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

21–325 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–353 

BUSINESS MEETING 

MEETING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

May 18, 2016 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

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 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 18, 2016 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 2 

LEGISLATION 

Text of the manager’s substitute amendment to S. 2795 offered by Senator 

Inhofe .................................................................................................................... 4 

Text of the amendment offered by Senator Gillibrand ......................................... 52 

Text of the amendment to S. 2754 offered by Senator Inhofe ............................. 62 

S. 2816, a Bill to reauthorize the diesel emissions reduction program ............... 65 

S. 1479, a Bill to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to modify provisions relating to grants, 

and for other purposes ......................................................................................... 66 

S. 921, a Bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a nonregulatory program to build on and help coordinate funding for restoration and 

protection efforts of the 4-State Delaware River Basin region, and for other 

purposes ................................................................................................................ 79 

S. 2754, a Bill to designate the Federal building and United States courthouse 

located at 300 Fannin Street in Shreveport, Louisiana, as the ‘‘Tom Stagg 

Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. ............................................ 93 

H.R. 3114, an Act to provide funds to the Army Corps of Engineers to 

hire veterans and members of the Armed Forces to assist the Corps with 

curation and historical preservation activities, and for other purposes. ......... 96 

Approved Committee Resolutions ........................................................................... 100-132 

Nomination of Jane Toshiko, of Maryland, to be Assistant Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................... 133 

(1) 

BUSINESS MEETING 

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2016 

U.S. SENATE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:39 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James Inhofe (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Barrasso, Capito, Crapo, 

Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Sullivan, Carper, Cardin, 

Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker and Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. The meeting will come to order. 

Today, the Environment and Public Works demonstrates once 

again that we are working to get things done. At the conclusion of 

my opening statement, I am going to brag a little bit on what all 

we have gotten done, because we are the committee that does 

things. 

I am pleased we were able to reach a great bipartisan compromise on the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. 

After all, innovation has come to the nuclear industry. There are 

many new companies, nuclear startups, in fact, that are pursuing 

concepts that advance safety and so forth. 

You know what I think I will do? I am going to submit this for 

the record because everybody knows what it is in it. 

Anyway, we have several bills today. I want to say something 

about our Committee, and I say this really on behalf of Senator 

Boxer and myself. We have, as Majority, and I am sure when you 

were Majority you did the same thing, have weekly meetings of the 

chairmen of the committees. When it gets around to my turn I always say now we will hear from the committee that gets things 

done, unlike the other committees. 

In this Committee, we have the 5-year surface transportation 

bill, first one since 1988; water research, the WRDA bill; a bill that 

we are going to be doing today, chemical safety; Water Resources 

Research Amendments; the Grassroots Rural and Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act; National Estuary Program, 

and that was by Whitehouse and Vitter, do we have broad extreme 

support on all ends on these bills; the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative; Long Island Sound Restoration; Lake Tahoe Restoration; 

Kennedy Center reauthorization; multiple namings after different 

leaders; regulatory relief bills; consideration of nearly 100 GSAs. 

2 

Anyway, it comes down to about 31 total that we have done in 

this Committee alone, so I want to say to my friends on the Committee, on the Democrat side and the Republican side, that you are 

doing great work, and better work that any of the other committees 

are doing. 

With that, I will turn it over to Senator Boxer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with that. I am grateful 

to members on both sides. And I think that our friendship has been 

very important. We know what we can’t do and we know what we 

can do. If there were bumper strips that each committee had, ours 

would say ‘‘EPW: The Committee That Does,’’ because we do well. 

Now, I wish we could do a little bit more given, should I dare say 

it, climate change, but since that is not an area where we can work 

together, we have made up for it in other areas. 

Senator INHOFE. It kind of creeps into every statement. But that 

is fine. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I told you I would not say climate change. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, you did say it. 

Senator BOXER. In any event, I do want to thank you so much 

for this markup today. Senator Carper’s Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2016 will reauthorize the enormously successful DERA 

program. 

Senator INHOFE. Which is another demonstration of working together. 

Senator BOXER. His and yours. 

It provides grants to reduce air pollution by retrofitting or replacing diesel equipment. This program has delivered, and I think it 

is important that we note this, it has delivered an estimated $12.6 

billion in health benefits and saved countless lives. That is what 

we can do in this Committee. 

I am proud, also, to be a co-sponsor of the Brownfields Utilization, Investment and Local Development Act, called the BUILD 

Act. This legislation reauthorizes EPA’s brownfields program, 

which helps revitalize communities with contaminated waste sites. 

It is estimated that there are more than 450,000 brownfields in the 

U.S. 

So when we cleanup and reinvest in these properties, we increase 

local tax bases, we facilitate job growth, and we allow redevelopment of formerly contaminated lands. And I remember when we 

first did this brownfields bill, it is really a landmark bill; it adds 

to the other landmark bills that this Committee is known for. 

We will also consider a bill introduced by Senators Carper, Booker, and Gillibrand to help restore the Delaware River Basin, and 

a bill to authorize a program at the Corps to hire veterans to assist 

with historic preservation activities. I strongly support these bills. 

Today’s agenda also includes a bill to encourage development and 

approval of advanced nuclear reactors, and to reform the NRC’s fee 

structure. I had significant concerns with the introduced bill, which 

would have reduced transparency during the approval process for 

new nuclear reactors and limited the ability of NRC to collect the 

3 

fees necessary to carry out its oversight responsibilities. I appreciate the work by several Senators on the manager’s amendment 

that we will consider. This amendment addresses some of the most 

serious concerns in the introduced bill; however, I believe there is 

more work to be done on this bill and I look forward to working 

with the bill’s sponsors as this legislation moves forward. 

So, with that, I look forward to today’s markup. 

Senator INHOFE. That is great, Senator Boxer. I think we are all 

looking forward to the Oklahoma City Thunder defeating Golden 

State tonight, so we have a lot to look forward to, don’t we? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. The Committee stands adjourned. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. You know, the last ones who bragged about that 

lost games two, three, and four, so watch out. 

Senator INHOFE. Oddly enough, we do have 11 here, we have a 

quorum. This can be a very quick meeting, and I hope that you will 

stay. We do need 11 for passage of either legislation or to be reported out. We need 7 to approve amendments, but we really don’t 

have very many amendments down here. 

So we are going to start with the consideration of a list of bipartisan bills. We are going to begin with S. 2795, the Nuclear Energy 

Innovation and Modernization Act. That is probably the one that 

drew the most attention here. So, to begin with, I am going to call 

up the manager’s substitute package, which was circulated already 

and everyone has had access to it. This substitute will be considered the original text for the purpose of the amendment. This is a 

bipartisan package of amendments to S. 2795, co-sponsored by Senators Crapo, Whitehouse, Booker, Carper, and Markey, that incorporates several bipartisan modifications negotiated with these Senators on the NRC fees, modernizing NRC procedures, and the feasibility of extending the duration of the uranium recovery licenses, 

which is important to Senator Barrasso and several others. 

[The text of the manager’s substitute amendment to S. 2795 offered by Senator Inhofe follows:] 

4 


21325.001
5 


21325.002
6 


21325.003
7 


21325.004
8 


21325.005
9 


21325.006
10 


21325.007
11 


21325.008
12 


21325.009
13 


21325.010
14 


21325.011
15 


21325.012
16 


21325.013
17 


21325.014
18 


21325.015
19 


21325.016
20 


21325.017
21 


21325.018
22 


21325.019
23 


21325.020
24 


21325.021
25 


21325.022
26 


21325.023
27 


21325.024
28 


21325.025
29 


21325.026
30 


21325.027
31 


21325.028
32 


21325.029
33 


21325.030
34 


21325.031
35 


21325.032
36 


21325.033
37 


21325.034
38 


21325.035
39 


21325.036
40 


21325.037
41 

Senator INHOFE. Does any Senator seek recognition to talk about 

this? Then I will be asking for a motion. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I support this amendment, appreciate the efforts of the bill’s sponsors to 

address some of the concerns in the introduced bill. 

This manager’s package removes a harmful provision in the introduced bill that would have removed a requirement for a mandatory hearing prior to approving nuclear licenses or permits. In light 

of the Fukushima disaster, this is the wrong approach, and I am 

so pleased this provision was removed. 

The manager’s amendment also provides NRC with increased 

flexibility to adjust fees to meet its safety responsibilities. While 

these changes improve the introduced bill, I believe more needs to 

be done to ensure the bill does not place an increased burden on 

taxpayers and to make sure NRC has sufficient resources to meet 

its safety mandates. 

So I support this amendment and I will probably vote no on the 

bill in the hopes that we can work together as it moves to the floor. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. 

Senator Carper. Excuse me, excuse me. Let’s start on this side. 

Any comments on this manager’s amendment? 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. As one of the 

original co-sponsors of this bill, I want to thank all of our members 

on the Committee for working in a bipartisan way to move this forward, particularly yourself as the other Republican original cosponsors, and Senators Booker and Whitehouse, and, frankly, Senator Carper, who we worked with very closely on this as well, to 

try to move forward and find the right compromises to move this 

very critical legislation forward. 

I have a statement, but if I could just put my statement in the 

record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

Senator CRAPO. I commend all of us on the Committee for the 

good faith and the good work that we have done to move this legislation forward. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. My thanks to you and 

particularly Senator Crapo for your good work on this effort. I was 

pleased to join as a co-sponsor of the manager’s amendment that 

we have just been discussing. 

If I could, I just want to take a minute. I have a concern with 

the language in the bill that takes away the requirement that the 

industry continue to fund the budget of the NRC by at least 90 percent. When we take that requirement away, the industry is not 

happy with that requirement. They haven’t been happy for a while, 

as you know. If we take that requirement away in order to fund 

the NRC, we are just going to have to fund it out of other appropriations. So I do that with some trepidation. I am not going to 

offer the amendment, not going to call for a vote, but I think it is 

something that we need to think about: is this really what we want 

to do? 

42 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate your discussing your amendment 

and appreciate more that you are withdrawing it. 

Senator CARPER. Which do you appreciate the most? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. All right, anyone else on this side want to comment about this? 

Senator BOXER. Can I speak on Senator Carper’s point? 

Senator INHOFE. Well, let’s see if anyone else on your side wants 

to be heard. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to 

thank you and Senator Crapo and Senator Booker for the original 

work that moved us along. We had a very good hearing on the 

original bill. There was some concern expressed by the Union of 

Concerned Scientists about safety and transparency, and I just 

want to report that they have said that, ‘‘We do not believe the revised bill,’’ the manager’s amendment, ‘‘will have any major detrimental impact on public safety and transparency. The bill authors 

have done well to balance their desire to reform the licensing process without subjugating the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 

congressionally oppose mandates, allowing the NRC to retain the 

flexibility it needs to independently regulate in the public interest.’’ 

Reaching that point has been important for us and I appreciate 

the flexibility that everybody has seen to get here. I think we remain open to bipartisan amendments that will allow this process 

to go forward. This isn’t the end of the process; it is an important 

stage in it. We look forward to working with all of our colleagues. 

But I do think this is a really important step forward, and that 

there are new technologies, including technologies that will allow 

us to turn what is now hugely costly and dangerous nuclear waste 

into potentially valuable nuclear fuel; and pursuing that is, I think, 

an important goal for our Country, and I thank again the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their leadership in this process. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I just want to thank Senator Booker and 

the other sponsors for taking one of my concerns into account by 

adding a comment period so that communities could have a chance 

to be heard on the placement of plants. It is very important to New 

York State specifically. 

There is another comment I have that we didn’t have time to include, but I would like to have us consider it on the floor, which 

is to require new plants to have a robust evacuation plan; and not 

just one they do themselves, but one that can be certified by 

FEMA, or both. 

I say this because we have a nuclear facility that has 17 million 

people within 50 miles. So if Indian Point had any disaster of any 

kind, there is no possible way to evacuate 17 million people today. 

And I have been asking NRC to focus on a better plan to actually 

work on how many lives could we save in the instance of a disaster, 

and they have not given it to me. So I really think it is important. 

In rural areas, super easy. We have nuclear plants in areas in 

upState New York where you can evacuate everyone very quickly 

because it is a rural area with wide-ranging roads and very robust 

43 

systems to get people away from a disaster. But what we saw after 

Superstorm Sandy is a warning. What happened after Superstorm 

Sandy was the water levels rose within two feet of overcoming the 

nuclear plant. So if it had risen any further, it could have diluted 

the plant. And there was no way to evacuate because, because of 

the storm, power lines were knocked down and made most road 

systems inoperable. 

So even the 10 mile evacuation zone could not have been evacuated if there was a disaster due to Hurricane Sandy. And it is just 

a forewarning that when storms happen, all systems break down, 

and the road system was wiped out. 

So I urge this Committee and members on the floor to add an 

amendment to have a robust review when you are creating the 

plant, setting up the plant, what is your evacuation plan in the instance of a disaster. 

Senator INHOFE. First, Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. I want to just echo some of the thanks, especially Senator Crapo. I want to thank Senator Inhofe and Senator 

Whitehouse, as well, for a lot of the original work on this, as well 

as the team effort from a lot of folks who helped continually to improve this bill. 

This is what we really should be doing, not just working together, but working together to innovate. Next generation nuclear 

is not the nightmarish realities that we see in a lot of the challenges around the globe and here at home, and some of the difficulties that Senator Gillibrand is rightfully pointing out. If we are 

going to have and embrace a carbon-free future, or to decarbonize, 

nuclear is going to have to be a part of it if we are looking to do 

that very quickly. 

So I am very excited that we are showing pro-innovation efforts 

right here and right now, and I just, again, want to thank. This 

has been a great experience for me, to work in such bipartisan 

fashion to develop such a strong bill, so thank you very much. 

Senator INHOFE. Good. Thank you. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks. 

I am disappointed that we didn’t get to vote on Senator 

Gillibrand’s evacuation amendment, and also Senator Carper’s 

amendment. I just want to take a minute. The work on this bill 

was terrific. This bill has more work to be done. I stood at San 

Onofre Nuclear Power Plant that has been shut down, but it is not 

decommissioned yet. There is more than 5 million people within a 

few miles of this facility. I said to the sheriff, what happens in case 

of emergency, and she said just look at the road. And, of course, 

it is bumper-to-bumper because it is Southern California. Forget it. 

Forget it. And this bill doesn’t address that. 

This bill doesn’t address funding, Senator Carper is absolutely 

right. You take away the funding. And we know, from working on 

the chemical bill, how important it is. If we expect the NRC to its 

job, we expect them to be able to have the funding. This is a step 

back. While we take a beautiful step forward in terms of the future, because I agree we are looking for a carbon-free future, and 

I have always said if nuclear is safe, it is definitely part of the answer. But if you don’t have anything in there about evacuations, 

44 

if you take away the source of funding, where are they going to get 

the funding? We are just struggling over funding constantly. 

So that is why I do look forward to this bill coming to the floor. 

I do intend to be heard. I do intend to work with my colleagues to 

make this bill better. And if we can make it better, frankly, just 

in these two areas, I think it will fly through. 

I am hopeful that we can work more on this and I do so appreciate the bipartisan work that went into it. From where it started 

to where it is now is night and day, and I just want to make it that 

much better when we deal with the fees and we deal with the evacuations, because it is very frightening. 

Also, last, I know Senator Gillibrand has a critical amendment, 

critical amendment dealing with safety at the plants, and I hope 

it passes, because if it passes it will give this bill many more legs. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, others who want to be heard? 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, just one last point, if I could. I 

am going to make a unanimous consent request. 

The reason why I didn’t ask for a vote on the amendment regarding the funding is because there are changes that I sought in the 

bill and we were able to work out. So in the spirit of compromise 

we didn’t push for the recorded vote on the 90 percent amendment. 

However, the congressional Research Service has provided us 

with an analysis of the language, and I would like to submit that 

document. This is with respect to funding. I would like to submit 

their documents for the record on this bill, please. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

45 


21325.038
46 


21325.039
47 


21325.040
48 


21325.041
49 


21325.042
50 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Mr. Chairman, at least month’s hearing I raised two concerns 

about the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. Specifically, I was concerned that the bill’s repeal of the mandatory 

hearing for new construction and operating licenses would undermine the public’s access to important safety information. I also 

stated my concern about the bill’s cap on the NRC’s collection of 

fees, which I felt could undermine the Commission’s safety and security mission by reducing its access to needed resources. 

Over the last few weeks the co-sponsors of the bill worked closely 

with me to address both of these issues. The manager’s amendment 

to this bill removes the repeal of the mandatory hearing and it 

strengthens the NRC’s authority to waive the cap on fees if that 

cap may undermine safety or security. Together, the changes that 

were included to improve on the safety issues raised by the Union 

of Concerned Scientists resulted in proposed changes that have 

considerably improved this legislation. 

I want to thank Senators Inhofe and Crapo, Senators Booker, 

Whitehouse, Murkowski and Fischer for their willingness to work 

in a bipartisan manner to address those concerns. The bill’s authors balanced their desire to enable nuclear innovation by reforming the NRC’s licensing process with the public interest in nuclear 

safety. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Markey. Before you came 

in, you were acknowledged and praised for all of your bipartisan 

help on this bill. 

Does anyone seek recognition for the purpose of an amendment 

to the manager’s amendment? 

Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment 

addresses a very specific issue to this nuclear plant we have in 

New York State called Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, in Westchester County, New York. It is 36 miles from Manhattan. And 

within 50 miles it has more than 17 million people. 

As some of you might know, there has been a series of safety 

issues at Indian Point spanning many years, but the most recent 

problem tops them all. Two months ago the owners of Indian Point 

reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that a number of 

bolts and plates in the Unit 2 reactor were degraded. 

These bolts are vital to the safety and operational function of the 

plant. The bolts hold together metal plates that direct cooling 

water as it flows through the reactor core. Degraded bolts could 

allow plates to gap or even separate, providing pathways for water 

to bypass the reactor core. If the cooling water leaks out, you can 

imagine what happens to the core. 

And we are not talking about a couple of bolts; we are talking 

about 227 bolts out of 832. That is 27 percent. This is the worst 

case of degradation ever found in a nuclear power plant. 

After this failure was reported to the NRC in March, we learned 

that the NRC never required this equipment to be sufficiently inspected since the reactor began operating in the mid–1970’s. No 

part of a nuclear plant should go four decades without sufficient inVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:01 Sep 09, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\21325.TXT VERN
51 

spection, especially for this problem, which was well known by both 

the industry and the NRC. 

What else could be degraded within these reactors? Why did so 

many bolts degrade? Did the threads where the bolts were get 

stripped? Were the plates damaged from movement or friction as 

a result of the degraded bolts? 

We don’t know the answers to any of these questions yet. The socalled root cause analysis is still being performed and will take a 

few more months to be completed. In the meantime, the NRC is 

going to allow a restart of Unit 2 in June. 

Opponents of this amendment are going to say that we will set 

a precedent for the NRC handling the degraded bolts issue. My response to that argument is that is a very good thing. The NRC 

should be taking this issue much more seriously. 

Therefore, on behalf of our 17 million constituents who live within range of the plant, I offer this amendment to force the NRC to 

finish the root cause analysis before allowing Unit 2 reactor to restart. In addition, this amendment would require the NRC to move 

up the date for inspection for Unit 3 so that it is completed by the 

end of 2016. Until Unit 3 is also inspected, we have no way of 

knowing whether similar degradation is happening in that reactor. 

That is a gamble that I am not willing to take on behalf of so many 

millions of New Yorkers. 

So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. 

And, Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper has suggested a voice vote 

for this, and I accept that. 

[The text of the amendment offered by Senator Gillibrand follows:] 

52 


21325.045
53 


21325.046
54 

Senator INHOFE. All right. 

Let me just make a couple comments. I know the sincerity, the 

concern that you have. You have expressed that. And our staff has 

reached out to try to find an acceptable compromise with regard to 

the amendment, and I still want to do that. Senator Gillibrand has 

raised serious concerns and I want to find a serious solution that 

establishes accountability and transparency about the safety at Indian Point. But that takes more time than a 24-hour amendment 

filing deadline allows. 

I have directed, and I know this is something that you want, 

Senator Gillibrand, my staff to request a bipartisan briefing from 

the NRC as soon as possible, I mean immediately, and I will be 

there, in order to gain a clear picture of what is being done and 

the extent of the issue with other plants. That is a necessary first 

step to understand how to craft a solution without causing unintended consequences. 

I don’t think we should set a precedent of substituting our judgment for the NRC’s when it comes to determining plant safety. So 

I would oppose that but work very closely with you and try to accommodate a solution. 

Senator BOXER. Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I truly appreciate your interest 

in this and the fact that you are going to personally study it. I do 

want to say that this is not a 24-hour deal. The last time we had 

a hearing, we did right here, Senator Gillibrand brought it up to 

the NRC. I remember it like it was a yesterday, though it was 

quite a while ago. 

The bottom line is hundreds of degraded and cracked bolts were 

found. This isn’t some theory; this is a fact. They were found in reactor vessels at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in New 

York, and her amendment would ensure that the safety concerns 

raised by this discovery are fully addressed at Indian Point. I share 

her concern about the safety of this plant and believe similar 

plants have the same issue, and they may not know it. In fact, degraded bolts were discovered at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant in 

New Jersey. 

So I am writing to the NRC today to ask the Commission to determine whether the issue identified at Indian Point and Salem 

could be a problem at other nuclear plants. Diablo Canyon in California has the same exact design, so it is important that NRC look 

at similar plants. So if it is New York and it is New Jersey with 

the same design as California, I think it may be more of a problem 

than we know. 

And I appreciate Senator Gillibrand’s leadership on the issue. I 

hear she is not going to ask for a recorded vote, but I would like 

to be noted in the record as having supported it, and I will share 

my letter that I write with everyone who is interested. But this is 

not an overnight 24-hour deal; this is a deep concern. I watched my 

colleague’s face as she talked. You are talking about millions of 

people, and here we sit. We can do something about it, but, oh, no, 

we are going to do a voice vote and it won’t go anywhere today. I 

think that is a mistake. 

In closing, let me say this. If nuclear power is going to take its 

place, it had better be safe. So when you find something that is not 

55 

safe, you are not helping the industry to turn away. You help the 

industry when we make every move to make nuclear power safe. 

People are not stupid. They look at Fukushima; they see what happened. Some remember Three Mile Island and other disasters. 

So when we make it safe, we make it acceptable. When we walk 

away from safety and we take away the money that is used to 

make it safe, I think we are undermining what we are trying to 

do here, which is to get a carbon-free alternative. That is how 

strongly I feel about it. 

Senator INHOFE. Anyone want to be heard? Senator Sullivan? 

Senator SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to mention a 

principle that I know that we try to focus on in this Committee. 

It is actually very important to me, given my State. On issues of 

very local concern, that the Committee here give the members a lot 

of leeway. 

So this seems to be a very local concern. And when I have raised 

local concerns about my State, I have asked in this Committee for 

my colleagues to give the Senator from the State leeway on the 

issue because you know more about it and maybe care more about 

it than any other members. Unfortunately, that hasn’t always happened, at least with regard to some Alaska issues, because they 

seem to be nationalized. 

So I am sympathetic to this amendment because it is local. She 

knows more about it, Senator Gillibrand knows more about it than 

probably anyone else, and cares more about it than probably anyone else. 

But I am also understanding, Mr. Chairman, of your concern 

about setting a precedent that this Committee somehow substitutes 

its judgment for the NRC’s judgment on safety. There is no doubt 

that the experts are at the NRC, not here. 

So I am just wondering if there is any way that there could be 

language in this amendment that absolutely makes it clear that 

this is not a precedent, this is a one-time issue that addresses, that 

we are not going to get involved in overriding the NRC. But I am 

sympathetic to a colleague who is raising an issue of very local concern that she knows more about than anyone else, and I would welcome that precedent on this Committee when issues that come up 

with regard to other States that are very important to the members 

here, that we get a little leeway on those kind of topics, because 

they certainly come up a lot with regard to my State, and we don’t 

always get that leeway. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, all my 

amendment does it ask the NRC to look at it. So we are just saying 

this is something you must look at before you restart. So we are 

trying to give the ball to the NRC. The industry doesn’t want the 

oversight. It is the industry who says you can’t tell us what to do 

on safety. 

But the only oversight we have is the NRC, so I am specifically 

asking, NRC, please insert yourself here because I am so worried 

about it, and you haven’t looked at this in three decades. So I am 

asking the NRC to take some jurisdiction away from the industry, 

who doesn’t want anyone to look at their stuff. That is why I am 

trying to give it to them, not us. I just said please look at this because I am so worried. 

56 

And I have no one else who is able to look at it; they are the only 

body that could go in and say we are not worried because it is 30 

percent degraded and 50 percent is the breaking point. I need them 

to say that. I need them to know that and say it is not worrying 

to us. I think 30 percent is really close to 50, so that scares the 

heck out of me. So I just want the NRC to take jurisdiction on this, 

so I am giving it to them. 

And it can be a one-time thing. We can put a statement in that 

this is not precedent-creating, if that is amenable. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. I just want to respond to Senator Sullivan. We 

are going to be sitting down with them, all collectively, to make 

sure we get something done on this. And, of course, then we have 

the floor. So I hear you and that is exactly what I think we are 

doing. 

Yes, Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Just very briefly. You have made a very generous offer to Senator Gillibrand and I just urge her to accept that, 

and let’s just do a good quick deep dive, not like in a couple of 

months, but like right away. I am not sure how soon this bill is 

going to be on the floor, but it is imperative that whatever come 

out of that discussion, we be able to reflect that in the bill on the 

floor when it comes to the floor. 

There are two options here: one, we don’t vote on this or we vote 

it down or whatever, do what you are talking about doing and then 

say we are going to address it on the floor, or, two, I think follow 

Senator Sullivan’s advice, which I think is very good, and vote for 

it on a voice vote, then do what you are talking about doing. And 

the outcome, I think, will be the same. I think this will maybe impart a greater sense of urgency to get some changes that I think 

need to be made, and I suspect you do too. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Did you want to seek recognition, Senator Booker? 

Senator BOOKER. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I just want to say, again, I am excited about this bill 

because it is looking to the future, new innovation that doesn’t pose 

these kinds of threats that we are dealing with. But that said, if 

any one of us lived in the shadow of this nuclear plant and you had 

this kind of failure of the bolts, that large of a percentage, it really 

is frightening. 

I sat here as Senator Gillibrand questioned during that hearing, 

and you were receiving wholly unsatisfactory answers, and what 

disturbed me was a lack of urgency about this specific plant. If any 

of us lived in the shadow of that, we would want to know the root 

cause of this problem. 

And now I represent the same metropolitan area that Senator 

Gillibrand represents and, as you said, this is an isolated incident 

in terms of the dramatic number of bolts, but 18 bolts were found 

to be deficient in a New Jersey plant. So what she is asking for 

is what any of us, if we or our families lived in the shadow of that 

plant. We are not afraid of information. Let’s just have some more 

transparency about why you have such a large percentage of bolts 

at this one plant. 

57 

I don’t want it to take away from the forward-looking bill that 

we have to embrace future technology and innovation in the nuclear area that is going to help us to be more carbon-free, that is 

going to help create plants that actually eat this kind of fuel, that 

do many of the opposite things we are afraid of. But what Senator 

Gillibrand is asking for, demanding, has not received a satisfactory 

response, in my opinion, and that is why I support her amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. And I appreciate that. 

And thank you, Senator Carper, for your compliment. We are 

very sincere about wanting to get together on this, and I think we 

will. 

Before us we have the Gillibrand amendment. Is there a motion? 

Senator SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Just one other thought, and I don’t know if 

it is acceptable to Senator Gillibrand, but your commitment, as 

Senator Carper mentioned, to really get the NRC here, have them 

ask questions that satisfy her, and if they don’t do that, then I 

think a number of us would be amenable to voting for this amendment on the floor. 

Senator INHOFE. I agree with that. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. So I did ask them. We had the NRC here 

and I asked them all the questions we would ask, and their answers were horrible. They basically said, it is not our concern; we 

don’t have a concern; industry standard is we have redundancy. 

But they couldn’t tell me what level of redundancy was safe. They 

couldn’t tell me that 30 percent was unsafe or safe. They didn’t 

have information. 

We told the NRC in advance, this is exactly what Kirsten is 

going to ask you about, so please be prepared with answers. We 

had to request answers for the record we have not received yet. So 

they are stonewalling. And, yes, we will have them in again, we 

will ask the same questions, and now they will have more notice 

to prepare the answers they should have prepared months ago. 

But their answer was we are not worried and we are not going 

to do this, it is not our job. And they are our only overseeing organization. They are the only one who could tell a plant we are concerned about this, we want you to do a little more. And if they are 

unwilling to use that authority, when I am desperately asking 

them please use that authority, I feel they are not doing their jobs. 

They are avoiding authority, which is absurd. They are the only 

safety net we have. 

So we had the hearing, we had it, and I used my time to drill 

down and I got nothing. And Senator Boxer was here during that 

time, so she knows they were really nothing answers, side steps; 

we don’t know, we are not sure, we will get you that for the record. 

But they couldn’t tell me what level of failure is safe. They couldn’t 

tell me. 

So it is stressful because, again, we can pass this now into the 

base bill, we can say it is not precedent-setting, and then I will get 

my answer for Indian Point, or we could do it on the Senate floor. 

But when you do it on the Senate floor, you don’t have the level 

58 

of expertise that this Committee has. They are not going to have 

the benefit of this discussion. They are not going to have the benefit of hearing NRC’s answers, which I will circulate for you so you 

can satisfy yourself that they did not come prepared and did not 

give satisfactory answers. It is up to this Committee. 

But I appreciate what you said, Senator Sullivan, I just think it 

is a safety risk that I am so frightened about, and I just wish this 

Committee could help me protect those 17 million people from 

something that we don’t know whether it would happen or not. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, Senator Gillibrand, I anticipate we are 

going to have a big crowd that is going to make sure that history 

doesn’t repeat itself on this when we have our meeting with them, 

and hopefully we will have the same number of people here. And 

I will be there and make sure that we do. 

Senator BOXER. When are you doing that? 

Senator INHOFE. I stated as soon as possible, but I would say immediately. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

Senator INHOFE. So we will do that. 

Let’s go ahead. You requested a voice vote. The Gillibrand 

amendment, is there a motion on the amendment? Second? 

Senator BOXER. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. All in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[Chorus of noes.] 

Senator INHOFE. The ayes do appear to have it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. I am going to call for a roll call. Clerk, call the 

roll. 

The Clerk: Mr. Barrasso. 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, wait a minute. Barrasso, no by proxy. 

The Clerk. Mr. Booker? 

Senator BOOKER. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. Boozman? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The Clerk. Mrs. Capito? 

Senator CAPITO. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Cardin? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The Clerk. Mr. Carper? 

Senator CARPER. Aye. 

The Clerk. Mr. Crapo? 

Senator CRAPO. No. 

The Clerk. Mrs. Fischer? 

Senator FISCHER. No. 

The Clerk. Mrs. Gillibrand? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Aye. 

The Clerk. Mr. Markey? 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The Clerk. Mr. Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

59 

The Clerk. Mr. Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Sanders? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The Clerk. Mr. Sessions? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan? 

Senator SULLIVAN. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Vitter? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Aye. 

The Clerk. Mr. Wicker? 

Senator WICKER. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9—— 

Senator INHOFE. I need to vote. 

Senator CARDIN: Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN: Can I be recorded aye in person? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, of course. 

And you didn’t call my name. 

The Clerk. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, could you be recorded also as 

a no in person? 

Senator INHOFE. Live. A live no. Senator Boozman. 

The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9, the nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, may I just make a comment? 

Senator INHOFE. Let me finish with the vote here. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Oh, I am sorry. 

Senator INHOFE. The motion is not agreed to. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I know I started this conversation and I just 

want to say I certainly want to work with Senator Gillibrand on 

this, and if she is not satisfied after you—I am sure the NRC is 

watching this debate, and if they come back and they are not answering the questions to her satisfaction, I certainly would commit 

to voting yes on this amendment when it comes to the floor. And 

I just wanted to mention that. Hopefully we will get it resolved before it comes up, but if it doesn’t come to the point where she is 

satisfied for her constituents, I certainly would be inclined to give 

her the leeway to vote yes on this amendment if and when it comes 

to the floor. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. 

Other amendments to the manager’s amendment? 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, could I just also make a postamendment comment here? 

Senator INHOFE. Of course. 

Senator CRAPO. As I understand the issue, and I don’t profess to 

be the expert on it, one of the problems we have is that in order 

to do the work that the NRC would need to do on this reactor, as 

your amendment would require, Senator Gillibrand, the reactor 

needs to be shut down. And that is a very expensive process to enVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:01 Sep 09, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\21325.TXT VERN
60 

gage in, and my understanding is there is already a scheduled 

shutdown in March of next year. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. That is Unit 3. So Unit 2 is already shut 

down, they already shut it down, so it is about restarting it June 

1, I think. So we are just saying please investigate those baffle 

bolts before you restart, since it has already been shut down. 

Senator CRAPO. On Unit 2. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. On Unit 2. 

Senator CRAPO. So it’s already shut down. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. It is already shut down. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. 

Now, is there a motion to adopt the substitute manager’s amendment to S. 2795 and report S. 2795, as amended, favorably, to the 

Senate? Second? 

Senator ROUNDS. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The Clerk. Mr. Booker? 

Senator BOOKER. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. Boozman? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. No. 

The Clerk. Mrs. Capito? 

Senator CAPITO. Yes. 

The Clerk. Mr. Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. Aye. 

The Clerk. Mr. Carper? 

Senator CARPER. Aye. 

The Clerk. Mr. Crapo? 

Senator CRAPO. Aye. 

The Clerk. Mrs. Fischer? 

Senator FISCHER. Aye. 

The Clerk. Mrs. Gillibrand? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. No. 

The Clerk. Mr. Markey? 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The Clerk. Mr. Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The Clerk. Mr. Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. Aye. 

The Clerk. Mr. Sanders? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The Clerk. Mr. Sessions? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan? 

Senator SULLIVAN. Aye. 

The Clerk. Mr. Vitter? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Aye. 

The Clerk. Mr. Wicker? 

Senator WICKER. Aye. 

61 

The Clerk. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye. 

The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 17; the nays are 3. 

Senator INHOFE. And it is agreed to. 

If there is not objection, we are going to hit all the rest of them 

en bloc. There is no amendments. There is only one amendment 

filed, and that is mine, which is a technical amendment to the title 

on S. 2754. So I would move that amendment to S. 2754. Is there 

a second? 

Senator ROUNDS. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. Any objection? 

[No audible response.] 

62 


21325.047
63 

Senator INHOFE. It is agreed to. 

Does any member wish to speak on the remaining items? 

Senator CARPER. Just one thing. I just want to thank you for taking up the mantle that George Voinovich provided great leadership 

in diesel emission reduction. I thank Senator Boxer for her kind 

words. Everybody is a part of this bill. This is something we can 

be very, very proud of, and thank you all. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Others who want to be heard? Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

You and I, we don’t agree on climate change, but we do agree 

that we have to be committed to cleaning up old industrial contaminated sites so that they can be reused, and I want to thank 

you for your leadership on this bill and in partnering with Senator 

Boxer and with Senator Rounds and Booker and Crapo on this important piece of brownfields legislation. There are an estimated 15 

million acres of potentially contaminated land in America, and in 

places where long industrial histories like Massachusetts we have 

nearly a century’s worth of toxic materials that have accumulated 

in sites all across our Country. 

The BUILD Act is critical to cleaning up the decades of abuse 

our lands have experienced at the hands of corporate polluters. 

Cleaning up brownfield sites is a win-win for the Country, helping 

to create jobs and spur economic activity while revitalizing underutilized and polluted lands. The brownfield grants authorized in 

the BUILD Act will give communities and businesses a chance to 

return economic stability to under-served and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods through the assessment and cleanup of 

abandoned industrial and commercial properties, places where environmental cleanups and new jobs are most needed. Many of those 

sites may also be good candidates for solar and wind and biomass 

energy production facilities. 

While we still have a long way to go toward cleaning up the decades of abuse sustained by our Nation’s lands, I am proud to have 

partnered here with my colleagues on this Committee to ensure 

that these brownfield sites are no longer part of the problem, but 

will be part of a clean energy solution, and I hope that my colleagues will all support this important bill today. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Markey. I want to say you 

mentioned brownfields. Of course, that is one of the things we are 

acting on right now, and there is no better model for it, I would 

invite everyone to come to Oklahoma City, maybe after the game 

tonight, and see the Bricktown in Oklahoma City that is exactly 

what we should be doing all over America, and we are going to be 

able to do more of that with this. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, as a Rhode Island member 

on the Committee, I just wanted to put in a word of appreciation 

for the Senators Chafee, father and son, who championed this 

brownfield legislation for so many years. Of course, I will be glad 

to support it, but their work is entitled to some recognition. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask to be added as 

a co-sponsor of S. 1479, the brownfields legislation? Thank you. 

64 

Senator INHOFE. Anyone else want to be heard? If not, is there 

a motion to report S. 2816, S. 1479, S. 921, S. 2754, as amended, 

and H.R. 3114, the GSA resolutions and the nomination of Jane 

Nishida, en bloc? Is there an objection? If not, is there a motion? 

Senator CARPER. So move. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator CAPITO. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. All those in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[No audible response.] 

Senator INHOFE. The ayes have it and they are adopted. 

65 


21325.048
66 


21325.049
67 


21325.050
68 


21325.051
69 


21325.052
70 


21325.053
71 


21325.054
72 


21325.055
73 


21325.056
74 


21325.057
75 


21325.058
76 


21325.059
77 


21325.060
78 


21325.061
79 


21325.062
80 


21325.063
81 


21325.064
82 


21325.065
83 


21325.066
84 


21325.067
85 


21325.068
86 


21325.069
87 


21325.070
88 


21325.071
89 


21325.072
90 


21325.073
91 


21325.074
92 


21325.075
93 


21325.076
94 


21325.077
95 


21325.078
96 


21325.079
97 


21325.080
98 


21325.081
99 


21325.082
100 


21325.083
101 


21325.084
102 


21325.085
103 


21325.086
104 


21325.087
105 


21325.088
106 


21325.089
107 


21325.090
108 


21325.091
109 


21325.092
110 


21325.093
111 


21325.094
112 


21325.095
113 


21325.096
114 


21325.097
115 


21325.098
116 


21325.099
117 


21325.100
118 


21325.101
119 


21325.102
120 


21325.103
121 


21325.104
122 


21325.105
123 


21325.106
124 


21325.107
125 


21325.108
126 


21325.109
127 


21325.110
128 


21325.111
129 


21325.112
130 


21325.113
131 


21325.114
132 


21325.115
133 


21325.116
134 


21325.117
135 

Now, without objection, the legislation and resolutions and nomination are reported favorably to the Committee. Any Committee 

member wishing to have their vote registered in the negative for 

an item in that bloc, as long as it doesn’t affect the result of the 

vote, may do so. Simply notify our staff. 

I ask unanimous consent that the staff have authority to make 

technical and conforming changes to the measure approved today. 

With that, our meeting is at an end. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:25 a.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ