Maintaining
Public Trust
By Stephen G. Burns, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Stephen G. Burns
The Honorable Stephen G. Burns was
sworn in as a Commissioner of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Nov. 5, 2014, to a term ending June 30,
2019. President Obama designated Mr.
Burns as Chairman of the NRC effective
Jan. 1, 2015.
Mr. Burns has a
distinguished career
as an attorney both
within the NRC
and internationally.
Before returning
to the NRC, he
was the Head of
Legal Affairs of the
Nuclear Energy
Agency (NEA) of
the Organisation
for Economic
Co-operation
and Development
in Paris. In that
position, which
he held since April 2012, Mr. Burns
provided legal advice and support to
NEA management, carried out the legal
education and publications program
of the NEA, and provided advice and
secretariat services to the Nuclear
Law Committee and to the Contracting
Parties to the Paris Convention on Third
Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear
Energy.
Mr. Burns received a bachelor’s degree,
magna cum laude, in 1975 from Colgate
University in Hamilton, New York. He
received his law degree with honors
in 1978 from the George Washington
University in Washington, D.C.
Excerpt of remarks of NRC Chairman
Stephen G. Burns at the 2016 Regulatory
Information Conference on March 8,
2016.
Today, of course, we have a
consolidated headquarters complex, 100
operating reactors with a sharp decline in
anticipated new ones, and, well we know
the path forward for high level waste
disposal is still muddled.
Yet safety and security remain our
fundamental regulatory objectives. We
are still bound by the language of the
Atomic Energy Act, with a focus on “ad-
equate protection” and “reasonable assur-
ance,” broad terms in a statute purpose-
fully left free of prescriptive language by
the Congress.
Or as the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the DC Circuit said in Siegel v AEC in
1968, somewhat paraphrased – The
Atomic Energy Act sets out a regulatory
scheme under which
broad responsibility
is given to the
a d m i n i s t e r i n g
agency as to how
it shall achieve the
statutory objectives.
In other words,
the
NRC
has,
over the decades,
wrestled with how
much is too much
regulation and what
regulation is deemed
necessary to be “safe
enough.” The bottom
line is always how
much risk are we
willing to take?
How much risk is acceptable? It must be
acknowledged that the NRC does NOT
regulate to no risk – to zero risk. Not in
1978 and not now.
“Adequate protection” is a difficult
phrase to explain to lay audiences when
adequate in the usual vernacular signifies
just OK. For us, of course, it means the
Commission must consistently and over
time use its broad discretion to impose
requirements it believes meets this
mandate. We can be neither too lax nor
too strict. And we must not conduct our
decision making in a vacuum. We must
consider real life and actual operating
experience, and we must weigh public
and stakeholder input to guard against
making decisions in isolation.
This balancing act is the essence of
what I call the regulatory craft.
Part of the regulatorycraft, I believe, is
listening to the opinions of those outside of
the NRC. While the NRC is independent,
that does not mean we are isolated. It’s
important the NRC communicate with
and engage in meaningful dialogue with
the industry, the Congress, the states,
local governments, non-governmental
organizations, international entities and
the public. You know – like what we’re
doing today at the RIC!
We can be independent while still
listening and considering the opinions of
others.
In a speech I gave last year, I talked a
bit about my regulatory philosophy.
I am registered as an Independent –
not a Democrat or a Republican. Along
those lines, I believe I am independent
in my thinking and philosophy. I don’t
adhere to a rigid ideology that compels
a certain outcome each time, though I
believe I’m predictable in my approach of
evaluating each matter on a case-by-case
basis and applying rules deliberately and
consistently across the board.
I am also independent in that I’m
open to new ideas and solutions others
may offer. I listen open-mindedly to all
stakeholders without becoming beholden
to just one point of view. I believe
problems must be clearly defined, but
I think there is rarely only one solution
to a problem. Nor do I believe the NRC
always has the right answer to address a
given problem.
In my experience, often times the
best decision, the consensus-based
solution is reached through meaningful
dialogue among all affected stakeholders.
Let me give you an example. When
the Commission was assessing the
best approach to dealing with beyond
design basis external events in response
to the accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi,
the industry developed a concept for
Diverse and Flexible Coping Strategies
(FLEX) equipment and thus was born the
National Response Centers. To me, that
is a collaborative problem-solving effort
and innovation as its best.
What I hope is clear from my voting
record, my Congressional testimony and
20
NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, March-April 2016
