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

98–199 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–795 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF JEFFERY 

M. BARAN AND STEPHEN G. BURNS TO BE 

MEMBERS OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Waxman, Hon. Henry, U.S. Representative from the State of California .......... 2 

Inhofe, Hon. James, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .......................... 3 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .................... 6 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 7 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 8 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 10 

Markey, Hon. Edward, U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts .............. 16 

Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ............................. 18 

WITNESSES 

Baran, Jeffrey M., Nominated to be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 23 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Booker .......................................................................................... 24 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 24 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 28 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 43 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 45 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 46 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 48 

Senator Wicker .......................................................................................... 50 

Senator Fischer ......................................................................................... 51 

Burns, Stephen G., Nominated to be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 53 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 58 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Booker .......................................................................................... 59 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 60 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 63 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 82 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 82 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 84 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 86 

Senator Wicker .......................................................................................... 88 

Senator Fischer ......................................................................................... 89 

(1) 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF JEFFERY 

M. BARAN AND STEPHEN G. BURNS TO BE 

MEMBERS OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the 

committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Whitehouse, Cardin, Markey, Inhofe, 

Barrasso, Sessions and Fischer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning. 

Today, the EPW Committee is considering two nominees for the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Jeffrey Baran and Stephen 

Burns. 

These two nominees are qualified and accomplished professionals 

who have demonstrated that they have the ability to get the job 

done. 

Mr. Baran has had more than 10 years of experience working on 

nuclear energy issues in the House, including his current role as 

Staff Director for Energy and Environment on the Energy and 

Commerce Committee. 

That is why we have been graced this morning by the presence 

of Congressman Henry Waxman, one of my heroes in politics. He 

is going to introduce one of our nominees. 

I want to say that Mr. Baran has also spent more than 5 years 

as that committee’s counsel and 5 years as counsel on the House 

Oversight and Government Reform Committee. At the Energy and 

Commerce Committee, Mr. Baran was the lead staffer on 13 NRC 

hearings, including those related to NRC structure, nuclear waste 

and post-Fukushima safety. He also worked on the legislation related to the NRC and other nuclear issues. 

On a personal note, I do want to say congratulations to Mr. 

Baran and your wife on the birth of your son, Gus, on Friday. That 

is a milestone you will never forget. 

Over the past three decades, Mr. Burns has served in many roles 

at NRC. Most recently, Mr. Burns served as General Counsel from 

2009 to 2012. He also served as senior staffer to a former chairman 

2 

and deputy director of the Region Operations and Enforcement Division. Mr. Burns has played a critical role in a wide range of NRC 

policy and enforcement activities. 

Since 2012, Mr. Burns has been the head of legal affairs for the 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Nuclear 

Energy Agency. 

We all know NRC’s mission is ‘‘to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while protecting 

people and the environment.’’ I want to repeat that because I think 

it is worth repeating. The NRC’s mission is ‘‘to ensure the safe use 

of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the environment.’’ 

I believe the experience and understanding of both the nominees 

of NRC’s legal framework will serve them well in supporting NRC’s 

mission. Rather than take the committee’s time in expressing my 

concerns about what is happening in California, I will ask both 

nominees, at the appropriate time, if they will work with me. 

We have a plant that is being decommissioned. They are asking 

for all kinds of exemptions from safety rules. That concerns me. We 

have another plant that has not met the standards consistent with 

the new earthquake information that we now know. 

I have particular concerns but rather than go into them in my 

opening statement, I will save them for later. I do want to say in 

all the time that I have been here, I think these are the two most 

qualified candidates I have seen. 

That makes me really happy because this is really important as 

our nuclear plants are aging. We need to make sure that they are 

safe because frankly, if they are not safe and if they cause problems, they are problems for the entire industry and the industry’s 

future. That is where I stand on it. 

Senator BOXER. I know that Representative Waxman has other 

things he must do so if it is OK with the committee. 

Senator INHOFE. That is fine. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

We will turn to Representative Waxman. Welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, very much, Madam Chairman and 

members of the committee. 

It is a great honor for me to be with you today to introduce Jeff 

Baran, who I believe will be an enormously effective NRC commissioner. 

Jeff has had quite a week. Madam Chair, you alluded to the fact 

that his son, Gus, was just born 4 days ago. It was a question of 

timing because I think some thought the birth might happen today 

and then he would have to make a choice of being here or with the 

birth of his child. I would hope you would put your official duties 

higher but you did not have to make that choice. Also, today is the 

first day for his daughter, Mia, to go to preschool. 

Jeff was born and raised in Illinois, went to school in Ohio, to 

grad school and then to law school at Harvard where he met his 

wife, Michelle. 

3 

I can attest to the fact that he is a very effective, reliable member of the staff. He worked with me when I was chairman of the 

Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In that capacity, he 

worked on important legislation that had strong bipartisan support. 

Congressman Davis, who was chairman of the committee during 

part of the time, worked on a bipartisan basis to get reform legislation on contracting so that we could make sure we were protecting 

the taxpayers of this country from waste, fraud and abuse. 

When I became chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, he came over to that committee and has worked on energy 

issues where he has also been very skillful in crafting bipartisan 

proposals with the Republicans on our committee. 

He is an expert on the NRC and any other energy issues at the 

Department of Energy. When he worked on legislation, he looked 

for a way to build a consensus. A good example of that was the 

pipeline safety bill of 2012. I think it passed the House and the 

Senate unanimously. 

He also had legislation to develop consensus adjustments to efficiency standards for walk-in freezers and other appliances. Also, 

the hydropower bill that President Obama signed into law is an example of his efforts to reach a consensus on a bipartisan basis. 

Jeff is a fair and an open-minded person who listens to all sides. 

He is able to take tough issues and work together with his colleagues to get things done. I cannot think of anyone from my own 

experience that is more skilled and collegial, who will be a major 

asset as an NRC commissioner. 

I want to introduce him to you and take my leave because my 

committee is meeting at the same time. 

Senator BOXER. Of course, Congressman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I would be happy to talk with any of you privately 

about him to tell you the things I am not saying publicly but all 

those things would be consistent with what I have said today. I 

think he will do a great job. I urge you to give him favorable consideration. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Congressman. 

We will turn to Senator Inhofe and then Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I had a chance to visit with both nominees yesterday and had a 

very thorough discussion of some of the problems that are out 

there. I think they will work well together. 

I was a little disturbed about the rapid process we are using. 

There is an effort to even do this prior to the recess, so I appreciate 

the fact that we had that time. Yet, I think the questions for the 

record are going to be due by the end of today, is my understanding, and then they have a 24-hour turnaround. Normally, that 

process takes several days and sometimes, several weeks. 

We understand we are going to be moving on with this. We usually provide about 2 weeks for us to craft questions for the record 

but we are ready to do this now. 

4 

That said, there are a lot of problems at the NRC happening 

right now. In 2003, when I was chairman of the Air Subcommittee, 

I helped shepherd the 30 percent increase in the NRC’s budget. 

I might add, I discussed this with both nominees, that at that 

time, when I became chairman, at that time Republicans were in 

majority and I chaired that subcommittee, they had not had an 

Oversight Committee hearing in I think it was 12 years. Mr. 

Burns, I think you were very much aware of what was going on 

at that time. 

We have changed that. We have had a chance to talk about these 

things, to prepare and be a little more deliberate. As I recall, we 

actually put out every three or 4 months, we were going to have 

an oversight hearing with certain expectations. I think that was a 

major improvement. 

During that time, I helped shepherd a 30 percent increase in the 

NRC’s budget at its request to accommodate the expected nuclear 

renaissance that we thought was coming. It was expected at that 

time that four design certificates and 17 construction and operating 

license applications would be considered by the NRC. 

At that time, the agency had about 1,500 employees nationwide and the operating budget was about $300 million a year. Today, 

the budget exceeds $1 billion a year and the agency employees 

3,800. 

The agency has now grown above and beyond the 30 percent I 

helped shepherd and has more than doubled. Since then, the agency has had less than half the work that we anticipated at that time 

to justify the increased budget. It has approved only one design certificate and two new license applications. 

A legitimate review of the agency’s staff levels and current workloads needs to be examined by the Commission. I have talked with 

both of you about this and cuts need to be made if current staffing 

levels cannot be justified when compared to the mission and the 

needs of the NRC, then versus now. 

This simple question needs to be asked: can we do the same job 

with 1,500 like we did before instead of the current 3,800 employees? 

The main consequence of an overstaffed NRC, in my opinion, is 

over regulation. I talked about this. They sit around there with 

nothing to do and not enough to do. They have a lot of people so 

what do they do? Their tendency is to regulate more. I think this 

is what we are looking at right now. 

Many of these new regulations have been in response to the 

Fukushima disaster in Japan. While each rule by itself may not be 

considered costly, when added to the many other orders and regulations being considered, the cumulative costs skyrocket. 

This has become particularly problematic for the industry as it 

has struggled to regain its footing during a season of intense competition and shaky profitability, making the industry increasingly 

sensitive to the expensive regulations. 

The NRC needs to recognize this and take into full consideration 

as it considers its existing regulations and any new ones. This is 

kind of similar to the EPA, what they propose for its air rule, Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act says they are supposed to keep 

track of their regulations and their cumulative costs. 

5 

You are supposed to be doing the same. I think that is very important. The EPA has not been doing this but the EPA is an adversarial agency. That is not the situation today. They do not try to 

understand the needs of industry and the American people. They 

always have a political axe to grind. 

The NRC has not been that way and should not become that 

way. We expect more from the NRC and those are the things that 

I spoke privately with you about in my office. They were things I 

think you need to address and I look forward to the testimony of 

our witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. Burns and Mr. Baran, thank you for being here. Madam Chairman, while I 

appreciate that we’re having this hearing today, I’m concerned about the expedited 

timeline on which we’re considering these nominees. The President nominated them 

just before the August recess, and there was an effort on the part of this Committee 

to conduct the confirmation hearing during the last week of the session—and before 

the Committee received any of the paperwork from the nominees. 

While we were able to delay the hearing until now, the timeline is still rushed. 

I don’t believe everyone on the Committee has even had the opportunity to meet 

with the nominees in person, and yet it’s my understanding that the Questions for 

the Record will be due tomorrow, turned around in 24 hours by the nominees, and 

then we’ll have a business meeting to mark them up and send them to the floor 

on Thursday. Usually we provide about 2 weeks for Members to craft their QFRs 

and then consider the nominees only after Members have received satisfactory answers back. That said, we have a lot of problems at the NRC right now. Back in 

2003, I helped shepherd a 30 percent increase in the NRC’s budget—at its request— 

to accommodate the expected nuclear renaissance. It was expected at that time that 

4 design certificates and 17 Construction and Operating License Applications would 

be considered by NRC. 

At that time, the agency had about 1,500 employees nationwide, and the operating budget was about $300 million per year. Today, the budget exceeds $1 billion 

per year and the agency employs 3,800 people. The agency has now grown above 

and beyond the 30 percent I helped shepherd. It’s more than doubled. And since 

then, the agency has had less than half of the work that we anticipated—it has approved only one design certificate and two new license applications. 

A legitimate review of the agency’s staff levels and current workloads needs to 

be examined by the Commission, and cuts need to be made if current staff levels 

cannot be justified when compared to the mission and needs of the NRC. This simple question needs to be asked: can we do the same job with 1,500 like we did before, instead of with our current 3,800? The main consequence of an overstaffed 

NRC is overregulation, and we’ve seen this with the relaxed perspective the agency 

has taken on the cumulative cost of its regulations. Many of these new regulations 

have been in response to the Fukushima disaster in Japan, and while each rule by 

itself may not be considered costly, when added to the many other orders and regulations being considered, the cumulative costs skyrocket. 

This has become particularly problematic for the industry as it has struggled to 

regain its footing during a season of intense competition and shaky profitability, 

making the industry increasingly sensitive to expensive regulations that do little— 

if anything—to actually improve their safe operation. NRC needs to recognize this 

and take it into full consideration as it considers its existing regulations and any 

new ones. This is something the EPA is supposed to do for its air rules. Section 

321(a) of the Clean Air Act says they are supposed to keep track of their regulations’ 

cumulative cost. EPA has not been doing this, but EPA is an adversarial agency. 

They do not try to understand the needs of industry and the American people. They 

always have a political axe to grind. NRC hasn’t been that I way—and it should 

not become that way. I expect more from the NRC, and I hope you two appreciate 

where I am coming from. 

Again, thank you again for being here; I look forward to asking you questions. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

6 

I just want to reassure my colleagues on both sides that Senator 

Vitter and I worked on how to handle these openings together. We 

never went forward until we got his approval. It is because we 

have two vacancies and he urged us to apply the same sense of urgency. 

Senator INHOFE. I was not complaining about it. It was just an 

observation. 

Senator BOXER. I know, and it is a very legitimate observation, 

but we did have a resignation and someone who was not reappointed. I just want to reassure the committee that we would 

never have done this if we didn’t have the agreement of Senator 

Vitter. 

Also, Senator, you have pointed out many times the lack of oversight but since I became chairman, we have done nine oversight 

hearings. I just wanted to make that clear for the record. 

Senator Whitehouse has agreed to allow Senator Cardin to go 

first because of his schedule, plus he is going to introduce Mr. 

Burns. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Madam Chair, first of all, thank you for accommodating this hearing. Let me thank Senator Whitehouse for allowing me to go next so I can get the introduction of Mr. Burns 

shortly after Congressman Waxman introduced Mr. Baran. 

We welcome both of you and your families and we thank you 

both for your willingness to serve our country. We know it is a family event, public service, so we also thank your families for this. 

As the Senator from Maryland, I take great interest in NRC 

since it is headquartered in Rockville, Maryland. Maryland has two 

nuclear reactors at Culvert Cliffs. It is a matter of great importance to Maryland. 

NRC is an independent agency that neither promotes nor hinders 

nuclear power but regulates it in the most efficient and effective 

way, recognizing the need for public safety and our environment. 

I strongly support its mission. I am pleased our two nominees are 

willing to serve in this extremely important position. 

Mr. Burns is a dedicated public servant who spent 33 years at 

NRC before becoming the head of Legal Affairs for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, a nuclear 

energy agency in Paris, a position he has held since 2012. 

Mr. Burns was NRC’s general counsel from 2009 to 2012, deputy 

general counsel from 1998 to 2009, and associate general counsel 

for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration from 1994 to 1998. 

I would emphasize that Mr. Burns was promoted to general 

counsel by then NRC Chairman, Dale Klein, a Republican. He 

works across party lines very effectively. 

Steve Burns also served at NRC as director of the Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication from 1991 to 1994, executive assistant to the then NRC chairman, Kenneth Carr from 1989 to 1991, 

legal assistant to Commissioner Carr from 1986 to 1989 and deputy director of the Regional Operations and Enforcement Division 

from 1986 to 1991. He began his career at NRC as an attorney in 

the Regional Operations and Enforcement Division in 1978. 

7 

I went through all that because I don’t think we can find anyone 

who has more experience with NRC than Mr. Burns. He has devoted his life to these issues. 

He received his BA from Colgate University, his JD from the 

George Washington University Law Center and has been a long 

time resident of the State of Maryland and we are very proud of 

that, except for the time that he lived in Paris because of his duties 

at OECD. We will forgive you for your leaving us for that short period of time. 

I know that Christopher, your son, is here. You have a daughter, 

Allison, who I have been told was a member of the field hockey 

championship in our State. Congratulations to her. 

Steve Burns and his wife, Joan, have been active in local community organizations such as the PTA, Boy Scouts and their church. 

Madam Chair, I doubt if we could find a more qualified individual to fill this extremely important role. I am very proud to introduce Stephen Burns to the committee. I would urge his favorable consideration. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I thank our nominees. I enjoyed the opportunity to meet with you 

and discuss my ideas, insights and concerns about the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. It is a very, very important commission. 

You would be taking seats that have been held by very competent 

persons. 

It was said earlier that you two are the most qualified nominees 

we have had. I don’t think that is accurate really. Former NRC 

Commissioner George Apostolakis, who is being replaced, is a 

member of the National Academy of Engineering and has a PhD 

in Engineering Science and Applied Mathematics. 

He received awards for his contributions to nuclear safety before 

his nomination and was a noted risk analysis expert, the kind of 

background you would look for Former NRC Commissioner William 

Magwood, IV, who is being replaced, served for many years as the 

Department of Energy’s Nuclear Energy Director. That is the work 

he focused on and helped arrest the decline in nuclear energy engineering in the United States. At the time of his nomination, he was 

familiar with the technical and technological aspects of the nuclear 

industry. 

I feel we have a lawyer who comes from a little different background. Mr. Baran served as a staff member to Congress. They did 

have some oversight of nuclear issues but that wasn’t your primary 

duty. Senator Waxman referred to the pipeline safety legislation, 

hydropower legislation, not focused primarily on nuclear issues. 

Mr. Burns, you have a long resume as a legal staffer. 

I expressed my concern to you about the memo for then Chairman Jaczko authorizing him to assume emergency powers that I 

think was unwise. I do not believe the accident in Japan justified 

giving a legal opinion, whether he exercised it or not fully, but you 

gave a legal opinion that would authorize him to execute decisions 

8 

on behalf of the NRC without consulting other members. I think 

that was a mistake. 

I am also concerned about the court criticism of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s actions with regard to Yucca Mountain. I 

think some of the efforts you made there legally have been criticized in that regard. 

Gentlemen, I know nothing bad about you personally. You have 

a general appreciation for the issues relevant to this institution. It 

is not in my view the perfect resume. 

I understand Senator Reid thinks he has great influence over 

this commission and these nominees are a part of his involvement. 

He certainly has opposed Yucca Mountain. We spent $15 billion 

preparing that site and still have not yet had it operational. 

In conclusion, thank you for your willingness to serve. You are 

entitled to fair and just consideration. I served with Senator Inhofe 

when I first came to the Senate on that committee, when he 

chaired that subcommittee. We spent a lot of time talking about 

nuclear issues for America. 

I believe that nuclear power has to be a part of the mix. We have 

50 to 60 years where not one American has been killed or made 

ill even as a result of a nuclear power accident. It represents 60 

percent of the carbon free electricity generated in America. 

This commission, at this critical time, has the potential for good 

to help this industry survive and be successful in a safe way and 

it can go in the other direction. It can burden the industry so much 

that it cannot be successful in the future. 

If you are confirmed, I hope you will understand the gravity of 

the office you would be undertaking and understand these issues 

as you do your work and would be willing to resist political and 

emotional pressures and do the right thing for the country. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

We will now turn to Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Just briefly. 

As chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, 

I just want to say that I support both of these nominees. 

I share Senator Sessions’ sentiment regarding the carbon free nature of nuclear power and would urge these candidates, if they are 

confirmed, to make sure that the Commission is not an undue impediment, particularly to the development of new nuclear technologies like thorium reactors, traveling wave reactors and small 

modular reactors. 

I think there is enormous promise in those, particularly in ones 

that can burn through our existing nuclear waste and turn it back 

into healthy power and energy rather than sitting there as poisonous and dangerous waste. 

Also, I will urge them both to be active on the safety side. Here 

I have a Rhode Island interest. Rhode Island is within the 50 mile 

ingestion exposure pathway for both the Pilgrim and Millstone nuclear plants which are not located in our State but, as I said, we 

are in the risk area for them if things go wrong. 

9 

I think it is very important that the NRC be active in making 

sure that the operators of these plants are energetically participating in the safety and potential evacuation measures that need 

to be established and in place in case there is an event. 

It is not exactly what the industry wants to lead with so I think 

it is important for the NRC to be a strong voice in that area. 

Based on conversations I have had with both applicants, I think 

they understand my views and I am prepared to support their 

nominations. 

May I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be made 

a matter of record? 

Senator BOXER. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Whitehouse follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter, for holding this hearing 

to consider the nominations of Jeffery Baran and Stephen Burns to serve as members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

One of the NRC’s most important functions is to ensure our country’s active and 

retired reactors are safe and secure. We don’t have any nuclear power plants in 

Rhode Island, but we are within the 50-mile Ingestion Exposure Pathway of the 

Millstone nuclear power station in Connecticut and the Pilgrim nuclear power station in Massachusetts. Both plants sit on the Atlantic Coast, where they face increasing risks from extreme weather events, coastal flooding, and sea-level rise, 

caused by carbon pollution changing our atmosphere and oceans. Ensuring these facilities can withstand natural disasters or other emergencies is important to Rhode 

Island, especially in the face of rising threats from climate change. 

The Fukushima disaster reminds us that technology at the world’s nuclear facilities has remained largely stagnant over the past sixty years, despite significant scientific advances and how high the stakes are. In the U.S., our nuclear fleet is aging, 

and in the last few years, many reactors have gone offline. 

An aging and retiring fleet raises questions about safety, but also presents new 

challenges. When nuclear reactors close, other power sources generally must fill the 

gap. To reduce carbon pollution—particularly, to meet the targets outlined in the 

President’s Climate Action Plan—we must explore all potential options and technologies for zero-carbon power. This includes the continued, safe use of our existing 

reactors, and investing in advanced nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors and traveling wave reactors, which may be able to produce abundant energy 

while generating less carbon pollution. 

The NRC has an important role to play in the implementation of advanced nuclear technologies by promptly reviewing new reactor designs and applying the lessons learned from disasters like Fukushima to ensure that designs are safe. 

The nominees before us are eminently qualified and up to the task. 

Jeff Baran is a long-time congressional aide who has significant energy expertise, 

including through his work on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where 

he helped oversee NRC’s programs, policies, licensing, and budget. Mr. Baran has 

a strong record of working on bipartisan legislation, including bills to address pipeline safety, drilling safety, electric grid security, electric grid reliability, medical isotopes, hydropower licensing, and energy efficiency. His congressional experience, 

knowledge of nuclear issues and the energy sector more broadly, and his willingness 

and ability to work across the aisle will serve him, the NRC, and this Committee 

well as we work to address our nation’s nuclear challenges. 

Stephen Burns is also well qualified to serve as an NRC Commissioner. His more 

than thirty years of experience working at NRC, including as General Counsel, 

speak to his immense knowledge of the agency and the issues it faces, as well as 

his dedication to public service. Mr. Burns has worked for multiple NRC Chairmen 

and dozens of Commissioners over his career, and will be a strong addition to the 

NRC as a Commissioner himself. 

If they are confirmed, the NRC will benefit from the independent judgment and 

expertise of both Jeff Baran and Stephen Burns. I welcome the nominees to our 

Committee today, and am pleased to support their nominations. 

10 

Senator BOXER. Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I appreciate the opportunity to have this hearing today on the 

two nominees to sit on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Congratulations to both of you on your nominations. 

First, let me say that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vital 

to ensuring nuclear safety. It is important for this committee to 

make sure this mission is carried out effectively. 

Although there are some who may question policy decisions made 

by the Commission, I believe, Madam Chairman, that we have 

come a long way from where the Commission was just a few years 

ago under the previous chairman. 

I am always concerned that the progress the NRC has made 

could be undone if we don’t have qualified individuals in all the 

commissioner slots on the Commission. For example, the Administration failed to renominate Commissioner Apostolakis to continue 

his tenure on this Commission. 

I don’t understand the rationale for this at all. I agree with Senator Sessions. He was a vital member of the Commission with 

years of experience and the President failed to renominate him. It 

appears that politics, not qualifications, were at the heart of the decision. 

In an article that appeared in Politico on August 27 entitled, 

‘‘How Reid Holds Veto Power Over Obama,’’ the article describes 

the Majority Leader’s strong influence in micromanaging the selection of nominees to the NRC as well as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for political gain. 

The article states, ‘‘The Nevada Democrat’s unusually tight grip 

on nominations for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has given him an effective 

veto power over the people Obama appoints to their five-member 

leadership boards. They, in turn, have advanced policy priorities 

important to his State from blocking the proposed nuclear waste 

site in Yucca Mountain to opening the electrical grid to more wind, 

solar and geothermal plants across the west.’’ 

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this 

article from Politico be included in the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

11 


98199.068
12 


98199.069
13 


98199.070
14 


98199.071
15 


98199.072
16 

Senator BARRASSO. We do need to maintain a full, qualified slate 

of commissioners who continue to protect our communities by ensuring nuclear safety. This is best achieved by having experienced 

commissioners who aren’t removed and called names on the Senate 

floor because they don’t share the Majority Leader’s narrow political agenda. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is an important asset to 

overseeing nuclear power. The Commission can ensure that nuclear 

energy can continue to be an important part of America’s energy 

mix. It is safe, baseload power that runs 24 hours a day, 7 days 

a week. Nuclear energy also can make America energy secure and 

energy independent. 

In my home State of Wyoming, uranium is in abundance. If we 

can continue to develop this resource, we can have a steady supply 

of domestic fuel stock to power American homes and businesses for 

years to come. 

If we are to have a true, all out, all of the above energy strategy, 

we must continue with building new nuclear power plants. This is 

essential to the future of nuclear power in America. 

What we cannot do is hamper nuclear power by over regulating 

the plants that we have running today. We must strike a balance 

to ensure the safety of our communities while continuing to ensure 

the viability of nuclear power. 

We need to have nominees who will support policies that ensure 

nuclear safety while allowing nuclear energy to continue to be a 

vital part of our Nation’s energy mix. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I look forward to the testimony. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for calling this very important hearing to consider the nominations of two 

highly qualified individuals to serve as Nuclear Regulatory commissioners. 

I have served on one of the NRC’s oversight committees for more 

than 38 years. Throughout that time, I have seen many fine and 

dedicated chairmen, commissioners and staff work valiantly to ensure the safety and security of this Nation’s nuclear facilities. 

While I have often been a critic of many of the agency’s actions, 

throughout most of that time, I have been able to get the answers 

to the questions as well as the materials which I have needed in 

order to conduct my oversight and legislative responsibilities. 

Regrettably, that changed about 2 years ago after I sent a series 

of oversight letters requesting information about serious safety allegations brought to my office by whistleblowers. Instead of answering the letters, the Commission altered its policy on how it 

would communicate with Congress going forward. 

It said that individual Senators would no longer be entitled to receive non-public documents from the agency, even if the materials 

being requested were about a nuclear reactor located in the Senator’s State. 

17 

I was successful in reversing this misguided decision legislatively. The law now requires the NRC to abide by its old policy but 

the agency is still refusing to comply with this law and will not respond to many of my information requests about serious safety and 

security matters. 

At the same time, the NRC is also confronted with other serious 

challenges. It is nowhere near finished implementing the safety 

measures recommended by its top experts following the Fukushima 

meltdowns. 

It is facing a number of newly decommissioning reactors for the 

first time in many years and has to address the spent fuel that is 

filling the spent fuel pools at reactor sites to capacity. 

It is increasingly coming under fire for ignoring the safety or security warnings of its own employees who are then retaliated 

against because they raised the concerns in the first place. 

There is nothing more certain to undermine confidence in an 

agency, and by extension the nuclear power sector as a whole, than 

this dangerous combination of secrecy, stalling and whistleblower 

retaliation. 

I am very hopeful that the two of you can help the agency restore 

some of that confidence and I am grateful to you both for agreeing 

to take on this responsibility. You are both dedicated and qualified 

professionals with this expertise and experience that a strong regulator needs. 

Mr. Baran has worked closely with me and with my staff for 

years and we have worked on many issues together. For example, 

we worked together to include the nuclear energy provisions in the 

Waxman-Markey bill. That passed through the House of Representatives with the endorsement of the Nuclear Energy Institute. 

We also worked together on the passage of the Markey-Waxman 

bill to increase the domestic supply of medical isotopes and the passage of a second bill with Fred Upton through the House where we 

upgraded the security of our electric grid so that it would not be 

vulnerable to cyber attack. 

In each one of those instances, all of this expertise is directly relevant to the job for which he is sitting here as a nominee. He is 

a consummate professional, unfailingly knowledgeable and with an 

uncanny ability to devise a bipartisan compromise when no one believes compromise is possible. 

If confirmed, I know he will also have a strong appreciation for 

what information Congress needs to do its job. 

I also want to congratulate you on the birth of your son last Friday. Congratulations. It has been a big week in your family. 

Mr. Burns, you have a long and distinguished career at the NRC. 

You have worked for many chairmen and with many commissioners. You started at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 

1978, just 3 years after the birth of the agency. 

As we all know, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created 

because there was a concern that the Atomic Energy Agency had 

the responsibility of promoting nuclear power and regulating it simultaneously. It was considered to be an inherent conflict of interest so the NRC had to be created to just focus on the safety agenda. 

I think you brought a wealth of information right from the very 

beginning of this agency serving in a very distinguished way. I conVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:26 May 18, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98199.TXT VERN
18 

gratulate you and I hope you can receive the unanimous support 

of this committee. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Fischer? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I would like to thank the nominees for being here today and for 

your willingness to serve the public. We appreciate it. 

We, unfortunately, were unable to meet ahead of today’s hearing 

so I would like to take this opportunity to share a bit about my 

home State of Nebraska and our perspective on nuclear energy 

issues. 

Nebraska has the unique distinction of being the only State in 

the Union where every single home and business receives electric 

service from publicly owned utilities. We are proud of our 100 percent public power system which delivers affordable and reliable 

electricity to all Nebraskans. 

Our State is fortunate to enjoy electricity costs that are well 

below the national average thanks in part to nuclear energy. We 

receive more than a quarter of our State’s electricity from two nuclear power plants. Our citizens appreciate access to this clean and 

affordable energy source. 

The continued success of nuclear operations in Nebraska is dependent upon the cooperation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

One of the two nuclear plants in Nebraska, the Omaha Public 

Power District’s Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station, recently sustained 

an extended outage of 987 days. The plant worked closely with 

NRC to ensure a safe restart and has been back up and running 

since December 2013. 

Fort Calhoun remains under increased oversight as a part of its 

restart but is working to return to the standard reactor oversight 

process at the earliest opportunity. The continued support of NRC 

to reach this goal as quickly as possible is very important. 

We are also hopeful that following a process of more than 7 

years, the license renewal for the Crow Butte Uranium Mining Operation will be completed. Also pending before the NRC are license 

applications for development of tree expansionsites in Nebraska so 

our nuclear fuel resources can be safely developed for years to 

come. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission plays an important role in 

ensuring the safety and security of our nuclear power and inspiring 

the public trust and confidence that we have in our system. As the 

NRC does its work, it is critical that the Commission adheres to 

its principles of good regulation: independence, openness, efficiency, 

clarity and reliability. 

Now, more than ever, we need an agency that will put these 

principles into practice from the implementation of new safety enhancements to the review and approval to licensing requests. There 

is a great deal at stake for the U.S. nuclear industry. 

19 

I look forward to continuing our discussion on these issues and 

again, I offer my gratitude to the nominees for your willingness to 

serve. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Now we turn to Mr. Baran for his opening statement. 

By the way, we will put your full statement in the record. If you 

can keep it to 5 minutes, that would be great. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFERY M. BARAN, NOMINATED TO BE A 

MEMBER OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. BARAN. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and members of the 

committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today before 

the Environment and Public Works Committee. 

I am honored to have been nominated by President Obama to 

serve on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

I am deeply grateful to Congressman Waxman for his kind words 

and support. For more than a decade I have had the privilege of 

working for one of the most accomplished legislators in our Nation’s history. It has been a tremendous opportunity and I appreciate it. 

I also want to thank my wife, Michelle, our 3-year old daughter, 

Mia, and our newborn son, Gus. 

It is a pleasure to be here with my fellow nominee, Steve Burns. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with Steve as well 

as Chairman Macfarlane and Commissioners Svinicki and 

Ostendorff. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates 100 commercial 

nuclear reactors operating in 31 States. These reactors generate 

about 20 percent of the electricity in the United States, providing 

low carbon baseload power. 

NRC also oversees dozens of research and test reactors, thousands of nuclear materials licenses and a number of other fuel 

cycle facilities such as uranium recovery sites, enrichment facilities 

and fuel fabrication facilities. 

NRC has the vital mission of protecting public health and safety, 

promoting the common defense and security and protecting the environment. That mission has never been more important. 

The Commission is implementing lessons learned from the 

Fukushima accident. Five new reactors are being built while five 

older reactors are retiring. The Commission is facing a range of 

other challenging licensing and policy matters. 

If confirmed, I would approach the issues before the Commission 

with an open mind and a collegial attitude. My approach is to hear 

from all interested parties, understand the facts and then work to 

find solutions with broad support. 

I am proud of my track record of working with my Democratic 

and Republican colleagues and the Energy and Commerce Committee staff, as well as a range of stakeholders to develop bipartisan legislation that gets enacted into law. 

During the last few years, I played a significant role in negotiating bills that have become law with overwhelming bipartisan 

support, including the Pipeline Safety bill and bills on energy efficiency, hydropower and medical isotopes. I welcome the opporVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:26 May 18, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98199.TXT VERN
20 

tunity to bring my demonstrated consensus building approach to 

the Commission. 

If confirmed, I believe that my policymaking and legal experience 

would be an asset to the Commission. On the Energy and Commerce Committee staff, one of my primary areas of responsibility 

has been oversight of NRC. 

I have worked on a range of NRC issues including new reactor 

licensing, existing reactor oversight and decommissioning, high 

level waste and low level waste, imports of nuclear material and 

exports of nuclear technology and uranium mining, milling and enrichment issues. 

Over the years, I have had the privilege of being briefed by NRC 

senior managers and technical staff on numerous occasions. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to work with these highly 

skilled professionals, benefiting from their insights and expertise. 

After working for Congress for more than a decade, I have a deep 

respect for the importance and value of congressional oversight. If 

confirmed, I will do everything I can to ensure that the committee 

has the information it needs to meet its oversight responsibilities. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baran follows:] 

21 


98199.001
22 


98199.002
23 


98199.003
24 


98199.004
25 


98199.005
26 


98199.006
27 


98199.007
28 


98199.008
29 


98199.009
30 


98199.010
31 


98199.011
32 


98199.012
33 


98199.013
34 


98199.014
35 


98199.015
36 


98199.016
37 


98199.017
38 


98199.018
39 


98199.019
40 


98199.020
41 


98199.021
42 


98199.022
43 


98199.023
44 


98199.024
45 


98199.025
46 


98199.026
47 


98199.027
48 


98199.028
49 


98199.029
50 


98199.030
51 


98199.031
52 


98199.032
53 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Baran. 

Mr. BURNS. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN G. BURNS, NOMINATED TO BE A 

MEMBER OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

It is a pleasure to be here before you. I thank you and the members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. 

I am honored to have been nominated by the President to serve 

as a commissioner on the NRC and if confirmed, I pledge that I 

will dedicate myself to the critical safety and security mission of 

the agency and to work well with my fellow commissioners, including Mr. Baran as well as the existing commissioners, Dr. 

Macfarlane and Commissioners Ostendorff and Svinicki, and to cooperate with the committee in fulfilling its important oversight 

role. 

I want to thank my family, particularly my wife, Joan, who is 

watching in Paris today via video and my son, Chris, who is here 

with me, and my daughter, Allison, for their support and encouragement as I appear before you today. 

I want to express my appreciation to former colleagues with 

whom I have worked over the years at the NRC for their best wishes and their support for my nomination. 

My professional life reflects a tradition of public service in my 

family. It goes back to my grandfather who was a volunteer fireman in White Plains, New York and my father, who after graduating from West Point, served a career in the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers. After retiring from the military, he served local governments in West Chester County, New York and two towns in 

Massachusetts. 

I learned from my father the importance of integrity and honesty 

in carrying out one’s responsibilities. I have tried to incorporate 

those values in whatever position I have been assigned. 

As Senator Cardin noted, I retired as a career employee from the 

NRC in 2012 before taking on my current post at the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency in Paris. I joined the NRC in 1978 in its honors attorneys program and as noted, spent a career there. 

I was provided tremendous opportunities as a young lawyer to 

work with NRC technical staff on a number of critical issues facing 

the agency such as the implementation of safety improvements 

after Three Mile Island and enhancements to NRC’s enforcement 

and investigations programs. 

An important experience for me was my onsite support to an 

NRC incident investigation team in its evaluation of the loss of 

feedwater incident at the Davis-Besse plant in 1985, one of the 

most significant events after the Three Mile Island accident. 

These early years at the agency taught me the importance of 

good communication and cooperation with the NRC staff to support 

the NRC’s mission. I served on the staff of commissioner and later 

chairman Kenneth M. Carr, a retired Navy admiral who had 

served on the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear submarine, who later 

commanded the Atlantic Submarine Fleet. 

54 

As his legal advisor and later chief of staff, I was deeply involved 

in efforts to adopt licensing reform proposals that are now applied 

to new reactor licensing under NRC regulations, as well as to adopt 

the maintenance rule and establish a framework for license renewal. 

After his term ended in 1991, I became the head of the new Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication which the Commission 

had established to assist it in taking more direct responsibility for 

adjudicatory matters that came before the agency. 

In organizing the office, I focused on establishing a process that 

would allow the Commission to reach timely decisions on adjudicatory matters. 

When I returned to the Office of General Counsel in 1994, I 

served as associate general counsel and then deputy general counsel for many years. In these positions, I was senior counsel to the 

executive director for Operations and managed the legal staff responsible for providing advice on licensing and enforcement matters, personnel and contracting matters and representing the staff 

in agency adjudications. 

I served on a number of agency task forces on significant issues 

to involve the implementation, for example, of the agency’s license 

renewal rule. 

The Commission approved Chair Dale Klein’s appointment of me 

as general counsel in 2009. As general counsel, I managed a staff 

of some 110 employees to provide legal services across a range of 

agency activities. 

I was always mindful of the responsibility to support all commissioners in carrying out their duties. I always sought to ensure that 

my advice reflected due consideration of the relevant legal principles. 

As you know, since 2012, I have been at the NEA in Paris. I have 

been working with international partners who are members of the 

agency in accomplishing the NEA’s mission to help the safe, environmentally friendly implementation of nuclear power for countries 

who choose to do so. 

During my work at the NEA, I have noticed the tremendous esteem in which the international community holds the NRC. If confirmed, I believe with my experience at NRC and NEA, I will strive 

to continue to try to achieve that same reputation at the NRC. 

I have enormous respect for the staff, I have enormous respect 

for the commissioners and I will promise you that I understand the 

importance of ensuring the strength and integrity of the institution 

to carry out its mission. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:] 

55 


98199.033
56 


98199.034
57 


98199.035
58 


98199.036
59 


98199.037
60 


98199.038
61 


98199.039
62 


98199.040
63 


98199.041
64 


98199.042
65 


98199.043
66 


98199.044
67 


98199.045
68 


98199.046
69 


98199.047
70 


98199.048
71 


98199.049
72 


98199.050
73 


98199.051
74 


98199.052
75 


98199.053
76 


98199.054
77 


98199.055
78 


98199.056
79 


98199.057
80 


98199.058
81 


98199.059
82 


98199.060
83 


98199.061
84 


98199.062
85 


98199.063
86 


98199.064
87 


98199.065
88 


98199.066
89 


98199.067
90 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

We have dwindled down to a precious few, as they say, but we 

now see Senator Sessions back so we will have a little more excitement. 

Let me say to both of you, first of all, thank you so much for 

bringing Chris here. I am sure his proud knows no bounds in carrying on the tradition of family service. I know Gus has many more 

interesting things to do than to be here today. I just want to say 

I appreciate the family values that you bring to your world and to 

work. We appreciate it. 

Instead of asking you this particular open-ended question, I am 

going to ask you to please write it today. The question is, can you 

briefly write about how your experience and qualifications will contribute to your ability to serve as an NRC commissioner in a very 

objective way and how your experience will lead you to fostering a 

collegial atmosphere? 

We all know there was a period of time, different people on this 

committee blame other people for it but that is not the way, we 

want to make sure that we can disagree and not be disagreeable 

because there may be some times when there is disagreement. 

We have that on this committee. Senator Inhofe and I are very 

dear friends; Senator Sessions and I have a very warm relationship 

even though we disagree. That is important. If you could write that 

to us, brief, I don’t need a whole biography, just an answer and 

that would be great. 

I am sorry that Senator Barrasso had to leave. He did bring up 

an issue that Senator Reid was interested in this. So am I. I don’t 

want to surprise anyone when I say this but I don’t think it comes 

as a big surprise that a Majority Leader of either party is interested in what appointments the President makes. 

You can go all the way back to the original Majority Leaders because they set the agenda. If they feel uncomfortable with the appointments, it is uncomfortable for them. 

I just want to say whether Mitch McConnell was the Majority 

Leader, Harry Reid, Bob Dole, Tom Daschle, just in the time I have 

been here we have had several from both parties, they all cared 

about who the commissioners are. It is not a big surprise. Majority 

Leaders care. 

That is the system. If we don’t like the system, we can take away 

the power from Majority Leaders to have any opinion and to schedule. Frankly, that is the one power they have, to schedule. That is 

a bigger issue than just saying Senator Reid cares about this. Of 

course he cares about this for obvious reasons in his State. 

We all care about our States first and foremost. That is the way 

it is. I wanted to really make that point. 

Recently, the public learned that NRC’s former senior inspector 

at the Diablo Nuclear Power Plant in California told NRC unequivocally that the Diablo Canyon is not in compliance with the 

seismic safety requirements of its license. 

I am not going to ask you for details because you don’t know any 

of the details. I just want to ask you in general, as a general matter, do you believe that reactor operators have to comply with the 

requirements specified by the NRC in their operating licenses? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes. 

91 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. I think that is important because NRC makes 

the decision and then I think they should enforce it. 

The other question has to do with the decommissioning of a plant 

that we have, the San Onofre. So many millions of people live in 

the area and we have an issue that deals with the operator asking 

to be relieved from certain safety requirements. 

I am not asking your opinion on it. If you are successful, would 

you be open to meeting with me and others and talking about the 

safety of the decommissioning. Would you be willing to meet with 

me as I would meet with all the commissioners? 

Mr. BARAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. BURNS. Certainly. 

Senator BOXER. That is good. 

Last has to do with the withholding of documents which I think 

is critical. We are going to ask you before you leave if you will 

make these documents available to us? I am sure you will answer 

yes, everyone does, but meanwhile, we have a real problem. We 

cannot get documents. The NRC has told me there is a separation 

of powers and this committee doesn’t deserve certain documents. 

I am going to ask you each to answer. Do you believe that NRC’s 

oversight committees should get information they ask NRC to give 

them? In other words, should our committee and any other committee of Congress that asks you, should we get those documents 

pursuant to well established congressional oversight authority and 

will each of you work with me and others on the committee to improve NRC’s responsiveness to Congress, whether it is about the 

budget, a particular facility or any question. We have different 

questions. Will you work with us and have openness because I have 

not seen that coming from the Commission lately? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes, Madam Chairman. I make that commitment to 

you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, Madam Chairman. I will work with you. In my 

past experience, I have worked through a lot of issues and sometimes tough document issues with committees. In my view, the 

Congress has an important oversight role and we should try to help 

in that role. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I say to both of you gentlemen, in my opening statement, I talked 

about my concern over the cumulative effect of costs to industry, 

to providers, to stakeholders, to the public of all these rules. When 

we complained about this, as I said in my opening statement, about 

the EPA that it is more of an adversarial relationship, that is one 

that they have a political agenda. 

You guys should not. I think this is something that rather than 

forcefully say we need to have this, that you should be doing it anyway. It is my understanding there are some 50 rules or regulations 

now that would be in some level of progress. I certainly do not understand where we are with these. 

92 

On these and any others, I would ask for your commitment to 

come up with the costs, with the cumulative effect of these regulations. 

Mr. BARAN. Thank you, Senator. 

My understanding is that the NRC staff is currently looking at 

the cumulative effects question and has had a series of public 

meetings on that topic. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing 

their findings when they are submitted in the coming months. 

The NRC’s focus is on nuclear safety but there are built-in regulatory mechanisms to make sure that the costs and benefits of requirements being considered are fully evaluated and that is the 

right approach. 

Senator INHOFE. We all agree that your function is to provide 

and ensure safety. However, that does not happen in a vacuum. 

Would you make a commitment insofar as that is concerned, Mr. 

Burns? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, I will commit to looking at that issue in cooperation with my fellow commissioners. I have prior experience with 

the backfitting rule. As I was leaving the agency in 2012, the idea 

of doing a more focused effort to consider cumulative effects was 

under consideration. I will commit to doing that. 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. 

When you try to explain this to someone who is outside of Washington, they don’t understand it. I have tried. I am at fault because 

I was the chairman at that time of the subcommittee that jurisdiction of preparing for a major increase in nuclear activity on behalf 

of the NRC that they get themselves prepared for that with the 

staff. 

They went from 1,500 to 3,800 people. Let me think about that. 

That is more than double, 1,500 to 3,800 people. The budget actually tripled from $300 million to $1 billion. Now, instead of having 

the anticipated 1,700 construction and operating licenses, we have 

2. 

This should be a no-brainer. It is not your fault but you are faced 

with this now. I want to see some kind of response to this. Is one 

of the responses to bring it back down to the previous levels before 

in terms of personnel and costs? What do you think, Mr. Baran? 

Mr. BARAN. The NRC staff is taking a look at this very issue. 

Senator INHOFE. Wait a minute. You are having the staff look at 

the issue as to themselves, the justification of staff. I am not sure 

that is a real objective process, is it? 

Mr. BARAN. My understanding is they are taking a 5-year look 

and trying to make sure that resources, including personnel, are 

matched in a good way with the workload. That assessment is 

going to be presented to the Commission. 

Senator INHOFE. If that occurs, there are jobs for 5 years then, 

is that what you are saying? 

Mr. BARAN. It is a policy issue that would be decided at the Commission level with the input of the staff currently taking a look at 

the staffing levels and how that matches up. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Burns? 

Mr. BURNS. Senator, I think, as Mr. Baran noted, I think the 

Commission’s responsibility is to take a hard look at what the staff 

valuation. My experience is staff always is providing to the ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:26 May 18, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98199.TXT VERN
93 

mission proposed budgets through the budget cycle and the budget 

processes. 

I agree with you that you have to take a hard look at what the 

agency’s priorities are and the work it has on its plate and ensure 

it is focused on the safety mission. To the extent there are licensing 

issues before it, it should ensure those are adequately addressed. 

My commitment to you is I am willing to take that hard look to 

assure the agency’s resources are focused in the right way. 

Senator INHOFE. Madam Chairman, my time has expired but my 

last question has to do with Fukushima. Should I go ahead and do 

that or save that for another round? What is your recommendation? 

Senator BOXER. We are not going to do another round so go right 

ahead. 

Senator INHOFE. A lot of the regulations being considered by the 

NRC today are in response to the Fukushima disaster in Japan. I 

think one thing that often gets lost in the discussion is how different our cultures and regulatory structures are. In many ways 

our system is always well protected against an accident like that 

happening here at home. 

In some areas, it has to do with who can make the decision and 

in other areas, it has to do with our experience from 9/11. 

Could each of you discuss how the Japanese and the U.S. cultures and regulatory models are different? I mentioned this to both 

of you in the office, but it needs to be in the record. Would you do 

that? 

In other words, where are we that it is different from Fukushima 

and the regulatory system that was found at that time in Japan? 

Mr. BURNS. Senator, as you and I discussed yesterday, very 

quickly, there are two things. One, I think the U.S. learned the lessons of the importance of a strong regulator and a separate regulator in the 1970’s, both when the NRC was created out of the 

AEC, as Senator Markey referenced, and also the lessons coming 

out of Three Mile Island. 

In terms of what I will call the institutional structures, I think 

that was very important to the United States. 

The second thing I would say is, as you note, there are a number 

of things the U.S. and the NRC did after 9/11 that I think had benefits across the board. Some of those things were not adopted in 

Japan. I think we benefited from that. 

There are things that the agency has under consideration. I don’t 

know the particular status of them, but those are things I think 

we need to look at to make sure the commitments the agency made 

to follow through and make decisions on are done. 

I would agree with you. I think there are some things that we 

were in good stead and it is assured that those things are strong 

and if need be, to be built upon. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you agree with that, Mr. Baran? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes, I do. 

Senator INHOFE. Just for the record, you might send me the specifics you are talking about which we probably already have but I 

want them coming from you. Would you do that? 

Mr. BARAN. OK. 

Mr. BURNS. Certainly. 

94 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator MARKEY. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

I was able to insert language into last year’s omnibus appropriations bill that reversed NRC’s efforts to withhold information from 

Congress and restore the old document policy. I am disappointed 

to say that the NRC is currently breaking that law. 

That is because NRC is withholding documents that I have requested on a range of important issues, including the circumstances under which NRC allowed Chinese nationals 

unescorted access to Westinghouse nuclear reactors at the very 

same time that other Chinese spies were hacking into Westinghouse. 

If you are confirmed, do each of you commit to following the law 

which calls for NRC to provide non-public documents to members 

of NRC’s oversight committees and members who are asking for information about reactors located in their States or near their 

States? 

Mr. Baran? 

Mr. BARAN. The 2011 internal Commission procedure which you 

earlier referred to is the hold procedure. It ensured that documents 

were available not just to the committee but to individual members 

of the committee, to Senators or House members who had facilities 

in their districts or States. 

I believe that was the right policy. The appropriations bill makes 

it clear that is the policy that is now in effect. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Burns? 

Mr. BURNS. I was familiar with working under the old procedures and I am comfortable working under those old procedures. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Fukushima reminded us of the devastating effect of a nuclear reactor meltdown. Radiation from the accident was detected over 

1,000 miles away. Land contamination continues to keep tens of 

thousands of people from returning to their homes. Cleanup cost 

estimates continue to rise with industry admitting it will cost over 

$100 billion. 

Meanwhile, in the United States, we have packed so much radioactive waste into spent fuel pools that even NRC studies conclude 

that spent fuel fires could spread as much contamination as a meltdown of an operating reactor. 

The spent fuel pools at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, for example, is currently holding nearly four times the amount of waste it 

was designed to hold. 

According to NRC and other studies, if the water were to be 

drained from a spent fuel pool causing the spent fuel to heat up 

and catch fire, the consequences could be worse than a nuclear 

meltdown at an operating reactor. 

Do you agree that the more spent fuel is stored in these pools, 

the faster it could heat up and ignite if the pool’s water was 

drained? Mr. Baran? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Burns. 

95 

Mr. BURNS. Certainly the issue has to be looked at, whether or 

not in terms of the capacity of the pools and particularly what I 

will call the relative, not fresh fuel, but how recently it has been 

in the reactor. You certainly need to look at that to assure that the 

pools are safe or take measures otherwise. 

Senator MARKEY. Isn’t it also true that the more fuel which is 

in the pool, the greater the potential consequences if a spent fuel 

fire were to occur? Mr. Baran? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes, I believe that is correct. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Burns. 

Mr. BURNS. Again, consistent with my last answer, again, I think 

it depends on how recently the fuel has been there but it is something you need to look at and be concerned about. 

Senator MARKEY. Isn’t it true that storing the fuel in dry casks 

storage containers would remove the need for pumps and other 

equipment needed to keep the pools full of water and would also 

greatly decrease the likelihood of a spent fuel fire? Mr. Baran? 

Mr. BARAN. The dry casks are passive systems, so you wouldn’t 

require pumps and other devices to have them operate. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Burns. 

Mr. BURNS. I would agree that they are more passive systems. 

Senator MARKEY. A recent NRC study that concluded that the 

spent fuel could be stored in spent fuel pools indefinitely only fully 

evaluated the risk of a major earthquake, ignoring other large scale 

disasters and terrorist attacks. They said the probability of other 

events is so low that they don’t even need to evaluate them. 

Do you agree that it is possible for other large scale disasters, 

such as a major hurricane or ongoing terrorist attack, to both cause 

damage to spent fuel pools and make it more difficult to quickly get 

necessary equipment to a site to repair the damage? Mr. Baran? 

Mr. BARAN. I would agree that as a general matter, if it is a natural disaster situation, that makes response more difficult for spent 

fuel pools and other aspects of the facility. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Burns? 

Mr. BURNS. Generally, you have to take account of the types of 

potential threats that you have, whether that is a security threat 

or a range of natural disasters that may be potentially experienced 

at that site. I agree that you need to look at those things. 

Senator MARKEY. That is why I recently introduced the Dry Cask 

Storage Act which gives plants 7 years to remove all of the waste 

that can be removed from the pool and put it into safer dry cask 

storage, provides funding to help offset the cost and increases the 

size of emergency planning zones around plants that choose not to 

remove the waste from their pools. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, do you need more time? Because we are 

finishing up the round. I will give you another minute or two like 

I gave Senator Inhofe. I will do that for all colleagues. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

A recent National Academy of Sciences report said that the NRC 

should actively seek out and act on new information about hazards 

that have the potential to effect nuclear plant safety, including extensive flooding and geomagnetic disturbances which could affect 

large portions of the electric grid. 

96 

The report also pointed out that extreme events like these can 

produce severe accidents at nuclear plants that damage reactor 

cores and stored spent fuel. 

Do you agree that the NRC should, as a general rule, evaluate 

a full range of realistic threats to reactors and spent fuel pools? Mr. 

Baran? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Mr. Burns, you have been counsel at the agency for 33 years? 

Mr. BURNS. In different roles, yes, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. How would you describe congressional creation of the NRC and its independent status? 

Mr. BURNS. How would I describe it? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes, the concept of the independent Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission? 

Mr. BURNS. I think what the Congress did is it tried to establish 

an agency like other independent regulatory agencies that existed 

in terms of a multimember commission, bipartisan in the sense 

that you weren’t dominated by persons from one party or the other. 

The other thing it did, actually more so under the reorganization 

plan that President Carter adopted after the Three Mile Island accident, you have the basic principle in the original legislation and 

the reorganization plan about what I will call majority rule, that 

basically the Commission decides matters of policy, adjudications 

and things like that. 

In the reorg plan, you have a plan for the chairman in certain 

areas but basically, it is majority rules, the rule of three, if you 

will. 

Senator SESSIONS. With regard to the concept of the agency, you 

are open to hear from politicians, American citizens, and special 

groups but you hold the responsibility, do you not, as an entity to 

do an independent job, a non-political job in making the decisions 

that protect the safety and effectiveness of the nuclear power industry? 

Mr. BURNS. I think that is the strength of the agency and the 

structure that is created. I think you are saying that is part of the 

intention. 

Senator SESSIONS. The Chairman talked about Senator Reid and 

every Senator has a right to be critical and be aggressive with regard to this commission or any other commission. However, a commission has a duty, let me ask you, Mr. Baran, to listen to the inputs from politicians or even Senator Reid. Then you are required 

to make an independent judgment, are you not? 

Mr. BARAN. That is correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. BURNS. I would agree. 

Senator SESSIONS. Just looking at the Politico article from 2 

weeks ago, one commissioner referring to Senator Reid keeping 

score against members of the Commission who didn’t act as he approved and saying one commissioner was forced out last month and 

97 

another is due to depart Sunday after it became clear he would 

have trouble winning a new term, partly because of their stances 

on Yucca where Mr. Reid felt strongly and because they joined a 

revolt against former agency chairman, Gregory Jaczko, a one time 

Reid aide. 

Reid has spent the past 2 years repeatedly trashing one of the 

commissioners, Commissioner Magwood, calling him a disaster and 

I won’t read the other things he said about him. 

Are you prepared to take the heat and do the right thing no matter what some Senator would say about it? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, Senator, I am. Going back to your question on 

structure, that is one of the reasons that the agency is structured 

with terms of a specific length because that is one of the things 

that enhances the independence of the commissioners who serve in 

those positions. 

Senator SESSIONS. A lot of people worried about that. 

Do you understand, Mr. Burns, that Congress has established 

Yucca Mountain as the depository for nuclear waste? Is that the 

law of the United States? 

Mr. BURNS. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act is the law of the 

United States, yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Baran and Mr. Burns, is it your duty as 

Commission members to comply with the law of the United States? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes, it is. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Will you do so? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes, I will. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, I will comply with the law of the United States. 

Senator SESSIONS. With regard to the disclosures, this is an independent agency that has certain responsibilities to conduct its business properly. It has certain internal deliberations. I assume there 

are rules at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on what should be 

disclosed and what should not be disclosed, are there not? Will 

each one of you answer that yes or no? 

Mr. BARAN. That is addressed in the internal Commission procedures, yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Burns? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, it is addressed there, but also it is governed by 

the Sunshine Act and some other administrative statutes that govern the agency’s operations. 

Senator SESSIONS. I understand the chairman and the committee 

found certain requests from Congress to be improper and have not 

disclosed certain documents. They have disclosed many. Consistent 

with the regulations, will you comply with the regulations even 

though Senators or other groups might ask that you produce documents that, if produced, would be in violation of the regulations 

duly established by the agency? 

Mr. BARAN. The committee and the Congress generally have an 

important oversight role. I believe the NRC should work to make 

sure that the committee has the information it needs to perform its 

constitutional oversight responsibilities. 

Senator SESSIONS. Does that trump the rules of the committee on 

disclosure or should you change the rules before you disclose? 

98 

Mr. BARAN. I don’t think there is anything about the rules that 

prevents disclosure. 

Senator SESSIONS. Of everything? 

Mr. BARAN. I think there could be particularly sensitive documents where it is important to have discussions between the Commission and the committee about how the Commission can best ensure the committee gets the information it needs to perform its duties. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Burns? Do you comply with the rules of 

the committee on disclosure or not? 

Mr. BURNS. The rules of the Commission? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes, the Commission. 

Mr. BURNS. The rules of the Commission. I think the rules of the 

Commission are there to guide how the agency responds to it but 

those rules have to conform to what other basic legal principles 

that apply, for example, communication with the Congress. 

Senator SESSIONS. Presumably the Commission established its 

rules considering those things and they believe their rules comply 

with other laws. You were the counsel there. Is that not true? 

Mr. BURNS. Right. I operated under the rules of the Commission 

in 2011 which basically said in difficult questions about disclosure 

of documents to the Congress, we should be discussing that with 

the committees and trying to reach accommodation. 

I agree with you that the rules essentially are intended to conform to the general legal principles. Again, those are often a difficult area, particularly in communications with the committee. 

Senator SESSIONS. Apparently there is an honest disagreement 

between the Commission and the committee and some of our members on some of these issues. I don’t know the details. I respect my 

colleagues’ desire to find out all that they can find out but I also 

respect there are rules that are to be complied with. 

Thank you for that. I will submit some more written questions 

but I think this is a very important commission. It is important to 

the future of the country and I hope you will conduct yourselves 

as independent, responsible leaders and not be pushed around as 

a result of political pressure. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I think my distinguished colleague’s questioning to both of you 

about the legal rules and the legal analysis relating to the matter 

of the ongoing congressional oversight of this committee helps explain why you are qualified for this position and why the legal expertise and the congressional oversight experience that Mr. Burns 

and Mr. Baran respectively bring will be valuable assets to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it goes about its business. 

My questions have to do with the two topics I mentioned in my 

opening statement. I understand it is the Department of Energy, 

not the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that is primarily involved 

in developing new nuclear technologies and trying to help move us 

toward a more carbon free energy posture. 

As I understand it, there are ways, particularly where private institutions are involved, that the NRC does have a role. Could you 

99 

explain that role, either of you, and let me know what your feeling 

is about the extent to which your organization, as I said in my 

opening statement, not become an undue impediment to the development of these important new technologies. Let me start with Mr. 

Baran. 

Mr. BARAN. I think the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s primary function in this regard is to make sure it has an efficient and 

effective licensing process for new reactors and for new reactor designs. 

For example, for small modular reactors, there is a design certification application expected next year and then another that is likely to come the following year. I think it is important for NRC to 

be thinking ahead of what are the potential novel issues that may 

be presented by those new designs and start that process early, 

start having conversations early with the potential applicants so 

there can be expeditious consideration of those applications when 

and if they are submitted. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I think the question, to use your words, 

should be thinking ahead and starting early, is really at the crux 

of this because if somebody is interested in putting the investment 

into developing one of these technologies, to them the regulatory 

cost and burden down the road is a black box that they can put 

no value on, either in time or money, then that could be an impediment to going forward. 

Even if they could see into the black box, they would actually 

know that this is doable. The fact that it is a black box, the fact 

there have not been early conversations, the fact they don’t have 

any sense that the development of those technologies would be welcomed, could itself be the barrier. 

I would hope that both of you would agree that would be a very 

unfortunate, unnecessary and almost improper barrier under these 

circumstances. Mr. Burns? 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, I would agree. The important thing, I think for 

the Commission and what I would commit to looking at if confirmed, is the question of the clarity with which the agency either 

expresses its rules or the applicable criteria for these types of designs. 

We know basic safety requirements but how do you move 

through, are the processes there, is the one step licensing really an 

appropriate process for a prototype or is there a more staged license where you make safety decisions that eventually get you a 

holistic decision at the end? 

Those are the types of things I think if you are looking at the 

generation for and some of these designs, you are probably going 

to want to at least consider how you would do that if people come 

forward, as you say. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you both commit that you will put your 

attention to those questions as members of the Commission? I don’t 

want this to be just happy answers in a congressional committee 

and then when you are over there, it is back to the black box or 

the black hole or whatever you want to call it. 

Mr. BURNS. No, I commit to do that. 

Mr. BARAN. Yes. It should not be a black box. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

100 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you very much. 

Senator FISCHER. Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I have some questions for both of you gentlemen. 

The NRC’s timely review of license submittals is critical to the 

success of our domestic uranium industry. I mentioned that in my 

opening statement. 

At present, in Nebraska, there are multiple relicensing proposals 

and new license applications that have, to date, taken 7 years. 

That is a long time to review. 

I have written to the Commission to encourage swift action in 

order to protect the economic environment of the communities that 

have relied for decades on these operations, operations that safely 

and responsibly produce critical fuel for our Nation’s domestic nuclear and energy industry. 

In response, the Commission has stated that the reviews are continuing, but that it may take another full year before a final decision is made. 

Should you be confirmed, will you commit to working with me 

and my office to engage in these licensing and relicensing efforts 

so that a final decision is rendered in a timely and efficient manner? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes, if confirmed, I would be happy to work with you 

and take a look at that issue. 

Mr. BURNS. I would be happy to look at that. Again, I think it 

is not unlike the question Senator Whitehouse asked about assuring that the process is fair but also efficient. 

Senator FISCHER. Are you aware of the issue I just spoke about? 

Have you had any contact with the problems we are facing? 

Mr. BURNS. Not recently, no. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

In a recent vote by the NRC on filtered vents, we have seen Commissioner Magwood express concern with approaches to regulation 

that rely upon qualitative instead of quantitative factors. He described such an approach as an extraordinary step that goes well 

beyond previous NRC guidance. 

He also noted that Chairman Macfarlane’s analysis in that vote 

could be used to justify essentially any regulatory change. 

Can you tell me your view of the proper use of qualitative factors 

in regulatory decisionmaking by the NRC? 

Mr. BARAN. I think over the years, when the NRC has done its 

cost benefit analysis, typically, as I think most agencies do, it focuses primarily on the quantitative elements of that but it also in 

the past has considered qualitative factors as well. I think it is important in some cases to consider qualitative factors. 

As you point out, that can be challenging because it is not the 

same enterprise as when it is strictly quantitative. I think there is 

a role for it on certain occasions but I do think it has to be done 

carefully. 

One of the factors that came up in that particular vote, I believe, 

was just defense in-depth, the idea that some concerns that NRC 

looks at are very low probability but high consequence events and 

sometimes a strictly quantitative review of that can leave out important factors. 

101 

Senator FISCHER. You would say it is within the NRC’s guidance 

that those qualitative factors should be looked at? 

Mr. BARAN. My understanding is that the guidance does provide 

for the consideration of qualitative factors. 

Senator FISCHER. You would disagree with the commissioner who 

made those statements, then? 

Mr. BARAN. It has been a while since I read that particular vote 

and I don’t know that Commissioner Magwood would say it never 

makes sense to examine qualitative factors, but I think there can 

be a role for both quantitative and qualitative. 

Senator FISCHER. Mr. Burns? 

Mr. BURNS. I am actually not familiar with that particular vote 

that Commissioner Magwood weighed in on. 

Historically, my recollection is that the agency, over the years, 

tried to apply sort of the best decisionmaking methods, whether 

what they originally called the deterministic method to more risk 

informed. When you went risk informed, you do have the consideration of qualitative factors. Again, that may be vote dependent or 

issue dependent. 

You want to make sure that you have a good grounding in the 

technical analysis that you have but there may be qualitative factors. I would be happy to look at that and be sensitive to that. Unfortunately, I just cannot comment on the particular filtered vent 

issue. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. Just one more question if I have 

time? 

Senator BOXER. Go ahead. 

Senator FISCHER. On May 19, 2014, the Commission acted on an 

NRC staff recommendation regarding three specific recommendations arising from the near term task force report’s suggestion to 

review whether the NRC should establish a logical, systematic and 

coherent regulatory framework for adequate protection that appropriately balances defense, in-depth and risk considerations. 

The three staff recommendations were approved by the Commission even though the NRC staff also acknowledged that these 

changes are not needed to maintain safety of nuclear power reactors. 

Do you agree with the action that was taken by the Commission? 

Mr. BURNS. Again, I am not sure exactly what they did. I recall 

that the No. 1 task force recommendation was this notion of looking more holistically. I think importantly, the agency needs to 

carry out, in the particulars applied to particular plants, particular 

licensing or safety issues, what it does. 

There may be some benefit in making a greater coherence. 

Again, I would be happy to look at that. I am just not familiar with 

exactly what they did. 

Senator FISCHER. If these requirements are imposed on nuclear 

reactors and it hasn’t been shown that you are going to see any enhancement of safety, do you think it appropriate to require that 

then and the cost involved for those reactors? 

Shouldn’t we have to prove it is for safety concern when we have 

an argument going on, not an argument but a discussion going on 

between staff and the Commission and it is moved on anyway? 

102 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, and I think you need to have something that 

provides a justification for what you are doing and that there is a 

benefit to it. As I said, I am not familiar with the May vote. I am 

familiar with the issue that may have led to it from the original 

task force report. 

I would be happy to take a look at that. Generally, I think you 

want to get to a point where it makes sense for what you are doing 

that there is a safety benefit for it. 

Senator FISCHER. Right. We are all concerned for the safety. I 

think we all agree upon that, but when requirements are made by 

government with no proof of benefit, I have concerns with the cost. 

Mr. Baran, would you like to reply as well, please? 

Mr. BARAN. I am not familiar with that particular vote but I 

would note that the NRC has something called a backfit rule which 

says if you are going to apply a new regulatory requirement to an 

existing facility, in that situation unless that new requirement is 

necessary for adequate protection of public health and safety, the 

benefits of that requirement would need to exceed the cost. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you both very much. Again, thank you 

for being here today. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

I am going to ask each of you a question that I have to ask all 

nominees. There are three questions, yes or no. 

Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this committee, or 

designated members of this committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress, and provide information subject to appropriate and necessary security protection with respect to your responsibilities? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings 

and documents in electronic and other forms of communication of 

information are provided to this committee, its staff and other appropriate committees in a timely manner? By that, I mean all 

members of this committee regardless of party? 

Mr. BARAN. Yes. 

Mr. BURNS. Yes, I do. 

Senator BOXER. Three, do you know of any matters which you 

may or may not have disclosed that might place you in a conflict 

of interest if you are confirmed? 

Mr. BARAN. No. 

Mr. BURNS. No. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

I am going to place in the record Section 6 of the Nuclear Waste 

Policy because it is important. I wish I had the chance to discuss 

this with Senator Sessions, but I will talk with him about it. 

Section 6 of the Nuclear Waste Policy only allows agencies to 

spend the money Congress gives them for Yucca. In 2010, for the 

2011 year, all Congress gave NRC was $10 million that was requested to close out Yucca. That is what the Commission did and 

did not vote to overturn that decision. 

I think it is important. It keeps coming back like a bad dream, but the fact is Congress voted the money and it was only $10 milVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:26 May 18, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\98199.TXT VERN
103 

lion. That was enough to shut it down. I wanted to get that in the 

record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

104 


98199.073
105 


98199.074
106 

Senator BOXER. I want to say to both of you I am so impressed 

with your experience. I also appreciate the attitude you bring here 

because you are seasoned professionals and understand that there 

are disagreements. We just want from you what you think is the 

right thing for this industry in terms of safety. 

Of course my colleague, Senator Inhofe, makes a point. We also 

have to make sure we look at how we are putting together these 

regulations and whether they make sense or not. 

I want to thank both of you. 

I hope to move this very, very quickly. It will be up to everyone 

to cooperate on that. 

I want to thank Senator Vitter in particular for really helping us 

move this forward. It was very magnanimous of him. He said to 

me, well, I hope you will cooperate when we want to move people 

forward. Of course, we will. 

We are going to move on this on Thursday and have a vote. We 

will let everyone know. We need your answers yesterday. 

Thank you very much. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ