cutting edge for sure. To no one's surprise, there 

12 may be more questions at this point than there are answers, but in order to get anywhere 

13 you first have to start somewhere. Today is a good time and place to start. 

14 As a Commissioner, I am charged with balancing the needs of our investorIS owned, and privately-held utilities, with the needs of the consumer, in an effort to provide 

16 reasonable service and service quality at just and reasonable rates. 

17 I share the concern of those in the Congress who believe in the need to reform the 

18 manner in which the Nuclear Waste Fund is managed, tor indeed, the repository schedule 

19 cannot be met without greater financial resources. Although the Nuclear Waste Fund was 

20 well designed in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as the mechanism tor the commercial 

21 share of repository disposal costs to be ratepayer-financed, that is not the way the Fund is 

22 currently used. Quite simply, the fees collected from ratepayers arc not being used for 

23 their intended purpose. 

2 
145 


26002.132

Taking the Nuelcar Waste Fund off budget, and possibly forming a government 

2 chartered or quasi-government organization of some kind to manage all phases of the 

3 program and the fund may be a good discussion to have. 

4 As a commissioner, I am concerned for the ratepayer. First they arc being billed 

5 through rates for the Yucca Mountain project through the Nuclear Waste Fund. Second, 

6 because of project delays and other political obstacles, DOE failed to take title of the 

7 spent commercial fuel by the contracted date with the utilities, so the ratepayer is also 

8 paying through rates to store this waste on utility sites. Finally, the ratepayer, as a 

9 taxpayer, as well as all taxpayers, regardless of whether they have spent nuclear fuel in 

I 0 their state or not, are paying to settle lawsuits brought by utilities against DOE for the 

II failure to take the waste by the contracted date, through payments from the Judgment 

12 Fund. And, unless something is done, that is only going to get worse. 

13 Just a few short years ago, building nuclear plants was not even on the radar. 

14 Today, as I speak to you, we have two open dockets for three proposed nuclear plants 

15 before us in South Carolina. Applications for twenty-three new nuclear plants are 

16 currently before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

17 South Carolina's electricity is 50-plus percent nuclear generated. In addition, we 

18 have the Barnwelllow-lcvcl waste facility and the Savannah River Site located within the 

19 borders of our state. To say our state supports nuclear energy would probably be an 

20 understatement. In other words, it is my feeling, and belief, that South Carolina supports 

21 centralized storage, the concept of closing the fuel cycle and the disposal of the waste at a 

22 centralized repository. 

23 Our country's baseload needs for electricity are going to continue to grow. 

3 
146 


26002.133

Everything we can do should be on the table for consideration, and development, because 

2 even with an increased focus on conservation and efficiency, and further development of 

3 renewable resources like wind and solar, we will only reduce the rate of increase in 

4 demand for electricity- not eliminate it 

5 But then there's still the issue of what to do with the waste, both current and 

6 future. 

7 One option is whether the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel should be pursued. 

8 Senator Domenici began the discussion with the introduction of his SMART bill 

9 and this roundtable is an important discussion as well. 

I 0 While I personally believe reprocessing is a truly merited discussion in today's 

II world, I remind you that reprocessing will not replace the need for Yucca Mountain. We 

12 will still need a permanent repository for existing defense waste, which is not a candidate 

13 for recycling, as well as for the final byproducts of commercial reprocessing or recycling. 

14 The good news, as I see it, is that advanced reprocessing or recycling will result in 

15 two positive outcomes. First, an advanced reprocessing program will certainly save this 

16 country the money that would have been necessary to build a second geologic repository. 

17 Second, through reprocessing, because uranium, plutonium, and other elements now 

18 considered waste recovered from spent fuel are recycled into new fuel, the result should 

19 be less waste that would need to be stored in a repository and it will have a significantly 

20 reduced lifetime. 

21 Senators, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I commend 

22 you again for holding this roundtable and I look forward to the remaining discussion. 

4 
147 


26002.134

I Testimony of South Carolina Public Service Commissioner David A. Wright 

2 before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

3 on a national Renewable Portfolio Standard 

4 

5 Good Morning. I am honored to have the opportunity to appear before this 

6 distinguished Committee today to present testimony before you as you wrestle with this 

7 difficult issue. 

8 My name is David Wright. I am a legislatively elected Commissioner of the 

9 South Carolina Public Service Commission. I am here today as Chairman of the ten 

10 member states that comprise the Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility 

II Commissioners (SEARUC), a regional association of the National Association of 

12 Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). I am also representing my state 

13 commission and myself as a South Carolina Commissioner. 

14 As regulators, my fellow commissioners and I in the SEARUC region are 

15 responsible for ensuring that retail electricity customers receive safe, reasonably priced, 

16 reliable electric service. We are concerned that a uniform, federal Renewable Portfolio 

17 Standard (RPS) mandate fails to recognize that there are significant differences among 

18 the states in terms of available and cost-effective renewable energy resources, and that 

19 having such a standard in energy legislation will ultimately increase consumers' 

20 electricity bills. 

21 Establishing a uniform national RPS, without regard to crucial regional 

22 differences, unnecessarily drives up electricity costs, jeopardizes reliability, and diverts 

23 capital needed to achieve aggressive carbon targets. If we are going to have renewable 

24 portfolio standards, they should be politically sustainable, and take into account what best 

25 efforts can achieve in each state, given its potential for renewable energy. Federal policy 
148 


26002.135

should give states the flexibility to promote renewable energy in a way that doesn't 

2 undercut the higher priority of reducing carbon emissions cost-effectively. 

3 Some regions of the country have unique renewable energy sources, like 

4 geothermal. Not all states are fortunate enough to have abundant traditional renewable 

5 energy resources, such as wind, or have them located close enough to the load center to 

6 render them cost-effective. The Southeast and large parts of the Midwest certainly face 

7 this circumstance. 

8 In particular, my state, South Carolina, does not possess a wealth of renewable 

9 energy sources, such as the abundant solar energy that is available to states in the Desert 

I 0 Southwest. the wind turbine generation available to states located in the Great Plains, or 

II the hydro generation in the Pacific Northwest. As a result, my state, and our region, must 

12 seek to encourage the growth of research and development in the use of renewable 

13 resources that arc available and economically viable to provide for our future needs. 

14 During the earlier years covered in the discussion draft being considered we will also 

15 have to continue our reliance on conventional base load generation sources including new 

16 nuclear energy to ensure that reliable, reasonably priced, electricity is available to all of 

17 our citizens. 

18 Even in regions of the country that do have access to wind energy, there 

19 frequently is stiff local opposition to building huge wind turbines, significant costs for the 

20 additional transmission needed, and reliability concerns. As a result, some renewable 

21 wind energy projects do not get built, while others take years to build. 

22 As for solar power, with the current technology, it has a low capacity factor, takes 

23 significant space, and is not always available during times of greatest need. In my state, 

2 
149 


26002.136

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we have had testimony that as much as 90% of any wind or solar power would have to he 

backed up with conventional generation sources. Electricity consumers want power even 

when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. 

Because the availability and cost-effectiveness of traditional renewable energy 

resources varies so widely among states and regions, the SEARUC states believe that 

decisions regarding renewable energy portfolios should be left to the states. 

Renewable energy is touted as a way to achieve energy independence, reduce 

green house gas emissions and reduce our carbon footprint. All of these are admirable 

goals. 

But what is it that the country really needs? Is it energy independence? Is it a 

reduced carbon footprint? Is it greenhouse gas-free energy? Like many, f believe it makes 

sense to do the best we can to achieve all of the above. But at what price? Additionally, 

to remove political influences. or the artificial 'feel-good' nature a RPS might bring, you 

should consider relying on sound science as you craft a policy. By this I mean, the 

claims of trade groups or others who are promoting specific renewable technologies 

should be proven by sound scientific principles, using independent scientific 

methodology in a transparent way. The claims should be able to proven and reproducible 

others. 

After so many years of not having a real national energy policy, we're now in 

great danger of establishing a national policy that is doomed to failure with a 

renewables policy and climate policy at cross-purposes. Consumers and our economy 

will pay a heavy price for the unintended consequences. 

3 
150 


26002.137

While we agree with the overall goals as stated above. and urge Congress to 

2 support renewablcs, we also ask that you carefully craft any RPS mandate to be 

3 practically achievable on a state-by-state basis. Because of the differences in availability 

4 of renewable resources, some states' "best efforts" in developing renewables may 

5 produce results much lower than those that are practically achievable in other states. As 

6 the SEARUC region. we wish to emphasize that the aim of federal energy legislation 

7 should not be to transfer wealth from one region of our nation to another through the 

8 enforced purchase of Renewable Energy Credits, or RECs. 

9 Quite honestly, the utilities in my region will not be able to meet the renewable 

I 0 portfolio standard as set forth in this legislation. Instead, in order to achieve compliance, 

11 they will be forced to write very large checks for the RECs, money that will come from 

12 our ratepayers, and the money will leave our region where it is needed most. This will be 

13 a very significant dollar amount, too. 

14 As attachments to my testimony, I have included sources, links, memos, articles 

15 and letters from states in the SEARUC region to support my testimony. Public Utility 

16 Commissions and Commissioners throughout the SEARUC region all tell me the same 

17 thing. While all of our states strongly support renewable and alternative energy 

18 generation, we do not support a federally mandated one-size-fits-all Renewable Portfolio 

19 Standard. As regulators and public officials, our statutory charge is to ensure safe, 

20 reasonably priced, and reliable electric service. We are concerned that a federally 

2 I mandated RPS that tails to account for differences in regional and local characteristics 

22 could increase the cost of service for all consumers and businesses who use and pay for 

4 
151 


26002.138

electricity and could reduce reliability, while providing no incentive for investment in our 

2 states or benefit to the customers in return for those higher bills. 

3 Although the states in the SEARUC region do not support a 'one-size-fits-all' 

4 national renewable portfolio standard, we do support the growth of renewables. It is my 

5 hope that the Congress will recognize that there are truly significant differences in the 

6 availability of renewable resources from state to state. Some states are truly blessed. 

7 Others are not. 

8 I was brought up to believe that you should not criticize or complain about 

9 something unless you were prepared to offer an alternative or a solution. 

10 With that in mind, I would ask you that you and the Congress strongly consider 

II doing exactly what was done in the Energy Policy Act of2005, when you charged public 

12 utility commissions across this nation with setting standards for net metering and smart 

13 metering within a set period of time. 

14 I would ask that, before you move forward with a national Renewable Portfolio 

15 Standard, you first give the states a chance by charging those state public utility 

16 commissions across this nation that do not already have a Renewable Portfolio Standard 

17 in place with creating such a standard. And, like in the EPACT 2005 legislation, give our 

18 state commissions a certain period of time to get it done and in place. Each state's RPS 

19 should recognize its renewable resource potential and should push for a best-achievable 

20 RPS within a given period of time. If a utility fails to meet the state standard, a penalty or 

21 compliance payment would have to be made to the state. That money would stay in the 

22 state where it would be invested in renewable technology or to developing and 

23 implementing energy efficiency programs for low-income households living in mobile 

5 
152 


26002.139

homes or other energy-inefficient housing. Any utility that meets a state standard would 

2 be deemed to be in compliance with any federal requirement. 

3 North Carolina is the only state in the SEARUC region that has adopted, and is 

4 operating under, a renewable portfolio standard. After many studies and hearings on the 

5 subject, North Carolina adopted a 12.5% RPS by 2021 with 40 percent of that total being 

6 allowed to come lrom energy efficiency. But, North Carolina also adopted a cost cap. 

7 Regulators there have told me that if the national RPS were adopted as it is proposed in 

8 the discussion draft being considered today, the $0.03 cents/kwh alternate compliance 

9 payment alone would more than double the current cost to their customers. Florida is 

10 another state that is working through and toward a renewable energy policy. The Florida 

11 Public Utilities Commission is currently studying the issues and is consulting with the 

12 state legislature. 

13 A very large concern for my state and the SEARUC region is that the money used 

14 to purchase the REC's and alternate compliance payments will leave our states and our 

15 region, the very areas that need the money the most. 

16 Let me explain why I say that. 

17 A 'one-size-fits-all' federal RPS would hit consumers hard in the Southeast, the 

18 region with the least renewable resources and the greatest poverty. Electricity customers 

19 would have to pay an expensive premium on top of the higher costs that will come with 

20 meeting carbon targets. 

21 South Carolina has one of the lowest income levels in the United States and one 

22 of the highest unemployment levels. Our workers' average annual salary is $27,560, 

23 compared to a national average of$33,000. There are a significant number of households 

6 
153 


26002.140

living at the poverty level and below in South Carolina, as in much of the Southeast, and 

2 many of them live in mobile homes or other energy-inef'ticient housing. These people are 

3 proud, but they are poor. 

4 Literacy levels are low in South Carolina, and pose a significant obstacle to our 

5 meeting the energy efficiency component of an RPS. Statistics indicate that South 

6 Carolina has high student dropout rates and the majority of residents have some degree of 

7 illiteracy. South Carolina has the 4th highest percentage of adults at Level I or 2 in the 

8 country. More than half (56%) of our state's residents fall within severe (Level I) to 

9 moderate (Level 2) ranges of illiteracy (level I is the lowest literacy level. Adults in this 

I 0 category can perform simple tasks with text and documents, but display difficulty using 

11 certain reading, writing, and computational skills considered necessary for functioning in 

12 everyday life. Adults at literacy level 2 can begin to compare and contrast but are unable 

13 to perform higher level reading and problem solving skills.) If people cannot read or 

14 write, they will have a difficult time comprehending information about energy efficiency 

15 and conservation. 

16 These low-income households are truly unable to participate in any energy 

17 efficiency and conservation eftbrts, which greatly limits our ability to achieve the 

18 proposed RPS or conservation goals. But these people still must heat their homes. 

19 Because they live in energy-inefficient housing, their consumption rate of electricity is 

20 higher and, naturally, so is their bill for electricity, compared to the figures for occupants 

21 of more well insulated energy efficient homes. A sad fact is, the only time they 

22 'conserve' is when they are forced to: when their power is shut off for inability to pay 

23 their bill. 

7 
154 


26002.141

South Carolina ranks 40'11 among in the country in median income, and 44'11 in 

2 disposable income. Many of our citizens simply can't afford weather stripping for the 

3 front door, much less energy-efficient windows or an energy-efficient heating unit. They 

4 may want to conserve, to make their homes energy efficient, to buy that Energy Star 

5 refrigerator, but they can't. They have to settle for that $100 used refrigerator, if they can 

6 afford it, or have to decide how to pay their power bill and buy groceries for the family. 

7 This is not an exaggeration. 

8 A better way would be to provide incentives for the use of, or integration of, 

9 renewable technologies into a company's existing portfolio, instead of penalizing them, 

l 0 and ratepayers, for a failure to meet an arbitrary standard. 

II The money a utility (i.e. the ratepayer) pays for REC's and alternate compliance 

12 payments should not leave the state. The money should be re-invested in the state where 

13 it was paid to develop and implement energy efficiency programs to help low-income 

14 households, and to help make these renewable technologies more affordable. 

15 In the proposed national RPS. development of sources of renewable energy would 

16 have to cost less than $0.03 cents/kWh to avoid paying the alternate compliance payment 

17 or it would be wasted money, meaning it would be cheaper to make the alternate 

!8 compliance payment than to develop renewables and energy efficiency technologies. In a 

19 recent hearing before the South Carolina Public Service Commission, an witness testified 

20 that " ... PV solar's cost of energy ranges from 31 cents per kWh to over 44 cents per 

2! kWh." Wind resources in the South Carolina and the Southeast that may be suitable for 

22 wind generation are primarily located along the coast which is subject to hurricanes. No 

23 offshore wind turbines currently exist in the United States. A proposed oft:~hore wind 

8 
155 


26002.142

farm in Delaware recently bid to supply generation to Delmarva Power & Light for about 

2 13 -14 cent per kWh. I do not know whether this is a busbar cost or a delivered cost. 

3 However, I do know that it is above the current average residential retail rate for 

4 electricity in South Carolina which is about 10 cents per kWh. 

5 The Energy Policy Report recently prepared and released by the Public Utilities 

6 Review Committee concluded that renewable resources would provide about 4% of 

7 South Carolina's generation by 2027. Assuming that South Carolina could achieve the 

8 5% conservation and efficiency limit and 4% of electric generation fi·om renewable by 

9 2020, the utilities in South Carolina would fall II% short of the proposed 20% RPS in 

10 2020. Based on the 2007 total South Carolina generation reported by the Energy 

II Information Agency and the proposed 3 cents per kWh Alternative Compliance Payment, 

12 South Carolina ratepayers would be subject to an annual Alternative Compliance 

13 Payment of more than $270 million. This amount is in addition to the added cost of 

14 generation from renewable resources compared to the cost of generation from 

15 conventional resources. It is also possible that a civil penalty of 6 cents per kWh could be 

16 assessed on all or part of the 11% shortfall in meeting the proposed RPS. From my view 

17 as a state regulatory commissioner, there are other issues or possible unintended 

18 consequences to consider as well. If I am to balance the needs of the utility against the 

19 needs of the ratepayer, where is the regulatory tipping point? 

20 As a regulator, how am I to treat a utility, and protect the ratepayer, in a rate 

21 proceeding when they have had to spend money to try and meet an RPS, and had to spend 

22 additional money to pay a penalty for not being able to meet the RPS, when what they 

23 really need is serious baseload generation to meet customer demand for electricity and a 

9 
156 


26002.143

nuclear reactor is the least-cost generation source for them to meet the demand? An 

2 arbitrary national Renewable Portfolio Standard will hamper me as a regulator in being 

3 able to do the job I am charged to do. And I say that even before mentioning anything 

4 about the economic impact possible climate legislation or carbon legislation will have on 

5 ratepayers. 

6 As elected representatives of your states' citizens, you carry a heavy burden. But, 

7 your constituents trust you to do the right thing. I have followed some of your careers 

8 very closely and I have the honor of knowing some of you personally. I know your goal 

9 is not to penalize anyone. Please move slowly on this issue. In the meantime, also 

10 consider my suggestion to require the state utility commissions to address and adopt a 

11 renewable portfolio standard before you do something that may have serious unintended 

12 consequences. 

13 Senators, thank you for your time today. It is truly an honor to be here. I look 

14 forward to answering any questions that you may have, either today or, should you 

15 prefer, in writing to the Committee in the coming weeks. 

I6 

10 
157 


26002.144

Testimony of 

2 South Carolina Public Service 

3 Commissioner David Wright 

4 Before the House Budget Committee 

5 July 27, 2010 

6 Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. 

7 My name is David Wright and I am a legislatively elected 

8 commissioner and current Vice-Chairman of the South Carolina Public 

9 Service Commission. In addition to that, I am the past Chairman and current 

10 member of the Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues and Waste Disposal, and a 

11 member of the full Electricity Committee of the National Association of 

12 Regulatory Utility Commissioners, most often referred to as NARUC. I also 

13 serve as Chairman of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition (NWSC). 

14 The issues that you are addressing in this hearing are very important 

15 to South Carolina and any other state that is the home to commercial spent 

16 nuclear fuel, or the nation's defense waste. I am grateful to have this 

17 opportunity to represent and share our views concerning the disposition of 

18 spent nuclear fuel currently stored at nuclear power plant sites that is 

19 intended for ultimate disposal at the Yucca Mountain geologic repository. 
158 


26002.145

I believe it's important to know how we got to where we are today, 

2 because it has led to the positions the organizations I represent currently 

3 hold. 

4 By way of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), the federal 

5 government became responsible for disposal of high-level radioactive waste 

6 - including spent or used nuclear fuel from commercial reactors. Utilities, 

7 ratepayers and regulators had the expectation from the NWPA that the 

8 Department of Energy (DOE) would begin initial waste acceptance and 

9 disposal in the properly licensed and constructed repository by] anuary 31, 

10 1998, as the law and contracts signed with owners of spent fuel required. 

11 Utility ratepayers have paid, and continue to pay, for the disposal 

12 costs of the material. To date, ratepayers in states that receive power from 

13 commercial nuclear utilities have paid over $17 billion dollars into the 

14 Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF). Including allocated interest, the NWF today 

15 totals almost $35 billion, but only a fraction of the money collected from 

16 ratepayers has actually been spent on developing the Yucca Mountain 

17 repository. The ratepayers in South Carolina have paid nearly $1.3 billion 

18 into the NWF, or more than $2.3 billion when interest is included. 

19 State public utilities commissions, like mine, are one of the 

20 stakeholders on the disposition of used nuclear fuel from commercial 

2 
159 


26002.146

reactors because the fees paid to the Nuclear Waste Fund by the current 

2 caretakers of the used fuel, the electric utilities, are passed on to the 

3 ratepayers who are supplied with electricity from nuclear power generation. 

4 When the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

5 Management (OCRWM) within the Department of Energy (DOE) submitted 

6 the Yucca Mountain repository license application (LA) in June 2008 it was 

7 a comprehensive document. The 8,000-page document was the culmination 

8 of over 25 years of exhaustive investigation of the site. 

9 Like others, I expected the NRC to conduct a rigorous review and 

I 0 conduct an open, fair and inclusive adjudicatory process. The filing of the 

II license application was an important step, because it appeared to take the 

12 application out of the political arena and put it under a full-blown court 

13 review that would be based on science, not politics. 

14 Since 1998, when DOE failed to meet its statutory and contractual 

15 obligation to begin waste acceptance for disposal, organizations that I and 

16 my state are a part of have simply asked that the government fulfill its part 

17 of the NWPA disposal bargain and remove the spent fuel per the Standard 

18 Contract since the utilities and ratepayers continue to pay for services not 

19 performed. That remains our position, as we believe that the license 

20 application shows that Yucca Mountain will meet the requirements of the 

3 
160 


26002.147

NWP A and regulations. 

2 If Yucca Mountain cannot be licensed through the NRC process, or is 

3 licensed but not built, we interpret NWPA as still requiring DOE to develop 

4 and dispose of spent nuclear fuel in a geologic repository. Therefore, unless 

5 the law is repealed or amended to direct otherwise, Congress is the only 

6 body that can authorize DOE to conduct a site search for another suitable 

7 repository site. 

8 This is particularly costly in most locations where the fuel pool 

9 cooling storage capacity at the reactor sites has long since been filled. In 

10 addition, the older fuel in the spent fuel pools is being removed and placed 

11 in concrete and steel containers - called dry casks - that are stored outside in 

12 concrete vaults. 

13 More than 62,000 metric tons of uranium is currently stored in pools 

14 or dry cask storage at nuclear plant sites in the United States. This amount 

15 increases with each refueling cycle, which generally occurs about every 18 

16 months. License applications for at least 24 new nuclear units have been 

17 submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The amount of 

18 spent nuclear fuel to be stored will increase as new units are constructed and 

19 old units are re-licensed, usually for an additional20 years, as is happening 

20 with numerous reactors. 

4 
161 


26002.148

Nearly 3,800 metric tons of Uranium is stored at four nuclear plant 

2 sites in South Carolina, which are home to seven reactors. Two new nuclear 

3 units at the VC Summer Nuclear Station in Jenkinsville, SC have been 

4 approved by the South Carolina Public Service Commission and are 

5 awaiting license approval by the NRC. License applications for another two 

6 nuclear units near Gaffney, SC have been submitted to the NRC, but not to 

7 the South Carolina Public Service Commission. 

8 This nation will need more base load electric generation as the 

9 population grows and the economy recovers. Some areas, such as the 

10 southeast in general and South Carolina in particular, need more base load 

11 generation in the near future. Renewable energy, conservation, and 

12 efficiency help to lessen the amount of base load generation needed, but 

13 cannot entirely eliminate that need. The climate and health impacts of 

14 burning coal have forced utilities to depend upon gas-fired and nuclear 

15 plants to meet the need for new base load generation. Without a solution to 

16 the storage of spent nuclear fuel, meaning a permanent repository, state 

17 regulators may be hesitant to approve the construction of new nuclear units 

18 and utilities may be hesitant to construct new nuclear units even if the NRC 

19 approves the license applications. Such circumstances could result in 

20 reduced electric reliability, brown outs, and increased cost of electricity as 

5 
162 


26002.149

gas-fired generation would be the only option and its price would increase as 

2 the demand for natural gas increases, all else being equal. 

3 Federal courts have already ruled that the federal government is liable 

4 for the added storage costs past the dates agreed in original contracts with 

5 spent fuel utilities. The Department of Energy already faces at least $1.5 

6 billion in court judgments and legal expenses resulting from failure to meet 

7 the government's obligations. In 2009- when DOE had a plan to begin 

8 waste acceptance and disposal at Yucca Mountain by 2017 - DOE officials 

9 estimated that the liability for 65 cases could reach $12.3 billion, growing 

10 further by at least $500 million for each additional year of delay. DOE pays 

II these court-determined liabilities from the Judgment Fund. 

12 What is really happening is this- Because of the federal 

13 government's failure to construct a permanent repository, ratepayers are 

14 paying up to four times for ongoing spent fuel storage and future disposalIS and that does not include decommissioning funds. First, ratepayers are 

16 paying into the NWF for storage at the deep geologic repository at Yucca 

17 Mountain; second, because of the initial delay, ratepayers have to pay 

18 through rates to expand and re-rack their existing cooling pools in order to 

19 accommodate more waste; third, ratepayers are continuing to pay through 

20 rates to keep the waste stored at the existing plant sites in dry cast storage; 

6 
163 


26002.150

and finally, all taxpayers not just ratepayers- are paying through taxes for 

2 judgments and settlements through the Judgment Fund. 

3 Not counting defense waste, over 62 thousand metric tones of spent 

4 fuel is stored in 72 operating and shutdown reactor sites in 34 States. 

5 Individuals or organizations opposed to nuclear power will raise questions, 

6 or even voice fears, over safety and security at some of these storage 

7 facilities. Although the utilities and the NRC contend that storage is safe and 

8 secure, it still costs ratepayers big money to implement individualized 

9 security programs for each of these locations around the country. As the 

10 Office of Homeland Security increases security requirements, the cost for 

11 security programs at the plant sites will increase. 

12 How can this be more efficient, safe, secure or cost effective than 

13 having all spent nuclear fuel and defense waste at one secure, deep, geologic 

14 location? 

15 Recently, there has been great interest in the reprocessing, or 

16 recycling as some call it, of spent nuclear fuel. The organizations I am a 

17 member of, including NARUC, have supported research into reprocessing 

18 and recycling and shares the view that, if there will be substantial global 

19 nuclear power expansion, there will probably come a time when uranium 

20 becomes more scarce and expensive and closing the fuel cycle will become 

7 
164 


26002.151

necessary. 

2 No matter the future course of this country- whether we reprocess, 

3 recycle, or maintain the status quo - a geologic repository is still going to 

4 be needed for defense-related high-level radioactive waste that has already 

5 been reprocessed or cannot be reprocessed, and, the residue from any future 

6 reprocessing program for commercial spent nuclear fuel. 

7 Finally, the states of Idaho and South Carolina, and maybe 

8 Washington, as well, have agreements with the federal government with a 

9 date certain to move defense waste out of their respective states. There are 

IO significant financial penalties to the federal government in the agreements 

I I for failure to comply which is yet another way that all taxpayers, not just 

12 ratepayers, will have to pay compensation for the government's failure to 

I3 build the site at Yucca Mountain. 

I 4 Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I look 

15 forward to your questions. I will also be happy to provide written answers to 

I 6 further questions, should you have any I am unable to answer today or for 

17 which you would like me to provide answers at a later date. 

8 
165 


26002.152

BEFORE THE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DAVID A. WRIGHT 

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY 

COMMISSIONERS 

COMMISSIONER, SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 

ON BEHALF OF THE 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS 

ON 

"Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future" 

February t, 2012 

National Association of 

Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

1101 Vermont Ave, N.W., Suite 200 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Telephone (202) 898-2200, Facsimile (202) 898-2213 

Internet Home Page http://www.naruc.org 
166 


26002.153

Summary for Testimony of the Honorable David A. Wright 

On Behalf of 

The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

• The NRC has stopped the review of the Yucca Mountain license application. We are 

currently in litigation challenging the basis for not letting the process run to a conclusive 

result. 

• NARUC welcomes the Blue Ribbon Commission Report. 

• We support all of the recommendations. 

• We place highest priority on fixing the Nuclear Waste Fund so that tees collected are 

available for purposes intended-disposing of used nuclear fuel. 

• The Commission reaffirmed that we still need a new repository regardless of what 

happens with Yucca. 

• We support consolidated interim storage but find the Report vague as to quantity, 

duration and cost. We encourage seeking volunteer sites. 

• Implementation requires leadership from the Administration and Congress. NARUC 

stands ready to help and represent ratepayers. 

2 
167 


26002.154

Good Morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Green, and Subcommittee 

Members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

My name is David Wright. I am a commissioner with the South Carolina Public Service 

Commission and I serve as president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners (NARUC), on whose behalf I am speaking this morning. I appreciate the 

opportunity to present NARUC's views on the subject of disposition of spent or used nuclear 

fuel from commercial nuclear power plants. 

NARUC is a quasi-governmental, non-profit organization founded in 1889. Our 

membership includes the public utility commissions serving all States and territories. NARUC's 

mission is to serve the public interest by improving the quality and effectiveness of public utility 

regulation. Our members regulate the retail rates and services of electric, gas, water, and 

telephone utilities. We are obligated under the laws of our respective States to assure the 

establishment and maintenance of such utility services as may be required by the public 

convenience and necessity and to assure that such services are provided under rates and subject 

to terms and conditions of service that are just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. 

NARUC and State utility commissions in forty States served by nuclear-generated 

electricity have been involved in the troubled history of nuclear waste disposal since 1983. That 

is when the utilities, which own the used fuel, were required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to 

enter into contracts with DOE. Those contracts called for payments of fees for nuclear-generated 

electricity to the Treasury for deposit into the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for the cost of disposal 
168 


26002.155

of the used fuel beginning in 1998. As you know, that disposal has not happened, but the fee 

payments continue to be made. Or, as a former Florida utility commissioner summarized the 

status in 1991, "The government has our money-we have their waste." It is now 20-plus years 

later and we still have the government's waste. Utility commissioners care because the utilities 

pass the cost of the fees to their customers through their electric bill. In addition, and because of 

the government's failure to open Yucca, customers, through their rates, have had to pay 

additional amounts to cover the cost ofrc-racking of the utility spent fuel pools to accommodate 

more spent fuel, and have had to pay for on-site dry cask storage as well as the increased security 

required there. Moreover, all taxpayers, through the Judgment Fund, have had to pay damages 

for the lawsuits brought to date as well as those to come. 

We followed the slow progress of the civilian radioactive waste management program as 

it met a variety of setbacks and advances, exacerbated by chronic budget cuts even as the illusion 

of a multi-billion dollar corpus grew in the Nuclear Waste Fund. A significant milestone was 

met in 2002 when Congress passed the joint resolution approving Yucca Mountain as the site for 

the geologic repository, subject to the Department of Energy obtaining a construction license 

from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The next setback was the court remand to the 

Environmental Protection Agency to revise the regulation setting the radiation standard for the 

facility. Finally, DOE submitted the license application in June 2008. The NRC began its 

review of the 8,000-page application for the first-of-a-kind facility which was expected to take 

three to four years. 

4 
169 


26002.156

In 2009, the Administration pronounced Yucca Mountain not to be a "workable option" 

and that it intended to terminate the repository development there. In March 2010, DOE asked 

the NRC's Atomic Safety Licensing Board for permission to withdraw the application with 

prejudice. In June. the ASLB rejected the request, ruling that once a valid license application 

was submitted under the NWPA. the NRC was required to review and act upon the application. 

The decision was appealed to the NRC. 

While the NRC was disposing of the license matter, the President directed that the 

Secretary of Energy appoint the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) 

to consider and recommend a new strategy; a strategy that soon became evident would be a 

"post-Yucca'' strategy. 

In 2010, NARUC, and several other parties, petitioned the Court of Appeals under the 

NWPA to challenge DOE's authority to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application, but 

the case was dismissed because there had been no final agency action by the NRC on the appeal 

of the Board's decision rejecting DOE's request. After lengthy and unnecessary delays, the NRC 

Chairman ultimately released a decision. The NWPA mandates that once the Yucca Mountain 

license was submitted the NRC only had three years to complete the review proceedings. Those 

three years have expired. Currently, the NRC faces a mandamus action to force it to complete 

the required review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 

NARUC is one of several petitioners in that suit. Our reply briefs were just filed last Friday. 
170 


26002.157

Notwithstanding our position on Yucca, NARUC was closely involved in the work of the 

BRC. We wrote letters, gave testimony, provided comments on the Subcommittee, and attended 

most of the public meetings. We were impressed with the distinguished members, their approach 

to the task, the talented professional staff, and the sincere interest in public input. We have asked 

DOE to preserve and maintain access to the Commission website. 

As for the recommendations, while we welcome them all, we have the following points: 

I. Reform of the Nuclear Waste Fund is essential for most of the others to occur. 

2. Regardless of Yucca Mountain, we need another repository. The lessons of Yucca and 

the better lessons of Finland, Sweden and WIPP suggest the ''consent-based" siting 

approach may get better results, but will require patience. 

3. We have long favored consolidated interim storage, but find the Report vague as to 

quantity, duration, and cost. We are not sure what the effect will be on the fee if the 

Nuclear Waste Fund is to be used to pay for storage. 

4. We agree with the concept and benefits of a new federal corporation that can focus solely 

on the waste management mission, hopefully with a fresh partnership attitude for 

encouraging the consent-based approach. We look forward to refining the concept in 

enabling legislation. 

5. Transportation planning and coordination with States and others cannot begin soon 

enough. 

6 
171 


26002.158

We would add that the time is not right to commit to a reprocessing strategy, although 

R&D should continue, as the BRC recommends. Also, we encourage DOE to take steps to seek 

volunteer host communities to step forward in storage siting without waiting to form the new 

management organization. 

There are two areas where we disagree with the Commission Report: 

1. The Report says: "Overall, we are confident that our waste management 

recommendations can be implemented using revenue streams already dedicated for this 

purpose." There are no cost estimates to substantiate that beliet: which likely also 

assumes the $26.7 billion in the Nuclear Waste Fund is assured. 

2. The Report further says: "We know what we have to do; we know we have to do it, and 

we even know how to do it." While we may wish that were true, our assessment is that 

there are too many people who are content to pass the problem along to future 

generations and ''leave the waste where it is." It is fitting for the Commission to call for 

prompt action developing both consolidated interim storage and beginning the search for 

a new repository, but we may need public education and outreach to help persuade some 

who seem to favor the "no action'' alternative. Continuing to "kick the dry cask down the 

road" should not be an option. 

So, yet another study calls tor prompt action, yet despite (on paper) a financing plan, 

implementation relies on leadership from the Administration and Congress. NARUC stands 

ready to assist on behalf of the ratepayers who may not realize that they are paying for safe waste 

disposition. 
172 


26002.159

BEFORE THE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DAVID A. WRIGHT 

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY 

COMMISSIONERS 

COMMISSIONER, SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 

ON BEHALF OF THE 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS 

ON 

"American Energy Initiative: EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulations" 

June 19, 2012 

National Association of 

Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

1101 Vermont Ave, N.W., Suite 200 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Telephone (202) 898-2200, Facsimile (202) 898-2213 

Internet Home Page http://www.naruc.org 
173 


26002.160

Summary for Testimony of the Honorable David A. Wright 

On Behalf of the 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) 

Representing the State public service commissioners who regulate the nation's power 

providers, NARUC's perspective on the proposed EPA greenhouse gas regulations involves the 

impact of these regulations on the utilities we regulate and, by extension, their consumers. 

NARUC adopted the following recommendations, urging EPA in its implementation of power 

sector regulations to: 

• Avoid compromising energy system reliability; 

• Seek ways to minimize cost impacts to consumers; 

• Ensure that its actions do not impair the availability of adequate electricity and natural 

gas resources; 

• Consider cumulative economic and reliability impacts in the process of developing 

multiple environmental rulemakings that impact the electricity sector; 

• Recognize the needs of States and regions to deploy a diverse portfolio of cost-effective 

supply-side and demand-side resources based on the unique circumstances of each State 

and region; 

• Encourage the development of innovative, multi-pollutant solutions to emiSSions 

challenges as well as collaborative research and development efforts in conjunction with 

the U.S. Department of Energy; 

• Employ rigorous cost-benefit analyses consistent with federal law, in order to ensure 

sound public policy outcomes; 

Provide an appropriate degree of flexibility and timeframes for compliance that 

recognizes the highly localized and regional nature of the provision of electricity services 

in the U.S; 

• Engage in timely and meaningful dialog with State energy regulators in pursuit of these 

objectives; and 

• Recognize and account for, where possible, State or regional efforts already undertaken 

to address environmental challenges. 
174 


26002.161

Good Morning Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, and Subcommittee Members. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

My name is David Wright. I am Vice Chairman of the South Carolina Public Service 

Commission and I serve as president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners (NARUC), on whose behalf I am speaking this morning. I appreciate the 

opportunity to present NARUC's views on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed 

greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. I will also address my personal views from 

the perspective of a commissioner from South Carolina. 

NARUC is a quasi-governmental, non-profit organization founded in 1889. Our membership 

includes the public utility commissions serving all States and territories. NARUC's mission is to 

serve the public interest by improving the quality and effectiveness of public utility regulation. 

Our members regulate the retail rates and services of electric, gas, water, and telephone utilities. 

We are obligated under the laws of our respective States to assure the establishment and 

maintenance of such utility services as may be required by the public convenience and necessity 

and to assure that such services are provided under rates and subject to terms and conditions of 

service that are just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. 

NARUC understands the significant impact EPA's Proposed Standards of Performance for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units 

regulations (Proposed NSPS for GHGs) and other finalized and pending environmental 

2 
175 


26002.162

regulations will have on the power sector. To this end, NARUC adopted policy positions that 

stress the need for flexibility in compliance requirements, coordination among generating plants, 

and continued dialogue with federal and State utility and environmental regulators to ensure that 

compliance with these regulations does not hinder system reliability and minimizes cost impacts 

on consumers. 

Proposed NSPS for Greenhouse Gases Background 

The Proposed NSPS for GHGs will limit carbon dioxide emissions from new fossil-fuel 

fired power plants to 1,000 lbs C01/MWh per year. The rule arises under Clean Air Act section 

Ill, which governs pollution from stationary sources such as power plants that have been 

deemed by the EPA Administrator as a category of sources that "causes, or contributes 

significantly, to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or 

welfare." The standard for emissions is defined as, "best system of emissions reductions, 

(taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been 

adequately demonstrated." The Proposed NSPS for GHGs is subject to a settlement agreement 

where States and environmental entities challenged EPA's failure to address GHG emissions in 

the 2006 Electric Utility Steam Generating Units NSPS. 

EPA proposes to combine coal-fired power plants and natural gas combined-cycle power 

plants into a single category for the Proposed NSPS for GHGs. The emission limit established 

for this new combined source category is based on the demonstrated performance of natural gas 

3 
176 


26002.163

combined-cycle units (NGCC) "which are currently in wide use throughout the country, and are 

likely to be the predominant fossil fuel technology for new generation in the future.'' 

While the Clean Air Act applies NSPS to new and modified sources, the Proposed NSPS 

for GHGs does not propose a standard for modifications, stating that "sources not subject to the 

new source performance standards would be treated as existing sources subject to section 

111 (d)." 

The Proposed NSPS for GHGs excludes transitional sources, defined as "a coal-fired 

power plant that has received approval for its completed PSD [Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration] preconstruction permit ... and that commences construction within 12 months of 

the date of this proposal.'' EPA estimates that there are 15 sources that may qualify as 

transitional sources. The rule also excludes reconstructions from the Proposed NSPS for GHGs. 

The Proposed NSPS for GHGs does not provide guidance to the States for promulgating 

requirements for existing sources, under Clean Air Act lll(d), but the Proposal anticipates 

future standards for existing sources, and the settlement agreement that catalyzed this NSPS 

directs EPA to issue guidance for existing affected generating units. 

NARUC's Perspective 

NARUC does not take a position on the merits of this or any other EPA regulation at this 

time. However, the Proposed NSPS for GHGs raises concerns regarding resource diversity, 

consumer costs, and uncertainty for existing sources. These concerns are heightened if one 

considers previous and future EPA rules that have, or will have, an impact upon electric 

4 
177 


26002.164

generation reliability, consumer costs and resource diversity in concert with the proposed NSPS 

forGHGs. 

Diversity of Resources 

NARUC has encouraged EPA to recognize the needs of States and regions to deploy a 

diverse portfolio of cost-effective supply-side and demand-side resources based on their own 

unique circumstances and characteristics. The proposed NSPS for GHGs combines two 

otherwise distinct categories, electric-steam generating units and combined-cycle generating 

units, based on the fact that they "serve the same function, that is to serve baseload and 

intermediate demand." This may create a challenge to resource diversity. 

The Proposed NSPS states that, ''in light of a number of economic factors, including the 

increased availability and significantly lower price of natural gas, energy industry modeling 

forecasts uniformly predict that few, if any, new coal-fired power plants will be built in the 

foreseeable future." EPA "recognize[s] that some owners/operators may nevertheless seek to 

construct new coal-fired capacity. This may be beneficial from the standpoint of promoting 

energy diversity and this proposal does not interfere with construction of new coal-fired 

capacity." 

The rule asserts that it does not preclude the development of coal-fired capacity, but it 

bases its NSPS on the emissions rates for natural gas combined-cycle plants rather than 

maintaining separate categories and standards for coal and natural gas plants. 

5 
178 


26002.165

NGCC qualifies as the "best system of emission reduction" (BSER) that the EPA 

has determined has been adequately demonstrated because NGCC emits the least 

amount of C01 and does so at the least cost. We propose that a NGCC facility is 

the best system of emission reduction for two main reasons. First, natural gas is 

far less polluting than coal. Combustion of natural gas emits only about 50 

percent of the C01 emissions that the combustion of coal docs per unit of energy 

generated. Second, new natural gas-fired EGUs are less costly than new coal-fired 

EGUs, and as a result, our Integrated Planning Model (!PM) model projects that 

for economic reasons, natural gas-fired EGUs will be the facilities of choice until 

at least 2020 .... 

The Proposed GHG NSPS recognizes that some power suppliers may want to build coal 

plants for resource diversity and suggests a 30-year averaging alternative for coal plants that may 

exceed the 1,000 lbs C021MWh in the first ten years, and then make up these emissions through 

reducing emissions below threshold for the next 20 years to meet the BSER standard by 

averaging those 30 years. NARUC supports flexibility such as that provided in the 30-year 

averaging mechanism. 

The decision to combine coal and natural gas combined-cycle categories tor the purpose 

of the Proposed NSPS for GHGs and basing the BSER on the combined cycle emissions favors 

natural gas-fired plants. The Proposed GHG NSPS indicates that, "The best performing 

subbituminous-fired EGU has maintained a 12-month emissions rate of 1,730 lb C02/MWh." 

Even the best performing coal units cannot meet the NSPS without CCS. The Proposed NSPS 

for GHG goes on to state that, "we are not proposing that CCS, including the 30-year averaging 

compliance option, does or does not qualify as the BSER adequately demonstrated" but solicits 

comments on that decision. A commitment to resource diversity would encourage a separate 

6 
179 


26002.166

NSPS BSER for coal-fired plants and natural gas combined cycle units, keeping the categories 

separate as they have been historically. 

Cost to Consumers 

NARUC commissioners are primarily economic regulators who are charged by State law 

to protect the public interest in affordable and reliable electric service. The Proposed NSPS for 

GHGs identifies the current trend of low natural gas prices. The price of natural gas, however, 

like any commodity, can be volatile-the more dependent a system is on a particular fuel, the 

more risk to the consumer from this volatility. Additionally, depending on natural gas-fired 

plants increases concerns around gas and electric interdependencies that need to be addressed in 

order to ensure the continued reliability of the electric grid. Further, while the NSPS for GHGs 

estimates that it has no cost because the models suggest that all generation developers will build 

natural gas combined-cycle units, in the case that someone builds coal for resource diversity or 

other purposes, there will be increased costs (probably because of CCS) associated with coal. 

The Proposed NSPS for GHGs recognizes this cost and suggests that government subsidies are 

necessary for building coal with CCS. See, e.g. 77 Fed. Reg. 22,418 and 22,422 (discussing the 

six transitional sources that will install CCS and have DOE loan guarantees or grants to do so). 

7 
180 


26002.167

Uncertainty for Existing Sources 

In many regions, State commissioners are currently reviewing significant cost recovery 

requests for power plant compliance plans with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (77 Fed. 

Reg. 9,304). The investment decisions may be impacted by the Proposed NSPS for GHGs, but 

the impact the rule will have on these existing sources remains uncertain. 

The proposed NSPS reiterates the established approach that installation of pollution 

control equipment, such as those required under MATS, does not count as a modification that 

would trigger the NSPS. 

EPA has gone further and excluded all modifications and reconstructions from the NSPS. 

While NARUC does not have a position on EPA's approach, we are concerned that this may 

raise legal challenges and extend uncertainty for existing sources. Further, the statute, the 

settlement agreement, and the Proposed NSPS for GHGs indicate that a NSPS standard 

promulgated under lll(b) would lead to a standard under lll(d) for existing sources that would 

be covered by the NSPS as if they were new sources. The proposed NSPS for GHGs itself states 

that "EPA anticipates that [it will] promulgate at the appropriate time, [standards] for existing 

sources under lll(d)." Uncertainty about these II J(d) requirements will complicate retrofit 

investment and cost recovery decisions. No one wants to pour millions of dollars into retrofitting 

a plant to see it close down based on NSPS for GHG standards for existing sources. 

8 
181 


26002.168

Other Rules 

In addition to this Proposed Rule, several other rules will impact the Utility Sector, 

including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, 77 Fed. Reg. 9304 (Feb. 16, 20 12), the CrossState Air Pollution Rule: "Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals," 76 Fed. Reg. 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011) Stayed 

by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals); the Coal Combustion Residual proposed rule 75 Fed. Reg. 

35127 (June 2l. 2010); the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, Clean Water Act 

316(b) proposed rule 76 Fed. Reg. 22 I 74 (April 20, 20 II). These rules must be evaluated in 

concert when making investment decisions and cost calculations. 

*** 

I would now like to take my NARUC hat off and provide some of my personal 

observations as a State utility regulator. 

I, David Wright, am very concerned about the whole suite of regulations that EPA has 

adopted, proposed, or intends to propose that affect the electric utility sector. This includes the 

rule being discussed at this hearing on greenhouse gas emissions from new electric generation 

and the rule EPA said it will issue that applies to greenhouse gas emissions from existing 

generation. This suite also includes EPA ·s mercury regulation, (the so-called "MATS" rule), the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and others. 

As a public utility commissioner, I am ultimately accountable to the electric ratepayer. 

When electric bills go up, I get the calls from irate consumers, so naturally I am concerned about 

9 
182 


26002.169

the impact these rules will likely have on electric rates. I am not here to criticize specific 

provisions in any of the EPA rules- but I am here to express concern about the prospect of rate 

increases, perhaps significant rate increases, that these rules will create. 

For example, EPA's own assessment ofthe MATS rule, estimates costs of$9.6 billion 

per year. When added to assessments of the other EPA rules, these costs will be even higher. 

In a September 20 II study performed for the American Coalition for Clean Coal 

Electricity (A CCC E) entitled Potential Impacts o.lEPA Air, Coal Combustion Residuals. and 

Cooling Water Regulations, National Economic Research Associates (NERA) analyzed the 

impact of four EPA rules-MATS, CSAPR, the coal-combustion residuals rule, and the cooling 

water intake structures regulation and estimated costs of approximately $21 billion per year 

over the period from 2012 to 2020. The present value of these costs is $127 billion. The rules 

would cause average U.S. retail electricity prices to increase by approximately 6.5 percent over 

the period 2012 to 2020, with prices in certain regions increasing considerably more than that. 

Henry Hub natural gas prices would increase by 10.7 percent on average, according to the study. 

A more recent NERA analysis for ACCCE analyzed just the effects of the MATS rule. 

NERA used EPA's retrofit assumptions and costs to project impacts of the final MATS rule. It 

found that compliance costs for the electric sector in 2015 are $10.4 billion. Total compliance 

costs are $94.8 billion. 

10 
183 


26002.170

These cost numbers are eye opening and will have a significant effect on ratepayers. As 

EPA adds new rules, such as its greenhouse gas rules, these numbers will most certainly go up. 

It also concerns me that the policies being pursued today actually make it harder for our 

States and regions to develop diverse resource portfolios by eliminating the use of coat which 

will force us to overly rely on natural gas. I am fuel neutral, but resource diversity is critically 

important in the electric sector. As a regulator, I am responsible for ensuring that the long-term, 

high capital decisions made by utilities will not overburden their ratepayers. Yet no one can 

predict the future, especially when that future is reliant on a historically volatile commodity like 

natural gas. It is therefore important that we as a country maintain the ability to invest in a 

diverse portfolio of resources so that our ratepayers are protected against price increases that one 

particular fuel may experience. 

Let me drive this point home. Just a few years ago, natural gas prices exceeded 

$14/MMBTU. Recently they went down to around $2.00. It is a mistake to assume these low 

gas prices will last forever. We must be allowed to keep all fuels, including coal, in our resource 

mix in case gas prices again spike. 

I am also concerned about the impact EPA's regulations will have on the reliability of the 

grid. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation has termed EPA's regulations 

significant- the number one risk to grid reliability in the nation. 

II 
184 


26002.171

Part of my concern is that there has never been a formal true reliability assessment of 

EPA's regulations. EPA's assessments have been resource adequacy assessments, where EPA 

determines whether the total amount of retirements in a particular region will cause regional 

reserve margins to fall below acceptable levels. But the true reliability impacts occur locally, 

because particular units that might be forced into retirement by EPA's regulations are needed for 

local reliability purposes, such as voltage support or black-start capability. And the potential 

reliability problems that could ensue, while they might begin in particular local areas, have the 

potential for cascading into much larger areas. 

Last year, because of concern that the reliability impacts of EPA's rules have not been 

adequately assessed, my agency, the South Carolina Public Service Commission, along with our 

Office of Regulatory Staff, petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to 

establish a joint federal-State board to study the reliability implications of EPA's rules. A 

number of other State public service commissions filed in support of this effort. While FERC 

denied the petition, they agreed to establish a continuing dialogue with NARUC on the issue. 

The first FERC-NARUC Forum on Reliability and the Environment took place in February, and 

we will meet again this July. The forum proved to be a successful venue for all parties to discuss 

these issues. We appreciate FERC agreeing to meet with us, and I personally appreciate the 

participation of EPA so far. 

But having a dialogue does not substitute for the needed study, and it does not ameliorate 

concerns about what the reliability impacts will be and what it will cost to comply with the EPA 

regulations without impairing grid reliability. In fact, as I look around the country at what some 

12 
185 


26002.172

of the regional transmission organizations and independent organizations are saying will occur as 

a result of the EPA rules, my concerns are intensified. 

• Both the Electric Reliability Council of Texas and the Southwest Power Pool have 

expressed alarm about blackouts if the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which has been stayed in 

court, were to go into effect. 

• The Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator says that 61 of71 GW 

ofbaseload coal in the M!SO region will require some action to comply with EPA's regulations 

over the next three years or sooner. MISO says 13 GW of those 61 GW are at immediate risk of 

retirement. MISO projects retrofit or replacement costs of$33 billion. According to MISO, 

reserve margins are "plummeting." "Retirement of 13 GW of coal-fired generation would cause 

MISO's current projected reserve margin for 2016 to plunge to 8.3 percent- 9.1 percent short of 

our required 17.4 percent reserve margin." 

• PJM is projecting that an unprecedented number of transmission projects will be 

needed to remove bottlenecks caused by unit retirements- 130 separate projects at a cost of 

nearly $2 billion and these all have to be completed within the next several years. Delays will 

threaten reliability and could cause significant electric rate increases. 

In sum, ifthere is one message I would like to leave with the committee, it is that EPA 

must pause in its regulatory processes until the impact of its regulations, both as to cost to 

ratepayers and the reliability of the electric system, are better understood. There has to be a 

13 
186 


26002.173

better way to harmonize the need for the country to continue to improve the environmental 

performance of the electric utility industry with the need to keep electric rates stable and low. In 

these difficult economic times, the people of my home State, and I'm sure other States as well, 

cannot afford significant rate increases. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, NARUC appreciates the opportunity to present testimony discussing the 

Proposed NSPS lor GHGs and encourages Congress and EPA to consider the principles outlined 

in our resolutions which are attached, with a specific focus on resource diversity, consumer 

costs, and the challenges of uncertainty for existing sources when finalizing the NSPS for GHGs. 

14 
187 


26002.174

ATTACHMENTS 

15 
188 


26002.175

Resolution on the Role of State Regulatory Policies in the Development of Federal 

Environmental Regulation' 

WHEREAS, The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) 

recognizes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is engaged in the development 

of public health and environmental regulations that will directly affect the electric power sector; 

and 

WHEREAS, EPA is expected to promulgate regulations to be implemented by State 

environmental regulators concerning the interstate transport of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 

oxides, cooling water intake, emissions of hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gases, release 

of toxic and thermal pollution into waterways, and management of coal combustion solid waste; 

and 

WHEREAS, NARUC at this time takes no position regarding the merits of these EPA 

rulemakings; and 

WHEREAS, Such regulations under consideration by EPA could pose significant challenges for 

the electric power sector, with respect to the economic burden, the feasibility of implementation 

by the contemplated deadlines and the maintenance of system reliability; and 

WHEREAS, EPA is expected to provide opportunities for public comment and input with 

respect to forthcoming regulations; and 

WHEREAS, Compliance with forthcoming environmental regulations will affect consumers 

differently depending upon each State's electricity market and the nature of the decisions made 

by State regulators; and 

WHEREAS, Addressing compliance with multiple regulatory requirements at the same time 

may help to reduce overall compliance costs and minimize risk assuming reasonable flexibility 

with respect to dead I ines; and 

WHEREAS, State utility regulators are well positioned to evaluate risks and benefits of various 

resource options through policies that appropriately account for and mitigate the risks arising 

from compliance with pending regulations; and 

WHEREAS, Cooperation between utility commissions and environmental regulators can 

promote greater policy coordination and integration and improve the quality and effectiveness of 

electricity sector regulation; and 

WHEREAS, State utility regulators, by working with the power sector and State and federal 

environmental regulators, can help to facilitate least-cost compliance with public health and 

environmental goals; and 

1 Based upon Resolution on Implications of Climate Policy tor Ratepayers and Public Utilities, adopted by 

NARUC Board of Directors on July 18. 2007 

!6 
189 


26002.176

WHEREAS, State utility regulators can help to tmmmtze environmental risk as well as 

uncertainty regarding reliability and customer rate impacts by requesting regulated utilities with 

fossil generation to develop plans that evaluate all relevant environmental rulemakings at U.S. 

EPA; now, therefore, be it 

RESOLVED, That the Board of Directors of the National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners, convened at its 2011 Winter Committee Meetings in Washington D.C., urges 

the EPA to ensure that, as it develops public health and environmental programs, it will: 

• Avoid compromising energy system reliability; 

• Seek ways to minimize cost impacts to consumers; 

• Ensure that its actions do not impair the availability of adequate electricity and natural 

gas resources; 

• Consider cumulative economic and reliability impacts in the process of developing 

multiple environmental rulemakings that impact the electricity sector; 

• Recognize the needs of States and regions to deploy a diverse portfolio of cost-effective 

supply-side and demand-side resources based on the unique circumstances of each State 

and region; 

• Encourage the development of innovative, multi-pollutant solutions to emtsstons 

challenges as well as collaborative research and development efforts in conjunction with 

the U.S. Department of Energy; 

• Employ rigorous cost-benefit analyses consistent with federal law, in order to ensure 

sound public policy outcomes; 

• Provide an appropriate degree of flexibility and timeframes for compliance that 

recognizes the highly localized and regional nature of the provision of electricity services 

in the U.S: 

Engage in timely and meaningful dialog with State energy regulators in pursuit of these 

objectives; and 

• Recognize and account for, where possible, State or regional efforts already undertaken 

to address environmental challenges; and be it further 

RESOLVED, That NARUC urges State utility regulators to actively engage with State and 

federal environmental regulators and to take other appropriate actions in furtherance of the goals 

of this resolution. 

Sponsored by the Committees on Electricity and Energy Resources and the Environment 

Adopted by the NARUC Board of Directors February 16, 2011 

17 
190 


26002.177

Resolution on Increased Flexibility for the Implementation of EPA Rulemakings 

WHEREAS, The Board of Directors of the National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners (NARUC) adopted a resolution on the Role of State Regulatory Policies in the 

Development of Federal Environmental Regulations on February 16, 2011; including the 

following statements: 

• WHEREAS, NARUC at this time takes no position regarding the merits of these EPA 

rulemakings; and 

• WHEREAS, Such regulations under consideration by EPA could pose significant 

challenges for the electric power sector and the State Regulatory Commissions with 

respect to the economic burden, the feasibility of implementation by the contemplated 

deadlines and the maintenance of system reliability; and 

WHEREAS, NARUC wishes to continue to advance the policies set forth in the resolution as it 

relates to the proposed EPA rulemakings concerning the interstate transport of sulfur dioxide and 

nitrogen oxides, cooling water intake, emissions of hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse 

gases, release of toxic and thermal pollution into waterways, and management of coal 

combustion solids; and 

WHEREAS, NARUC recognizes that a reliable energy supply is vital to support the nation's 

future economic growth, security, and quality oflife; and 

WHEREAS, There are many strategies available to States and utilities to comply with EPA 

regulations, including retrofits and installation of pollution control equipment, construction of 

new power plants and transmission upgrades to provide resource adequacy and system security 

where needed when power plants retire, purchases of power from wholesale markets, demand 

response, energy efficiency, and renewable energy policies - the collection of which can be 

implemented at different time frames by different interested parties and may constitute lowercost options that provide benefits to ratepayers; and 

WHEREAS, A retrofit timeline for multimillion dollar projects may take up to five-plus years, 

considering that the retrofit projects will need to be designed to address compliance with 

multiple regulatory requirements at the same time and requiring several steps that may include, 

but are not limited to: utility regulatory commission approval, front-end engineering, 

environmental permitting, detailed engineering, construction and startup; and 

WHEREAS, Timelines may also be lengthened by the large number of multimillion dollar 

projects that will be in competition for the same skilled labor and resources; and 

WHEREAS, NARUC recognizes that flexibility with the implementation of EPA regulations 

can lessen generation cost increases because of improved planning, selection of correct design 

for the resolution of multiple requirements, greater use of energy efficiency and demand-side 

resources, and orderly decision-making; and 

18 
191 


26002.178

WHEREAS, Some generators that will be impacted by the new EPA rulemakings are located in 

constrained areas or supply constrained areas and will need time to allow for transmission or new 

generation studies to resolve reliability issues; and 

WHEREAS, The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and regional RTOs 

will need time to study reliability issues associated with shutdown or repowering of generation; 

and 

WHEREAS, NARUC recognizes that flexibility will allow time for these needed studies, and 

WHEREAS, The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), through its oversight of 

NERC, has authority over electric system reliability, and is in a position to require generators to 

provide sufficient notice to FERC, system operators, and State regulators of expected effects of 

forthcoming health and environmental regulations on operating plants to allow an opportunity for 

meaningful assessment and response to reliability claims; now, therefore be it 

RESOLVED, That the Board of Directors of the National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners, convened at its 2011 Summer Committee Meetings in Los Angeles, California, 

supports efforts to promote State and federal environmental and energy policies that will enhance 

the reliability of the nation's energy supply and minimize cost impacts to consumers by: 

• Allowing utilities to coordinate the closure and/or retrofitting of existing electric 

generating units in an orderly manner that will ensure the continued supply of electricity 

and that will allow power generators to upgrade their facilities in the most cost effective 

way, while at the same time achieving attainable efficiency gains and environmental 

compliance; and 

• Allowing regulatory options for units that are necessary for grid reliability that commit to 

retire or repower; and 

• Allowing an EPA-directed phasing-in of the regulation requirements; and 

• Establishing interim progress standards that ensure generation units meet EPA 

regulations in an orderly, cost-effective manner; and be itfurther 

RESOLVED, That Commissions should encourage utilities to plan for EPA regulations, and 

explore all options for complying with such regulations, in order to minimize costs to ratepayers; 

and be it further 

RESOLVED, That FERC should work with the EPA to develop a process that requires 

generators to provide notice to FERC, system operators, and State regulators of expected effects 

of forthcoming EPA regulations on operating plants to allow an opportunity for meaningful 

assessment and response to reliability issues; and be it further 

RESOLVED, That NARUC and its members should actively coordinate with their 

environmental regulatory counterparts, FERC, and the electric power sector ensuring electric 

system reliability and encourage the use of all available tools that provide flexibility in EPA 

regulation requirements reflecting the timeline and cost efficiency concerns embodied in this 

19 
192 


26002.179

resolution to ensure continuing emission reduction progress while minimizing capital costs, rate 

increases and other economic impacts while meeting public health and environmental goals. 

Sponsored by the Subcommittee on Clean Coal and Carbon Sequestration and the Committees 

on Electricity and Energy Resources and the Environment 

Adopted by the NARUC Board of Directors July 20, 2011 

20 
193 


26002.180

Attachment for 

Question 52 
194 


26002.181

Nuclear Matters Talking Points 

@fbtjl Introduction to Nuclear Matters 

'Y Good afternoon everyone! 

'Y ... and thank you very much for the 

opportunity to visit with you today on behalf 

of Nuclear Matters. 

'Y Man ... It's great to be here among many 

people I call my friends this morning. For 

those of you though, who don't know me, my 

name is David Wright. 

'Y I have been self-employed since I was 

26 ... and, like many of you, I have had to 

hustle all of my life! 
195 


26002.182

~I have owned a retail franchise ... owned and 

operated a weekly newspaper with my 

Dad ... and owned a Consulting, Public 

Relations and Advertising business ... (which I 

kind of still do.) 

~I've consulted, managed or worked in more 

than 200 political campaigns in this state and 

around this country, too. 

~On top of that, I have my real estate 

2 

license .. .I'm a licensed auctioneer in South 

Carolina ... plus, I have umpired youth baseball 

around this state since I was 1 7 ... the longest 

continuous job I have had in my life! 

~I am diversified! 
196 


26002.183

;... Politically, I have served as a town 

councilman and Mayor ... eight years as a 

member of the South Carolina House of 

Representatives ... and ten years as a Utility 

Commissioner, including a stint as Chair. 

3 

YIn addition to some regional utility 

associations and organizations I chaired, I also 

had the opportunity to serve as President of the 

National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners, also known as NARUC, in 

2011-and '12. In fact, I am only the fifth 

South Carolinian to serve as NARUC's 

president since 1896! Quite and honor! 

Y A great deal of my focus during the last 10 

years has been in the area of nuclear issues and 

nuclear waste. I have had the opportunity to 
197 


26002.184

appear before congressional committees on at 

least nine occasions, as well as the FERC and 

the EPA on issues ranging from EPA 

regulations to Yucca Mountain to 

reprocessing ... and I am very pleased to be 

able to use my knowledge and expertise on 

behalf of Nuclear Matters today. 

4 
198 


26002.185

§Jtbti}IWhat is Nuclear Matters? 

~I joined this campaign to increase awareness 

about our current fleet of nuclear energy 

plants ... and why it is critical to recognize the 

benefit for the future of our energy grid. 

~As many of you know, existing nuclear plants 

are the backbone of our nation's energy 

portfolio ... in fact ... it supplies nearly one-fifth 

of America's energy. 

~So, if we are really going to be serious about 

the economy and climate change ... we need to 

be serious about the vitality of our nuclear 

industry - because nuclear provides over 63 

percent of our country's carbon-free energy. 

5 
199 


26002.186

~By ignoring the benefits of nuclear energy, we 

are sleepwalking into our energy future and 

being irresponsible about a large and 

dependable carbon-free energy source. 

6 
200 


26002.187

Leadership 

~Former U.S. Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN) and 

Judd Gregg (R-NH) serve as the Co-Chairs of 

Nuclear Matters. I'm proud to serve alongside 

them as a member of a diverse Leadership 

Council that is spearheading this effort. 

• Together, we are a bipartisan group of 

who have been active for many years in 

energy policy, the environmental 

community, business, labor, and state and 

federal government. 

7 
201 


26002.188

@ft!hjb Economic Challenges to Nuclear Energy 

)-As you all know, there is a lot of work still to 

be done to ensure that the sources we rely on 

to meet our carbon goals continue to be a 

viable part of our energy mix. 

)-Despite their significant benefits, though, 

existing nuclear energy plants face "a perfect 

storm" of economic challenges that threaten 

their continued operation. 

8 

o For starters, electricity use has been flat 

for several years due to the combination of 

a sluggish economy and energy efficiency 

programs. 

o Combine that with electricity markets that 

do not value zero-carbon electricity 
202 


26002.189

9 

sources - nuclear energy receives no 

economic credit for producing carbon-free 

electricity in these markets ... and I believe 

a reasonable carbon policy- a clean 

policy- would positively influence the 

economics of all low- and no-carbon 

generating sources. 

o Then, there's Natural gas production, 

which has rapidly expanded in recent 

years, causing a precipitous price decline 

of nearly 45 percent since 2008 and 

causing wholesale power prices to drop 

commensurate! y. 

o And last, but, not least, is an aging 

transmission system in some markets, 

which does not allow the clean, carbon-
203 


26002.190

free energy produced at some of these 

existing plants to get to the markets that 

need it. 

10 

~Now, any one or two of these conditions could 

be managed if that was all that occurred. But 

this combination of economic AND policy 

factors has created potentially fatal economic 

headwinds for some nuclear energy 

plants ... And, policy-makers and legislative 

leaders need to address it - and solve this 

problem! 
204 


26002.191

11 

§Jfntl-1) Vermont Yankee & Kewaunee, WI 

~In the current climate, the threat of closure is 

real. .. and there's a lot at stake for the country 

and the communities in which they operate. 

~The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 

was closed late last year. .. and Wisconsin's 

Kewaunee plant was closed in the spring of 

20 13. As many as 10 other nuclear plants 

could face the same fate if we don't act to 

properly value the benefits they provide. 

~Both of these closures were premature, too ... 

Vermont Yankee and Kewaunee were 

operating at a capacity factor at or above 90 

percent ... and had a decade or more of safe, 

useful life remaining each. 
205 


26002.192

12 

~And the negative impacts of their closure have 

been significant. 650 high quality jobs 

disappeared in each state ... Wisconsin lost $6 

million a year in state and local taxes ... while 

Vermont lost over $6 million .. . And, between 

the two states, our energy grid has lost over 

one thousand megawatts of clean, reliable, 

baseload energy. These are just a few of the 

consequences. Oh! And, one other thing the 

public at-large does not understand ... is 

that. .. unlike a coal plant that you can mothball 

and re-open ... you don't mothball a nuclear 

plant. When it closes .. .it will not come back!! 

~Just this past year Pilgrim and FitzPatrick 

announced that they will also be shutting their 

doors. 
206 


26002.193

13 

"?If these policy and economic issues aren't 

addressed, they may force additional closures. 

In fact, many people say not solving these 

issues SOON will force additional closures. 
207 


26002.194

~tdfldl Need for State Solutions 

~So ... what can we do to ensure these plants 

don't close prematurely? 

~As states contemplate how they will reduce 

carbon emissions, existing nuclear energy 

plants must be recognized for their valuable 

role in producing carbon-free energy. 

~When designing such programs, I believe 

states should, at a minimum: 

• Treat all carbon-free resources 

similarly, regardless of age or fuel 

type; 

• They should take steps to ensure 

that all existing nuclear plants will 

14 
208 


26002.195

remain in operation when it is cost 

effective to do so; 

• They should affirmatively 

demonstrate and not assume that 

existing carbon-free resources will 

remain in operation under the 

program; and they should 

• Ensure that state compliance 

programs are: 

15 

o Complementary to neighboring 

states' programs ... particularly 

when such states are in 

organized wholesale power 

markets; and 
209 


26002.196

o Are consistent with future 

carbon reduction schemes that 

may, or will go beyond the 

power sector. 

16 
210 


26002.197

@lmtiJ Examples of State Solutions 

? Some states have already implemented 

solutions. 

17 

? Last spring, the Illinois legislature considered 

a Low Carbon Portfolio Standard, (also called 

a Clean Energy Standard), a viable solution to 

preserve existing nuclear energy plants. 

? In December 2015, the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission approved a 20-year license 

renewal for Ohio's Davis-Besse plant. .. and 

long term Power Purchase Agreements may be 

used there. 

? Also in December 2015, New York Governor 

Andrew Cuomo issued a letter noting that 

nuclear energy plants would play a key role in 
211 


26002.198

the state's clean energy strategy moving 

forward. 

18 
212 


26002.199

§Jffl§:J Economic Benefit 

>-A recent analysis from The Brattle Group 

shows that America's nuclear fleet19 

which ... as you know ... supplies about 20% of 

the country's electricity ... contributes even 

more to our economic and environmental 

goals than once thought 

o The study shows that existing nuclear 

plants add $60 billion dollars to the 

country's GDP, support 4 75,000 highpaying jobs, and contribute $12.2 billion 

dollars in federal and state taxes each 

year. 
213 


26002.200

,_These plants also save consumers an 

AVERAGE of 6 percent on their electricity 

bills. 

20 

,_As for South Carolina, The Brattle Group 

study showed that the nuclear industry 

supports 5, 000 jobs right here in South 

Carolina, and contributes at least $3.3 billion 

to the local economy each year. .. and that's not 

counting the 3,500-plus employees on site at 

the two units under construction just up the 

road in Fairfield County. 
214 


26002.201

21 

§Jtbtl) Carbon-Free Benefits 

> In a time when the public and the 

policymakers are concerned with carbonemissions and keeping our energy fleet green, 

we should also be sharing this important 

message about nuclear. Trying to meet our 

state and national carbon reduction goals will 

be difficult ... or impossible ... to do without our 

existing nuclear energy plants. 

>In fact, our existing nuclear energy plants are 

key to advancing toward a clean energy future. 

o As mentioned, last year our existing 

nuclear energy plants produced 19 percent 

of the country's electricity supply but 

accounted for 63% of carbon-free sources 

of electricity. 
215 


26002.202

o Here in South Carolina, nuclear energy is 

especially beneficial. Our state's seven 

reactors provide a majority of our state's 

electricity- 54 percent to be exact! 

o And our state's existing nuclear plants 

provide 97o/o of our carbon-free 

electricity. 

}.;;>Nuclear energy is a very important part of 

the energy diversity we have here in South 

Carolina. 

22 

}.;;>And, it's important to preserve this 

diversity, too, because ... while energy is lowcost right now ... history suggests it won't 

always be that way ... so we need to maintain 
216 


26002.203

23 

a balance where ALL sources of energy have 

a role to play. 

~Clemson University, my alma mater, released 

a study in 2009 ... and again in 2013 ... that 

spotlights the significance of the nuclear 

industry here in the Carolinas ... directly 

providing 29,000 jobs in North and South 

Carolina. That's more $2.2 billion dollars in 

direct payroll and more than $950 million 

dollars paid in state and local taxes. The 

total economic impact tops $20 billion 

dollars .... and we haven't even talked about 

the benefits being felt economically because 

of the two units under construction at VC 

Summer ... or elsewhere, in Georgia, for that 

matter. 
217 


26002.204

~Nuclear energy facilities employ workers 

across a myriad of disciplines, too. 

24 

~Highly trained and licensed employees 

operate reactors ... and they are supported 

by various engineers, health physicists, 

instrumentation and control workers, as 

well as skilled craftspeople, such as welders 

and mechanics. And. then there are vendors 

and other local businesses that spring up 

and support the workers and their families, 

too. 

~The point is ... Nuclear energy plants have a 

large economic impact on the communities 

they serve. 
218 


26002.205

>Employees working at U.S. nuclear 

plants are paid 36 percent more on average 

than other people in their local 

communities. 

>In terms of environmental benefits, more 

than 38 million metric tons of carbon 

25 

dioxide are prevented by South Carolina's 

nuclear plants annually ... which equals what 

would be released in a year by more than 

8.6 million passenger cars - more than all 

the registered cars in the state! 

0 . Arid, we've seen. its effect in other " ·"''' " ,,, ' 

countries,too .. :In Germany, the phase-out 

of their nuclear plants is estimated to have 
219 


26002.206

26 

caused a 25 .million ton increase in: carbon 

emissions ... the equivalent· of adding; 4.4 

millio:n cars to tlie road. We canriot tak1e 

this risk. 

'Y From an environmental perspective, 

nuclear energy produces no emissions 

during operation ... no emissions associated 

with climate change, acid rain, or smog. 

Y And, it's important that policymakers and 

legislators across the country recognize 

these benefits. 
220 


26002.207

27 

SJtbtlltij Reliability 

~Finally, it's important to highlight the existing 

fleet's reliability. 

~Nuclear is an energy source that can run 24/7, 

365. That includes during periods of extreme 

weather. 

~Nuclear produces 1/5 of America's energyproviding stable baseload energy our country 

can rely on. 

~Here, in South Carolina, nuclear generates 

54% of the state's electricity and operates at a 

93% capacity factor. 
221 


26002.208

§Jfbtjl@ Thank You 

~Thank you again for having me here today to 

speak about Nuclear Matters. 

~ I am happy to answer any questions you 

might have. 

28 
222 


26002.209

• Good Morning and thank you very much for 

the opportunity to visit with you today on 

behalf of Nuclear Matters. 

• I joined this campaign to increase awareness 

about our current fleet of nuclear energy plants 

and why it is critical to recognize the benefit 

for the future of our energy grid. 

• Existing nuclear plants are the backbone of our 

nation's energy portfolio; in fact, it supplies 

nearly one-fifth of America's energy. 

• If we are going to be serious about the 

economy and climate change, we need to be 

serious about the vitality of our nuclear 

industry - nuclear provides over 62 percent of 

our country's carbon-free energy. 

• By ignoring the benefits of nuclear energy, we 

are sleepwalking into our energy future and 

being irresponsible about a carbon free energy 

source. 

• New analysis shows that America's nuclear 

fleet-which supplies one-fifth of the 
223 


26002.210

2 

country's electricity-contributes even more to 

our economic and environmental goals than 

once thought. 

o The study, conducted by the Brattle Group, 

found that existing nuclear plants are 

drivers of economic growth and jobs in 

communities across the nation. 

o The study shows that existing nuclear 

plants add $6 billion to the country's GDP, 

support 475,000 jobs and contribute $12.2 

billion in federal and state taxes each year. 

o These plants also save consumers an 

average of 6 percent on their electricity. 

o Here in Texas, nuclear supports 1,950 instate jobs. 

o Nuclear also contributes at least $1.88 

billion to the local economy each year. 

• Another reason that I got involved in these 

efforts is because trying to meet our state and 

national carbon reduction goals will be difficult 

or impossible to do without our existing 
224 


26002.211

nuclear energy plants. 

- The Brattle study shows that nuclear 

energy prevented over a 1/2 billion tons 

of carbon emissions each year, avoids 

650,000 tons ofNOx and 1 million tons 

of S02 emissions, which combined, are 

valued at a social cost of $33.4 billion 

annually and is a must for our energy 

portfolio. 

• Here in Texas, nuclear provides 49 percent of 

the state's carbon-free electricity. The existing 

fleet in Texas avoids 27.6 million metric tons 

of carbon emissions each year, while operating 

on an 89 percent capacity factor. 

• Our existing nuclear energy plants are key to 

advancing toward a clean energy future. 

3 

• Last year, our existing nuclear energy plants 

produced 19 percent of the country's electricity 

supply but accounted for 63 percent of carbonfree sources of electricity. 

- Closing plants makes meaningful 
225 


26002.212

carbon reduction goals impossible. 

When nuclear plants close, inevitably 

states' carbon output increase. 

4 

- And we've seen its effect in other 

countries - in Germany, the phase-out of 

their nuclear plants is estimated to have 

caused a 25-million-ton increase in carbon 

emissions, the equivalent of adding 4.4 

million cars to the road. We cannot take 

this risk. 

-And Texas isn't alone - in more than half 

of the states, nuclear energy plants are the 

largest source of carbon-free electricity. 

• There is obviously a lot of work still to be done, 

and we have to ensure that the sources we rely 

on to meet our carbon goals continue to be a 

viable part of our energy mix. 

• Despite their significant benefits, existing 

nuclear energy plants face "a perfect storm" of 

economic challenges that threaten their 

continued operation. 
226 


26002.213

5 

- Electricity use has been flat for several 

years due to the combination of a 

sluggish economy and energy efficiency 

programs. 

-Electricity markets do not value zerocarbon electricity sources- nuclear 

energy receives no economic credit for 

producing carbon-free electricity. A 

reasonable carbon policy would positively 

influence the economics of all low and nocarbon generating sources. 

-Natural gas production has rapidly 

expanded, causing a precipitous price 

decline of more than 50 percent since 

2008 and causing wholesale power prices 

to drop commensurately. 

- An aging, constrained transmission 

system prevents some nuclear plants in 

power-saturated markets from delivering 

electricity to other markets that need clean 

electricity. 

• Any one or two of these conditions could be 
227 


26002.214

managed if that was all that occurred. But this 

combination of economic and policy factors 

has created potentially fatal economic 

headwinds for some nuclear energy plants. 

• Two nuclear plants have already shut down 

recently and two others- FitzPatrick in New 

York and Pilgrim in Massachusetts - have 

announced premature shutdowns this year. 

• The EPA's Clean Power Plan provides a path 

forward for the country to value nuclear 

energy's substantial carbon-abatement benefit. 

As states contemplate how they will comply 

with the CPP, existing nuclear energy plants 

must be recognized for their valuable role in 

producing carbon-free energy. 

6 

• Solutions will vary by state/region, but 

stakeholders and policymakers should consider 

implementing these types of solutions to make 

meaningful progress towards preserving 

existing nuclear energy facilities: 

- Some of the solutions that might be 

considered include: 
228 


26002.215

-New legislative, regulatory and/or 

competitive market policies, which recognize 

the zero carbon emissions value of existing 

nuclear energy plants; 

Moderator Questions 

7 

• In my opening remarks I highlighted what I think 

are some of the challenges facing the existing fleet, 

now I open the floor to you all, what are the 

challenges here in Texas? 

• The industry faces early closures of many more 

plants, yet there seems to be misunderstandings 

about the benefits of the existing fleet. What do 

you see as the opportunities for the industry? 

• What do y'all see as viable and reasonable steps 

for the industry in the next few years ... Especially 

taking into account states are attempting to comply 

with the Clean Power Plan? 
229 


26002.216

RGA Talking Points 

• America's existing nuclear energy plants are the backbone of 

our nation's energy portfolio and provide tremendous 

benefits. 

o Existing plants provide about one-fifth of the country's 

energy supply, powering tens of millions of homes and 

businesses. 

o Nuclear energy is our most reliable source of energy 24 

hours a day, seven days a week through all weather 

conditions and at 85-90 percent capacity factors, the 

highest of any energy source. 

• 48% of Illinois' electricity is generated by nuclear 

energy facilities 24/7/365 and cannot be 

replaced by wind, solar, or other intermittent 

renewable energy sources. 

• Illinois' nuclear fleet sets the world's standard 

for operating at 95% efficiency- during all 

seasons and weather conditions. 

o Our existing nuclear energy plants are key to advancing 

toward a clean energy future, providing 63.3 percent of 

emission-free generation in the U.S. in 2013. 
230 


26002.217

o Existing nuclear plants are drivers of economic growth 

and jobs in communities across the nation, providing 

100,000 jobs across the country and generating 

substantial domestic economic value in electricity sales 

- $40-$50 billion each year. 

• Despite these significant benefits, existing nuclear energy 

plants face a 'perfect storm' of economic challenges that 

threaten their continued operation. 

o Existing plants are threatened by a combination of 

factors including the unintended consequences of 

market structure and government policy and an influx of 

cheap natural gas. 

o Two nuclear plants have already announced that they 

will shut down prematurely as a result of these 

conditions, which, if left unaddressed, may force 

additional closures. 

• Our energy policies must ensure that existing nuclear energy 

plants are preserved though different solutions may be called 

for in different parts of the country. 

o We are not here to prescribe specific policy solutions 

our goal is to educate communities and policymakers 

on the value of the nuclear resources we currently 

have, and explore the steps we need to take to 

preserve them. 

2 
231 


26002.218

o Some of the policies that might be considered 

include: 

• New legislative, regulatory and/or competitive 

market policies which recognize the zero carbon 

emissions value of existing nuclear energy 

plants; 

• New legislative, regulatory and/or competitive 

market policies which recognize the electric 

system reliability of existing nuclear energy 

plants; 

• New efforts to enable rapid development of 

electric transmission capacity in order to better 

link existing nuclear energy plants to markets; 

• Other, similar policy initiatives that help improve 

the economic viability of today's nuclear energy 

plants. 

• Nuclear Matters seeks to raise public awareness of the 

substantial benefits of existing nuclear energy plants and the 

economic challenges that threaten those benefits. 

3 
232 


26002.219

o In furtherance of this mission, Nuclear Matters will 

reach out to stakeholders around the country to hear 

directly from them about the importance of nuclear 

energy to their states and communities and find the 

solutions that will help to preserve this essential energy 

resource. 

4 
233 


26002.220

Nuclear Matters Talking Points 

§Jttltjij Introduction to Nuclear Matters 

~Good morning, everyone! ... and thank you 

very much for the opportunity to visit with you 

today on behalf of Nuclear Matters. 

~When I participated in this event last year, 

there was a lot of information being exchanged 

during the different presentations ... and time 

ran short, so I will get right into this 

presentation. 

~As you now know, my name is David Wright. 

I have worked for myself since I was 26. I 

have served as a town councilman and Mayor, 

eight years as a member of the South Carolina 

House of Representatives, and ten years as a 
234 


26002.221

Utility Commissioner, including a stint as 

Chair. 

2 

)o- In addition to some regional utility 

associations and organizations I chaired, I also 

had the opportunity to serve as President of the 

National Association ofRegulatory 

Commissioners, also known as NARUC, in 

2011-and'12. 
235 


26002.222

3 

~A great deal of my focus during the last 12 

years has been in the area of nuclear issues and 

nuclear waste ... and I have had the opportunity 

to appear before congressional committees on 

at least nine occasions ... as well as the FERC 

and the EPA on issues ranging from EPA 

regulations to Yucca Mountain to 

reprocessing ... and I am very pleased to be 

able to use my knowledge and expertise on 

behalf of Nuclear Matters today. 
236 


26002.223

4 

§JtfHIJ What is Nuclear Matters? 

~I joined this campaign to increase awareness 

about our current fleet of nuclear energy plants 

and why it is critical to recognize the benefit 

for the future of our energy grid. 

~As many of you know, existing nuclear plants 

are the backbone of our nation's energy 

portfolio ... In fact our existing nuclear plants 

supply nearly one-fifth of America's energy. 

~The truth is ... if we are going to be serious 

about the economy and climate change, we 

need to be serious about the vitality of our 

nuclear industry, as well- because nuclear 

provides over 63 percent of our country's 

carbon-free energy! 
237 


26002.224

)oo> I am convinced that ... by ignoring the benefits 

of nuclear energy, we are sleepwalking into 

our energy future and being irresponsible 

about a carbon-free energy source. 

5 
238 


26002.225

§JffttiJj Leadership 

>-Former U.S. Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN) and 

Judd Gregg (R-NH) serve as the Co-Chairs of 

Nuclear Matters. They are very smart 

men ... and I'm proud to serve alongside them 

as a member of a diverse Leadership Council 

that is spearheading this effort. 

• Together, we are a bipartisan group of 

men and women ... who have been active 

in energy policy for many years ... and we 

come from different backgrounds, too -

the environmental community, business, 

labor, and state and federal government. 

6 
239 


26002.226

§JfbfjR Economic Challenges to Nuclear 

Energy 

);;>As you all know, there is a lot of work still to 

be done to ensure that the sources we rely on 

to meet our carbon goals continue to be a 

viable part of our energy mix. 

);;>Despite their significant benefits ... existing 

nuclear energy plants in some areas of the 

country ... face "a perfect storm" of economic 

challenges that threaten their continued 

operation. 

);;>Why? 

7 

o Well, for one, electricity use has been flat 

for several years due to the combination of 
240 


26002.227

a sluggish economy and energy efficiency 

programs. 

o Add to that. .. that Electricity markets do 

not value zero-carbon electricity 

8 

sources ... (In fact, nuclear energy receives 

no economic credit for producing carbonfree electricity). I am of the opinion that a 

reasonable carbon policy would positively 

influence the economics of all low- and 

no-carbon generating sources. 

o Then, there's Natural gas 

production ... which has rapidly expanded 

in recent years ... causing a precipitous 

price decline of nearly 45 percent since 

2008 and causing wholesale power prices 

to drop commensurately. 
241 


26002.228

o Last, but, not least, is an aging 

transmission system in some markets, 

which does not allow the clean, carbonfree energy produced at some of these 

existing plants to get to the markets that 

need it. 

~Any one or two of these conditions could be 

managed if that was all that occurred. But this 

combination of economic and policy factors 

has created potentially fatal economic 

headwinds for some nuclear energy plants. 

9 
242 


26002.229

r:Jtbt!Ji) Vermont Yankee & Kewaunee, WI 

YIn the current climate, the threat of closure 

is real ... and there's a lot at stake for the 

country and the communities in which they 

operate. 

Y The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 

was closed late last year ... and Wisconsin's 

Kewaunee plant was closed in the spring of 

2013. As many as 1 0 other nuclear plants 

could face the same fate if we don't act to 

properly value the benefits they provide. 

Y Both of these closures were premature; 

Vermont Yankee and Kewaunee were 

operating at a capacity factor at or above 90 

percent ... and had a decade or more of safe, 

useful life remaining. 

10 
243 


26002.230

11 

'rAnd the negative impacts of their closure have 

been significant. 650 high quality jobs 

disappeared in each state ... Wisconsin lost $6 

million a year in state and local taxes ... while 

Vermont lost over $6 million ... and between 

the two states, our energy grid has lost over 

one thousand megawatts of clean, reliable, 

baseload energy. These are just a few of the 

consequences ... And, one other thing the 

public at-large does not understand ... is 

that. .. unlike a coal plant that you can mothball 

and re-open ... you don't mothball a nuclear 

plant. When it closes ... it will not come back. 

'r Just this past year Pilgrim and FitzPatrick 

announced that they will also be shutting their 

doors. 
244 


26002.231

).>If these policy and economic issues aren't 

addressed, we may force additional closures. 

12 
245 


26002.232

§JffltjiJj Need for State Solutions 

);;>So ... what can we do to ensure these plants 

don't close prematurely? 

);;>As states contemplate how they will reduce 

carbon emissions, existing nuclear energy 

plants must be recognized for their valuable 

role in producing carbon-free energy. 

13 

);;>When designing such programs, states should: 

• Treat all carbon-free resources 

similarly, regardless of age or fuel 

type; 

• Take steps to ensure that all existing 

nuclear plants will remain in 

operation when it is cost effective to 

do so; 
246 


26002.233

• Affirmatively demonstrate and not 

assume that existing carbon-free 

resources will remain in operation 

under the program; and 

• Ensure that state compliance 

programs are: 

14 

o Complementary to neighboring 

states' programs, particularly 

when such states are in 

organized wholesale power 

markets; and 

o Consistent with future carbon 

reduction schemes that will go 

beyond the power sector. 
247 


26002.234

§Jft!t$J Examples of State Solutions 

Y Some states have already implemented 

solutions. 

Y Last spring, the Illinois legislature considered 

a Low Carbon Portfolio Standard ... a viable 

solution to preserve existing nuclear energy 

plants. 

YIn December 2015, the Nuclear Regulatory 

Council approved a 20-year license renewal 

for Ohio's Davis-Besse plant. 

15 

YAlso in December 2015, New York Governor 

Andrew Cuomo issued a letter noting that 

nuclear energy plants would play a key role in 

the state's clean energy strategy moving 

forward. 
248 


26002.235

§Jmtj:J Economic Benefit 

)-New analysis from The Brattle Group shows 

that America's nuclear fleet ... which supplies 

one-fifth of the country's 

electricity ... contributes even more to our 

economic and environmental goals than once 

thought. 

16 

)-The study shows that the existing nuclear fleet 

contributes $60 billion to the country's GDP 

annually ... saving consumers an average of 6 

percent on their electricity bills. Across the 

country, the existing fleet supports 475,000 

jobs and contributes $10 billion in federal and 

$2.2 billion in state taxes each year. 
249 


26002.236

17 

~Here in Georgia, I believe the existing nuclear 

fleet generates $60 million in state and local 

taxes annually. 
250 


26002.237

§Jmt'IJ Carbon-Free Benefits 

);.> In a time when the public and the 

policymakers are concerned with carbonemissions and keeping our energy fleet green, 

we should also be sharing this important 

message about nuclear. Trying to meet our 

state and national carbon reduction goals will 

be difficult or impossible to do without our 

existing nuclear energy plants. 

18 

);.>In fact, our existing nuclear energy plants are 

key to advancing toward a clean energy future. 

o Last year, our existing nuclear energy 

plants produced 19 percent of the 

country's electricity supply but accounted 

for 63% of carbon-free sources of 

electricity. 
251 


26002.238

o Here in Georgia, existing nuclear plants 

provide 92.5% of our carbon-free 

electricity - and avoid more than 23 

million metric tons of carbon emissions 

each year. 

19 

o And we've seen its effect in other 

countries- in Germany, the phase-out of 

their nuclear plants is estimated to have 

caused a 25 million ton increase in carbon 

emissions, the equivalent of adding 4.4 

million cars to the road. We cannot take 

this risk. 
252 


26002.239

20 

§Jtbtjl1! Reliability 

).o> Finally, it's important to highlight the existing 

fleet's reliability. 

).o> Nuclear is an energy source that can run 24/7, 

365. That includes during periods of extreme 

weather. 

).o> Nuclear produces 1/5 of America's energyproviding stable baseload energy our country 

can rely on. 

).o> Here in Georgia, nuclear generates 25.9% of 

the state's electricity and operates at a 93% 

capacity factor. 
253 


26002.240

§Jfbfjl@ Thank You 

~Thank you again for having me here today to 

speak about Nuclear Matters. 

).;>Happy to answer any questions you might 

have. 

21 
254 


26002.241

Nuclear Matters Talking Points 

§Uhfj@ Introduction to Nuclear Matters 

);;;-Good afternoon everyone! 

);;;- ... and thank you very much for the 

opportunity to visit with you today on behalf 

of Nuclear Matters. 

);;;-Man! ... Look at all of 

you! ... Women! ... Everywhere! 

);;;-And ... get this! 

);;;-Me!. .. a single guy ... talking to a building full 

of women ... women who are interested in 

same things I am interested in, too! 
255 


26002.242

~Obviously, I have stumbled into a very special 

place! 

~So ... It's wonderful to be with one of the 

campaign's first official Partners! ... Women in 

Nuclear! 

~I consider it an honor to be with you ladies 

today, too! 

~Okay, you now know my name is David 

Wright ... 

~I have lived a blessed life ... and I have had a 

few successes along the way. 

2 
256 


26002.243

? I have been self-employed since I was 26 ... so 

I have had to hustle all of my life! 

? I have owned a retail franchise ... owned and 

operated a weekly news paper with my 

Dad ... and owned a Consulting, Public 

Relations and Advertising business ... (which I 

kind of still do.) 

? I've consulted, managed or worked in more 

than 200 political campaigns in this country. 

? I have my real estate license ... and I am a 

licensed auctioneer in South Carolina ... plus, I 

have umpired youth baseball around this state 

since I was 1 7 ... the longest continuous work I 

have had in my life! 

3 
257 


26002.244

Y Not everything has been roses, though ... I 

survived a serious battle with colon cancer a 

few years back. 

Y And ... then ... a year later. . .I fought as a 

4 

parent ... beside my oldest daughter, Kimberly, 

as she battled Stage 3-c colon cancer at age 27. 

Y Very hard couple of years ... but ... good 

news!! !...God was not done with either one of 

us! I'm here with you today ... and she's 

teaching kindergarten today just a few miles 

down the road from here! 

Y Those are the experiences in life that teach you 

a lot about yourself, too. No matter how bad 

YOU think things are ... someone has it 
258 


26002.245

worse ... and they would gladly trade places 

with you if they could. 

5 

).;>So, we spend a lot of time now "paying it 

forward" ... by advocating, educating, raising 

money ... and visiting and sitting with cancer 

patients of all kinds - patients we do not even 

know- to give THEM some hope - when they 

are in the hospital or receiving chemo 

treatments. 

Y Please forgive me for getting off script 

there .. .it happens to me from time to 

time ... but it's all good! It's good to get real 

sometimes ... And now you know I'm an 

authentic guy, too. 

Y What else can I tell you? 
259 


26002.246

'Jr Politically, I have served as a town 

councilman and Mayor ... eight years as a 

member of the South Carolina House of 

Representatives ... and ten years as a Utility 

Commissioner, including a stint as Chair. 

6 

'Jr In addition to some regional utility 

associations and organizations I chaired, I also 

had the opportunity to serve as President of the 

National Association ofRegulatory 

Commissioners, also known as NARUC, in 

2011-and '12. 

'Jr A great deal of my focus during the last 1 0 

years has been in the area of nuclear issues and 

nuclear waste. I have had the opportunity to 

appear before congressional committees on at 
260 


26002.247

least nine occasions, as well as the FERC and 

the EPA on issues ranging from EPA 

regulations to Yucca Mountain ... and I am 

very pleased to be able to use my knowledge 

and expertise on behalf of Nuclear Matters 

today. 

7 
261 


26002.248

§JtdtfjWhat is Nuclear Matters? 

~I joined this campaign to increase awareness 

about our current fleet of nuclear energy 

plants ... and why it is critical to recognize the 

benefit for the future of our energy grid. 

~As many of you know, existing nuclear plants 

are the backbone of our nation's energy 

portfolio ... in fact. .. it supplies nearly one-fifth 

of America's energy. 

~So, if we are really going to be serious about 

the economy and climate change ... we need to 

be serious about the vitality of our nuclear 

industry - because nuclear provides over 63 

percent of our country's carbon-free energy. 

8 
262 


26002.249

~By ignoring the benefits of nuclear energy, we 

are sleepwalking into our energy future and 

being irresponsible about a large and 

dependable carbon-free energy source. 

9 
263 


26002.250

10 

@mtiJ Leadership 

~Former U.S. Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN) and 

Judd Gregg (R-NH) serve as the Co-Chairs of 

Nuclear Matters. I'm proud to serve alongside 

them as a member of a diverse Leadership 

Council that is spearheading this effort. 

• Together, we are a bipartisan group of 

who have been active for many years in 

energy policy, the environmental 

community, business, labor, and state and 

federal government. 
264 


26002.251

§JffltjR Economic Challenges to Nuclear 

Energy 

Y As you all know, there is a lot of work still to 

be done to ensure that the sources we rely on 

to meet our carbon goals continue to be a 

viable part of our energy mix. 

Y Despite their significant benefits, though, 

existing nuclear energy plants face "a perfect 

storm" of economic challenges that threaten 

their continued operation. 

11 

o For starters, electricity use has been flat 

for several years due to the combination of 

a sluggish economy and energy efficiency 

programs. 
265 


26002.252

12 

o Combine that with electricity markets that 

do not value zero-carbon electricity 

sources - nuclear energy receives no 

economic credit for producing carbon-free 

electricity in these markets ... and I believe 

a reasonable carbon policy- a clean 

policy - would positively influence the 

economics of all low- and no-carbon 

generating sources. 

o Then, there's Natural gas production, 

which has rapidly expanded in recent 

years, causing a precipitous price decline 

of nearly 45 percent since 2008 and 

causing wholesale power prices to drop 

commensurate! y. 
266 


26002.253

o Last, but, not least, is an aging 

transmission system in some markets, 

which does not allow the clean, carbonfree energy produced at some of these 

existing plants to get to the markets that 

need it. 

~Any one or two of these conditions could be 

managed if that was all that occurred. But this 

combination of economic and policy factors 

has created potentially fatal economic 

headwinds for some nuclear energy 

plants ... And, policy-makers and legislative 

leaders need to address it - and solve this 

problem. 

13 
267 


26002.254

14 

§JfbbJ-j Vermont Yankee & Kewaunee, WI 

);;>In the current climate, the threat of closure is 

real ... and there's a lot at stake for the country 

and the communities in which they operate. 

);;>The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 

was closed late last year ... and Wisconsin's 

Kewaunee plant was closed in the spring of 

20 13. As many as 1 0 other nuclear plants 

could face the same fate if we don't act to 

properly value the benefits they provide. 

);;>Both of these closures were premature ... 

Vermont Yankee and Kewaunee were 

operating at a capacity factor at or above 90 

percent ... and had a decade or more of safe, 

useful life remaining. 
268 


26002.255

15 

>-And the negative impacts of their closure have 

been significant. 650 high quality jobs 

disappeared in each state ... Wisconsin lost $6 

million a year in state and local taxes ... while 

Vermont lost over $6 million ... and between 

the two states, our energy grid has lost over 

one thousand megawatts of clean, reliable 

energy. These are just a few of the 

consequences. And, one other thing the public 

at-large does not understand .. .is that. .. unlike 

a coal plant that you can mothball and reopen ... you don't mothball a nuclear plant. 

When it closes ... it will not come back. 

>-Just this past year Pilgrim and FitzPatrick 

announced that they will also be shutting their 

doors. 
269 


26002.256

16 

Y If these policy and economic issues aren't 

addressed, they may force additional closures. 
270 


26002.257

§Jmfjij!j Need for State Solutions 

);;- So ... what can we do to ensure these plants 

don't close prematurely? 

);;-As states contemplate how they will reduce 

carbon emissions, existing nuclear energy 

plants must be recognized for their valuable 

role in producing carbon-free energy. 

17 

);;-When designing such programs, states should: 

• Treat all carbon-free resources 

similarly, regardless of age or fuel 

type; 

• Take steps to ensure that all existing 

nuclear plants will remain in 

operation when it is cost effective to 

do so; 
271 


26002.258

• Affirmatively demonstrate and not 

assume that existing carbon-free 

resources will remain in operation 

under the program; and 

• Ensure that state compliance 

programs are: 

18 

o Complementary to neighboring 

states' programs ... particularly 

when such states are in 

organized wholesale power 

markets; and 

o Are consistent with future 

carbon reduction schemes that 

will go beyond the power 

sector. 
272 


26002.259

§Jft!t'IJ Examples of State Solutions 

~Some states have already implemented 

solutions. 

~Last spring, the Illinois legislature considered 

a Low Carbon Portfolio Standard, a viable 

solution to preserve existing nuclear energy 

plants. 

YIn December 2015, the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission approved a 20-year license 

renewal for Ohio's Davis-Besse plant. 

YAlso in December 2015, New York Governor 

Andrew Cuomo issued a letter noting that 

nuclear energy plants would play a key role in 

19 
273 


26002.260

the state's clean energy strategy moving 

forward. 

20 
274 


26002.261

21 

§Jtbtj:ij Economic Benefit 

~ So ... what can we do to spread the word about 

the clear benefits of nuclear? 

~You all play an important role as nuclear 

professionals to reinforce the value of the 

existing fleet. 

~A recent analysis from The Brattle Group 

shows that America's nuclear fleetwhich ... as you know ... supplies one-fifth of 

the country's electricity ... contributes even 

more to our economic and environmental 

goals than once thought. 

o The study shows that existing nuclear 

plants add $60 billion dollars to the 

country's GOP, support 4 75,000 high-
275 


26002.262

22 

paying jobs and contribute $12.2 billion 

dollars in federal and state taxes each 

year. 

~These plants also save consumers an 

AVERAGE of 6 percent on their electricity 

bills. 

~As for South Carolina, The Brattle Group 

study showed that the nuclear industry 

supports 5,000 jobs here in South Carolina, 

and contributes at least $3.3 billion to the local 

economy each year ... not counting the 3,500-

plus employees on site at the two units under 

construction just up the road in Failfield 

County. 
276 


26002.263

@tntl) Carbon-Free Benefits 

? In a time when the public and the 

policymakers are concerned with carbonemissions and keeping our energy fleet green, 

we should also be sharing this important 

message about nuclear. Trying to meet our 

state and national carbon reduction goals will 

be difficult or impossible to do without our 

existing nuclear energy plants. 

23 

? In fact, our existing nuclear energy plants are 

key to advancing toward a clean energy future. 

o Last year, our existing nuclear energy 

plants produced 19 percent of the 

country's electricity supply but accounted 

for 63% of carbon-free sources of 

electricity. 
277 


26002.264

o Here in South Carolina, nuclear energy is 

especially beneficial. Our state's seven 

reactors provide a majority of our state's 

electricity- 54 percent to be exact! 

24 

o And our state's existing nuclear plants 

provide 97o/o of our carbon-free electricity 

-and avoid 38 million metric tons of 

carbon emissions each year. 

A Diverse Energy Portfolio 

>-Nuclear energy is a very important part of 

the energy diversity we have here in South 

Carolina. 

>-It's important to preserve this diversity, too, 

because ... while energy is cheap 

now ... history suggests it won't always be 
278 


26002.265

25 

that way ... so we need to maintain a balance 

where ALL sources of energy have a role to 

play. 

~Clemson University, my alma mater, released 

a study in 2009 ... and again in 2013 ... that 

spotlights the significance of the nuclear 

industry in the Carolinas ... directly providing 

29,000 jobs in North and South Carolina. 

That's more $2.2 billion dollars in direct 

payroll and more than $950 million dollars 

paid in state and local taxes. The total 

economic impact tops $20 billion 

dollars .... and we haven't even talked about 

the benefits being felt economically because 

of the two units under construction at VC 

Summer ... or elsewhere for that matter. 
279 


26002.266

);o> Nuclear energy facilities employ workers 

across a myriad of disciplines, too. 

26 

);o> Highly trained and licensed employees 

operate reactors ... and are supported by 

various engineers, health physicists, 

instrumentation and control workers, as 

well as skilled craftspeople, such as welders 

and mechanics. And, then there are vendors 

and other businesses that support the 

workers and their families, too. Nuclear 

energy plants have a large economic impact 

on the communities they serve. 

);o> Employees working at U.S. nuclear 

plants are paid 36 percent more on average 
280 


26002.267

than other people in their local 

communities. 

27 

,.. In terms of environmental benefits, more 

than 38 million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide are prevented by South Carolina's 

nuclear plants annually ... which equals what 

would be released in a year by more than 

8.6 million passenger cars - more than all 

the registered cars in the state! 

o And, we've seen its effect iil other 

countries, too ... In Germany, the phase;;.out 

oftheir nuclearplants is estirriated to have 

caused a 25 million ton increase in carbon 

emissions ... the equivalent of adding 4.4 

million cars to the road. We cannot take 

this risk. 
281 


26002.268

);;>From an environmental perspective, 

nuclear energy produces no emissions 

during operation ... no emissions associated 

with climate change, acid rain, or smog. 

);;>And, it's important that policymakers and 

legislators across the country recognize 

these benefits. 

28 
282 


26002.269

29 

§Jmtjkt! Reliability 

~Finally, it's important to highlight the existing 

fleet's reliability. 

~Nuclear is an energy source that can run 24/7, 

365. That includes during periods of extreme 

weather. 

~Nuclear produces 1/5 of America's energyproviding stable baseload energy our country 

can rely on. 
283 


26002.270

bi'ffttjll Nuclear Matters 

~Nuclear Matters has been traveling across the 

country to speak directly to policymakers, 

opinion leaders ... and the public in target 

states ... about the value of the existing fleet. 

~We know that organizations like WiN are 

strong advocates and validators for the goals 

and activities of the Nuclear Matters 

campaign ... so I'd like to take the time now to 

thank you for your support. 

~There's much to do ... and we need your help. 

30 

Let's continue our work on sharing the 

economic, carbon-free and reliable benefits of 

the existing fleet to those around us. We can 

help stop premature closures of the existing 

fleet. 
284 


26002.271

§JfbtjfJ Thank You 

};;>Thank you again for having me here today to 

speak about Nuclear Matters. 

};;>And thanks to all of you here, and to all 

members of US WIN for being a wonderful 

Partner to Nuclear Matters. 

};;>If you are interested in getting more involved 

in the program, please let me know and we 

look forward to working with you moving 

forward. 

31 
285 


26002.272

(Slide #1 = Cover) 

).-Good morning and thank you very much for giving me 

the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf of 

Nuclear Matters. 

).-As you now know, my name is David Wright. During 

my professional career, I have served as a town 

councilman and Mayor, eight years as a member of the 

South Carolina House of Representatives, and ten 

years as a Utility Commissioner, including a stint as 

Chair. 

).-In addition to some regional utility associations and 

organizations I chaired, I also had the opportunity to 

serve as President of the National Association of 

Regulatory Commissioners, also known as NARUC, in 

2011-2012. 

).-A great deal of my focus during the last 10 years has 

been in the area of nuclear issues and nuclear waste. I 

have had the opportunity to appear before 

congressional committees on at least nine occasions, 

as well as the FERC and the EPA on issues ranging 

from EPA regulations to Yucca Mountain ... and I am 

very pleased to be able to use my knowledge and 

expertise on behalf of Nuclear Matters today. 

1 
286 


26002.273

Slide #2: 

~Nuclear Matters was launched in March of this year, 

with a focus on educating policymakers and the public 

about the benefits of nuclear energy, as well as the 

economic challenges the industry is currently facing. 

~My fellow colleagues and I believe that this isn't a 

partisan issue. It's really about educating and bringing 

people together around the issue of preserving 

reliable, clean energy. 

~We're not prescribing any one specific policy solution, 

although the campaign hopes that once people become 

aware of nuclear energy's current challenges, they will 

begin to consider possible solutions, particularly at the 

state level within the broader energy policy landscape. 

~We believe that, once people become aware, they will 

also agree that something needs to be done, because 

nuclear matters! 

2 
287 


26002.274

Slide #3: 

? The Nuclear Matters effort is being led by two widely 

respected national leaders, from both sides of the 

political aisle. 

? Senators Judd Gregg and Evan Bayh not only served in 

the United States Senate, but also as governors of their 

respective states. 

? They've dealt with complex energy issues at the 

national and state level. I actually appeared before 

Senator Bayh and his former Senate Energy 

Committee colleagues a few years ago. 

? Judd Gregg and Evan Bayh are involved with this 

campaign because they care deeply about this 

country's energy future ... and few people understand 

the political environment better than these two men. 

3 
288 


26002.275

Slide #4: 

~The Nuclear Matters campaign is a group of 

individuals, businesses and organizations united in the 

view that existing nuclear energy plants are critical, 

and that existing nuclear power plants should be 

preserved. 

~As you can see from this slide, Nuclear Matters has 

also attracted a diverse group of Leadership Council 

members. 

~In addition to our co-chairs, I am joined by several 

other people who I respect enormously .. .former 

Secretary of Energy and Governor Spencer 

Abraham .. .former EPA Administrator Carol 

Browner. . .former White House Chief of Staff and 

Commerce Secretary Bill Daley .. .former Arkansas 

Senator Blanche Lincoln ... Vicky Bailey, a former FERC 

Commissioner, Deputy Energy Secretary and a former 

state utility commissioner from Indiana ... President of 

the North America's Building Trades Union Sean 

McGarvey and Ed Hill, President of International 

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. 

(Continued on next page) 

4 
289 


26002.276

);-The campaign reflects a wide range of ideologies, 

political backgrounds, and experience, but what 

everyone involved has in common is an understanding 

that our existing nuclear energy plants are vitally 

important to preserve. 

);-And, that these existing nuclear plants create jobs, that 

they produce carbon-free energy, and contribute to 

the reliability of our energy supply. 

);-I am convinced it's an idea that everyone should be 

able to get behind. 

5 
290 


26002.277

Slide #5: 

Y America's existing nuclear energy plants are the 

backbone of our nation's energy portfolio and provide 

tremendous benefits. 

o The country's existing nuclear energy plants provide 

about one-fifth of the country's energy supply, 

powering tens of millions of homes and businesses. 

o Nuclear energy is our most reliable source of energy, 

working reliably 24 hours a day, seven days a week 

through all weather conditions ... and at 85-90 

percent capacity factors, the highest of any energy 

source! 

o Our existing nuclear energy plants are key to 

advancing toward a clean energy future, providing 

63 percent of emission-free generation in the United 

States last year. 

(Continued on next page) 

6 
291 


26002.278

o Existing nuclear plants are drivers of economic 

growth and jobs in communities across the nation, 

too, providing 100,000 jobs across the country and 

generating substantial domestic economic value in 

electricity sales - $40-$50 billion/year. They 

actually fuel the growth of the communities where 

they are located, too! 

};>Our energy policies must ensure that existing nuclear 

energy plants are preserved, although I personally 

believe that flexibility is needed, too, because different 

solutions may be required or appropriate for different 

parts of the country. 

7 
292 


26002.279

Slide #6: 

>-Despite these significant benefits, our country's 

existing nuclear energy plants face a "perfect storm" of 

economic challenges that threaten their continued 

operation. 

o Electricity use has been flat for several years due 

to the combination of a sluggish economy and 

energy efficiency programs. 

o Electricity markets do not value zero-carbon 

electricity sources- in other words, nuclear 

energy receives no economic credit for producing 

carbon-free electricity. A reasonable carbon policy 

would positively influence the economics of all/owand no-carbon generating sources. 

o Natural gas production has rapidly expanded, 

causing a precipitous price decline of more than 

SO percent since 2008 and causing wholesale 

power prices to drop commensurately. 

(Continued on next page) 

8 
293 


26002.280

o An aging, constrained transmission system 

prevents some nuclear plants in power-saturated 

markets from delivering electricity to other 

markets that need clean electricity. 

~Any one or two of these conditions could be managed, 

if that was all that occurred. But this combination of 

economic AND policy factors has created potentially 

fatal economic headwinds for some existing nuclear 

energy plants. 

~Two nuclear plants have already announced that they 

will shut down prematurely as a result of these 

conditions, which, if left unaddressed, may force 

additional closures. 

9 
294 


26002.281

Slide #7: 

~Since the launch of Nuclear Matters, the campaign has 

implemented a broad array of coordinated tactics 

focused on educating national and state-based 

audiences, including policymakers like you, industry 

leaders and local stakeholders, on the clear benefits 

that nuclear energy plants provide to our nation and 

the economic challenges that threaten those benefits. 

~The campaign has been composed of Media Relations, 

Paid Advertising, Coalition Building, Voter ID & 

Mobilization, Localized Engagement, Event & 

Spokesperson Placement, and Digital Advocacy. 

~Nuclear Matters seeks to raise public awareness of the 

substantial benefits of existing nuclear energy plants 

and the economic challenges that threaten those 

benefits. 

o The campaign is reaching out to stakeholders 

around the country to hear directly from them about 

the importance of nuclear energy to their states and 

communities and find the solutions that will help to 

preserve this essential energy resource. 

10 
295 


26002.282

Slide #8: 

~Advertising- High-impact and targeted print and 

digital advertising to provide visibility for the 

campaign's goals and local activities. 

o Placed print advertisements in national and 

beltway publications, including The New York 

Times, The Wall Street Journal, Roll Call, National 

Journal and Chicago Tribune 

o Placed state and local print advertisements in 

conjunction with key events 

o Placed digital advertisements on high-visibility 

websites, such as WSJ.com and Salon.com, as well 

as geo-targeted digital to specific locations 

o Soon we will be rolling out a new advertising 

campaign, featuring both digital and print 

advertising, so keep your eyes peeled for that! 

11 
296 


26002.283

Slide #9: 

~With a full range of activities planned in eleven key 

states, Nuclear Matters has both national reach and 

local impact...and we will continue to maximize instate efforts throughout 2014 and 2015 in our target 

states of: 

o Arizona 

o Texas 

o Illinois 

o Michigan 

o Ohio 

o Pennsylvania 

o New York 

o New Jersey 

o Massachusetts 

o New Hampshire 

o Maryland 

12 
297 


26002.284

Slide #10: 

? National & State Events 

o Nuclear Matters is securing opportunities for the 

campaign's Co-Chairs and Leadership Council to 

speak directly to policymakers like you, opinion 

leaders and the public-at-large in target states, 

including organizing a series of in-state events cohosted by Nuclear Matters. 

13 
298 


26002.285

Slide #11: 

).;-Media Relations 

oWe are positioning Nuclear Matters as a vocal and 

influential advocate for the preservation of 

existing nuclear energy plants with members of 

the media and influential stakeholders in our 

target states. 

o This is designed to be a local and aggressive 

media-relations campaign that includes reporter 

briefings, editorial board meetings and prominent 

opinion pieces, which has resulted in over 50 

placements in national, regional and trade digital 

and print publications, accounting for 

approximately 42 million impressions in print, 

digital and broadcast outlets to date! 

14 
299 


26002.286

Slide #12: 

);;>As I said earlier, Nuclear Matters doesn't prescribe any 

particular legislative or policy solution, but rather 

encourages policymakers and stakeholders to take 

steps that will enable the continued operation of our 

country's nuclear energy plants. 

);;>Since I am always asked about what the different 

solutions could be that may be called for in different 

parts of the country, I will make you aware of some 

that have been floated already. They include: 

o New legislative, regulatory and/or competitive 

market policies that recognize the zero-carbonemissions value of existing nuclear energy plants; 

o New legislative, regulatory and/or competitive 

market policies that recognize the electric system 

reliability of existing nuclear energy plants; 

o New efforts to enable rapid development of 

electric transmission capacity to better link 

existing nuclear energy plants to markets; 

(Continued on next page) 

15 
300 


26002.287

o Other, similar policy initiatives that help improve 

the economic viability of today's nuclear energy 

plants. 

16 
301 


26002.288

Slide #13: 

>-Here are four important things to take with you and 

share about existing nuclear plants. 

!.America's existing nuclear energy plants are the 

backbone of our nation's energy portfolio and provide 

tremendous benefits in the following areas: 

o Reliable 

o Carbon Free 

o Economic Engines 

2. Despite these significant benefits, existing merchant 

nuclear plants face a "perfect storm" of economic 

challenges, including rising nuclear costs, flat 

electricity demand, an increase in natural gas supply, 

aging transmission system constraints and lack of 

carbon policies, all of which together threaten the 

continued operation of these plants. 

3. Our energy policies must ensure that existing nuclear 

energy plants are preserved, though different 

solutions may be called for in different parts of the 

country. 

(Continued on next page) 

17 
302 


26002.289

4. Nuclear Matters is a bipartisan campaign to engage 

and inform policymakers and the public about the 

need to preserve existing nuclear energy plants due to 

their critical role in America's energy mix. 

18 
303 


26002.290

Slide #14: 

~To learn more about our campaign, please go to our 

website at www.nuclearmatters.com. 

oWe also encourage you to "like" us on Facebook 

and follow us on Twitter. 

o On behalf of the Nuclear Matters campaign, I 

want to thank you for your time and attention, 

and I would be happy to answer any questions 

you have in the time I have left. 

19 
304 


26002.291

Attachment for 

Question 53 
305 


26002.292

Whitehouse # 53 attachment 

The following information is based on public sources or the best of my recollection and is in 

accordance with my obligations under the D.C. Bar rules. 

Lobbying 

Used Oil Management Association- registered I 0/20 I 0-07/20 II. EPA regulation of used oil 

and impacts on recycling. 

Saint Gobain Containers registered 05/2010-07/2014. Effects of recycling, energy savings and 

greenhouse gas emissions reductions on the domestic glass manufacturing industry. 

American Forest and Paper Association -registered 07/2011-12/2014. EPA regulation of nonhazardous secondary materials. 

American Farm Bureau Federation- 04/2011-12/2014. EPA regulation of agriculture under the 

Clean Water Act. 

American Process Inc. - 07/2011-04/2012. EPA's Renewable Fuels Standard and the definition 

of renewable biomass under the Clean Air Act. 

City of Lima, OH- 01/2012-12/2014. Clean Water Act regulation and enforcement issues 

relating to municipal government. 

City of Peoria, IL and Greater Peoria Sanitation District 08/2012- 12/2014. Clean Water Act 

regulation and enforcement issues relating to municipal government. 

Litigation (all are concluded) 

American Foundry Society: D.C. Circuit case no. 11-1150, petition for review of the American 

Foundry Society of the final rule of United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

entitled, "Identification ofNon-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste," 

published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15456 et seq. (March 21, 20 II). Filed May 19, 20 II. Dismissed 

voluntarily July 3, 2013. 

American Foundry Society: D.C. Circuit case no. 11-1151, Petition for Review of the final rule 

of the respondent United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), entitled, "Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units," published at 65 Fed. Reg. 75338 et 

seq. (Dec. I, 2000). Filed May 19,2011. Dismissed voluntarily July 3, 2013. 

American Foundry Society: D.C. Circuit case no. 11-1152, Petition for Review of the final rule 

of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), entitled, "National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, Institutional 

Boilers and Process Heaters,'' published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15608 et seq. (March 21, 2011). Filed 
306 


26002.293

May 19, 20 I I. Dismissed voluntarily July 13, 20 I I. 

American Foundry Society: D.C. Circuit case no. 1 1-1153, Petition for Review of the final rule 

of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), entitled, "Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units," published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15704 et 

seq. (March I, 2011). Filed May 19,2011. Dismissed voluntarily July 2, 2013. 

American Forest & Paper Association, the American Wood Council, the Biomass Power 

Association, the Construction Materials Recycling Association Issues and Education Fund, the 

Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers: 

D.C. Circuit case no. II- 1223. Petition for review of the final rule of the respondent United 

States Environmental Protection Agency entitled, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary 

Materials That Are Solid Waste," published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15456 et seq. (March 21,20 II). Filed 

June 16, 20 II. Construction Materials Recycling Association Issues and Education Fund motion 

to terminate party, January 13,2015. Substitution of attorney January 14, 2015. Case concluded 

September 29,2015. 

American Forest & Paper Association, the American Wood Council, the Biomass Power 

Association, the Construction Materials Recycling Association Issues and Education Fund, the 

Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers, 

Motion to intervene in support of EPA in D.C. Circuit case no. I 1-1189, petition for review of 

the final rule of the respondent United States Environmental Protection Agency entitled, 

"Identification ofNon-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste," published at 76 

Fed. Reg. 15456 et seq. (March 21, 2011), filed July 18,2011. Substitution of attorney January 

14, 2015. Case concluded September 29,2015. 

Rubber Manufacturers Association: D.C. Circuit case no. 11-1238. Petition for review of the 

final rule of the respondent United States Environmental Protection Agency entitled, 

"Identification ofNon-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste," published at 76 

Fed. Reg. 15456 et seq. (March 21, 20 II). Petition filed June 20, 20 II, by another firm. 

Replaced original attorney July 5, 2011. Substitution of attorney January 14,2015. Case 

concluded September 29, 2015. 

Rubber Manufacturers Association: Motion to intervene in support of EPA in D.C. Circuit case 

no. 11-1189, petition for review of the final rule of the respondent United States Environmental 

Protection Agency entitled, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are 

Solid Waste," published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15456 et seq. (March 21, 2011), filed July 15,2011. 

Substitution of attorney January 14, 2015. Case concluded September 29, 2015. 

American Forest & Paper Association, the American Wood Council, the Biomass Power 

Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers: D.C. Circuit case no. 13-1158, 

petition for review of the final rule of the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

entitled, "Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units: Reconsideration and Final 

Amendments; Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Arc Solid Waste, Final Rule" published 

at 78 Fed. Reg. 9112 et seq. (February 7, 2013), filed May 7. 2013. Severed from D.C. Cir. case 

2 
307 


26002.294

no. ll-1189. Assigned new docket number 14-1201. Substitution of attorney January 14,2015. 

Voluntary dismissal April6, 2016. 

American Forest & Paper Association, the American Wood Council, the Biomass Power 

Association, the Construction Materials Recycling Association Issues and Education Fund, the 

Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers: 

Motion to intervene in support of EPA in D.C. Circuit case no. 13-1152, petition for review of 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency final agency action entitled "Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units: Reconsideration and Final Amendments; NonHazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste," 78 Fed. Reg. 9112-9213 (Feb. 7, 20!3), 

filed May 3 I. 2013. Substitution of attorney January 14, 2015. Case concluded September 29, 

2015. 

Evansville Water and Sewer Utility Board and the City of Evansville: I entered an appearance 

for third party plaintiff:<; Evansville Water and Sewer Utility Board and the City of Evansville in 

United States of America v. City of Evansville, Indiana, So. Dist. Ind., case no. 3:09-cv-00128. 

In December 2012. The case was dismissed April19, 2013. 

Clean Water Act consent decree negotiations with EPA {all are concluded): 

City oflndianapolis, Indiana- concluded with a consent decree modification in November 2010. 

Evansville, Indiana, Water and Sewer District my involvement ended in December 2014. 

According to press releases, this matter was concluded with a consent decree modification in 

February 2016. 

City of Akron, Ohio- my involvement ended in December 2014. According to press releases, 

this matter was concluded with a consent decree modification in September 2016. 

Rulemakings: 

Agricultural Retailers Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Council of 

Farmer Cooperatives, National Pork Producers Council, The Fertilizer Institute- Clean Water 

Act proposed rules related to agriculture, 10/2010-07/2014. 

American Forest and Paper Association, American Wood Council, Biomass Power Association, 

Construction & Demolition Recycling Association- RCRA proposed rule. June 2014. 

American Petroleum Institute, National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and American 

Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute. CERCLA proposed rule. April2010. 

American Process Inc.- Clean Air Act proposed rule. August 2011. 

Federal Recycling and Remediation Coalition- RCRA and CERCLA proposed rules and policy 

issues. April 20 !!-September 2013. 

Federal Water Quality Coalition- Clean Water Act proposed rules and policy issues. May 20 I 0-

November 2014. 

3 
308 


26002.295

Used Oil Management Association- RCRA and Clean Air Act proposed rules. August 2010-

February 2012. 

Other clients not identified above whom I represented at some point of time between 

March 31, 2009 and January 15, 2005 in EPA-related matters, to the best of my 

recollection. 

3S International 

Agricultural Nutrient Policy Council 

Ameren Corporation 

Bora! Industries, Inc 

BP America 

Edison Electric Institute 

Federal Stormwater Association 

Georgia Pacific 

Glenn Springs Holding 

Honeywell International 

Interstate Resources 

National Association of Homebuilders 

National Mining Association 

National Rural Elec. Coop. Association 

Sage Environmental Consulting 

Tradebe Treatment and Recycling, LLC 

Tyson Food 

USA Rice Federation 

4 
309 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so very much for your comments. 

Ms. Bodine. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN BODINE, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

Ms. BODINE. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and 

members of the Committee, thank you for the privilege of appearing before you today as the nominee for the position of Assistant 

Administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

I am honored that President Trump, Administrator Pruitt, and 

this Committee are considering me for this position. 

I would also like to thank my family. They are not here today 

because they are all at work. They did come 12 years ago which 

was the last time I actually had a confirmation hearing before this 

Committee. My sons, at that time, were 11 and 14. They are now 

23 and 26. Thankfully, they are gainfully employed. 

I would also like to thank my many current and former colleagues for their support and friendship. 

I have worked on environmental issues for my entire professional 

career, as a practicing attorney, as a member of the professional 

staff of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of 

the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as a 

former EPA Assistant Administrator, and as a member of the professional staff of this Committee. 

If confirmed as the Assistant Administrator for OECA, I would 

bring with me an extensive background in the environmental laws 

that OECA enforces. I strongly support those laws and the goals 

of protecting public health and the environment. 

I also would bring my past experience in managing an EPA 

headquarters office and my deep respect for the career staff who 

do the day to day work of implementing our environmental laws 

and carrying out the responsibilities that Congress has given EPA. 

I appreciate that our laws are built around the framework of cooperative federalism. Under cooperative federalism, States and the 

Federal Government both have important and complementary roles 

in implementing our laws. 

I also fully appreciate that we cannot protect public health and 

the environment unless the regulated community knows what they 

are supposed to do. Enforcement is a critical tool to achieve compliance. Compliance by everyone also creates a level playing field for 

the regulated community. By enforcing environmental laws, OECA 

helps to create that level playing field. 

Of course, to comply with the law, the regulated community 

needs to understand what is expected of them. Sometimes our statutes and regulations are less than clear. OECA plays an important 

role in making sure that there is clarity and consistency in how our 

environmental laws are interpreted, and providing assistance when 

the laws are less than clear. If confirmed, I look forward to working 

with the EPA program offices and States to provide that clarity 

and consistency. 

310 

Those who have worked with me know that I have a collaborative and inclusive approach to tackling complex environmental 

issues. For the Assistant Administrator of OECA, this means collaboration and coordination with States that are authorized to 

carry out Federal laws. It also means collaboration and coordination with the EPA program offices that write the regulations and 

implement the statutes that Congress writes. 

I also understand the need to communicate. That means not just 

talking but also listening. Communication with the environmental 

professional staff at EPA is an important managerial responsibility. Communication with State agencies is a critical component 

of cooperative federalism. Communication with the regulated community and environmental groups provides important feedback. Finally, communication with the public and Congress provides support for the Agency’s mission. 

If confirmed by the Senate, I would embrace the responsibility 

for assuring compliance with environmental laws. I know we all 

share the goal of protecting public health and the environment. I 

know we share the goal of making environmental regulations clear 

and understandable. 

I am very excited about the opportunity to work with Administrator Pruitt as a member of his team to achieve those goals. 

In closing, thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to any 

questions you or your colleagues may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bodine follows:] 

311 


26002.296

Susan Parker Bodine 

Susan Parker Bodine is Chief Counsel for the Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works, a position she has held since january 

2015. 

Ms. Bodine's nearly 29 years of environmental law experience 

includes both government service and private practice. 

From january 2006 through january 2009, Ms. Bodine served in the 

George W. Bush administration as the assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

From January 1995 through December 2005, Ms. Bodine was staff director and counsel for the 

Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the House Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure. 

Ms. Bodine was an associate at Covington & Burling from August 1988 to january 1995 and a 

partner at Barnes & Thornburg from March 2009 to january 2015. 

Ms. Bodine's undergraduate degree is from Princeton University and her Jaw degree is from the 

University of Pennsylvania School of Law. 
312 


26002.297

Statement of Susan Parker Bodine 

Nominated to be Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

June 7th, 2017 

Chairman Barrasso, Senator Carper and distinguished members of the Committee, thank 

you for the privilege of coming before you today as the nominee for the position of 

Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. I am 

honored that President Trump, Administrator Pruitt and this Committee are considering 

me for this position. 

I would also like to thank my many current and former colleagues for their support and 

friendship. 

I have worked on environmental issues for my entire professional career, as a practicing 

attorney, as a member of the professional staff ofthe House Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, as a former EPA Assistant Administrator, and as a member of the 

professional staff of this Committee. 

If confirmed as the Assistant Administrator for OECA, I would bring with me an 

extensive background in the environmental laws that OECA enforces. I strongly support 

those laws and the goals of protecting public health and the environment. 
313 


26002.298

I also would bring my past experience in managing an EPA headquarters office and my 

deep respect for the career staff who do the day-to-day work of carrying out the 

responsibilities that Congress has given EPA. 

I appreciate that most of our environmental laws are built around the framework of 

cooperative federalism. Under cooperative federalism, states and the federal government 

have important and complementary roles in implementing federal environmental statutes. 

I also fully appreciate that we cannot protect public health and the environment unless the 

regulated community complies with the law. Enforcement is a critical tool to achieve 

that compliance. Compliance with the law by everyone also creates a level playing field 

for the regulated community. By enforcing environmental laws OECA helps to create 

that level playing field. 

Of course, to comply with the law, the regulated community needs to understand what is 

expected of them. Sometimes our statutes and regulations are less than clear. OECA 

plays an important role in making sure that there is clarity and consistency in how our 

environmental laws are interpreted, and providing assistance when the laws are less than 

clear. If confirmed, I would look forward to working with the EPA program offices and 

with states to provide that clarity and consistency. 

Those who have worked with me know that I use a collaborative and inclusive approach 

to tackling complex environmental issues. !'or the Assistant Administrator of OEC' A this 

l!It'<lll~ collabolatiuu awl cousullalioll with hluteh that ate aulhotized to nury out their 
314 


26002.299

own laws, in lieu of federal law, states that are delegated the authority to carry out federal 

law, and EPA program offices that write the regulations that implement the statutes that 

Congress writes. 

I also understand the need to communicate. When I say "communicate" I mean listening 

as well as talking. Communication with the environmental professional staff at EPA is 

an important managerial responsibility. Communication with state agencies is a critical 

part of cooperative federalism. Communication with the regulated community and 

environmental groups provides important feedback. Finally, communication with the 

public and Congress helps build support for the agency's mission. 

If confirmed by the Senate, I would embrace the responsibility for assuring compliance 

with environmental laws. I know we share the goal of protecting public health and the 

environment. I know we share the goal of making environmental regulations clear and 

understandable. 

I want to work with everyone to achieve these goals. 

In particular, I am very excited about the opportunity to work with Administrator Pruitt 

as a member of his team as we create a driving force for economic growth as well as 

environmental protection; promote a culture of environmental responsibility; and 

continue to ensure compliance with our nation's environmental laws. 

In closing, I look fi>rward to any questlous you or yom colleagues may have. Tlwnk you. 
315 


26002.300

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Hearing entitled, "Hearing on the Nominations of Kristine Svinicki (Reappointment), Annie 

Caputo and David Wright to be Members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the 

Nomination of Susan Bodine to be Assistant Administrator of the Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency." 

Tuesday, June 13,2017 

Questions for the Record for Susan Bodine 

Ranking Member Carper: 

I. The EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is responsible for 

the civil and criminal enforcement of the nation's environmental laws, a responsibility 

that all agree must be carried out with absolute impartiality. In fact, for decades, both 

Republican and Democratic administrations alike have had written policies limiting 

White House contacts with agencies that have investigatory and enforcement 

responsibilities. These policies have recognized that even a simple phone call from the 

White House to an agency inquiring about or flagging a specific matter can upset the 

evenhanded application of the law. We recently learned that Devon Energy, a strong 

political supporter of Scott Pruitt's, informed the EPA just 5 days after Scott Pruitt was 

sworn in as Administrator that it was no longer willing to install air pollution technology 

or pay a high penalty to EPA for its illegal air emissions of cancer-causing benzene and 

other chemicals. We also know that Trump family casinos, hotels and golf courses have 

been the subject of EPA enforcement actions for violations of the Clean Air Act and 

Clean Water Act. Do you agree that it is essential that in making decisions, such as 

whether to launch an investigation, continue an investigation. proceed with an 

enforcement action, or close a matter OECA must be shielded from political influence 

and spared even the appearance of being subject to political influence or considerations? 

Yes. 

2. Will you commit to prevent any and all political efforts by the White House, the 

Administrator or others seeking to water down or prevent EPA enforcement actions 

against polluters who break the law? To that end, 

a. Will you commit to restricting communications between OECA and the White 

House staff regarding specific investigations and enforcement matters? 

Yes. 

b. Will you commit to ensuring the staffofOECA is familiar with those restrictions? 

Yes. 

c. Will you commit to advising this Committee within one week if any inappropriate 

communications from White !louse staff to OECA stafl; including you, occur? 

Yes. 

Page 1 of 32 
316 


26002.301

3. In the past, the EPA Enforcement Office has led significant national enforcement cases. 

For example, EPA responded forcefully in response to Volkswagen's sale of cars that 

emitted illegal levels of air pollutants because they cheated on their emissions testing in 

all 50 States. The Tesoro Corporation, to cite another example, was in violation the 

Clean Air Act in refineries located in six states, from Hawaii to North Dakota. Do you 

agree that it would have made no sense for all 50 States to Jile separate enforcement 

actions against VW, or for the Tesoro refinery in Hawaii to be subject to a different 

settlement from one that was reached separately in North Dakota? 

Yes. 

Do you believe that avoiding duplicative and conflicting State efforts is one reason that 

that EPA enforcement should be providing national leadership, not abdicating it? 

I do not believe that EPA is abdicating national leadership. I agree that EPA plays 

an important role in avoiding duplicative and conflicting enforcement efforts and 

ensuring there is a level playing field across the country. 

4. For years, in lieu of the payment of fines, EPA and companies found to have violated 

environmental laws have entered into agreements to establish Supplemental 

Environmental Projects, which arc projects that improve the environment. Do you agree 

that these are a valuable tool that should remain in the enforcement toolbox? 

Yes, consistent with existing OECA policy on SEPs. 

5. My colleagues and I have sent 14 oversight letters to Scott Pruitt- and ten of them have 

not been answered. Moreover, we have learned that the White House has actually told 

agencies not to answer Democrats' mail. Do you agree that federal agencies should fully 

answer their mail, and do you commit to providing all Members with the information 

they request of you if you are confirmed? 

It is my understanding that Administrator Pruitt has responded to II of2lletters 

sent by EPW members. 

As I stated in my hearing, I believe that Congressional oversight is very important. 

If confirmed as the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, I intend to be consistent with past agency practices with respect to 

responding to individual members of Congress. This includes complying with 

EPA's long-standing policy of not releasing confidential enforcement informationno matter who is asking for such information 

6. If Congress adopts the fiscal year 2018 Trump Budget for OECA, 757 full time 

employees, or FTEs, will need to be fired. All those employees won't depart EPA the 

minute Congress enacts the appropriations bill-layoffs of that magnitude would take 

some time. The Trump Budget only provides $419 million dollars in total for the 

Enforcement office- even though paying just the salaries tor the employees cost $440 

million dollars last year. Do you agree that the fiscal year 20 I 8 Trump Budget proposal 

Page 2 of 32 
317 


26002.302

for EPA's Enforcement office can't be implemented as written, because there isn't even 

enough money in it to make payroll, let alone conduct the en!orcement activities for 

which the office is currently responsible? 

The President's budget is seeking $12 million for voluntary early retirement. In 

addition, 20 percent of the workforce is at or over retirement age. Accordingly, as 

Administrator Pruitt stated on June 15, 2017 before the Interior, Environment, and 

Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Honse Appropriations Committee, it is my 

understanding that EPA expects to see significant reductions in FTEs due to 

buyouts, retirements and a hiring freeze. 

7. The President proposed a 24% budget cut to the EPA Enforcement office, saying that 

EPA will "take a step back from enforcing laws to protect clean air and water in most 

cases," under the assumption that in most cases, States will do that work themselves. The 

fiscal year 2018 budget proposal cuts the grants that States have used to supplement their 

own enforcement efforts by 44%. Do you agree that ifthere are double-digit cuts to the 

EPA enforcement office and double-digit cuts to State enforcement and compliance 

grants, there will be less enforcement and compliance capacity to avoid, deter and correct 

environmental crimes? 

Categorical grants to support state implementation of the Clean Air Act, the Clean 

Water Act, and RCRA are proposed to be reduced by 30%, in the President's 

budget request. These grants often come with conditions that limit state flexibility. 

The states are the primary enforcers of most environmental laws and I believe that 

EPA's enforcement program should respect that strong role. As the Environmental 

Council of the States (ECOS) noted in the cooperative federalism paper they 

released on .June 12, 2017, states should be the primary enforcement authority for 

delegated programs and EPA should step in only when needed or appropriate. If 

confirmed, I will work closely with state agencies who have delegated authority to 

implement federal law to increase flexibility in the use offederal categorical grants 

and avoid duplicative efforts and wasted resources. 

I agree with the statement in the ECOS paper that recasting the state-federal 

relationship to embrace cooperative federalism can result in: 

"Equal or greater environmental and public ltealtlt pmtection and 

outcomes tltrouglt smart deployment of resources on critical priorities; 

Reduced operating costs due to a more efficient division of services, 

streamlined operating relations/tips, best practice sharing, and 

elimination of redundancies across states and divisions of EPA; 

More effective allocation of limited resources by determining the best 

roles and functions states and EPA are each best suited to peiform; and, 

With time, fewer disputes over who should take credit for successes and 

achievements, and who is responsible for decisions and actions that 

result in setbacks." https://www.ecos.org/documents/coopcrativefederalism-2-0/ 

Page 3 of 32 
318 


26002.303

8. Do you agree that having a central enforcement office at EPA headquarters is needed to 

pursue national and significant enforcement actions, provide technical assistance to States 

and ensure consistency among State enforcement efforts? 

Yes. 

Senator Cardin: 

In a May 2013 Senate EPW Hearing on Water Quality Trading and Nutrient Management in 

front of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee that I Chaired at the time, 1 you testified in favor of 

nutrient pollution trading, and in particular in favor of transferring public taxpayer dollars to 

agricultural businesses in exchange for their installing pollution controls. You also testified, 

however, that it would be unnecessary to check whether the farmers actually installed those 

controls. 

However, as an attorney at Barnes and Thornburg you advised the State Ag and Rural Leaders 

group that basic regulations tor agricultural pollution -such as water quality criteria and total 

maximum loads for nutrient pollution - were unnecessary and too much of a financial burden on 

business. 2 

Since the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was established in Dec. 20 I 0, the Bay has seen significant 

improvements to water quality t1owing from initiatives including the Chesapeake Bay total 

maximum daily load program. 

9. How would you approach this issue as head ofOECA'J Do you intend to implement and 

enforce those regulatory controls faithf\.illy and advice while working with industry? 

If confirmed, I would enforce applicable regulatory requirements, including those in 

the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, which was upheld by the Third Circuit in July 2015. 

Senator Markev: 

I 0. There is tremendous diversity across states in this country, and occasionally states have 

difference of opinions on how to approach a problem. One of the roles of the federal 

government is to be an arbiter among states. 

a. What is your philosophy on how interstate pollution conflicts should be handled? 

I believe that OECA plays an important role in maintaining a level 

regulatory playing field by ensuring states enforce the federal laws that they 

are authorized to carry out. That can include taking action in the absence of 

state action. 

b. What is the EPA's role in resolving interstate pollution conflicts? 

1 https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID-AD7B2064-9A2F-OF47-5E2D-581F6FC46468 

2 "Environmental Challenges Facing the Agricultural Community," Legislative Agriculture Chairs Summit, 

presentation dated January 16. 20!1 

Page 4 of 32 
319 


26002.304

Under our environmental laws, EPA approves or establishes standards and 

controls at a level that protects other states. For example, water quality 

standards under the Clean Water Act must protect downstream waters. 

Under the Clean Air Act, states must establish controls sufficient to avoid 

contributing to non attainment of a national ambient air quality standard in a 

downwind state. The Office of Water reviews and approves state water 

quality standards. The Office of Air and Radiation reviews and approves 

state implementation plans. OECA's job is to ensure states enforce the 

standards and plans that the EPA program offices have approved, and to 

step in to take federal enforcement action where necessary and appropriate. 

11. Shortly after taking office as Oklahoma Attorney General in 20 II, Scott Pruitt 

dismantled the office's Environmental Protection Unit, established to pursue violators of 

the state's environmental laws. In his FY 18 budget, President Trump has proposed to cut 

the office of enforcement and compliance budget by 24% while also cutting state 

categorical grants by 44%. Categorical grants are funds spent to implement pollution 

control programs and are used to monitor pollution releases and enforce pollution 

limitations. 

a. Are you concerned that the EPA administrator may decide to similarly dismantle 

the EPA office of compliance, as he did in Oklahoma? 

No. 

b. The reduction in staffing and resources that you will face if Trump's budget is 

enacted as proposed will surely hamper the ability of the office to accomplish its 

stated goals. What do you expect will be most challenging operating with such a 

limited budget? 

Changing the relationship between EPA and states to embrace cooperative 

federalism will be a challenge, but I agree with ECOS that such a change can 

result in: 

"Equal or greater environmental and public health protection and 

outcomes through smart deployment of resources on critical priorities; 

Reduced operating costs due to a more efficient division of services, 

streamlined operating relationships, best practice sltaring, and 

elimination of redundancies across states and divisions of EPA; 

More effective allocation of limited resources by determining the best 

roles and functions states and EPA are each best suited to perform; and, 

Witlt time, fewer di~putes over who sltould take credit for successes and 

achievements, and wlto is responsible for decisions and actions tit at 

result in setbacks." ltttps:l/www.ecos.orgldocumentslcooperative-

(ederalism-2-0/ 

Page 5 of 32 
320 


26002.305

c. Do you think it will be easier or harder to catch and hold polluters accountable if 

the categorical grants given to states to implement and oversee environmental 

programs is cut by nearly half? 

I expect EPA and states to use all tools in the toolbox to ensure compliance 

with federal euvironmentallaws. By avoiding duplication of effort and 

increasing coordination and communication, I believe that EPA and states 

can maintain enforcement and compliance assurance efforts in a time of 

constrained budgets. 

12. As the widespread lead contamination of Flint Michigan's water supply starkly reminds 

us, environmental burdens are often borne disproportionately by low income and 

minority communities. Yet the Trump FY 18 budget proposed to completely eliminate the 

Environmental Justice Program within OECA. 

a. How do you expect this budget cut will affect the office of compliance's focus on 

environmental justice issues? 

I do not expect it to have any effect. Addressing disproportionate adverse 

impacts on low income and minority communities is carried out by each EPA 

program office including OECA. In OECA, that function is not performed 

by the Office of Environmental Justice. 

b. What are your plans on reducing toxic pollution and disproportional burden of 

pollutants in communities of color? 

EPA writes regulations and sets standards to protect everyone. To avoid 

disproportionate adverse effects it is important to understand whether a 

community has a disproportionate level of exposure. This requires 

information and communication. Using a mapping tool like EJSCREEN, 

EPA can identify locations where additional information collection is 

appropriate to determine if a disproportionate adverse effect exists. 

c. What will you do to increase enforcement and oversight in communities that are 

bearing the burden of environmental hazards? 

If confirmed, I would expect OECA to continue to use tools like E.JSCREEN 

to identify locations that are appropriate for an increased focus on 

enforcement and compliance assurance. 

13. EPA recently developed the agency's EJ2020 action Agenda to better deliver on its 

historical promises of reducing disparities in environmental protection. Will you utilize 

and uphold this guidance and procedures outlined in this document throughout the work 

of your office? Please explain. 

Page 6 of 32 
321 


26002.306

I am not familiar with EPA's EJ2020 action agenda. If confirmed, I will seek a 

briefing on this guidance. 

14. Last year entitled, "'The ABCs ofPCBs: A Toxic Threat to America's Schools."3 

Although Congress and the EPA banned the production and most uses of PCBs in 1979, 

the toxic chemical is still found in many schools across this country. In addition, my 

report laid out six recommendations. There are multiple local education agencies and 

schools that have been seeking the advice and assistance of the EPA in complying with 

PCB laws and regulations. Will you commit to assisting these agencies and schools with 

their compliance efforts? How will you ensure that the guidance EPA provides across all 

Regions of EPA is consistently and proactively provided? 

EPA's guidance on PCBs in building materials was issued by the Office of Land and 

Emergency Management (OLEM) and that office and the Regional PCB 

coordinators are the primary implementers of that guidance. 

h ttps :/ /www .epa.gov /sites/prod u ction/files/2 016-

03/documcnts/pcbs in building materials questions and answers.pdf 

That guidance points out that EPA's goal is to reduce exposure and that 

enforcement may not be the best tool to achieve that goal. If confirmed, I will seek to 

ensure there is communication with OLEM and the Regions to identify situations 

where there are significant risks to public health that are not being addressed, 

where enforcement may be appropriate. 

15. Explain your philosophy on cooperating with other federal agencies enforcement 

programs. How will you institute and continue cooperative enforcement work? 

If confirmed, I would ensure that EPA continues to work closely with the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) to enforce federal environmental law. For judicial 

enforcement actions, DOJ represents the United States. EPA also needs to 

communicate with agencies that share enforcement authority. For example, the 

Coast Guard implements CERCLA, the Oil Pollution Act, and section 311 of the 

Clean Water Act in the coastal zone, while EPA implements these authorities in the 

inland zone. The Corps of Engineers has authority to enforce violations of section 

404 of the Clean Water Act. Federal land management agencies also have authority 

to issue orders under CERCLA relating to hazardous substance releases on the 

property they manage. If I am confirmed, I will ensure that there is continued 

communication with agencies that share enforcement authority with EPA. 

16. What is your plan on increasing capacity and focus on ensuring compliance with existing 

and new TSCA regulations? 

The Lauten berg Act requires EPA to issue a number of new regulations. Ifl am 

confirmed, I will work with the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

to ensure the regulated community is aware of their new obligations and will take 
322 


26002.307

enforcement action where appropriate. 

17. According to the EPA website "The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the 

environment." If confirmed. do you commit to upholding the EPA mission of protecting 

human health and the environment? 

Yes. 

18. The EPA"s website also states that its purpose is to ensure "the U.S. plays a leadership 

role in working with other nations to protect the global environment.'' If confirmed, do 

you commit to upholding the EPA purpose of ensuring the U.S is a leader in protecting 

the global environment? 

If confirmed, I will enforce U.S. law. 

Senator Sanders: 

Lake Champlain TMDLs 

19. Lake Champlain is one of Vermont's most treasured environmental features. Tourism and 

property values arc tied to the health of the lake-swimmable, fishable and drinkable 

waters. Run-off-including from lawns, paved roads and parking lots, waste-water 

treatment facilities, and farmlands--contributes to high levels of phosphorus that spur 

toxic algae growth. In 2016, EPA released new phosphorus limits for the lake by 

establishing a TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load). If confirmed. will you enforce 

clean-up of Lake Champlain through this TMDL? 

If confirmed, I will enforce the regulatory features of any TMDL that is in effect. 

That includes the Lake Champlain TMDL. 

Climate change 

20. President Trump has suggested in the past that climate change is a hoax. Is the President 

correct? Is climate change a hoax? 

The climate has always been changing. 

21. Do you agree with the vast majority of scientists that climate change is real, is caused by 

human activity, and that we must aggressively transition away from fossil fuels toward 

energy efficiency and sustainable energy like wind, solar, and geothermal? 

OECA is charged with assn ring compliance with environmental laws and enforcing 

those laws when there is non-compliance. That includes enforcing any regulations 

that are in effect that are related to greenhouse gases. These include: 

• Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule; 

• Greenhouse Gas/CAFE standards for cars and trucks; 

Page 8of 32 
323 


26002.308

• Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New Source Reviews for major sources 

that already need to obtain Clean Air Permits pursuant to the Supreme Court's 

2014 decision in Utility Air Regulatory Groups v EPA. 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations, 

including climate-related regulations. 

22. Do you agree with the vast majority of scientists that the combustion of fossil fuels 

contributes to climate change? 

See my response to question 21, above. 

23. Do you believe that the EPA has a role in reducing the public health harms caused by the 

extraction and use of fossil fuels as defined under the 2009 Endangerment Finding? 

Extraction and use of fossil fuel are regulated under a variety of federal 

environmental statutes and if confirmed I would enforce those statutes. 

24. If confirmed, how will you work to address climate change at EPA? 

See my response to question 21, above. 

25. Do you support President Trump's decision to leave the Paris climate agreement? 

Yes. Given the uncertainty over the accuracy of the climate models, particularly over 

sensitivity of temperature to C02, I do not believe it is appropriate to mandate a 

complete overhaul of the U.S. energy portfolio and constrain our gross domestic 

product- actions that some have estimated could cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 

trillion over the next several decades--- while leaving U.S. manufacturing at a 

competitive disadvantage with other countries that are not similarly constrained. 

Budget cuts and changing EPA priorities 

26. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ensures compliance with 

environmental laws and regulations. The office is facing: I) proposed cuts of more than 

20% in the FY 18 budget compared to FY 17, and 2) new stated agency priorities, such as 

primary environmental enforcement by the states. 

Under these severe financial constraints and shifting priorities. if confirmed, how will 

you ensure that OECA is able to effectively address civil and criminal lawsuits against 

environmental polluters and ensure compliance with environmental laws? 

If confirmed, I will work closely with state agencies who have delegated authority to 

implement federal law to avoid duplicative efforts and wasted resources. 

I agree with the statement in the ECOS paper that recasting the state-federal 

relationship to embrace cooperative federalism can result in: 

Page 9 of 32 
324 


26002.309

"Equal or greater environmental and public health protection and 

outcomes through smart deployment of resources on critical priorities; 

Reduced operating costs due to a more efficient division of services, 

streamlined operating relationships, best practice sharing, and 

elimination of redundancies across states and divisions of EPA; 

More effective allocation of limited resources by determining the best 

roles and functions states and EPA are each best suited to perform; and, 

With time, fewer disputes over who should take credit for successes and 

achievements, and who is responsible for decisions and actions that 

result in setbacks." https://www .ecos.org/documents/cooperativefedcralism-2-0/ 

If I am confirmed, I expect that OECA will continue to take enforcement where 

appropriate or necessary. In particular, OECA is uniquely qualified and situated to 

take enforcement action against companies or sectors with facilities in multiple 

states who are violating the law. OECA also is uniquely qualified and situated to 

bring criminal actions against egregious violators. 

27. Given the proposed budget cuts, if confirmed, how will you ensure enforcement of cleanup activities at sites identified under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and other 

key environmental laws? 

If I am confirmed, OECA will continue to pursue and enter into settlements with 

parties responsible for cleanup action. The amount varies from year to year as 

enforcement actions are resolved. For example, in 2016, EPA settlements resulted in 

commitments by private parties to perform Sl billion worth of cleanup work. In 1984, 

Congress gave EPA the authority to collect and spend, without appropriation, monies 

collected from responsible parties to fund future cleanup actions. Currently, the 

Superfund Trust Fund is holding $3.6 billion in special account (and some state cost 

share) funds as a result of successful OECA enforcement actions. 

28. In February, it was reported by Inside EPA that the new administration was considering 

closing OECA and reverting enforcement duties to program offices. If confirmed, do you 

foresee returning any enforcement duties to EPA program offices? If so, which programs 

and areas of enforcement are most likely to be affected? 

I am not aware of any plans to close OECA and return enforcement duties to the 

program offices. 

29. The public depends on compliance and reporting data traditionally gathered by EPA to 

aid in identifying exposure to hazardous substances and areas for enforcement. If 

confirmed, how will you ensure the full and accurate collection of compliance and 

reporting data in light of proposed budget cuts? 

Page 10 of32 
325 


26002.310

If confirmed, I expect to continue to maintain, and, working with states on data 

quality, hopefully improve the Enforcement and Compliance History Online 

(ECHO) database. 

30. With the Environmental Protection Agency planning to offer early retirement and buyout 

packages this year to comply with the President" s effort to reorganize the federal 

government, reprioritization of the agency's goals, and proposed agency budget cuts of 

30% compared to FY 17. it has been widely reported that morale at the agency is at a new 

low. As one of the leaders of the agency, if confirmed, what will you do to address these 

reported declines in workplace satisfaction? 

I have a deep respect for the EPA career staff. If confirmed, I will employ the same 

management style that I employed when I was the Assistant Administrator for the 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response by seeking input from and listening 

to the career staff. 

Conflicts of interest 

31. As a lobbyist with Barnes & Thornburg between 2009 and 2015, you represented SaintGobain Containers. In 20 I 0, Saint-Gobain agreed to pay a $2.25 million civil penalty in a 

settlement of a case alleging 15 company facilities for glass bottle manufacturing violated 

the Clean Air Act and individual State Implementation Plans (SIPs). In addition, one of 

the firm's Performance Plastics division sites is now being considered for a Superfund 

designation. On September 9, 2016 EPA proposed to add the Saint-Gobain site in 

Hoosick Falls. New York to the National Priorities List (NPL), the nation's most 

contaminated hazardous waste sites targeted for long-term cleanup. Vermont's Chemfab 

factory in North Bennington is also a former Performance Plastics division site that has 

allegedly been linked to drinking water well contamination. 

If confirmed, you would be in charge of making sure that companies like Saint-Gobain 

install the necessary pollution control technologies and conduct waste clean-ups. 

As Assistant Administrator of OECA, would you have any active conflicts of interest 

with Saint-Gobain? 

If confirmed, I would have no problem taking appropriate enforcement action 

against any company. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and EPA ethics officials to identify potential conflicts of interest 

under federal law and Executive Order 13770. I have entered into an ethics 

agreement that was approved by both EPA and the Office of Government Ethics 

and presented to this Committee. The EPA ethics counsel and the Office of 

Government Ethics confirm that I have no conflicts of interest. 

Page 11 of 32 
326 


26002.311

Further, as I stated during my confirmation hearing, my representation of Saint 

Gobain Containers related to the encouragement of glass recycling, not regulatory 

matters. Saint Gobain Containers was formerly a corporation headquartered in 

Muncie, Indiana. The Saint Gobain Performance Plastics company referred to in 

your question is a separate entity that I have never represented. Saint Gobain 

Containers was purchased by Ardagh Glass in 2014. 

Do you commit to recuse yourself in cases where there is a conflict of interest, or the 

appearance of a conflict of interest? 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and EPA ethics officials to identify potential conflicts of interest 

under federal law and Executive Order 13770. I have entered into an ethics 

agreement that was approved by both EPA and the Office of Government Ethics 

and presented to this Committee. The EPA ethics counsel and the Office of 

Government Ethics confirm that I have no conflicts of interest. If a situation arises 

where there may be an appearance of a conflict of interest, then I will consult with 

the EPA ethics counsel to determine the appropriate course of action. 

32. You have also represented the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA). Members 

of the AFPA have hundreds of EPA enforcement actions against them, including 

International Paper. which is co-owner of the Curtis Specialty Paper Superfund Site in 

New Jersey. As Assistant Administrator ofOECA, would you have any active conflicts 

of interest with members of AFPA? 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and EPA ethics officials to identify potential conflicts of interest 

under federal Jaw and Executive Order 13770. I have entered into an ethics 

agreement that was approved by both EPA and the Office of Government Ethics 

and presented to this Committee. The EPA ethics counsel and the Office of 

Government Ethics confirm that I have no conflicts of interest. 

My representation of AFPA involved working with EPA to ensure that the forest 

products industry can continue to use secondary material like biomass as a fuel in 

their boilers. In states with a large forest products industry, like Maine, New 

Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, and Oregon, biomass from forest products 

residuals is an important fuel source. For example, it is used by the city of 

Burlington, VT, as well as by my son's alma mater, Middlebury College. 

33. Do you commit to recuse yourself in cases where there is a conflict of interest, or the 

appearance of a conflict of interest? 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and EPA ethics officials to identify potential conflicts of interest 

under federal law and Executive Order 13770. I have entered into an ethics 

Page 12 of 32 
327 


26002.312

agreement that was approved by both EPA and the Office of Government Ethics 

and presented to this Committee. The EPA ethics counsel and the Office of 

Government Ethics confirm that I have no conflicts of interest. If a situation arises 

where there may be an appearance of a conflict of interest, I will consult with EPA 

ethics counsel to determine the appropriate course of action. 

OECA staffing conflicts of interest 

34. Patrick Traylor has just been named OECA's deputy assistant administrator. He has 

worked at Hogan Lovells since 1997-and as a partner since 2004--serving clients such 

as Dominion Energy, Koch Industries, and TransCanada. These three clients alone have 

been subject to numerous civil penalties for environmental violations (see below). If 

confirmed, what requirements will you put in place so that Traylor does not participate in 

OECA activities related to his previous clients? Do you commit to requiring him to 

recuse himself in cases where there is a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict 

of i ntcrcst? 

a. Since 2011, Transcanada has paid $183, I 00 in penalties for seven cases of 

environmental violations for its pipelines, including one at the EPA. The agency 

has also been critical of environmental impact statements conducted on behalf of 

TransCanada projects. In September 2016, OECA sent a letter to the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission criticizing its environmental impact statement for 

a Transcanada compressor station and gas pipelines through Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

West Virginia and Kentucky. The EPA also criticized the State Department's 

environmental impact study ofTransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline. 

b. In April2013, Dominion Energy agreed to pay a $3.4 million civil penalty and 

spend approximately $9.8 million on environmental mitigation projects to resolve 

Clean Air Act violations. 

c. In 2000, Koch Industries paid the largest civil fine ever imposed on a company 

under any federal environmental law-a $30 million civil penalty and $5 million 

on environmental projects-to resolve claims related to more than 300 oil spills 

from its pipelines and oil facilities in six states. Since 2012, Koch Industries has 

generated another 25 EPA violations with total penalties of more than $5 million. 

If confirmed, I will make sure that all OECA staff recuse themselves from 

cases in which they have a conflict of interest and abide by their obligations 

under federal ethics laws and regulations and, where applicable, Executive 

Order 13770. If an appearance of a conflict of interest arises, I will consult 

with the EPA ethics counsel to determine the appropriate course of action. 

Most pressing challenges 

35. EPA's FY 18 budget lists the following as priorities: clean water and drinking water 

infrastructure, work at Brownfield and Superfund projects, improving and protecting air 

quality, and ensuring the safety of chemicals. If confirmed, would these also be the most 

Page 13 of 32 
328 


26002.313

pressing challenges that would deserve your and OECA's attention? If confirmed, how 

will you ensure OECA will do better to address these challenges? 

Ifl am confirmed: OECA will continue to encourage investment in drinking water 

and clean water infrastructure by ensuring compliance with the Safe Drinking 

Water Act and the Clean Water Act; OECA will encourage brown fields 

redevelopment by making developers aware of the liability protections under the 

2002 Brown fields Law as well as OECA's enforcement discretion policies; OECA 

will continue to seek settlements with Superfund responsible parties to secure 

cleanup commitments and cash out settlements; and OECA will continue to enforce 

Clean Air Act mobile source standards and work with states on compliance with 

stationary source Clean Air Act obligations. Finally, if I am confirmed, OECA will 

work with the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention on assistance with 

the new TSCA regulations being developed under the Lauten berg Act. 

Primary environmental enforcement by the states 

36. Administrator Pruitt has said the states should take the lead in enforcing environmental 

laws. In Flint, Michigan, the lack of state enforcement put thousands of children at risk of 

lead poisoning due to prolonged exposure through the contamination of the city's 

drinking water. If confirmed, how will you ensure that states and EPA regional offices 

avoid another Flint-like public health disaster through appropriate enforcement of 

environmental laws? 

I agree with the assessment of many that Flint was a failure of government at every 

level. If confirmed, I would make it clear that when EPA staff learn of risks to 

public health, like the Flint drinking water, they need to inform senior managers if 

their immediate supervisors fail to act. According to the EPA IG report on Flint, 

OECA headquarters staff did not know about the Flint drinking water until 

September 2015. OECA issued an emergency order directing state and local action 

in ,January 2016. 

The failure of the City of Flint to act in a timely manner was in part due to 

perceived ambiguities in the regulatory responsibilities under the SDW A Lead and 

Copper rule. OECA is on the workgroup that is developing a revision of that rule. 

If confirmed, I will ensure that the obligations under the revised rule are clear. 

In addition, the EPA IG recommended changing OECA's guidance on when to use 

section 1431 emergency orders under the SDWA. It is my understanding that 

OECA is currently implementing that recommendation. If confirmed, I will ensure 

that all enforcement staff are aware of it. 

37. How do you see the agency's preference tor enforcement at the state- instead of federallevel affecting cases in which the states and the EPA share enforcement authority, such as 

under the Clean Air Act? 

Page 14 of 32 
329 


26002.314

For example, the Clean Air Act's "good neighbor'' provision requires EPA and states to 

address interstate transport of air pollution that affects downwind states' ability to attain 

and maintain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Specifically, the Clean 

Air Act requires each state in its State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to prohibit emissions 

that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of a NAAQS, or interfere with 

maintenance of a NAAQS, in a downwind state. The Act requires EPA to backstop state 

actions by promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in the event that a state 

fails to submit a SIP, or if EPA disapproves a SIP. 

I do not foresee an impact. The Office of Air and Radiation has the responsibility to 

review and approve SIPs based on the requirements of the Clean Air Act. OECA 

has backstop authority to enforce a SIP if a state fails to act. If I am confirmed, I 

will inform states of planned EPA actions, but will continue to undertake federal 

enforcement where necessary and appropriate. 

38. If confirmed, how will you enforce non-compliance against companies that operate in 

multiple states and may have environmental violations in multiple states? 

OECA is uniquely qualified and situated to take enforcement action against 

companies with facilities in multiple states that are failing to comply with federal 

environmental law. If I am confirmed, I will coordinate with states but continue to 

undertake such multi-state actions. 

39. If confirmed, how will you ensure enforcements against states that refuse to enforce 

criminal environmental laws? 

Under our environmental laws and the lO'h amendment to the Constitution, EPA 

does not take enforcement action against a state for failing to implement a federal 

law. Rather, EPA has backstop authority to take action itself when a state fails to 

act. If confirmed, I will ensure that ORCA continues to backstop state enforcement 

or lack of enforcement, including the enforcement of criminal laws. 

Enforcement and regulatory repeal process 

40. In March, Administrator Pruitt announced the establishment of a Regulatory Reform 

Task Force to make recommendations on regulations that could be repealed, replaced, or 

modified. A group of Republican attorneys general-including the Administrator's 

replacement as Oklahoma's Attorney General-has asked that 20 rules be considered. 

One of these regulations is the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that was finalized in 

September, and was to go into effect in May 2017. If contirmed, will you continue to 

enforce rules, such as the Cross-State Air Pollution Law, that may be under consideration 

for repeal, replacement, or modification? 

If I am confirmed, I will enforce regulations that are in effect. 

Page 15 of32 
330 


26002.315

41. According to the EPA. power plants are currently the primary emitters of mercury (50 

percent). Methylmercury, found in the fish and shellfish that people eat, is a powerful 

neurotoxin that causes adverse health effects. In 2016, EPA issued a tina] finding that it is 

appropriate and necessary to set standards for emissions of air toxics from coal- and oilfired power plants through the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), as the public 

benefits far outweigh the costs. Yet, the EPA said this spring that it will be reviewing the 

costs assessment made in the 2016 finding. 

Do you believe that there is a benefit to industry and regulators in having stability and 

regulatory certainty? Power plants mostly coal-powered ones- had to comply with 

the MATS rule starting in April 2015, and the majority have already either adopted 

controls or converted to natural gas-powered facilities. 

Will you continue to enforce the MATS rule while they are under review by the EPA? 

Ifl am confirmed, I will enforce regulations that are in effect. 

Lauten berg Chemicals Safety Act 

42. A critical part of implementing the Frank R. Lauten berg Chemical Safety for the 21st 

Century Act effectively is assuring that EPA gets complete and accurate information 

about how chemicals are manufactured and used. The Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) 

rule is an essential information gathering tool and particularly important for the initial I 0 

chemicals, including asbestos, that are subject to risk evaluations under the new law. If 

confirmed, will you commit to enforcing the CDR rule as a high priority and that your 

office will pursue violations promptly and vigorously? 

Ifl am confirmed, I will enforce regulations that are in effect. 

Enforcement of environmental laws on tribal lands 

43. Many of our environmental laws were designed to permit regulation and enforcement by 

the states so long as state programs meet minimum federal standards established by EPA. 

Since state laws, however, do not always have general effect or application on Indian 

lands, Congress has amended several of our environmental statutes to permit tribes 

themselves to assume primary enforcement authority. 

Do you intend to encourage tribes to develop their own enforcement regimes under 

approved programs, much as the states do? What will be your goals in working with 

tribes on compliance monitoring, enforcement, compliance assistance, and environmental 

justice? 

It is my understanding that the Navajo Nation has been approved to implement 

several environmental statutes on Navajo land. I am not familiar with capabilities 

of other tribes to receive approval to carry out federal environmental laws in tribal 

lands. If confirmed, I will ask for a briefing on this issue. In parts of Indian 

Country where the tribe has not been approved to implement federal law, if I am 

Page 16 of 32 
331 


26002.316

confirmed, OECA will continue to take the lead in enforcing environmental laws 

and will work with the relevant EPA program offices and with other relevant 

federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, on compliance issues. 

Environmental justice 

44. The Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) sits within OECA. Environmental pollution is 

not distributed uniformly across the United States. Many studies have found that high 

polluting industrial and waste disposal facilities arc more frequently located near poor 

and minority neighborhoods, where they harm the health and welfare of residents. In your 

opinion, what is the role of EPA in addressing inequalities in exposure to environmental 

pollution, including through its enforcement of environmental laws? 

EPA writes regulations and sets standards to protect everyone. To avoid 

disproportionate adverse effects it is important to understand whether a 

community has a disproportionate level of exposure. This requires information 

and communication. Using a mapping tool like EJSCREEN, EPA can identify 

locations where additional information collection is appropriate to determine if a 

disproportionate adverse effect exists. 

If confirmed, I would expect OECA to continue to use tools like EJSCREEN to 

identify locations that are appropriate for an increased focus on enforcement 

and compliance assurance. 

45. In EPA's environmental justice strategic plan for 2016-2020, OECA is identified as the 

program leading environmental justice compliance and enforcement. The following 

strategies in the plan are below. If confirmed, will you commit to implementing each of 

these strategies in your leadership of the office? If not, why? 

a. Direct more EPA enforcement resources to the most overburdened communities; 

b. work with federal, state, tribal, and local co-regulatory partners to pursue vigorous 

enforcement tor violations in overburdened communities and leverage limited 

compliance resources by improving joint planning and targeting of enforcement 

activities; and 

c. strengthen communication so enforcement cases can benefit rrom the knowledge 

of local communities, and empower communities with information about 

pollution and violations that affect them. 

I am not familiar with the environmental justice strategic plan for 2016-2020. If I 

am confirmed I will seek a briefing on it. As I stated above, I agree that 

communication is important. 

46. The President's FYI8 budget eliminates the OEJ within OECA. The OEJ and the Office 

of Civil Rights have traditionally addressed environmental justice mandates under 

Executive Order 12898 and adherence to Title VI prohibitions of discrimination on the 

basis of race, color or national origin. How would you describe OECA's current 

responsibilities for environmental justice compliance and enforcement? 

Page 17 of 32 
332 


26002.317

It is my understanding that the Office of Environmental Justice that is currently 

housed in OECA serves as the federal official for the National Environmental 

Justice Advisory Committee, participates in the Interagency Working Group on 

Environmental Justice, maintains the GIS mapping tool called EJSCREEN, and 

makes about $1.2 million in grants. According to the President's budget request, 

the cross-program functions of OEJ will be incorporated into the future policy work 

of the Integrated Environmental Strategy Program within the Office of the 

Administrator. 

The incorporation of environmental justice into OECA's enforcement and 

compliance assistance actions is performed by employees who are not part of the 

Office of Environmental Justice. If confirmed, I will see that OECA continues to 

carry out its environmental justice responsibilities. 

47. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) has been described as 

the most important provision of federal law with respect to the implementation of 

environmental justice and the remediation of environmental discrimination. What 

importance will you ascribe to the law for the purposes of EPA's enforcement and 

compliance, should you be confirmed? 

In December 2016, EPA reorganized the functions of the formerly Office of Civil 

Rights (OCR) with respect to its External Compliance and Complaints Program. 

This external civil rights enforcement function now resides organizationally within 

the External Civil Rights Compliance Office, which is located in EPA's Office of 

General Counsel. 

48. If the OEJ is defunded by Congressional appropriations in FY 18 per the President's 

budget recommendations, how would you recommend that environmental justice 

mandates in Executive Order 12898 and Title VI be addressed by EPA? 

As I noted above, consideration of environmental justice in OECA enforcement and 

compliance assistance actions is not performed by employees of the Office of 

Environmental Justice. Accordingly, if I am confirmed, I do not expect these 

considerations in OECA's work to be affected by the President's budget request. 

49. The Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice was created within 

the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice under Executive Order 12898 to facilitate the 

implementation of the order across federal agencies and to collectively advance 

environmental justice principles. If confirmed. will you support EPA's continued 

leadership of this interagency effort? 

Yes. 

50. Since 1993, the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council ofthe OEJ has 

provided a critical forum to meaningfully engage with communities and interested 

members of the public across the country, while promoting the integration and 

Page 18 of 32 
333 


26002.318

consideration of environmental issues at the EPA and within federal agencies. If 

confirmed, will you support EPA's continued leadership of this effort? 

Yes. 

51. Are you aware of criticism-including a 2016 United States Commission on Civil Rights 

report-that EPA has historically done a poor job of enforcing Title VI? Do you agree or 

disagree? If you agree, what changes would you make? If you disagree, what evidence 

suggests to you that environmental justice enforcement has been adequate? 

I am not familiar with that report. If I am confirmed I will seek a briefing on this 

issue. As I noted above, in December 2016, EPA reorganized the functions of the 

formerly Office of Civil Rights (OCR) with respect to its External Compliance and 

Complaints Program. This external civil rights enforcement function now resides 

organizationally within the External Civil Rights Compliance Office, which is 

located in EPA's Office of General Counsel. 

Senator Whitehouse: 

52. According to EPA's website, "The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

(OECA) goes after pollution problems that impact American communities through 

vigorous civil and criminal enforcement. Our enforcement activities target the most 

serious water, air and chemical hazards. As part of this mission, we work to advance 

environmental justice by protecting communities most vulnerable to pollution." Do you 

agree with and commit to fulfilling this mission by bringing "vigorous civil and criminal 

enforcement"? 

Yes. 

53. Please provide a list of all clients you represented before and after your time last serving 

at the Environmental Protection Agency, the dates you represented them, EPA matters 

you worked on, and a description of all your EPA-related lobbying activities that includes 

the entity you lobbied for, issue(s) you lobbied on, and dates you represented them. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and the EPA's agency ethics officials to identify potential 

conflicts of interest under federal law and Executive Order 13770. Given the fact 

that l have been employed by the Senate Environment and Public Works 

Committee for the past 2 Yz years, I am advised that I have no conflicts of 

interest. If any potential conflicts of interest should arise, they will be resolved in 

accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the 

Agency's designated agency ethics official and that has been provided to this 

Committee. In addition, I assure you that I am aware of, and will abide by, the 

obligations nuder the bar rules of professional conduct that apply to me, including 

rules 1.6, 1.9 and I. II, and will work closely with Agency ethics officials. 

Page 19 of32 
334 


26002.319

As an associate at the law firm Covington & Burling from August 1988 to January 

1995, I did not have any clients of my own. 

As a non-capital partner at Barnes & Thornburg from March 2009 through 

January 15, 2015, I registered to lobby for several clients and I was engaged by a 

number of clients to represent them iu EPA-related matters. Information about my 

EPA- related representations that is public is attached. Also attached is information 

regarding clients whom I represented in EPA-related matters that can be made 

public in accordance with applicable bar rules. 

54. How will you separate your history representing polluters in enforcement actions, to 

bringing these proceedings against polluters? 

If confirmed, I would have uo problem taking appropriate enforcement action 

against any company. 

55. Early feedback from states. tribes. and associations to the Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance· s FY20 18-2019 National Program Managers Guidance includes a 

call for the EPA to further "streamline the process for states to gain approval of 

Alternative Compliance Monitoring Strategies that include allowances for different 

inspection frequencies and alternative monitoring approaches and to explicitly recognize 

in the National Program Managers Guidance opportunities for states to use ACMSs." 

a. How can OECA streamline the process for allowing states to use ACMSs under 

the CAA, CW A. and RCRA? 

b. How will EPA ensure the ACMSs arc meeting ovcrarching enforcement and 

compliance goals? 

I am not familiar with the issues that states, tribes, and associations are raising 

in their comments. If confirmed, I will request a briefing on these issues. 

56. Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has allowed municipalities to use an integrated 

planning approach to help undertake and finance a series of wastcwater/stormwater 

improvements in a manner that reduces inefficiencies and prioritizes the most serious 

upgrades needed to come into compliance. Integrated planning has been included in 

consent decrees with municipalities subjected to enforcement actions due to CSOs and 

SSOs. 

a. Do you believe integrated planning is a useful approach in bringing municipalities 

into CW A compliance for storm water and waste water discharges? 

Yes. 

b. What role can green infrastructure play in these integrated plans? 

I believe that green infrastructure can be a successful control measure to 

reduce stormwater flows, CSOs, and SSOs in ways that can be less costly for 

municipalities than traditional grey infrastructure, like concrete holding 

Page 20 of32 
335 


26002.320

tanks. I also believe that green infrastructure can provide additional 

environmental benefits not provided by grey infrastructure. 

c. How can the OECA better shepherd and monitor the development and 

implementation of integrated plans? 

If confirmed, I would ensure OECA staff continue to inform municipalities 

about the opportunity to develop and use integrated plans to achieve 

compliance with Clean Water Act requirements. Implementation of 

integrated plans can be through permits monitored by states or the Office of 

Water, or through administrative orders or consent decrees monitored by 

OECA. 

57. What role should states play in developing integrated plans under the CW A or other 

alternative compliance strategies? 

If confirmed, I would encourage authorized states to allow the use of integrated plans 

in permits, orders or consent decrees. 

58. How should the OECA coordinate with and utilize expertise within EPA regional offices 

and state enforcement agencies in bringing compliance or enforcement actions against 

polluters? 

If confirmed, I would ensure robust communication with EPA regional offices 

regarding compliance and enforcement actions. 

59. Under your leadership, will you push for greater inclusion of technology-based tools for 

compliance monitoring and implementation. including electronic reporting and additional 

air or water quality monitors? 

If confirmed, I will request a briefing on "Next Generation" compliance tools. 

60. What is the role of Regional Administrators in bringing enforcement actions against 

polluters? 

It is my understanding that EPA Regional Administrators have been delegated 

significant authority for certain actions. If I am confirmed, I will seek a briefing to 

fully understand the OECA delegations of authority. 

61. Have you heard anything to suggest that EPA may close or consolidate any Regional 

Offices? If so, what is your opinion about that proposal? 

I am not aware of any such plans and the President's budget requests no funds for 

such actions. 

62. If a Regional Office were closed, how would that effect the ability ofOECA to do its job 

and what adjustments would you make? 

Page 21 of 32 
336 


26002.321

See my response to question 61, above. 

63. The President"s budget request proposed to reduce the OECA budget by 24% to $419 

million. This will give you an excuse to scale back EPA's work enforcing environmental 

laws and regulations. The proposed 44% cut to categorical grants to the states, which 

provides them with monitoring and enforcement resources, will hamstring the states. Do 

these cuts worry you? How do you think these cuts, if enacted, will affect EPA and the 

states abilities to enforce environmental laws? 

The states are the primary enforcers of most environmental laws and I believe that 

EPA's enforcement program should respect that strong role. If confirmed, I will 

work closely with state agencies who have delegated authority to implement federal 

law to increase flexibility in the use of federal categorical grants and avoid 

duplicative efforts and wasted resources. 

I agree with the statement in the ECOS paper that recasting the state-federal 

relationship to embrace cooperative federalism can resnlt in: 

"Equal or greater environmental and public health protection and 

outcomes through smart deployment of resources on critical priorities; 

Reduced operating costs due to a more efficient division of services, 

streamlined operating relations/tips, best practice sharing, and 

elimination of redundancies across states and divisions of EPA; 

More effective allocation of limited resources by determining the best 

roles and functions states and EPA are each best suited to perform; and, 

With time, fewer disputes over who should take credit for successes and 

achievements, and who is responsible for decisions and actions that 

result in setbacks." https://www .ecos.org/documents/cooperativefederalism-2-0/ 

64. On June 5, Attorney General Sessions circulated a memo to all component heads and 

United States Attorneys barring DOJ attorneys from "enter[ in g) into any agreement on 

behalf of the United States in settlement of federal claims or charges, including 

agreements settling civil litigation, accepting plea agreements, or deferring or declining 

prosecution in a criminal matter, that directs or provides for a payment or loan to any 

non-governmental person or entity that is not a party to the dispute" with limited 

exceptions. 

a. Do you see this limitation impeding the OECA's work with DOJ in bringing 

quick and comprehensive enforcement actions against violators? 

No. It is my understanding that EPA's policy on supplemental 

environmental projects (SEPs) already prohibits payments to third parties 

and anything that would augment or supplement EPA's or another agency's 

appropriations. 

Page 22 of 32 
337 


26002.322

b. In administrative enforcement actions that do not require DOJ attorney support, 

will the OECA under your leadership continue to use third-party payments in 

settlements, plea agreements, and other enforcement actions? 

As noted above, EPA's policy on SEPs already prohibits third-party 

payments. 

c. Do you interpret Attorney General Sessions' memo to prohibit payments to states, 

tribes, or local governments as part of a settlement, plea agreement, or other such 

arrangement? 

With three exceptions, the memo prohibits payments to non-party, nongovernmental entities. Thus, it does not appear to apply to payments to 

governmental entities. Ifl am confirmed, I will seek a briefing on the 

intended effect of this memo. 

d. Do you interpret Attorney General Sessions' memo to prohibit settlement from 

including provisions like the $2 billion for zero emission vehicle development and 

$2.7 billion in a trust for states to undertake projects that reduce emissions from 

vehicles in the VW settlement? 

If I am confirmed, I will seck a briefing on the intended effect of this memo. 

e. In your experience, do you feel settlement funds in environmental cases have 

gone to "bankroll third-party special interest groups or the political friends of 

whoever is in power" as Attorney General Sessions stated in the press release 

accompanying his June 7 memo? If so, please provide examples that illustrate 

your concerns. 

If I am confirmed, I will seek a briefing on the actions that this memo is 

intended to preclude. 

f. Will you revise or eliminate OECA's Supplemental Environmental Projects 

Policy to align with Attorney General Sessions' prohibition on third party 

payments? 

I believe that OECA's SEPs policy already conforms to the June 7 memo 

because it already precludes third party payments. If I am confirmed, I will 

seek a briefing on the actions that this memo is intended to preclude. 

65. The increased concentration of animal feeding operations along waterways has led to a 

number of pollution problems associated with the large amounts of untreated waste from 

these facilities. One of the EPA's National Enforcement Initiatives is "Preventing Animal 

Waste from Contaminating Surface and Ground Water." However, the EPA has steadily 

decreased the number of federal inspections of and enforcement actions against 

concentrated animal feeding operations by more than half. What steps will you take to 

Page 23 of 32 
338 


26002.323

meaningfully meet the EPA's enforcement initiative regarding animal waste and ensure 

that concentrated animal feeding operations located in distressed watersheds or over 

drinking water aquifers that exceed maximum contaminant levels for primary drinking 

water standards are complying with EPA-administered laws and regulations? 

Concentrated animal feeding operations are point sources under the Clean Water 

Act and if they discharge to waters of the United States, they require a discharge 

permit. All but four states and the District of Columbia are authorized to carry out 

their own permitting programs in lieu of the federal program. Those authorized 

states have the lead in enforcing the Clean Water Act. If I am confirmed, OECA 

will work with states to avoid duplicative inspections and enforcement efforts in 

authorized states and would continue to be the primary enforcement authority in 

states that are not authorized. 

66. During your confirmation hearing, you committed to producing the annual enforcement 

report. If confirmed, do you commit to assess and publish all of the enforcement metrics 

included in the last report? 

Yes 

67. In your written testimony, you state the Oftice of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance has an ·'important role in making sure that there is clarity and consistency in 

how our environmental laws are interpreted, and providing assistance when the laws are 

less than clear." As several regulations are currently under review by the courts, and, by 

order of President Trump, under reconsideration, how will you ensure "clarity" and 

"consistency'' for regulated parties? 

If I am confirmed, OECA will continue to participate in agency workgroups that 

develop rules. 

68. The National Environmental Policy Act has been a bedrock of our nation's environmental 

laws, ensuring that the environmental and community impacts of major federal actions 

are properly understood, that alternatives are appropriately considered, and that the public 

has the opportunity to actively participate in the environmental review process. What is 

your view ofNEPA and its associated regulations, and will you commit to ensuring that 

the law, including the processes it establishes to ensure meaningful public participation 

and informed decision making, is in no way weakened? 

I agree that NEP A is a bedrock environmental law and I am aware of no proposal at 

EPA that would weaken NEPA's public participation or informed decision-making 

provisions. 

69. In an interview with the Providence Journal last year, Rhode Island's chief of the Center 

for Drinking Water Quality at the RI Department of Health stated that "[i]n the last 

monitoring period, we had six small water systems exceed the lead action level. Five 

Page 24 of 32 
339 


26002.324

were school systems." These systems were brought back into compliance, but the 

concern remains. 

a. What have you done in your career to demonstrate lead contamination of drinking 

water will be a priority if you are confirmed? Please cite specific examples. 

Last Congress, I drafted amendments to the Senate energy bill (S. 2012) to 

address the emergency situation in Flint, Michigan, and worked on the bill 

introduced by Senator Stabenow and Senator Inhofe on the same subject (S. 

2579). 

Last Congress, as the lead majority staffer for title 7 of the Senate WRDA 

bill (S. 2848), I worked to include provisions related to lead contamination in 

that bill. During negotiations with the House of Representatives I worked to 

retain those provisions in the enacted Water Infrastructure Improvements 

for the Nation (WIIN) Act (P.L. 114-322). 

These provisions are: 

SECTION 2105. REDUCING LEAD IN DRINKING WATER 

Authorizes a grant program for replacement oflead service lines, testing, 

planning, corrosion control, and education. Excludes partial lead service line 

replacement from eligibility. Authorizes $60 million a year for fiscal years 2017 

through 2021. 

SECTION 2106. NOTICE TO PERSONS SERVED 

Revises the notification requirements ofthc Safe Drinking Water Act to require 

notice to the persons served by the system of exceedances of lead action levels. 

Requires the Administrator to provide notice oflead monitoring results in 

certain circumstances. Requires EPA, working with States and water systems, to 

establish a strategic plan for outreach, education, technical assistance, and risk 

communication. 

SECTION 2107. LEAD TESTING IN SCHOOL AND CHILD CARE 

PROGRAM DRINKING WATER 

Authorizes $20 million a year for fiscal years 2017 through 2021, totaling $100 

million, for grants to carry out a voluntary school and child care lead testing 

program. 

SECTION. 2201. DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE 

Authorizes $100 million in additional Drinking Water State Revolving Loan 

funding for a state with an emergency declaration due to the presence of lead or 

other contaminants in a public drinking water supply system, to be used at a 

water system that is the subject of such an emergency. This assistance may 

Page 25 of 32 
340 


26002.325

include principal forgiveness. 

Directs A TSDR to use its current authorities to establish a lead exposure registry 

for communities with drinking water related emergencies and to provide health 

consultations for the citizens of such communities, if requested. 

SECTION. 2203. REGISTRY FOR LEAD EXPOSURE AND ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE 

Authorizes HHS to establish a voluntary lead exposure registry using ATSDR or 

another relevant agency, or through a grant or contract, applicable to any city 

whose citizens are exposed to lead contamination in drinking water. Authorizes 

$17,500,000 for this activity. 

Authorizes an advisory committee coordinated through CDC or other relevant 

agencies to review federal programs that address lead exposure, and identify 

research needs, best practices, and effective services. Authorizes $2,500,000 for 

this activity. 

SECTION. 2204. OTHER LEAD PROGRAMS 

Authorizes funding for the following programs: 

• $15,000,000 for the childhood lead poisoning prevention program 

authorized under section 317 A of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247bl). 

• $15,000,000 to carry out the Healthy Start Initiative under section 330H 

of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254c-8). 

b. How will you prioritize lead abatement in schools and among the most vulnerable 

populations? 

If I am confirmed, OECA will continue to enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act, 

including the Lead and Copper Rule. OECA will also continue to participate in 

the EPA workgroup that is developing revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule, to 

ensure the regulatory obligations are clear. Finally, if I am confirmed, I will 

ensure that Regional enforcement staff are aware of the new guidance on the 

applicability and use of emergency orders under section 1431 of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act. 

70. Following the Sixth Circuit's stay of the Clean Water Rule in 2015 pending further court 

action, the EPA and Army Corps issued a joint memorandum that states the agencies l) 

"look forward to vigorously defending the merits of the Clean Water Rule, which we 

continue to believe is fully consistent with the law and based on the best available peerreviewed science," 2) "intend to move forward with measures to improve implementation 

of the national CWA section 404 program that were announced concurrent with the 

Rule," 3) will continue their commitment to improve transparency through making 

Page 26 of32 
341 


26002.326

section 404 decisions public and making a number of other improvements to the section 

404 permit program, 4) strengthen coordination between the agencies, and 5) "work 

closely with the Department of Justice to ensure [their] actions remain consistent with the 

stay." If confirmed, will you uphold the tenets of this memorandum? 

If I am confirmed, I will ensure that EPA will continue to not bring enforcement 

actions using the June 2015 WOTUS rule. If I am confirmed, I also will ensure that 

the OECA members of the workgroup developing a new WOTUS rule support 

improvements in transparency and coordination with other agencies. 

If not, what would you change in the EPA's pursuance of clean water and cooperative 

relationship with the Army Corps of Engineers? Will you commit to working 

collaboratively with the Army Corps under its corresponding section 404 and other Clean 

Water Act authorities to ensure clean water for all Americans? 

If I am confirmed, OECA will work collaboratively with the Corps of Engineers and 

with the Office of Water in carrying out responsibilities of EPA and the Corps 

under the Clean Water Act. Section 1134 of the WIIN Act directs the Corps of 

Engineers to develop a database for the electronic submission and tracking of 404 

permit applications. 

71. Do you believe all covered water systems should follow EPA's drinking water analytical 

methods when testing drinking water for contamination? If so, what efforts will you 

undertake to ensure all water systems are brought into compliance? 

[am not familiar with the issue raised in this question. If I am confirmed, I will 

seek a briefing on it. 

72. In your article entitled "EPA Issues Final Revisions to Non-Hazardous Secondary 

Materials Rule, but Questions Remain" in the ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and 

Resources TRENDS journal in spring of 2013, you say "[g]iven the draconian 

consequences to a combustor ofmisclassifying a NHSM, EPA is likely to find itself in 

the business of making non-waste determinations for a very long time." Do you continue 

to consider the regulations governing the combustion of non-hazardous secondary 

materials under RCRA and the CAA to be "draconian"? 

My article does not describe the rule as draconian. The quoted statement refers to 

the consequences to an operator if he or she com busts material that is later 

determined to meet the definition of solid waste. Those consequences -a 

requirement to shut down-- are described in the third paragraph of the article: 

If a boiler located at a commercial or industrial facility burns a waste it triggers 

regulation as a commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) 

unit. In fact, if a combustion unit burns a NHSM and the operator does not 

keep records demonstrating that the NHSM is not a waste, the combustion unit 

becomes regulated as a CIS WI unit. 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.2265 and 60.2875. Once a 

Page 27 of32 
342 


26002.327

boiler becomes a CISWI unit, it stays regulated as a CISWI unit for six months. 

Thus, if a boiler inadvertently burns a waste material and cannot meet the 

CISWI emissions standards, the combined impact of the NHSM Rule and the 

CISWI Rule is to shut down that boiler for six months. 

The point I was making was that boiler operators are likely to seek case-by-case 

non-waste determinations to avoid any ambiguity about the legality of their fuels. 

73. In your article entitled ·'Nutrient Trading & Water Quality" in Issue #113 of The Water 

Report from July 2013. you state that "EPA's recommended criteria developed under 

CWA section 304(a) and some state standards are based on the level of nutrients found in 

pristine waters and those levels in many cases are not attainable." You go on to describe 

the costs of meeting TMDL reduction goals for waterbodies like the Chesapeake Bay. 

a. Do you believe TMDL limits are attainable? 

I do not know if the Chesapeake Bay TMDL limits are attainable. 

b. Should economics limit environmental goals, standards, and the regulations to 

meet clean water goals and standards? 

The Clean Water Act allows for the consideration of affordability in setting 

water quality standards. Under 40 CFR 131.10(g) a state may change the 

designated use of a water body if the standard is not attainable or if the 

controls needed to attain tbe existing standard would result in substantial 

and widespread social and economic impact. Approval of state water quality 

standards and use attainability analyses is a function of the Office of Water, 

notOECA. 

c. Why shouldn't we aim for all waters to meet "pristine" standards? 

Under the Clean Water Act, states designate uses of water which can include 

agricultural use, drinking water use, recreational usc, aquatic life use, etc. 

The state then establishes criteria to meet the designated use. The designated 

use and water quality criteria together make up the water quality standard. 

If a state wants to adopt a use that does not include the "fishable, 

swimmable" goal, EPA requires a demonstration through a use attainability 

analysis that meeting the fishable, swimmable goal is not attainable. 

Approval of state water quality standards and use attainability analyses is a 

function of the Office of Water, not OECA. 

d. What role should nutrient trading play in meeting TMDL limits? 

If the body of water does not meet a water quality standard due to nitrogen 

of phosphorus levels, then nutrient trading can play a role in meeting TMDL 

limits. The TMDL establishes the maximum amount of the pollutant (such 

as nitrogen or phosphorus) that the water body can assimilate and still 

achieve water quality standards. Under a TMDL, the controls needed to stay 

Page 28 of 32 
343 


26002.328

under the overall limit can be achieved in a variety of ways and can allow 

regulated sources to get credit for reductions from sources that are not 

regulated, as long as the overall limit is met. A TMDL also can allow trading 

among regulated sources such that one source stays below its allocation, 

allowing another source to exceed its allocation. Again, the overall limits 

must be met. Because cost of reduction in pollutant discharges can be highly 

variable, this flexibility can reduce the costs of achieving water quality 

standards. The Office of Water, not OECA, has the responsibility to review 

and approve TMDLs. 

74. Please provide a copy of''A View from the Field: The 2011 Draft Guidance Regarding 

Identification of Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act." 

A copy is attached. 

75. In 2014, four Republican former EPA Administrators- Bill Reilly, Bill Ruckelshaus. Lee 

Thomas, Governor Christine Todd Whitman- testified before EPW that climate change 

is real, EPA regulations do not end up costing as much as industry initially estimates, and 

EPA has clear authority under the Clean Air Act to curb carbon pollution. In a 2015 

interview with Climate Progress, Governor Whitman said: 

"The idea the EPA is a job killer is false" and with regard to the Clean Power Plan "what 

EPA did was to allow as much flexibility as frankly I've ever seen them be able to create 

in a regulation." 

a. Do you believe climate change is real? 

Yes. 

b. If so, what causes it? 

Please see my response to question 21, above. 

c. Do you accept the science of ocean acidification that has directly connected the 

increase in human-caused carbon dioxide emissions with decreases in ocean pH? 

I am aware that in 2010 the National Research Council of the National 

Academy of Sciences issued a report titled: "Ocean Acidification: A National 

Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean." In that report the 

NRC stated that "Ocean acidification research is still in its infancy." The 

report also states: "Present knowledge is insufficient to guide federal and 

state agencies in evaluating potential impacts for management purposes." 

d. Do you think that the former Administrators are correct in their assessment that 

regulations do not cost as much as industry initially estimates? If not, can you 

explain why not? 

It depends on the rule. In a 2005 retrospective analysis of the accuracy of 

agency regulatory impact analyses, OMB found that agency estimates tend to 

Page 29 of32 
344 


26002.329

overestimate both costs and benefits, but benefits are more often 

overestimated than costs. Out of 47 regulations, OMB found: 

• Eighteen rules with accurate benefit estimates, 19 rules with 

overestimates and two rules with underestimates. 

• Twelve rules with accurate cost estimates, 16 with 

overestimates, and 12 with underestimates. 

• Eleven cases of accurate benefit to cost ratios, 22 

overestimates, and 14 underestimates. 

https://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/inforeg/2005 cb/final 2005 cb report.pdf 

76. EPA operates multiple networks to monitor compliance with the Clean Air Act's 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards and to track hazardous air pollutants regulated 

under the act. These networks include, among others, the State and Local Air Quality 

Monitoring Network, the National Air Monitoring Network (which targets areas of high 

population density with a variety of air pollution sources), Special Purpose Monitoring 

Stations (used for short-term studies and other purposes), Photochemical Assessment 

Monitoring Stations (used to measure pollutants that contribute to ground-level ozone, a 

harmful air pollutant), and the National Air Toxics Trends Stations. Information 

produced through these networks play a key role in informing enforcement and 

compliance decisions. Given the drastic cuts proposed in the President's budget. what is 

your vision for monitoring? 

I agree that monitoring is appropriate. If confirmed, I would work with the Office 

of Air and Radiation to establish monitoring priorities. 

77. Rhode Island ozone air quality issues are largely due to transported emissions from 

upwind states leading to ozone formation that pollutes the air and lungs of people in 

downwind states like mine. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental 

Management reports that there remain a number of power plants located in upwind states 

that have pollution control equipment installed to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions that 

either do not use that equipment during the ozone season or do not use it in a way that 

optimizes the reduction of nitrogen oxides emissions. Why would this be the case? 

I do not know. If confirmed, I will request a briefing on this issue. 

78. During previous administrations. senior EPA managers' schedules have been available to 

the public. If confirmed, do you agree to make your schedule available as well? 

If confirmed, I would make my schedule publicly available pursuant to the Freedom 

of Information Act. 

79. If confirmed, do you commit to notifying the Committee of all of the email addresses you 

plan to use upon confirmation and within seven days of using a new email address, 

including any aliases or pseudonyms? Do you commit do conducting all business using 

official email addresses and other means and to refrain from any mediums that are 

outside the Freedom of Information Act's reach? 

Page 30 of 32 
345 


26002.330

Yes 

80. Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage is a bipartisan policy area that I am working on 

with my Republican colleagues. Senator Graham and I visited the world's first Carbon 

Capture project in Canada that has been operational since 20 14. In 2016, SaskPower 

successfully captured and injected 800,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide and the facility 

has operated nearly 85 percent of the time. Recently, Petra Nova in Texas became the 

first United States first post-combustion carbon capture project to begin operation. 

SaskPower and Petra Nova arc listed in the Clean Power Plan as viable options for 

helping states reach their Clean Power Plan targets. Do you believe that CCUS is a 

viable technology for reducing emissions from power plants? 

I am not familiar with those projects. If confirmed, I would defer to the Office of 

Air and Radiation for an assessment of the viability of CCUS. 

81. Carl lcahn has reportedly been serving as a special advisor to the President on 

overhauling regulations. Carllcahn is also a majority owner ofCVR Energy which is an 

oil refiner that has a compliance obligation under the RFS to blend its oils with renewable 

fuels. Icahn 's company has repeatedly benefited when he has proposed changes to the 

RFS that would benefit CVR and through speculation in the Renewable Identification 

Numbers (RINs) market. For example, in February of 2017 Mr. lcahn reportedly 

presented the White House with draft Executive Order language that would reform the 

RFS to benefit CVR energy. The same day, CVR 's stock value increased by 3.5%, 

representing a multi-million dollar windfall to lcahn. Do you think it is appropriate for 

an Administration official like Mr. lcahn to propose making changes to EPA regulations 

that clearly benefit a company he owns? If you are confirmed as AA of OECA, and Carl 

lcahn approaches you about a matter related to the RFS, do you think would be 

appropriate to talk with him? Will you commit to not talking with Carllcahn about the 

RFS? 

If confirmed, I will not talk to Mr. Icahn about the RFS. 

82. It has been estimated that the RFS supports roughly 850,000 jobs across the country and 

many of those jobs rely on certainty from the EPA setting its volume requirements for the 

renewable fuels each year. If confirmed to serve as the Deputy Administrator for 

Enforcement at EPA, will you carry out the Energy Policy Act as passed in 2005 and 

updated in 2007, particularly in ensuring that states adopt the statutory volume 

requirements for renewable fuels as finalized by the EPA? 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure compliance with applicable laws. 

83. If confirmed, do you commit to providing complete and accurate responses to inquiries 

from EPW members in a timely fashion? 

Page 31 of32 
346 


26002.331

As I stated in my hearing, I believe that Congressional oversight is very important. I 

do not intend to change past agency practices with respect to responding to 

individual members of Congress, including EPW members. However, if confirmed 

as the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement aud Compliance Assurance please 

be aware that I would not release confidential enforcement information -no matter 

who is asking for such information. That has been EPA's long-standing policy. 

Page 32 of 32 
347 


26002.332

A VIEW FROM THE FIELD 

THE 2011 DRAFT GUIDANCE REGARDING IDENTIFICATION OF WATERS 

PROTECTED BY THE CLEAN WATER ACT 

On April27, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) released for comment a draft memorandum titled: 

"Guidance Regarding Identification of Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act" 

(hereinafter 2011 Draft Guidance). 1 Comments on this guidance are due on July 31, 

2011.2 

This guidance is intended to supersede the memorandum titled: "Clean Water 

Act Jurisdiction Following the US. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United 

States & Carabell v. United States," that was issued by EPA and the Corps on December 

2, 2008 (hereinafter 2008 Guidance). However, unlike the 2008 Guidance, which on its 

face applies only to determinations whether permits are required under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act to fill wetlands or dredge navigable waters, the 2011 Draft Guidance is 

intended to be used to identiry the scope of federal authority under all parts of the Clean 

Water Act. If finalized, the 2011 Draft Guidance would apply not only to wetlands and 

dredging, but would be used to determine (I) whether the state needs to establish water 

quality standards for the water body, and, if standards are not met, total maximum daily 

loads (section 303), (2) whether a facility operator needs to prepare a Spill Prevention, 

Control and Countermeasure Plan and/or a Facility Response Plan to prevent discharges 

of oil (section 311 ), (3) whether an applicant for a federal license or permit must obtain a 

water quality certification from a state (section 401), and (4) whether a permit for a 

discharge is needed (section 402). 

Thus, the 20 II Draft Guidance has the potential to affect a wide variety of 

activities. These activities include application of pesticides, storage of oil, stormwater 

management, process water management, and land development. 

The exact scope of the potential impact of the 2011 Draft Guidance is unknown at 

this time. However, we do know that it is intended to expand the scope of federal 

jurisdiction. In fact, the Federal Register notice announcing the opportunity for public 

comment expressly states: "The agencies believe that under this proposed guidance the 

number of waters identified as protected by the Clean Water Act will increase compared 

to current practice". 3 

The Agencies propose to achieve this expansion by expanding the scope of each 

category of water body that is potentially subject to federal jurisdiction: traditional 

navigable waters, interstate waters, tributaries, adjacent wetlands, and isolated waters. 

1 See 76 Fed. Reg. 24479 (May 2, 201 1). 

2 This is a 30-day extension from the original comment deadline of July I, 2011. 

3 76 Fed. Reg. 24479 (May 2, 2011). 
348 


26002.333

In particular, the Agencies' proposed expansion of jurisdiction over tributaries 

could have a dramatic impact on farmers across the country. The guidance would 

achieve this expansion by taking a very broad view of what constitutes a "significant 

nexus"4 to traditional navigable water (or an interstate water) 5

, and by taking a very 

broad view of what it means to be "adjacent"6 to another body of water. 

First, relying on Justice's Kennedy's concurring opinion in the Rapanos case/ the 

Agencies propose to consider any water body that has any hydrologic or ecological 

connection to a downstream traditional navigable water or a downstream interstate water 

to be considered a water of the United States subject to federal jurisdiction. Under the 

2011 Draft Guidance, a hydrological connection does not require an actual connection 

through the means of flowing water. The ability of a pond to hold water and prevent it 

from flowing downstream is sufficient to establish a hydrological connection. In 

addition, even though in SWANCC the Supreme Court held that use of an isolated water 

body by migratory birds did not establish a nexus to traditional navigable waters 

sufficient to support jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act over that isolated water, in 

the 2011 Draft Guidance the Agencies allow use of water body, whether isolated or not, 

by any species to be sufficient to establish an ecological ''significant nexus" as long as 

that species also spends part of its life downstream in a traditional navigable water or an 

interstate water. 

The Agencies support this analysis by deciding that the potential impacts of all 

"similarly situated" waters should be considered collectively when deciding if a 

"significant nexus" to downstream waters exists. This means that, within a watershed, all 

tributaries are considered collectively, all wetlands are considered collectively, and all 

isolated ponds that are adjacent to other water bodies are considered collectively, when 

examining the nexus to a downstream body of water. 

The Agencies also support this analysis by proposing to consider all water bodies 

that are located in the same flood plain or riparian area as a navigable water or an 

4 Justice Rehnquist used the term "significant nexus"' in the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County 

v. US. Army Corps ()[Engineers (SWANCC) opinion to explain why the rock quarry ponds in that case 

were not subject to federal jurisdiction. They did not have a significant nexus to navigable waters and the 

Corps could not establish such a nexus based on the use of the ponds by migratory birds. 531 U.S. 159 

(2001). 

5 Or interstate water. One of the ways the 2011 draft guidance would expand jurisdiction is to consider a 

body of water a water of the United States based on its relationship to interstate water, not just navigable 

waters. 

6 Corps and EPA regulations define waters of the United States to include adjacent wetlands. The Corps 

defines adjacent to mean bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands that are separated from a water 

of the United States only by a man-made berm are adjacent. The Supreme Court upheld jurisdiction over 

wetlands that were directly abutting and hydrologically interconnected with traditional navigable water in 

United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. 474 U.S. 121 (1985). 

7 Rapanos v. United States (Rapanos) 547 U.S, 715 (2006). In Rapanos, Justice Kennedy, writing for 

himself only, decided that federal jurisdiction could be asserted over any water if it had a "significant 

nexus" to a traditional navigable water. 

2 
349 


26002.334

interstate water to be considered "adjacent" to that water. This new interpretation of 

adjacency would allow the Agencies to assert jurisdiction over many isolated waters that 

had been considered beyond the reach of the Clean Water Act since the SWANCC 

decision under the theory that they are now "adjacent" waters that are included within the 

definition of waters of the United States. 

Finally, under the 2011 Draft Guidance, the Agencies would not have to show 

that use of a water body has an impact on interstate commerce, even though that is the 

Constitutional basis for Clean Water Act authority. The guidance assumes that a nexus to 

navigable or interstate waters is sufficient to establish a Commerce Clause connection. 

The expansion of jurisdiction that would occur under the 20 II Draft Guidance 

would have several important implications for farmers. First, the expanded view of what 

constitutes a tributary (no proof of a hydrologic connection to the downstream traditional 

navigable water or interstate water is needed) means that many ditches and drains, 

including ditches on farms that are very far removed from navigable water, could become 

subject to federal jurisdiction. This means that section 404 permits may be needed to 

mechanically maintain these ditches and section 402 permits to discharge pesticides may 

be needed to keep them from becoming choked with weeds. 

Second, unless a system is built as a waste treatment system designed to meet the 

requirements of the Clean Water Act, 8 on-site holding ponds and retention ponds could 

become subject to federal jurisdiction. These ponds could include farm ponds, even 

though the 2011 Draft Guidance says that settling ponds and farm ponds are "generally" 

not jurisdictional. 9 If a pond is a water of the United States, water quality standards must 

be established for it; a TMDL may be required if those standards are not met, a permit 

would be needed to use pesticides to kill aquatic weeds that may threaten to choke the 

pond; and a permit would be needed to fill it in. 

Third, the operator of a facility that stores oil will have to reconsider whether a 

release of that oil could reach a water of the United States. If a drainage system is now 

considered a water of the United State, the answer to that question will often be "yes." 

This means that, if they are large enough to trigger SPCC requirements, oil tanks located 

on farms to refuel farm equipment may now all require an SPCC plan to prevent the 

discharge of oil to a ditch that may now be considered a water of the United States. 

8 The 2011 Draft Guidance appropriately disclaims any impact on existing regulatory exemptions from the 

definition of"waters of the United States." Thus, the guidance should not be used to seek to establish 

jurisdiction over a body of water that is subject to an existing regulatory exemption, such as prior converted 

croplands or waste treatment systems. 

9 The list of waters that are "generally not jurisdictional" is taken from the preamble to the 1986 Corps 

regulations defining waters of the United States. However, that preamble language also states that the 

Corps or EPA could assert jurisdiction over a water body on that list on a "case-by-case" basis. 51 Fed. 

Reg. 41,206, 41,217 (Nov. 13, 1986). The 2011 Draft Guidance does not say that it could not be used for 

such "case-by-case" determinations. 

3 
350 


26002.335

It is not speculative to assume a dramatic expansion of jurisdiction would occur 

under the 2011 Draft Guidance. This expansion is predicted by the EPA's economic 

analysis of the 2011 Draft Guidance. 10 In this economic analysis, the agencies anticipate 

that the 2011 Draft Guidance will result in the assertion of jurisdiction over all tributaries 

and wetlands and 17% of isolated waters. 11 

In the cost analysis, EPA estimates that annual costs of mitigating for wetlands 

impacts will increase between $79 million and $222 million. EPA also estimates that the 

2011 Draft Guidance will result in an additional $7.9 million to $20 million in costs to 

the Corps to process permits and to the regulated community to obtain permits. Increased 

costs in these two categories only would result in annual increased costs of between 

$86.9 million and $242 million. These estimates do not include any costs associated with 

obtaining 404 permits or the costs associated with expanding jurisdiction under sections 

303,311,401, and 402 ofthe Clean Water Act. Thus, although the costs estimated by 

EPA are significant, the effect ofthe 2011 Draft Guidance will be far greater. 

Given the significant impact the 2011 Draft Guidance would have on the ability 

use, develop, and enjoy property, courts may consider this guidance to be a rule, and not 

an interpretive guidance. As such, it would not be valid unless it has gone through notice 

an comment rulemaking. Of course, even if the guidance is adopted as a rule in 

accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, if it exceeds the Agencies' authority 

under the Act, or goes beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. 

Constitution, it still will not be valid. 

Perhaps recognizing their vulnerability to a challenge under the Administrative 

Procedure Act, the Agencies have announced that they intend to issue an advance notice 

of proposed rulemaking at the same time they issue the 2011 Draft Guidance in final 

form. However, the promise of future rulemaking would not validate a guidance that was 

issued illegitimately or a guidance that exceeds the Agencies' statutory authority. 

As noted above, the deadline for filing comments has been extended to July 31, 

2011. Any persons who are concerned about the impact ofthe draft guidance on their 

ability to carry out their business or enjoy the use of their property may wish to submit 

comments. 

10 "Potential Indirect Economic Impacts and Benefits Associated with Guidance Clarifying the Scope of 

Clean Water Act Jurisdiction" (EPA) (Apr. 27, 2011), 

11 See !d., at 7. 

4 
351 

Senator BARRASSO. I want to thank all of the nominees for your 

testimony. 

Throughout this hearing and with questions for the record, the 

Committee members will have an opportunity to learn more about 

your commitment to public service of our great Nation. I would ask 

throughout this hearing that you please respond to the questions 

today and those for the record. 

With that said, I have the following questions to ask that we ask 

all nominees on behalf of the Committee. I will ask each of you to 

respond individually. 

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 protections with respect to your responsibilities? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, I do. 

Ms. CAPUTO. Yes, I do. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. 

Ms. BODINE. Yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, documents in electronic and other forms of communication of 

information are provided to this Committee and its staff and other 

appropriate committees in a timely manner? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. 

Ms. CAPUTO. Yes. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. 

Ms. BODINE. Yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you know of any matters which you may 

or may not have disclosed that might place you in any conflict of 

interest if you are confirmed? 

Ms. SVINICKI. No, I do not. 

Ms. CAPUTO. I do not. 

Mr. WRIGHT. No, sir. 

Ms. BODINE. No. 

Senator BARRASSO. I will not ask any questions because at this 

time I am going to reserve the balance of my time to be used during the hearing. 

With that, I will pass to Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For the benefit of some of you here, we have a bit of a problem 

in that two of the other members seated to my right have the same 

problem I do. We are currently meeting at the same time with the 

Senate Armed Services Committee. In fact, we have Secretary 

Mattis as a witness, so we will have to go back and forth. 

First of all, let me mention that I have been engaged in oversight 

for the NRC now for a number of years, since 1996. In 1996 I was 

made the Chairman of the subcommittee. At that time, we had 

gone 4 years without any kind of an oversight. This is something 

you cannot do with any bureaucracy. You have to have oversight. 

We immediately started doing that and started anticipating and expecting response on a regular basis. 

I will start with you, Ms. Caputo. If you are confirmed, will you 

commit to continue these reports and work with the Committee on 

352 

any revisions to improve their usefulness and also to respond to an 

oversight hearing on a regular basis? 

Ms. CAPUTO. Yes, I will. 

Senator INHOFE. Ms. Bodine, you mentioned OECA several 

times. I have been a bit disturbed by some of the measures that 

I would refer to as performance measures. For example, targeting 

a specific number of enforcement actions sounds like a quota to me. 

Does it sound that way to you also? 

Ms. BODINE. That is an issue I would like to look into if I am 

confirmed as the Assistant Administrator. Enforcement is a tool. It 

is a critical tool, but it is not an end to itself. Our goal, of course, 

is compliance. 

I want to sit down with EPA staff and look over the performance 

measures and make sure OECA employees are getting credit for 

their work, whether or not they take a formal enforcement action, 

because we all want compliance with the law. 

Senator INHOFE. You would look into that anyway in that capacity if you are confirmed? 

Ms. BODINE. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. That is what we expect. 

Most of our Superfund sites are cleaned up by private parties. 

We have had problems in the past with that. Can you discuss how 

OECA helps achieve getting these things done through the private 

sector? 

Ms. BODINE. Yes. The Superfund statute is a very forceful law. 

It does make sure that parties responsible for contamination can 

be held liable. OECA is the office that holds their feet to the fire 

and brings action against them so that private parties do clean up. 

They have been tremendously successful. 

Senator Carper, you gave us the statistics from the commitments of clean up work, over $1 billion from last year. In addition, OECA 

collects funds and puts it into what we call special accounts so that 

private parties can pay money instead of doing the work. Right now, we actually $3.5 billion in special accounts that is 

there, available, not subject to appropriation and is available to 

carry out clean up work at the sites in the cases where OECA has 

brought the enforcement action. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Ms. Bodine. 

Last, Administrator Pruitt wants the EPA to embrace cooperative federalism. How does that apply to enforcement? 

Ms. BODINE. In the enforcement context, in my view, that means 

respecting State interpretations of their own law. It means dividing 

the work between States and not taking duplicative enforcement 

actions. It means coordinating with States so we let States know 

when, for example, OECA enforcement officers are coming into 

their States to take action. 

I would like to point out that just yesterday the Environmental 

Council of the States, the organization that represents the State 

Environmental Commissioners, put out a statement entitled, ‘‘Cooperative Federalism 2.0,’’ which I guess is a white paper. 

There they speak exactly to this issue and talk about how a 

State should be the primary enforcement authority for programs 

delegated to the States and have the ability to access Federal enforcement authorities when needed or appropriate. 

353 

Senator INHOFE. Ms. Svinicki, I have no questions for you because you have been around a long time. I have always agreed with 

what you have done. I am just glad you are willing to continue 

doing this. 

Mr. Wright, you are fairly new to me, but you have a very interesting background. I think it is the kind of background that requires cooperation. It is something you cannot just have out there 

and command because you have to get along with the other side. 

I think that is a great asset that you have. 

I will certainly look forward to working with you and your talents and building consensus. I think you are going to be of great 

value. Is there any statement you want to make about how consensus has served you well? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Senator. 

I do not believe I would have risen to the level that I did within 

the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners had 

I not been able to work across beliefs, party lines, you name it, because it is a consensus organization. They do not do anything except by resolution and through the committee process. 

You have to be able to work with people. That is a skill that is 

learned over time. I look forward to using that because I believe 

I have a certain skill set that will benefit the Commission. 

Senator INHOFE. That is great. I look forward to working with 

you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I am going to yield to Senator Gillibrand. I 

think several of us have other hearings. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Ranking Member. 

I am concerned that the NRC’s decommissioning rule will potentially set up a process by which the emergency planning zone and 

associated requirements for nuclear plants will be automatically reduced with a plant’s shutdown operations while there is still fuel 

remaining in the spent fuel pool. 

There is currently no maximum amount of time that fuel can remain in a spent fuel pool. A major driver for shrinking the emergency planning zone during decommissioning is the cost to the licensee. 

My first question to the panel is, is it appropriate to factor the 

cost to the licensee into the decision on the size and scope of emergency planning activities; why or why not? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you for the question, Senator. 

As you know, the NRC has a rulemaking underway on this topic 

right now. It is my understanding that the staff analysis has not 

developed the draft rule yet, but they have published something 

called a regulatory basis. 

They are looking at sizing the emergency planning zone to the 

extent of the risk or hazard. I do not believe it is an economic analysis. If I am wrong about that, I can correct that for the record. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. That would be great largely because if you 

have a pool of unspent fuel sitting 50 miles from New York City, 

it becomes a national security risk that is real. It also is an environmental hazard. 

354 

Does anyone else have further thoughts on that question? 

Ms. CAPUTO. If confirmed, this is certainly an issue that I would 

like to look into and focus on and certainly be briefed by the staff. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I would be very grateful. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I have nothing to add to what Annie just told you. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Susan. 

Ms. BODINE. Not on that issue, nothing. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

If anyone has a thought, should there be limits placed on the 

amount of time that spent fuel can remain in a spent fuel pool, particularly if you do have an environmental or national security 

issue? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, again, thank you for that question. 

NRC looks closely at the hazard posed in making these safety determinations, although it has been NRC’s established position that 

spent fuel pool storage is safe and equally safe to the dry cask storage, the other alternative. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I think of safe as a measure of what. When 

you are looking at national security concerns and location, I think 

you have to maybe augment that definition of what is safe. 

My second question is for Susan Bodine. It has been reported 

that during your time as partner at the law firm of Barnes and 

Thornburg, you represented the plastics company Saint-Gobain. 

As you may know, Saint-Gobain was responsible for polluting the 

drinking water in Hoosick Falls, New York, with PFOA. The SaintGobain facility in Hoosick Falls has been proposed for listing as a 

Federal Superfund site. That proposed listing is still pending at the 

EPA. Could you please describe the work you did on behalf of 

Saint-Gobain? 

Ms. BODINE. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. 

First, let me say that I would have no problem bringing an enforcement action against any company whatsoever, whether I 

worked for them in the past or not. 

Second, I have never worked for the performance plastics company that you are referring to. I did work with a company called 

Saint-Gobain Containers, headquartered in Muncie, Indiana. They 

make glass containers. For example, they have a facility in Milford, 

Massachusetts, that makes 1.2 million beer bottles a day. 

Their issue is that they wanted to increase the amount of glass 

that was recycled because if they use recycled glass instead of raw 

material, they can reduce their energy cost and their emissions. My 

entire representation for them was associated with encouraging recycling. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. In your written testimony, you bring up the 

term ‘‘cooperative federalism’’ several times. How do you envision 

the EPA role versus the role of States in enforcing Federal environmental statutes? 

Ms. BODINE. As I mentioned earlier, many of our environmental 

statutes authorize or delegate to States the responsibility for carrying out those laws. I think we need to have close coordination 

with the authorized States to the delegated States so that we are 

not duplicating action and are both conserving our resources to the 

greatest extent. 

355 

That does not say that there is no role for OECA at all. Of course 

there are some matters that EPA and the Enforcement Office at 

EPA are uniquely qualified to carry out whether it is going after 

sector initiatives or companies with facilities in multiple States. It 

is more efficient to take an action that involves multiple facilities 

and criminal enforcement as well. EPA has unique capabilities in 

that area. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Finally, the Trump budget proposes to cut 

the funding of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance by 24 percent. What impact do you expect that will have on 

the ability of the EPA to hold polluters accountable? 

Ms. BODINE. Again, I expect to work with the enforcement staff 

and with States to go after the highest priority and the most egregious polluters. States are going to implement the day to day enforcement, but EPA is going to maintain an enforcement presence, 

certainly create the deterrent effect, and take these high profile 

cases. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Before turning to Senator Ernst, I would like to introduce for the 

record a letter of support for Ms. Bodine’s nomination from Stanley 

Meiburg, the EPA’s Acting Deputy Administrator in the Obama administration, supporting her nomination with the quote, ‘‘Ms. 

Bodine’s presence as a confirmed nominee will strengthen the voice 

of enforcement in that Agency.’’ 

Without objection, that will be admitted. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

356 


26002.336

The Honorable John Barrasso 

3003 Van Ness Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20008 

June 7, 2017 

Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

Ranking Member, Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

Dear Senator Barrasso and Senator Carper: 

For over 46 years, enforcing federal environmental law has been an essential function of the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. The cases involving the Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill and the falsification of emission control devices by Volkswagen are two recent high profile 

instances that illustrate the importance of this work, but there are thousands of day to day 

interactions where federal and state officials uphold America's commitment to a healthy and safe 

environment through the rule oflaw. 

Sound, experienced leadership is needed to ensure that this vital mission is sustained and 

strengthened. It is for this reason that I write in support of the nomination of Susan Bodine to be 

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance. 

I had the privilege of working with Susan during her previous service with EPA as the Assistant 

Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response. At that time, I was the career Deputy 

Regional Administrator in Region 4, and also served for two years as a liaison between EPA and 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In both of these capacities, I found Susan to be 

a person of integrity, committed to the rule of law and to the mission of EPA. She is an excellent 

analytical thinker, asking insightful and searching questions about the legal, factual and scientific 

underpinnings of policy choices. Perhaps most important, Susan demonstrated professionalism in 

her relationship with the career staff at EPA. She is a good listener who seeks out a wide range 

of opinions while retaining the ability to make independent judgments, as any leader should. I 

have great respect for her knowledge and temperament, and she was a pleasure to work with. 

To be sure, there are matters on which we may not see eye to eye. For example, I strongly 

oppose the administration's proposed budgetary cutbacks in EPA enforcement activities. Even in 

2016 these activities were underfunded. But while relevant to ongoing oversight of the agency, 

that is not the criterion for judging Susan's nomination. Nominees have a right to a full, open, 

respectful and speedy confirmation process. In Susan Bodine you have an experienced nominee 

with a broad background, a keen intellect, a strong regard for public service, a history of treating 

her professional career colleagues with respect, an abiding commitment to the rule oflaw and 

1 
357 


26002.337

due process, and service within the mainstream traditions of EPA. Her presence as a confirmed 

nominee will strengthen the voice of enforcement in the agency. 

Thank you very much for your consideration. 

Respectfully, 

/}fji~ A. Stanley Meiburg 

Former Acting Deputy Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Addressees: 

Majority Office 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

Minority Office 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 205! 0-6175 

2 
358 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you, panelists and witnesses, for being here today. 

Ms. Bodine, I have some questions for you related to how you 

will manage and conduct the Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance at EPA because I think this will be a crucial part of 

EPA’s effort to win back the trust of many Americans. 

As you know, regulations and their standards are not always 

clear. We can see that through WOTUS and so many other examples that are not always clear on what they require. 

Do you believe it is part of EPA’s job to make sure regulated parties, like farmers and manufacturers who want to comply, know 

how they can comply? 

Ms. BODINE. Yes, Senator, I very much believe that is a role that 

EPA plays. That means that the Enforcement Office needs to work 

with the States and the EPA program offices so that we all have 

a consistent understanding of what the law requires and that we 

communicate that to the farmers, industry, and municipalities. 

Senator ERNST. Wonderful. Consistent understanding and communication, I love that. I think that is very, very important. 

To briefly follow up, what do you believe should be the primary 

goal of enforcement in addressing so many of our compliance problems? Do you believe it is EPA’s role, not just to levy fines against 

people, but to also go in and assist them with actual compliance? 

Ms. BODINE. The goal is compliance. The goal is not enforcement. 

Enforcement is not an end to itself; it is an important tool to make 

sure that our environmental laws are complied with. So, yes, compliance assistance is another tool, and I think also a very important tool. 

Senator ERNST. Very good because I believe if we are to solve any 

of our issues, we have to get to the root cause of the problem, that 

is assistance with compliance to make sure we all fall within that 

compliance and move toward the goal of those regulations. 

Thank you very much. I yield back my time. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Whitehouse was here earlier. He is a 

busy fellow this morning, so I am going to yield to him for whatever questions he would like to ask. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I thank the Ranking Member, and I welcome all the witnesses. To the candidates who are here for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, we have had our discussion already. 

I will not re-litigate any of those issues here. 

We stand extremely ready to work with you to speed up the processes of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission so that next generation nuclear facilities can be appropriately brought on line here 

with, to me, the most particular and ultimate goal to find technologies that will allow us to turn our existing nuclear waste stockpile—which has to be a multi-trillion dollar liability on the books 

of the United States if properly accounted for—into an asset by allowing it to be used to create power, to create electrons. 

In the meantime, I look forward to working with you to try to 

find ways to enable our safely operating nuclear plants, to continue 

to safely operate rather than shut them down because they are not 

359 

adequately compensated for the carbon-free nature of their power. 

We said that already. We can keep going. 

My concern mostly is with Ms. Bodine. I am sorry about the circumstance you find yourself in because I think that the Environmental Protection Agency has, in a nutshell, been captured by a 

corporate polluter raiding party and now is under the direction of 

agents of the big polluters that it was intended to regulate. 

The founding fathers’ word for this would, I think, have been corruption. Teddy Roosevelt would probably have had far stronger 

words. The polluter raiding party, I am sorry to say, can bet on 

zero oversight from the EPW Committee majority which would not 

even require the incoming Administrator’s disclosure of his conflicts of interest arising from his dark money political fund raising 

operation. 

Because dark money is a bizarre new phenomenon in our political world, this set of appointees was the first to raise this conflict 

of interest question. This Committee fell down on its duty to get 

the requisite disclosure to understand what those conflicts of interest might be. 

Therefore, I am very worried that the EPA will not do much enforcing of environmental laws during this Administration. As you 

know already, Ms. Bodine, Scott Pruitt’s record on environmental 

enforcement is abysmal. He eliminated the Environmental Protection Unit in the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office, did not participate in the Oklahoma Environmental Crime Task Force which 

his predecessor led, could not list a single environmental enforcement achievement during his confirmation, and stopped reporting 

the enforcement that his predecessor had reported, including numbers of criminal investigations, Federal and State environmental 

prosecutions, felony convictions of individuals, jail time, fines, and 

other basic enforcement statistics. 

If you are doing a terrible job, I suppose the first thing you want 

to do is get rid of the reporting. Refusing to release those statistics 

recurred again. He would not report even to us during his confirmation, again, I think knowing perfectly well that the majority 

was not going to require any information from him. 

The Agency you will come in to lead has an impressive history 

of enforcing environmental statutes. Let me ask, first, if you will 

continue the process of reporting that has been the tradition of that 

part of EPA. 

Ms. BODINE. Yes, Senator, absolutely. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You will not follow the Pruitt model of 

closing the reporting to cover up the fact that there is no enforcement left? 

Ms. BODINE. OECA has always issued its annual enforcement 

numbers. If confirmed, OECA will continue to release its annual 

enforcement numbers. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If you are told by the Administrator to go 

light or to back off or to take it easy or to let it go, how will we 

know that is taking place, and how will we know that you did not 

say OK? 

Ms. BODINE. Senator, I cannot accept that premise. 

360 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. Change it to the President. What if 

the President tells you that? We know he said to let Flynn go. Why 

wouldn’t he say let some polluter go? 

Ms. BODINE. Enforcement has always been non-partisan and 

independent at EPA. If confirmed, I would make sure that continued to be true. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. One of the things people do when asked 

to do things that are inconsistent with their duties is to push back 

or resign. Would you be prepared to do that if the pressure from 

the Administrator was, in your view, inconsistent with the duties 

and obligations of the Agency? 

Ms. BODINE. Again, Senator, I cannot imagine that circumstance 

coming up, but, yes, I have my own integrity, but so does Administrator Pruitt. I am not at all concerned that the circumstance 

would ever arise. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Wow, because that runs wildly contrary to 

his entire record. 

My time has expired. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

I would like to point out to the Committee that any questions relating to potential conflicts for Administrator Pruitt have been fully 

addressed by the Office of Government Ethics on January 17, 2017. 

Walter Schaub, who is the Director of the Office of Government 

Ethics, responded to a letter from the Ranking Member and other 

EPW Democrats regarding Scott Pruitt and potential conflicts of interest, ‘‘If OGE, the Office of Government Ethics, has transmitted 

a certified financial disclosure report and an ethics agreement to 

the Senate, it means that OGE is satisfied that all financial conflicts of interest have been identified and resolved.’’ 

This follows Administrator Pruitt’s OGE financial disclosure report and ethics agreement that was transmitted to this Committee 

on January 4, 2017. His letter states, ‘‘We,’’ the OGE, ‘‘believe that 

this nominee is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations 

governing conflicts of interest.’’ 

I ask unanimous consent to enter these two letters into the 

record. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I would object and ask unanimous consent 

also to enter into the record, along with it, the correspondence we 

have had with OGE about how the dark money operation was not 

actually considered by them and therefore, was never looked at and 

was not a part of that OGE response. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. No objection then on my side. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

361 


26002.338

UNITFO S"-,d,TES OFFICE OF 

GOVERNMENT ETHICS 

The Honorable Thomas R, Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Envimnment and 

Public Works 

United States Senate 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin 

United States Senator 

509 Hmt Senate Oftlcc Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Bernard Sanders 

United States Senator 

332 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC ?.051 0 

The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse 

United States Senator 

530 f-lao1 Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honomble Jeff Merkley 

United States Senator 

313 Hart Senate Oflice Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

January 17,2017 

The Honorable Kirsten Gillibrand 

United States Senator 

478 Russell Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Cory A. Booker 

United States Senator 

359 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Edward Markey 

United States Senator 

255 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tammy Duckworth 

United States Senator 

SD-GI2 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Ranking Membet· Cat·per and Senatoo·s Cardin, Sanders, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, 

Booker, Mat·key, and Duckworth: 

This responds to your letter of January 12,2017, requesting specific information 

regarding the ethics review of a named individual who has been announced as an intended 

nominee of the !'resident-elect. The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) generally avoids 

providing information about individual nominees; but believes tbat the information regarding the 

nominee financial disclosuo·e process provided below is responsive to your request. 

1201 KEW YORK AVH)'IW•SUITHSOO·WASHINGTO>I DC•2ll005 * * 
362 


26002.339

The I Ionorable Thomas It Carper, eta!. 

Page 2 

It is necessary to avoid formally sharing information regarding OGE's work on individual 

nominations whenever releasing such information could undermine the purposes of the nominee 

ethics review process. As described below, preclearing a nominee financial disclosure report 

involves an extensive deliberative process between OGE, the nominee, and agency ethics 

officials. Accordingly, OGE adheres to this nondisclosure practice as closely as possible, 

particularly if other information may satisfy the interests underlying the request. 

In this instance, additional information about OGE's work and the nomination process is 

provided below to address the concerns underlying your request. As explained below, ifOGE 

has transmiltcd a cedi lied financial diselo'llre report and an ethics agreement to the Senate, it 

means that 0(11·: is sn!islied that all financial con!licts of interest have been idcntit1cd and 

resolved. Note that OGI\ is focused on financial conflicts of interest and not on what might be 

described as ''intellectual conflicts of interest" or the political viewpoints of nominees, which are 

often the subject or media and public scrutiny of nominees but which arc outside the scope of 

OGE's review. OGE's determination is based on the information contained in the report, the 

agency's advice regarding possible financial conflicts of interest, and whether the report 

complies with the Ethics in Government Act and government ethics regulations, all in light of the 

agency's functions and the nominee's proposed duties. 

A nominee submits a dratl public financial disclosure report (OGE Form 278c) through 

OGE's electronic filing system (Integrity). Ethics officials review the draft financial disclosure 

report, ask follow-up questions, and provide instructions for revising the report. Multiple rounds 

of questions and revisions are almost always exchanged before a repmt meets the complex 

disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act. 

We note that the disclosure requirements of the OGE Form 278e are dictated by the 

Ethics in Government Act. 1 Moreover, as your letter correctly stated, OGE's ethics review 

(()cuses on a nominee's personal financial interests, not a nominee's history of political 

solicitations and activity. Your letter asked about reportable positions and "affiliations." 

Nominees are required to report certain positions held, during the current calendar year and 

during the two-year period preceding such calendar year, as an officer, director, trustee, partner, 

proprietor, representative, employee, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, 

partnership, or other business enterprise, any nonprofit organization, any labor organization, or 

any educational or other institution other than the United States. 2 They arc not, however, 

required to report positions held in any religious, social, fraternal, or political entity or any 

positions solely of an honorary nature. 3 OGE's view is that a position with a political action 

committee, for example, qualifies for this exclusion from disclosure by virtue of being political 

in nature. 

The exclusion docs not extend, however, to earned income from an excluded position, 

which must be disclosed in Part 2 of the OGE Form 278e. Nominees must report salaries, fees, 

commissions, wages, and any other compensation for personal services (other than from 

' SeeS U.S. C. npp. ~ I 02. 

'See 5 U.S.C. app. * 102(n)(o)(A). 1 ,)'ee id. 
363 


26002.340

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper, et al. 

Page 3 

United States Govemment employment) in excess of $200 from any one source, including 

income from positions that need not be reported in Pa:rt I of the OGE Form 278e.'1 

Your letter also asked about reportable gifts. Nominees are not required to complete the 

portion of the rep01t that covers gifts and travel reimbursements. 5 

Each nominee is legally responsible for ensul'ing that the information he or she reports is 

"true, complete and correct."6 The financial disclosure system does not require or authorize 

either OGE or agency ethics officials to independently investigate or verify the information that a 

nominee reports; however, OGE and agency ethics officials recognize that the reporting 

requirements are complex and work diligently to help each nominee to fully comply with the 

requirements based on the information the nominee provides. OGE and agency ethics officials 

review a nominee's report for internal inconsistencies and self-evident omissions. OGE staff also 

asks extensive questions that lead to more complete reporting. 

F'or this work, OGE's staff draws on decades of collective experience in reviewing 

financial disclosure reports to help filers to identify the types of assets, positions, and liabilities 

that fi !ers commonly overlook m· forget to report. Examples of the types of items that OGE staff 

discusses with filers are found in sample checklists on OGE's website. 7 Multiple rounds of 

questions and revisions are usually needed before a nominee's report can be finalized. This back 

and forth process can take weeks or, in the case of extremely wealthy individuals, sometimes 

months. Through focused effort, OGE and agency ethics officials help nominees complete their 

reports as quickly as possible without sacl'ificing quality. 

Once the nominee confirms that the report contains all of his or her legally reportable 

information, as a result of the revisions discussed above, OGE and agency ethics officials 

analyze the informatio11 contained in the report to identify potential conflicts of interest with the 

duties of the position for which the individual is being nominated. OGE and agency ethics 

officials then work together to prepare an ethics agreement. The ethics agreement outlines the 

specific steps a nominee will take to avoid the identified conflicts of interest and cnsul'es that the 

nominee will be able to carry out his or het· duties as a Presidential appointee. OGE and agency 

ethics officials draft each ethics agreement using standardized language from OGE's ethics 

agreement guide, which is tailored to the nominee's unique circumstances. 8 The nominee must 

agree to take the steps outlined in the agreement to resolve his or her conflicts of interest; for 

example, resignation of positions, divestiture of holdings, or recusal. 

When the nominee has confirmed that the report is "true, complete and correct" and has 

agreed to take the steps outlined in the ethics agreement to resolve the identified conflicts of 

interest, OGE can begin to finalize its worlc OGE ensures that it is satisfied that the report is 

'See 5 C.F.R. § 2634.302(al( 1). 

'See 5 C.f.R. § 2634.304(c). 

' Public finoncinl disclosure I'Cportlilcrs must mnkc the following cortificnlion: ''l certify that the statements that I have made in 

Ibis report ore true. complete nnd correct to the best of my knowledge." See OG!l Form 278c, nt l. 1 These checklists are nvailnble online a.l 

h.lijl<:liJI~II~.op~.go_v/W,:IlO(iE,:!"JlO/.I\C ).($t.·.~~l~)\(>lll\:<1!.~1i5.~~J!(!~~lliH,1!llilt:i.:mtUJJJ!!IJ~i!!l%lll.I)Jsgi!)fotll:!ilj~J"IJ!li~h>, 

mil.'· 

'The OGE PAS Nominee Ethics Ag•·ecmcnt Guide is avnflable online nl 

!liiU!;;/IWWW,<>J!.c.gny/Wcl> .. oJ!<I.I.tslli\cJ:Il<<rccJiiJ'A~llil!miJ!!'!tlli.lbi£:<;':liMt~~ill!!Jll:!:ili!ilt!>JiM$.i.W!J.t:<!l. 
364 


26002.341

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper, et al. 

Page4 

complete and the ethics agreement has resolved all ethics issues. OGE then preclears the report 

(i.e., provides staff-level assurance that it is cleared for certification by OGE's Director). After 

OGE has preclearcd the report, the nominee must log back into the electronic filing system and 

formally file the report by certifying that the information in the finalized report is correct. Ethics 

officials at the agency to which the nominee is being nominated then review the report. If they 

are satisfied with the report, they ccttify the report and send it to OGE with an opinion indicating 

that all conflicts of intet·est have been resolved. Next, OGE reviews the report for final 

certification, cettifies the repott, and transmits both the report and the ethics ag1·eement to the 

Senate. 

Your letter asked whether there are "other avenues" that will require the nominee to 

disclose additional information to the Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO), if confirmed. 

When OGE certifies a report, it means that both the DAEO and OGE are satisfied that all 

potential conflicts of interest apparent at the present time have been identified and addressed. 

However, the nominee financial disclosure report is a snapshot in time. If confirmed, the 

nominee, after becoming an appointee, is subject to periodic transaction, annual, and termination 

financial disclosure t·eporting requirements. 9 

ln addition, promptly after appointment, the nominee-now an appointee-must 

complete an initial ethics briefing. The initial ethics briefing must include the following 

content: 10 

( 1) If the individual acquired new financial interests reportable 

under section 102 of the [Ethics in Govemment] Act after filing 

the nominee financial disclosure report, the agency ethics official 

must appropriately address the potential for conflicts of interest 

arising from those financial interests. 

(2) The agency ethics ofllcial must counsel the individual on 

the basic recusal obligation under 18 U.S.C. 208(a). 

(3) The agency ethics official must explain the recusal 

obi igations and other commitments addressed in the individual's 

ethics agreement and ensure that the individual unde.rstands what is 

specifically required in order to comply with each of them, 

including any deadline for compliance. The ethics official and the 

individual must establish a process by which the recusals will be 

achieved, which may consist of a screening arrangement or, when 

the DAEO deems appropriate,. vigilance on the part of the 

individual with regard to recusal obligations as they arise in 

particular matters. 

'

1 See 5 U.S.C. upp. ~§ 101(<1), IOI(c). 103(1). 

•• 5 C.F.R. § 2638.305(1) (2017). The recently updated regulations nl5 C.P.R. pnrt 2638 arc not yet In print but·m'C available 

online at .l.ut.v:/(\Y\Y~~·.cl·f.i·,J:\1\:qti·. 

IJinlrc\ricvcl\( Ji<'iV.J>. & Sll J rP.<II\>1> 7;17'm?lcb'iJQZ4M.~.QI'117.1~Jill!&r.'£ !lli]'/i.Jr::213Aif), W . .l. L/L.\".~,},].(!J!Ulll~. 
365 


26002.342

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper, et al. 

Page 5 

(4) The agency ethics official must provide the individual with 

instructions and the deadline for completing initial ethics training, 

unless the individual completes the initial ethics training either 

before or during the ethics briefing. 

ln addition, the nominee must complete new employee ethics training and, later, annual ethics 

training. 11 An appointee must also demonstrate compliance with the ethics agreement signed as 

part of the nomination process. The DAEO works closely with the appointee to ensure full 

compliance. 12 OGE tracks ethics agreement compliance by requiring the DAEO to notify OGE 

when compliance efforts are complete. Finally, an appointee has an ongoing obligation to 

comply with ethics statutes and regulations, including the criminal conflict-of-interest laws, the 

Ethics in Government Act, and the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive 

Branch. 

In other words, even if a nominee has fully complied with the requirements of the 

nominee financial disclosure pmccss, it is possible for that nominee, once confirmed, to face 

potential conflicts involving interests that were not identified or addressed in his or her financial 

disclosure report or ethics agreement. This potential is the reason for the executive branch 

requirements for briefings, training, ongoing disclosure, and consultations with agency ethics 

officials. Executive branch officials, especially those at the highest levels, should regularly seek 

the advice of their agency ethics offiCials in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest when 

performing the important duties with which the public has entrusted them. 

I hope you have found the information p!'Ovided regarding the nominee financial 

disclosure process helpful. 

cc: The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

United States Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

"See 5 C.P.R.§§ 2638.304, 2638.308 {2017). 

"See 5 C.F.R. § 2638.1 04(c)(l3) (2017}. 

Sincerely, 

WALTER 

SHAUB 

~MMyllrl"f'ffftrW.\1.1fltSH.\IIII 

Q.ll •• ~u!l.~•U.'Ga•••"'f:~ 

"",.fl!Jir;~of(o~"t'f"'MtllllHt.n, 

f""WIII.l(II~IIAtrf,. 

I! .•. U~Lf'1W<I~.\00 !.1 ~l4:tti.U'~ 

..... 

Dflt:l(lll'.OI.I11HI\U.4WOO' 

Walter M. Shaub, Jr. 

Director· 
366 


26002.343

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF 

GOVERNMENT ETHICS 

The Honorable James M. lnhofe 

Chairman 

Committee on Envir6nment and 

Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

JAN-~ 2017 

In accordance with the Ethics in Government Act of1978, I enclose a copy of the 

financial disclosure report filed by Edward Scott Pruitt. President, Elect Tnunp has announced 

his intention to nominate Mr. Pruitt for the position of Administrator, Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

We have reviewed the report and have obtained advice from the agency concerning any 

possible conflict in light of its f\mctions and the nominee's proposed duties. Also enclosed is nn 

ethics agreement outlining the actions that the nominee will undertake to avoid conflicts of 

interest. Unless a date for compliance is indicated in the ethics agreement, the nominee must 

fully comply within three months of confirmation with any action specified in the ethics 

agreement. 

Based thereon, we believe that this nominee is in compliance With applicable laws nnd 

regulations goveming conflicts of interest. 

Bnclosmes 

Walter M. Shaub, Jr. 

Director 

17.n I New Yorl< Aven""• NW, Suite 500 I Washlngtol1, OC 20005 

www.oge.gov 
367 


26002.344

l:initcd States Senate WASHINGTON. DC 20SH1 

Kevin Minoli 

Designated Agency Ethics Oflicial 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Mr. Minoli: 

January 12, 20 1 7 

We are in receipt of the Oflice of Government Ethics [OGE] certified financial disclosure report 

[Form 278) of Edward Scott Pruitt, and Mr. Pruitt's letter to you outlining the steps he will take 

to avoid conflicts of interest should he be confirmed as Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency jEPAj. We arc concerned that his representations to date have been 

incomplete. Without a fuller disclosure of financial and political relationships, EPA may not 

have sufficient inlormation to evaluate whether Mr. Pruitt should be recused from many matters 

about which a reasonable person would question his impartiality. We are also concerned that his 

ethics agreement does not fully address how legal conllicts of interest arising from his 

representation of the State of Oklahoma in litigation against EPA will be resolved. 

With respect to Mr. Pruitt's financial conf1icts of interest and his Fonn 278 disclosures, Mr. 

Pruitt represents he will not participate personally and substantially in particular matters 

involving: Southern Baptists Theological Seminary, the Windows Ministry Incorporated, and 

the Rule of Law Defense fund [RLDF]. In the attached letter we are sending today to OGE, we 

have raised concerns that this accounting does not include sufficient detail to allow OGE or EPA 

to fully assess conllicts of interest arising from his solicitation of funds tor 527 and 50l(c)(4) 

organizations. some of which may continue to operate during his tenure as EPA Administrator. 

should he be contirmed. 

For example, RLDF can receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, or 

partnerships and need not disclose the identity of its donors because it is organized under section 

501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. The RLDF has previously contributed to section 527 

political action committees [PACs] like the Republican Attorney Generals Association, 

effectively laundering the identity of donors whose money ended up funding overtly political 

purposes. What safeguards will EPA put in place to guard against Mr. Pruitt's involvement in 

matters involving regulated entities that contribute either publicly or anonymously to PACs and 

501(c)(4) organizations with which he has had a prior relationship? In other words, what 

assurances will we have that regulated entities did not and will not make political contributions 

in exchange for favorable treatment by him as Administrator? Reporting in the New York Times 

and elsewhere has documented the real risk of pay-to-play arrangements with this nominee. 

With respect to conflicts of interest arising from his position as Attorney General of the State of 

Oklahoma. Mr. Pruitt makes little more than pro forma representations that he will seek your 

authorization for a one-year period of time concerning matters in which the State of Oklahoma is 

a party or represents a party. As you may be aware, Mr. Pruitt has brought multiple lawsuits 

against EPA on behalf of the State of Oklahoma, many of which remain in active litigation with 
368 


26002.345

entities that have. contributed large sums of money to RAGA ll!ld other PACs with which Mr. 

Pruitt is affiliated. 

• Couid you provide us a complete list of matters that in your opinion will reqi.tire your 

authorization? 

• What factors will you use to assess whether authorization will be granted? Whattact01's 

will you use to determine how broadly any recusal, if required, must be. drawn? For 

example. Mr. Pruitt has challenged EPA's carbon pollution stlllldards for power plants. 

Assuming that a recusal would be required in that matter, would it be limited to decisiorts 

rega{dlng the litigation, or to other matters considered by the Office <!nd Air IU\d 

Radiation? 

• Mr. Pruitt has agreed to not participate in any particular matter involving the RLDF 

without prior authorization. RLDF's activities and donors are largely secret. Without 

mare extensive discl()sures about RLDF and Mr. Pruitt's role in it, how will you 

dcteimine whether a particular matter involves the RLDF'? 

• The e~hics agreement el'\tered into by fonner EPA Administrator Carol Browner inCluded 

a clear lllld permanent recusal of her participation irt any EPA matter in which the State of 

Florida Was involved as a: party and she was involved p.e.rsonally and substantially as 

Secretary of the Florida Department ofEnvironmentul Regulation. Our l.111derstanding,of 

Mr. Pruitt's ethics agreement is that he has made no such unequivocal pledge. Why has 

EPA concluded that a more lenient. arrangement for Mr. Pruitt's conflicts is appropriate? 

• Mr. Pruitt has agreed to seek your authorization for a one-year period of time. Is it your 

understan<iing that any recusa1 you may require .of Mr. Pruitt would belimited to this 

one-year period? If so, how will you account for his participation in matters ~er that 

one-yeat period where the conflict &iil! exists, like litigation that he has braughtagainst 

the agency that has not s.ettled or been decided by that time? 

• Mr. Pruitt has sued EPA on behalf of the State of Oklahoma. Betbre authoriZing him to 

participate iti EPA decisi(ins involving Oklahoma, how will you detennine whether Mr. 

Pruitt has obtained consent from his client to be released fi'om ethical obligations he thay 

have to it? 

• Many of Mr, Pruitt's lawsuits have involved multi-state coalitions. Presumably he has 

entered into joint prosecution: agreements with his co,plaintiff.~. Have you l'eviewed,.ot 

will you revie\v; these agreements to assess whether Mr. Pruitt has a "covered 

relationship" with other states or parties in those lawsuits? Is it. your opinion ihat he 

would ,aJso have to obtain consent from his co-plaintiffs to participate in matters in which 

EPA's. position is adverse to those st'dtes? 

• It is a general principle oflegal ethics that .an attorney may not disclose privileged 

information without the client's consent. Furthermore, in multi-party litigation when two 

or more clients with a common interest in litigation agree to exchange otherwise 

privileged .information concerning the matter, the communication is privileged as against 

third persons. Have any provisions been put in place to prevent the unauthoriZed 

disclosute by Mr. Pru:ittof confidential client information, either front the State of 

Oklahoma or other state-plaintiffs in Mr. Pruitt's litigation? 
369 


26002.346

• Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 760l(d), the authority of the Administrator to issue rules related 

to topics listed in 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d) is not delegable. How will you address a situation 

where you determine Mr. Pruitt has a conflict of interest with respect to a rule covering 

one of these topics? 

• If a recusal is determined appropriate in any matter, has the nominee agreed to tbrgo any 

briefings during the period of the recusal? 

• Under what obligation is Mr. Pruitt to follow determinations made by you concerning his 

recusals and waivers? If he chooses not to follow your determinations, what recourse is 

available for EPA? 

We are committed to protecting the integrity of the EPA. All Americans should have confidence 

that EPA's decisions are made transparently, without favor to political donors, and by an 

Administrator who is committed to protecting the prerogatives and mission of the agency, not 

those suing it. The EPW Committee has scheduled Mr. Pruitt's confirmation hearing for January 

18th. Accordingly. we respectfully request responses to these questions prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Sincerely, 

Gi;i;?/1 FA. 

United States 

Booker 

2! 

Senator 

~ 

12- / ~4 «<"'"- Bem;d'tan~~s 

United States Senator 

Kirsten Gillibrand 

United States Senator 

~·~~ Edward J. Markey(J ~~. -- -<f 

United States Senator 

Enclosure: letter to Walter M. Shaub. Jr., Director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics 

CC: Justina Fugh, Senior Counsellor Ethics Oftice of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 
370 


26002.347

ltlnitcd States ~cnatc 

Walter M. Shaub, Jr. 

Director 

U.S. Office of Government Ethics 

1201 New York Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Dear Mr. Shaub: 

WASHINGTON. DC i0510 

January 12,2017 

Thank you for your continuing efforts to ensure Senate committees, like the Senate Environment 

and Public Works Committee [EPW] on which we serve, have the information we need to review 

potential conflicts of interest faced by nominees of President-elect Trump. 

We are in receipt of the Office of Government Ethics [OGE] certitied financial disclosure report 

!Form 2781 of Edward Scott Pruitt. nominee to be the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency I EPA(. After reviewing Mr. Pruitt's information. we are concerned that the 

record presented may not provide a complete picture of ethical issues faced by this nominee. 

Since the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, we have entered into an unprecedented 

and dangerous time in which massive and often anonymous corporate political spending 

threatens to corrupt our government. OGE's ethics review focuses primarily on a nominee's 

personal financial interests, and appears not to address a nominee's history of political 

solicitations and activity. Corporations spend their money to get results, so it is now more 

important than ever that we have a full disclosure of a nominee's ties to the industries he or she 

will be charged with regulating. This is particularly important where a nominee may have 

solicited or raised ··dark money" from interests to which they thus may be beholden. 

During his tenure as Attorney General of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt has blurred the distinction 

betwl!en official and political actions, often at the behest of corporations he will regulate if 

confirmed to lead EPA. While the disclosures Mr. Pruitt made to OGE may be sutlicient to 

ascertain his personal financial conflicts of interest, they do not document conflicts he may have 

as a result of political activities. Public reporting based on documents produced by Freedom of 

Information Act requests illustrate how Mr. Pruitt and members of his staft'have worked closely 

with fossil fuel lobbyists to craft his otlice's official positions. Public reporting has also 

identified numerous potential conflicts of interest not disclosed on his Form 278 or addressed in 

his ethics agreement. For example: 

• Pruitt indicated on his Form 278 that he has served in various positions, including 

Chairman, of the Rule of Law Defense Fund [RLDF] since 2014. Because RLDF is 

organized under section 50l(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, it can receive unlimited 

contributions !rom individuals, corporations, and partnerships and need not disclose the 

identities of its donors, donors who may have been solicited directly by Mr. Pruitt in 

exchange for the RLDF advocating certain positions. 
371 


26002.348

• Although Mr. Pruitt served as Chairmlm ofthe Republican Attorney Generals 

Association [RAGA] for two t.erms, his affiliation was not listed on his OGE disclosures. 

Since :2014, RAGA has received neatly $4 million from fossil fuel-related entities. many 

of which are either companies regulated by EPA or mdusti'Y trade associations. 1 

According to campaign finance records and the RLDF's 99()s, hundreds of thousands of 

dollars have passed between the RLDF ancj RAGA. Recently release(}. emails show that 

RAGA has provided services such as chartered airplane flights to its members .. Mt. 

Pruitfs OGE disclosures do not include information about any gifts or in~kind donations 

Mr. Pruitt received from RAGA or o.ther groups with which he's been involved. 

• It has been reported that Mr. Pruitt is, or has been, affiliated with at least three other 

political action coinmittees [PACs]: Liberty 2.0, Oklahoma Strong Leadership, and Scott 

Pruitt for Attorney General. These P ACs have received contrib~1tions from nUlllerous 

corporations that at'e regulated by EPA.2 Many of these are challenging EPA sta1.1dards in 

court along with Mr. Pmit.t. Mr. Pruitt's QGE disclosures do not include any of this 

informaiion. 3 

To better understand tbe types of iJifonnation Mr. Pruitt is required to disclose and the potential 

conflicts ofinterestthat may remain outstanding, we woul9 appreciate answers to the following 

questioris: · 

• Did Mr. Pruitt provide OGE any infonnation about ihe identity of RLDF donors, amounts 

contributed, and any promises made. or actions ta:ken by him or the RLDF .in exchange for 

donations made to it? 

• Did Mr. Pruitt provide OdE any information about his positiolis '\vi.th. RAGA, any role he 

played .soliciting money for RAGA, what resulted from those solicitations, ot any 

promises made or actions taken by him or RAGA in exchange for donations made to it? 

• Did Mr. Pruitt provide OGE with any information about gift$, such as any RAGAsponsored chartered flights he may have been on? 

• Did Mr. Pruitt disclose contributions to se.ction 527 PACs operating on his behalf? 

• Does OGE require nominees to provide intbrmation about. the types of groups described 

above as part of its vetting process? If so, is OGE satisfied that it has received complete 

disclosures from Mr. Pruitt? 15 OGE aware o.f any other avenues that will require Mr. 

'These include D.evon Energy, ExxonMohil, Koclr Jndustrie$, Mu;rray Energy, and South~rn Company, and several 

industry trade associations, such as the Americrur Petroleum institute; Amerkan Fuel and Petrochemical 

Manufactui-ers, and National Mining As.Sociation. All of these entities have been involved in litiglltion Mr. Pruitt 

has pursued against the EPA and l'!lpresentatives li:Qm at least three had private meetings with Republican Attorneys 

General and staff at RAGA events. 2 Murray Energy WSiHhe leading contributor to Liberty 2Jtin the 2016 electian·cycle and executives f\'oli'l Devon 

Energy and Alliance Resources maxeq out to O{>lahoma Strong Le~~dership in 20 16. Devon Energy., Koch 

Industries, Arch Coal, and E->:xonMobll an ctmu·ibuted thousands to Scott Pruitt for Attorney General when he was 

last Up for reelection during the ;!QJ4 C}ll;k 

' Just last week we !eumed that a new 501 (c)(4) oq:ljllization, Protecting America Now, hai formed specifically to 

support Mr. Pruitt's confirmation. Tit is new dark money orga!li:zation iS promisiitg·anonytnity to donQt's who 

contribute to its efforts on behalf of Mr. Pruitl. With so many tbssil. fuel interests having publicly supported to Mr. 

Pruitt's political organi4l!tions in the past, it would come as little surprise if many of these satne interests are now 

supporting his nomination anonymously. 
372 


26002.349

Pruitt to disclose this infonnation to EPA's Designated Agency Ethics Official during his 

tenure as Administrator, if confinned? 

For your infonnation, attached to this letter is a letter we are sending today to EPA requesting 

additional infonnation on its recusal and waiver process. The EPW Committee has scheduled 

Mr. Pruitt's confinnation hearing for January 18'h. Accordingly, we respectfully request 

responses to these questions prior to the date of the hearing. 

Sincerely, 

~~ Benjamin L. Cardin 

Unit St es Senator 

~~~~-~ 

~Booker /eo.~ 

United States Senator 

~ United States Senator 

l?d4-· ~~c..- Bemard Sanders 

United States Senator 

Kirsten Gillibrand 

United States Senator 

~~.~- Edward J. Marke~~·-" ~ -~ 

United States Senator 

Enclosure: letter to Kevin Minoli, Designated Agency Ethics Official, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 
373 


26002.350

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse 

United States Senate 

530 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Whitehouse: 

JAN 1 6 2017 

OFFICE OF 

GENERAL COUNSEL 

This letter responds to your inquiry of January 12, 2017, requesting specific information 

regarding the ethics review of E. Scott Pruitt, who has been nominated by President-elect Trump 

to be the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (amended by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 

and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of2007), the EPA ethics team reviewed 

the public financial disclosure report submitted by Mr. Pruitt. We interacted with his surrogates 

to ensure that he reported all information necessary and required as set forth in the Ethics in 

Government Act. See "Contents ofReport" at 5 U.S.C. app. §102 and in 5 C.F.R. Part 2634, 

Subpart C. Based on his submission, the EPA certified the public financial disclosure report on 

January 4, 2017, and forwarded it to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), which certified it 

later that same day. Our certification of the report means that "the individual submitting [it] is in 

compliance with applicable laws and regulations." See 5 U.S.C. app. §106. In addition to 

certifying the report, the EPA and OGE also approved the language of Mr. Pruitt's ethics 

agreement, which conformed to the requirements of 5 C.F.R. Part 2634, Subpart H, Ethics 

Agreements, and the OGE-issued Nominee Ethics Agreement Guide (2014). 

Federal ethics laws and regulations define the assets that are to be considered when assessing 

whether an employee or nominee has a financial conflict of interest. This assessment considers 

Mr. Pruitt's direct or imputed assets, which are defined to be his own interests, those of his 

spouse, minor child, general partner, any organization or entity for whom he serves as officer, 

director, trustee, general partner or employee, or any person with whom he is negotiating for or 

has an arrangement concerning prospective employment. See 5 C.F .R. § 2640.1 03(d). An 

employee's obligation to recuse himself from a particular matter or obtain a waiver pursuant to 

18 U .S.C. §208(b) is based upon consideration of these defined interests. Interests or potential 

interests beyond those included in the definition are not considered and, therefore, cannot form 

the basis of an obligation under federal ethics laws to recuse oneself. For example, your letter 

asks whether the EPA considered potential "conflicts of interest arising from [Mr. Pruitt's] 

solicitation of funds for 527 and 501(c)(4) organizations." The assets of a 527 organization are 
374 


26002.351

not owned directly by Mr. Pruitt or any of his imputed interests, so are, therefore, outside of the 

bounds of our review. Although Mr. Pruitt himself had a campaign committee tor his own 

political campaigns for office, the EPA received confirmation from his surrogates that he is 

neither compensated by nor can he direct funds to himself. Further, he is not liable for the 

campaign's debt and is not owed any money. Mr. Pruitt's surrogates, in an email message from 

Mr. Adam Raviv, Special Counsel, WilmerHale, dated December 22,2016, assured the EPA that 

if confirmed, the "committee will not raise additional money during his service and its only 

activity will be to settle any liabilities remaining from before his confirmation." We note that, as 

a federal employee, Mr. Pruitt would be prohibited under the Hatch Act. 5 U.S.C. § 7324, from 

soliciting any funds whatsoever for any partisan political campaign, group or election. 

QUESTION #I: Could you provide us a complete list of matters that in your opinion will 

require your authorization?' 

ANSWER #I: Upon appointment, Mr. Pruitt will become an employee of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency and subject to, among other things, the Standards of Ethical 

Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 C.F.R. Part 2635, and the conflict of interest 

statutes codified in Title 18 of the United States Code. The obligation to seek authorization to 

participate in a specific party matter to avoid a loss of impartiality of the employee originates 

from 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(a), which states: 

Where an employee knows that a particular matter involving specific parties is likely to 

have a direct and predictable effect on the financial interest of a member of his 

household, or knows that a person with whom he has a covered relationship is or 

represents a party to such matter, and where the employee determines that the 

circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to 

question his impartiality in the matter, the employee should not participate in the matter 

unless he has informed the agency designee of the appearance problem and received 

authorization from the agency designee in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section. 

The regulation, which includes a definitions section, specifies that an employee has a covered 

relationship with, among others, "(a]ny person tor whom the employee has, within the last year, 

served as officer, director, trustee, general partner, agent, attorney, consultant, contractor, or 

employee." 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(b)(iv). As set forth in the ethics agreement, Mr. Pruitt has 

identified that for a period of one year after his resignation from his position as the Attorney 

General of the State of Oklahoma, he will have a covered relationship with the State of 

Oklahoma and has agreed to seek authorization prior to participating in any specific party matter 

in which the State of Oklahoma is a party or represents a party. Similarly, he has identified the 

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Windows Ministry Incorporated, and the Rule of Law 

1 This response differs from the long-standing agency practice of answering questions in a comprehensive narrative 

in light of the unique nature of the confirmation process and the importance of the federal ethics requirements to that 

process. In order to facilitate the approach taken. this response includes the wording of the questions contained in 

your letter verbatim. 
375 


26002.352

Defense Fund as organizations with which he will have a covered relationship tor one year from 

the date he resigns or resigned from his positions with those entities, and has agreed during the 

time he has a covered relationship with any organization to seek authorization prior to 

participating in any specific party matter in which any organization in which he has served as 

director or officer is a party or represents a party. 

It is not possible to proactively identify a complete list of specific party matters that could exist 

across the entire agency that involve the State of Oklahoma or any of the three organizations, nor 

would it be possible to do so for many other employees who have covered relationships with a 

state or organization that the EPA interacts on a fairly regular basis. Instead, the employee 

ensures compliance with the ethics requirements by proactively identifying the persons with 

which the employee has a covered relationship and then seeking authorization each time the 

employee seeks to participate in a specific party matter where one of those persons is a party or 

represents a party. 

QUESTION #2: What factors will you use to assess whether authorization will be granted? 

What factors will you use to determine how broadly any recusal, if required, must be drawn? For 

example, Mr. Pruitt has challenged EPA's carbon pollution standards for power plants. Assuming 

that a recusal would be required in that matter, would it be limited to decisions regarding the 

litigation, or to other matters considered by the Office and Air and Radiation? 

ANSWER #2: For the purposes of the impartiality considerations under the Standards of Ethical 

Conduct, the factors the EPA's Designated Agency Ethics Official will take into consideration 

are set forth at 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d)(l)- (6): 

Factors which may be taken into consideration include: 

(I) The nature of the relationship involved; 

(2) The effect that resolution of the matter would have upon the tinancia! interests 

of the person involved in the relationship; 

(3) The nature and importance of the employee's role in the matter, including the 

extent to which the employee is called upon to exercise discretion in the matter; 

(4) The sensitivity of the matter; 

(5) The difficulty of reassigning the matter to another employee; and 

(6) Adjustments that may be made in the employee's duties that would reduce or 

eliminate the likelihood that a reasonable person would question the employee's 

impartiality. 

Should a recusal be necessary, that would prohibit participation in that specific party matter in 

any way, but a recusal in one specific party matter would not itself prevent participating on other 

specific party matters in which the "covered relationship" is a party or represents a party, or 

extend to matters of general applicability. Pursuant to the impartiality rules, any court case is 

considered a specific party matter. Thus, if the State of Oklahoma is a party or represents a party 

in a particular piece oflitigation, Mr. Pruitt's ethics agreement includes a commitment by him to 

seek authorization to participate personally and substantially in that litigation. Should Mr. Pruitt 

3 
376 


26002.353

seek authorization to participate in any litigation in which a person with whom he has a covered 

relationship is a party or represents a party, as stated above, the EPA Designated Agency Ethics 

Official would consider the factors set forth at 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d)( I)- (6) for purposes of 

compliance with the federal ethics rules. Beyond the federal ethics requirements, as an attorney, 

Mr. Pruitt would also be subject to the rules of any relevant state bar. Those rules, however, are 

in addition to, and beyond the scope of, the federal ethics review and requirements discussed in 

this letter. 

QUESTION #3: Mr. Pruitt has agreed to not participate in any particular matter involving the 

RLDF without prior authorization. RLDF's activities and donors are largely secret. Without more 

extensive disclosures about RLDF and Mr. Pruitt's role in it, how will you determine whether a 

particular matter involves the RLDF? 

ANSWER #3: Federal ethics requirements apply first to the employee himself, and so Mr. Pruitt 

has agreed that, for the period of time for which he has a covered relationship with the Rule of 

Law Defense Fund (RLDF), he will seek authorization prior to participating in any specific party 

matter in which RLDF is a party or represents a party. Once he becomes a federal employee, Mr. 

Pruitt will have a continuing obligation to comply with the commitments made in his ethics 

agreement and the federal ethics requirements. In order to have an obligation to seek 

authorization to participate personally and substantially in a matter, RLDF must be a party or 

represent a party in a specific party matter. If RLDF has an interest in a specific party matter but 

is not itself a party or representing a party in that matter, the federal ethics requirements would 

not obligate Mr. Pruitt to seek authorization prior to participating in that specific party matter. 

QUESTION #4: The ethics agreement entered into by former EPA Administrator Carol 

Browner included a clear and permanent recusal of her participation in any EPA matter in which 

the State of Florida was involved as a party and she was involved personally and substantially as 

Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Our understanding of Mr. 

Pruitt's ethics agreement is that he has made no such unequivocal pledge. Why has EPA 

concluded that a more lenient arrangement for Mr. Pruitt's conflicts is appropriate? 

ANSWER #4: In assisting Mr. Pruitt with his ethics agreement, the EPA followed federal ethics 

requirements and the most recent Ethics Agreement Guide published by the Office of 

Government Ethics (OGE) in 2014. Both the EPA and OGE certified Mr. Pruitt's ethics 

agreement as complying with all federal ethics requirements and conforming to the template set 

forth in OGE's Guide. Each ethics agreement is specific to the individual who is signing the 

agreement, and so consistency with the agreement of a former EPA Administrator is not a 

requirement for the agreement to be in compliance with the federal ethics rules. While the 

question indicated Mr. Pruitt's ethics agreement differs from the ethics agreement entered into by 

former Administrator Carol Browner in 1997, Mr. Pruitt's ethics agreement is very similar to the 

agreement entered into by former Administrator Lisa Jackson in 2009. Those comparisons do not 

demonstrate compliance or non-compliance with the federal ethics requirements. 

4 
377 


26002.354

QUESTION #5: Mr. Pruitt has agreed to seek your authorization for a one-year period of time. 

Is it your understanding that any recusal you may require of Mr. Pruitt would be limited to this 

one-year period? If so, how will you account for his participation in matters after that one-year 

period where the conflict still exists, like litigation that he has brought against the agency that 

has not settled or been decided by that time? 

ANSWER #5: As explained above, the regulations define a person with whom an employee has 

a covered relationship to include "(aJny person for whom the employee has, within the last year, 

served as officer, director, trustee, general partner, agent, attorney, consultant, contractor, or 

employee." 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(b)(iv) (italics added). After one year, the covered relationship 

with the former employer under the federal ethics rules no longer exists. At that point in time and 

into the future, there is no obligation under the federal ethics rules to seek authorization to 

participate in the relevant specific party matters, and any disqualification on participating in 

those specific party matters is no longer in effect. An employee may voluntarily continue to 

recuse himself from such specific party matters after that point, but is not obligated to do so by 

the federal ethics requirements. Again, this letter discusses only Mr. Pruitt's obligations under 

the federal ethics laws and does not address other possible obligations such as compliance with 

state bar rules. 

QUESTION #6: Mr. Pruitt has sued EPA on behalf of the State of Oklahoma. Before 

authorizing him to participate in EPA decisions involving Oklahoma, how will you determine 

whether Mr. Pruitt has obtained consent from his client to be released from ethical obligations he 

may have to it? 

ANSWER #6: The federal ethics requirements ensure employees meet certain obligations on 

behalf of the interests of the federal government, as those interests are articulated in federal laws 

and regulations. Likewise, the EPA's ethics program is focused on ensuring compliance with 

those laws and regulations. To the extent Mr. Pruitt has ethical obligations to the State of 

Oklahoma or any other organization, ensuring compliance with those non-federal obligations is 

beyond the scope of the federal ethics requirements and the EPA's ethics program. 

QUESTION #7: Many of Mr. Pruitt's lawsuits have involved multi-state coalitions. Presumably 

he has entered into joint prosecution agreements with his co-plaintiffs. Have you reviewed, or 

will you review, these agreements to assess whether Mr. Pruitt has a "covered relationship" with 

other states or parties in those lawsuits? Is it your opinion that he would also have to obtain 

consent from his co-plaintiffs to participate in matters in which EPA's position is adverse to 

those states? 

ANSWER #7: As described above, the federal ethics regulations define persons with whom an 

employee has a covered relationship, and the impartiality standards do not consider that joint 

prosecution agreements give rise to any covered relationship with co-plaintiffs. Joint prosecution 

agreements would not be relevant to evaluating compliance with federal ethics requirements and 

the EPA has not reviewed any such possible agreements. 
378 


26002.355

QUESTION #8: It is a general principle oflegal ethics that an attorney may not disclose 

privileged information without the client's consent. Furthermore, in multi-party litigation when 

two or more clients with a common interest in litigation agree to exchange otherwise privileged 

information concerning the matter, the communication is privileged as against third persons. 

Have any provisions been put in place to prevent the unauthorized disclosure by Mr. Pruitt of 

confidential client information, either from the State of Oklahoma or other state plaintiffs in Mr. 

Pruitt's litigation? 

ANSWER #8: The federal ethics requirements ensure employees meet certain obligations on 

behalf of the interests of the federal government, as those interests are articulated in federal laws 

and regulations. Likewise, the EPA's ethics program is focused on ensuring compliance with 

those laws and regulations. To the extent Mr. Pruitt has ethical obligations to the State of 

Oklahoma or any other state or organization, knowledge of such provisions and ensuring 

compliance with those non-federal obligations is beyond the scope of the federal ethics 

requirements and the EPA's ethics program. 

QUESTION #9: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 760l(d) (sic), the authority of the Administrator to 

issue rules related to topics listed in 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d) is not delegable. How will you address 

a situation where you determine Mr. Pruitt has a conflict of interest with respect to a rule 

covering one of these topics? 

ANSWER #9: Should the federal ethics requirements preclude an Administrator from 

participating in a matter where the authority to take certain actions is defined by a statute or a 

regulation to rest with the Administrator, and where the statute or regulation specifically states 

that the authority may not be delegated, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and other federal law 

provide a mechanism for another official of the EPA to perform such functions in an acting 

capacity. For example, if an Administrator is determined to have a conflict of interest and must 

be recused with respect to any such non-delegable statutory function or duty, he would be 

deemed unable to perform the function or duty and the Administrator position would be deemed 

"vacant" with respect to that function or duty. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act identifies the 

officials who would serve as the acting Administrator to perform the function or duty, and under 

Executive Reorganization #3 of I 970, the EPA Deputy Administrator acts as Administrator in 

the event of a vacancy in the office of Administrator. 

QUESTION #I 0: If a recusal is determined appropriate in any matter, has the nominee agreed to 

forgo any briefings during the period of the recusal? 

ANSWER #I 0: An employee who is recused from participation cannot be briefed on the same 

particular matter from which he is recused. In its advisory entitled "Effective Screening 

Arrangements for Recusal Obligations, D0-04-0 12 (June I, 2004), the Office of Government 

Ethics wrote that: 

Ethics officials should also counsel employees regarding the scope of their recusals, 

including the kinds of actions that may constitute personal and substantial participation. 

6 
379 


26002.356

For example, employees with recusal obligations should not assign covered matters on an 

ad hoc basis. Participating in a decision concerning who should work on a matter, how a 

matter should be handled, or whether a matter should be acted upon, is a form of 

participation in the matter. Involvement in preliminary discussions, in interim 

evaluations, in review or approval at intermediate levels, or in supervision of 

subordinates working on a matter also amounts to personal and substantial participation. 

Recusal means no participation in any way, including briefings. 

QUESTION #II: Under what obligation is Mr. Pruitt to follow determinations made by you 

concerning his recusals and waivers? If he chooses not to follow your determinations, what 

recourse is available for EPA? 

ANSWER #11: Pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act at 5 U.S.C. app. §110, Mr. Pruitt is 

required to comply with his ethics agreement. Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2634.802(b), he is required 

to comply with his ethics agreement within ninety days from the date of Senate confirmation. As 

an employee of the EPA, Mr. Pruitt will be subject to the Standards of Ethical Conduct set forth 

at 5 C.F.R. Part 2635, as well as the conflict of interest statutes codified in Title 18 of the United 

States Code, which include specific prohibitions against financial and representational conflict of 

interest. 

As a Presidential nominee for a Senate-confirmed position, Mr. Pruitt is required to have one 

hour of initial ethics training which he may complete before or after his appointment, but not 

later than two months after his appointment. 5 C.F.R. § 2638.304(b )(I). In addition, he is 

required to have an ethics briefing to discuss his immediate ethics obligations. This new training 

requirement, which became effective on January 1, 2017, may be combined with the initial ethics 

training, but must occur no later than fifteen days after appointment. See 5 C.F.R. § 

2638.305(b )(I). As an employee of the EPA, Mr. Pruitt will be subject to the Standards of 

Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, which includes the basic obligations of 

public service set forth at 5 C.F.R. § 2635.1 Ol(b)(l)- (12). 

As the head of this agency, Mr. Pruitt will be "responsible for, and will exercise personal 

leadership in, establishing and maintaining an effective agency ethics program and fostering an 

ethical culture in the agency." 5 C.F.R. § 2638.107.ln the event that an employee fails to meet 

the obligations of his or her ethics agreement, then the EPA may notify the Office of the 

Inspector General and/or the Office of Government Ethics. See 5 C.F.R. § 2635.10l(b)(l I), 

which requires employees to disclose waste, fraud, abuse and corruption to the proper 

authorities, and 5 C.F.R. § 2638.401, which gives the Office of Government Ethics the authority 

to take action with respect to deficiencies in an agency's ethics program. 

In closing, thank you for your January 12, 2017, letter requesting specific information regarding 

the ethics review performed by the EPA with regard to the nomination of E. Scott Pruitt for the 

position of Administrator. The EPA recognizes the importance of the federal ethics requirements 

to the confirmation process, and is committed to working with the Congress, Mr. Pruitt, and 

future nominees to explain those requirements and how they apply to a particular situation. 

7 
380 


26002.357

Consistent with that commitment, Mr. Pruitt's representative requested a copy of the signed 

version of this response after it has been transmitted to you, and one will be provided to him. 

If you have further questions, you may contact me at minoli.kevin@epa.gov or (202) 564-8064, 

or your staff may contact Justina Fugh, Senior Counsel for Ethics, at fugh.justina@epa.gov or 

(202) 564-1786 and copy Christina Moody of the EPA's Office of Congressional and 

Intergovernmental Relations, moody.christina@epa.gov or (202) 564-0260. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin S. Minoli 

Designated Agency Ethics Official 

Principal Deputy General Counsel 

8 
381 


26002.358

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF 

GOVERNMENT ETHICS 

* 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

United States Senate 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin 

United States Senator 

509 Hart Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Bernard Sanders 

United States Senator 

332 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse 

United States Senator 

530 Hart Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Jeff Merkley 

United States Senator 

313 Hart Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 2051 0 

January 17, 2017 

The Honorable Kirsten Gillibrand 

United States Senator 

4 78 Russell Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Cory A. Booker 

United States Senator 

359 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Edward Markey 

United States Senator 

255 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tammy Duckworth 

United States Senator 

SD-G 12 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Ranking Member Carper and Senators Cardin, Sanders, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, 

Booker, Markey, and Duckworth: 

This responds to your letter of January 12, 2017, requesting specific information 

regarding the ethics review of a named individual who has been announced as an intended 

nominee of the President-elect. The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) generally avoids 

providing information about individual nominees, but believes that the information regarding the 

nominee financial disclosure process provided below is responsive to your request. 

!20! 1\EW YORK AVE ).IW•SUITESOO·WASH!).IGTO).I DC·20005 * * 
382 


26002.359

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper, et al. 

Page 2 

It is necessary to avoid formally sharing information regarding OGE's work on individual 

nominations whenever releasing such information could undermine the purposes of the nominee 

ethics review process. As described below, preclearing a nominee financial disclosure report 

involves an extensive deliberative process between OGE, the nominee, and agency ethics 

officials. Accordingly, OGE adheres to this nondisclosure practice as closely as possible, 

particularly if other information may satisfy the interests underlying the request. 

In this instance, additional information about OGE's work and the nomination process is 

provided below to address the concerns underlying your request. As explained below, ifOGE 

has transmitted a certified financial disclosure report and an ethics agreement to the Senate, it 

means that OGE is satisfied that all financial conflicts of interest have been identified and 

resolved. Note that OGE is focused on financial conflicts of interest and not on what might be 

described as "intellectual conflicts of interest" or the political viewpoints of nominees, which are 

often the subject of media and public scrutiny of nominees but which are outside the scope of 

OGE's review. OGE's determination is based on the information contained in the report, the 

agency's advice regarding possible financial conflicts of interest, and whether the report 

complies with the Ethics in Government Act and government ethics regulations, all in light of the 

agency's functions and the nominee's proposed duties. 

A nominee submits a draft public financial disclosure report (OGE Form 278e) through 

OGE's electronic filing system (Integrity). Ethics officials review the draft financial disclosure 

report, ask follow-up questions, and provide instructions for revising the report. Multiple rounds 

of questions and revisions are almost always exchanged before a report meets the complex 

disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act. 

We note that the disclosure requirements of the OGE Form 278e are dictated by the 

Ethics in Government Act. 1 Moreover, as your letter correctly stated, OGE's ethics review 

focuses on a nominee's personal financial interests, not a nominee's history of political 

solicitations and activity. Your letter asked about reportable positions and "'affiliations." 

Nominees are required to report certain positions held, during the current calendar year and 

during the two-year period preceding such calendar year, as an officer, director, trustee, partner, 

proprietor, representative, employee, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, 

partnership, or other business enterprise, any nonprofit organization, any labor organization, or 

any educational or other institution other than the U nitcd States. 2 They are not, however, 

required to report positions held in any religious, social, fraternal, or political entity or any 

positions solely of an honorary nature. 3 OGE's view is that a position with a political action 

committee, for example, qualifies for this exclusion from disclosure by virtue of being political 

in nature. 

The exclusion does not extend, however, to earned income from an excluded position, 

which must be disclosed in Part 2 of the OGE Form 278e. Nominees must report salaries, fees, 

commissions, wages, and any other compensation for personal services (other than from 

'See 5 U.S.C app. § 102. 2 See 5 U.S.C. app. § l02(a)(6)(A). 3 Seeid. 
383 


26002.360

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper, et al. 

Page 3 

United States Government employment) in excess of$200 from any one source, including 

income from positions that need not be reported in Part I of the OGE Form 278e.4 

Your letter also asked about reportable gifts. Nominees are not required to complete the 

portion of the report that covers gifts and travel reimbursements.5 

Each nominee is legally responsible for ensuring that the infom1ation he or she reports is 

"true, complete and correct."6 The financial disclosure system does not require or authorize 

either OGE or agency ethics officials to independently investigate or verify the information that a 

nominee reports; however, OGE and agency ethics officials recognize that the reporting 

requirements are complex and work diligently to help each nominee to fully comply with the 

requirements based on the information the nominee provides. OGE and agency ethics officials 

review a nominee's report for internal inconsistencies and self-evident omissions. OGE staff also 

asks extensive questions that lead to more complete reporting. 

For this work, OGE's staff draws on decades of collective experience in reviewing 

financial disclosure reports to help filers to identifY the types of assets, positions, and liabilities 

that filers commonly overlook or forget to report. Examples of the types of items that OGE staff 

discusses with filers are found in sample checklists on OGE's website. 7 Multiple rounds of 

questions and revisions are usually needed before a nominee's report can be finalized. This back 

and forth process can take weeks or, in the case of extremely wealthy individuals, sometimes 

months. Through focused effort, OGE and agency ethics officials help nominees complete their 

reports as quickly as possible without sacrificing quality. 

Once the nominee confirms that the report contains all of his or her legally reportable 

information, as a result of the revisions discussed above, OGE and agency ethics officials 

analyze the information contained in the report to identifY potential conflicts of interest with the 

duties of the position for which the individual is being nominated. OGE and agency ethics 

officials then work together to prepare an ethics agreement. The ethics agreement outlines the 

specific steps a nominee will take to avoid the identified conflicts of interest and ensures that the 

nominee will be able to carry out his or her duties as a Presidential appointee. OGE and agency 

ethics officials draft each ethics agreement using standardized language from OGE's ethics 

agreement guide, which is tailored to the nominee's unique circumstances. 8 The nominee must 

agree to take the steps outlined in the agreement to resolve his or her conflicts of interest; for 

example, resignation of positions, divestiture of holdings, or recusal. 

When the nominee has confirmed that the report is "true, complete and correct" and has 

agreed to take the steps outlined in the ethics agreement to resolve the identified conflicts of 

interest, OGE can begin to finalize its work. OGE ensures that it is satisfied that the report is 

4 See 5 C.F.R. § 2634.302(a)(l). 5 See 5 C.F.R. § 2634.304(c). 6 Public financial disclosure report filers must make the following certification: ''I certify that the statements that I have made in 

this report are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge." See OGE Fonn 278e, at I. 7 These checklists are available online at 

https://www.oge.gov/W cb/OGE.nsf/0/BC975C546E68A21 C85 2580560045 BE83/$FILE/Financialo/o20Disclosure0/o20Checklists. 

w: 

8 The OGE PAS Nominee Ethics Agreement Guide is available online at 

https:/1\'vww.oge.gov/Web/oge.nsf/Resources/PAS+Nominee+Ethics+Agreemcnt+Guide+(MS+Word). 
384 


26002.361

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper, et al. 

Page4 

complete and the ethics agreement has resolved all ethics issues. OGE then preclears the report 

(i.e., provides staff-level assurance that it is cleared for certification by OGE's Director). After 

OGE has precleared the report, the nominee must log back into the electronic filing system and 

formally file the report by certifying that the information in the finalized report is correct. Ethics 

officials at the agency to which the nominee is being nominated then review the report. If they 

are satisfied with the report, they certify the report and send it to OGE with an opinion indicating 

that all conflicts ofinterest have been resolved. Next, OGE reviews the report for final 

certification, certifies the report, and transmits both the report and the ethics agreement to the 

Senate. 

Your letter asked whether there are "other avenues" that will require the nominee to 

disclose additional information to the Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO), if confirmed. 

When OGE certifies a report, it means that both the DAEO and OGE are satisfied that all 

potential conflicts of interest apparent at the present time have been identified and addressed. 

However, the nominee financial disclosure report is a snapshot in time. If confirmed, the 

nominee, after becoming an appointee, is subject to periodic transaction, annual, and termination 

financial disclosure reporting requirements. 9 

In addition, promptly after appointment, the nominee-now an appointee-must 

complete an initial ethics briefing. The initial ethics briefing must include the following 

content: 10 

(1) lfthe individual acquired new financial interests reportable 

under section I 02 of the [Ethics in Government] Act after filing 

the nominee financial disclosure report, the agency ethics official 

must appropriately address the potential for conflicts of interest 

arising from those financial interests. 

(2) The agency ethics official must counsel the individual on 

the basic recusal obligation under 18 U.S.C. 208(a). 

(3) The agency ethics official must explain the reeusal 

obligations and other commitments addressed in the individual's 

ethics agreement and ensure that the individual understands what is 

specifically required in order to comply with each of them, 

including any deadline for compliance. The ethics official and the 

individual must establish a process by which the recusals will be 

achieved, which may consist of a screening arrangement or, when 

the DAEO deems appropriate, vigilance on the part of the 

individual with regard to recusal obligations as they arise in 

particular matters. 

9 See 5 U.S. C. app. §§ lOI(d), !Ol(e), !03(!). 

'" 5 C.F.R. § 2638.305(1) (2017). 1be recently updated regulations at 5 C.F.R. part 2638 are not yet in print but are available 

online at http://~.ecfr.gov/cgibin/retrievcECFR?gp-&SID-c8d lbb7d7982feb93026d4806f7f436b&r-oPART&n=5y3.0.l 0.1 0.1! #se5.3.2638 1305. 
385 


26002.362

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper, et al. 

Page5 

(4) The agency ethics official must provide the individual with 

instructions and the deadline for completing initial ethics training, 

unless the individual completes the initial ethics training either 

before or during the ethics briefing. 

In addition, the nominee must complete new employee ethics training and, later, annual ethics 

training. 11 An appointee must also demonstrate compliance with the ethics agreement signed as 

part of the nomination process. The DAEO works closely with the appointee to ensure full 

compliance. 12 OGE tracks ethics agreement compliance by requiring the DAEO to notify OGE 

when compliance efforts are complete. Finally, an appointee has an ongoing obligation to 

comply with ethics statutes and regulations, including the criminal conflict-of-interest laws, the 

Ethics in Government Act, and the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive 

Branch. 

In other words, even if a nominee has fully complied with the requirements of the 

nominee financial disclosure process, it is possible for that nominee, once confirmed, to face 

potential conflicts involving interests that were not identified or addressed in his or her financial 

disclosure report or ethics agreement. This potential is the reason for the executive branch 

requirements for briefings, training, ongoing disclosure, and consultations with agency ethics 

officials. Executive branch officials, especially those at the highest levels, should regularly seek 

the advice of their agency ethics officials in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest when 

performing the important duties with which the public has entrusted them. 

I hope you have found the information provided regarding the nominee financial 

disclosure process helpful. 

cc: The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

United States Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510 

11 See 5 C.F.R. §§ 2638.304. 2638.308 (2017). 12 See 5 C.F.R. § 2638.l04(c)(l3) (2017). 

Sincerely, 

WALTER 

SHAUB 

Walter M. Shaub, Jr. 

Director 
386 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to make a few comments based on my good friend 

Senator Whitehouse’s comments. And he is my good friend, and we 

work on a lot of things together, but we all agree that we need 

clean water and clean air. Really important, whether you are from 

New Jersey or Alaska or Rhode Island. 

We also need an EPA that follows the law, that actually follows 

the law, reads statutes and follows the law. With all due respect 

to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, there are many people in my State, Democrats and Republicans, that believe the last 

Administrator of the EPA didn’t follow the law at all. So one of the 

refreshing things about Administrator Pruitt is that he is going to 

follow the law. The EPA has to follow the law. 

Would you agree with that, Ms. Bodine? 

Ms. BODINE. Yes, absolutely, Senator. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And I think, and you don’t have to comment 

on this, but as a former AG who also sued the EPA, they didn’t follow the law a lot, particularly during the last 4 years. So I think 

it is a breath of fresh air that we have a new Administrator who 

actually wants to follow the law and work with States. If you are 

confirmed, will you commit to work with the States, States like 

Alaska or Rhode Island or New Jersey or Illinois, to work with us 

to clean up hazardous sites, to clean up pollution, other things that 

are the core mission of the EPA? 

Ms. BODINE. Yes, Senator, absolutely. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me go into a specific issue that relates to 

Alaska. There was a hearing here recently on contaminated lands 

that we have with Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act. 

This is millions of acres of lands that were transferred to Alaska 

Natives. We had a very powerful witness just a couple months ago, 

Ms. Lukin, who is an Alaska native, who talked about this kind of 

Catch-22 that Alaska native corporations are in with regard to 

CERCLA requirements and the clean up. They are being required 

to now clean up lands that were transferred to them by the Federal 

Government. 

You are very familiar with this issue; we have talked about it. 

Do you care to comment on that briefly? 

Ms. BODINE. Yes, Senator. Yes, I am familiar with that issue. 

Currently, EPA enforcement uses its enforcement discretion to not 

seek to compel the Alaska native villages to clean up the lands because, of course, the contamination was caused by the Federal Government. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Right. 

Ms. BODINE. But right now it is an enforcement discretion policy; 

it is not statute. 

Senator SULLIVAN. First of all, I think, Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I actually 

believe there is a bipartisan sense that we can hopefully fix this 

from a statutory perspective on this Committee and in the Senate. 

But as we work through that, can you commit to me to continue 

that kind of discretion on an issue that would essentially bankrupt 

these companies through no fault of their own? 

Ms. BODINE. Yes, sir. 

387 

Senator SULLIVAN. And would you commit to work with the Committee to help us try to maybe get to a place where the Administration, and in a bipartisan way, this Committee can work to craft a 

statutory resolution? 

Ms. BODINE. Yes, sir. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me turn to another issue. In Chicken, 

Alaska, I believe you are familiar with what happened to my constituents during a raid conducted by the EPA: assault weapons, 

body armor, the whole nine yards. It was like the U.S. Marines invading a rural community in Alaska, EPA officials armed with 

weapons to look for clean water violations that they never found. 

Are you familiar with that? 

Ms. BODINE. Yes, I am. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Do you believe that EPA should have agents 

that are trained to be armed when we have Federal marshals or 

local, State, and Federal officials that can execute warrants or execute enforcement actions just as easily, better trained than EPA 

agents armed and coming in and scaring the heck out of law abiding Alaskans who haven’t done anything wrong? 

Ms. BODINE. Senator Sullivan, if I am confirmed, I would like to 

review the guidance and policies for when EPA agents would be 

armed. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. I had a bill that would disarm the 

EPA. The first 20 years of its existence the EPA had no armed 

agents. I don’t think they need them now. I think it is a waste of 

taxpayer money, and it encourages abuses like you saw in Chicken, 

Alaska. So I would like to work with you on that as well. 

By the way, I think you are highly qualified. I think you are 

going to make an outstanding addition to the EPA’s leadership. I 

look forward to voting for your confirmation. 

Let me just ask a final question of our other witnesses. How can 

we assure that we continue the highest levels of safety with regard 

to our civilian nuclear energy capacity as we look to move forward 

and actually move forward on perhaps building new reactors that 

have the capacity to bring clean energy to our power generation for 

the United States? 

Open up to any of the panelists who are up for confirmation on 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. It has been my philosophy, in being a member of this Committee for nearly 10 years, 

that our safety determinations need to be rooted in the facts, in 

analysis, need to have rigorous cost-benefit analyses behind them, 

and be developed in a transparent way with stakeholder and public 

involvement, and I think that leads to the most informed decisions. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Ms. CAPUTO. I think that history and that track record sets the 

stage for future reviews. I think timeliness and efficiency is one aspect of that so there is predictability for companies who may embark on development of advanced nuclear. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. WRIGHT. And I think vigilance. You have to pay attention to 

it every day, and don’t accept anything at face value. You have to 

just review it all the time. Safety is No. 1. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

388 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Let me yield to my 

time, at this point, to Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. I wanted to go really quickly here. 

Chairman Svinicki, as my colleague said, it is really exciting; billions of dollars of investment, private investment, are really invested in advanced nuclear reactors. It is incredible. The next generation of reactors is going to be more safe, more efficient. I worry, 

though, the NRC has a lot of experience in licensing water cooled 

reactors, but limited experience with advanced non-water cooled 

designs. 

Yes or no, do you think the NRC should move forward to a more 

technologically inclusive risk informed regulatory framework for 

advanced reactor licensing? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, and we have begun to develop that, but we 

have work yet to do. 

Senator BOOKER. A lot of work, in my opinion. And I am grateful 

for the work you are putting in. 

These advanced reactors, these sub-critical reactors, these advanced fusion reactors are, to me, very, very exciting. Do you believe, yes or no, that the NRC should subject these technologies to 

the existing regulatory framework design, or would you expect the 

NRC, instead, to quickly develop a more appropriate risk based 

regulation for these types of inherently safer technologies? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, we should move forward on the development of a new framework, but if a designer comes in and seeks approval now, although it might be inefficient, I think we should try 

to get started. So we should do both at the same time. 

Senator BOOKER. I am grateful for that. Just wanted to get that 

on the record. 

Ms. Bodine, I just want to switch to you because I have a great 

degree of alarm at the state of our country’s environmental wellbeing, especially as it affects the poorest amongst us, minorities, 

tribal communities. In fact, 50 years of research reveals that these 

minority, low income, and tribal communities are more likely to be 

exposed to really serious environmental contaminants, public 

health hazards. 

I have begun to visit these around the United States of America, 

and it is literally stunning, the condition of some communities, as 

you know. Even Reuters just released a report about lead poisoning 

with communities, over 1,000 communities having more than twice 

the lead poisoning blood levels than even Flint does. 

And this is why I am really alarmed. You all will, in OECA, have 

EPA’s environmental justice program which is charged with identifying these problems and health disparities for minority and low 

income populations. That falls underneath the purview of OECA. 

So I was stunned with President Trump proposed to eliminate 

funding in 2018 for the Office of Environmental Justice. So I just 

have three quick questions. 

One is, do you believe that there is a problem in America with 

certain communities that are adversely affected by outrageous circumstances of environmental injustice? 

389 

Ms. BODINE. Yes, I believe there can be adverse effects on low 

income or minority populations. 

Senator BOOKER. So, yes, there is a persistent problem with environmental injustice in this country in certain communities. Yes, 

correct? 

Ms. BODINE. Yes. 

Senator BOOKER. All right. So, if confirmed, will you commit, in 

a nation where we literally swear an oath, you and I, that we will 

be a country of liberty and justice for all, will you commit to making environmental justice a top priority to alleviate the injustice 

going on in certain poor and minority communities? 

Ms. BODINE. Environmental justice is important to all the EPA 

program offices, and the President’s budget states that each program office will continue to incorporate environmental justice into 

their programs. That includes the enforcement program. 

Senator BOOKER. And that will be a priority for you? 

Ms. BODINE. Yes. 

Senator BOOKER. OK. I don’t have much more time. Because if 

it is my children living in places with cancer alleys, higher instances of respiratory diseases—right now I live in Newark, New 

Jersey. We have Superfund sites in our community, at a time 

where there is no resources to clean them up. And I have seen the 

longitudinal data. I hope you have studied it. Children born in 

those areas, if you are a pregnant woman, 20 percent higher rates 

of autism, 20 percent higher rates of birth defects. It should be a 

priority, and it should be an urgency. 

So will you commit to me right now that your office will advocate 

within the Administration for the environmental justice office to remain funded at least at 2017 levels so we as a nation can pursue, 

fight for, and establish environmental justice in our nation? 

Ms. BODINE. So that office hasn’t always been located in OECA, 

and according to the President’s budget request, the cross-program 

functions of that office are going to be carried out out of the Office 

of Policy and the Office of the Administrator. And each program office is going to continue to carry out their environmental justice 

functions. 

I used to head up the office that carried out Superfund and 

RCRA, and we had environmental justice considerations very front 

and center in carrying out the decisions of whether it was Superfund or the hazardous waste sites. 

Senator BOOKER. So you are telling me that you don’t think it 

is your purview to be pursuing environmental justice in these communities that are so adversely impacted? 

Ms. BODINE. I didn’t say that, Senator. 

Senator BOOKER. So will you explain to me? Because I am going 

to have to vote on your confirmation, which I will not do unless I 

know you are going to be a champion for communities of color and 

communities of poverty. 

Ms. BODINE. Yes, I will be a champion for communities of color 

and communities of poverty, and those functions are going to be 

carried out, under the President’s budget, both in the program offices, which includes the enforcement office, as well as out of the 

Administrator’s office, which would, I assume, continue to support 

the advisory committee, as well as there is a tool that is called 

390 

EJSCREEN that is a GIS-based tool that you can go and look and 

see where there might be populations that are either low income 

or are also minority populations. 

To me, the most important component of carrying out these environmental justice responsibilities is talking to people so that you 

know where there might be these disproportionate impacts, because our environmental laws are set to protect everyone, but there 

can be disproportionate impacts based on location, and we have a 

screening tool that allows us to examine that. We also need to talk 

to the communities so we understand what people’s exposures are. 

That is something that is important across the board. 

Senator BOOKER. My time has expired. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

I would like to introduce for the record a letter from an Obama 

administration EPA general counsel under Administrator Gina 

McCarthy, Avi Garbow, who writes, ‘‘Based on my experience, Ms. 

Bodine possesses a strong intellect, a keen understanding of environmental law and policy, and is respectful and responsive. She is 

a seasoned environmental lawyer and a skilled advocate.’’ 

I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record. It is a 

June 12, 2017, EPA. 

Senator CARPER. I object. No, I am just kidding. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. I don’t object. 

Senator BARRASSO. You don’t? Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. You have to liven things up here just a little 

bit. Loosen them up, anyway. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

391 


26002.363

To Whom This May Concern, 

I write to convey my thoughts concerning the nomination of Susan Bodine to be the Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) at EPA. 

Nearly twenty-five years ago, I began my career as an attorney at EPA's Office of Enforcement, and was 

there when the reorganization gave rise to OECA. Following my service there, including as a Special 

Assistant to the Assistant Administrator for OECA, I spent several years as a federal prosecutor in the 

Environmental Crimes Section at the Department of Justice. More recently, I had the privilege of serving 

under President Obama and Administrator McCarthy as EPA's General Counsel from 2013 through 

January 2017, and prior to that as EPA's Deputy General Counsel. I am currently a partner at the law firm 

of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. 

In each capacity, I worked with colleagues at EPA and DOJ to ensure the fair and faithful enforcement of 

our nation's environmental laws. Federal environmental enforcement- in concert with other 

compliance assurance measures and working with States has played an important role in ensuring that 

all American's receive the health and environmental benefits enshrined in our environmental laws and 

regulations, and that American businesses operate on a level playing field and benefit from the 

regulatory certainty that sound enforcement policies can provide. I also observed firsthand the 

contributions of the many career employees at EPA- in OECA, the Office of General Counsel, and 

elsewhere- whose service and devotion to the mission of that Agency are deserving of respect and 

commendation. 

While I do not wish, by way of this statement, to speak to the present or future environmental policies 

ofthe Trump EPA, nor to issues surrounding the appropriations process, having been through a 

confirmation process myself I understand the importance of probing and evaluating the character and 

qualities of the individual nominee. In my practice of environmental law, notably while serving as EPA's 

General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel, I had several opportunities to meet with Susan Bodine on 

various work-related matters. Based on my experience, Ms. Bodine possesses a strong intellect, a keen 

understanding of environmental law and policy, and is respectful and responsive. She is a seasoned 

environmental lawyer and a skilled advocate. It is also my view that Ms. Bodine's prior service at EPA is 

an important- though not indispensable- factor to be considered in her nomination. Her familiarity 

with the Agency and its talented staff would be of service to OECA and Administrator Pruitt, should she 

be confirmed. 

If you have any questions, please let me know. 

Respectfully, 

AviGarbow 

Avi Garbow 

GIBSON DUNN 

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LlP 

1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036-5306 

Tel +1 202.955.8558 • Fax +1 202.530.9667 

AGarbow@gibsandunn.com • WNW.gibsondunn.com 
392 

Senator BARRASSO. Question for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission nominees. The State of Wyoming is in the process of applying 

to become what is known as an agreement State in order to regulate uranium recovery. It is home to over 60 percent of the nation’s 

uranium production, and I anticipate Wyoming is going to submit 

its application sometime later this year. 

If confirmed, will you ensure that the Commission gives this application fair consideration and makes a timely decision? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, Senator, I will. And there is funding requested to support our part of that review in the fiscal year 2018 

budget. 

Ms. CAPUTO. Yes, I will, Senator. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me yield to Senator Duckworth and thank her for coming 

today. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. I thank the Ranking Member. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to start by submitting an op-ed co-authored by Mary 

Gade, former Administrator of EPA Region 5 under President 

Bush, and also Howard Lerner, from the Chicago Sun-Times for 

the record. It is called ‘‘Trump EPA Plan Endangers a Global 

Gem—our Great Lakes.’’ 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

393 


26002.364

Trump EPA plan endangers a global gem- our Great Lakes 

COLUMNISTS 05/26/2017, 10:21am 

Howard A. Learner and Mary Gade 

THE GREAT LAKES BASIN 

President Trump won the 2016 election in several Great Lakes states, but his 

administration is assaulting Great Lakes protection and restoration. 

Slashing funding for the sensible Great Lakes Restoration Initiative from $300 million 

annually to $0. Potentially closing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Region 5 

office in Chicago, Chicago, which includes the Great Lakes National Program Office, 

and transferring its staff to Kansas. Rolling back Clean Water Act standards that protect 

safe, clean drinking water. 

What are they thinking? This is a headscratcher, criticized by both Republican and 

Democratic leaders. 

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says he wants to get "back to basics." What could be 

more basic than protecting the Great Lakes? 

The Great Lakes are a global gem. They contain the planet's largest fresh water supply 

(21 percent), provide drinking water for 42 million people, provide a rich aquatic habitat 

and ecosystem, support a $7 billion annual fishing industry, and offer lakefront and 

recreational opportunities for millions of people. Lake Michigan helps make Chicago a 

great place to live, work and visit. 
394 


26002.365

The Great Lakes are our great natural treasure. Military analysts say future wars will be 

fought over fresh water. Chicagoans, Cheeseheads, Hoosiers, Michiganders, 

Minnesotans and Ohioans all recognize this remarkable liquid gold. We can't afford to 

spoil it. Why put this at risk? 

First, the Trump administration's proposed FY 2018 budget apparently would eliminate 

funding for the successful Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Republicans including 

Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan 

and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, have joined with Illinois' two Democratic senators, 

Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, and Mayor Rahm Emanuel urging President 

Donald Trump to reverse course. 

They understand voters' strong support for the Great Lakes. 

The short stopgap FY 2017 budget approved by Congress continues this Great Lakes 

program at the full $300 million. The Trump administration's FY 2018 budget, which 

starts on Oct. 1, does not. 

This is a practical program that has supported 3,000 projects to keep the lakes clean, 

preserve shorelines, restore wetlands and protect safe clean drinking water. For 

example: 

• Waukegan Harbor, once "the world's largest PCB mess," is now cleaner and ready 

for better economic and recreational use after EPA invested funds to properly 

dredge and dispose the heavily contaminated sediments. 

In Northwest Indiana, 1.5 million cubic yards of contaminated river bottom will be 

removed from the Grand Calumet River and 900 acres of habitat restored so that 

great blue heron, egrets and fishermen can safely ply the wetlands, river and Lake 

Michigan. 

EPA scientists crisscross the lakes in the Lake Guardian and the Mudpuppy 

research vessels, gathering water and air quality monitoring data essential to 

determining safe drinking water supplies and potential health risks that warrant 

beach closures. 

Second, the Trump administration's rumored plans to close the EPA's regional office in 

Chicago, which oversees the largest freshwater body in the world, are tone deaf and 

foolish. The EPA's national Great Lakes Program and experienced staff are in Chicago. 

The reported plan would transfer staff to the EPA's regional office in Lenexa, Kansas as 

the new center for EPA's Great Lakes protection work and team. Really. 

When the Enbridge pipeline broke and spilled oil into the Kalamazoo River, would the 

EPA's emergency team have responded more quickly from Lenexa, Kansas than from 

Chicago? Will Kansas-based staff better deal with algae blooms in Lake Erie and Lake 

Michigan, and contaminated drinking water in East Chicago, Flint and Toledo? 
395 


26002.366

The Trump administration suggests that consolidating Chicago's regional office into 

Kansas' regional office will save some coin. That's penny-wise and pound foolish, just 

like the flawed choice to seek short-term cost savings that resulted in the Flint 

contaminated water tragedy. 

Third, Pruitt is rushing to roll back clean water standards that protect safe drinking water 

and preserve fish and wildlife habitat. The Environmental Law & Policy Center 

commissioned 12 focus groups of Trump voters in Indiana, Michigan and Ohio. While 

they didn't like regulatory paperwork, these voters solidly support regulations to protect 

safe clean water as common sense. 

They understand that pollution upstream or next door can contaminate their drinking 

water. They like swimming in clean lakes and enjoy playing on nice beaches. Some 

remember when raw industrial sewage polluted our lakes before the Clean Water Act 

was passed and implemented. They didn't vote for a rollback. 

Good policy is good politics. This shortsighted attack on the Great Lakes and safe clean 

drinking water is bad policy. The public and most political leaders know better. The 

battle for Great Lakes protection is well worth fighting and winning, but this battle 

shouldn't have to be fought. President Trump, it's time to step back and reconsider. 

Howard A Leamer is the executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, 

a Midwest-based public interest organization. 

Mary Gade served as the U.S. EPA Region 5 administrator in 2006- 2008 and Great 

Lakes National Program Manager. 

http://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/trump-epa-plan-endangers-a-global-gem-ourgreat-lakes/ 
396 

Senator DUCKWORTH. The article explains why eliminating or 

moving EPA Region 5 would be a grave mistake. As these authors 

describe it, closing the region would be ‘‘penny-wise and pound foolish, just like the flawed choice to seek short-term cost savings that 

resulted in the Flint contaminated water tragedy.’’ 

Ms. Bodine, I am interested in understanding your view on this. 

I know we discussed this during our meeting, but your answer focused on the process of closing offices, not on your opinions as an 

enforcer. Do you believe eliminating EPA Region 5 would improve 

or harm enforcement? 

Ms. BODINE. Senator, I haven’t seen any analysis that would 

support that. And as I observed to you in your office, Region 5 is 

a very large region. I also further note that there is no request in 

the President’s budget for any funding to eliminate any regions. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. But given the size of Region 5, if it were 

eliminated, would it make it easier or harder to enforce rules and 

regulations that help protect our environment? 

Ms. BODINE. So, again, without understanding how the resources 

would be picked up, I don’t have an answer to your question. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. OK. Well, I understand that you are not 

the—— 

Ms. BODINE. But I am also not aware of any plan. I am not 

aware of any plan to close Region 5. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. So I am trying to figure out your view on 

this from a pure enforcement perspective. Would it increase or decrease enforcement if Region 5 were to be shut down? 

Ms. BODINE. If all the resources were simply transferred to another region, it would be the same. But, again, I haven’t seen any 

plan to do any of that. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. But you just said how large Region 5 is. If 

you move the EPA office for Region 5 somewhere else, the EPA certainly would not be able to respond rapidly to instances when they 

are needed. For example, we had tornadoes all throughout Illinois, 

and oftentimes EPA is among the first to respond. But if you shut 

down Region 5, and you moved it somewhere else, say Kansas or 

somewhere else, do you think that you could still respond adequately to any type of enforcement requirement? 

Ms. BODINE. Some of our other large regions actually have separate offices, they have State offices, like the Montana office. Obviously, there is an Alaska office. Now, I would observe that maybe 

that would be less efficient if we had to open up other offices, but 

again, my assumption would be any plan—and again there is 

none—but if there were to be a plan, it would have to examine all 

of those issues, including that very valid issue you just raised 

about response time. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Well, I will certainly hold you to that. 

As the chief enforcement officer, you will be responsible for setting the enforcement goals for the Agency, and this Agency is 

tasked with safeguarding communities against pollution. What 

goals will you set, and what areas do you think would demand your 

attention? 

Ms. BODINE. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. As I said earlier in 

response to Senator Inhofe, I want to look at the performance 

measures because I want to help focus on outcomes. So I want to 

397 

sit down with the enforcement staff at EPA and talk about what 

goals they think would be appropriate to achieve the environmental 

outcome; that is compliance, that is reduction in pounds of pollutants, that is pounds and cubic yards of waste that is being cleaned 

up. Those type of outcome measures are ones that I would like to 

focus on. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. So how would you be able to achieve those 

types of measures, those types of goals, with the diminished resources that the Trump administration is proposing; budget cuts, 

hiring freezes, regional office closures? How would you be able to 

do your job? 

Ms. BODINE. Again, EPA’s enforcement is going to be working 

with the States, and if confirmed, I would want to work with the 

States to make sure that they are carrying out the base programs 

and that EPA would be focusing on the larger cases, the cases 

where they have facilities crossing State lines, the criminal enforcement cases, again, targeting the most egregious cases, targeting 

the cases with the greatest return. And by taking those actions it 

still creates an enforcement deterrent because EPA is out there 

taking these actions. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. So you basically are saying you are going 

to hand over many of those routine functions, say, to make sure 

that there is no lead in the water supply onto the States. That 

didn’t work out very well in Michigan at all. In fact, it failed miserably, and there are children now living with long-term effects of 

that, and I don’t think that is acceptable. 

Ms. BODINE. So you are describing what is already true under 

our statutes. A State like Michigan, for example, is a primacy State 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act and does have primary enforcement responsibilities. EPA has a responsibility to make sure that 

States are carrying out those functions. There is something called 

the State review framework, where EPA and the States get together, and they evaluate the other States. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. But that obviously failed in Michigan, and 

obviously it did not work. EPA had the ability to step in and stop 

what was happening in Flint and did not, and failed to do so. And 

I have Galesburg, Illinois, that has lead in the water supply right 

now. We have lead in water in Chicago, and I am fearful that EPA, 

under you, is not going to do its job in regulating and making sure 

that we hold people accountable. 

Ms. BODINE. May I respond, Senator? Flint wasn’t a normal situation, and if I am confirmed, I would want to make absolutely certain that the EPA staff who are enforcement staff in the regions, 

as well as the headquarters, that if they see a situation like that 

where, as you point out, it was a tragedy, children were being affected by lead, that they need to report up, because we need to 

know about it. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. My problem is that the Trump administration cuts the budget to have those staff on the ground, so you won’t 

have anybody there in order to do that. 

I am way over time, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I yield back. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. I appreciate 

your comments. 

398 

I had a question for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission nominees. I would like each of you to tell me what you think the biggest 

challenge is today for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, what it 

currently faces and how, if confirmed, you would address it. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I would, in this moment, identify that enhancing 

our agility is a significant challenge for the Agency. When I joined 

the Commission in 2008, there was an envisioned nuclear renaissance. Many new reactors were envisioned being under construction, and it is hard, in a large organization, when we don’t face 

those circumstances today, to size ourselves and adjust our processes for the energy system that we have today, not the energy system that the United States predicted 10 years ago. So, as an Agency, we need to be able to resource and size ourselves in an agile 

way. 

Senator BARRASSO. Ms. Caputo. 

Ms. CAPUTO. I would agree with that. One of the challenges I 

think that we have watched certainly here in this Committee is, 

like the Chairman said, the shift from burgeoning growth in the industry to now a decrease, and yet we will see more change coming 

as advanced reactors blossom and develop and begin to seek licenses at the Agency. So, as she said, agility and being able to position staff to manage those workload changes I think remains the 

biggest challenge. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Wright. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I totally agree that right sizing the Agency and 

streamlining is important. Obviously, we need to make sure that 

our human capital is used the right way and that we have the 

right expertise to do what we need to do. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Markey has been in and out several times. 

Senator Markey, why don’t you go ahead? 

Senator MARKEY. Have you gone yet? 

Senator CARPER. Go ahead, go ahead. 

Senator MARKEY. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Let me start with a major issue facing the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission: how to ensure the safety of spent nuclear fuel. According to an article in Science Magazine by physicists from the Union 

of Concerned Scientists and Princeton University, the NRC has 

drastically underestimated the risks from a fire at a spent fuel 

pond. The NRC’s analysis has underestimated both the probability 

of a spent fuel fire and its consequences. As a result, the NRC has 

understated the benefit to the public of moving fuel from risky 

pools over to safer, dry cask. 

One of the Princeton authors of the new study ran a simulation 

of the area that could be irradiated by a spent fuel pool fire at the 

Pilgrim Power Station in Massachusetts if such a fire occurred 

under summer weather conditions when beach season is getting 

started. As you can see from the orange contour, the impact of that 

fire would be devastating. Across Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 

Connecticut, the consequences of such an event would be absolutely 

catastrophic. 

The scientists who did the analysis indicated that the cost of the 

fire could be upwards of $2 trillion nationally, an economic disrupVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:13 Jul 13, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00404 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26002.TXT SONYA
399 

tion. By contrast, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s estimate of 

the financial consequences was 20 times less. And the Commission 

used that estimate to dismiss the benefit of dry cask storage, which 

would only cost $50 million per reactor. 

So, by dramatically reducing the cost that would occur if such a 

fire did hit a nuclear power plant, the NRC, in its cost-benefit analysis, is able to avoid forcing the utilities to move from the spent 

fuel pools over to dry cask. 

Do any of you disagree that the NRC should apply state of the 

art science when making decisions about safety? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, of course I am in agreement that the correct science should be applied. The NRC staff has done a quick review of the article that you referenced. They have looked at whether it presents different scenarios that were unanalyzed by the 

NRC. They did not identify anything in this preliminary review, 

but their look is ongoing, so if I may respond for the record if there 

is additional comparative details that they can provide. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, it is a pretty blistering, scalding indictment. It basically concludes that there was an underestimation of 

the time to clean up after that kind of contamination hit such an 

area; it failed to account for the risk of a terrorist attack at a nuclear power plant that would seek to ignite a fire with these spent 

fuel pools; and it actually failed to consider the economic consequences broadly of what the impact would be, including after 

Fukushima, the shutdown of nuclear power plants, whether or not 

that same thing would occur in our own country. 

So your staff has not done you a good service if they have evaluated the article and not come back, then, with the analysis of these 

vulnerabilities that have been identified by the Princeton scientists 

in the evaluation done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Have you had a chance to read that Science Magazine article? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I have not, Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. Have any of you read the Science Magazine article? 

Ms. CAPUTO. I wasn’t aware of it. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, again, this just goes to the whole issue 

of what the impact is, ultimately, on an area when a fire like that 

could occur. So I recommend to you that you read it, because I am 

going to keep coming back on it in terms of the impact. 

Ms. Bodine, last year I did a report entitled ‘‘The ABCs of PCBs, 

A Toxic Threat to America’s Schools.’’ We have up to 14 million 

students nationwide, nearly 30 percent of America’s school-aged 

population may be exposed to PCBs for hours every day in their 

schools. In the President’s budget, President Trump cuts the budget by 34 percent to be able to deal with these issues. 

How will it be possible, Ms. Bodine, for the Trump administration to deal with this kind of exposure to PCBs of students in cities 

and towns all across our country if there is a 34 percent reduction 

in the EPA budget to be able to ensure that there is compliance? 

Ms. BODINE. Senator Markey, if confirmed, I would look into the 

issue you are raising about the PCBs in schools and, again, as I 

said earlier, OECA, the Federal EPA enforcement is going to continue to focus on cases with the most impact. That might be one 

of them. And the delegated States, authorized States are going to 

400 

carry out the core basic mission, which they are already doing. 

ECOS likes to put out the statistic that 96 percent of the environmental statutes and work is being carried out by States already. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, here President Trump is going to make 

sure that children in schools all across the country are going to be 

more exposed to PCBs in their classrooms, and saying to States 

and local communities, good luck, you take it over. The EPA had 

responsibility. So to the extent to which there is a 34 percent reduction in the Trump EPA budget for that issue, you can be sure 

that the States will try to intervene, but the reason there is a Federal program is because it is so pervasive, so hard, and actually 

part of a policy back in the 1950s and 1960s, all the way up to 

1979, when PCBs were kind of given a free pass. And I blame the 

Federal Government on that, which is why we had to upgrade the 

Toxic Substances Control Act last year. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you, Mr. Chairman, on the 

rewrite of TSCA last year, but this 34 percent cut in this budget 

is just disgraceful. It really is going to put children all over our 

country at great unnecessary risk that could have been avoided if 

the President didn’t cut that budget for children to be protected. 

Mr. Chairman, I have other questions for the witnesses that I 

will submit to you for the record and with my hope that the witnesses will answer them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Senator Carper, let me put four things into the record. 

Senator CARPER. Go right ahead. 

Senator INHOFE. So I won’t forget. 

Ask unanimous consent a June 12, 2017, EPA press release that 

includes statements in support of the EPA nominee from six Democrats, six Republicans, and two association leaders. 

Without objection. 

The six letters in support of the EPA nominee, two letters in support of the NRC nominees, one statement for the record from Senators Heller and Cortez Masto. Without objection, I ask that they 

be made a part of the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

401 


26002.367

WHAT THEY ARE SAYING i U.S. EPA News Releases! US EPA https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/what~they-are~sayin 

of3 

News Releases from Headquarters 

WHAT THEY ARE SAYING 

Bipartisan Environmental Leaders Praise Susan Bodine's EPA 

Nomination 

06/12/2017 

Contact Information: 

U.S. EPA Media Relations 

WASHINGTON- Prior to Susan Bodine's confirmation hearing in the Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee tomorrow, environmental leaders, including former DOJ and EPA officials who 

served in both Republican and Democrat administrations, are offering praise for Bodine's nomination to 

serve as EPA's Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Bodine currently 

serves as Chief Counsel for the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee. She 

previously served as EPA's Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response in the George W. Bush Administration, and possesses nearly 29 years of environmental law 

experience. 

What They're Saying About Susan Bodine's Nomination ... 

Senate EPW Chairman John Barrasso: "She has extensive experience working both on Capitol Hill 

and previously in leadership at the EPA. Susan is committed to finding commonsense ways to protect 

America's land, air, and water. In this new role, I know that she will work to help communities and 

small businesses comply with the law, while holding polluters accountable." 

John Cruden, President-Elect oftbe American College of Environmental Lawyers and Assistant 

Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice 

(12/2014-1/2017): "I have worked with Susan over a number of years as she has had significant 

leadership positions in environmental law and practice. Susan is dedicated to the rule of law, a lawyer 

with great integrity, and she understands the critical importance of effective and timely enforcement." 

Marcus Peacock, EPA Deputy Administrator (08/2005- Ol/2009): "I have known Susan for over 20 

years. I can think of no better person to lead the enforcement office at EPA. She understands the mission 

of the agency and the office and how important it is to protecting human health and the environment. A 

perfect pick." 
402 


26002.368

WHAT THEY ARE SAYING I U.S. EPA News Releases I US EPA https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/what~they-are-sayin 

~ of3 

Scott Fulton, President of The Environmental Law Institnte and EPA General Counsel 

(08/2009-01/2013): "During the Obama Administration, when I served as EPA's General Counsel, 

Susan and I worked collaboratively on matters of shared concern to the Administration and the 

Congress .... Through these various intersections, I have found Susan to be fair minded, clear thinking, 

and strategic in her approach, as well as effective in her leadership. She has a deep understanding of 

EPA and the EPA-State relationship, which will equip her well to lead OECA." 

A vi Garbow, EPA General Counsel (08/2013-0112017) and Deputy General Counsel, EPA 

(09/2014-08/2013): "Based on my experience, Ms. Bodine possesses a strong intellect, a keen 

understanding of environmental law and policy, and is respectful and responsive. She is a seasoned 

environmental lawyer and a skiUed advocate. It is also my view that Ms. Bodine's prior service at EPA 

is an important- though not indispensable- factor to be considered in her nomination. Her familiarity 

with the Agency and its talented staff would be of service to OECA and Administrator Pruitt, should she 

be confirmed." 

Roger Martella, EPA General Counsel (08/2006-04/2008): "Susan epitomizes all the best character 

and traits we can ask of public servants: tireless and unflappable commitment to the mission of 

environmental protection and promoting human health, protective of transparency and process in her 

decision making, objective and apolitical approach to leadership, and empowerment of career decision 

makers in government." 

Granta Nakayama, EPA Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance (07/2005-01/2009): [Bodine is a] "fine environmental attorney" who "reads the statutes and 

parses the words and does the hard work. She's ... rigorous in that sense." "[She is also] "an 

experienced hand in Washington and knows how to get things done. She is very practical and looks for 

solutions that are going to be workable for everybody." 

Mathy Stanislaus, EPA Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Management 

(06/2009-01/2017): "[Susan] understands both the internal side of the agency and the proper balance of 

enforcement.'' 

Marianne Horinko, EPA Acting Administrator (07/2013-ll/2013) and EPA Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (10/2001-06/2004): "Susan Bodine 

is extremely qualified to run EPA's enforcement office. As a dedicated public servant with years of 

experience in environmental policy, she brings a vast understanding of both the agency and the 

community it regulates. Susan is well suited to carry out the mission of the Administration, and to 

protect clean air, land and water for the American people." 

Elliot Laws, EPA Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

(1993-1997): "While l don't envy her challenge, I think bringing Susan back to the agency is an 

excellent idea." "Having a familiar face back at EPA in a senior role is a plus for staff morale. Bringing 

in someone with her knowledge of the agency and the issues facing it can only be a positive." 

Ben Grumbles, Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment (03/2016-present), EPA 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water (11/2004-01/2009): "She's tough and fair and committed to 

public service. {Bodine] embodies a compliance-first approach, but also will bring enforcement actions 

6/1?117 1·'\1 PM 
403 


26002.369

WHAT THEY ARE SAYING I U.S. EPA News Releases! US EPA https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/what-they-are-sayin 

I of3 

when needed." 

G. Tracy Mehan, III, EPA Assistant Administrator, Office of Water (08/2001-12/2003): "Susan 

Bodine brings a commanding intellect and a vast reservoir of experience in environmental policy to the 

job of running EPA's enforcement office. The Agency and the American people will benefit 

tremendously from her legislative, executive and legal expertise across the spectrum of air, land and 

water. The Administration has made an outstanding selection." 

Cliff Rothenstein, EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response (04/1997-06/2000): "! have known Ms. Bodine for almost 20 years where she served as 

committee counsel to the House Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Environment and 

Public Works committees, and as Assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response. She is a dedicated public servant and is well-qualified to lead EPA's office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assistance. Ms. Bodine has proved herself time and again to be fair, 

competent, professional and well respected by those who have had the pleasure to work with her. As an 

added benefit, Ms. Bodine knows EPA well and is known and respected by EPA employees." 

Tom Cochran, CEO and Executive Director, U.S. Conference of Mayors: "Many Mayors, as well as 

my senior staff, have worked with Ms. Susan Bodine over the past 20 plus years .... Throughout these 

years, working with Ms. Bodine has been a real pleasure and she has been an asset in every job she has 

done. She is extremely thoughtful, knowledgeable and professional and has an understanding of the 

importance of protecting the environment and public health and to do so in an economically responsible 

way. Her common sense approach to environmental protection and infrastructure investment is widely 

respected among her peers and my Mayors. While we are sorry to lose her in her current roJe, she would 

be a welcome asset at the EPA." 

Zippy Duvall, President, American Farm Bureau Federation: '"Susan Bodine's breadth and depth of 

experience in environmental protection make her an outstanding nominee to lead OECA. . .. In her 

decades of experience in private practice, for Congress and EPA, Susan Bodine has proven her 

leadership skills and her deep understanding of our nation's environmental laws and how they affect 

ordinary citizens and small businesses. She has shown leadership in working toward solutions with 

groups on all sides of the many controversies that entangle environmental protection. We believe she 

will strictly enforce our nation's environmental laws, using the hammer when necessary. We also 

believe she will bring back an effective yet underutilized tool in EPA's toolbox- compliance assistance. 

Farmers and ranchers across the nation look forward to a new era of finn, but fair enforcement." 

LAST UPDATED ON JUNE 12, 2017 

hl1?i17 '1·'\1 PM 
404 


26002.370

The Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals, Inc. 

Michael J Guastella, MS, MBA 

Execuffve Director 

June 1,2017 

Honorable John Barrasso, Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

500 North Capitol Street, NW 

Suite210 

Washmgton, DC 20001-7407 

It is with great pleasure that we, the Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals, Inc. 

(CORAR), express our support for the President's nomination of Ms. Annie Caputo to be a 

Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

As the trade association and voice of the radionuclide and radiopharmaceutical industry in North 

America, our members are committed to research, development, manufacturing and distribution 

of radiopharmaceuticals and radionuclides used in the diagnosis and treatment of many diseases 

such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and neurological disorders. Our association advocates for 

consistent and common sense based public policies that impact health care, transportation safety, 

homeland security, and manufacturing to ensure a reliable supply, safe and affordable health care 

treatment for aiL 

CORAR has had the privilege to work with Ms. Caputo for more than ten years, while she served 

on the staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the House Energy and 

Commerce Committee. During that time, Ms. Caputo has always been committed to listening 

and understanding how nuclear energy policy might impact the radiopharmaceutical industry and 

patient care. While the manufacture and utilization of radioactive materials in health care is not a 

fhe Council on Radwnuchdes and RadwpharmaceutJcals. Inc. • 500 North Cap1tol Street, NW • SUite 210 • Washmgton, DC 2000\-7407 

(202} 547·6582 • Fax (202) 547-4658 • m!chal'l guastd!a;J'corar org 
405 


26002.371

primary aspect of nuclear energy policy, Ms. Caputo has worked diligently to consider all 

perspectives and to find solutions to even the most difficult problems. 

The NRC plays a critical role in overseeing and administering licenses and regulations of the 

nation's radiopharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and nuclear medicine facilities. With 

the magnitude of issues before the Commission, we strongly believe that the agency will benefit 

from Ms. Caputo's broad knowledge and expertise. 

We support the President's decision to nominate Annie Caputo to the NRC, we urge you and 

your committee to swiftly approve her nomination. 

Sincerely, 

Roy Brown 

Chairman of the Board 

Council of Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals, Inc. 

The Council on Radionuclides and Radiophannaceuticals, Inc. • 500 North Capitol Street, NW • Suite 210 • Washington, DC 20001 ~ 7407 

(202) 547-6582 ·Fax (202) 547-4658 • michael.guastella@corar.om 
406 


26002.372

Othirdway 

June 8, 2017 

Chairman John Barrasso 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

THE CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM 

Ranking Member Tom Carper 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

I am writing in strong support of the nominations of Annie Caputo and Kristine Svinicki to the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). Third Way advocates for the quick and safe deployment of advanced nuclear reactors, and a 

forward-looking and well-staffed NRC is crucial to this goal. Both Caputo and Svinicki have demonstrated a commitment 

to ensuring the NRC is prepared to license a new generation of reactors and to regulate the existing fleet effectively and 

securely. We are very glad to see their nominations. 

Caputo's work in the Senate, including her integral role in drafting and moving the Nuclear Energy Innovation and 

Modernization Act, shows her capability to aid in the NRC's current transition to regulating both existing and advanced 

nuclear. She has consistently worked with members on both sides of the aisle to promote effective nuclear regulation 

and is well-respected across partisan lines for her expertise, professionalism, and competence. Few people are more 

qualified to fill this role at the NRC. 

We are similarly pleased with Kristine Svinicki's nomination for another term at NRC and her designation as Chair. 

Svinicki's work at the NRC has resulted in improved readiness to regulate small modular and advanced reactors. Under 

her leadership, the agency has worked to prepare licensing infrastructure for new types of reactors that could provide 

enormous benefits for climate, American leadership, and domestic job creation. With several advanced reactor 

developers already engaging the NRC and more on the way, Chairman Svinicki's continued leadership is needed now 

more than ever. 

Maintaining a quorum at the NRC is vital to the functioning of America's nuclear sector. Therefore, we request that 

these nominations be moved as quickly as possible, especially in light of the fast-approaching end to Chairman Svinicki's 

current term on June 30. As we have not had the opportunity to work with David Wright, Third Way has yet to take a 

position on his nomination. 

Finally, we believe that the NRC is best-functioning when it is free from partisanship and headed by highly qualified 

individuals; for this reason, we strongly support the nominations of Caputo and Svinicki, both Republicans. However, we 

also hope to soon see Democratic nominees moved through the Committee to ensure public confidence in the balanced 

leadership of the Commission. We know the Committee has no direct role in nominations. Nevertheless, any 

encouragement of prompt Democratic nominations from the Committee or its members could be helpful in maintaining 

a well-regulated and forward-looking NRC and in avoiding unnecessary politicization of the nuclear energy sector. 

Josh Freed 

Vice President for the Clean Energy Program 

Third Way 
407 


26002.373

From: John Cruden [mailto:john.cruden@icloud.com] 

Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 9:14AM 

To: Bodine, Susan {EPW) <Susan Bodine@epw.senate.gov> 

Subject: Re: per your message 

Susan. From Charleston South Carolina. Business trip. 

How about this as a quote {you will need to capitalize) 

"I have worked with Susan over a number of years as she has had significant leadership positions in 

environmental law and practice, "said John c cruden, past assistant attorney general, environment and 

natural resources division, us department of justice and president elect of the american college of 

environmental lawyers. " Susan is dedicated to the rule of law, a lawyer with great integrity, and 

she understands the critical importance of effective and timely enforcement." 

Best 

John 

Sent from my iPhone 
408 


26002.374

From: Tracy Mehan [mailto:tmehan@awwa.orgl 

Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 5:08PM 

To: shimmin.kaitlvn@epa.gov 

Cc: Bodine, Susan (EPW) <Susan Bodine@epw.senate.gov> 

Subject: My personal endorsement of Susan Bodine as AA for OECA 

Kaitlyn, 

It is my pleasure to provide you with the following quote for your press release: 

"Susan Bodine brings a commanding intellect and a vast reservoir of experience in environmental policy 

to the job of running EPA's enforcement office. The Agency and the American people will benefit 

tremendously from her legislative, executive and legal expertise across the spectrum of air, land and 

water. The Administration has made an outstanding selection." 

--G. Tracy Mehan, Ill, former Assistant Administrator for Water, US EPA, in the administration of 

President George W. Bush. He is presently executive director, government affairs for the American 

Water Works Association (AWWA) and an adjunct professor at the Anton in Scalia Law School (George 

Mason University) 

Good luck to Susan and the Administration! 

Tracy 

703-850-9401 

This communication is the property of the American Water Works Association and may contain 

confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and 

may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender 

by reply email and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments. 

American Water Works Association 

Dedicated to the World's Most Important Resource® 
409 


26002.375

Statement by Tom Cochran 

CEO Executive Director 

The US Conference of Mayors 

Many Mayors, as well as my senior staff, have worked with Ms. Susan Bodine over the past 20 

plus years. Originally, in her role as counsel as the Transportation and Infrastructure Water 

subcommittee on Water, then as Assistant Administrator for the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, in her private practice for the 

law linn Barnes and Thornburg, and finally in her current role as counsel for the Senate 

Environment and Public Works Committee. 

We have worked with Ms. Bodine on such matters as Brownficlds Redevelopment (including 

development of the original law as well as the current reauthorization bill), water and wastewater 

infrastmcture and regulations (including Combined Sewer Overt1ows consent decrees, Integrated 

Planning, and Financial Capability), and Army Corps issues to name a few. 

Throughout these years, working with Ms. Bodine has been a real pleasure and she has been an 

asset in every job she has done. She is extremely thoughtful, knowledgeable and professional and 

has an understanding of the importance of protecting the environment and public health and to 

do so in an economically responsible way. Her common sense approach to environmental 

protection and infrastructure investment is widely respected among her peers and my Mayors. 

While we are sorry to lose her in her cunent role, she would be a welcome asset at the EPA. 
410 


26002.376

1730 M STREET. NW. SUITE 700 

WASHINGTON. DC 20036 

(202) 939-3800 

(202) 9.N-38o8 

law@cli.otg 

June 5, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso, Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6176 

The Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6175 

Re: Nomination of Susan Parker Bodine for Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Dear Senators Barrasso and Carper: 

I would like to add my voice to those recommending confirmation of Susan Bodine as the next 

Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA ). 

My first significant opportunity to work with Susan was during the George W. Bush 

Administration when she was Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response and I was the Acting Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of 

International Affairs. During the Obama Administration, when I served as EPA's General 

Counsel, Susan and I worked collaboratively on matters of shared concern to the Administration 

and the Congress. More recently, as President of the Environmental Law Institute, the nation's 

premier non-partisan think tank and research institute focused on environmental law and 

governance, I have called upon Susan to speak in various programs as a trusted expert on 

environmental law and policy. 

Through these various intersections, I have found Susan to be fair minded, clear thinking, and 

strategic in her approach, as well as effective in her leadership. She has a deep understanding of 

EPA and the EPA-State relationship, which will equip her well to lead OECA. Having myself 

served as a former environmental enforcement leader at both the Department of Justice and EPA, 

Susan's assumption of the enforcement helm would give me confidence that this vitally 

1 
411 


26002.377

important role will be approached with seriousness. Frankly, I have been concerned by this 

Administration's proposal to dramatically reduce resources for both federal and state 

environmental enforcement. Accountability under our environmental laws- through 

enforcement- has been a key ingredient in the environmental improvements that we have 

achieved as a country. We need a well-intentioned and capable leader at OECA to help make 

sure that these gains are not put at risk. 

Susan Bodine is, I believe, such a leader, and I accordingly recommend that she be confirmed for 

this important role. I further recommend that the Congress give her the resources she will need 

to properly carry out this role. 

Respectfully, 

Scott Fulton 

President 

Environmental Law Institute 

fulton@eli.org 

2 
412 


26002.378

To Whom This May Concern, 

I write to convey my thoughts concerning the nomination of Susan Bodine to be the Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) at EPA. 

Nearly twenty-five years ago, I began my career as an attorney at EPA's Office of Enforcement, and was 

there when the reorganization gave rise to OECA. Following my service there, including as a Special 

Assistant to the Assistant Administrator for OECA, I spent several years as a federal prosecutor in the 

Environmental Crimes Section at the Department of Justice. More recently, I had the privilege of serving 

under President Obama and Administrator McCarthy as EPA's General Counsel from 2013 through 

January 2017, and prior to that as EPA's Deputy General Counsel. I am currently a partner at the law firm 

of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. 

In each capacity, I worked with colleagues at EPA and DOJ to ensure the fair and faithful enforcement of 

our nation's environmental laws. Federal environmental enforcement- in concert with other 

compliance assurance measures and working with States- has played an important role in ensuring that 

all American's receive the health and environmental benefits enshrined in our environmental laws and 

regulations, and that American businesses operate on a level playing field and benefit from the 

regulatory certainty that sound enforcement policies can provide. I also observed firsthand the 

contributions of the many career employees at EPA- in OECA, the Office of General Counsel, and 

elsewhere- whose service and devotion to the mission of that Agency are deserving of respect and 

commendation. 

While I do not wish, by way of this statement, to speak to the present or future environmental policies 

of the Trump EPA, nor to issues surrounding the appropriations process, having been through a 

confirmation process myself I understand the importance of probing and evaluating the character and 

qualities of the individual nominee. In my practice of environmental law, notably while serving as EPA's 

General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel, I had several opportunities to meet with Susan Bodine on 

various work-related matters. Based on my experience, Ms. Bodine possesses a strong intellect, a keen 

understanding of environmental law and policy, and is respectful and responsive. She is a seasoned 

environmental lawyer and a skilled advocate. It is also my view that Ms. Bodine's prior service at EPA is 

an important- though not indispensable- factor to be considered in her nomination. Her familiarity 

with the Agency and its talented staff would be of service to OECA and Administrator Pruitt, should she 

be confirmed. 

If you have any questions, please let me know. 

Respectfully, 

AviGarbow 

AviGarbow 

GIBSON DUNN 

Gibson. Dunn & Crutcher LLP 

1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W .• Washington, DC 20036-5305 

Tel +1 202.955.8558 • Fax +1 202.530.9887 

AGarbow@gibsondunn.com • www.gibsondunn.com 
413 


26002.379

... AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION• 

600 Mal)'landAve. SW 1 Suite 1000W 1 Washington. DC 20024 

June 5, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso, Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6176 

The Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6175 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

ph. 202.406.3000 

f. 202.406.3606 

wwwJb.org 

The American Farm Bureau Federation strongly supports the nomination of Susan Bodine for the 

position of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Assistant Administrator for the Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assistance (OECA). We urge you to vote in favor of her confirmation. 

Susan Bodine's breadth and depth of experience in environmental protection make her an 

outstanding nominee to lead OECA. She has extensive experience working for Congress in senior 

legal and policy positions while at the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment of the 

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and later at the Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works. She also served as the EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response under President Bush. In addition to her Executive Branch 

and congressional experience, she was a partner at the law firm ofBames and Thornburg, where she 

was a well-respected and effective legal counsel to our nation's resource users. 

In her decades of experience in private practice, for Congress and EPA, Susan Bodine has proven her 

leadership skills and her deep understanding of our nation's environmental laws and how they affect 

ordinary citizens and small businesses. She has shown leadership in working toward solutions with 

groups on all sides of the many controversies that entangle enviromnental protection. We believe she 

will strictly enforce our nation's environmental laws, using the hammer when necessary. We also 

believe she will bring back an effective yet underutilized tool in EPA's toolbox- compliance 

assistance. Farmers and ranchers across the nation look forward to a new era of firm, but fair 

enforcement. 

For EPA to achieve the goals set forth by President Trump and Administrator Pruitt, EPA needs a 

strong leadership team. We believe Susan Bodine is an excellent choice and we urge her swift 

confirmation. 

Sincerely, 

/;&-dJ! 

Zippy Duvall 

President 

cc: United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 
414 


26002.380

1:;;;;;; /Natlanal Cattlemen's 'd Beef Association 

USA 

Cattlemen • Leadership • Solutions 

June 12,2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6176 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

COUNCIL 

PU;!t~~S 

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6176 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) and the Public Lands Council (PLC) urge you to vote 

in favor of Susan Bodine as Assistant Administrator of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance (OECA) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NCBA is the cattle industry's largest 

and oldest national trade association, representing American cattle producers who provide much of the 

nation's food supply and manage a large part of America's private property. PLC is the only national 

organization dedicated solely to representing the roughly 22,000 ranchers who hold federal grazing permits 

and operate on federal lands. Our organizations strongly believe Bodine's nomination is an important step 

towards protecting our environment through firm, but fair, compliance and enforcement measures. 

Bodine has impeccable credentials with 29 years of environmental law and policy experience garnered from 

leadership positions in the federal government and private sector. Bodine currently serves as Chief Counsel 

for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and she was previously the staff director and 

senior counsel for the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, and the House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. During the George W. Bush Administration, Bodine 

served as the Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Bodine 

was a partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP where she led coalition efforts on environmental issues. She has 

proven her commitment to public service and she is a distinguished expert in environmental law, which 

will prove invaluable in her role as Assistant Administrator of OECA. 

On a personal level, NCBA and PLC have found Bodine to be a valuable resource due to her breadth of 

experience and knowledge. And importantly, she is fair and impartial in all areas of her work. 

America's livestock producers are invested in keeping our air, water, and land clean for future generations 

of livestock producers. A compliance-first approach to regulatory programs would enable farmers and 

ranchers to work with EPA as partners in environmental stewardship rather than simply being regulatory 

targets. With Bodine at the helm of OECA, we believe we can achieve this goal and herald an era of 

environmental success. 

For these reasons and many more, NCBA and PLC strongly support Susan Bodine's nomination to 

Assistant Administrator ofOECA. 

Center for Government Affairs • 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW • Suite 801 • Washington, DC 20004 • (202) 347~0228 • www,beefusa,org 
415 


26002.381

Sincerely, 

c::.7a 

Craig Uden 

President 

National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

04.(/JI~ David Eliason 

President 

Public Lands Council 

cc: The Honorable Scott Pruitt, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Center for Government Affairs • i275 Penrsyivania Avenue, NW • Suite 801 • Washington, DC 20004 • (202) 347-0228 • w..<IW.beefusa.org 
416 


26002.382

Statement for the Record Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) and 

Senator Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-NV) 

Tuesday, June 13,2017, at 10:00 am 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing Entitled: Hearing on the Nominations of Kristine Svinicki (Reappointment), 

Annie Caputo and David Wright to be Members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, and the Nomination of Susan Bodine to be Assistant Administrator of the 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Carper, we appreciate the opportunity today to raise 

our concerns regarding the pending nominations to be Members of the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

While we recognize that for some moving forward on the Yucca Mountain repository is 

just an issue of enacting law, for Nevadans it is an issue that is critically important to the 

safety, security, and economic well-being of the state. Nevada has made clear since the 

beginning that they do not want, and never will want, a permanent nuclear repository at 

Yucca Mountain. It is a physically unsuitable site that would not only endanger the health 

and safety of Nevadans, but threaten our economic revitalization. We remain extremely 

concerned about the actions of this Administration, the Department of Energy, and 

Chairwoman Svinicki to restart the licensing process without looking at all viable 

options. 

Consent must be at the center of any conversation related to depositing nuclear waste, 

especially when there are safer and more cost-effective alternatives. This is why we have 

authored bipartisan, bicameral legislation, the Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act, to 

allow for the construction of a nuclear waste repository only if the Secretary of Energy 

has secured written consent from the governor of the host state, affected units oflocal 

government, and affected Indian tribes. 

Our proposal is consistent with the consent-based siting initiative to site waste storage 

and disposal facilities initiated by the Department of Energy in late 2015. This open 

process ensures that states have a meaningful voice in the process and that no state will 

be forced to accept nuclear waste against its own will. IdentifYing communities that are 

willing to host long-term repositories, rather than forcing it upon a state that strongly 

opposed such a site for decades, is the only viable solution to our nation's nuclear waste 

problem. 

1 
417 


26002.383

Failure to do so will only make the problem worse at a greater cost to the American 

taxpayer. The Department of Energy has estimated that $15 billion has already been 

spent on Yucca and that $82 billion more would be needed to finish the relicensing, 

infrastructure, transportation, operation, and decommissioning of the site. This is in 

addition to the significant safety and environmental concerns with the project. We 

remain deeply concerned about the dangers of transporting this high-level nuclear waste 

along the proposed waste transportation routes. We're looking at shipping 9,495 rail 

casks in 2,800 trains, and 2,650 trucks hauling one case each to Yucca Mountain over 50 

years. 

And, even putting aside the site's vulnerabilities to corrosion and groundwater 

contamination, lack of state consent, and transportation concerns, the site would not be 

available to receive waste for decades. We believe there is growing support for consentbased interim storage sites that could address waste storage concerns in a shorter period 

of time and a lower cost to the taxpayer. We strongly believe this process should not be 

held up by attempts tore-license a repository at Yucca. 

We recognize that the nominees considered before the Committee today have a history 

and record of strongly supporting moving forward with the Yucca Mountain 

repository. We remain hopeful that the nominees, if confirmed, approach this issue 

without any pre-existing bias and conflicts of interest. Furthermore, we look forward to 

questioning the nominees at a later date on these issues to ensure that they are fully aware 

of the hundreds of contentions filed by our state on this ill-conceived project. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and we look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. 

2 
418 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I know several of my colleagues have drilled down on the question of funding for EPA, particularly funding for the efforts of the 

Agency that you would lead if confirmed, Ms. Bodine. 

I asked my staff to go back and to share with me, and I will 

share with you, what happened to EPA funding overall in the last 

Administration. Some people would say, well, it probably went up. 

Well, it didn’t. In fact, it was reduced overall for those 8 years by 

about 20 percent, about 3 percent a year, something like that. So 

this Administration has not inherited a robust budget level of funding for EPA. 

The Administration would further reduce overall in their budget 

proposal funding for the EPA by about a third overall. For the 

Agency that, if confirmed, you would lead—reduction would be 

about another roughly 24 percent. And the States in this program 

are what we call a policy of cooperative federalism, the States who 

share responsibility with the Federal Government on making sure 

the environment is clean and safe. This Administration would reduce the budget for the States to do their share by almost half. 

Now, that may not concern you. As a former Governor, it concerns me. It concerns me. We are talking basically by reducing by 

half over the last 10 years, 9 years, reducing by half the resources 

available to do the job in your Agency, and also by half for States 

to do their share in enforcement. 

Does that trouble you? Does that concern you? 

Ms. BODINE. So I don’t believe that the State cooperative federalism grant budget is being cut in half. I don’t have the exact 

number in front of me. 

Senator CARPER. I believe it is 44 percent. Forty-four percent. 

Ms. BODINE. I will have to look at those numbers. 

Senator CARPER. Can’t make this stuff up. 

Ms. BODINE. I would point out that the environmental counsel of 

the States, their report on cooperative federalism that they issued 

yesterday, they point out that they are calling for a recalibration 

of State and Federal roles, and they say that that can lead to more 

effective environmental management at lower cost. 

Senator CARPER. We are going to move off of this, but this is a 

source of real concern, certainly to our side of the aisle, and we will 

come back to this later. 

You were all asked three questions before you testified, and one 

of the questions you were asked—I think it was the second question asked, was, do you agree to ensure the testimony, briefings, 

documents, and electronic, and other forms of information are provided to this Committee and its staff, and other appropriate committees, in a timely manner? Each of you said yes. Each of you said 

yes. I want to take you at your word. I know a couple of you pretty 

well. I know Ms. Svinicki very well, have a high regard for her. 

But I am going to come back and sort of ask that question, Ms. 

Bodine, in a different way. You are a current Senate staffer and 

one who is, I think, highly regarded. 

I am troubled in this situation. I think other folks on our side 

are troubled. I think Republicans would be troubled if we had a situation, if they faced a situation, our Republican friends faced a sitVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:13 Jul 13, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00424 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26002.TXT SONYA
419 

uation where Democrats were a majority in the House, majority in 

the Senate, and also had the presidency, the White House, and our 

Republican friends wanted to get their questions answered from 

this Administration, from a Democratic administration, and that 

Democratic administration basically would put out direction from 

the Administration to say you don’t have to respond to the minority. You don’t have to respond to the minority. 

How do you think the Republicans would take that? You have 

been around here for a while. How do you think they would take 

that? 

Ms. BODINE. I have worked for Congress for 13 and a half years 

in my career, and I have deep respect for the oversight responsibility of Congress. If confirmed, my bias would always be to respond to any Member of Congress, whether the majority or the minority, and certainly would not see that there would be any change 

in practice from EPA. 

Senator CARPER. I don’t have much time left. One second. I hope 

the Chairman will be generous with me. 

He cares a lot about oversight. I do as well. When you have one 

team, whether it is all Democrat or Republican, whoever is on the 

outs, whoever is in the minority, they are more likely to do real 

oversight. 

There is almost an inclination if you happen to be Republican, 

the White House, the House and the Senate are all Republican, 

there is less of an inclination to do the kind of tough oversight that 

is needed, and it falls to the minority. And when the minority can’t 

have our questions responded to, as has turned out to be the case 

repeatedly here, and especially when the White House itself says 

don’t answer those guys, you don’t have to answer those guys, that 

is deeply troubling, I think for any of us. I don’t care what party 

we are part of. 

Let me ask a question, if I can. I will come to the Chairman of 

the NRC, if I could. A lot of questions have been asked of you already. Is there a question that we should have asked, that we 

should have asked that hasn’t been asked? Is there a question that 

you think ought to be asked that hasn’t been asked? I have several 

more, but what do you think? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I don’t know that it is a very good strategy for me 

to propose a question that is particularly tricky, because the tricky 

questions are the ones you should be asking, but maybe why I am 

here for a third term, which I never could have conceived of, to tell 

you the truth, Senator. But I have developed a strong commitment 

and devotion to the NRC and its people. Candidly, this is a town 

of great opportunity if you are a hard worker, but I couldn’t think 

of anything that was a better application of what I know right now. 

So, again, if the Senate acts favorably on my nomination, I am 

very, very honored to continue. I have had some friends and family 

question my sanity, but I am very committed to this work if I am 

allowed to continue. 

Senator CARPER. Well, Senator Inhofe and I have sat here in 

these seats in the past, and you sat there, and we have watched 

some very, very difficult questioning and a lot of, frankly, discomfort among the five NRC Commissioners, and things seem to have, 

I will say, quieted down, and there seems to be a more collaboVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:13 Jul 13, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00425 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26002.TXT SONYA
420 

rative willingness to develop consensus. How do you explain how 

this has happened? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I don’t know, but I would observe that we appear 

to be bucking the trend. I think that we have, again, people of 

strong care and commitment. We had another Senate hearing last 

week, and Senator Alexander remarked upon he observed from the 

dais the same collegiality amongst the serving members of the 

Commission. I indicated that to us collegiality is separate and distinct from agreeing, necessarily, on any particular matter; that 

collegiality is the overriding behavior, and we may disagree on individual matters, but collegiality is the imperative, and I think it 

is a shared value. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I was out in California during 

the Memorial Day recess and met with a bunch of companies out 

there between San Francisco and San Jose doing exciting and interesting things with technology and innovation and job creation. 

I asked one of the big electric utilities out there, I said, where do 

you see growth? Because that particular utility, PG&E, they are actually providing a lot of incentives for their customers, business 

and otherwise, to use less electricity. 

I said, how do you consider your stay in business and be profitable? You know what they said? They said there is, over the horizon, a huge demand for electricity that is going to come from electric vehicles. Electric vehicles. And I was at a place where they 

were making buses, huge buses that carry like 50 people, and they 

go 300 miles between charges. Three hundred miles. 

So there is a huge—going to be, I think, growing demand for 

electricity, actually part of the vehicles, trucks, and buses that they 

would ride in, and I think, in order to meet that need, part of that 

generation of electricity has to come from nuclear, and we are seeing one plant after the other after another close and be noticed for 

foreclosure. 

As we all know, nuclear doesn’t put out any sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxide or carbon dioxide, no mercury, and it has to be part 

of our solution, and we just want to work with you to continue to 

address that need and to make sure that nuclear is an important 

part of the mix. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record, if I could, 

a survey done by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, 

which shows State agencies are deeply troubled by the Trump 

budget cuts, and it will impact what States can do in regards to 

clean air. I ask for unanimous consent. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

421 


26002.384

IMPACTS OF PROPOSED FY 20 18 

BUDGET CUTS ON STATE AND LOCAL 

AIR QUALITY AGENCIES 

A REPORT BY THE 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN AIR AGENCIES 

(NACAA) 

MAY22, 2017 
422 


26002.385

Impacts of Proposed FY 2018 Budget Cuts 

on State and Local Air Quality Agencies 

A Report by the 

National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) 

May 22,2017 

Executive Summary 

President Trump will release his FY 2018 federal budget on May 23, 2017, which 

calls for huge cuts in funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

According to a document obtained by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies 

(NACAA),1 the budget will include a 31-percent reduction in EPA's overall funding (from 

$8.2 billion in FY 2017 to $5.7 billion in FY 2018), the elimination of many important 

environmental programs, and - the focus of this report - a 30-percent decrease in 

federal grants to state and local air pollution control agencies (from $227.8 million in FY 

2017 to $159.5 million in FY 2018). 

Based on advance information about what the proposed budget would include,2 

NACAA surveyed its members to learn what a reduction of approximately 30-percent in 

federal grants would mean to state and local air quality programs. The results revealed 

a very disturbing picture: cuts of the magnitude proposed would likely have a 

devastating impact on the efforts of state and local air pollution control agencies to 

provide healthful air quality for the American public. Indeed, if cuts of this magnitude 

are sustained by Congress, we fear more people will die prematurely and get sick 

unnecessarily. 

State and local air quality agencies have faced inadequate funding for years and 

have already taken many steps to address their budget shortfalls. Additional cuts of 30 

percent would severely impede the ability of many agencies to continue essential 

programs and, in the most extreme cases, some smaller local agencies could 

conceivably have to close their doors entirely. If such cuts are enacted, many state and 

local air pollution control agencies will have trouble fully implementing the Clean Air 

1 http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default!files/Documents/EPA FY18 Budget.pdf 2 On March 21, 2017, information regarding the Administration's proposed FY 2018 budget for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was released. While it did not include all the details of the 

proposal, it indicated that state and local grants under Sections 1 03 and 1 05 of the Clean Air Act would 

be reduced by 31 percent. The memorandum is available here: 

http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default!files/Documents/EPA Memo FY 2018 Budget March 21 2017.0 

Qf 
423 


26002.386

Act's health-based air quality standards and delivering the clean and healthful air quality 

that the public deserves. Additionally, these agencies could be subject to harsh 

sanctions under the Clean Air Act, including the withholding of millions of dollars in 

federal highway funds, severe emissions "off-set" limits that could interfere with 

economic development, and the possibility of EPA imposing Federal Implementation 

Plans on states. 

In their responses, agency after agency painted a similar picture of severe 

curtailments to their programs in the face of the steep cuts being proposed: loss of 

staff, cancellation of programs and a diminished capacity to obtain and maintain 

healthful air quality. Nearly every respondent reported that cuts of this magnitude would 

severely reduce the benefits the agencies can provide. These include not only to the 

general public, with respect to decreasing air pollution, maintaining clean air and 

generally protecting public health, but also to the regulated community, in terms of 

permitting, compliance assistance and other services. 

The respondents provided a long and varied list of ways in which a 30-percent 

reduction would impact state and local air pollution control programs, affecting nearly 

every function they perform. State and local agencies identified many activities to be 

reduced and/or eliminated, including staffing levels, monitoring, inspections, 

enforcement, permit issuance, compliance assistance, data analysis, equipment 

maintenance and complaint response, among others. 

The impacts of these reductions are far reaching. Numerous agencies reported 

that they would be operating at a bare minimum level and that the services they provide 

the public would be limited or even eliminated. Perhaps most importantly, efforts to 

obtain healthful air quality and maintain clean air would suffer as a result of these 

resource constraints on their programs. 

Agencies also reported that their state or local governments, which already 

provide the lion's share of funding for clean air programs, would not be able to make up 

for the reductions in federal grants through additional state or local appropriations, 

general funds, grants or other contributions. Additionally, several agencies noted that 

they could consider increasing fees to address the shortfall, but that gaining approval for 

additional fees is unlikely as well. 

Finally, state and local air quality agencies reported that a 30-percent cut in 

grants could force them to turn some of their important Clean Air Act implementation 

work back to the federal government. As local communities, including many regulated 

entities, generally prefer working with their local and state agencies (as opposed to 

EPA), the return of responsibilities to the federal government would be a tremendous 

loss. Additionally, since the proposed budget calls for sharp cuts to EPA's operating 

budget as well, the agency would not be in a good position to take on the tasks that the 

state and local agencies can no longer carry out. 

2 
424 


26002.387

State and Local Air Agencies -In Their Own Words: 

"A cut in our federal grant of 30 percent would impose serious and adverse impacts on 

our individual state and collective ability to effectively run our air pollution control 

programs. There would very likely be many more people in our state getting sick and 

possibly dying as a result of these budget cuts. " 

"{We are] insufficiently staffed to assure citizens are protected from asbestos. Asbestos 

is a carcinogen and was widely used in buildings for fireproofing, thermal and acoustical 

insulation, condensation control, and decoration. Our current staffing of 5 FTEs is only 

able to inspect 8% of the structures. This inability to verify compliance places the public 

directly at risk." 

"If you cut back on enforcement programs, such as inspections and compliance 

assistance, your regulated community tends to be out of compliance more of the time. 

This can result in increased emissions which affect the health of your citizens. " 

"We have been forced to cut programs-sunset Stage 2 vapor recovery, returned 

delegation of asbestos NESHAP, air taxies, downsized monitoring to federal minimum 

allowed. Permits are slower, enforcement is down." 

"If there are further reductions in federal funding, there will be a corresponding reduction 

in services. It is unreasonable to ask States to further supplement their programs with 

additional State funds." 

Because we are at the federal minimum for our air monitoring network and unable to 

fully meet our planning, inventory, and asbestos compliance requirements, a reduction 

of 31% would be devastating. We clearly would be unable to meet the federallymandated responsibilities." 

3 
425 


26002.388

"Our current level of service will be significantly reduced... The level of public health 

protection currently provided will definitely be reduced to reflect the impacts of the 

budget cuts. " 

"Without question, a cut of 31 percent to the already-reduced funding levels would 

devastate our program. Under the requested funding reductions, we would be forced to 

cut our staffing by at least one-third ... a reduction in staffing along the proposed lines 

would significantly delay the issuance of permits for new construction." 

"The state and local funding cuts combined with the proposed 30% federal funding cut 

will result in about a 72% reduction in [our] overall budget. This will significantly impact 

[our] ability to be here at all, and if we are still here, it will be at a 60-70% decreased 

staffing /eve/leaving us with 7-10 FTEs to manage a 6 county area. At this level, we will 

not be able to meet the core requirements of the state contract and federal grants. 

"Enforcement would be reduced to only the most serious cases - Violations may not be 

detected early because there will be less report reviews, inspections, stack tests, and 

complaint response." 

'~ reduction of federal funds may result in an air quality monitoring network that does 

not meet federal requirements." 

'These cuts ignore reality; because we still have to meet all the existing federal 

requirements, even the ones the new administration doesn't like. When we fail, due to a 

lack of resources, it will be local taxpayers who bear the burden of paying environmental 

groups' legal fees." 

4 
426 


26002.389

Who is NACAA? 

The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) is a national, nonpartisan, non-profit association of state and local air pollution control agencies in 45 

states, the District of Columbia and four territories. The air quality professionals in its 

member agencies have vast experience dedicated to improving air quality in the United 

States. 

State and local air pollution control agencies (e.g., NACAA members) have 

primary responsibility for implementing our nation's air pollution control laws and 

regulations. The associations serve to encourage the exchange of information and 

experience among air pollution control officials; enhance communication and 

cooperation among federal, state and local regulatory agencies; and facilitate air 

pollution control activities that will result in clean, healthful air across the country. 

NACAA's headquarters office is located in Washington, DC. For further 

information, including contact information for state and local air quality agencies, visit 

NACAA's web site at www.4cleanair.org or call (202) 624-7864. 

5 
427 


26002.390

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary .....................................•.....................................•....•. 1 

Who is NACAA? .............•..•....•......•....•............•....................•............••..•.•. 5 

Introduction ...•....•...•.........••.•.•.........•........................•..........•..•....•.•••..•.•.... 7 

How Do State and Local Air Quality Agencies Use Federal Grants? .... 7 

How Have Budget Cuts and Lack of Sufficient Funding Affected State 

and Local Air Quality Programs? .......................................................... 11 

How Would a 30-Percent Budget Cut Affect State and Local Agencies' 

Ability to Meet Federally Mandated Responsibilities? ......................... 13 

Could States and Localities Make Up for Reduced Federal Grants? .. 19 

Would State and Local Agencies Turn Programs Back to EPA? .•..•... 20 

6 
428 


26002.391

Introduction 

NACAA surveyed its members to collect information and examples from state 

and local air quality agencies of how a reduction of approximately 30 percent in federal 

grants would affect their programs. NACAA selected the 30-percent cut based on an 

EPA internal memorandum that was published on March 21, 2017.3 The 30-percent 

figure was reaffirmed on Friday, May 19 when NACAA obtained a copy of the 

President's FY 2018 EPA budget request. The information in this report is intended to 

illustrate the real-world adverse impacts of such budget cuts. While state and local air 

pollution control agencies have not yet received detailed information about the budget 

or had the time to conduct full-scale analyses of the specific effects of the projected 

grant reductions on their programs, the information NACAA collected nevertheless 

offers a sense of the damaging impacts they would expect. 

The information in this report reflects input from 31 state and local air quality 

agencies. These agencies range in size from small to large and serve areas with a 

variety of air pollution levels and complexities. The report includes summaries of their 

responses to various questions, as well as excerpts from the surveys that provide 

agency responses "In Their Own Words." The details provided in this report are not 

attributed to any specific state or local agency, since several noted that they could 

provide more complete information if their specific responses were not identified. 

The results of the survey reveal that reductions in federal grants to state and 

local air pollution control agencies of the level being proposed would be devastating to 

these programs, which are currently underfunded and have already had to take steps in 

recent years to adjust to shrinking budgets. Such reductions would have an adverse 

impact on their ability to obtain clean air and maintain the air quality improvements that 

have already been accomplished. 

How Do State and Local Air Quality Agencies Use 

Federal Grants? 

The Clean Air Act calls for federal funding for state and local air pollution control 

agencies to implement programs "for the prevention and control of air pollution," among 

other things. There are many critical responsibilities that state and local air quality 

3 On March 21, 2017, information regarding the Administration's proposed FY 2018 budget for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was released. While it did not include all the details of the 

proposal, it indicated that state and local grants under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act would 

be reduced by 31 percent. The memorandum is available here: 

http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/defaultlfiles/Documents/EPA Memo FY 2018 Budget March 21 2017.p 

Qf 

7 
429 


26002.392

agencies must carry out under the Clean Air Act to implement a variety of essential 

programmatic responsibilities to obtain and maintain healthful air quality. These include 

not only new efforts, but also ongoing activities that constitute the "core" of their clean 

air activities and the day-to-day responsibilities that are the foundation of their 

programs. 

Federal grants are not the only source of funding for state and local air quality 

programs, but they are a very essential one for many agencies (other sources may 

include state and local funding and different types of fees). Section 105 of the Clean Air 

Act authorizes the federal government to provide grants for up to 60 percent of the cost 

of state and local air programs and calls for states and localities to provide a 40-percent 

match. However, in reality, state and local air agencies provide over three-fourths of 

their budgets (not including permit fees under the federal Title V program). Section 103 

grants, which have been used in recent years for the fine particulate matter monitoring 

program, among other things, do not need to be matched by the recipients. 

For many years, state and local air pollution control agencies have struggled with 

insufficient resources and have done what they could to fill in the gaps. However, due to 

economic hardships, states and localities increasingly rely on federal grants provided by 

the Clean Air Act. Exacerbating the situation is the fact that federal grants have 

decreased by nearly 17 percent in purchasing power since 2000 due to inflation. 

NACAA asked state and local air pollution control agencies for specific examples 

of the types of activities and programs for which they use their federal grants. They 

indicated they use them for a variety of critical activities and programs. 

Section 105 

Section 105 grants fund new efforts and the "base" or "core" air program efforts. 

These include many resource-intensive and time-consuming activities. One important 

function of state and local air quality agencies is to develop, amend and put into effect 

their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for various pollutants, including ozone, 

particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides. The SIPdevelopment efforts include numerous steps, such as crafting supporting technical 

information; consulting with transportation and other governmental officials; involving 

stakeholders; seeking public comment; drafting, revising and submitting proposed 

and/or final SIPs; making equivalency demonstrations; developing delegation requests; 

implementing supporting state or local regulations; and a variety of other activities. In 

addition to the SIP-development efforts, Section 105 grants support a host of activities, 

including the following: 

• personnel expenses; 

• issuance of permits to non-Title V sources, including minor sources, construction 

permits, permits to operate and others; 

• inspections and stack tests; 

• compliance assistance; 

8 
430 


26002.393

• enforcement; 

• modeling; 

• monitoring (both ambient and source-specific); 

• analysis and quality assurance/control of monitoring samples and data; 

• data entry; 

• submission of reports and information to EPA; 

• development of emission inventories; 

• implementation of delegated federal programs for hazardous air pollutants 

(taxies), including for Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and area 

sources; 

• training; 

• travel expenses (especially critical for large states); 

• development of regulations; 

• smoke management; 

• asbestos programs, including inspections; 

• open burning programs; 

• fugitive dust measures; 

• complaint response (24/7); 

• public outreach and education; 

• air quality forecasting; 

• implementation of other federal programs; and 

• administrative support, including computer support and vehicles 

Section 103 

Agencies reported that they use Section 1 03 funds primarily for efforts related to 

the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) monitoring program, including operating monitors; 

collecting, quality controlling/assuring, analyzing and submitting the data to EPA; 

maintaining, servicing and repairing the monitoring equipment and sites; operating, 

maintaining, servicing and repairing the labs that support the PM2.s network; purchasing 

monitoring equipment; paying personnel to operate the monitoring program; and training 

staff. 

State and Local Air Agencies -In Their Own Words: 

"Section 105 grant funds are explicitly dedicated to personnel costs. With federal 

funding being level for so many years, combined with increased personnel costs, no 

other expenses are charged to this grant .... FY17 funding ... wi/1 cover approximately 

31.5% of the total FTE expenditures, which is approximately 21.4% of the total budget 

expenditures." 

9 
431 


26002.394

"The Section 105 grant funds are critical for the agency to be able to carry out 

regulatory functions that are not fee based." 

"We directly implement air quality programs that improve public health through 

monitoring, permitting, and enforcement. We provide a level playing field for regulated 

entities while assuring clean air for the citizens we serve." 

"The Section 105 grant funds are critical for the agency to be able to carry out 

regulatory functions that are not fee based." 

"Section 103 grant funds are applied to PM2.5 monitoring only .... FY17 funding only 

covers 46% of one (1) full time employee (FTE). This illustrates the difficulty air 

agencies are already facing with inadequate federal funding." 

'The funding is used for the personnel and equipment needed to monitor the ambient air 

in accordance with CFR minimum requirements. It varies from year to year depending 

on the equipment needs, but on an annual basis we spend 50-60% of the funding for 

personnel to operate the equipment and the remainder goes to purchase the equipment 

and parts needed for maintenance." 

'This funding does not fully cover all air monitoring activities.'" 

"This monitoring site provides important air quality data as background information and 

concerning pollutants coming to the continental United States from places as far away 

as China.·· 

10 
432 


26002.395

How Have Budget Cuts and Lack of Sufficient Funding 

Affected State and Local Air Quality Programs? 

For many years, state and local air quality agencies have struggled with 

insufficient resources, budget cuts and the dwindling purchasing power of stagnant 

federal grants (i.e., federal grants have decreased by nearly 17 percent in purchasing 

power since 2000, due to inflation). While they have done their best to address these 

challenges, there have been negative impacts resulting from these reductions. 

Additional cuts to federal grants will only exacerbate these issues. 

State and local agencies provided information about the measures they have 

already taken in the last five to seven years to address their funding shortfalls and the 

impacts of these struggles on their programs. Many of these examples of actions they 

took or the effect they had were identified by multiple, and in some cases nearly all, 

respondents: 

• increased permitting and other fees, sometimes significantly (although agencies 

are prohibited from using Title V fees for many air quality program activities); 

• experienced an increasing permit backlog; 

• decreased the monitoring program, including reducing the number of monitoring 

sites (sometimes in spite of public requests for more monitoring); 

• delayed purchase and replacement of equipment; 

• reduced laboratory capacity, including the elimination of analytical capabilities; 

• sought additional funds from the legislature; 

• reduced staff, delayed hiring or did not fill vacant positions. Lower staffing levels 

create delays and difficulty in completing work and sometimes require hiring 

outside contractors to perform tasks; 

• eliminated staff raises (leading to more staff turnover and difficulty in training new 

employees); 

• decreased staff benefits; 

• cut training programs for staff; 

• reduced staff travel; 

• cross-trained staff to be more flexible (able to do more than one function); 

• reduced inspections to the bare minimum (in both thoroughness and/or number); 

• eliminated or significantly reduced programs, especially non-regulatory programs 

such as radon and indoor air quality; 

• returned delegation of programs to EPA; 

• cut public outreach and education; 

• struggled to meet timeframes, resulting in some late submittals to EPA; 

• streamlined permitting; 

• eliminated review or submittal of input on proposed regulations; 

• reorganized and consolidated offices; and 

• relocated office space. 

11 
433 


26002.396

State and Local Air Agencies -In Their Own Words: 

"If you cut back on enforcement programs, such as inspections and compliance 

assistance, your regulated community tends to be out of compliance more of the time. 

This can result in increased emissions which affect the health of your citizens. Less 

public education and outreach results in the public being less informed and less 

supportive of air quality programs and emission reduction strategies. If construction 

permits are not issued quickly you can lose the support of the regulated community. 

Our local program has historically had a lot of industry support because we have been 

able to issue permits timely, which helps sources be competitive. [We] once had four 

permit writers and now we have only two, which makes it more difficult to get permits 

out quickly during upswings in business activity." 

"We have been forced to cut programs-sunset Stage 2 vapor recovery, returned 

delegation of asbestos NESHAP, air taxies, downsized monitoring to federal minimum 

allowed. Permits are slower, enforcement is down. Increased permit applicability 

thresholds, do permits by rule, and eliminate state only programs-noise, indirect 

sources, etc. Looking at other delegations to return. Cut all outreach/education." 

"Compliance has already reduced the number of required inspections to the minimum 

required for our grant commitments .... ln addition, we have not been able to observe as 

many third party stack testing functions and it is taking longer to review stack testing 

reports, facilities ACC reports and SAM reports. In addition, we have seen an increase 

in the number of complaints from citizens which have become increasingly more difficult 

to investigate in a timely manner." 

'JP]rogram continues to experience rising costs, such as an 81% increase in employee 

health insurance expenses absorbed by the program over the past 5 years. As 

such ... cannot continue to provide the same measure of service. If there are further 

reductions in federal funding, there will be a corresponding reduction in services. It is 

unreasonable to ask States to further supplement their programs with additional State 

funds. In recent years [the agency] increased [its] level of match (increasing its 

Maintenance of Effort (MOE)) to compensate for rising costs or reduced federal funding, 

essentially living up to its end of the bargain." 

12 
434 


26002.397

'[We are] insufficiently staffed to assure citizens are protected from asbestos. Asbestos 

is a carcinogen and was widely used in buildings for fireproofing, thermal and acoustical 

insulation, condensation control, and decoration. The demolition and renovation of 

buildings has the potential to release asbestos fibers into the air .... Our inspection target 

is 15% of the notifications. Our current staffing of 5 FTEs is only able to inspect 8% of 

the structures. This inability to verify compliance places the public directly at risk." 

"25 percent reduction in technical staff since 2014; 20 percent reduction in nonpersonnel costs; 16 percent reduction in administration personnel costs (comparing 

2012 to 2017); Reduced response to complaints; Eliminated air quality education 

programs" 

"Reduced staff 12%; Reduced training; Vehicles have not been purchased (When a 

vehicle is no longer repairable, we eliminate the vehicle, but do not replace it.); 

Computers and software have not been upgraded; Reduced number of cell phones" 

"Due to current resource constraints, minor sources are only inspected when a 

complaint is made, even those sources subject to the Reasonably Achievable Control 

Technologies (RACT) included in the ... SIP." 

How Would a 30-Percent Budget Cut Affect State and 

Local Agencies' Ability to Meet Federally Mandated 

Responsibilities? 

The FY 2018 budget proposal calls for a reduction of 30 percent (from current 

levels) in Sections 103 and 105 grants. Nationally, this would reduce federal air quality 

grants from $227.8 million to $159.5 million. State and local air agencies provided input 

on the impacts of a further reduction of approximately 30 percent in federal grants on 

their ability to meet their federally mandated responsibilities, including the protection of 

public health and welfare. Nearly every respondent reported that cuts of this magnitude 

would severely curtail the benefits the agencies provide to the public. These include not 

only to the general public, with respect to decreasing air pollution, maintaining clean air 

and generally protecting public health, but also to the regulated community, in terms of 

permitting, compliance assistance and other services. 

13 
435 


26002.398

The list of ways in which a 30-percent reduction would affect state and local air 

pollution control programs is long and varied, affecting nearly every function the 

agencies carry out. Some of these programs would be reduced to the minimum levels 

required or, in certain cases, less. Among the programs and activities that would be 

reduced and/or eliminated, identified by numerous agencies, are the following: 

• staffing levels; 

• staff training; 

• ambient monitoring; 

• source inspections; 

• permit review and issuance; 

• compliance assistance and enforcement efforts for major and minor sources; 

• analysis of data and reports; 

• maintenance and replacement of equipment, including monitoring and lab 

equipment; 

• asbestos programs; 

• complaint investigations and response; and 

• environmental justice 

The impacts of these reductions that the respondents identified are also far 

reaching. Numerous agencies noted that they would be operating at a bare minimum 

level and that the services they provide would be limited or even eliminated. For 

example, several stated that their ability to review and issue permits in a timely fashion 

would suffer, including going beyond the timelines required by federal regulations. They 

would also find it difficult, and in some cases impossible, to continue to provide the 

public with the timely air quality information to which they are entitled. The state and 

local agencies' ability to develop air quality plans, including State Implementation Plans, 

would be hampered by lack of staff and resources. Some agencies indicated they 

would possibly have to return programs to EPA (see subsequent question). Perhaps 

most importantly, efforts to obtain healthful air quality and maintain clean air would 

suffer as a result of these resource constraints on their programs. 

Many respondents noted that a 30-percent cut would result in a loss of staff. 

This would have a lasting impact on the future of air programs in this country. In many 

cases, the staff that would be eliminated would include the more junior employees. In 

the words of one respondent, "How are we to sustain an air program in light of coming 

retirements when there are no mid-level or entry-level staff to take their places? Before 

proceeding with these reductions, someone needs to answer this question." The fact is, 

it takes years to train staff to be permit writers, conduct inspections, carry out 

enforcement, conduct monitoring and modeling and do all the other technical tasks 

within an air quality agency. According to one respondent: A reduction "will not only 

reduce our ability to protect human health for the years that funding is low, but also for 

years after the funding is restored." 

Finally, some smaller local air quality agencies noted that they may not be able to 

withstand a 30-percent reduction in federal grants and could be in danger of dissolving. 

14 
436 


26002.399

This would be a loss to the local population, including the regulated community that 

generally prefers working with their local agencies that understand their facilities better 

than the state or EPA. 

State and Local Air Agencies -In Their Own Words: 

':4 cut in our federal grant of 30 percent would impose serious and adverse impacts on 

our individual state and collective ability to effectively run our air pollution control 

programs. There would very likely be many more people in our state getting sick and 

possibly dying as a result of these budget cuts." 

"Because we are at the federal minimum for our air monitoring network and unable to 

fully meet our planning, inventory, and asbestos compliance requirements, a reduction 

of 31% would be devastating. We clearly would be unable to meet the federallymandated responsibilities." 

"Monitoring networks would be reduced and the information provided to citizens would 

no longer exist." 

"Our current level of service will be significantly reduced ... annual inspections of minor 

sources will most likely be extended to the federal requirement of once every five years. 

The level of public health protection currently provided will definitely be re.duced to 

reflect the impacts of the budget cuts." 

"Without question, a cut of 31 percent to the already-reduced funding levels would 

devastate our program. We currently meet or exceed all timeliness goals in our 

permitting and enforcement programs, and maintain our extensive monitoring network 

on a 2417 basis. Under the requested funding reductions, we would be forced to cut our 

staffing by at least one-third. That really means that at least twelve air quality 

professionals who have devoted their lives to protecting public health would suddenly 

be unemployed. . . . a reduction in staffing along the proposed lines would significantly 

delay the issuance of permits for new construction." 

15 
437 


26002.400

'This size of a reduction could require the shutdown of five of our eight PM2.5 

monitoring sites resulting in our region being out of compliance with the Code of Federal 

Regulations .... A 31 percent reduction would reduce our Section 105 funding by 

approximately $191,000. This would greatly impact our ability to [p]repare air permits in 

a timely manner resulting in delays to businesses expanding their existing operations or 

constructing new facilities. There would be an increase in the number of permits not 

being processed within the 180 day statutory deadline." 

"Depending how bad the cuts end up being, we'll be forced to reduce staff significantly. 

Without sufficient staff, we'd be forced to: Discontinue the NCore monitoring site 

altogether and give it back to the state or EPA; No longer be able to replace equipment 

or fix equipment as it breaks resulting in a loss of monitoring data for designation 

purposes; increased backlog of permits; increased time to get permits issued; little to no 

enforcement ability; elimination of indoor air and radon program; reduction in 

compliance assistance for smaller facilities; no facility inspections beyond what is 

required by CMS policy, if we can meet that; no EIS!NA T A data review; reduce or 

eliminate stack testing; Resources would be shifted to higher priority issues and 

facilities (i.e. just putting out the fires); Thoroughness of inspections would decrease; 

inspections would become more of a paperwork exercise." 

"The state and local funding cuts combined with the proposed 30% federal funding cut 

will result in about a 72% reduction in [our] overall budget. This will significantly impact 

{our] ability to be here at all, and if we are still here, it will be at a 60-70% decreased 

staffing /eve/leaving us with 7-10 FTEs to manage a 6 county area. At this level, we will 

not be able to meet the core requirements of the state contract and federal grants. This 

includes -permitting, inspections, compliance assistance, asbestos program, complaint 

investigation, air quality forecasting, pollen/mold data collection, ambient air monitoring, 

which will all likely result in [our] losing the state contract and federal grants we've been 

awarded for 45+ years." 

"Enforcement would be reduced to only the most serious cases - Violations may not be 

detected early because there will be less report reviews, inspections, stack tests, and 

complaint response." 

16 
438 


26002.401

"Eliminate all education/outreach. Return of some programs to EPA." 

"Our program is bare bones now and most of the budget supports staff salaries. A 31% 

cut would amount to a cut of $123,628 which is close to being two staff positions. If we 

had to cut one or two positions we could not meet the current requirements of our 

contract with the state." 

"Valid air quality data is necessary to demonstrate [our[ compliance with the ambient air 

quality standards; for evaluating the impacts of air pollution sources to ensure the air 

quality standards are met; and for use in making air quality and permitting decisions in 

the protection of public health and welfare. A reduction of federal funds may result in an 

air quality monitoring network that does not meet federal requirements." 

''The federal grants fund personnel that work on the development of plans (e.g. state 

implementation plans), strategies, rules, and program revisions necessary to implement 

the air program and the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Lack of federal funding will 

likely result in missing federally mandated submittal deadlines." 

"Such a reduction would likely result in a need to eliminate at least 5 of 15 full-time 

positions and would require a corresponding reduction in [our] Ambient Air Monitoring 

network including the shutdown of at least 4 monitoring sites. Such shutdowns would 

impact our ability to accurately predict "Air Quality Action Days" and warn the public of 

pending poor air quality within the state. In addition, such a cut would likely impact our 

ability to meet federal air quality planning requirements such as rule development and 

SIP development and submittal in response to federal requirements." 

"We have many programs and activities that we already perform pro bono for EPA. It is 

likely that we would focus less on cooperating with EPA directions that do not align with 

State and Local objectives or do not provide direct benefit to our region. This would 

result in a fractured air quality program in which areas that are capable of providing 

services to their residents would do so, while those who cannot would not see the 

benefits that progressive agencies are able to achieve." 

17 
439 


26002.402

"The anticipated $1 million additional reduction in revenue would significantly impact 

federally-mandated responsibilities. Although the exact impact is yet to be examined 

and determined, likely outcomes would include: 

• A reduction in the number of ambient monitoring stations. These stations are 

needed to verify compliance with NAAQS. Those that remain operational could only 

do so while equipment remains operational. As equipment fails, they would be taken 

off-line and not replaced. 

• The division would struggle to make payroll, and therefore select staff would need to 

be relocated to other Divisions/Departments within the State. This will likely 

necessitate elimination of additional programs within the Division. Because the 

Division operates with program functions that are staffed with one level of expertise, 

placement of staff to other Divisions or Departments will eliminate that capability 

within the Division" 

"It would limit or eliminate our ability to do special monitoring studies requested by the 

public and needed to address questions about local air quality impacts." 

':4s EPA's budget is cut, State and local agencies that are able to continue to improve 

air quality will be less likely to share their data with EPA. The less that data is shared, 

the less efficient air quality agencies will become as programs and activities are 

"reinvented" and lessons learned not shared. This would not serve the public 

interest. In addition, industries would have a much more complex regulatory structure in 

which to operate, as State and local agencies put in place regulations that may change 

from area to area, or concentrate in areas without regulations degrading air quality in 

pockets of the nation. Those pockets would likely suffer more negative health outcomes 

and suffer other disproportionate impacts." 

"These cuts ignore reality; because we still have to meet all the existing federal 

requirements, even the ones the new administration doesn't like. When we fail, due to a 

lack of resources, it will be local taxpayers who bear the burden of paying environmental 

groups' legal fees." 

18 
440 


26002.403

Could States and Localities Make Up for Reduced 

Federal Grants? 

As reported above, state and local governments already provide significant funds 

for air pollution programs. While the Clean Air Act envisions the federal share of the 

cost of state and local air programs to be 60 percent, with the state and local agencies 

providing a 40-percent match, the reality is that state and local air agencies provide over 

three-fourths of their budgets (not including permit fees under the federal Title V 

program). 

NACAA asked the members to what extent they might be able to make up for the 

reductions in federal grants through additional state or local appropriations, general 

funds, grants or other contributions. Nearly every respondent had a similar response: it 

is highly likely (or even a certainty) that additional funds from the state or local 

governments will NOT be forthcoming to make up for additional federal grant 

reductions. Several agencies noted that they could consider increasing fees to address 

the shortfall, but that gaining approval for fee increases is unlikely as well. Additionally, 

fees collected under Title V of the Clean Air Act may be used only for costs related to 

the permitting program and are prohibited to support activities eligible for federal 

Section 105 grants. 

State and Local Air Agencies -In Their Own Words: 

"The Air Program has not received any state funding in over 20 years. Permit 

processing fees have doubled in the last 5 years. NO additional funding would be 

anticipated." 

"Our organization already provides additional funding since federal and state dollars are 

not enough to operate the required programs. Our organization has increased its 

percent of local contribution by 21% (comparing percent of local dollars in 2017 to the 

average of 2013- 2016). We do not have the additional local resources to make up for 

the proposed reductions indefinitely. " 

"The Clean Air Branch could potentially seek to even further raise permit application and 

annual fees charged to permitted sources to try and make up for losses in federal 

funding. However, further raising of fees is not a solution to this problem as such a fee 

increase would have a significant negative impact on {our] businesses and [our] 

economy." 

19 
441 


26002.404

"We are currently taxed/fee to the limit. State and local sources have no capabilities to 

take on more taxes/fees." 

"It is unlikely that we would be able to make more adjustments in our fees collected from 

regulated facilities, and we would be competing with other state agency programs to 

request additional state appropriations." 

'We have no ability to ask the state for additional funding, since we expect funds to be 

cut by the state. This will additionally hamper our ability to carry out state mandated air 

quality regulations. We just raised the per capita assessment fee to cities and counties 

in our region and can't ask for another large fee increase. We raise fees charged to 

business and the assessment fee by the CPI to try to keep up with inflation. Much of 

our counties and cities are still recovering from the recession and can't increase funding 

to our agency due to their own dire financial situation. " 

"The Division has very limited ability to make up for these reductions. Our funding 

source mix includes: General funds, Federal Grants, Permit Fees, Regional 

Greenhouse Gas, and Department of Transportation. We are facing similar pressures 

with general fund cuts. Further, we do not anticipate that our permit holders will support 

an increase in their fees to supplement this federal reduction. In fact, due to significant 

emission reductions in this sector, the customer group is expecting the Division to 

reduce fees for services rendered. Lastly the EPA established guidelines for allowable 

activities that can be charged to permit holders. Department of Transportation and 

greenhouse gas funding offer the only opportunities for supplemental support." 

Would State and Local Agencies Turn Programs Back 

to EPA? 

If a state or local air quality agency is unable to implement Clean Air Act 

requirements, it may be forced to turn some of its important work back to the federal 

government. As local communities, including many regulated entities, generally prefer 

working with their local and state agencies (as opposed to EPA), the return of 

responsibilities to the federal government would be a loss. 

20 
442 


26002.405

NACAA asked its members if a cut of approximately 30 percent in federal grants 

would result in their agencies considering or being forced to turn air quality work back to 

EPA in whole or in part. Most said they foresee having to turn programs back to the 

state (in the case of a local agency) or EPA if there are steep cuts in grants. Some 

indicated that it is difficult to conduct an analysis without knowing the full impact of 

projected cuts, but that turning programs back to EPA is definitely something they would 

have to contemplate if the projected cuts materialize. Specifically, monitoring is a 

program that multiple agencies identified as one they may have to return to EPA. 

Respondents noted that EPA is unlikely to be able to carry out the work the 

agencies may return to them, especially if EPA's budget is subject to the proposed 

sharp decreases as well. Additionally, EPA would not be able to perform the state and 

local agencies' functions at the same cost that state and local agencies do. 

State and Local Air Agencies -In Their Own Words: 

"Cutting the 103 grant by 31% would possibly result in the loss of three staff members in 

the air quality laboratory who are needed to operate our ambient air quality monitoring 

system. Significant cuts to 103 funding could result in the state being forced to turn over 

maintenance and operation of the ambient air quality monitoring network to EPA." 

"Currently evaluating what to return to EPA based on just state cuts and attrition." 

"Yes, perhaps. This is a question states ask themselves every year as federal funding 

declines. However, [we] would much rather serve our citizens than have EPA do it, but 

we can't continue to do that if federal funding continues to be cut." 

"If a federal budget passes that mandates reductions, we will need to evaluate how we 

will reduce our efforts accordingly. This may mean returning specific programs and/or 

reducing our efforts in other programs. With the biggest expenditures related to air 

monitoring, reduction in this area would likely be considered first. " 

"Would have to be negotiated with EPA Region; but if there is an X% reduction in the 

grant, we would expect EPA to pick up X% of the duties." 

21 
443 


26002.406

"Absolutely, we would look at ALL air quality regulatory obligations and likely could not 

do everything that was expected of us. Exactly what program areas would be returned 

are not known at this time." 

"We have not fully analyzed what we would cut if the proposed reductions were 

enacted. Having said that, if the reductions required the divestment of monitors, the 

monitors still need to be in operation per CFR, so US EPA would have to take on that 

operation. It would be difficult for US EPA to run the monitors for the same cost that we 

operate them. Additionally, US EPA may have to take on facility inspections." 

"It actually could result in this happening ... .[we] would have to give up parts of the 

program that make us valuable to the community. If EPA receives the proposed cuts to 

their budget they will be in no position to take up any slack for state or local air 

programs." 

22 
444 

Senator CARPER. Again, we thank you all for being with us today. 

Especially thank your families. Annie, I would just say that your 

children have been very well behaved and your husband unusually 

well behaved. 

Ms. CAPUTO. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. We applaud them all. 

Thank you very much. 

And let me just say to your mom, Mr. Wright, David, Ms. 

Wright, my mom and her mom were born on the same day. Same 

day, August 18th. I always called my mom on her birthday, but I 

always call my mom on my birthday, too, which is January 23rd, 

just to thank her for bringing me into the world. Those are some 

of the most memorable conversations I think I have ever had. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I agree. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

I want to thank your mom for having your back today. 

Mr. WRIGHT. She has always had my back. I brought her as my 

body guard today. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, let me just make a comment. 

I do agree with a couple of the things that my good friend, Senator Carper, has said, and I disagree with some, obviously. One of 

the things I have learned, and we talked about this a couple hours 

ago, was the first subcommittee that I chaired was 1996, and it 

was this subcommittee, and the subcommittee, at that time, was 

relieved that they were actually going to get oversight. You don’t 

expect that, really, from a bureaucracy. But they had had no oversight for 4 years, so they really didn’t have any direction. It was 

as if nobody cared and no one was looking. 

Right now it is a different environment altogether. I think people 

realize that this kind of resistance to nuclear energy that has been 

out there has been overcome to a great extent. It is going to have 

to be part of the mix. When I have said all of the above, it has always include that. By the way, we do have some deadlines that we 

have to meet so that we will be able to continue our operations. 

Is it all right if I go ahead with our final remarks? 

Well, if there are any more questions for today, members may 

submit follow up written questions for the record. They are called 

QFRs. We are not talking about 1,600 like Pruitt had to go 

through, but questions for Ms. Svinicki by the close of business 

today, Tuesday, the 13th of June. Ms. Svinicki should respond to 

those questions by close of business tomorrow, Wednesday, June 

14th. 

With the agreement of Ranking Member Carper, I am expediting 

the QFR process regarding Ms. Svinicki’s nomination because the 

Committee will vote on her nomination this Thursday. By reporting 

her quickly, it is our hope that we can expedite her confirmation 

through the full Senate so that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

does not lose its quorum when her current term expires at the end 

of June. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, how long 

would she have to respond? 

445 

Senator INHOFE. I am going to go back and reread this, because 

this was an agreement that the Chairman that I am sitting in for 

right now came to. 

Senator CARPER. Our staff says 1 day, so that would be like noon 

tomorrow. Close of business tomorrow. OK, we are fine with that. 

Senator INHOFE. It is my understanding that was an agreement 

that was had. 

Senator CARPER. Sounds good. 

Senator INHOFE. Members may also submit follow up questions, 

follow up written QFRs for Ms. Caputo, Mr. Wright, and Ms. 

Bodine by close of business this Thursday, June 15th. The nominees should respond to those questions by close of business the following Thursday, June 22nd. 

All right, I want to thank the nominees for their time and their 

testimony today, and we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ