NRC Commissioner Candidates Stephen Burns and Jeffery Baran

The Obama Administration, under the direction of influential Senators, has provided the names of two people to fill vacancies on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

One of the vacancies exists already; Commissioner Apostolakis, a renowned expert in the field of nuclear reactor safety and probabilistic risk assessment was not offered a second term when his first term expired at the end of June 2014. Commissioner Magwood remains on the commission, but he has announced that he will be departing at the end of August for a new job as director general of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency.

Marvin Fertel, CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) whose mission statement includes providing a “unified industry voice,” issued a statement with his initial reaction to Stephen Burns and Jeffery Baran, the two people who were named as commissioners, subject to Senate confirmation.

“With the nomination of Stephen Burns, who served as NRC general counsel, President Obama has identified a figure familiar with the commission’s responsibilities, processes and culture. Industry recognizes Burns’ 33 years of service to the commission—he received numerous positive reviews and was repeatedly promoted. Industry has some concerns regarding certain actions taken by the NRC while Burns served as general counsel, including the chairman’s use of emergency authority in the weeks after the Fukushima Daiichi accident and the decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository licensing process. The confirmation process will provide ample opportunity for Burns to elaborate on his views.

The nomination of Jeff Baran merits close scrutiny. Although Baran has energy and environmental policy experience, his background includes little, if any, relevant experience with nuclear energy technology or the NRC regulatory process and policies. We look forward to hearing his perspectives on these matters during the confirmation process.

Stephen Burns joined the NRC staff in 1978 and held a variety of jobs of increasing scope and responsibility, including being the legal counsel for Commissioner (and retired Rear Admiral) Kenneth Carr, also serving as Carr’s Executive Assistant when he became the Commission Chairman. In April 2009, Commission Chairman Dale Klein promoted Burns from Deputy General Counsel to General Counsel.

Aside: About a month later, on May 13, 2009, President Obama promoted Commissioner Jaczko to be the Chairman, asking Chairman Klein to remain as a Commissioner.

Commissioner Klein continued to serve until March 30, 2010; he and Chairman Jaczko had a stormy relationship that included at least one instance of Klein reminding Jaczko that his title was Chairman, not Dictator. That high-conflict work relationship must have been part of the reason that he left the commission before the end of his term.

Amusingly enough, Klein’s page in the former commissioner’s section of the NRC web site includes the following sentence. “He is currently serving as a Commissioner.” Whoever performed the review/update on July 01, 2014 must have been thinking about plans for their upcoming long weekend instead of carefully reading the page. End Aside.

Stephen Burns served as NRC general counsel until March 2012, when he retired from the agency with 33 years of service. That was near the crescendo of the NRC’s leadership crisis and about two months before Chairman Jaczko finally resigned from the Commission. My sources tell me that Burns was burned out and fed up with the politicization of the agency he had loyally served for so many years.

Several long-serving NRC staffers contacted by Atomic Insights have provided words of support with varying levels of strength for Mr. Burns. They all indicated that they believe he will be a fair commissioner.

Paul Dickman, who was a career Federal employee and served as Chairman Dale Klein’s Chief of Staff, shared a December 15, 2011 letter from Dr. Klein to Senator Sessions that explains why he disagrees with the Emergency Powers opinion provided by Burns to Chairman Jaczko in March 2011 and strongly disagrees with the way that Chairman Jaczko used that opinion to perform actions that were outside its narrow scope of actions related directly to the accident. Here is a quote from page 1 of that letter.

Given a situation similar to the incident at Fukushima, I can see no reason to invoke Emergency Powers because nothing in the incident would have required a suspension to the normal Commission procedures. Moreover, I do not believe that suspending the law, which is what Emergency Power allows, is something take casually or in response to an incident in a foreign country that has little or no threat to the U.S. It is my understanding that former Chairman Richard Meserve declared Emergency Powers during 9/11 (a real crisis on American soil), but did so in consultation with his fellow commissioners.

(Emphasis in original)

Dickman also expressed strong reservations about the the opinion Burns provided regarding Jaczko’s decision to halt the NRC’s review of the DOE’s Yucca Mountain license application. He provided an open letter to journalists from Dr. Klein that expresses his reasons for rejecting Burns’s opinion. Here is a quote from that letter.

It is not appropriate for Chairman Jaczko to continue to rationalize his actions as being consistent with the Commission’s FY 2011 budget guidance. Doing so implies that I and Commissioner Svinicki are complicit in authorizing his actions, and that is clearly not the case. Having served as NRC Chairman during several budget cycles, I believe that the continuing resolution budget guidance for the HLW program should have been handled as a Commission policy matter, with the full participation of the Commission and, most certainly, in consultation with Congress.

Lastly, having served as Chairman, I believe I have a reasonable understanding of the legal authority of the Chairman’s office to address administrative matters such as budget issues. I would not consider the closeout of the HLW application technical review to be a simple reassignment of personnel or routine reallocation of resources. Rather, the actions taken are the implementation of a major national policy decision that has not been acted on by the Commission or authorized by Congress.

Even with those two areas of disagreement, Dickman concluded with the following statement.

“…even though I have pretty strong objections to the legal opinions Steve Burns made, he is highly qualified and I would vote for his nomination.”

One of my sources, though disagreeing with Burns’s opinions on the same issues raised by NEI and Dickman, offered stronger words of support.

I know Steve Burns very well and have a deep respect for him. As I’m sure you already know, Steve was General Counsel at the NRC for about 3 years before he retired, but was the Deputy General Counsel for about 10 years I think before that. There are few people that understand the legal framework of the agency better than Steve does.

Steve cares a great deal about the agency, and I always felt like he was personally invested in its success.

From my limited perspective, I think he is uniquely qualified to be a Commissioner precisely in the spirit of why the NRC was established with 5 Commissioners — he will bring a unique, but highly qualified and experienced perspective to the Commission’s decision-making. I do not believe that Steve is in anyway anti-nuclear or anti-industry, and I have never heard him say anything along those lines.

In December 2011, Stephen Burns was asked to testify, along with Bill Borchardt the NRC Executive Director for Operations (EDO), in front of the House Oversight Committee. The full video of that event is available from C-Span; below is a clipped version that includes Burns’s opening statement and all of the questions directed to him along with his responses.

When he provided that testimony, Burns was still serving as the General Counsel and still working under the direction of Chairman Jaczko. I wonder if he would answer Issa’s questions differently today and make it clear that Chairman Jaczko’s actions in exercising Emergency Powers went well beyond the envisioned scope of his March 17, 2011 memo.

With some trepidation and caution, I recommend that the Senate confirm Stephen Burns as an NRC Commissioner. He will not require a lengthy acculturation process or any significant training time to come up to speed as a fully functioning Commissioner.

The information I’ve discovered about Jeffery Baran is quite different. All searches and inquiries point to the fact that he is a denizen of Capitol Hill who started serving as a staffer immediately after finishing law school and has never worked outside of the narrow confines of Washington, DC. Any and all association that he has with nuclear energy is as an “issue” or “policy” and not as a complex, valuable technical endeavor worthy of intense study to obtain mastery.

He has never worked with equipment, measuring devices, metal, welding, thick concrete, construction, generators, or pollution control devices. He has no apparent experience in fault tree analysis, implementing regulatory requirements, writing procedures, performing or verifying engineering calculations or selecting engineering design criteria. He has never worked with skilled technicians, top notch scientists, or operational experts.

In short, Baran has nothing in his background that would make it possible for him to be a contributing member of a responsible body of regulators that serve as the single gatekeeper for a vital technical field that includes not just energy production but all industrial use of radiation and radioactive materials.

My recommendation is for the Administration to find a more qualified nominee that can bring something to the commission other than focused Capitol Hill-only experience. These days, that perspective is even more disfunctional than usual; the words cooperation, collegiality and compromise seem to have been exorcised from the Capitol Hill training manual. Ideally she should have deep experience with knowledge of nuclear technology, plant operations, construction, regulation development, or oversight.

Atomic Insights Radar July 20-26 2014

It’s been a busy week, but the following stories appeared on the Atomic Insights radar and are being tracked for additional information.

President Obama has revealed the names of the people that he intends to submit to the Senate for confirmation as NRC commissioners to replace the recently retired Commissioner Apostolakis and soon-to-depart Commissioner Magwood. Both of the nominees replacing the departing technical experts are lawyers.

Stephen Burns retired from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2012 after 33 years of service starting in 1978. His last position was as General Counsel; he was involved in issuing two controversial opinions – one regarding the seizure of emergency powers by Chairman Jaczko in the aftermath of Fukushima and one regarding Chairman Jaczko’s decision to follow the direction of his political protectors to halt review of the Yucca Mountain license application.

Jeff Baran has been a senior energy policy staffer for Rep. Henry Waxman and for the Democratic staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

NEI has provided an initial reaction to the announcement. Both men have been endorsed by Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Ed Markey, and Michael Mariotte of NIRS. Atomic Insights does not yet know enough about either man to offer more details, but the hunt is on.

Southern Company made an announcement that should start a new round of enthusiasm for nuclear energy expansion. Apparently, it believes that the progress being made at Vogtle is good enough to support a decision to start additional projects using the same AP1000 design that they are learning to build now. Southern has recognized the potential benefits of keeping the team together for future accomplishments.

NRDC is apparently surprised to find out that the only realistic replacement power source for San Onofre is natural gas.

In a related development, I was only partially surprised to learn about the strength of NRDC’s relationship to a number of petroleum plutocrats. Now I have a better idea why NRDC folks, in personal communications, have admitted to me that their funders would never allow them to express support for nuclear energy as a useful tool in the effort to reduce CO2 emissions.

The most surprising part of that discovery was that the initial clue came from @ShaleGasExpert when he linked to a story titled America’s Plutocrats and PovertyKeepers. That post, featured on NaturalGasNow.org described the actions of numerous foundations to fund actions that oppose both Canadian oil production increases and unlocking natural gas abundance from shale rock.

The names of the foundations — Tides, Rockefeller Brothers, Ford, Pew — and NGOs — Friends of the Earth, Sierra, NRDC, WWF — were familiar since all have been deeply involved in opposing the expansion of nuclear energy for many years. This is more evidence supporting my theory that the underlying goal of many groups that attempt to use the cloak of environmentalism is to reduce abundance for all in order to increase profits for plutocrats. Commodity industry profits are generally much higher in high price markets driven by scarcity, either actual or perceived. Restricting production is exactly what “strategic parkification,” pipeline battles, coal demonization, antifracking initiatives and nuclear waste constipation efforts are designed to accomplish.

Of course, there are many sincere idealists who are concerned about the actual issues, but most of them have never had the ability to write multi-million dollar checks and most have never had any family petroleum-sourced wealth to protect.

Lockheed Martin, a $45-$50 billion (revenue) per year defense contractor, has a growing interest in nuclear energy. It has a small development activity in Dallas aiming at the Chinese market for nuclear plant control systems. There are some rumors indicating that it also has an interest in purchasing a majority stake in a recently shrunk small modular reactor enterprise.

Iran and negotiators from the 5 + 1 group (US, UK, France, China, Russia plus Germany) have agreed to a new deadline of November 24, 2014 for the finalization of an agreement about Iran’s nuclear energy development. Iran has stated that it needs 190,000 SWU (separative work units) per year to fuel its reactor in Bushear, the Tehran reactor used to produce medical isotopes, and its research reactor in Arak. That amount of enrichment capacity for those three identified reasons seems reasonable based on the following quote from the World Nuclear Association page about uranium enrichment.

About 140,000 SWU is required to enrich the annual fuel loading for a typical 1000 MWe light water reactor at today’s higher enrichment levels.

ANS Nuclear Cafe published an article titled Research Reactor License Renewal Challenges. So far, there are two heartfelt comments on that article that indicate that there is a large iceberg under the surface that needs further exploration. Research reactors are vital tools for the continuing development of nuclear technologies, not just energy, but isotopes and other radiation applications. They are also a key resource in the training and education infrastructure. We cannot let existing assets deteriorate and should work to reduce decommissioning pressures.

That is not enough, of course. Most of the existing reactors were built before I graduated from college and I am now a semi-retired grandfather. We need to invest in modern tools and in the ability to license and build new devices safely and efficiently.


PS – I have couple excuses for not posting more recently. My wife and I had the honor of attending the US Naval Academy Change of Command on Wednesday and watching one of my classmates take over as the new Superintendent. More than 100 of my USNA class of 1981 classmates attended. All of them have served admirably and many have achieved impressive accomplishments. It was great to reconnect with so many fine leaders.

The experience also proved that the people who chose white as the Navy’s summer uniform understood the technical importance of color in solar energy absorption while the people who decided that professional civilian men in the DC area should wear dark suits, long sleeve shirts and ties even in the summer were probably sadists. Man, was it hot in the Superintendent’s garden on Wednesday.

Another activity that has been competing with my writing has been playing with my grandchildren, especially our 4-year-old granddaughter. She recently spent 6 weeks in a partial body cast, but we tried to make sure she did not have too much idle time. Here is a photo of us picking peaches at a local orchard.

Picking peaches in purple cast.

Picking peaches in purple cast.

Natural gas pipeline infrastructure needs

Platts Energy Week TV carried an important segment on July 13, 2014 discussing the need to make major investments in the US natural gas pipeline infrastructure in order to deliver new sources of gas to growing markets. Chris Newkumet from Platts talked with Don Santa of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and Ben […]

Read more »

Selfish motives for LNT assumption by geneticists on NAS BEAR I

Dr. Edward Calabrese has published a new paper titled The Genetics Panel of the NAS BEAR I Committee (1956): epistolary evidence suggests self‐interest may have prompted an exaggeration of radiation risks that led to the adoption of the LNT cancer risk assessment model. Abstract: This paper extends a series of historical papers which demonstrated that […]

Read more »

Additional evidence re: nonproliferation & antinuclear alliance

After posting Nonproliferation is a disguised antinuclear energy effort, I received the following comment via email. The author has given me permission to share it, with attribution. I know John Holdren well and this article in spot on. John does not weigh energy poverty very high and weighs nuclear weapons proliferation exceedingly highly. This dominates […]

Read more »

Nonproliferation is a disguised antinuclear energy effort

I stumbled across a 1983 article titled Nuclear power and nuclear weapons: the connection is dangerous that is the clearest piece of evidence I’ve found to prove that many of the basic talking points of the nuclear nonproliferation crowd are actually aimed at slowing, halting and reversing the use of nuclear energy. These efforts have […]

Read more »

Opportunity to use science to establish radiation standards

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit comments from the general public and affected stakeholders about 40 CFR 190, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations. The comment period closes on August 3, 2014. The ANPR page includes links to summary webinars provided to the […]

Read more »

Shell Oil and Gas Company’s Perspective on Energy Future

There was a time when the Royal Dutch Shell corporation demonstrated strong interest in nuclear energy. In 1973, it was approached by Gulf Oil Company, the owner of Gulf General Atomics, as a capital partner for an aggressive expansion program. GA had spent the better part of two decades developing an innovative high temperature gas-cooled […]

Read more »

UPDATE: Resolving issue of science of biological effects of low level radiation

A couple of weeks ago, Atomic Insights published an article about an initiative by past presidents and fellows of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) to encourage the organization to push for efforts to resolve the issue of the science of the biological effects of low level radiation. Part of the effort includes gathering signatures from […]

Read more »

Energy politics is often more about location than party

The Morning Consult has an intriguing article titled Map: State Energy Influence in Washington. The article briefly describes how states that produce various energy fuels have senators and congressmen that migrate to committees that affect the industry in their home territories. It also mentions the curiously large influence that Massachusetts has on energy policy making. […]

Read more »

Russia continues sustained fast breeder reactor effort

On June 26, 2014, the 60th anniversary of the start of the 5 MWe Obninsk reactor that was the first reactor in the world to routinely supply electricity to a commercial power grid, Russia started up the latest in a series of sodium-cooled fast reactors, the BN-800. This new nuclear plant is an evolutionary refinement […]

Read more »

HTR-PM – Nuclear-heated gas producing superheated steam

The first HTR-PM (High Temperature Reactor – Pebble Module), one of the more intriguing nuclear plant designs, is currently under construction on the coast of the Shidao Bay near Weihai, China. This system uses evolutionary engineering design principles that give it a high probability of success, assuming that the developers and financial supporters maintain their […]

Read more »