 I'll call the hearing to order, but before we begin the proceedings that before us today, I want to begin by taking an opportunity to mark the passing of Vice Admiral Kenneth Monroe Carr, who served the NRC as a commissioner from 1986 to 1989, and then chairman from 1989 to 1991, and I had the honor of serving on his staff during those five years. Carl Carr had a distinguished career in the United States Navy, beginning in service in the Pacific during World War II. He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1949 and was a member of the original commissioning crew of the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear-powered submarine, and was on, I think, the actually the only one who was on the commissioning crew and also went under the North Pole in its historic journey. Before retiring from the Navy in 1985, he served in a number of important capacities as commander, the USS Flasher and the USS John Adams, and also was the commander of the Atlantic submarine fleet. As a commissioner, he was focused on improving operational performance in the industry, operational professionalism, and one of his legacies is his advocacy of the maintenance rule. He also worked on the initial license renewal rule, and the maintenance rule, as we were noting actually on Monday, is one of the first risk-informed rules. And to draw a connection to today's hearing, he was a member of the commission that adopted the licensing reforms that are reflected in 10CFR Part 52, and we'll be exercising those today as we consider this application from South Texas for a combined license. So we're grateful for Admiral Carr's service to his country, and particularly the service to this agency. Yeah. I just appreciate Chairman Burns taking the time to acknowledge a great individual. I did not know him in his capacity as a commissioner. I did know him when he was in uniform in the Navy, and I still have an engraved plaque that he signed when I received my submarine dolphins having qualified in submarines in 1978, and I still have that in my house. I'll call this hearing to order, and I want to welcome those of you in the room here today and those who may be listening in, and particularly will be hearing today from the applicant and the staff. And to provide a context for our proceedings, the commission is here to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Nuclear Innovation North America, LLC, which I think a lot of us will refer to as Nina during today's hearing, on its application filed September 20, 2007 for combined licenses to construct and operate two additional units, units three and four at the existing South Texas project electric generating station site in Matagorda County, near Bay City, Texas. This hearing is required under section 189A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended. The commission also will be reviewing the adequacy of the staff's environmental impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The general order of hearing, for the general order of hearing, the staff and Nina will provide testimony and witness panels that provide an overview of the application as well as address safety and environmental issues associated with the review. And there will be commissioned questions following each panel. And we will be rotating the questioning among commissioners. And the other thing I would note is the commissioners will have the opportunity to allocate the total time that would be available. So there may be in some panels there may be more questioning from a particular commissioner on a matter of interest to him or her as they see fit. We are going to also have an overview presentation on the certified design for the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor or ABWR. And the purpose of that discussion is to provide context for the hearing, but not to reopen issues previously resolved in the design certification rulemaking. The commission will not delve extensively into the ABWR design issues, although there are areas of interface between the certified design and the specific characteristics of the South Texas project site that will be considered. At the conclusion of our hearing, we will take the matter into under advisement. There will be additional filings from the parties. And we ultimately will issue a decision promptly with due regard to the complexity of the issues before us. On the safety side, the commission will determine whether, one, the applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and the commission's regulations, particularly those in 10 CFR section 52.97 have been met. Any required notifications to other agencies or bodies have been duly made. That there is reasonable assurance that the facility will be constructed and will operate and conformity with the license, the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and the commission's regulations. That the applicant is technically and financially qualified to engage in the activities to be authorized. And that issuance of the license will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. On the environmental side, the commission will determine whether the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, section 102, paragraphs 2A, 2C, and 2E and the applicable regulations in NRC's regulations in 10 CFR port 51 have been met. Will independently consider the final balance among conflicting, excuse me, conflicting factors contained in the record proceeding with a view to determining the appropriate action to be taken. Determine after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs considering reasonable alternatives, whether the license should be issued, denied, or appropriately conditioned to protect environmental values. And finally, we will determine whether the NEPA review conducted by the staff has been adequate. I'll stop there and ask whether my colleagues have any comments before we begin.