00:00The chair recognizes Senator Schiff.
00:03Thank you, Madam Chair.
00:05Mr. Wright, you acknowledged earlier in the hearing being present when one of the DOGE representatives made a comment about rubber stamping decisions made elsewhere.
00:16Can you tell us exactly what the comment was and who made the comment?
00:21Thank you so much.
00:23So that meeting happened in early June, if I remember correctly, subject to check.
00:30I was contacted by Mike Goff at DOE.
00:36He and Ted Garrish wanted to come over and talk about the executive order for DOE and DOD.
00:42They came on a Friday morning, and we had started our meeting, and there were three people who came in.
00:48Adam Blake, who I mentioned earlier, he had two other people with him.
00:53One was a lady, an attorney.
00:57I don't remember her last name.
00:59I think her first name was Alicia, and then there was another attorney there by the name of Seth Cohen.
01:04And that meeting, it was actually Seth Cohen that used the rubber stamp comment, and it was when they walked in, I stopped the meeting, and I let them introduce, let Mr. Blake introduce the others.
01:18And when I started the meeting back, I told him, I said, we were just talking about the executive order for DOE and DOD, and that's when the comment was made.
01:29He said, oh, well, y'all are basically going to put in a practice that's going to sort of rubber stamp what they do.
01:36And I said, well, we don't know.
01:37And he was referring to rubber stamp the decision made by DOE and DOD?
01:41No, maybe.
01:45I didn't press him on that.
01:47I didn't ask him about that.
01:48All I said was—
01:49But was it a sense that he was suggesting that the NRC was simply going to rubber stamp what the nuclear industry wanted?
01:54No, because I pushed back.
01:55That's what was in the article.
01:56But was that his suggestion, that his expectation was that the NRC was now going to be rubber stamped for the industry?
02:03I think he was thinking the intent of that, whatever the executive order was.
02:08So that's how he was interpreting the executive order?
02:11Yeah, whether he chose the right words or not, I don't know.
02:14But we pushed back and said we don't rubber stamp the meeting that we were having with DOE and DOD.
02:19Commissioner, I'm grateful that you pushed back.
02:22I appreciate that.
02:23I'm just trying to get understanding of how he views your role, which is obviously alarming to everyone who's concerned about nuclear safety.
02:34Let me ask a related question to each of you, and I'll start, Mr. Marzano, with you.
02:41Should you decide that a nuclear design is unsafe, notwithstanding the wishes of DOE or DOD or anyone else?
02:50Do you think you're at risk of being fired from the commission by a president who has demonstrated a willingness to fire commissioners without cause?
02:59Well, I certainly think that we've seen that happen, and I think there's pressure.
03:04But ultimately, the NRC will not license a reactor that is unsafe.
03:09If that does not meet our standards, we will not approve such a design.
03:15But you acknowledge that it's very possible, should you decide that a reactor design is unsafe, and vote that way that you may be fired by the administration?
03:27I think that's a possibility, yes.
03:29Mr. Crowell, is that a possibility in your view?
03:30I think on any given day, I could be fired by the administration for reasons unknown.
03:39Mr. Wright, do you think you'd be fired if you should decide against the administration's desires that a nuclear reactor design is unsafe?
03:47It doesn't matter.
03:49I'm going to make the right decision, and I'll stand by that decision.
03:52But you acknowledge you have to at least be concerned about the possibility you'll be fired for it.
03:58I don't know.
03:59In my mind, it's speculation.
04:01You know, it's talking.
04:02It's not something.
04:04But I'm going to make the right decision, period.
04:06It may be speculation, Chairman.
04:09But if you and the other commissioners have to be concerned that if you make a decision in the interest of public safety,
04:14that runs afoul of the desire of the administration to approve something on a short timetable,
04:20that you'll be fired.
04:21That's not a conducive situation to nuclear safety.
04:25Would you agree?
04:25Do you have to worry about being fired for making the right decision?
04:29Well, I may look at it a little bit differently than how you're saying it.
04:34Well, let me ask you this.
04:36The timetable says now within 12 months or 18 months you have to approve or reject a design.
04:43What if you don't have the information in 12 or 18 months?
04:46Do you have to vote on it regardless?
04:48No, the 12 and 18 months is actually for, you've got 12 months, 18 months on the construction side.
04:55Then you have another 12 or 18 months to do the other part of it.
04:57And if you don't have sufficient information within that timetable?
05:01Again, if you don't have the information to make a safety decision or to approve an application, you don't approve it.
05:09So you can ignore the timetable if you don't believe you have sufficient information?
05:13Absolutely.
05:14Okay.
05:15Thank you, Madam Chair.
05:17The chair...
Comments