[Senate Hearing 115-44]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-44
HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF KRISTINE SVINICKI (REAPPOINTMENT), ANNIE
CAPUTO AND DAVID WRIGHT TO BE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION, AND THE NOMINATION OF SUSAN BODINE TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE OF
THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 13, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-002 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected]
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JERRY MORAN, Kansas KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama KAMALA HARRIS, California
Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
Gabrielle Batkin, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JUNE 13, 2017
OPENING STATEMENTS
Graham, Hon. Lindsey, U.S. Senator from the State of South
Carolina....................................................... 2
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 2
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 4
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 10
WITNESSES
Svinicki, Kristine, nominated to be Chairman, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (reappointment).......................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Response to an additional question from Senator Booker....... 15
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Markey........................................... 15
Senator Sanders.......................................... 21
Senator Sullivan......................................... 32
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 34
Caputo, Annie, nominated to be a member of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.......................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Carper........................................... 43
Senator Markey........................................... 45
Senator Sullivan......................................... 78
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 81
Wright, David, nominated to be a member of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.......................................... 90
Prepared statement........................................... 92
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Carper........................................... 96
Senator Markey........................................... 101
Senator Sanders.......................................... 111
Senator Sullivan......................................... 135
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 138
Bodine, Susan, nominated to be Assistant Administrator, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 309
Prepared statement........................................... 311
Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........ 315
Response to an additional question from Senator Cardin....... 318
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Markey........................................... 318
Senator Sanders.......................................... 322
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 333
HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF KRISTINE SVINICKI (REAPPOINTMENT), ANNIE
CAPUTO AND DAVID WRIGHT TO BE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION, AND THE NOMINATION OF SUSAN BODINE TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE OF
THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman
of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Inhofe, Capito, Boozman,
Wicker, Ernst, Sullivan, Carper, Whitehouse, Gillibrand,
Booker, Markey, Duckworth, and Harris.
Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
order.
Today, we will consider the nominations of three
individuals to serve as members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission: Kristine Svinicki, current member and Chair of the
NRC; Annie Caputo, Senior Policy Advisor on this Committee's
majority staff; and David Wright, President, Wright Directions,
LLC.
We will also consider the nomination of one individual,
Susan Bodine, Chief Counsel on this Committee's majority staff,
to serve as Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance--OECA--at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
I applaud the President's nomination of such experienced
Americans and dedicated public servants. The four nominees
before us today are all well qualified candidates. Three are
well known to members of this Committee and staff. One is not
well known, and that is why Senator Lindsey Graham is here
today to bring to the attention of the Committee the nominee
from his home State of South Carolina.
Senator Graham, if it is OK with you, based on schedules, I
would hope you could make an introduction at this time.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY GRAHAM,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is my pleasure to introduce David to you. We served
together in the South Carolina House of Representatives for 2
years, so I have known David for a long time. His mother,
Irene, is with him. This is a big day for the Wright family. I
want to thank the President for nominating David to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
He is a graduate of Clemson University. We celebrated their
national championship yesterday at the White House. Go, Tigers.
David has an incredible background in terms of the subject
matter. He was on the South Carolina Public Service Commission
from 2004 to 2013. South Carolina, per capita, has the most
nuclear power of any State in the nation. We are a pro-nuclear
power State. I think David understands the issues surrounding
nuclear power as well as anyone in the country.
From 2008 to 2009 he was President of the Southeastern
Association of Regulatory Commissioners. In 2011 and 2012 he
was President of the National Association of Regulatory
Commissioners. David understands the nuclear industry as well
as anyone I know. The President chose wisely. Again, South
Carolina's nuclear footprint is very large.
He has been a mayor, so he knows how to get along with
people. If you are going to be a successful mayor, you have to
make things win-win.
I could not recommend more highly to you David Wright. I
want to thank the President. All of us in South Carolina are
proud. He will hit the ground running because he knows the
subject matter.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Graham. We
appreciate it. I know with a busy schedule, you probably have
additional obligations. At this time, you are excused. Thank
you for being with us today.
Of the nominees this morning, two have been previously
reported by this Committee and confirmed by the Senate by voice
vote.
Ms. Svinicki has served as a member of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for more than 9 years, including the last
6 months as the Chair. She was confirmed as a member in 2008.
She was reported by this Committee by voice vote in December
2007 and confirmed by the Senate by voice vote on March 13,
2008.
She was re-nominated to a second term in 2012. Again, she
was reported successfully by this Committee by voice vote and
confirmed by the Senate by voice vote 8 days later. She was
designated as the NRC's Chair by President Trump in January
2017.
Before joining the NRC, Ms. Svinicki served in various
staff positions in the U.S. Senate, including with the Armed
Services Committee, where she concentrated on defense science
and technology policy and defense related atomic energy
activities.
She also worked as a nuclear engineer at the Energy
Department and as an energy engineer for the Wisconsin Public
Service Commission.
She was honored with the Woman of the Year Award by the
Women's Council on Energy and Environment in 2013 and the
Presidential Citation Award by the American Nuclear Society
twice, in 2012 and 2006.
Ms. Caputo has spent more than 20 years advising Congress
and industry on nuclear energy matters. She has served as a
policy advisor for this Committee and for the House Energy and
Commerce Committee for the past 12 years.
Before that, she worked for Exelon Corporation as a
Congressional Affairs Manager. In 2013 the U.S. Nuclear
Infrastructure Council honored Ms. Caputo with its Meritorious
Service Award.
In response to Ms. Caputo's nomination, the Vice President
of the Clean Energy Program at Third Way, a think tank once
labeled as ``radical centrists'' by the New York Times, stated
of the nominee, ``She has consistently worked with members on
both sides of the aisle to promote effective nuclear regulation
and is well respected across partisan lines for her expertise,
professionalism, and competence. Few people are more qualified
to fill this role at the NRC.''
Mr. Wright has served as member and Chairman of the South
Carolina Public Service Commission, as President of the
Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners,
and as President of the National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners. He is Chairman Emeritus of the Nuclear
Waste Strategy Coalition, a group that includes State utility
regulators and State attorneys general focusing on addressing
nuclear waste policy matters.
He has served as a member of the South Carolina House of
Representatives and as Councilman and Mayor of the Town of
Irmo, South Carolina. He has also owned and operated several
different businesses and been honored with various awards.
Ms. Bodine served as Assistant Administrator for the EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response from 2006 to 2009.
She was reported by this Committee by voice vote on July 20,
2005, and confirmed by the Senate by voice vote later that
year.
She previously served as Staff Director of the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Water Resources and the Environment, and as an attorney in
private practice.
Today's nominees will fill critically important roles in
protecting Americans' public health and safety. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission ensures that nuclear power plants,
nuclear materials, and waste are handled and used safely and
securely.
The EPA's role, specifically the one being discussed today,
is responsible for enforcing our nation's environmental laws,
including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Superfund.
The need for nuclear and environmental safety protection is
bipartisan. We need to move quickly on these nominations.
Unless today's NRC nominees are confirmed by June 30th, the
NRC will lose its quorum. This will degrade the NRC's
collective ability to fulfill its mission of licensing and
regulating the nation's civilian use of radioactive materials
to protect public health and provide for safety and security.
The Committee must act to restore the NRC to a full slate of
Commissioners expeditiously.
Similarly, the EPA does not have a Senate-confirmed
Assistant Administrator of OECA. The Committee must act to
confirm this nominee to lead OECA quickly, so that our
environmental laws are rigorously enforced so that polluters
are held accountable.
I can think of no better candidate to take on the critical
task of leading OECA and enforcing our nation's environmental
laws than Susan Bodine. Past EPA officials, notably from both
Republican and Democratic Administrations, have praised Susan's
nomination.
Mathy Stanislaus, a former Obama EPA Assistant
Administrator, said, ``Ms. Bodine understands both the internal
side of the Agency and the proper balance of enforcement and
would be a `standup person.' ''
Ben Grumbles, a former George W. Bush Assistant
Administrator and currently the Maryland Secretary of the
Environment, said, ``She is tough and fair and committed to
public service.''
Elliott Laws, a former Clinton Assistant Administrator,
said, ``Bringing in someone with her knowledge of the Agency
and the issues facing it can only be a positive.''
John Cruden, a former Obama Justice Department Assistant
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources
Division, said, ``Susan is dedicated to the rule of law, a
lawyer with great integrity, and she understands the critical
importance of effective and timely enforcement.''
I will now turn to Ranking Member Carper for his statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start off by welcoming each of our four witnesses
to today's hearing. I want to welcome your families as well,
your spouses, sons and daughters, mothers, and any other
friends and family that might be in the room.
Several of our witnesses, Mr. Chairman, have talked about
their core values and where they came from. They actually
remind me a lot of ours. So, Ms. Irene, thank you for raising
this kid and sending him our way.
Thank each of you for your past public service and for your
continued willingness to serve in these new capacities. For
Kristine, it is not a new capacity, but to continue to serve.
The jobs to which you have been nominated are very important to
the health and safety of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, as we have discussed, I am concerned that we
do not have parity in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
nominees before us today. It is critical for the Commission to
have consistent leadership from both political parties,
especially as the industry faces a challenging future.
I hope we can find a path, as we discussed, to ensure that
the White House re-nominates Commissioner Jeff Baran and that
the Committee pairs consideration of his nomination with some
or all of the NRC nominees before us.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, the minority members of
this Committee remain deeply disappointed, not with these
witnesses or their families, but disappointed that the
Committee has not received complete written responses from
Administrator Pruitt to 11 oversight letters that Democratic
members have sent the EPA this year.
In fact, we recently learned that the White House has
instructed Federal agencies not to respond at all to oversight
requests from Senators who are not Chairmen. Such a directive
harms both parties and takes us further from the truth.
You do not have to take my word for it. Our colleague,
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, sent a
letter to President Trump just this past Friday admonishing the
directive, noting, ``It harms not just the members who happen
to be in the minority party at the moment, but also members in
the majority party who are not currently Chairmen. It obstructs
what ought to be the natural flow of information between
agencies and the committees, which frustrates the
constitutional function of legislating.''
I am sure that my colleagues on both sides of this dais can
agree that preventing Senators from performing their oversight
responsibilities is simply unacceptable. In fact, this
Committee has a tradition of ensuring that oversight requests
receive responses as part of the confirmation process. I would
like to share two short examples with you this morning.
First, in 2013 Republicans insisted on responses to five
requests as part of former Administrator Gina McCarthy's
confirmation process. The Republican minority sought
information on the Agency's compliance with the Freedom of
Information Act, the availability of outside scientific
research, the use of economic analysis, and lawsuit
settlements.
Republican members of EPW boycotted the first business
meeting on Administrator McCarthy's nomination because they
believed that the EPA had not been responsive to their
requests. We may have another poster here. On that day, Mr.
Chairman, you noted, ``The new nominee to be EPA Administrator
has been extremely unresponsive with the information we
requested.'' You went on to add, ``We're simply requesting that
Ms. McCarthy and this Administration honor its commitment to
transparency--that's what they promised.''
In order to help obtain this information, at that time, I
personally called the EPA and implored the Agency to respond to
Senator Vitter and to the Republican members of this Committee.
Ultimately, EPA did so.
By the time the McCarthy nomination reached the Senate
floor, EPA had sent at least five letters and provided more
than 1,300 pages of documents and data. In the end, after 136
days, Gina McCarthy was confirmed without a filibuster.
Second, in 2009 Republican requests for information and
economic analysis delayed Senate floor consideration of Bob
Perciasepe's nomination to be Deputy EPA Administrator for
almost 6 months. Last Congress, I am told that Republicans sent
at least 156 oversight letters to EPA's Air Office alone and
that all of them received responses.
We have another chart that refers to EPA's 2015 responses.
Additionally, in calendar year 2015, EPA received 884 letters
from lawmakers seeking a response from the Agency. That same
year, EPA received 60 document requests from Congress and one
subpoena. The Agency also made EPA officials available to
testify at 40 hearings.
In 2015 alone with all of those incoming requests, EPA,
under Gina McCarthy's leadership, sent 276,510 pages of
documents to Congress. One more time, that is 276,510 pages.
Colleagues, while our asks may not be welcomed by this
Administration, I do not believe they are unreasonable, nor are
they unprecedented.
Oversight should not be a partisan issue. As Senator Inhofe
and then-Chairman Inhofe noted in 2015, lack of timely and
complete responses from agencies ``frustrate[s] Congress'
ability to fulfill its constitutional duty to perform oversight
of the executive branch.'' Mr. Chairman, I would say you were
right then, and you are right today.
Absent a heartfelt commitment by EPA to provide complete
and timely responses to our current information requests, I
will find it very difficult to support moving forward with the
consideration of any EPA nominees.
I do not make such a statement lightly, I make it with no
sense of joy, but the nominations we are discussing today are
important ones. They deserve our attention, just as our
inquiries from the minority side deserve the attention of this
Administration.
Let me close by saying, the EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance is an indispensable ``cop on the beat,''
safeguarding the public's health and our country's environment.
The office's actions drive reductions in toxic air pollution as
well as the clean up of our land and our waterways. Last year,
I am told EPA's enforcement work required companies to invest
$13.7 billion in such actions.
Turning to the NRC, following the lead of former Committee
Chairman Jim Inhofe, Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked to
strengthen the ``culture of safety'' within the U.S. nuclear
energy industry for years.
In part due to our collective efforts, the NRC leadership,
and the Commission's dedicated staff, the NRC continues to be
the world's gold standard for nuclear regulatory agencies.
However, that does not mean we can become complacent when it
comes to nuclear safety and our NRC oversight responsibilities,
a perspective that I am certain is shared by every member of
this Committee.
In closing, I look forward to hearing how each of the
nominees before us today will fulfill the responsibilities of
the positions to which they are nominated. I hope they will
share with the Committee their commitment to ensure that these
agencies remain vigilant and devoted to the protection of all
Americans and that you will be responsive to the legitimate
questions we may ask of you from time to time.
Thank you all for joining us today.
[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Carper.
As you and I have discussed, I believe the Administration
should and has a responsibility to answer members' questions.
The Obama administration, I believe, went out of its way to
avoid answering my specific oversight requests, responses that
I never received, and I found it very disturbing.
With respect to the Committee's oversight function, I
believe it is critically important. I agree the executive
branch agencies must be required to respond to the Committee's
reasonable oversight requests.
I understand that so far the EPA, this is the Trump
Administration, so far has received 416 letters and has
answered 386 to date. That is only since January 20, 2017. That
is what I understand, and we will get the specific breakdown.
As Chairman, I am going to work to ensure that the
executive branch agencies under the current Administration work
diligently and expeditiously to respond to the Committee's
reasonable oversight requests in compliance with all laws,
rules, policies, precedents, and practices.
Senator Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say that I appreciate the fact that I can say
some things about two of my favorite people, whom I have worked
with for a long period of time. I have to say this, by
comparison with the responsive attitude they have always had,
some of the other people did not look so good in the past.
Yet, we have watched people like Pruitt, for example,
having gone through this thing and not only being grilled and
asked questions to an unreasonable extent, but when it came
time for his questions on the record, he had to endure 1,600
questions. That is unheard of. You guys are not going to have
to do this. That would not be fair at all.
Let me say this. I have worked with both Annie Caputo and
Susan Bodine for many, many years. I have noticed, Annie, you
have your husband, AJ, with you, and your son, Owen. I see that
cute little girl; hold your hand up. That is Abbey. I remember
when Abbey was born. That is how long I have known these
people.
Annie joined my EPW staff in 2007. Because her experience
and expertise in the nuclear area are so well known, she has
been called upon by members of the Democratic Party as well as
the Republican Party. Her expertise was valuable to me in the
aftermath of the nuclear accident at Fukushima and in my work
to ensure the NRC issued timely decisions on new nuclear plant
licenses. Most recently, she has been central in developing the
bipartisan Nuclear Innovation Act.
Similarly, Susan Bodine has been so valuable to me. As a
staffer, she was the general counsel for our Committee for the
last few years. Prior to that, she had experience and tenure in
the EPA during the George W. Bush administration. She was
critical to me and my staff when we worked on the famous Tar
Creek Superfund site in northeastern Oklahoma. I think, at the
time, that was the most devastating Superfund site in America,
and we waded through that.
In the last Congress, Susan was a large part of the team
that put together the FAST Act, the Water Infrastructure Act
and the Chemical bill. In fact, we had a meeting at 12:15 p.m.
every Wednesday with the leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell,
and the Chairmen of the committees. When my turn came, I would
say, ``Now a report on the Committee that actually does
things,'' and that is this Committee. That is true. We did.
Susan will be an asset to the Agency where she previously
worked. She knows the laws that govern the EPA.
I thank you again for allowing me to speak on behalf of
these two individuals that have served the Committee and me so
faithfully over the years.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
We would now like to welcome, congratulate, and hear from
our nominees. I want to remind each of you that your full
written testimony will be made a part of the record. I look
forward to hearing the testimony. We ask that you keep your
comments to 5 minutes.
We will hear first from Ms. Svinicki. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF KRISTINE SVINICKI, NOMINATED TO BE CHAIRMAN, U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (REAPPOINTMENT)
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
Carper, and members of the Committee.
I am grateful to President Trump for nominating me to a
third term of service on the Commission and was humbled by his
request of me earlier this year to assume the role of the
Commission's Chairman.
If the Senate acts favorably on my nomination, I would,
once again, be privileged to continue this work, alongside my
currently serving colleagues, Commissioners Baran and Burns.
I also congratulate my fellow nominees to the Commission
and wish them well in this confirmation process. I know them
both to be individuals of great capacity and commitment and am
confident that, if confirmed, they will apply themselves in
full measure to supporting the NRC's important mission.
According to those keeping records at the NRC, this is my
eighteenth appearance as a witness before this Committee; my
third as a nominee. In light of that, the record of my views on
relevant matters is well established.
With the exception of Senators new to the Committee, it is
likely that the votes I have taken and the positions I have
established over this span of years provide adequate terrain
for both agreement and disagreement with elements of my record.
I state with sincerity that my appearances before your
Committee and the exchange of sometimes pointed differences on
issues have shaped me as a Commissioner. The members of this
Committee have routinely challenged me to examine all
dimensions of the issues, to apply the highest rigor to my
consideration of all matters, and to continue to stay open to
new information and new insights.
These exchanges reinforce the importance of never becoming
complacent in my work, of maintaining an inquiring attitude,
and being mindful always of the full weight of the solemn
responsibilities entrusted to me. If you honor me with your
approval of my nomination, I commit myself to continuing to
approach my duties in this way.
Of course, any contributions I have made to the NRC during
my time there would not have been achieved without the hard
work and commitment of the women and men of the NRC and their
sustained efforts to advance the NRC's mission under the law,
that of ensuring adequate protection of public health and
safety and promoting the common defense and security.
Nearly 10 years into this journey, their commitment to this
shared goal is what inspires and motivates me each day. Once
again, I would like to take this opportunity to convey my
personal gratitude to each of them for their contributions to
whatever achievements I have had along the way and for their
engagements with me over the years, which have helped to shape
and form my views on so many important matters before the
Agency.
Chairman Barrasso, Senator Carper, and members of the
Committee, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
today and look forward to the Committee's questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Svinicki follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you so much for your comments.
Ms. Caputo.
STATEMENT OF ANNIE CAPUTO, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Ms. Caputo. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
Carper, and members of the Committee.
I have been very thankful for the opportunity to work for
Chairman Barrasso this year, continuing my service to the
members of the EPW Committee under his leadership.
I am also grateful to President Trump for nominating me to
serve on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Public service is a
privilege. If the Senate confirms my nomination, I will be
honored to serve and very humbled to serve with such esteemed
fellow colleagues as Chairman Svinicki, Commissioner Baran,
Commissioner Burns and my fellow nominee, David Wright.
Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge my family. I
want to thank AJ, my husband of 19 years, for his constant
support of my public service, and our children, Owen and
Abigail, who are our greatest blessings and who assured me they
would be on their best behavior today.
In preparing for today, I have spent time reflecting on
what it would mean to take on the responsibility of the
position of Commissioner and how key experiences in my life
have prepared me for such a role.
What I realized is several experiences closely echo the
NRC's mission, values, and principles of good regulation.
First, my mother not only taught me right from wrong, but
to distinguish between what is right and what is popular. This
is a lesson that would guide me in the position to which I have
been nominated.
It is a lesson I believe is well articulated in the NRC's
Principle of Independence which states, ``All available facts
and opinions must be sought openly from licensees and other
interested members of the public. The many and possibly
conflicting public interests involved must be considered. Final
decisions must be based on objective, unbiased assessments of
all information.''
Second, my brief service as a volunteer firefighter and
emergency medical technician for the Snowmass Wildcat Fire
Department showed me the importance of dedication to public
health and safety, professionalism, teamwork, and the
satisfaction of serving the community. It was here that the
seed of public service was planted and took root. These are
values that guide me to this day and are in keeping with the
NRC values of commitment, respect, cooperation, and service.
Third, my first job after graduating with my nuclear
engineering degree was with Commonwealth Edison in Chicago. At
the time, half of their nuclear plants were on the NRC's
``watch list'' due to safety concerns.
A man named Oliver Kingsley took on the role of President
and transformed the organization's performance based on the
principle that safety and operations are inextricably linked:
that operations excellence depends on a dedication to safety.
If a nuclear plant is not maintained with disciplined focus
on safety, it will not run well. Safety is first. That is what
I learned from Oliver Kingsley, and that is the mission of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I have been privileged to serve in both the House and
Senate for 12 years, the majority of my career. In these roles,
I have been continually challenged by Members to learn as much
as I can. In doing so, I have seen the impressive expertise and
professionalism of the NRC staff in action. I have no doubt the
staff's caliber and commitment is why the NRC is considered the
gold standard for nuclear safety the world over. I have much to
learn, and they have much to teach me if I am confirmed.
Last, members have directed me to seek out the best policy
and to work with bipartisanship to accomplish their goals.
These experiences have developed my ability to work collegially
to find agreement among different views and to craft solutions
by working together.
By sharing these experiences with you, I hope to provide
you with insight into my character and how my values would
guide my conduct as a Commissioner, if confirmed. It is
humbling to be considered for such a serious responsibility. I
would strive to execute that responsibility with integrity and
professionalism, in a manner that earns the public's trust, and
in keeping with NRC's mission, principles, and values.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Caputo follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you so much for your comments.
Now I would like to turn to Mr. Wright. You are next.
STATEMENT OF DAVID WRIGHT, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
Carper, and members of the Committee for the opportunity to
appear before you today.
I would be remiss if I did not also thank Senator Lindsey
Graham for his kind introduction earlier.
I am humbled and honored to appear before you today as the
nominee of the President to serve as a Commissioner on the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is an honor and privilege,
not just for me personally, but also for my family, my church,
my community, my State, and all of the people I have worked and
served with over the years.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, if I may, I
would like to recognize my mother, Irene Wright, who is sitting
behind me today. She gave birth to me on her 24th birthday, and
next month, we will both celebrate the 62nd anniversary of her
24th birthday. I will let you all do the math. She is truly one
of God's angels living on this earth, and I get to call her
Mom.
June is a busy time of year for the Wright family. My
oldest daughter, Kimberly, is wrapping up her year as a
kindergarten teacher. My second daughter, Courtney, works for
the State of South Carolina. She and her husband, Ray, are
raising three wonderful children, my grandchildren.
Senator Boozman, my oldest son, Austin, is a nursing home
administrator working in Cabot, Arkansas. I believe I shared
that with you. My youngest son, Andrew, a rising college
sophomore, is in his last week as a Young Life Summer Camp
counselor at Sharp Top Cove in Jasper, Georgia. Although the
rest of my family is not able to be here in person today, I can
feel each of them and their support.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, if confirmed, I
look forward to working closely with my fellow nominees,
Chairman Kristine Svinicki and Annie Caputo, as well as
Commissioners Steve Burns and Jeff Baran, in carrying out the
NRC's mission of protecting public health and safety, promoting
the common defense and security, and protecting the
environment.
I pledge to work closely with each member of the Commission
in the spirit of collegiality. I believe we will work very well
together. I look forward to developing a good working
relationship with this Committee as you also fulfill your
important oversight role.
I have a broad and varied professional background in
private business and in public life. Having been self-employed
the majority of my adult life, I have also served in various
elected positions in local and State government.
Although we are all shaped by the entirety of the events
and experiences in our lives, I am confident I find myself
before you today because of my service on the South Carolina
Public Service Commission. Since first elected in 2004, I
served as a South Carolina Commissioner for nearly 10 years,
where I also had the privilege to serve as Chairman.
During my tenure as a Commissioner, in 2008 I was diagnosed
with stage 3 colon cancer. I had surgery and went through
months of chemotherapy, but I did not miss very much time at
the commission. It was during that time that I made the
decision to do things I had not previously considered and to
challenge myself in ways I might not have had it not been for
that trial in my life.
As a Commissioner, I was already active within the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, NARUC, where I
was serving as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues
and Nuclear Waste for 3 years. In June 2008 I was elected to
serve as President of the 11-State Southeastern Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
In 2011 following a year serving as First Vice President, I
was elected by my fellow commissioners to serve as the
President of NARUC, the highest professional honor of my life
until today.
During my years as a Commissioner, including my service in
leadership roles at the regional and national levels, I have
been successful in building bridges and building consensus on
issues, and in the creation and adoption of policy.
If given the honor to serve the country in this position, I
will approach my service as a Commissioner at the NRC no
differently. I believe my regulatory background at the State
level, along with my experiences in business and elected
office, provide a sound foundation for considering matters that
will come before me as a member of the Commission.
If confirmed, I will approach my work as a Commissioner
with an open mind and in a collegial manner. I will listen to
all parties and al points of view, seek clarification where
needed, endeavor to establish a complete record, base my
decision on the facts before me, and work to build consensus
among the Commissioners whenever possible.
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you so very much for your comments.
Ms. Bodine.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN BODINE, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Bodine. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and
members of the Committee, thank you for the privilege of
appearing before you today as the nominee for the position of
Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance.
I am honored that President Trump, Administrator Pruitt,
and this Committee are considering me for this position.
I would also like to thank my family. They are not here
today because they are all at work. They did come 12 years ago
which was the last time I actually had a confirmation hearing
before this Committee. My sons, at that time, were 11 and 14.
They are now 23 and 26. Thankfully, they are gainfully
employed.
I would also like to thank my many current and former
colleagues for their support and friendship.
I have worked on environmental issues for my entire
professional career, as a practicing attorney, as a member of
the professional staff of the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, as a former EPA Assistant Administrator, and as
a member of the professional staff of this Committee.
If confirmed as the Assistant Administrator for OECA, I
would bring with me an extensive background in the
environmental laws that OECA enforces. I strongly support those
laws and the goals of protecting public health and the
environment.
I also would bring my past experience in managing an EPA
headquarters office and my deep respect for the career staff
who do the day to day work of implementing our environmental
laws and carrying out the responsibilities that Congress has
given EPA.
I appreciate that our laws are built around the framework
of cooperative federalism. Under cooperative federalism, States
and the Federal Government both have important and
complementary roles in implementing our laws.
I also fully appreciate that we cannot protect public
health and the environment unless the regulated community knows
what they are supposed to do. Enforcement is a critical tool to
achieve compliance. Compliance by everyone also creates a level
playing field for the regulated community. By enforcing
environmental laws, OECA helps to create that level playing
field.
Of course, to comply with the law, the regulated community
needs to understand what is expected of them. Sometimes our
statutes and regulations are less than clear. OECA plays an
important role in making sure that there is clarity and
consistency in how our environmental laws are interpreted, and
providing assistance when the laws are less than clear. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with the EPA program
offices and States to provide that clarity and consistency.
Those who have worked with me know that I have a
collaborative and inclusive approach to tackling complex
environmental issues. For the Assistant Administrator of OECA,
this means collaboration and coordination with States that are
authorized to carry out Federal laws. It also means
collaboration and coordination with the EPA program offices
that write the regulations and implement the statutes that
Congress writes.
I also understand the need to communicate. That means not
just talking but also listening. Communication with the
environmental professional staff at EPA is an important
managerial responsibility. Communication with State agencies is
a critical component of cooperative federalism. Communication
with the regulated community and environmental groups provides
important feedback. Finally, communication with the public and
Congress provides support for the Agency's mission.
If confirmed by the Senate, I would embrace the
responsibility for assuring compliance with environmental laws.
I know we all share the goal of protecting public health and
the environment. I know we share the goal of making
environmental regulations clear and understandable.
I am very excited about the opportunity to work with
Administrator Pruitt as a member of his team to achieve those
goals.
In closing, thank you for this opportunity. I look forward
to any questions you or your colleagues may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bodine follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. I want to thank all of the nominees for
your testimony.
Throughout this hearing and with questions for the record,
the Committee members will have an opportunity to learn more
about your commitment to public service of our great Nation. I
would ask throughout this hearing that you please respond to
the questions today and those for the record.
With that said, I have the following questions to ask that
we ask all nominees on behalf of the Committee. I will ask each
of you to respond individually.
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee
or designated members of this Committee and other appropriate
committees of the Congress and provide information subject to
appropriate and necessary security protections with respect to
your responsibilities?
Ms. Svinicki. Yes, I do.
Ms. Caputo. Yes, I do.
Mr. Wright. Yes.
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Senator Barrasso. Do you agree to ensure that testimony,
briefings, documents in electronic and other forms of
communication of information are provided to this Committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees in a timely manner?
Ms. Svinicki. Yes.
Ms. Caputo. Yes.
Mr. Wright. Yes.
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Senator Barrasso. Do you know of any matters which you may
or may not have disclosed that might place you in any conflict
of interest if you are confirmed?
Ms. Svinicki. No, I do not.
Ms. Caputo. I do not.
Mr. Wright. No, sir.
Ms. Bodine. No.
Senator Barrasso. I will not ask any questions because at
this time I am going to reserve the balance of my time to be
used during the hearing.
With that, I will pass to Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the benefit of some of you here, we have a bit of a
problem in that two of the other members seated to my right
have the same problem I do. We are currently meeting at the
same time with the Senate Armed Services Committee. In fact, we
have Secretary Mattis as a witness, so we will have to go back
and forth.
First of all, let me mention that I have been engaged in
oversight for the NRC now for a number of years, since 1996. In
1996 I was made the Chairman of the subcommittee. At that time,
we had gone 4 years without any kind of an oversight. This is
something you cannot do with any bureaucracy. You have to have
oversight. We immediately started doing that and started
anticipating and expecting response on a regular basis.
I will start with you, Ms. Caputo. If you are confirmed,
will you commit to continue these reports and work with the
Committee on any revisions to improve their usefulness and also
to respond to an oversight hearing on a regular basis?
Ms. Caputo. Yes, I will.
Senator Inhofe. Ms. Bodine, you mentioned OECA several
times. I have been a bit disturbed by some of the measures that
I would refer to as performance measures. For example,
targeting a specific number of enforcement actions sounds like
a quota to me. Does it sound that way to you also?
Ms. Bodine. That is an issue I would like to look into if I
am confirmed as the Assistant Administrator. Enforcement is a
tool. It is a critical tool, but it is not an end to itself.
Our goal, of course, is compliance.
I want to sit down with EPA staff and look over the
performance measures and make sure OECA employees are getting
credit for their work, whether or not they take a formal
enforcement action, because we all want compliance with the
law.
Senator Inhofe. You would look into that anyway in that
capacity if you are confirmed?
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. That is what we expect.
Most of our Superfund sites are cleaned up by private
parties. We have had problems in the past with that. Can you
discuss how OECA helps achieve getting these things done
through the private sector?
Ms. Bodine. Yes. The Superfund statute is a very forceful
law. It does make sure that parties responsible for
contamination can be held liable. OECA is the office that holds
their feet to the fire and brings action against them so that
private parties do clean up. They have been tremendously
successful.
Senator Carper, you gave us the statistics from the
commitments of clean up work, over $1 billion from last year.
In addition, OECA collects funds and puts it into what we call
special accounts so that private parties can pay money instead
of doing the work.
Right now, we actually $3.5 billion in special accounts
that is there, available, not subject to appropriation and is
available to carry out clean up work at the sites in the cases
where OECA has brought the enforcement action.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Ms. Bodine.
Last, Administrator Pruitt wants the EPA to embrace
cooperative federalism. How does that apply to enforcement?
Ms. Bodine. In the enforcement context, in my view, that
means respecting State interpretations of their own law. It
means dividing the work between States and not taking
duplicative enforcement actions. It means coordinating with
States so we let States know when, for example, OECA
enforcement officers are coming into their States to take
action.
I would like to point out that just yesterday the
Environmental Council of the States, the organization that
represents the State Environmental Commissioners, put out a
statement entitled, ``Cooperative Federalism 2.0,'' which I
guess is a white paper.
There they speak exactly to this issue and talk about how a
State should be the primary enforcement authority for programs
delegated to the States and have the ability to access Federal
enforcement authorities when needed or appropriate.
Senator Inhofe. Ms. Svinicki, I have no questions for you
because you have been around a long time. I have always agreed
with what you have done. I am just glad you are willing to
continue doing this.
Mr. Wright, you are fairly new to me, but you have a very
interesting background. I think it is the kind of background
that requires cooperation. It is something you cannot just have
out there and command because you have to get along with the
other side. I think that is a great asset that you have.
I will certainly look forward to working with you and your
talents and building consensus. I think you are going to be of
great value. Is there any statement you want to make about how
consensus has served you well?
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Senator.
I do not believe I would have risen to the level that I did
within the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners had I not been able to work across beliefs, party
lines, you name it, because it is a consensus organization.
They do not do anything except by resolution and through the
committee process.
You have to be able to work with people. That is a skill
that is learned over time. I look forward to using that because
I believe I have a certain skill set that will benefit the
Commission.
Senator Inhofe. That is great. I look forward to working
with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. I am going to yield to Senator Gillibrand.
I think several of us have other hearings.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Ranking Member.
I am concerned that the NRC's decommissioning rule will
potentially set up a process by which the emergency planning
zone and associated requirements for nuclear plants will be
automatically reduced with a plant's shutdown operations while
there is still fuel remaining in the spent fuel pool.
There is currently no maximum amount of time that fuel can
remain in a spent fuel pool. A major driver for shrinking the
emergency planning zone during decommissioning is the cost to
the licensee.
My first question to the panel is, is it appropriate to
factor the cost to the licensee into the decision on the size
and scope of emergency planning activities; why or why not?
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you for the question, Senator.
As you know, the NRC has a rulemaking underway on this
topic right now. It is my understanding that the staff analysis
has not developed the draft rule yet, but they have published
something called a regulatory basis.
They are looking at sizing the emergency planning zone to
the extent of the risk or hazard. I do not believe it is an
economic analysis. If I am wrong about that, I can correct that
for the record.
Senator Gillibrand. That would be great largely because if
you have a pool of unspent fuel sitting 50 miles from New York
City, it becomes a national security risk that is real. It also
is an environmental hazard.
Does anyone else have further thoughts on that question?
Ms. Caputo. If confirmed, this is certainly an issue that I
would like to look into and focus on and certainly be briefed
by the staff.
Senator Gillibrand. I would be very grateful.
Mr. Wright. I have nothing to add to what Annie just told
you.
Senator Gillibrand. Susan.
Ms. Bodine. Not on that issue, nothing.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
If anyone has a thought, should there be limits placed on
the amount of time that spent fuel can remain in a spent fuel
pool, particularly if you do have an environmental or national
security issue?
Ms. Svinicki. Senator, again, thank you for that question.
NRC looks closely at the hazard posed in making these
safety determinations, although it has been NRC's established
position that spent fuel pool storage is safe and equally safe
to the dry cask storage, the other alternative.
Senator Gillibrand. I think of safe as a measure of what.
When you are looking at national security concerns and
location, I think you have to maybe augment that definition of
what is safe.
My second question is for Susan Bodine. It has been
reported that during your time as partner at the law firm of
Barnes and Thornburg, you represented the plastics company
Saint-Gobain.
As you may know, Saint-Gobain was responsible for polluting
the drinking water in Hoosick Falls, New York, with PFOA. The
Saint-Gobain facility in Hoosick Falls has been proposed for
listing as a Federal Superfund site. That proposed listing is
still pending at the EPA. Could you please describe the work
you did on behalf of Saint-Gobain?
Ms. Bodine. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand.
First, let me say that I would have no problem bringing an
enforcement action against any company whatsoever, whether I
worked for them in the past or not.
Second, I have never worked for the performance plastics
company that you are referring to. I did work with a company
called Saint-Gobain Containers, headquartered in Muncie,
Indiana. They make glass containers. For example, they have a
facility in Milford, Massachusetts, that makes 1.2 million beer
bottles a day.
Their issue is that they wanted to increase the amount of
glass that was recycled because if they use recycled glass
instead of raw material, they can reduce their energy cost and
their emissions. My entire representation for them was
associated with encouraging recycling.
Senator Gillibrand. In your written testimony, you bring up
the term ``cooperative federalism'' several times. How do you
envision the EPA role versus the role of States in enforcing
Federal environmental statutes?
Ms. Bodine. As I mentioned earlier, many of our
environmental statutes authorize or delegate to States the
responsibility for carrying out those laws. I think we need to
have close coordination with the authorized States to the
delegated States so that we are not duplicating action and are
both conserving our resources to the greatest extent.
That does not say that there is no role for OECA at all. Of
course there are some matters that EPA and the Enforcement
Office at EPA are uniquely qualified to carry out whether it is
going after sector initiatives or companies with facilities in
multiple States. It is more efficient to take an action that
involves multiple facilities and criminal enforcement as well.
EPA has unique capabilities in that area.
Senator Gillibrand. Finally, the Trump budget proposes to
cut the funding of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance by 24 percent. What impact do you expect that will
have on the ability of the EPA to hold polluters accountable?
Ms. Bodine. Again, I expect to work with the enforcement
staff and with States to go after the highest priority and the
most egregious polluters. States are going to implement the day
to day enforcement, but EPA is going to maintain an enforcement
presence, certainly create the deterrent effect, and take these
high profile cases.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Before turning to Senator Ernst, I would like to introduce
for the record a letter of support for Ms. Bodine's nomination
from Stanley Meiburg, the EPA's Acting Deputy Administrator in
the Obama administration, supporting her nomination with the
quote, ``Ms. Bodine's presence as a confirmed nominee will
strengthen the voice of enforcement in that Agency.''
Without objection, that will be admitted.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Ernst.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, panelists and witnesses, for being here today.
Ms. Bodine, I have some questions for you related to how
you will manage and conduct the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance at EPA because I think this will be a
crucial part of EPA's effort to win back the trust of many
Americans.
As you know, regulations and their standards are not always
clear. We can see that through WOTUS and so many other examples
that are not always clear on what they require.
Do you believe it is part of EPA's job to make sure
regulated parties, like farmers and manufacturers who want to
comply, know how they can comply?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, Senator, I very much believe that is a
role that EPA plays. That means that the Enforcement Office
needs to work with the States and the EPA program offices so
that we all have a consistent understanding of what the law
requires and that we communicate that to the farmers, industry,
and municipalities.
Senator Ernst. Wonderful. Consistent understanding and
communication, I love that. I think that is very, very
important.
To briefly follow up, what do you believe should be the
primary goal of enforcement in addressing so many of our
compliance problems? Do you believe it is EPA's role, not just
to levy fines against people, but to also go in and assist them
with actual compliance?
Ms. Bodine. The goal is compliance. The goal is not
enforcement. Enforcement is not an end to itself; it is an
important tool to make sure that our environmental laws are
complied with. So, yes, compliance assistance is another tool,
and I think also a very important tool.
Senator Ernst. Very good because I believe if we are to
solve any of our issues, we have to get to the root cause of
the problem, that is assistance with compliance to make sure we
all fall within that compliance and move toward the goal of
those regulations.
Thank you very much. I yield back my time.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Senator Whitehouse was here earlier. He is
a busy fellow this morning, so I am going to yield to him for
whatever questions he would like to ask.
Senator Whitehouse. I thank the Ranking Member, and I
welcome all the witnesses. To the candidates who are here for
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, we have had our discussion
already. I will not re-litigate any of those issues here.
We stand extremely ready to work with you to speed up the
processes of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission so that next
generation nuclear facilities can be appropriately brought on
line here with, to me, the most particular and ultimate goal to
find technologies that will allow us to turn our existing
nuclear waste stockpile--which has to be a multi-trillion
dollar liability on the books of the United States if properly
accounted for--into an asset by allowing it to be used to
create power, to create electrons.
In the meantime, I look forward to working with you to try
to find ways to enable our safely operating nuclear plants, to
continue to safely operate rather than shut them down because
they are not adequately compensated for the carbon-free nature
of their power. We said that already. We can keep going.
My concern mostly is with Ms. Bodine. I am sorry about the
circumstance you find yourself in because I think that the
Environmental Protection Agency has, in a nutshell, been
captured by a corporate polluter raiding party and now is under
the direction of agents of the big polluters that it was
intended to regulate.
The founding fathers' word for this would, I think, have
been corruption. Teddy Roosevelt would probably have had far
stronger words. The polluter raiding party, I am sorry to say,
can bet on zero oversight from the EPW Committee majority which
would not even require the incoming Administrator's disclosure
of his conflicts of interest arising from his dark money
political fund raising operation.
Because dark money is a bizarre new phenomenon in our
political world, this set of appointees was the first to raise
this conflict of interest question. This Committee fell down on
its duty to get the requisite disclosure to understand what
those conflicts of interest might be.
Therefore, I am very worried that the EPA will not do much
enforcing of environmental laws during this Administration. As
you know already, Ms. Bodine, Scott Pruitt's record on
environmental enforcement is abysmal. He eliminated the
Environmental Protection Unit in the Oklahoma Attorney
General's Office, did not participate in the Oklahoma
Environmental Crime Task Force which his predecessor led, could
not list a single environmental enforcement achievement during
his confirmation, and stopped reporting the enforcement that
his predecessor had reported, including numbers of criminal
investigations, Federal and State environmental prosecutions,
felony convictions of individuals, jail time, fines, and other
basic enforcement statistics.
If you are doing a terrible job, I suppose the first thing
you want to do is get rid of the reporting. Refusing to release
those statistics recurred again. He would not report even to us
during his confirmation, again, I think knowing perfectly well
that the majority was not going to require any information from
him.
The Agency you will come in to lead has an impressive
history of enforcing environmental statutes. Let me ask, first,
if you will continue the process of reporting that has been the
tradition of that part of EPA.
Ms. Bodine. Yes, Senator, absolutely.
Senator Whitehouse. You will not follow the Pruitt model of
closing the reporting to cover up the fact that there is no
enforcement left?
Ms. Bodine. OECA has always issued its annual enforcement
numbers. If confirmed, OECA will continue to release its annual
enforcement numbers.
Senator Whitehouse. If you are told by the Administrator to
go light or to back off or to take it easy or to let it go, how
will we know that is taking place, and how will we know that
you did not say OK?
Ms. Bodine. Senator, I cannot accept that premise.
Senator Whitehouse. OK. Change it to the President. What if
the President tells you that? We know he said to let Flynn go.
Why wouldn't he say let some polluter go?
Ms. Bodine. Enforcement has always been non-partisan and
independent at EPA. If confirmed, I would make sure that
continued to be true.
Senator Whitehouse. One of the things people do when asked
to do things that are inconsistent with their duties is to push
back or resign. Would you be prepared to do that if the
pressure from the Administrator was, in your view, inconsistent
with the duties and obligations of the Agency?
Ms. Bodine. Again, Senator, I cannot imagine that
circumstance coming up, but, yes, I have my own integrity, but
so does Administrator Pruitt. I am not at all concerned that
the circumstance would ever arise.
Senator Whitehouse. Wow, because that runs wildly contrary
to his entire record.
My time has expired.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
I would like to point out to the Committee that any
questions relating to potential conflicts for Administrator
Pruitt have been fully addressed by the Office of Government
Ethics on January 17, 2017.
Walter Schaub, who is the Director of the Office of
Government Ethics, responded to a letter from the Ranking
Member and other EPW Democrats regarding Scott Pruitt and
potential conflicts of interest, ``If OGE, the Office of
Government Ethics, has transmitted a certified financial
disclosure report and an ethics agreement to the Senate, it
means that OGE is satisfied that all financial conflicts of
interest have been identified and resolved.''
This follows Administrator Pruitt's OGE financial
disclosure report and ethics agreement that was transmitted to
this Committee on January 4, 2017. His letter states, ``We,''
the OGE, ``believe that this nominee is in compliance with
applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of
interest.''
I ask unanimous consent to enter these two letters into the
record.
Senator Whitehouse. I would object and ask unanimous
consent also to enter into the record, along with it, the
correspondence we have had with OGE about how the dark money
operation was not actually considered by them and therefore,
was never looked at and was not a part of that OGE response.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. No objection then on my
side.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to make a few comments based on my good friend
Senator Whitehouse's comments. And he is my good friend, and we
work on a lot of things together, but we all agree that we need
clean water and clean air. Really important, whether you are
from New Jersey or Alaska or Rhode Island.
We also need an EPA that follows the law, that actually
follows the law, reads statutes and follows the law. With all
due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
there are many people in my State, Democrats and Republicans,
that believe the last Administrator of the EPA didn't follow
the law at all. So one of the refreshing things about
Administrator Pruitt is that he is going to follow the law. The
EPA has to follow the law.
Would you agree with that, Ms. Bodine?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, absolutely, Senator.
Senator Sullivan. And I think, and you don't have to
comment on this, but as a former AG who also sued the EPA, they
didn't follow the law a lot, particularly during the last 4
years. So I think it is a breath of fresh air that we have a
new Administrator who actually wants to follow the law and work
with States. If you are confirmed, will you commit to work with
the States, States like Alaska or Rhode Island or New Jersey or
Illinois, to work with us to clean up hazardous sites, to clean
up pollution, other things that are the core mission of the
EPA?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, Senator, absolutely.
Senator Sullivan. Let me go into a specific issue that
relates to Alaska. There was a hearing here recently on
contaminated lands that we have with Alaska Native Land Claims
Settlement Act. This is millions of acres of lands that were
transferred to Alaska Natives. We had a very powerful witness
just a couple months ago, Ms. Lukin, who is an Alaska native,
who talked about this kind of Catch-22 that Alaska native
corporations are in with regard to CERCLA requirements and the
clean up. They are being required to now clean up lands that
were transferred to them by the Federal Government.
You are very familiar with this issue; we have talked about
it. Do you care to comment on that briefly?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, Senator. Yes, I am familiar with that
issue. Currently, EPA enforcement uses its enforcement
discretion to not seek to compel the Alaska native villages to
clean up the lands because, of course, the contamination was
caused by the Federal Government.
Senator Sullivan. Right.
Ms. Bodine. But right now it is an enforcement discretion
policy; it is not statute.
Senator Sullivan. First of all, I think, Mr. Chairman, the
Ranking Member, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I
actually believe there is a bipartisan sense that we can
hopefully fix this from a statutory perspective on this
Committee and in the Senate.
But as we work through that, can you commit to me to
continue that kind of discretion on an issue that would
essentially bankrupt these companies through no fault of their
own?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, sir.
Senator Sullivan. And would you commit to work with the
Committee to help us try to maybe get to a place where the
Administration, and in a bipartisan way, this Committee can
work to craft a statutory resolution?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, sir.
Senator Sullivan. Let me turn to another issue. In Chicken,
Alaska, I believe you are familiar with what happened to my
constituents during a raid conducted by the EPA: assault
weapons, body armor, the whole nine yards. It was like the U.S.
Marines invading a rural community in Alaska, EPA officials
armed with weapons to look for clean water violations that they
never found. Are you familiar with that?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, I am.
Senator Sullivan. Do you believe that EPA should have
agents that are trained to be armed when we have Federal
marshals or local, State, and Federal officials that can
execute warrants or execute enforcement actions just as easily,
better trained than EPA agents armed and coming in and scaring
the heck out of law abiding Alaskans who haven't done anything
wrong?
Ms. Bodine. Senator Sullivan, if I am confirmed, I would
like to review the guidance and policies for when EPA agents
would be armed.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you. I had a bill that would disarm
the EPA. The first 20 years of its existence the EPA had no
armed agents. I don't think they need them now. I think it is a
waste of taxpayer money, and it encourages abuses like you saw
in Chicken, Alaska. So I would like to work with you on that as
well.
By the way, I think you are highly qualified. I think you
are going to make an outstanding addition to the EPA's
leadership. I look forward to voting for your confirmation.
Let me just ask a final question of our other witnesses.
How can we assure that we continue the highest levels of safety
with regard to our civilian nuclear energy capacity as we look
to move forward and actually move forward on perhaps building
new reactors that have the capacity to bring clean energy to
our power generation for the United States?
Open up to any of the panelists who are up for confirmation
on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. It has been my
philosophy, in being a member of this Committee for nearly 10
years, that our safety determinations need to be rooted in the
facts, in analysis, need to have rigorous cost-benefit analyses
behind them, and be developed in a transparent way with
stakeholder and public involvement, and I think that leads to
the most informed decisions.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Ms. Caputo. I think that history and that track record sets
the stage for future reviews. I think timeliness and efficiency
is one aspect of that so there is predictability for companies
who may embark on development of advanced nuclear.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Wright. And I think vigilance. You have to pay
attention to it every day, and don't accept anything at face
value. You have to just review it all the time. Safety is No.
1.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Let me yield to my
time, at this point, to Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. I wanted to go really quickly here.
Chairman Svinicki, as my colleague said, it is really
exciting; billions of dollars of investment, private
investment, are really invested in advanced nuclear reactors.
It is incredible. The next generation of reactors is going to
be more safe, more efficient. I worry, though, the NRC has a
lot of experience in licensing water cooled reactors, but
limited experience with advanced non-water cooled designs.
Yes or no, do you think the NRC should move forward to a
more technologically inclusive risk informed regulatory
framework for advanced reactor licensing?
Ms. Svinicki. Yes, and we have begun to develop that, but
we have work yet to do.
Senator Booker. A lot of work, in my opinion. And I am
grateful for the work you are putting in.
These advanced reactors, these sub-critical reactors, these
advanced fusion reactors are, to me, very, very exciting. Do
you believe, yes or no, that the NRC should subject these
technologies to the existing regulatory framework design, or
would you expect the NRC, instead, to quickly develop a more
appropriate risk based regulation for these types of inherently
safer technologies?
Ms. Svinicki. Senator, we should move forward on the
development of a new framework, but if a designer comes in and
seeks approval now, although it might be inefficient, I think
we should try to get started. So we should do both at the same
time.
Senator Booker. I am grateful for that. Just wanted to get
that on the record.
Ms. Bodine, I just want to switch to you because I have a
great degree of alarm at the state of our country's
environmental well-being, especially as it affects the poorest
amongst us, minorities, tribal communities. In fact, 50 years
of research reveals that these minority, low income, and tribal
communities are more likely to be exposed to really serious
environmental contaminants, public health hazards.
I have begun to visit these around the United States of
America, and it is literally stunning, the condition of some
communities, as you know. Even Reuters just released a report
about lead poisoning with communities, over 1,000 communities
having more than twice the lead poisoning blood levels than
even Flint does.
And this is why I am really alarmed. You all will, in OECA,
have EPA's environmental justice program which is charged with
identifying these problems and health disparities for minority
and low income populations. That falls underneath the purview
of OECA. So I was stunned with President Trump proposed to
eliminate funding in 2018 for the Office of Environmental
Justice. So I just have three quick questions.
One is, do you believe that there is a problem in America
with certain communities that are adversely affected by
outrageous circumstances of environmental injustice?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, I believe there can be adverse effects on
low income or minority populations.
Senator Booker. So, yes, there is a persistent problem with
environmental injustice in this country in certain communities.
Yes, correct?
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Senator Booker. All right. So, if confirmed, will you
commit, in a nation where we literally swear an oath, you and
I, that we will be a country of liberty and justice for all,
will you commit to making environmental justice a top priority
to alleviate the injustice going on in certain poor and
minority communities?
Ms. Bodine. Environmental justice is important to all the
EPA program offices, and the President's budget states that
each program office will continue to incorporate environmental
justice into their programs. That includes the enforcement
program.
Senator Booker. And that will be a priority for you?
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Senator Booker. OK. I don't have much more time. Because if
it is my children living in places with cancer alleys, higher
instances of respiratory diseases--right now I live in Newark,
New Jersey. We have Superfund sites in our community, at a time
where there is no resources to clean them up. And I have seen
the longitudinal data. I hope you have studied it. Children
born in those areas, if you are a pregnant woman, 20 percent
higher rates of autism, 20 percent higher rates of birth
defects. It should be a priority, and it should be an urgency.
So will you commit to me right now that your office will
advocate within the Administration for the environmental
justice office to remain funded at least at 2017 levels so we
as a nation can pursue, fight for, and establish environmental
justice in our nation?
Ms. Bodine. So that office hasn't always been located in
OECA, and according to the President's budget request, the
cross-program functions of that office are going to be carried
out out of the Office of Policy and the Office of the
Administrator. And each program office is going to continue to
carry out their environmental justice functions.
I used to head up the office that carried out Superfund and
RCRA, and we had environmental justice considerations very
front and center in carrying out the decisions of whether it
was Superfund or the hazardous waste sites.
Senator Booker. So you are telling me that you don't think
it is your purview to be pursuing environmental justice in
these communities that are so adversely impacted?
Ms. Bodine. I didn't say that, Senator.
Senator Booker. So will you explain to me? Because I am
going to have to vote on your confirmation, which I will not do
unless I know you are going to be a champion for communities of
color and communities of poverty.
Ms. Bodine. Yes, I will be a champion for communities of
color and communities of poverty, and those functions are going
to be carried out, under the President's budget, both in the
program offices, which includes the enforcement office, as well
as out of the Administrator's office, which would, I assume,
continue to support the advisory committee, as well as there is
a tool that is called EJSCREEN that is a GIS-based tool that
you can go and look and see where there might be populations
that are either low income or are also minority populations.
To me, the most important component of carrying out these
environmental justice responsibilities is talking to people so
that you know where there might be these disproportionate
impacts, because our environmental laws are set to protect
everyone, but there can be disproportionate impacts based on
location, and we have a screening tool that allows us to
examine that. We also need to talk to the communities so we
understand what people's exposures are. That is something that
is important across the board.
Senator Booker. My time has expired.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Booker.
I would like to introduce for the record a letter from an
Obama administration EPA general counsel under Administrator
Gina McCarthy, Avi Garbow, who writes, ``Based on my
experience, Ms. Bodine possesses a strong intellect, a keen
understanding of environmental law and policy, and is
respectful and responsive. She is a seasoned environmental
lawyer and a skilled advocate.''
I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record. It
is a June 12, 2017, EPA.
Senator Carper. I object. No, I am just kidding.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Carper. I don't object.
Senator Barrasso. You don't? Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. You have to liven things up here just a
little bit. Loosen them up, anyway.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Question for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission nominees. The State of Wyoming is in the process of
applying to become what is known as an agreement State in order
to regulate uranium recovery. It is home to over 60 percent of
the nation's uranium production, and I anticipate Wyoming is
going to submit its application sometime later this year.
If confirmed, will you ensure that the Commission gives
this application fair consideration and makes a timely
decision?
Ms. Svinicki. Yes, Senator, I will. And there is funding
requested to support our part of that review in the fiscal year
2018 budget.
Ms. Caputo. Yes, I will, Senator.
Mr. Wright. Yes, sir.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Let me yield to Senator Duckworth and thank her for coming
today.
Senator Duckworth. I thank the Ranking Member.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to start by submitting an op-ed co-authored by
Mary Gade, former Administrator of EPA Region 5 under President
Bush, and also Howard Lerner, from the Chicago Sun-Times for
the record. It is called ``Trump EPA Plan Endangers a Global
Gem--our Great Lakes.''
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Duckworth. The article explains why eliminating or
moving EPA Region 5 would be a grave mistake. As these authors
describe it, closing the region would be ``penny-wise and pound
foolish, just like the flawed choice to seek short-term cost
savings that resulted in the Flint contaminated water
tragedy.''
Ms. Bodine, I am interested in understanding your view on
this. I know we discussed this during our meeting, but your
answer focused on the process of closing offices, not on your
opinions as an enforcer. Do you believe eliminating EPA Region
5 would improve or harm enforcement?
Ms. Bodine. Senator, I haven't seen any analysis that would
support that. And as I observed to you in your office, Region 5
is a very large region. I also further note that there is no
request in the President's budget for any funding to eliminate
any regions.
Senator Duckworth. But given the size of Region 5, if it
were eliminated, would it make it easier or harder to enforce
rules and regulations that help protect our environment?
Ms. Bodine. So, again, without understanding how the
resources would be picked up, I don't have an answer to your
question.
Senator Duckworth. OK. Well, I understand that you are not
the----
Ms. Bodine. But I am also not aware of any plan. I am not
aware of any plan to close Region 5.
Senator Duckworth. So I am trying to figure out your view
on this from a pure enforcement perspective. Would it increase
or decrease enforcement if Region 5 were to be shut down?
Ms. Bodine. If all the resources were simply transferred to
another region, it would be the same. But, again, I haven't
seen any plan to do any of that.
Senator Duckworth. But you just said how large Region 5 is.
If you move the EPA office for Region 5 somewhere else, the EPA
certainly would not be able to respond rapidly to instances
when they are needed. For example, we had tornadoes all
throughout Illinois, and oftentimes EPA is among the first to
respond. But if you shut down Region 5, and you moved it
somewhere else, say Kansas or somewhere else, do you think that
you could still respond adequately to any type of enforcement
requirement?
Ms. Bodine. Some of our other large regions actually have
separate offices, they have State offices, like the Montana
office. Obviously, there is an Alaska office. Now, I would
observe that maybe that would be less efficient if we had to
open up other offices, but again, my assumption would be any
plan--and again there is none--but if there were to be a plan,
it would have to examine all of those issues, including that
very valid issue you just raised about response time.
Senator Duckworth. Well, I will certainly hold you to that.
As the chief enforcement officer, you will be responsible
for setting the enforcement goals for the Agency, and this
Agency is tasked with safeguarding communities against
pollution. What goals will you set, and what areas do you think
would demand your attention?
Ms. Bodine. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. As I said earlier
in response to Senator Inhofe, I want to look at the
performance measures because I want to help focus on outcomes.
So I want to sit down with the enforcement staff at EPA and
talk about what goals they think would be appropriate to
achieve the environmental outcome; that is compliance, that is
reduction in pounds of pollutants, that is pounds and cubic
yards of waste that is being cleaned up. Those type of outcome
measures are ones that I would like to focus on.
Senator Duckworth. So how would you be able to achieve
those types of measures, those types of goals, with the
diminished resources that the Trump administration is
proposing; budget cuts, hiring freezes, regional office
closures? How would you be able to do your job?
Ms. Bodine. Again, EPA's enforcement is going to be working
with the States, and if confirmed, I would want to work with
the States to make sure that they are carrying out the base
programs and that EPA would be focusing on the larger cases,
the cases where they have facilities crossing State lines, the
criminal enforcement cases, again, targeting the most egregious
cases, targeting the cases with the greatest return. And by
taking those actions it still creates an enforcement deterrent
because EPA is out there taking these actions.
Senator Duckworth. So you basically are saying you are
going to hand over many of those routine functions, say, to
make sure that there is no lead in the water supply onto the
States. That didn't work out very well in Michigan at all. In
fact, it failed miserably, and there are children now living
with long-term effects of that, and I don't think that is
acceptable.
Ms. Bodine. So you are describing what is already true
under our statutes. A State like Michigan, for example, is a
primacy State under the Safe Drinking Water Act and does have
primary enforcement responsibilities. EPA has a responsibility
to make sure that States are carrying out those functions.
There is something called the State review framework, where EPA
and the States get together, and they evaluate the other
States.
Senator Duckworth. But that obviously failed in Michigan,
and obviously it did not work. EPA had the ability to step in
and stop what was happening in Flint and did not, and failed to
do so. And I have Galesburg, Illinois, that has lead in the
water supply right now. We have lead in water in Chicago, and I
am fearful that EPA, under you, is not going to do its job in
regulating and making sure that we hold people accountable.
Ms. Bodine. May I respond, Senator? Flint wasn't a normal
situation, and if I am confirmed, I would want to make
absolutely certain that the EPA staff who are enforcement staff
in the regions, as well as the headquarters, that if they see a
situation like that where, as you point out, it was a tragedy,
children were being affected by lead, that they need to report
up, because we need to know about it.
Senator Duckworth. My problem is that the Trump
administration cuts the budget to have those staff on the
ground, so you won't have anybody there in order to do that.
I am way over time, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I yield
back.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. I
appreciate your comments.
I had a question for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
nominees. I would like each of you to tell me what you think
the biggest challenge is today for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, what it currently faces and how, if confirmed, you
would address it.
Ms. Svinicki. I would, in this moment, identify that
enhancing our agility is a significant challenge for the
Agency. When I joined the Commission in 2008, there was an
envisioned nuclear renaissance. Many new reactors were
envisioned being under construction, and it is hard, in a large
organization, when we don't face those circumstances today, to
size ourselves and adjust our processes for the energy system
that we have today, not the energy system that the United
States predicted 10 years ago. So, as an Agency, we need to be
able to resource and size ourselves in an agile way.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Caputo.
Ms. Caputo. I would agree with that. One of the challenges
I think that we have watched certainly here in this Committee
is, like the Chairman said, the shift from burgeoning growth in
the industry to now a decrease, and yet we will see more change
coming as advanced reactors blossom and develop and begin to
seek licenses at the Agency. So, as she said, agility and being
able to position staff to manage those workload changes I think
remains the biggest challenge.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Wright.
Mr. Wright. I totally agree that right sizing the Agency
and streamlining is important. Obviously, we need to make sure
that our human capital is used the right way and that we have
the right expertise to do what we need to do.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Markey has been in and out several times.
Senator Markey, why don't you go ahead?
Senator Markey. Have you gone yet?
Senator Carper. Go ahead, go ahead.
Senator Markey. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Let me start with a major issue facing the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission: how to ensure the safety of spent
nuclear fuel. According to an article in Science Magazine by
physicists from the Union of Concerned Scientists and Princeton
University, the NRC has drastically underestimated the risks
from a fire at a spent fuel pond. The NRC's analysis has
underestimated both the probability of a spent fuel fire and
its consequences. As a result, the NRC has understated the
benefit to the public of moving fuel from risky pools over to
safer, dry cask.
One of the Princeton authors of the new study ran a
simulation of the area that could be irradiated by a spent fuel
pool fire at the Pilgrim Power Station in Massachusetts if such
a fire occurred under summer weather conditions when beach
season is getting started. As you can see from the orange
contour, the impact of that fire would be devastating. Across
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, the consequences of
such an event would be absolutely catastrophic.
The scientists who did the analysis indicated that the cost
of the fire could be upwards of $2 trillion nationally, an
economic disruption. By contrast, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's estimate of the financial consequences was 20
times less. And the Commission used that estimate to dismiss
the benefit of dry cask storage, which would only cost $50
million per reactor.
So, by dramatically reducing the cost that would occur if
such a fire did hit a nuclear power plant, the NRC, in its
cost-benefit analysis, is able to avoid forcing the utilities
to move from the spent fuel pools over to dry cask.
Do any of you disagree that the NRC should apply state of
the art science when making decisions about safety?
Ms. Svinicki. Senator, of course I am in agreement that the
correct science should be applied. The NRC staff has done a
quick review of the article that you referenced. They have
looked at whether it presents different scenarios that were
unanalyzed by the NRC. They did not identify anything in this
preliminary review, but their look is ongoing, so if I may
respond for the record if there is additional comparative
details that they can provide.
Senator Markey. Well, it is a pretty blistering, scalding
indictment. It basically concludes that there was an
underestimation of the time to clean up after that kind of
contamination hit such an area; it failed to account for the
risk of a terrorist attack at a nuclear power plant that would
seek to ignite a fire with these spent fuel pools; and it
actually failed to consider the economic consequences broadly
of what the impact would be, including after Fukushima, the
shutdown of nuclear power plants, whether or not that same
thing would occur in our own country.
So your staff has not done you a good service if they have
evaluated the article and not come back, then, with the
analysis of these vulnerabilities that have been identified by
the Princeton scientists in the evaluation done by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Have you had a chance to read that Science Magazine
article?
Ms. Svinicki. I have not, Senator.
Senator Markey. Have any of you read the Science Magazine
article?
Ms. Caputo. I wasn't aware of it.
Senator Markey. Well, again, this just goes to the whole
issue of what the impact is, ultimately, on an area when a fire
like that could occur. So I recommend to you that you read it,
because I am going to keep coming back on it in terms of the
impact.
Ms. Bodine, last year I did a report entitled ``The ABCs of
PCBs, A Toxic Threat to America's Schools.'' We have up to 14
million students nationwide, nearly 30 percent of America's
school-aged population may be exposed to PCBs for hours every
day in their schools. In the President's budget, President
Trump cuts the budget by 34 percent to be able to deal with
these issues.
How will it be possible, Ms. Bodine, for the Trump
administration to deal with this kind of exposure to PCBs of
students in cities and towns all across our country if there is
a 34 percent reduction in the EPA budget to be able to ensure
that there is compliance?
Ms. Bodine. Senator Markey, if confirmed, I would look into
the issue you are raising about the PCBs in schools and, again,
as I said earlier, OECA, the Federal EPA enforcement is going
to continue to focus on cases with the most impact. That might
be one of them. And the delegated States, authorized States are
going to carry out the core basic mission, which they are
already doing. ECOS likes to put out the statistic that 96
percent of the environmental statutes and work is being carried
out by States already.
Senator Markey. Well, here President Trump is going to make
sure that children in schools all across the country are going
to be more exposed to PCBs in their classrooms, and saying to
States and local communities, good luck, you take it over. The
EPA had responsibility. So to the extent to which there is a 34
percent reduction in the Trump EPA budget for that issue, you
can be sure that the States will try to intervene, but the
reason there is a Federal program is because it is so
pervasive, so hard, and actually part of a policy back in the
1950s and 1960s, all the way up to 1979, when PCBs were kind of
given a free pass. And I blame the Federal Government on that,
which is why we had to upgrade the Toxic Substances Control Act
last year.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you, Mr. Chairman, on
the rewrite of TSCA last year, but this 34 percent cut in this
budget is just disgraceful. It really is going to put children
all over our country at great unnecessary risk that could have
been avoided if the President didn't cut that budget for
children to be protected.
Mr. Chairman, I have other questions for the witnesses that
I will submit to you for the record and with my hope that the
witnesses will answer them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Senator Carper, let me put four things into the record.
Senator Carper. Go right ahead.
Senator Inhofe. So I won't forget.
Ask unanimous consent a June 12, 2017, EPA press release
that includes statements in support of the EPA nominee from six
Democrats, six Republicans, and two association leaders.
Without objection.
The six letters in support of the EPA nominee, two letters
in support of the NRC nominees, one statement for the record
from Senators Heller and Cortez Masto. Without objection, I ask
that they be made a part of the record.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I know several of my colleagues have drilled down on the
question of funding for EPA, particularly funding for the
efforts of the Agency that you would lead if confirmed, Ms.
Bodine.
I asked my staff to go back and to share with me, and I
will share with you, what happened to EPA funding overall in
the last Administration. Some people would say, well, it
probably went up. Well, it didn't. In fact, it was reduced
overall for those 8 years by about 20 percent, about 3 percent
a year, something like that. So this Administration has not
inherited a robust budget level of funding for EPA.
The Administration would further reduce overall in their
budget proposal funding for the EPA by about a third overall.
For the Agency that, if confirmed, you would lead--reduction
would be about another roughly 24 percent. And the States in
this program are what we call a policy of cooperative
federalism, the States who share responsibility with the
Federal Government on making sure the environment is clean and
safe. This Administration would reduce the budget for the
States to do their share by almost half.
Now, that may not concern you. As a former Governor, it
concerns me. It concerns me. We are talking basically by
reducing by half over the last 10 years, 9 years, reducing by
half the resources available to do the job in your Agency, and
also by half for States to do their share in enforcement.
Does that trouble you? Does that concern you?
Ms. Bodine. So I don't believe that the State cooperative
federalism grant budget is being cut in half. I don't have the
exact number in front of me.
Senator Carper. I believe it is 44 percent. Forty-four
percent.
Ms. Bodine. I will have to look at those numbers.
Senator Carper. Can't make this stuff up.
Ms. Bodine. I would point out that the environmental
counsel of the States, their report on cooperative federalism
that they issued yesterday, they point out that they are
calling for a recalibration of State and Federal roles, and
they say that that can lead to more effective environmental
management at lower cost.
Senator Carper. We are going to move off of this, but this
is a source of real concern, certainly to our side of the
aisle, and we will come back to this later.
You were all asked three questions before you testified,
and one of the questions you were asked--I think it was the
second question asked, was, do you agree to ensure the
testimony, briefings, documents, and electronic, and other
forms of information are provided to this Committee and its
staff, and other appropriate committees, in a timely manner?
Each of you said yes. Each of you said yes. I want to take you
at your word. I know a couple of you pretty well. I know Ms.
Svinicki very well, have a high regard for her.
But I am going to come back and sort of ask that question,
Ms. Bodine, in a different way. You are a current Senate
staffer and one who is, I think, highly regarded.
I am troubled in this situation. I think other folks on our
side are troubled. I think Republicans would be troubled if we
had a situation, if they faced a situation, our Republican
friends faced a situation where Democrats were a majority in
the House, majority in the Senate, and also had the presidency,
the White House, and our Republican friends wanted to get their
questions answered from this Administration, from a Democratic
administration, and that Democratic administration basically
would put out direction from the Administration to say you
don't have to respond to the minority. You don't have to
respond to the minority.
How do you think the Republicans would take that? You have
been around here for a while. How do you think they would take
that?
Ms. Bodine. I have worked for Congress for 13 and a half
years in my career, and I have deep respect for the oversight
responsibility of Congress. If confirmed, my bias would always
be to respond to any Member of Congress, whether the majority
or the minority, and certainly would not see that there would
be any change in practice from EPA.
Senator Carper. I don't have much time left. One second. I
hope the Chairman will be generous with me.
He cares a lot about oversight. I do as well. When you have
one team, whether it is all Democrat or Republican, whoever is
on the outs, whoever is in the minority, they are more likely
to do real oversight.
There is almost an inclination if you happen to be
Republican, the White House, the House and the Senate are all
Republican, there is less of an inclination to do the kind of
tough oversight that is needed, and it falls to the minority.
And when the minority can't have our questions responded to, as
has turned out to be the case repeatedly here, and especially
when the White House itself says don't answer those guys, you
don't have to answer those guys, that is deeply troubling, I
think for any of us. I don't care what party we are part of.
Let me ask a question, if I can. I will come to the
Chairman of the NRC, if I could. A lot of questions have been
asked of you already. Is there a question that we should have
asked, that we should have asked that hasn't been asked? Is
there a question that you think ought to be asked that hasn't
been asked? I have several more, but what do you think?
Ms. Svinicki. I don't know that it is a very good strategy
for me to propose a question that is particularly tricky,
because the tricky questions are the ones you should be asking,
but maybe why I am here for a third term, which I never could
have conceived of, to tell you the truth, Senator. But I have
developed a strong commitment and devotion to the NRC and its
people. Candidly, this is a town of great opportunity if you
are a hard worker, but I couldn't think of anything that was a
better application of what I know right now.
So, again, if the Senate acts favorably on my nomination, I
am very, very honored to continue. I have had some friends and
family question my sanity, but I am very committed to this work
if I am allowed to continue.
Senator Carper. Well, Senator Inhofe and I have sat here in
these seats in the past, and you sat there, and we have watched
some very, very difficult questioning and a lot of, frankly,
discomfort among the five NRC Commissioners, and things seem to
have, I will say, quieted down, and there seems to be a more
collaborative willingness to develop consensus. How do you
explain how this has happened?
Ms. Svinicki. I don't know, but I would observe that we
appear to be bucking the trend. I think that we have, again,
people of strong care and commitment. We had another Senate
hearing last week, and Senator Alexander remarked upon he
observed from the dais the same collegiality amongst the
serving members of the Commission. I indicated that to us
collegiality is separate and distinct from agreeing,
necessarily, on any particular matter; that collegiality is the
overriding behavior, and we may disagree on individual matters,
but collegiality is the imperative, and I think it is a shared
value.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I was out in California
during the Memorial Day recess and met with a bunch of
companies out there between San Francisco and San Jose doing
exciting and interesting things with technology and innovation
and job creation. I asked one of the big electric utilities out
there, I said, where do you see growth? Because that particular
utility, PG&E, they are actually providing a lot of incentives
for their customers, business and otherwise, to use less
electricity.
I said, how do you consider your stay in business and be
profitable? You know what they said? They said there is, over
the horizon, a huge demand for electricity that is going to
come from electric vehicles. Electric vehicles. And I was at a
place where they were making buses, huge buses that carry like
50 people, and they go 300 miles between charges. Three hundred
miles.
So there is a huge--going to be, I think, growing demand
for electricity, actually part of the vehicles, trucks, and
buses that they would ride in, and I think, in order to meet
that need, part of that generation of electricity has to come
from nuclear, and we are seeing one plant after the other after
another close and be noticed for foreclosure.
As we all know, nuclear doesn't put out any sulfur dioxide
or nitrogen oxide or carbon dioxide, no mercury, and it has to
be part of our solution, and we just want to work with you to
continue to address that need and to make sure that nuclear is
an important part of the mix.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record, if I
could, a survey done by the National Association of Clean Air
Agencies, which shows State agencies are deeply troubled by the
Trump budget cuts, and it will impact what States can do in
regards to clean air. I ask for unanimous consent.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Again, we thank you all for being with us
today. Especially thank your families. Annie, I would just say
that your children have been very well behaved and your husband
unusually well behaved.
Ms. Caputo. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. We applaud them all.
Thank you very much.
And let me just say to your mom, Mr. Wright, David, Ms.
Wright, my mom and her mom were born on the same day. Same day,
August 18th. I always called my mom on her birthday, but I
always call my mom on my birthday, too, which is January 23rd,
just to thank her for bringing me into the world. Those are
some of the most memorable conversations I think I have ever
had.
Mr. Wright. I agree.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
I want to thank your mom for having your back today.
Mr. Wright. She has always had my back. I brought her as my
body guard today.
Senator Inhofe. Well, let me just make a comment.
I do agree with a couple of the things that my good friend,
Senator Carper, has said, and I disagree with some, obviously.
One of the things I have learned, and we talked about this a
couple hours ago, was the first subcommittee that I chaired was
1996, and it was this subcommittee, and the subcommittee, at
that time, was relieved that they were actually going to get
oversight. You don't expect that, really, from a bureaucracy.
But they had had no oversight for 4 years, so they really
didn't have any direction. It was as if nobody cared and no one
was looking.
Right now it is a different environment altogether. I think
people realize that this kind of resistance to nuclear energy
that has been out there has been overcome to a great extent. It
is going to have to be part of the mix. When I have said all of
the above, it has always include that. By the way, we do have
some deadlines that we have to meet so that we will be able to
continue our operations.
Is it all right if I go ahead with our final remarks?
Well, if there are any more questions for today, members
may submit follow up written questions for the record. They are
called QFRs. We are not talking about 1,600 like Pruitt had to
go through, but questions for Ms. Svinicki by the close of
business today, Tuesday, the 13th of June. Ms. Svinicki should
respond to those questions by close of business tomorrow,
Wednesday, June 14th.
With the agreement of Ranking Member Carper, I am
expediting the QFR process regarding Ms. Svinicki's nomination
because the Committee will vote on her nomination this
Thursday. By reporting her quickly, it is our hope that we can
expedite her confirmation through the full Senate so that the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not lose its quorum when her
current term expires at the end of June.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, how
long would she have to respond?
Senator Inhofe. I am going to go back and reread this,
because this was an agreement that the Chairman that I am
sitting in for right now came to.
Senator Carper. Our staff says 1 day, so that would be like
noon tomorrow. Close of business tomorrow. OK, we are fine with
that.
Senator Inhofe. It is my understanding that was an
agreement that was had.
Senator Carper. Sounds good.
Senator Inhofe. Members may also submit follow up
questions, follow up written QFRs for Ms. Caputo, Mr. Wright,
and Ms. Bodine by close of business this Thursday, June 15th.
The nominees should respond to those questions by close of
business the following Thursday, June 22nd.
All right, I want to thank the nominees for their time and
their testimony today, and we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]