ML21203A013

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NRC-2019-000100 - Resp 1 - Interim, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed
ML21203A013
Person / Time
Issue date: 07/21/2021
From:
NRC/OCIO
To:
Shared Package
ML21203A011 List:
References
NRC-2019-000100
Download: ML21203A013 (32)
v • d • e


Text

Powell, Amy From: Tho mas, Katie (Sanders) < Katie_Thomas@sanders.senate.gov >

Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 1:03 PM To: Powell. Amy

Subject:

[E><ternal_Sender) Re: Around late this afternoon?

Hey Amy, (b)(6) 1 Do you want to call?

Katie Thomas Policy Advisor for Energy and Environment Senator Bernie Sanders 332 Dirksen Senate Office Building (202) 224-5141 Sent from my phone, so please excuse any errors.

On Feb 9, 2018, at 11:45 AM, Powell, Amy <Amy.Powell@nrc.gov> wrote:

Hi Katie -

Any chance that you are around this afternoon between 415-430? I'm planning on being down there - would love to stop by if you have the time.

Amy Powell Chief of Staff Office of Commissioner Jeff Baran U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Direct: 301 -415-1724

Baran, Jeff From: Powell, Amy Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 11:59 AM To: Baran, Jeff

Subject:

EPW QFRs to Chairman Attachments: All QFR's Burns 04 06 2016.pdf FYI Note to requester: The attachment to this email is immediately following this page.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee bearing entitled, **oversight Hearing: The President's FY 2017 Budget Request for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission" April 6, 2016 Questions for the Record Hon. Chairman Stephen Burns Chairman lnhofe:

l. In 1998, the Commission conducted a stakeholder engagement process that identified several areas for improvement including the timeliness and fiscally-responsible review of licensing actions: stricter application of the Rack fit Rule; the systematic application of a clear standard of safety significance in regulatory decision-making rather than vague terms such as enhanced defense-in-depth; more disciplined use of Requests for Additional Information, or RAls; and the need for an objective, quantitative assessment of safety performance. During the April 6th hearing, you committed to hold a similar stakeholder meeting within three months.
a. Please describe steps taken since April 6th pursuant to this commitment and the Commission's plans for the stakeholder engagement meeting(s) including the scope of the process, the timeframe for conducting the meeting(s) and completing the process, and plans for identifying participating stakeholders.
b. Following the 1998 stakeholder engagement meeting, then-Chairman Sheila Jackson tasked the NRC's Executive Director of Operations (EDO) with action on a set ofhigh-priority tasks identified in the stakeholders meeting. The executive director responded in less than a month with a plan to address issues that had been raised both in the meeting and by Congress. During the April 6th hearing, you committed to task the current EDO with a similar responsibility and to report progress to this Committee every couple of months. Please describe the plans for you and your fellow Commissioners to work with the EDO to ensure proper implementation of key outcomes and recommendations from this stakeholder process.
c. Please confirm that the stakeholder meeting will be conducted by July 6, 2016.
d. Please confirm that the first progress report to this Committee will be provided by September 6, 2016.
2. In SECY 14-0087, the Commission gave direction to the staff regarding the use of qualitative factors, stating:

The appropriate degree of weight of application of qualitative factors in regulatory decision making ultimately lies wUh the Commission. "

However in response to questions following the October 7, 2016, hearing, the NRC responded that the Commission's direction was limited to regulatory and backfit analyses.

Page 1 of12

a. Does that mean the Commission's purview with regard to the application of qualitative factors is limited to regulatory and backfit analyses and that the NRC staff is otherwise free to utilize qualitative factors elsewhere. as with the Reactor Oversight Process?
b. The FY2017 budget indicates the NRC missed its timeliness metric for the Significance Determination Process by only one day in 2014, and because of a complicated issue at one plant in 2015. Please describe why it is necessary to inject additional suhjectivity into the process when the NRC has only narrowly missed its timeliness metric.
3. During the hearing, the Commission testified that it has been actively engaging with the staff regarding the development of proposals to modify the reactor oversight process. and that the stafTwas soliciting stakeholder input on proposed modifications. The Commission noted that, while some modest adjustments may be within the staffs authority to make, any proposal that would have a significant impact to the program would require prior Commission approval.
a. What is the status of the proposals to modify the reactor oversight process?
b. When does the Commission expect to receive the staffs paper on the proposed changes, including those that require Commission endorsement or approval?
4. If a plant receives a "white" finding in the Reactor Oversight Process, that finding is reported for a full year. If the plant fixes the problem and the NRC inspects and verifies that fix within three months, the NRC continues to show the white finding for a year even though the problem has been resolved.
a. Please describe the justification for apparently misleading the public by indicating a plant is deficient even after the problem is corrected and has returned to normal.
5. Do you agree that the NRC should be able to establish, and lts licensees and applicants rely on, schedules that assume NRC will live up to its commitment to process licensing amendment requests efficiently?
a. Do you agree that NRC staff should adhere to its internal procedures to ensure timely and disciplined review of license amendment requests?
b. Does NRC have the right mix of knowledgeable experts to support sets necessary to manage its licensing workload?
c. What is NRC's long-tenn strategy for ensuring the capability to provide predictable, reliable, and timely processing of license amendment requests?
d. Considering the NRC's perfonnance metric of completing 95% of license amendmenl reviews in one year, what percentage could. be done in 6 months'/ How much might the NRC save by implementing that stretch goal'?

Page 2of 12

6. Please provide the trends for the last ten years. including year-by-year percentage changes.

with regard to timeliness and efficiency performance metrics for the following: license amendments for reactor and materials licensees, power uprates. license renewals, COLs.

early site permits, design certifications.

7. The current goal for NRC review of a license renewal application is 22 months (uncontested) or 30 months (contested).
a. Of the 20 most recent license renewal reviews, how many were completed within 22 months of an application being docketed?
b. What actions is the agency taking to restore the efficiency and predictability to these reviews']
c. How will the agency ensure efficient reviews of applications for subsequent license renewal?
d. Please describe any unique or emerging issues that may affect reviews for suhsequent license renewal applications that may not be encompassed by existing aging management programs.
8. Please summarize the outcomes and directives of the April 1st SRM concerning ITAAC hearing procedures.
a. Please identify the methods and metrics used by the NRC to track ITAAC Closure Notification (ICN) processing timeframes, along with resources requested by the Commission for ITAAC activities as part of its FY20I 7 budget submittal.
b. Please describe how the Commission currently plans to process the *-wave" of ICNs anticipated to occur as construction at the reactors in Georgia and South Carolina nears completion.
9. In your opening statement. you referred to a paper recently submitted to the Commission outlining additional areas for longer-tenn efficiencies and projected workload changes.

Please describe the purpose, scope. and status of that paper. As a result of that paper, what longer-term actions does the NRC anticipate taking to achieve additional savings and efficiencies in addition to those listed in your testimony?

a. When would those changes be implemented and what is the estimate, individually and in total. of those savings?

IO. In your testimony, you cite a reduction in NRC resources of$74 million and 280 FTE since 2014. Please provide the reduction in spending and FTE from FY 2013 to the present.

11. Please describe, with as much detail as possible, the Commission's current plans and expectations concerning the use of FY2015 carryover funds in FY2016 and the amount of carryover funds anticipated in FY2016 and the NRC plans for use of those funds.

Page 3 of 12

12. The EY Overhead Assessment Report found that "[wJith the exceptions of FY 2015 and FY 2016. NRC's mission support costs as a percentage of total outlays have increased year-over-ycar for the last decade. To roll back this decade-long increase in corporate support*

costs, the NRC must do far more than simply reclassify some Office and Corporate Support resources into other budget categories.

a. What specific actions is the NRC proposing to take in FY 2017 to reduce the NRC's rate of corporate support spending and bring it in line with peer agencies (which EV found only spend between 20 percent and 32 percent of their total budgets on mission support)?
13. The Commission testimony states:

"The NRC has taken a hard look at the proposed budget, and is propo.,;ing reductions in hoth/ull-time equivalellls (FTE) and contract support dollars that represent real savings. As we continue our work through the Project Aim initiative, we anticipate additional savings and efficiencies 10 come. "

a. Given that some of the cost savings should be achieved in 2016 - particularly given the FTE reductions from early out/buy out authority exercised early in FY 2016 -- please provide an updated estimate of any carry-over funds the NRC anticipates at the end of FY 2016.
b. Considering that the 2016 fee recovery rule is not yet final, please describe the feasibility of adjusting the fee recovery amount to prevent over-collection.
c. If some of the 2016 cost savings will be obligated for other purposes, please provide a detailed description of what the funds will be obligated to and the fiscal year in which the obligated funds are expected to be expended, including specific amounts.
d. The NRC FY 2017 budget request is for 3,537 FTE yet Commissioner Baran testified that the NRC expects to drop to 3,344 FTE by the end of2017. That indicates there will be savings that are not reflected in the FY 2017 budget. Please provide an estimate of the anticipated additional savings and efficiencies resulting from the Project Aim recommendations and workforce planning including stringent hiring controls.
e. I understand the NRC is pursuing additional early out/buy out authority in its efforts to right-size the agency. Please provide the number of FTE reduction, the estimated cost savings, any hiring restrictions applicable to the vacated positions, and the timeframe for employees that qualify and accept an early out/buy out to conclude their NRC service.
f. Congress should account for these savings and approve a smaller NRC budget, or the NRC will be forced to collect more fees than necessary and end the year with unspent "carry-over" funds, correct?
14. Please provide the NRC's current number of FTEs.

Page4of 12

15. In light of the continuing FTE reductions, what actions is the l'\RC's taking to right-size its office space footprint? Please provide dates when the actions will be completed and an estimate of the savings that will be achieved.
16. As part of Project Aim, has the agency considered the feasibility of reducing the number of regional offices from four to three? If not, why not? If so, please indicate the estimate of the savings that could be achieved and the time frame for realizing those savings.
17. Agency staff provided the Commission with recommended actions to close out the remaining Fukushima Tier 2 and Tier 3 issues by the end of 2016.
a. Does the agency remain on target to meet this schedule?
b. If so, what impact wil I the close out of Tier 2 and 3 issues have on the FY 2017 Budget Request?
18. For each of the last five years, please list the amount of resources the NRC has spent of its post-Fukushima effort. Please provide a breakdown or how fees were recovered from individual licensees/applicants/certificate holders through IO CFR Part 170 fees, or from categories of licenses through IO CFR Part I 71 fees.
19. Following the March 22 terrorist bombings in Brussels, Belgium, there were reports that the suspects had also considered attacking nuclear facilities.
a. Has the NRC reviewed the incident?
b. Does the NRC's current security program, including its insider threat mitigation requirements, adequately cover the potential threats inherent in the incident?
20. You testified about the Commission's review of a proposal to establish a single unified approach to track NRC rulemaking activities so the public and stakeholders have real-time access to current infonnation. Please describe the scope and status of that process, and the anticipated timeframe ror completion.
21. When will the NRC staff implement the Commission's decision on early Commission involvement in the rulemaking process?
22. Please describe the Commission's current efforts to instill more regulatory discipline and efliciency into the RAJ process, including but not limited to any business process improvements, establishment of metrics to measure internal perfonnance consistent with established procedural requirements, and increased management oversight of the RAI process.
23. The Commission has recently revised its Internal Commission Procedures (dated March 24, 2016). Please provide a "redline/strike-out" version showing all tracked changes made relative to the previous version.

Page 5 of 12

Senator Vittcr:

24. How does the NRC's standard hourly charge for service compare to other engineering finns?
25. What are the estimated savings of consolidating NRC headquarters to 3 buildings?
26. What is the current projected carryover balance from FY2016, and where did it come from?
27. Chairman Burns stated in a previous hearing that Project Aim identified $41.1 Million in potential savings for FY2017. JIowevcr, the Commission's FY2017 request is a reduction of only $19.8 million from FY2016, $15 million of which is from elimination of the integrated university program. Why does the 2017 request not incorporate additional aspects of Project AIM's identified improvements?
28. What actions are currently being taken to develop licensing for non-light-water reactors?
29. How much funding is currently being spent on non*light*water reactors and SMRs.

respectively?

30. How will the $5 million request for advanced reactors licensing be distributed among NRC programs
31. What is the estimated total cost and necessary person-hours to develop an efficient non*

light-water reactor licensing process?

32. What activities is the NRC currently taking to examine interim consolidated waste storage?
33. ls the NRC currently continuing any activities to develop a permanent spent fuel storage solution?

Senator Barrasso:

34. In the hearing, you committed to consider increasing the license duration for uranium recovery. Please describe the steps that wtll be taken in this process, including milestones for each step, and the timeframe for completing the process.

Senator Rounds:

35. Your testimony states that the FY 2017 budget represents a decrease of$ I9.8 million from 2016, $15 million of which is a decision not to fund the university grant program. That leaves a decrease of $4.8 million and 90 FTE in the NRC's offices. NRC staff have indicated to Committee staff that each FTE reduction presents an average savings of $165,000. Hence a reduction of90 FTE should result in $14.8 million in savings.
a. Please provide a detailed explanation of why the $14.8 million is not reflected in the NRC's budget request including a detailed list of how the money was spent.

Page 6 of 12

35. Your written testimony states that Project Aim savings resulted in a reduction of $9.9 million in the FY 2017 budget. Given that the budget for the NRC program offices only decreased by $4.8 million. please describe the reason for this disparity including a detailed explanation of how the money was spent.
36. You testified that the NRC has identified an additional $30 million in savings. Please indicate when we will see those savings achieved.
37. Please provide a current estimate of the carry-0ver funds NRC anticipates having at the end of FY 2016.
38. Please describe the actions being taken to reduce the NRC's backlog in licensing action reviews and prevent its reoccurrence including any process improvements.

Senator Sauders:

39. What is the process for reviewing and processing public comments in the current decommissioning rulemaking proceeding (docket NRC-201 S-0070)? How are public comments weighed by the Commission against comments from the industry?
40. llow does the NRC intend to educate the public about the existence and meaning of the ongoing decommissioning rulemaking process? What is the NRC's plan for community outreach for the remainder of this decommissioning rulemaking process'!
41. Has the NRC planned any public field meetings to gather comments or testimony from communities where nuclear plants are decommissioning now, or will be soon? lfnot, why?
42. Why has the NRC continued to waive its own regulations. especially those pertaining to the decommissioning trust fund, even though it is working to create new decommissioning rules?
43. In light of the fact that spent nuclear fuel is kept on the Vennont Yankee site in Vernon in SAFSTOR, what justification is there for requiring less insurance. specifically at odds with the current NRC regulations?
44. What justification is there for the NRC to approve withdrawals from Vennont Yankees Decommissioning Trust Fund for spent fuel management when NRC's regulations expressly prohibit such use? (10 C.F.R. §50.75 at FN I).

Senator Fischer:

45. If a modification is necessary to bring a facility into compliance with existing NRC regulations, then it is exempt from analysis under the backfit rule according to the compliance exception. In the l 990's. industry raised concerns about the** ... misuse of the Page 7 of12

compliance exception ..." In a recent letter to the NRC, the Nuclear Energy Institute raised similar concerns:" ... allowing the staff to apply the compliance exception to impose new or different interpretations of unchanged regulatory requirements would defeat the fundamental purpose of the backfit rule."

a. How does the Commission oversee the staff's use of the compliance exception?
b. Wouldn't a new interpretation ofan existing regulation constitute a policy matter for the Commission?
c. What incentive does the staff have to notify the Commission is such a matter exists?
46. For the last five years. please provide a list of the instances in which the NRC staff has exercised the compliance exception in the Backfit Rule. Please describe the issue under consideration, the justification for utilizing the exception, and the level of management responsible for making the decision.
47. The NRC's Committee to Review Generic Requirements, or "CRGR" " ... ensure.f any generic backfits that are proposedfor NRC-licensed power reactors, new reactors, and nuclear materials facilities ... are appropriately justified on the ha$eS of the baclefit provisions ... and the Commission's bac/ifrl policy. " In questions following the October 7th hearing. I asked if the CRGR had reviewed a list of issues including several that members of this Committee has written about. The NRC responded: "These rules and documenls were not reviewed by the CRGR hecause the proposing offices di</ not request CRGR review ... "
a. How can the CRGR perfonn a checks-and-balance role to ensure disciplined adherence to the back fit rule if the staff can simply decide not to ask for their review?
48. In response to questions following the October J1h hearing. the NRC provided a copy of a previous Rulemaking Activity Plan indicating that it was marked *'Official Use Only" and should not be released publicly. Correspondence from the Nuclear Energy Institute notes that it obtained a copy by filing a Freedom of Information Request. Given that rulcmaking is such a fundamental activity, did the Commission decide to return to its previous practice of making rulemaking plans publicly available as part of its deliberation on "COMMISSION INVOLVEMENT IN EARLY STAGES OF RULEMAKING?

Senator Crapo:

49. Please provide the total amount of fees collected under Part 171 for each of the last 10 years, adjusted for inflation.
a. Please indicate whether the amount of annual fees collected in these years was adequate or inadequate to support the NRC's safe[y and security mission.

Page8of 12

b. Please also include the estimate of 10 CFR Part 171 fees the NRC anticipates collecting in under its FY 2017 budget.
c. Please describe the difference between the amount of IO CFR Part 171 fees the NRC anticipants collecting in its FY 2017 budget and the IO CFR Part 171 fees the NRC collected in 201 5.
50. Please provide the amounts spent on physical and personnel security for each of the last ten years.
a. Please explain any annual increases for the amount spent on physical and personnel security over the past ten years in detail.
b. Please provide an estimate of the decrease in these costs as the NRC continues to reduce its office space in White Flint Building 3 and White Flint Building 2.
51. Please describe why the NRC believes the costs of the NRC's international cooperation and assistance should be recovered from domestic licensees.
52. Please provide a list of the NRC's current performance metrics.
a. Please describe in detail any differences the NRC believes exist between the provisions in S. 2795 and the NRC's existing metrics.
b. Please also eKplain in detail how reporting requirements would limit the NRC's flexibility in managing schedule performance.
c. Please also explain whether the NRC believes that reporting requirements would prompt NRC staff to sacrifice safety in order to meet schedules.
53. Considering that a corporate support spending rate of 28 percent was adequate in 2006.

please explain in detail why returning to a 28 percent corporate support spending rate within the next several years is not achievable.

54. On March 24, 2016, Mr. Victor McCree and Ms. Maureen Wylie wrote a tasking memo to staff citing SECY 16-003 5 which recommended additional areas for future cost reductions including efficiencies in corporate support, and comparing to 2006. The memo stated: "The goal is to identify further efficiencies in light of future workload reductions." If returning the NRC to corporate support spending level comparable to 2006 might impair the NRC's safety and security mission, why was that year selected for comparison with regard to setting goals to find further efficiencies and workload reductions?
55. Please provide a detailed description of all of the ways the NRC captures overhead costs in its budget. Does "corporate support" leave out overhead costs that arc captured in .. office support" costs'!
56. Please provide a detailed accounting of the redefinition of corporate support costs.

Page9 of 12

57. Please provide precise, detailed information regarding all resources shifted from corporate support back into business lines since Fiscal Year 2011.
a. Please explain what was moved back into the business units.
b. Please explain when each moved occurred.
c. Please explain the cost associated with each move.
58. If corporate support costs have been cut, please provide very detailed descriptions of the resources cut, when the resources were cut, and how much was saved as a result of these reductions.
a. Please clearly distinguish these reductions from the redefinitions of corporate support that amounted to cost~shifting into the business units.
59. If corporate support costs have been cut (as distinct from resource realignment to business units), please provide a detailed accounting of what the savings were spent on.
a. If the savings were reallocated and spent, please describe why this actlon is nonetheless characterized by the NRC as a "cut" instead of as a reallocation of spending.
60. Please provide a detailed accounting of why corporate support costs are increasing in spite of the corporate support cost shifting into the business units. Please reconcile this increase with the NRC assertions regarding its successes in cutting corporate support.
61. Please describe what steps the NRC will take to reduce corporate support spending. Please do not reference opaque cost-shifts into business units.
a. Please provide the timelines for projected corporate support reduction.
b. Please list the amounts of future corporate support reductions.
62. Please provide a detailed explanation of any possible further redefinition of corporate support or overhead costs.
63. Please provide a detailed explanation of any future overhead cost~shifting that is under consideration, including cost-shifting or realignment associated with corporate support costs.

Senator Sessions:

The FY2017 budget request for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) continues the disturbing trend of this adminislration refusing to request funding for Yucca Mountain. Ongoing efforts to implement the Department of Energy's 2013 Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste heighten my concerns. The Department's strategy calls for a pilot interim storage facility and a larger, full-scale storage facility, while failing to acknowledge that "(c]urrent law provides no alternative repository site to Yucca Mountain, and it does not authorize DOE to open temporary storage facilities without a pennanent repository in operation," as the Congressional Research Sel"\lice has stated.

Page 10 of 12

Furthermore, suggestions that inlerim storage effons may be pursued throu~h a "consent-based approach" miss the point that Nye County in Nevada has already consented to--and Congress has already mandated--a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain,

64. Do you agree that the United States already has storage options for commercial spent nuclear fuel; that is, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI) located at NRC-licensed facilities across the nation?
65. Do you agree that the NRC detennined, in the Continued Storage Rule, that used nuclear fuel from commercial reactors can be safely managed in reactor fuel storage pools in the short term and in steel and concrete storage containers for longer timeframes?
66. The Obama administration is focusing its efforts on interim storage while continuing to neglect its statutory duty under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to proceed with the licensing process for permanent storage at Yucca Mountain. I am concerned that the NRC has been a willing participant in the current administration's defiance of permanent nuclear storage mandates established by Congress.

The NRC is an independent commission that must operate in the manner required by law and unimpeded by political concerns. Please explain how the NRC's failure to include funding for the Yucca Mountain license process is consistent with its obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which provides that the NRC "shall consider" the Yucca license application and "shall issue a final decision approving or disapproving" the application.

67. Budget request process:
a. lsn 't it true that the NRC budget request is prepared and approved by the NRC before it is ultimately sent to the Administration for its review?
b. As Chairman of the NRC, did you include funding for Yucca Mountain licensing activities in your budget proposal'!
c. Have you infonned the White House Office of Management and Budget that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the NRC to consider the Yucca Mountain license application?
68. It is my understanding that the NRC is refusing to request funds for the Yucca Mountain license application, while spending research funds studying **alternative geologic media"

[i.e. rock structures other than Yucca Mountain] for purposes of waste disposal.

Please identify all such expenditures by the NRC on research activities related to alternative geologic media since August 2013. when the D.C. Circuit issued a writ of mandamus ordering the NRC to spend available funds on the Yucca Mountain Page 11 of 1Z

license activities. Further, please identify amounts the NRC anticipates spending in FY2016 and FY2017 on research related to **alternative geologic media."

69. Please explain why the Commission would submit a budget to Congress that does not request funding for legally-mandated work on the Yucca license, while at the same time, spending funds on research for other alternative repository options? Why should electricity customers be forced to pay more for research on alternative geologic repositories, when the billions of dollars they have already paid for purposes of the pennanent repository at Yucca Mountain are not being properly utilized for those purposes?

Page12 of 12

Powell, Amy From: Powell, Amy Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 3:32 PM To: 'Thomas, Katie (Sanders)'

Subject:

RE: Fwd: HOTLINE - EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS NRC CAL. #168 #169 ANO #404

!!! Watching lots of quorum calls ...

From: Thomas, Katie (Sandersl(mailto:Katie_Thomas@sanders.senate.govJ Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 3:28 PM To: Powell, Amy <Amy.Powell@nrc.gov>

Subject:

{External_SenderJ Fwd: HOTLINE - EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS NRC CAL. #168 #169 AND #404

!1 !

Katie Thomas Policy Advisor for Energy and Environment Senator Bernie Sanders 332 Dirksen Senate Office Building (202) 224-5141 Sent from my phone, so please excuse any errors.

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Vorpahl, Sarah (Sanders Fellow)" <Sarah Vorpahl@sanders.senate.gov>

Date: May 24, 2018 at 3:12: 12 PM EDT To: "Thomas, Katie (Sandersl" <Katie Thomas@sanders.senate.gov>, "Hinch, Ethan {Sanders)"

<Ethan Hinch@sanders.senate.gov>

Subject:

FW: HOTLINE

  • EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS NRC CAL. #168 #169 AND #404 FYI.. ..

From: Crowell, Michaeleen (Sanders)

Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 3:11 PM To: Sanders DC Staff <SandersDCStaff@routing.senate.gov:>; Weinstein, David (Sanders)

<David Weinstein@sanders.s~,nate.gov>

Subject:

FW: HOTLINE - EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS NRC CAL. #168 #169 AND #404 From: Paone, Stephanie (Dem-Secretary)

Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 3:10:57 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

To: D*HOnINE{ruLISTS.SENATE.~

Subject:

HOTLINE

  • EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS NRC CAL. # 168 # 169 AND #404 1

The Majority Leader asks unanimous consent the Senate proceed to Executive session for the en bloc consideration of the following nominations: Executive Calendar #168, #169, and #404.

The Majority Leader then asks consent that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc with no intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, that no further motions be in order, and that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Exec. Cal. #168 - Annie Caputo, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Exec. Cal. #169 - David Wright, of South Carolina, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Exec. Cal. #404 - Jeffery Martin Baran, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

If your Senator has any objections please call the Democratic Cloakroom. Do not reply to this e-mail.

2

Note to requester: This article is available at https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senators-markey-sanders-and-gillibrand-call-for-increased-safety-of-spent-fuel-storage-at-nuclear-plants Baran, Jeff From: Powell, Amy Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:00 PM To: Baran, Jeff

Subject:

FW: Senators Markey, Sanders and Gillibrand Call for Increased Safety of Spent Fuel Storage at Nuclear Plants Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up

' Flag Status: Flagged FYI Senators Markey, Sanders and Gillibrand Call for Increased Safety of Spent Fuel Storage at Nuclear Plants Friday,May26,2017 https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senators-markey-sanders-and-gillibrand-call-for-increased-safety-of-spent-fuel-storage-at-nuclear-plants Washington (May 26, 2017) - Senators Edward J. Markey (0-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) reintroduced legislation this week aimed at improving the storage of spent nuclear fuel at nuclear plants across the nation.

When spent nuclear fuel is removed from the part of the reactor that generates electricity, it continues to produce significant quantities of heat and radiation for years. Spent nuclear fuel is so hot that it must be cooled in spent fuel pools for five to seven years before it can be transferred to dry cask storage. A study by Princeton University published this week shows how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) relied on bad analysis to justify its refusal to adopt a critical measure for protecting Americans from nuclear-waste fires at dozens of reactor sites around the country. The study discusses how radioactivity from such a fire could release large quantities of radiation, cause widespread contamination and force millions of Americans to relocate, resulting in $2 trillion in damages.

An analysis by one of the authors of the study showed that a hypothetical spent-fuel fire at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station could result in the release of radioactive fall-out across a large swathe of New England. The study notes that moving the fuel to dry casks would drastically cut the risk of such a fire, and reduce possible radioactive release by 99 percent. However, NRC regulations allow spent fuel to remain stored in spent fuel pools until the reactor is shut down and completes decommissioning, which can take as long as 60 years.

Current NRC regulations also allow the NRC and the nuclear plant operator to adopt a decommissioning plan without considering the concerns of nearby states and communities . The two bills will address all of these problems.

"Overcrowded spent nuclear fuel pools like the one at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station are a disaster waiting to happen," said Senator Markey, a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the NRC. "Pilgrim's spent fuel pool contains nearly four times more radioactive waste than it was originally designed to hold. We need the NRC to post the 'Danger' sign outside these fuel pools and ensure dangerous nuclear waste is moved to safer storage before a nuclear disaster occurs."

"Around the world there is growing concern about the dangers of nuclear power," said Senator Sanders. "In my vlew, we cannot sit idly by and hope that the unthinkable will never happen. We must take action to better secure nuclear waste in a safe and responsible way. The public deserves to know that safety is the single most important priority at nuclear power plants."

The Ory Cask Storage Act would ensure that every nuclear reactor operator complies with an NRG-approved plan that would require the safe removal of spent nuclear fuel from the spent fuel pools and place that spent fuel into dry cask storage within seven years of the time the plan is submitted to the NRC. The legislation also provides funding to help reactor licensees implement the plans and expands the emergency planning zone for non-compliant reactor operators to 50 miles.

A copy of the legislation can he found HERE.

2

Jessie; Janelle From: llwforuminc@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 11:18 PM To: llwforuminc@aol.com Subject; [External_Sender] LLW Forum News Flash: Texas Compact Commission Publishes Proposed Waste Management Rule - Comments Due by December 8, 2017 Attachments: Texas Register Notice re Texas Compact Commission Proposed Rule 11.3.17.pdf Note to requester: The attachment is immediately following this email record.

Texas Low.Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission Texas Compact Commission Publishes Proposed Waste Management Rule Comments Due by December B, 2011 On November 3, 2017, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission (Texas Compact Commission) published a proposed rule regarding the management of low-level radioactive waste within the Texas Compact in the Texas Register.

Comments on the proposed rule are due no later than the close of business on December 8, 2017.

Copies of the proposed rufe are attached, for your information and convenience. The proposed rufe can also be obtained from the Texas Compact Commission's website at http./lwww.tllrwdcc.org/rulesl.

Purpose The Texas Compact Commission is proposing a new §675.24 relating to a requirement to report on the importation of certain low-level radioactive waste for management or disposal that is not required to be disposed in the Texas Compact Facility.

In order to fulfill its responsibilities with respect to 42 United States Code, §§2021(b)- 20210) and §3.04(9) and §3.05(6) of the Texas Compact as set out in Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC) §403.006, the Texas Compact Commission has determined that it is in the public interest that it gather information regarding low-level radioactive waste that enters the host state irrespective of whether it requires an agreement for importation for disposal at the Texas Compact facility.

Proposed new §675.24 seeks to facilitate the gathering of that information by the way of reporting requirements after the entry of the low-level radioactive waste into the state rather than requiring approval for the importation of certain categories of low-level radioactive waste into the host state.

Proposed Rule Language The proposed rule language is as follows:

§675.24. Requirement to Report on the Importation of Certain Low- Level Radioactive Waste for Management or Disposal that is not Required to be Disposed of in the Compact Facility.

(a) This section is appficabfe only in the host state.

(b) This section is designed to gather information on the importarion into the host state for disposal or management of certain low- levef waste that:

(1) is required when shipped to be listed on Nucfear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Forms 540 or 541 (Uniform Low-Levef Waste Manifest Shipping Forms);

(2) is included within the definition of /ow-fevel radioactive waste found in 30 TAC §336.2(89) (relating to Definitions) as the definition is in effect on the date this section becotn6s effectiv9 or as 30 TAC §336.2(89) may be amended or renumbered in the future, but is not intended for disposal in the Compact Waste Facility;

(3) is not low-level radioactive waste described by 42 United States Code, §2021c(b)(1); and (4) for the purposes of this section, the material described in this subsection will be referred to as Non-Compact-Facility Low- Level Radioactive Waste tNCFW').

(c) Any entity in the host state that imports NCFW must enter into an agreement with the Commission that contains a requirement that it will report to the Commission on a quarterly basis the following information with respect to each shipment of NCFW that it has received in the previous quarter:

(1) the name ofthe generator; (2) the name of the state and the name of the low-level waste compact (if any) where the waste originated; (3) the activity of the waste in curies; (4) the volume or weight of the waste; the date of receipt; whether the waste is being stored, processed, or othe,wise managed; (5) location of management; and (6) the date of and location of disposal of that waste.

(d) Quarterly reports must be submitted electronically on forms provided by the Commission and must be subm;tted before the 31st day a~er the end of each quarter of the Commission's nscal year.

(e) An entity that imports low-level radioactive waste into the host state as described in subsection (c) of this section shafl have entered into an agreement with the Commission within 90 days aft.er the effective date of this section or within such time extensions thereafter as the Commission may allow. To the maximum extent possible, each agreement entered into under this section will contain provisions identical to those in each other agreement entered into under this section.

(f) An entity that imports waste into the host state as described in subsection (c) of this section shall submit an application for entry into an agreement with the Commission electronically or on paper an a form provided by the Commission.

(g) Failure on the part af an entity that imports waste into the host state as described in subsection (c) of this section ta comply with any provision of this section or the agreement entered into pursuant to subsection (d) of this section may result in the Commission reporting such failures to the host state agency that has licensed, permitted, or othe,wise authorized the operation of such entities.

(h) The Commission may revoke or amend an agreement on its own motion or in response to an application by the agreement holder. When the Commission amends an NCFW agreement on its on motion, it may provide a reasonable time ta allow the agreement holder to make the changes necessary to comply with any additional requirements imposed by the Commission. No importation of NCFW shall be allowed under any amended agreement for the importation of NCFW until:

(1) the amendment to the NCFW agreement has been executed by both the Commission and the agreement holder; and (2) the agreement holder has made any changes necessary to comply with additional requirements.

Submitting Commenhri Written comments on the proposed rule should be submitted to Leigh Ing Executive Director Texas Low*Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission 505 West 15th Street Austin, Texas 78701 2

Comments may also be submitted via eletronic mail to comments@tllrwdcc.org.

All comments should reference wRules."

The comment period closes on December 8, 2017.

Benefits and Costs According to the Texas Register notice, the changes in the proposed rule are expected to increase the knowledge available to the Texas Compact Commission and the public with respect to the presence of low*level radioactive waste in the host state.

The notice states, "By requiring a quarter1y report of certain information about low*level (radioact!veJ waste that enters the host state for a purpose other than disposal at the compact facility, the proposed (Texas Compact] Commission rule benefits the host state and the public by allowing more complete tracking of low*level radioactive waste that enters the host state.w The Texas Compact Commission anticipates that businesses and individuals will have no significant additional economic costs as a result of their compliance with the proposed rule, as the new reporting requirements 1NOuld require the reporting of minimal infonnation that is already maintained by the entities required to report under the proposed new §675.24.

For additional information, pfeasa contact Texas Compact Commission Executive Director Leigh Ing at (512) 217-8045 or at leigh.ing@lllrwdcc.org.

NcwMtber f3, 2011 Todd D. LOI/Inger, E.,q.

E.ncufln Ol,-r;tor UW Forvm, Inc.

(TIU) n*755t 1119 pracedlng lnfamtdon *** pnwldad 10 you on Ila,,.,, ol a. LLW Fotum, Inc. II **1 nor be raptDtlut:ed or dllllWbur.d without ma up,ua wrrtten app,oval of the a,galll;rallon's &aculln Ol,-r;tor. To vlaw offtw communlcdons and dacunMnfs ol ,,_ LLW ForPm, Inc;., v,.,, IN UW Forum's wllb alta dlttp:lfwww.llwforum. orgl.

3

will provide the necessary forms and methodologies to the n:lail public (f) If a retail public utility's total water loss meets or exceeds utility. the threshold for that utility, the retail public utility mu,t use a portion of any financial assistance received from the board for a water supply (4) Effective January I, 2019, the water loss audit must be project to mitigate the utility's water loss. Mitigation will be in a man*

performed by a person who has completed water loss audit training ncr determined by the retail public utility and the executive administra-develo the executive administrator. The executive administrator tor in conjunction with the project proposed by the utility and funded by will make such training available without clwJe on the gency website, the board. On the request ofa retail public utility, the board may waive and may also provide such training in person or by video.

the requirements of this subsection if the boud finds that the utility is (c) The executive administrator shall determine if the water satisfactorily mitigating the utility's system water loss. The request for loss audit is administratively complete. A water loss audit is adminis* waiver should be addressed to the executive administrator and include tratively complete ir all required responses are provided and the audit infonnation about the utility's current or planned activities to mitigate is completed by a person who has bce111 trained to conduct water loss their water loss and their source of funding for that mitigation.

auditing as descnl>ed in paragraph (4) of subsection (b). In the event The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the pro-the executive administrator determines that a retail public utility's wa-posal and found it to be within the state agency's legal authority ter loss audit is incomplete, the executive administrator shall notify the utility. to adopt.

(d) A retail public utility that provides potable water that fails Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on October 19, to submit a water loss audit or that fails to correct a water loss audit that 2017.

is not administratively complete within the timcframc provided by the executive administrator is ineligible for financial assistance for water TRD-201704211 supply projects under Texas Wate.r Code, Chapter IS, Subchaptcrs C, Toddl C ~

D, E, F, G, H, J, 0 , Q, and R; Chapter* 16, Subehapters E and F; and Gene,-fCOUIHI Chapter 17, Subchapters D, I, K, and L. The retail public utility will Texu WIier Oewlopmenl Board remain ineligible for financial assistance until a complete water loss Ear11eat poaaible date of adoption: December 3, 2017 audit has been filed with and accepted by the executive administrator. For futher Information, please call: (512) 463-7688 (e) The following thresholds shall apply to the indicated cate-gories of retail public utility:

(I) For a retail public utility* with a population of more than PART 21. TEXAS LOW-LEVEL 10,000:

RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL (A) Apparent loss expressed as gallons per connection per day must be less than the utility's allowed apparent loss.

COMPACT COMMISSION (B) Real loss expressed as gallons per connection per CHAPTER 675. OPERATIONAL RULES day must be less than three times the utility's unavoidable annual real loss.

SUBCHAPTER B. EXPORTATION AND (2) For a retail public utility with a population of I0,000 IMPORTATION OF WASTE or fewer and a service connection density more than or equal to 32 coMections per mile:

The Texas Low-level Radioactive waste Disposal Compact (A) Apparent loss expressed as gallons per connection Commission (TLLRWDCC or Commission) proposes new per day must be less than the utility's allowed apparent loss. §675.24, relating to Requirement to Report on the Importation (B) Real loss expresxd as gallons per connection per of Certain Low-level Radioactive waste for Management or day must be less than SO gallons per connection per day. Disposal that Is not Required to be Disposed of In the Com-pact. Facility. In order to fulfill Its responslb~itles with respect (3) For a retail public utility with a population of I 0,000 to 42 United States Code, §§2021(b)

  • 20210) and §3.04(9) or fewer and a service connection density less than 32 connections per and §3.05(6) of the Compact as set out in Texas Health and mile: Safaty Code (THSC), §403.006, the Commission has deter-(A) Apparent loss expressed as gallons per connection mined that it Is In the public Interest that it gather information per day must be less than the utility's allowed apparent loss. regarding low-level radioactive waste that enters the host state irrespective of whether it requires an agreement for importation (B) Real loss expressed as gallons per mile per day must for disposal at the Compact Facility. Proposed new §675.24 be less than 1,600 gallons per mile per day. seeks to facilitate the gathering of that infonnation by the way (4) For a utility that has a volume of wholesale water sales of reporting requirements after the entry of the low-level waste that flow through the retail water distribution system: into the state rather than requiring approval for the importation of certain categories of low-level radioactive waste lnto the host (A) Apparent loss expressed as gallons per connection state.

per day, determined using a modified calculation that includes the wholesale volume, must be less than the utility's allowed apparent loss. Fiscal Note (B) Real loss, expressed as gallons per connection per Leigh Ing, the Commission's Executive Director, has detennlned day and including a wholesale factor that takes into account the whole- that, for the firat five-year*period the proposed rule is in effect, no sale water volume, must be less than three times the utility's unavoid- f1Scal implications are anticipated for the Compact Comml91ion able 1Mual real loss. or for units of state or local government as a resutt of the admin-istration or enforcement of the proposed rule.

PROPOSED RULES November 3, 2017 42 TexReg 6123

, I t

Public Benefits and Costs f675.U. Req11irc1Mnt lo &port on the ~mportalion ofCertain low-uvef RadioocJiw Waslt (!Jr Managemenl or DiSposaJ 1ha1 i11 n()I Re*

Ms. Ing has also determined that, for each year of the first five jllin-d la be Disposed ofin the Cumwct Faciliry.

years the proposed rule would be in effect if adopted, the public benefit anticipated from the changes seen in the proposed rule (a) This section is apP.licable only in the host stal!!

will be increased knowledge available to the Commission and (b} This section is designed lo gather infonnation on the im-the public with rasped to the presence of 1ow..ievel radioadiw porlation into !he host state for disposal or management of certain low-waste in the host state. By requiring a quarter1y report of certain le\l_el waste that:

infonnation about low--level waste that enters the host state for a purpose other than disposal at the compact facility, the pro- .!!L..l!..!!:_quired when shipped to be listed on Nuclear Reg*

posed Commission rule benefits the host state and the public by ulalory Commission (NRC) Fonns S40 or S4 I {Unifonn Low-level allowing more complete !racking of low*leWI radioactive waste Waste Manifest Shipping Form_J.}j that enters the host state. (2) is included within !he definition of low-level radiOK*

It is anticipated that businesses and individuals will have no sig- tive waste fo11Dd in 30 TAC §336.2(89) (relating to Definitions) as the nificant additional economic costa as a result of their compliance definition is in effect on the date this section becomes effective or as with the proposed rule. The new reporting requirements require 30 TAC §336.2(19} may be amended or renumbered in the futlff,but the reporting of minimal infonnation that is already maintained is not intended (or disposal in the Com~ct Waste Facility; by the entities required to report under proposed new §675.24. (3) is not low-level radioactive wa.~te described by 42 Economic Impact Statement and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Uniled States C~ §2021qbl(I); IU!~

for Small Businesses, Miaobusinesses, and Rural Communities (4) for the purposes of this section, the material described There is no direct adverse economic impact for small busi- in this subsection will be referred ~o as Non-Compact-Facjlity Low*

nesses, miaobusinesses, and rural communities; therefore,  !.evcl RM!ioactive Waste ("NCFW").

no regulatory flexibility analysis specified in Texas Government (c) Any entity in the host state that imports NCFW must enter Code. §2006.002 is required. into an agreement with the Commission that contains a requirement Local Employment Impact Statement that it will rcpon_to the Commission on a q1181'1erly basis the follo'tlloing information with respect to each shipment ofNCF~ that it has received The Commission has determined that a local employment im- in the previous quaner:

pact statement is not required because the proposed rule will not adversely affect a loc:al economy for the first five years that ()) the name of the generator; the proposed rule will be in effect if adopted. {_2J die IWl\e of the state and the name of the low-level Regulatory Analysis waste compacl (if any) where the waslc orig~*~

The Commission has determined that the proposed rule is not QLJ!!!_activitv of the waste in curies; a "major environmental rule" as defined by Texas Government (4) the volume or weight qfthe waste; the date of receipt; Code. §2001.0225. ~hethcr the waste is being stored, proce5sed, or olherwise managed; Small Businesses and Mictobusinessas {S) location ofmanagemenl; and The Commission has determlnecl that the proposed rule will not ~ date of and location or disposal or th\lt waste.

have an adverse economic impact on either small businesses or miaobusinesses. (di O1181'1erly repons must be submitted eleelTOnically on

.funns provided by !he Commission and must be submitted before lhe Takings 31st day after the end of each qll8ller of the Commission's fiscal year.

The Commission has concluded that the proposed rule does not (e) An entity that imports low*le\lel radioactive waste into lhe restrict or limit an owner's right to his or her real property that host stale as described in subsection (cl of this section shall have en-would otherwise exist in the absence of this action. tered into an agreement with the Commission within 90 days after the Submittal of Comments effective date of this section or within such time extensions thereafter as the Commission may aliow. To the maximum exicnt possible, each Written comments may be submitted to Leigh Ing, Executive Di* !K!etment entered into under this ~lion will contain provisiom iden-rector, 505 West 15th Street, Austin, Texas 78701, or, by elec- tical to those in each other agreement entered into under this section.

tronic mail to comments@tllrwacc.o,y. All comments should ref-erence "Rules.ft The Comment period closes on December 8. (0 An entity that_impo~ wasle into the host state as described 2017. Copies of the proposed rulemaking can be obtained from in subsection (cl of this section shall submit an application for enll)*

tlie Commission's website at http:llwww.tllrwdcc.org/rulos/. For into_ an agreement with the Commission electronically or on paper on further infonnation, please contact Leigh Ing, Executive Director, a form provided by the Comm!ssion, (512) 217-IJ045. (g) Failure on the part ofan entity that imports wue into the Statutory Authority host state as described in subsectiC?n (c) of this section to comply with any provision of this section or the agreement entered into pursuant to The rule is proposed under the aUthority granted in §3.05(4), (6), subsection (dl of this_ section ma}' result in.the Co_mmission reponing and (7) of the Compact set outatTHSC, §403.006and inTHSC, such failures to the host state agency that has licensed, permitted, or

§401.207. otherwise authoriied the operation of such entities.

The proposed rule implements §3.04(9) and §3.05(6) of the (h} The Commission may revoke or amend an agreement on its Compact as set out at THSC §403.006. own motion or in n:spon.'IC to an application by the agn:emenl holder.

When the Commission amends an NCFW agrce~ent on its on motio!l, 42 TexReg 612.f November 3, 2017 Texas Register

\

it ma rovidc a reasonable time to allow the ement holder to make Comments should be directed to Sharon Fette Howell, General the changes nc<<ssary to comply with any additional requirements im* Counsel, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, P.O. Box 4004, sed b the Commission. No im rtation ofNCFW shall be allowed Huntsville, Texas 77342, Sharon.Howell@tdcj.texas.gov. \Mit-under any amended agreement for the importation ofNCFW until: ten comments from the general public must be received within 30 days of the publication of this rule in tlhe Texas Register.

I the amendment to the NCFW a ement has been exe-cuted by both the Commission and the agn:ement holder; and The amendments a~ proposed under Te-xas Government Code

§§492.005- 492.007, 492.013, 551 .001 - 551 .146.

(2) the agreement holder has made any changes necessary to com I with additional re uirement:s. Cross Reference to Statutes: None.

The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the pr~ §151.J. Te;cas Board ofCriminal Justice Operaling Procedures.

posal and found it to be within the state agency's legal authority (a) Genenl. This seclion establishes openting procedures for to adopt. the Texas Board ofCriminal Justice (TBCJ) to conduct business.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on October 20, (b) Organization.

2017. ( I) The TBCJ is a nine member body appointed by the gov*

emorto oversee the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice (TDCJ). The TRD-201704221 TBCJ chainnan is designated by and serves III lhe requeSI of the gov-Leigh Ing ernor pursuant to Texas Govenvnent Code §92.00S.

Executive Diredor (2) The TBCJ shall elect a vice-chairman and a secretary Texas Low-Level Radioac:tive WIiie Disposal Compact Convnisslon each odd*numbered year. The vice-chairman shall pn:side over meet*

E811ie1t poulble date of adopllon: December 3, 2017 ings in the chainnan's absence, and either the chairman or the secretary For further Information, pleaae cal: (512) 239-6087 shall execute any necessary documents.

TITLE 37. PUBLIC S ETY AND CORREC-(3) The chairman, on behalf of the TBCJ, is empowered to appoint members of the TBCJ to be members or chairs of sunding or limited-purpose committees, or to serve as liaisons to the TBCJ on TIONS particular subject areas or divisions within th.e TDCJ's jurisdiction, or both. The purpose ofa committee, if appointed, is to have certain mem-PART 6. TEXAS D PARTMENT OF bers become particularly familiar with various issues and to facilitate CRIMINAL JUSTIC discussion and m:ommend potential strategics as appropriate.

(4) The TBCJ chairman may appoint non-members to sit CHAPTER 1S1. L PROVISIONS on a committee in an advisory capacity; however, advisory members 37 TAC §151.3 are non-voting members and cannot be n:imbursed for expenses in*

cum:d in this capacity.

The Texas Board of Criminal J tice proposes amendments to

§151 .3, concerning operating rocedures for the Texas Board (c) Meetings.

of Criminal Justice. The amen ents are proposed in conjunc- ( I) The TBCJ shall attempt to hold a regular meeting 11 tion with a proposed rule re

  • of §151.3 as published in the least every other month of the year, but shal I meet II least once each Review of Agency Rules sectlo of the Texas Register. The pro- quarter of the calendar year pursuant to Texas Government Code posed amendments confonn rule to legislation from the 85th §492.006. Special called meetings can be held al the discretion of the legislative session, HB ~7. ~ arding Open Meetings requir&- TBCJ chafrman.

ments when holding a video co fer:ence meeting.

(2) TBCJ meetings shall be held in Austin or Huntsville, Jerry McGinty, Chief Financial r for the Texas Department Texas. If the TBCJ uses video conference technology to convene a of Criminal Justice, has determi that for each year of the first meeting, 11 least one conference site must be located in Huntsville or five years the rule will be in enforcing or administering Aust.in. To convene a video conference meeling, a quorum ofthe TBCJ the rule win not have foreseea implications related to costs or must be present at one of the video conference sites. The other mem-revenues for state or local go ment bers may convene using the technology from remote sites.

Mr. McGlnty has also determl that for each year of the first (A) During a TBCJ mee1ing convened as a video con-five year period, there will not an economic impact on persons ference meetin an member shall be considered absent from an r*

required to comply with the ru . There will not be an adverse tion of the meeting during which audio or video communication with economic impact on small or m businesses or on rural com- lhe member is loSI or disconnected.

munities. Theref0f8, no regulat ry flexlbUity analysis is required.

The TBCJ ma continue the meeting only if a quo-The anticipated public benefit, s a result of enfo~ing the rule, rum remains location.

wlH be to confonn the rule to nt legislative changes. No cost will be imposed on regulated rsons. (3) The agenda and date for the TBCJ meetings shall be set by the TBCJ chalnnan In consultation with the TDCJ executive The rule will have no impact on vemment growth; no creation director.

or elimination of employee po tlons: no Increase or decrease in fees paid to the TOCJ; no regulation and no effect on (4) The agenda for committee meetings shall be set by the an existing regulation; no lncre Of decrease in the number of TBCJ chairman in consultation with the committee's chainnan and the individuals subject to the rule; d no effect upon the economy. TDCJ executive director. lfthe TBCJ comminee uses video conference technology to convene a meeting, at least one confen:nce site must be located in Huntsville or Auslin. To convene a video conference meet-PROPOSED RULES November J, 201 i 42 TexReg 6125

Jessie, Janelle From: llwforuminc@aol.com Sent Wednesday, November 15, 2017 12:47 PM To: Uwforuminc@aol.com

Subject:

[External_Sender] LLW Forum News Flash: Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission to Meet at 9:30 a.m. CDT in Austin, Texas on November 16, 2017 Texas Low-Level RadiCHJctlve Waste Disposal Compact Commission Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission to Meet 9:30 a.m. CDT In Austin, Texas on November 16, 2017 On November 16, 2017, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission (Texas Compact Commission) wilt hold a regularly scheduled meeting in Austin, Texas. It will be held in Room E1 .028 at the Texas capitol, which is located at 1100 Congress Avenue in Austin, Texas.

The meeting, which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. CT, will follow the conclusion of a one-<lay workshop focused on disposal options for in-compact waste generators. specifically on topics that are important to Texas generators. (See LLW Forum News Flash titled, "Texas Compact Commission to Hold Low-Level Waste Disposal Workshop from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. CT in Austin, Texas on November 15, 2017," dated November 6, 2017.)

The formal meeting agenda is available on the Texas Compact Commission's web site at www.tllrwdcc.org.

Links to View Meetings The links to view the meetings at the Texas Capitol are:

  • call to order;
  • roll call and determination of quorum;
  • introduction of Commissioners, elected officials and press;
  • public comment;
  • consideration of and possible action on applications for importation of low-level radioactive waste from Arizona Public Service Palo Verde; Qal-Tek (as broker): Qal-Tek (as generator); Southern Nuclear Company Hatch; and, Southern Nuclear Company Hatch Irradiated Hardware; receive reports from Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS} about recent site operations; receive report from Chair on Texas Compact Commission activities induding an update on the to-be-formed committee as a result of recent legislation; report from Leigh Ing, Executive Director of the Texas Compact Commission, on her activities relating to workshops and Texas Compact Commission operations;

, ~ discussion and possible changes of dates and locations of future Texas Compact Commission meetings in 2018; and, adjourn.

Background

The Texas Compact Commission may meet in closed session as authorized by the Texas Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 , Texas Government Code. Texas Compact Commission meetings are open to the public.

For additional information, please contact Texas Compact Commission Executive Director Leigh Ing at (512) 305-8941 or at leigh.ing@tllrwdcc.org.

Ncwember15,2011 Todd 0 . LOtrlnfl#, Esq.

&Kuthe Dlrecfor LLW Fonlm, Inc.

(7U)nt-7551 The pn,cedng Information wu pnwlded to )'OIU on lwMlf of the LLW Forum, Inc. It tn4ty not be reproduced 0#' dl.tnbufed wit/tout the . , _. . wrttt.n epproval olthe orgenlz.tlon'* Encull~ Director. To wew ~ communlc.tlon* end documenCs olthe LLW Forum, Inc., visit the LLW F<<um'* '"'1 alte etflttp;l/www.llwforum.oro'.

2

Powell, Amy From: Thomas, Katie (Sanders) < Katie_Thomas@sanders.senate.gov>

Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 6:41 PM To: Powell, Amy Cc: Pero, Haley (Sanders)

Subject:

[External_Sender] Vernon contacts Amy, It was good to talk to you earlier. Here are a few folks you can reach out to.

(b)(6 ) Kate .0'.Connorj._. . ._. _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,!(she's not with the Citizens Panel anymore, but she would still be able to help).

Chris Campany ccampany@,windhamregional.org Laura Sibilia lsibilia@brattleborodevelopment.com Here is info on BDCC's EDA-funded project:https://brattleborodevclopment.com/grcen-economy-innovation-hub/

Have a great weekend, KT Katie Thomas Policy Advisor for Energy and Environment Senator Bernie Sanders 332 Dirksen Senate Office Building (202) 224-5141 Sent from my phone, so please excuse any errors.

Powell, Amy From: Powell. Amy Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 1:14 PM To: Thomas, Katie (Sanders)

Cc: Vorpahl, Sarah (Sanders Fellow)

Subject:

RE: RE; RE: FW: NOTICE: Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing entitled, noversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 10:00AM I should be here until at least 630 tonight if you want to try my desk (301-415-1724) or I could do tomorrow after 4pm (conference will be over). Whichever works best for you all.

Thanks, AP From: Thomas, Katie (Sanders) [mailto:Katie_Thomas@sanders.senate.gov)

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 1:07 PM To: Powell, Amy <Amy.Powell@nrc.gov>

Cc: Vorpahl, Sarah (Sanders Fellow) <Sarah_Vorpahl@sanders.senate.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: RE: FW: NOTICE; Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing entitled, "Oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 10:00AM We have a meeting at S for planning for the 6th month anniversary of Maria. I can call your cell after if we are done around then. Otherwise, we are pretty open tomorrow. Would that work?

From: Powell, Amy {mailto:Amy.Powell@nrc.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 20181:04 PM To: Thomas, Katie (Sanders) <Katie Thomas@sanders.senate.gov>

Cc: Vorpahl, Sarah (Sanders Fellow) <Sarah Vorpahl@sanders.senate.gov>

Subject:

RE: RE: FW: NOTICE: Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing entitled, "Oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 10:00AM I could do early this evening if you are around. NRC is hosting an international conference this week and we're in meetings all day. Would 530 work?

From: Thomas, Katie (Sanders) (mailto:Katie Thomas@sanders.senate.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 20181:01 PM To: Powell, Amy <Amy.Powell@nrc.gov>

Cc: Vorpahl, Sarah (Sanders Fellow) <Sarah Vorpahl@sanders.senate.gov>

Subject:

IExternal_Sender] RE: FW: NOTICE: Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing entitled, "Oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 10:00AM Do you have time to discuss on the phone?

From: Powell, Amy (mailto:Amy.Powell@nrc.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 1;00 PM To: Thomas, Katie (Sanders) <Katie Thomas@sanders.senate.gov>

1

Cc: Vorpahl, Sarah (Sanders Fellow) <Sarah Vorpahl@sanders.senate.gov>

Subject:

RE: FW: NOTICE: Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing entitled, "Oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 10:00AM Hi Katie-Yes, my understanding is that the whole Commission (all 3) will be appearing .

AP From: Thomas, Katie (Sanders) [mailto:Katie Thomas@sanders.senate.gov)

  • Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 201812:43 PM To: Powell, Amy <Amy.Powell@nrc.gov>

Cc: Vorpahl, Sarah (Sanders Fellow) <Sarah Vorpahl@sanders.senate.gov>

Subject:

(External_Senderj FW: NOTICE: Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing entitled, "Oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 10:00AM Would your boss be coming to this?

From: Olsen, Elizabeth IEPW)

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 12:34 PM To: Balash, Joe (Sullivan) <Joe Balash@suJlivan.senate.gov>; Brubaker, Joel !Capito)

<Joel Brubaker@capito.senate.gov>; Goeas, Lisa (Ernst) <Lisa Goeas@ernst.senate.gov>; Hack, Joe ~Fischer)

<Joe Hack@fischer.senate.gov>; Jackson, Ryan (lnhofe) <Ryan Jackson@inhofe.senate.gov>; Kunsman, Dan (Barrasso)

<Dan Kunsman@Barrasso.senate.gov>; Skjonsberg, Rob (Rounds) <Rob Skjonsberg@rounds.senate.gov>; Tolar, Helen (Boozman) <tielen Tolar@boozman .senate.gov>; DailyDigest <SecretaryDailyOigest@routing.senate.gov>; Gross, Amy (SAA) <Amy Gross@saa.senate.gov>; Johnston, Joseph (Secretary) <Joseph Johnston@sec.senate.gov>; Senate RTVG (SAA) <SenateRTVG@saa.senate.gov>; Tratos, Elizabeth (Secretary) <Elizabeth Tratos@sec.senate.gov>; Adhar, Radha (Duckworth) <Rad ha Adhar@duckworth.senate.gov>; Aguirre, Paloma (Booker) <Paloma Aguirre@booker.senate.gov>;

Akertof, Karen (Sanders) <Karen Akerlof@sanders.senate.gov>; Barry, Giselle (Markey)

<Giselle Barry@markey.senate.gov>; Baugh, Jordan (Gillibrand) <Jordan 8augh@gillibrand.senate.gov>; Beaton, Alex (Budget) <Alex Beaton@budgeUenate.gov>; Becker, Kelsey (Duckworth) <Kelsey Becker@duckworth.senate.gov>;

Castaldo, Keith (Gillibrand) <Keith Castaldo@gillibrand.senate.gov>; Choi, Chris (Gillibrand)

<Chris Choi@gillibrand.senate.gov>; Compton, Caryn (Sanders) <Caryn Compton@sanders.senate.gov>; Conklin, M eghan (Van Hollen) <Megha n Conklin @vanhollen,senate.gov>; Copeland, Mark (Duckworth)

; Cusack, Garrett (Cardin) <Garrett Cusack@cardin.senate.gov>; Deveny, Adrian (Merkley) <Adrian Deveny@merkley.senate.gov>; Driscoll, Laura (Gillibrand)

<laura Oriscoll@gillibrand.senate.gov>; Dudis, Dan (Whitehouse) <Dan Dudis@whitehouse.senate.gov>; Ferrato, Margaret (Whitehouse) <Margaret Ferrato@whitehouse.senate.gov>; Frede, Shannon (Cardin)

<Shannon Frede@cardin,senate.gov>; Gaeta, Joe (Whitehouse) <Joe Gaeta@wnitehouse.senate.gov>; Garm isa, Ben (Duckworth) <Ben Garmisa@duckworth.senate.gov>; Goldner, Aaron (Whitehouse)

<Aa ron Goldner@whitehouse.senate.gov>; Goldsmith, William (Markey) <William Goldsmith@markey.senate.gov>;

Gray, Morgan (Markey) <Morgan Grav@markey.senate.gov>; Greene, Daniel (Markey}

<Daniel Greene@markey.senate.gov>; Griffith, Lindsey (Markey) <Lindsey Grlffith@markey.senate.gov>; Harrelson, JIii (Budget) <Jill Harrelson@budget.senate.gov>; Haynie, Deborah (Van Hollen)

<Deborah Haynie@vanhollen.senate.gov>; Hinch, Ethan (Sanders) <Ethan Hinch@sanders.senate.gov>; Jacobs, Ann (Cardin) <Ann Jacobs@cardin.senate.gov>; Jamison, Brooke (Gillibrand) <Brooke Jamison@gillibrand.senate.gov>;

Joseph, Avenel (Markey) <Avenel Joseph@markey.senate.gov>; Klapper, Matt (Booker)

<Matt Klapper@booker.senate.gov>; Lam, Long (Merkley) <Long Lam@merkley.senate.gov>; Leibman, Adena (Whitehouse) <Adena Leibman@whitehouse.senate.gov>; Maxwell, Gray (Cardin) <Gray Maxwell@cardin.senate.gov>;

M oritsugu, Erika (Duckworth) <Erika Moritsugu@duckworth.senate.gov>; Narby, Peter (Merkley) 2

<Peter Narby@merkley.senate.gov>; Normile, Caroline (Whitehouse) <Caroline Normile@whitehouse.senate.gov>;

Rampone, Emily (Budget) <Emily Rampone@budget.senate.gov>; Reilly, Patrick (Whitehouse)

<Patrick Reilly@whitehouse.senate.gov>; Reott, Jason <Jason Reott@sanders.senate.gov>; Rhodeside, Benjamin (Duckworth) <Benjamin Rhodeside@duckworth.senate.gov>; Richer, Claire (Markey)

<Claire Richer@markey.senate.gov>; Ruiz, Gilbert (Gillibrand) <Gilbert Ruiz@gillibrand.senate.gov>; Schenning, Sarah (Van Hollen) <Sarah Schenning@vanhollen.senate.gov>; Schultz, Mary (Markey) <Mary Schultz@markey.senate.gov>;

Slevin, Chris (Booker) <Chris Slevin@booker.senate.gov>; Spain, Emily (Carper) <Emily Spain@carper.senate.gov>;

Spawn, Ariana (Booker) <Ariana Spawn@booker.senate.gov>; Spikes, Matthew (Cardin)

<Matthew Spikes@cardin.senate.gov>; Stevens, Mae (Cardin) <Mae Stevens@cardin.senate.gov>; Syed, Sharmin (Merkley) <Sharmin Syed@merkley.senate.gov>; Talati, Shuchi (Duckworth) <Shuchi Talati@duckworth.senate.gov>;

Tavar, Lauren {Booker) <Lauren Tavar@booker.senate.gov>; Thomas, Katie (Sanders)

<Katie Thomas@sanders.senate.gov>; Thomson, Matt (Booker) <Matt Thomson@booker.senate.gov>; Topper, Adam (Booker) <Adam Topper@booker.senate.gov>; Tucker, Colby (Cardin) <Colby Tucker@cardin.senate.gov>; Vogel, Hannah (Markey) <Hannah Vogel@markey.senate.gov>; Vorpahl, Sarah (Sanders Fellow)

<Sarah Vorpahl@sanders.senate.gov>; Ward, Ben (Merkley) <Ben Ward@merkley.senate.gov>; Ward, Rebecca (Merkley) <Rebecca Ward@merkley.senate.gov>; Weinstein, David (Sanders) <David Weinstein@sanders.senate.gov>;

Wender, Joseph (Markey) <Joseph Wender@markey.senate.gov>; Young, John (EPW) <John Young@epw.senate.gov>;

Zipkin, Adam (Booker) <Adam Zipkin@booker.senate.gov>; Anderson, Mike (Sullivan)

<Mike Anderson@sullivan.senate.gov>; Atcheson, Laura (Cornyn) <laura Atcheson@cornyn.senate.gov>; Barlow Richardson, Michelle (Wicker) <Michelle Richardson@wicker.senate.gov>; Batie, Cicely (Fischer)

<Cicely Batie@fischer.senate.gov>; Beares, Ellen (Wicker) <Ellen Beares@wicker.senate.gov>; Bliss, Joe {Rounds)

<Joe Bliss@rounds.senate.gov>; Bolen, Brittany (RPC) <Brittany Bolen@rpc.senate.gov>; Borek, Tom !Budget)

<Tom Borck@budget.senate.gov>; Britton, Brennen !Moran) <Brennen Britton@moran.senate.gov>; Brown, Joe (Boozman) <Joe Brown@boozman.senate.gov>; Chatterjee, Neil (McConnell)

<Neil Chatteriee@mcconnell.senate.gov>; Clowser, Jessica (Fischer) <Jessica Clowser@fischer.senate.gov>; Cole, Becky

{Budget) <Becky Cole@budget.senate.gov>; Douglas, Katie (Rounds) <Katie Douglas@rounds.senate.gov>; Edwards, Deanna (Slq <Deanna Edwards@slc.senate.gov>; Elam, Erik (Sullivan) <Erik Elam@sullivan.senate.gov>; Farr, Michael (Ernst) <Michael Farr@ernst.senate.gov>; Gardner, Judd !Moran) <Judd Gardner@moran.senate.gov>; Glover, Kaitlynn (Barrasso) <Kaitlynn Glover@Barrasso.senate.gov>; Hall, Amanda (lnhofe) <Amanda Hall@inhofe.senate.gov>; Harris, Jimmy (Boozman) <Jimmy Harris@boozman.senate.gov>; Helton, Samantha (Wicker)

<Samantha Helton@wicker.senate.gov>; Holland, Luke (tnhofe) <Luke Holland@inhofe.senate.gov>; Jenkins, MaryMargaret (Wicker) <MaryMargaret Jenkins@wicker.senate.gov>; Kobes, Jonathan (Rounds)

<Jonathan Kobes@rounds.senate.gov>; Kaminsky, Mitchell (RPq <Mitchell Kominsky@rpc.senate.gov>; LanceChester, Bronwyn (Barrasso) <Bronwyn lanceChester@Barrasso.senate.gov>; Lasure, Sara (Boozman)

<Sara Lasure@boozman.senate.gov>; Leathard, Scott (Sullivan) <Scott Leathard@sullivan.senate.gov>; Letendre, Daisy (EPW) <Daisy Letendre@epw.senate.gov>; Mazzone, Mark (SLC) ; Puccini, Brianna (Fischer) <Brianna Puccini@fischer.senate.gov>; Ramlet Hougesen, Brook (Ernst) <Brook Ramlet@ernst.senate.gov>;

Rickman, Gregg (Rounds) <Gregg Rickman@rounds.senate.gov>; Ruder, William (Moran)

<William Ruder@moran.senate.gov>; Sandora, Stephen (Capito) <Stephen Sandora@capito.senate.gov>; Schenck, Alex (Sullivan) <Alex Schenck@sullivan.senate.gov>; Stewart, Bryn (Barrasso) <Bryn Stewart@Barrasso.senate.gov>; Swartz, Kaylan (Capito) <Kaylan Swartz@Capito.senate.gov>; Taylor, Ryan (Wicker) <Ryan Taylor@wicker.senate.gov>; Tharpe, Amanda (Rounds) <Amanda Tharpe@rounds.senate.gov>; Tomlinson, Adam {Capito)

<Adam Tomlinson@capito.senate.gov>; Wiegard, Pierce (Sullivan) <Pierce Wiegard@sullivan.senate.gov>; Wright, Jennie {lnhofe) <Jennie Wright@inhofe.senate.gov>; Ziegler, Charles (Barrasso)

<Charles Ziegler@Barrasso.senate.gov>; Zwirblis, Dave (Wicker) <Dave Zwirblis@wicker.senate.gov>; Austin, PJ (Fischer) <PJ Austin@fischer.senate.gov>; Brown, Tyler (Ernst) <Tyler Brown@ernst.senate.gov>; Bunning, Brad (Barrasso) <Brad Bunning@Barrasso.senate.gov>; Burton, Larry (Sullivan) <Larry Burton@sullivan.senate.gov>; Bush, Tom (Moran) <Tom Bush@moran.senate.gov>; Cantor, Chloe (Wicker) <Chloe Cantor@wicker.senate.gov>; Carter, Morgan (Shelby) <Morgan Carter@shelby.senate.gov>; Cone, Travis (Capito} <Travis Cone@capito.senate.gov>;

Covington, Coleman (Fischer) <Coleman Covington@fischer.senate.gov>; Cutrell, Dayne (Shelby)

<Dayne Cutrell@shelby.senate.gov>; Dolch, Michael (Ernst) <Michael Dolch@ernst.senate.gov>; Ebert, Jordan (Moran)

<Jordan Ebert@moran.senate.gov>; Hajdukovich, Connor !Sullivan) <Connor Hajdukovich@sullivan.senate.gov>;

3

Hyman, Max (Capito) <Max Hyman@capito.senate.gov>; Khrestin, Theda (Wicker)

<Theda Khrestin@wicker.senate.gov>; l angdon, Jordan (Moran) <Jordan Langdon@moran.senate.gov>; Leviner, Emily (Fischer) <Emily Leviner@fischer.senate.gov>; McGrath, Conor (Moran) <Conor M cGrath@moran.senate.gov>;

McMillin, Neal (Wicker) <Neal McMillin@wicker.senate.gov>; McNeil!, Jena (Ernst) <Jena McNeill@ernst.senate.gov>;

McNiven, Travis (Barrasso) <Travis McNiven@Barrasso.senate.gov>; Munro, Mary Kate (Ernst)

<MaryKate Munro@ernst.senate.gov>; Sauer, William (lnhofe) <William Sauer@inhofe.senate.gov>; Taylor, Blair (Shelby) <Blair Taylor@shelby.senate.gov>; Van Doren, Terry (McConnell) <Terry VanDoren@mcconnell.senate.gov>;

Wasik, Paul (Fischer) <Paul Wasik@fischer.senate.gov>; Beecher, Josie (Ernst) <Josie Beecher@ernst.senate.gov>;

Brady, Lillie (Boozman) <Lillie Brady@boozman.senate.gov>; Caldwell, Anne (Shelby)

<Anne Caldwell@shelby.senate .gov>; Carter, Hall (Wicker) <Hall Carte-r@wicker.senate.gov>; Fogels, Avery (Sullivan)

<Avery Fogels@sullivan.senate.gov>; Price, Wendi (lnhofe) <Wendi Price@inhofe.senate.gov>; Russell, Lauren (Capito)

<Lauren Russell@capito.senate.gov>; Sumpter, Jacqueline (Rounds) <Jacqueline Sumpter@rounds.senate.gov>; Tillson, Daniel (Wicker) <Daniel Tillson@wicker .senate.gov>; Wehr, Vaughan (Fischer) <Vaughan Wehr@fischer.senate.gov>;

Whitfield, Emily (Moran) <Emily Whitfield@moran.senate.gov>; Wise, Kathi (Barrasso)

<Kathi Wise@Barrasso.senate.gov>; Butler, Sarah (Markey) <Sara h Butler@markey.senate.gov>; Espinoza, Dominique (Gillibrand) <Dominique Espinoza@gillibrand.senate.gov>; Flaherty, Ra1chel (Whitehouse)

<Rachel Flaherty@whitehouse.senate.gov>; Fox, Alexandra (Whitehouse) <Alexandra Fox@whitehouse.senate.gov>;

Gillison, Jacob (Sanders) <Jacob Gillison@sanders.senate.gov>; Giraldo, Tana (Markey)

<Tana Giraldo@markey.senate.gov>; Hwang, Annie (Gillibrand) <Annie Hwang@gillibrand.senate .gov>; Maaiki, Sara (Gillibrand) <Sara Maaiki@gillibrand.senate .gov>; Mack, Bryan (Carper) <Bryan Mack@carper.senate.gov>; Pardini, Liana (Van Hollen) <Liana Pardini@vanhollen.senate.gov>; Piorkowski, Jennifer (Merkley)

<Jennifer Piorkowski@merkley.senate.gov>; Reckford, Louie (Merkley) <Louie Reckford@merkley.senate.gov>; Seigle, Leah (W hitehouse) <Leah Seigle@whitehouse.senate.gov>; Sixbey, Mary (Gillibrand)

<Mary Sixbey@gillibrand.senate.gov>; Soviak, Sarah (Carper) <Sarah Soviak@carper.senate.gov>; Vandegrift, Carly (Merkley) <Carly Vandegrift@merkley.senate.gov>; Yamada, Debbie (Cardin) <Debbie Yamada@cardin.senate.gov>;

Batkin, Gabrielle (EPW) <Gabrielle Batkjn@epw.senate.gov>; Bayer, Skylar (EPW) <Skylar Bayer@epw.senate.gov>;

Baysinger, Christina (EPW) <Christina Baysinger@epw.senate.gov>; Brennan, Christine (EPW)

<Chr istine Brennan@epw.senate.gov>; Chapman, Steve (EPW) <Steve Chapma*n@epw.senate.gov>; Choksi, Rachit (EPW) <Rachit Choksi@epw.senate.gov>; Finks, Lavern (EPW) <Lav ern Finks@epw.senate.gov>; Freedhoff, Michal (EPW) <Michal Freedhoff@epw.senate.gov>; Gillam, Laura Haynes (EPW) <Laura Gillam@epw.senate.gov>; Hawkins, Alicia (EPW) <Alicia Hawkins@epw.senate.gov>; Hershman, Greg (EPW) <Greg Hershman@epw.senate.gov>; Higgins, Rebecca (EPW) <Rebecca Higgins@epw.senate.gov>; Kane, John (EPW) <John Kane@epw.senate.gov>; Kunkle, Sonya (EPW) <Sonya Kunkle@epw.senate.gov>; Mabry, Elizabeth (EPW) <Elizabeth Mabry@epw.senate.gov>; Mack, Carolyn (EPW) <Carolyn Mack@epw.senate.gov>; Martin, Kenneth (EPW) <Kenneth Martin@epw.senate.gov>; Merchant, Kusai (EPW) <Kusai Merchant@epw.senate.gov>; Mulligan, Avery (EPW) <Avery Mulligan@epw.senate.gov>; Pennington, Meghan (Carper) <Meghan Pennington@carper.senate.gov>; Phipps, Rae Ann (EPW)

<Rae Ann Phipps@epw.senate.gov>; Pilchen, Zach (EPW) <Zach Pilchen@epw.senate.gov>; Repko, Mary Frances (EPW) <mary trances repko@epw.senate.gov>; Tulou, Christophe (EPW) <Christophe Tulou@epw.senate.gov>;

Wallace, Campbell (EPW) <Campbell Wallace@epw.senate.gov>; Wishnla, Andrew (EPW)

<Andrew Wishnia@epw.senate.gov>; Caputo, Annie (EPW) <Annie Caputo@epw.senate.gov>; Clifford, Brian (EPW)

<Brian Clifford@epw.senate.gov>; Danylak, Mike (EPW) <Mike Danylak@epw.senate.gov>; Donaldson, Teri (EPW)

<Teri Donaldson@epw.senate.gov>; Glennon, John (EPW) <John Glennon@epw.senate.gov>; Harding, Andrew (EPW)

<Andrew Harding@epw.senate.gov>; Heaslip, Sean (EPW) <Sean Heaslip@epw.senate.gov>; Horner, Elizabeth (EPW)

<Elizabeth Horner@epw.senate.gov>; Leggett, Matt (EPW) <Matt Leggett@epw.senate.gov>; May, Kathryn (EPW)

<Kathryn

  • May@epw.senate.gov>; McGuire, Alison (Budget) <Alison McGuire@budget.senate.gov>; Memmott, Justin (EPW) <Justin Memmott@epw.senate.gov>; Mullen, Elise (EPW) <Elise Mullen@epw.senate.gov>; Newman, Chris (EPW) <Chris Newman@epw.senate.gov>; Olsen, Elizabeth (EPW) <Elizabeth Olsen@epw.senate.gov>; Russell, Richard (EPW) <Richard Russell@epw.senate.gov>; Tardif, Abigale (EPW) <Abigale Tardif@epw.senate.gov>; Thomas, Craig (EPW) <Craig Thomas@epw.senate.gov>; Thorndike, Pauline (EPW) <Pauline Thorndike@epw.senate.gov>; Trenti, Beth (EPW) <Beth Trenti@epw.senate.gov>; Willson, James (EPW) <James Willson@epw.senate.gov>; Vella, Sophia (EPW)

<Sophia Vella@epw.senate.gov>

4

Subject:

NOTICE; Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing entitled, "Oversight of the Nuclear Regulato,y Commission," Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 10:00AM SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT ANO PUBLIC WORKS HEARING NOTICE Senator:

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a hearing entitled, Oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission."

WEDNESDAY, March 21, 2018 10:00AM Room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Buildins By Order of the Chairman John Barrasso, M. D.

Elizabeth "Lizzy" Olsen, J.O.

Majority Counsel & Director of Operations Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works c: (202) 407-3841 Q: (202)224-6176 s

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML21203A013&oldid=3407784"