[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

NRC POLICY AND GOVERNANCE OVERSIGHT

=======================================================================

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

JULY 24, 2012

__________

Serial No. 112-169

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

energycommerce.house.gov

______________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-625 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
_____________________________________________________________________
Foe sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800; DC area (202)512-1800 Fax:(202)512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman

JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MARY BONO MACK, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG WALDEN, Oregon BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina GENE GREEN, Texas
Vice Chairman DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma LOIS CAPPS, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JOHN BARROW, Georgia
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey Islands
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETE OLSON, Texas
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia

(ii)
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
Chairman
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
MARY BONO MACK, California JOHN BARROW, Georgia
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington LOIS CAPPS, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana officio)
CORY GARDNER, Colorado HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
JOE BARTON, Texas officio)
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
------

Subcommittee on Energy and Power

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
Chairman
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
LEE TERRY, Nebraska JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana GENE GREEN, Texas
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington LOIS CAPPS, California
PETE OLSON, Texas MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
CORY GARDNER, Colorado HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas officio)
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
JOE BARTON, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Nebraska, opening statement.................................... 6
Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 6
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 16

Witnesses

Allison M. Macfarlane, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Answers to submitted questions............................... 76
Kristine L. Svinicki, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 30
Answers to submitted questions............................... 93
William D. Magwood IV, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission..................................................... 31
Answers to submitted questions............................... 100
William C. Ostendorff, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission..................................................... 32
Answers to submitted questions............................... 110

Submitted Material

Report, undated, of the Office of the Inspector General, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, ``Possible Violations of the
Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980 and NRC's Internet Commission
Procedures by NRC Chairman,'' submitted by Mr. Shimkus \1\

----------
\1\ Internet link to the report is available on page 75.

NRC POLICY AND GOVERNANCE OVERSIGHT

----------

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy
joint with the
Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John
Shimkus (chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the
Economy) presiding.
Present from the Subcommittee on Environment and the
Economy: Representatives Shimkus, Murphy, Pitts, Bass, Latta,
McMorris Rodgers, Cassidy, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Green,
Butterfield, Barrow, Matsui, DeGette, Capps, Dingell, and
Waxman (ex officio).
Present from the Subcommittee on Energy and Power:
Representatives Whitfield, Walden, Terry, Burgess, Bilbray,
Scalise, Olson, McKinley, Gardner, Pompeo, Griffith, Rush,
Castor, Markey, and Engel.
Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Carl
Anderson, Counsel, Oversight; Gary Andres, Staff Director;
Charlotte Baker, Press Secretary; Mike Bloomquist, General
Counsel; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Anita Bradley,
Senior Policy Advisor to Chairman Emeritus; Maryam Brown, Chief
Counsel, Energy and Power; Allison Busbee, Legislative Clerk;
Annie Caputo, Professional Staff Member; Cory Hicks, Policy
Coordinator, Energy and Power; Heidi King, Chief Economist;
David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and the Economy;
Andrew Powaleny, Deputy Press Secretary; Chris Sarley, Policy
Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Brett Scott, Staff
Assistant; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight;
Lyn Walker, Coordinator, Admin/Human Resources; Jeff Baran,
Democratic Senior Counsel; Phil Barnett, Democratic Staff
Director; Alison Cassady, Democratic Senior Professional Staff
Member; and Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Policy Analyst.
Mr. Shimkus. The joint subcommittee hearing will now come
to order.
First of all, I want to welcome our friends from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And let me start by again
welcoming you in particular. Well, let me just recognize myself
for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Again, welcome. And Chairman Macfarlane, congratulations.
And it is good to meet with you for a few minutes before this
session. Commissioner Apostolakis will be unable to be here
today since he is visiting his mother in Greece. We wish him
safe travel and pray that she feels better soon.
A lot has happened since the Commission last testified
before this committee. Early this year, the NRC issued the
first license for new plants in 34 years. In March, the
Commission issued orders to implement post-Fukushima
improvements. Only 2 weeks ago, we saw a ``changing-of-the-
guard'' as Chairman Jaczko exited the Commission and Chairman
Macfarlane was sworn in. Under Chairman Jaczko, the last 3
years have been turbulent for the NRC, to say the least, and
the change in leadership was long overdue.
With the new chairman, today's hearing provides an
excellent opportunity to review policy and governance of the
Commission. We can gather important perspective from the
commissioners, and importantly, Chairman Macfarlane, about the
future of the Commission and its work. This is an opportunity,
not to dwell on the past, but to look to the future through
some of the important lessons of recent commission events and
actions. It is critical for our oversight that we examine
weaknesses in the NRC governance identified during the past
chairman's tenure and to assess the many policy challenges
facing the agency.
One broad area of policy interest concerns regulatory
priorities. In its other work, this committee has focused
significant attention on the combined effect many substantial
EPA regulations has had on our Nation's coal plants. It should
be of no surprise I am similarly concerned about the potential
impact of numerous post-Fukushima and other regulatory changes
on our Nation's nuclear plants.
Without a doubt, the industry must ensure safe operation
and regulatory compliance. None of us would tolerate anything
less. However, I believe it is incumbent on the Commission to
consider the cumulative effect regulatory changes have on
safety. In a March 2011 information paper to the Commission,
the NRC staff cautioned that the cumulative Effects of
Regulation ``can potentially distract licensee or entity staff
from executing other primary duties that ensure safety or
security.'' I believe this cumulative effect risk is valid.
The NRC and the industry had a full workload of safety
improvements under development before the Fukushima accident
occurred. The Commission must be diligent about ensuring its
licensees can focus on completing changes with greatest safety
significance rather than being diverted onto other, less
important changes simply to meet artificial timelines.
Adequate protection is about risk reduction but should not
be confused with ``risk elimination.'' Risk is inherent to all
sources of energy, yet energy is necessary to our health and
well being--to heat our homes, grow our food, and power our
economy. With the Atomic Energy Act, Congress endeavored to
balance the benefits nuclear energy brings to the general
welfare with protection of public health and safety. Our goal
as legislators and yours as regulators should be to preserve
that balance.
I want to thank all of the commissioners for coming here
today to update the committee on the NRC activities, and I look
forward to their testimony and willingness to answer our
questions.
And I would like to yield the balance of my time to my
friend, Mr. Terry, from Nebraska.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.002

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this very important hearing. As you may be aware, I introduced
legislation in December of last year in response to many of the
concerns that were being raised at the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, and the IG reports confirmed those concerns.
I want to welcome the new chair of the Commission and relay
that it is my sincere hope that we can work together. I wanted
to also stress that the NRC has been known throughout the world
as a premier regulatory agency that has been known to work
together. I hope we can restore the confidence that people once
held with the NRC.
Now, during my questions, I want to discuss aspects of my
bill to get your feedback, particularly on the previous abuse
of emergency powers and maybe setting those down in a more
certain way.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
Does Mr. Barton want the remaining time?
Then, the chair yields back his time now. And the chair
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. And I want to welcome our commissioners back to our
committee.
Chairman Macfarlane, congratulations on your recent
appointment. We are aware of the situations you inherited and I
applaud your enthusiasm and willingness to address the
governance issues head-on. I know some of my colleagues
continue to have concerns about some of the actions initiated
under the former Chairman Jaczko. I do hope that we can allow
the new chair the opportunity to tackle some of these
governance issues before making the assumptions on the NRC's
work going forward. In the meantime, we should focus our
committee oversight on ensuring safety and viability of our
nuclear fleet.
I am a long-term supporter of nuclear energy because it is
a cleaner energy alternative. The President has said he
supports investments in alternative forms of energy, and
Secretary Chu has testified before this committee that we would
be unable to meet the President's goals if we do not continue
to invest in nuclear energy.
With that, there is no doubt, though, that the issue of
long-term and interim nuclear storage facility disposal needs
to be dealt with and I do hope the Commission will seriously
look at this issue in the near future.
Again, thank each of you for being here. My hope is that
today starts a new chapter in our committees' relationship with
the NRC and I wish you all the luck in turning over a new leaf.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the balance
of my time to our ranking member of our full committee, Mr.
Waxman.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much for yielding to me.
I also want to begin by welcoming Dr. Allison Macfarlane
and the other members of the Commission. I look forward to your
testimony on the safety and security of America's nuclear power
plants.
The mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to
license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of nuclear
materials to ``ensure adequate protection of public health and
safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect
the environment.''
This is a vital mission, but for the last year and a half,
the Commission has been distracted from its responsibilities by
politicians who second-guessed its decisions and sowed internal
dissention. Regrettably, this committee helped fan the flames
of discord within the Commission by looking for any opportunity
to cast aspersions on the former chairman.
It is time to move on with the four commissioners here
today and the new chairman. We should focus on examining
important nuclear safety issues, not rehashing old grudges.
There is no shortage of issues to discuss, from the ongoing
shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in
California due to safety concerns, to the status of NRC's post-
Fukushima review of nuclear power plant safety in the United
States.
It has been more than a year since the Fukushima nuclear
accident in Japan. Japan's independent commission investigating
the events leading up to the disaster recently concluded that
the power plant operator and Japan's nuclear regulators failed
to implement basic safety measures despite known risks posed by
earthquakes, tsunamis, and other events that can cause long-
term blackouts at reactors. This is a cautionary tale for the
United States, one that NRC should heed when implementing
lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster.
I look forward to the hearing. I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me and I yield back the time to Mr. Green should he
wish to use it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.003

Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, unless another member on our side
wants the remainder of the minute--no one?
I yield back my time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back time.
The chair recognizes the chairman of the Energy
Subcommittee, Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to
welcome the commissioners from the NRC today and tell all of
you how much we appreciate the important work that you do. We
are all optimistic and hopeful that Chairwoman Macfarlane will
make great improvements and restore the collegiality at the
Commission. And we know that she has an impressive background
in this area and look forward to working with her.
All of us watched closely the events that surrounded the
Fukushima situation, and when the Japanese Diet's Nuclear
Accident Independent Investigation Commission reported that if
Fukushima had been required to implement, for example, the
``B.5.b'' order issued by the NRC following the 9/11 terrorist
attacks on the U.S., ``that accident may have been
preventable.''
That same report also observed that Japanese plants were
not required to consider a possible station blackout scenario,
something that the NRC instituted in the 1980s. And last year,
the NRC's Taskforce concluded that ``events like the Fukushima
accident are unlikely to occur in the United States'' and that
``continued operation and licensing activities do not pose an
imminent risk to public health and safety.''
We all were encouraged by that and I know that on March 9
of this year, the NRC issued a series of orders without a
rigorous cost-benefit analysis. I understand it was the
Commission's collective judgment to proceed in that fashion due
to the urgency of those high-priority issues and I don't think
any of us disagree with that. But moving forward with the
complicated and complex issues that you deal with, we do know
that you will be striving and we hope that you will strive for
a solid technical basis and rigorous cost-benefit analysis on
any decision that is made.
But once again, we look forward to your testimony and look
forward to the opportunity to ask questions, and thank you for
joining us.
And I would yield the balance of my time to the chairman of
the full committee, Mr. Upton.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.006

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Upton. Thank you. And I thank both of you for holding
this important and very timely hearing. I am pleased for the
opportunity to personally relay the concerns that folks in
southwest Michigan have regarding recent news reports of
degraded performance of the Palisades nuclear plant in my
district. I share those concerns and have raised them with
Entergy officials. I understand they have made many management
changes and have very detailed plans about how to restore their
facility to the high level of safety that we, every one of us,
expect. And while I am encouraged by their commitment to
resolve the situation, I will continue monitoring this
situation closely, working directly with the company, as well
as the NRC, and I look forward to asking questions of the
Commission on that issue.
With regard to governance, Congress recognized in 1974 that
one person should not be able to dictate what constitutes
nuclear safety. They gave that responsibility to a commission
of five people to consider complex issues collegially and in a
manner that maximizes the benefit of nuclear technology while
protecting the public. Collegiality is not just a buzzword; it
is a critical safeguard against ill-considered policymaking by
any single commission member.
Following the Three Mile Island accident, Congress passed
the Reorganization Plan of 1980 to address organizational
weaknesses and clarify lines of authority. The Reorganization
Plan shifted a certain amount of authority from the Commission
to the chairman, and while that approach served the Nation well
for nearly 30 years, we have now witnessed how one person,
intent on expanding the limits of his authority, can undermine
the Commission's effectiveness. I am relieved the Jaczko era is
officially behind us, but flaws have been exposed at the
Commission that still need to be addressed.
As we have learned through our investigations and two IG
reports, just a few of the former chairman's actions include:
repeated attempts to influence or withhold agency staff
information from the Commission; intimidation and bullying of
commissioners and agency professionals creating a chilled work
environment; and use of the Public Affairs Office to denigrate
his colleagues and politicize and pressure commission policy
positions.
In all my years on this committee, I have never witnessed a
situation like that during the past 3 years at the NRC. Last
year, four commissioners took the unprecedented step of
privately alerting the White House Chief of Staff to the
untenable situation. Sadly, the President's response was to
turn a blind eye while the four eminently qualified
commissioners, whom he nominated, were all vilified by Chairman
Jaczko's allies when their concerns became public. We must
ensure history never repeats itself.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.008

Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
And again, I would like to welcome the commission members.
And it is my understanding that the chairman will offer the
opening statement for--oh, I am sorry.
Without objection, I would like to recognize the ranking
member of the Energy Subcommittee--I didn't know there were any
other subcommittees other than mine, Bobby--for 5 minutes for
your opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank again all of the NRC commissioners for your attendance
here today. You certainly deserve all the accolades that we can
give to you because of the hard work that you do and have
continued to do, even under the former chairman.
Dr. Macfarlane, I really want to thank you for being here
and I want to welcome you. We look forward to your insightful
and rigorous leadership, and we know that the genius is yet to
appear, but it is here present with us and so I am so delighted
that you are here before this committee and that you are the
chairman of the NRC. So welcome.
I look forward to hearing from you and I look forward to
hearing your vision for the agency moving forward. And I look
forward to hearing how you plan to work in concert with your
fellow commissioners to ensure that the agency is conducting
its work smoothly and without interruption.
Mr. Chairman, for Illinois, our State, housing more nuclear
reactors than any other State in the country, my constituents
and yours want to be assured that the NRC has in place
commonsense protocols for both mitigating risks of a nuclear
disaster, as well as procedures to safeguard the public in the
event that a disaster occurs. Specifically, I look forward to
hearing more about the steps that the Commission has put in
place to improve safety based on a huge amount of information
we have learned following the events at Fukushima.
It has now been over 16 months since the horrific disaster
of last March, and in the past 12 months, there have been seven
major reports on Fukushima, as well as numerous international
IAEA and other international studies on the events that took
place at Fukushima. The 30 plus NRC actions that were initially
approved by the agency were based on a report that was drafted
within 3 months of the Fukushima events and before any root
cause or detailed timeline of events had been made public. And
I am curious to know if the agency has assessed the list of NRC
actions against the vast array of information to ensure that
the NRC staff, and more importantly, the industry, are focused
on the issues that were the cause and that are safety-
significant.
Mr. Chairman, while I believe nuclear power must be a vital
part of our country's overall energy portfolio, we must ensure
that we have the best systems and practices in place to
safeguard against an unforeseen nuclear accident to prevent
widespread disaster like what we witnessed last March in Japan.
My constituents in the 1st District and in Illinois, as well as
the larger American public expect us to address these pressing
issues, so I look forward to hearing from the commissioners
today.
One other matter, Mr. Chairman, on another significant
note, I also look forward to hearing more about the NRC's work
in supporting the engineering departments of HBCUs,
historically black colleges and universities, as reported in
the magazine ``U.S. Black Engineer and Information
Technology.'' Supporting STEM education is a top priority for
me, and the NRC was recognized as one of the government
agencies considered most supportive of the engineering
departments of HBCUs, and I would like to hear more about your
work in that particular area.
So I look forward to hearing more about this work, more in
depth about all your activities.
And Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back 9 seconds.
Mr. Shimkus. The chair welcomes the ranking member for
those 9 seconds.
And now, I would like to recognize Chairman Macfarlane.
Your full statement is in the record for the Commission, and
then you are recognized for 5 minutes, and we will be very
generous, so don't feel rushed. And then I think it is our
understanding that we will give the other members of the
Commission an opportunity for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
With that, the chair recognizes the chairman of the NRC,
Honorable Macfarlane.

STATEMENTS OF ALLISON M. MACFARLANE, CHAIRMAN, NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION; KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD IV,
COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; AND WILLIAM C.
OSTENDORFF, COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

STATEMENT OF ALLISON M. MACFARLANE

Ms. Macfarlane. Thank you very much.
Chairmen Whitfield and Shimkus, Ranking Members Rush and
Green, and members of the subcommittees, I am honored to be
here before you today in my first congressional appearance as
chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I am pleased to join my fellow commissioners to discuss the
critical policy issues facing our agency. I have had the
opportunity and privilege to begin working with Commissioners
Svinicki, Apostolakis, Magwood, and Ostendorff. They are all
talented professionals with a rich and diverse set of
experiences. I am looking forward to collaborating with them
and forming a collegial relationship and service to the country
and the mission of the agency.
I would like to take a moment to address my leadership
style and the approach I will take as chairman. I have already
begun to reach out to my fellow commissioners to lay the
groundwork for a strong working relationship, and I look
forward to seeking and receiving their advice on consequential
matters facing the agency. I am committed to maintaining open
lines of communication and a respect for their views and best
judgment. I believe that by working together collegially, the
product of our efforts as a commission will be stronger and
more protective of the public interest.
To execute their responsibilities effectively, my
colleagues must have access to unfettered and timely
information, and I will ensure that they are fully and
currently informed.
One of my responsibilities is to ensure that the
Commission's policy direction is being carried out in the most
effective and efficient manner to support the mission. While
the commitment and capability of the executive director of
operations and his senior management team is impressive, the
chairman must be in the position to monitor staff performance
and verify that mission responsibilities are being met
effectively. I look forward to working with the EDO to find the
right balance between our respective roles.
Finally, I embrace the NRC's organizational values that are
intended to guide every action taken by agency personnel. These
values are integrity, service, openness, commitment,
cooperation, excellence, and respect. I support the commitment
to an open, collaborative work environment that encourages all
employees and contractors to promptly speak up and share
concerns and differing views without fear of negative
consequences. I believe these values are worthy of highlighting
as we reinforce our agency's focus on its critical mission of
safeguarding the public's health, safety, and security and
protecting the environment.
This is especially valuable at a time when the agency is
dealing with a wide array of critical safety matters. We
continue to focus on implementing the important lessons learned
from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident. The NRC continues to
believe that our Nation's nuclear fleet is safe and not facing
imminent risk from a similar accident. However, the Fukushima
disaster clearly offers lessons to be learned.
I look forward in this context to working with my
colleagues to establish safety measures derived from the
recommendations by the NRC Near-Term Task Force. The staff has
prioritized these recommendations into three tiers. In March,
the Commission approved the first tier of actions for the staff
to issue as immediately enforceable orders. We also issued
requests for information to our licensees to help inform the
staff as we proceed in developing the Tiers 2 and 3 measures.
This is a substantial amount of progress in a short time, and
the Commission looks forward to continuing to work with the
staff to address remaining Fukushima-related lessons.
In addition, the NRC has made significant strides in
several other areas this year. We issued the first two new
reactor licenses in over 30 years--the Vogtle site in Georgia
and the Summer site in South Carolina. We also authorized a new
design certification for the AP-1000 reactor, four new uranium
recovery licenses, and a license for the AREVA Eagle Rock
centrifuge enrichment facility. We anticipate more applications
and decisions being made in the next few years in all these
areas.
With all these new developments, the NRC continues its
responsibility for making the safety and security of our
current operating nuclear fleet by performing thousands of
hours of inspections at plants and material sites. On the
whole, our Nation's nuclear power plants have performed well,
and where issues have arisen, the agency has moved
expeditiously to resolve any problems.
We are always working to bring transparency to our
operations and maintain strong relationships with our
stakeholders and the public. It is these accomplishments that
demonstrate time and again the level of professionalism among
the NRC staff. I am proud to be a part of this agency and I
look forward to working with my fellow commissioners and the
staff in the coming months.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today.
I am happy to answer any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Macfarlane follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.018

Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Chairman. Right on the button on 5
minutes, so you were well prepared. So that is a good first
start.
The chair now recognizes Commissioner Svinicki. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI

Ms. Svinicki. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member
Green, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, and members of
the subcommittees for the opportunity to appear before you
today at this oversight hearing to examine NRC policy and
governance.
I would like to begin by recognizing the early commitment
of the Commission's new chairman, Dr. Allison Macfarlane, to
forge a collegial relationship with each member of the
Commission, which began even prior to her swearing in earlier
this month and has continued since that time. I am appreciative
of her reaching out to me, our fellow commissioners, and
members of the NRC Senior Executive Service and staff. The tone
she is setting is constructive and is a most welcomed
opportunity to move forward in a positive manner.
Having joined the Commission in March of 2008, I arrived at
an agency whose regulatory program is regarded as among the
most informed and disciplined in the world. I am grateful to
President Obama for having nominated me this year to serve a
second term on the Commission. Having been confirmed just last
month, I continue to pledge my efforts to advance the NRC's
important work during this new term of service.
The tragic events in Japan in 2011 cast the NRC's work into
even sharper relief for the American public. Nuclear technology
is unique and its use demands an unwavering commitment to
safety principles. This past March, the NRC issued a series of
orders to nuclear power plant licensees requiring features to
mitigate beyond design-basis extreme natural events, the
installation of hardened venting systems at some plants, and
enhanced spent fuel pool instrumentation. The NRC is also
requiring nuclear power plant licensees to undertake
substantial reevaluations of seismic and flooding hazards at
their sites.
The NRC continues to develop and communicate the specific
guidance for implementing these actions with input from nuclear
operators, nuclear safety, and environmental interest groups,
and other members of the public. This work is carried out
through the committed efforts of the women and men of the NRC
in advancing the NRC's mission of ensuring adequate protection
of public health and safety and promoting the common defense
and security.
I would like to convey publicly my gratitude to the NRC
staff for the work they do and for assisting my efforts to
advance our shared goals.
Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, Chairman Shimkus,
Ranking Member Green, and members of the subcommittees, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear today and look forward to
your questions. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. The chair now recognizes
Commissioner Magwood, sir, for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD IV

Mr. Magwood. Thank you. Chairmen Whitfield and Shimkus,
Ranking Members Rush and Green, members of the subcommittees,
it is a pleasure to be before you today to discuss the work of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
During the 2 \1/2\ years I have served on this commission,
we have been faced with historic challenges and significant
change. We have authorized electric utilities to begin
construction on the first new nuclear power plants since the
1970s. We have also licensed the construction and operation of
the first uranium enrichment facilities in this country not
constructed by the government. At the same time, we have also
seen troubling errors in the application of radioactive sources
for medical treatment at the Philadelphia Veterans' Affairs
Medical Center, and in the last year, we responded as nuclear
power plants were rocked by earthquakes, threatened by
floodwaters, buffeted by hurricanes and tornadoes.
In a very real sense, the key attribute of a safety
regulator is the ability to process experience into learning
and learning into action. All these events and many others
provide us lessons that must be learned and applied to make us
a better regulator. Fortunately, in my experience, the NRC has
proven to be extraordinary in its ability to learn from
experience and find practical ways of assuring safety.
For this current Commission, the greatest challenges we
face arise from the urgent need to continue to learn from the
lessons of the tragedy in Japan at the Fukushima Dai-ichi
plant. The Commission has already unanimously approved a set of
high-priority initiatives that are designed to enhance the
defense in depth at U.S. plants and enable operators to respond
more effective to beyond design-basis events.
We still have much work to do but the steps taken thus far
represent a very significant increase in safety based on the
Fukushima experience. While the technical and regulatory
lessons are important, it is my observation that the greatest
lesson Fukushima holds for any safety regulator is the fleeting
nature of credibility. A regulator who loses credibility and
public trust is a regulator that has failed its mission. If a
regulator is not seen as truthful, credible, and reliable with
a clear focus on the health and safety of the public, it cannot
function nor can the nuclear facilities under its oversight.
Those who question this need only observe the tens of thousands
of Japanese citizens who marched in Tokyo this past weekend.
It is in that respect that I welcome Chairman Macfarlane to
this commission. I look forward to working with her to assure
that the NRC continues its long tradition of technical
excellence, veracity, and credibility. In the very short time
she has been with us, I believe she is off to an excellent
start.
This commission and the agency as a whole will face many
difficult impactful decisions in the coming weeks and months.
It does not overstate the matter to tell you that these
decisions could determine the future shape of nuclear
regulation in this country for many years to come. I look
forward to working with my colleagues on the Commission, our
many stakeholders, and with your subcommittees as we address
the challenges ahead.
I look forward to today's discussion and look forward to
your questions. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Now, I would like to recognize Commissioner Ostendorff. And
before that, it is important for me to use the bully pulpit to
make sure that I put on record, beat Navy. We have priorities
here in this country, and that Army-Navy rivalry is one of the
biggest.
So before you start, beat Navy. And you are recognized for
5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF

Mr. Ostendorff. Chairman, I must call to your attention the
record of the past decade. But I have a son who served as an
Army officer, did two combat tours in Iraq and was there in a
very busy time period, so I have a very soft spot in my heart
for the Army.
Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Green, Chairman Whitfield,
Ranking Member Rush, members of the committee, I appreciate the
chance to be here before you today. It has been a little bit
over a year since I had the opportunity to appear before this
committee.
Last July, the NRC Fukushima Task Force concluded that a
sequence of events in the United States similar to that
experienced in Japan is unlikely. The task force also
significantly concluded that there is no imminent risk from
continued operation of U.S. nuclear power plants. I firmly
believe those conclusions offered in July of last year remain
true and solid today. Nevertheless, I continue to support the
NRC in its efforts to strengthen our regulatory framework where
appropriate in response to Fukushima.
Along with my colleagues at this table, I commend the NRC's
dedicated staff of professionals. I also appreciate the work of
my colleagues at this table.
Earlier this year, along with my other colleagues, I voted
to approve the issuance of three orders associated with
Fukushima actions. Orders related to acts of mitigation
strategies, containment vent systems, and spent fuel pool
instrumentation based on lessons learned from Fukushima. I
continue to support the information-gathering and analysis
necessary to take additional actions as appropriate to enhance
safety. We need to continue to pursue these efforts in a
prioritized, thoughtful manner.
But even as we dedicate resources to implementing the
recommendations and lessons learned from Fukushima, the
Commission and our staff continue to be successful in
performing our other vital work. Effective safety oversight of
reactor materials licensees remains our preeminent goal.
And as mentioned by colleagues to my right, earlier this
year in February and March, we issued the first new reactor
licenses for construction and operation at the Vogtle and
Summer plants. I note that the additional Fukushima-related
requirements that came from the Commission were imposed in
these new construction reactors. I had the chance to witness
the construction of these two sites just 2 weeks ago, and I am
encouraged by the progress that I saw.
Finally, I join my colleagues in warmly welcoming Dr.
Macfarlane to the Commission. I fully expect that the
collegiality and effectiveness of the Commission will benefit
from her new leadership. And I state with great confidence
today that she is off to a very strong start as chairman.
I appreciate this committee's oversight role and I look
forward to your questions. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Now, I recognize myself for 5 minutes for the first opening
round of questions.
This is to the Commission as a whole. My district is home
to Honeywell's uranium conversion plant. It is the only one of
its kind in the U.S. This past May, the NRC reconfirmed as part
of a performance review that the plant is operating safely. Two
months later, Honeywell is in the process of laying off 228
employees due to a prolonged shutdown to address recently
discovered seismic issues. I am concerned for both the safety
of the nearby residents but also for the livelihoods of those
employees. What I am struggling to understand is this: was the
NRC correct in May when they indicated the plant is safe? If
so, then shouldn't there be a way to make safety improvements
while minimizing the disruption to the plant's operation and
the lives of the employees? Chairman?
Ms. Macfarlane. Thank you for that question, Chairman.
You will have to bear with me. I have been on the job 2
weeks and I am struggling to understand all of the different
issues that are before us. But I am familiar with the Honeywell
issue and I am familiar with the fact that the order, the
confirmatory action letter that was issued to the Honeywell
plant came out of Fukushima-related inspections. And that is my
current understanding of the situation. So it was perhaps
separate from what you are talking about.
Mr. Shimkus. Commissioner Svinicki?
Ms. Svinicki. Chairman, as Chairman Macfarlane indicated,
the NRC did order some additional in-depth inspections at
facilities, including fuel-cycle facilities at Honeywell after
the events in Fukushima. As a result of that, there were
indications that the amount of material that could
hypothetically be released in a seismic event had been
underestimated previously, and that is under further analysis
by both Honeywell as the operator and the NRC staff at this
time. There is the potential for facility modifications to be
needed and my understanding is that the issue of what measures
might be needed is under very active analysis right now.
Mr. Shimkus. So just a brief follow-up. So you are saying
that the May analysis may not have been correct and you are not
attributing that to Fukushima changes?
Ms. Svinicki. My understanding is that the situation that
the facility is in right now is an outgrowth of the more in-
depth Fukushima-related inspection but it is against the
current design basis of the facility.
The question of whether or not this could have been
discovered previously is a very complex one, Congressman, and I
think we owe you, as we complete our analysis, a further answer
on that.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes. And more to the 228 employees who no
longer have employment right now.
Commissioner Magwood?
Mr. Magwood. Yes, I think both of my colleagues have given
you a very good summary of the situation. The only thing I
would add is that a portion of the difficulty we face with the
Honeywell facility is that it is a very old facility that
actually predates some of our regulatory structure. And while
we have a lot of certainty that it is being operated safely,
some of the criteria that one might apply today were not
available when this plant was first built. So, for example,
there are no criteria guiding whether the buildings housing the
process facilities should have any earthquake resistance, for
example. We don't have that requirement in place for this
facility. But what we do have in place is a requirement that in
the event of a credible accident that the public be protected.
And as Commission Svinicki pointed out, in the analysis to
decide whether the public is protected, you have to make an
assumption as to how much material could possibly be released,
and that appears to have been an error made in the process to
determine how much could have been released. We now believe
much more could be released than had been previously assumed,
and that is why this change has been----
Mr. Shimkus. Yes, let me reclaim my time because I have got
3 and I am only going to get one question in.
So let me to go a quote by you, Commissioner Magwood, that
said, ``it does not, as a general matter, advance the cause of
safety to inundate licensee staff with multiple actions when a
more thoughtful process might achieve the agency's safety goals
without straining licensee resources.'' And this is the issue
about the additional work, time, effort, energy that might take
people off the prize of the real concerns on safety. What are
your comments to that? That is your comment, Commissioner
Magwood. Why don't you follow up on that?
Mr. Magwood. Well, just very briefly and give others a
chance to comment. My belief is that it is very important
whenever we take a regulatory action that it be done in a
prioritized fashion. Obviously, every facility is very
different, and we should have an approach that recognizes that
what may be a threat to one facility may be a much lesser
threat to a second facility. And then as we are approaching our
regulatory implementation, we ought to take that into
consideration.
Mr. Shimkus. Does everyone generally agree with that
analysis? And I see everyone shaking their head yes, and we
appreciate that.
With that, my time is expired. Chair recognizes the ranking
member, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On June the 8th, the U.S. Court of Appeals in DC Circuit
Court called NRC's evaluation of the risk of spent nuclear fuel
deficient, noting the Commission did not examine the
environmental impact, the impacts of failing to license a
permanent repository, or environmental risk. The court
instructed the NRC to perform a detailed evaluation and
possible risk posed by the extent of storage pools in reactor
sites such as leaks and fires or explain why such an evaluation
is not needed.
When do you plan to start this evaluation? And what do you
expect it to look like?
Ms. Macfarlane. We are in the process of considering
various options of what to do with waste confidence decisions
right now, and these options are being vetted. And I can't say
more because the issue is an active adjudicatory matter.
Mr. Green. Do you have any idea on a time frame?
Ms. Macfarlane. We are going to be working part of this
right now, immediately.
Mr. Green. OK. On June the 18th, the NRC received a
petition to suspend final decisions on all pending reactor
licensing proceedings pending revisions to be remanded about
the Waste Confidence Rule. In its response, NRC stated, ``the
commission staff agrees that no final decision to grant a
combined license, operating license, or renewed operating
license is to be made until the NRC has appropriately disposed
of the issues remanded by court.'' Is it true that you will not
make any final decision on a license until you have addressed
the problems with the Waste Confidence Rule?
Ms. Macfarlane. Again, I believe this is an adjudicatory
matter and we can't say more until we have taken a vote.
Mr. Green. OK. In the 16 months since the nuclear accidents
in Japan, there has been a vast amount of information published
about the event, the causes, the action taken by the global
nuclear energy industry. With the benefit of this information,
have your initial conclusions on the cause of accidents or the
priority of the regulatory actions associated with Fukushima
changed?
Ms. Svinicki. Congressman Green, the NRC staff remains very
cognizant of those international reports as they are issued and
they do have the potential to further inform our response in
the United States to Fukushima. So I would characterize to you
that we stay very engaged in reviewing those results and want
to have the most risk-informed process that we can to respond
to Fukushima going forward.
Mr. Green. You know, our concern is we want to make sure--
it was a terrible tragedy in Japan. We just want to make sure
we don't reinvent the wheel, that we see what the problem was
there.
You issued three orders and a request for information on
flooding, seismic and emergency preparedness in March. Based on
the information that is available in the past 12 months, are
there any other areas where orders may be necessary?
Ms. Macfarlane. I believe this is to be decided. We are
working through the different tier activities, and as we get to
Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities, we may decide on new orders.
I invite my colleagues to comment.
Ms. Svinicki. I would just add that the orders that you
described were considered by the Commission and the NRC staff
to be those that provided the greatest potential for risk
reduction, so they were the highest priority items.
Mr. Ostendorff. I wanted to add, Congressman, to echo
Commissioner Svinicki's comments that not all of these
recommendations from the task force are of equal safety
significance. There are some that are more urgent, some less
urgent, and some that still need to be studied. And I will just
tell you from where we sit, a year and 4 months after
Fukushima, I think the thoughtful prioritized approach that the
agency has taken as a result of the staff's recommendations has
been very supportive of safety.
Mr. Green. So there are other orders being looked at, just
not the higher priority that these three orders, is that
correct? If you will say yes so the mike can pick it up.
Mr. Ostendorff. Well, I would say that we are still
reviewing. As Chairman Macfarlane mentioned, there is a Tier 1
set of issues, the highest priority. We are still evaluating
recommendations on Tier 2 and Tier 3.
Mr. Green. There are a number of recent reports and
articles critical of the Japanese nuclear industry and
government emergency preparedness plans and activities. Are
there differences between our regulatory requirements and those
of Japan with respect to emergency preparedness than those of
Japan?
Mr. Magwood. Yes, actually, there are very significant
differences in our approaches. For example, in the United
States, each nuclear plant is required to perform a full-scale
emergency planning exercise once every 2 years. That
requirement doesn't exist in Japan. And so we practice
emergency planning very rigorously. It is a very important part
of our defense-in-depth. And I think this is something that in
Japan they are giving a lot of careful thought to today.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I know I am almost out of time. A
number support expansion of nuclear power. There is lots of
things in the market--low-price natural gas, lots of other
issues--but if we are going to deal with long-term, we need to
have some transparency, which the chair talked about, but also
some guidelines so the industry can have some certainty to make
sure they go forward.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for my time.
Mr. Shimkus. And the gentleman yields back his time.
The chair now recognizes the chairman of the Energy
Subcommittee, Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for your testimony.
As you know, the U.S. is still struggling to rebuild its
economy and to lower unemployment, and energy is always a key
component in our ability to compete in the global marketplace.
And of course, cost is a factor that we always look at, the
cost of producing energy. Regulations certainly affect cost.
And I talked about in my opening statement how the Japanese
Diet's investigation really was quite complimentary of the U.S.
regulatory system because we had put in place certain safety
safeguards that certainly Japan did not have. And as Mr.
Ostendorff mentioned, you all adopted three emergency orders
last summer. And it is my understanding that it is not required
that you do a cost-benefit analysis and it is not required that
you do some sort of a technical basis, rationalization for the
decision. And I am assuming that in those three orders there
was not a cost-benefit analysis or a technical analysis. Is
that correct?
Ms. Macfarlane. That is correct. Two of them were deemed
adequate protection issues and one was given an exemption.
Mr. Whitfield. Two were--I am sorry?
Ms. Macfarlane. Deemed adequate protection issues.
Mr. Whitfield. OK.
Ms. Macfarlane. I will let my colleagues expand on that.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, then, Chairman Macfarlane and each of
the commissioners, let me ask this question. I know you are
looking at different tiers now, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4, or
there may be additional orders for post-Fukushima safety
improvements. Do you believe that any future post-Fukushima
actions--it would be beneficial to have a rigorous technical
basis and a cost-benefit analysis?
Ms. Macfarlane. I believe we have to consider all potential
actions on their own merits as they come through, and we will
decide at that time whether they are an adequate protection
issue or not. And, you know, it depends. There is a lot of
information we need to gather and examine about each of these
different issues in the different tiers.
Mr. Whitfield. Ms. Svinicki, do you----
Ms. Svinicki. Chairman Whitfield, I don't disagree with
Chairman Macfarlane that each regulatory action will be
assessed based on the circumstances, but as a general matter,
in a number of my votes on the NRC's post-Fukushima actions, I
have indicated that after the highest priority potential risk
reductions are taken such as the three orders we just issued,
that it is my personal view that we need to begin to return to
the disciplined cost-benefit analysis because the subsequent
and follow-on actions will likely not have the potential to
achieve as significant of a risk reduction. Therefore, I
believe moving back into our back-fit rule and our cost-benefit
evaluation is appropriate for that reason.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Magwood?
Mr. Magwood. To some degree I agree with both of my
colleagues on this because I do think that most of the actions
that may follow should undergo a more rigorous analysis. But I
also think that there may be some actions that are in the Tier
2 and Tier 3 category that are adequate protection issues and
ought not to go through that evaluation. So I agree with
Chairman Macfarlane's statement that we should look at each on
one an individual basis and make a judgment as we go.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Ostendorff?
Mr. Ostendorff. Chairman Whitfield, I would just add that I
think the commission members here at this table that have been
voting in these matters, my two colleagues to the right and
Commissioner Apostolakis, who is not here, have very clearly
stated in our voting record on Fukushima issues that we need a
technical analysis to underpin any recommendations for taking
action. And I think our staff has done that.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. Well, thank you very much.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The chair now recognizes my colleague from Illinois, Mr.
Rush, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, back in May, my office was notified
that the NRC was recently honored by U.S. Black Engineering
Information Technology Magazine as one of the government
agencies considered most supportive of the engineering
departments of historically black colleges and universities.
The survey was a result of a poll among deans of accredited
HBCU engineering programs and corporate-academic alliance
Advancing Minority Interests in Engineering, which is its name,
the Alliance's name. Supporting STEM education and especially
for minorities and women is one of my top educational
priorities.
I would like to hear more about some of these programs that
the NRC has been involved in in this particular area. So I
would ask if any of you could discuss some of the agency's work
in supporting the HBCUs' engineering program. And can my office
be of assistance? And how can we be of assistance especially in
areas of recruiting in STEM areas? We know that future
scientists and engineers of tomorrow, a lot of them could and
should come from HBCUs. So just take a moment. I am aware of
the time and I do have some other questions. So please be as
brief as you possibly can.
Ms. Macfarlane. Let me just say that in fiscal year 2011,
the Minority Servicing Institutions Grants Program issued 26
grants, of which 15 were awarded to historically black colleges
and universities and totaled over $1 million. And the program
funded approximately $737,000 in stipends through the Research
Participation Program. And as you noted, the NRC has been
recognized as a top supporter based on a survey of deans from
engineering schools for 4 consecutive years.
Mr. Rush. Would you send myself, my office, and anyone else
on the subcommittees the information in writing on that?
Ms. Macfarlane. Absolutely, happy to.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.020

Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
In the 16 months since the nuclear accidents in Japan,
there has been a vast amount of information published about the
event, the causes and actions taken by the local nuclear
industry. With the benefit of this information, have your
initial conclusions on the cause of the accidents or on the
priority of the regulatory actions associated with Fukushima
changed? What are the top five most important actions being
taken by the NRC staff and industry to improve safety based on
the huge amount of information surrounding Fukushima?
Ms. Macfarlane. Well, we have issued three orders and as
well as some requests for information from our licensees. Those
are the first actions that the NRC has done and now we are
working through Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities.
Mr. Rush. The 30 plus NRC actions that were approved by the
NRC were based on a report that was drafted within 3 months of
the accident and before any root cause or detailed timeline of
events had been made public. Have you assessed the list of NRC
actions against this vast array of information to ensure that
the NRC staff and the industry are focused on issues that were
the cause and that are safety-significant?
Ms. Macfarlane. The staff is working very hard to
understand the full suite of information available out there.
They are keeping abreast of it and keeping up with their
colleagues in other countries.
And I invite my other colleagues to comment as well.
Mr. Ostendorff. I would add, Ranking Member Rush, that I am
going to simplify this a little bit. I think there are two main
categories of Tier 1 actions that our staff has been working
diligently to look at. One is the protection against external
events such as a seismic event or flooding. And the second is,
what are the mitigation strategies if you have an accident, for
instance, if you have a loss of all power onsite? So those two
high-level mitigation strategies and the protection against
external events I think are the top two categories of all the
myriad recommendations that came out of the task force. Those
are the ones that are getting the highest priority.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. I recognize the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to just reiterate to Chairman Macfarlane I do
welcome some of your comments on your new role and I look
forward to sitting down with you and getting to know you
certainly a lot better in the weeks and months ahead and
ensuring that we have a solid relationship. You have a very
important job and we want to make sure that you have the
resources to do your job and you do it in a very efficient way.
And we are all pulling for you.
Commissioner Ostendorff, as you know the Palisades plant in
my district is in Column 3 of the NRC's Reactor Oversight
Program. Would you briefly describe for us what that means and
what actions the NRC generally takes for plants in that column?
Mr. Ostendorff. Yes, sir. We have a reactor oversight
process that goes from Column 1, which is the best operating
plant, all the way down to Column 5, which is the worst
operating plant status. And as a plant has more problems, there
is increased oversight that occurs by the NRC staff at that
plant. Currently, Palisades is in Column 3, which is basically
the result of a substantial safety significance finding dealing
with inadequate work instructions associated with DC power
supplies that led to reactor scram and reactor trip. That was
also accompanied by what is called a ``White'' finding of low
to moderate safety significance that was associated with a
service water pump coupling failure. As a result of those two
items, Palisades is in this Column 3. It is the degraded
cornerstone column. There is increased oversight. We expect our
NRC team to be looking with the licensee at their corrective
action program and the licensee's assessment of where their
problems are. And we expect the next NRC close look at this to
be coming sometime probably in September of this year.
Mr. Upton. So is it your understanding and belief that
Entergy and the owners, the operators of this facility, that
they are taking all the right actions at this point?
Mr. Ostendorff. I think the final determination of that,
Congressman, remains to be seen. I think so far Entergy has
been communicating well with the NRC staff about what they are
doing. Entergy on their own commissioned an external group to
come in and do a safety culture assessment earlier this year.
That has been reviewed by the NRC staff. Following inspection
in September we will look at those details of the safety
culture assessment.
Mr. Upton. So in September you will review all this
information and at that point would it be possible to make a
determination to move them back to Column 2 or not?
Mr. Ostendorff. We go through an annual assessment process
led by our executive director for operations, Bill Borchardt,
and Bill is in the back row behind us here. And that is on an
annual cycle that goes through--I am not sure exactly what the
cycle is but typically those determinations are made in the
spring, early summertime period. So I can't tell you exactly
when a determination might be made as to whether or not that
plant should or should not remain in Column 3.
Mr. Upton. And you will literally have that information--
you will be able to make that determination come September?
Mr. Ostendorff. Well, there would be a certain aspect that
will be looked at September. This is the safety culture aspects
that are believed to be part of the root cause, some of the
concerns of that plant.
Mr. Upton. And you will be sharing that with us I am sure.
Mr. Ostendorff. Yes, sir.
Mr. Upton. And last question, is that early September?
Mr. Ostendorff. I don't have a specific date for that. We
can get back to you if we have some more information about it.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The chair now recognizes the chairman emeritus, Mr.
Dingell, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy.
These questions to Chairman Macfarlane. Madam Chairman, I
have heard concerns related to the Part 52 licensing process
for new facilities. It is my understanding that this process is
intended to provide both a construction and an operating
license through the same review and to streamline the previous
Part 50 process. When the first round of Part 52 license
applications came into the NRC in 2007 and 8, the stated goal
by NRC was to complete these reviews in 36 months. Since that
time, the time has been raised to 42 to 48 months. And now it
seems that many are headed for 60-month review. This is
occurring even as there are less applications in the review
pipeline. My question to you, Madam Chairman, is the NRC
committed to completing these reviews in an expedited manner?
Yes or no?
Ms. Macfarlane. The NRC is committed to completing these
reviews as efficiently as possible.
Mr. Dingell. Thank you.
Now, there has been frustration on the slowness of the
relicensing process. Is the NRC committed to complete these
relicensing reviews in an expedited manner? Please answer yes
or no.
Ms. Macfarlane. The NRC is committed to completing these
relicensing reviews as efficiently as possible.
Mr. Dingell. Thank you. Now, Madam Chairman, you were a
member of the Blue Ribbon Commission that recommended working
with the communities who might volunteer for a single waste
storage site. How long would such a process take to finalize?
Ms. Macfarlane. It is totally uncertain. It could take a
few years or it could take decades. It entirely depends on the
situation.
Mr. Dingell. I am very little comforted but I think that is
a fair answer.
Madam Chairman, can you tell us what would be the cost of
this exercise?
Ms. Macfarlane. The costs of working with the community?
Mr. Dingell. Yes.
Ms. Macfarlane. It entirely depends.
Mr. Dingell. To finalize the process.
Ms. Macfarlane. Again, it entirely depends, and it depends
also in part on how much compensation is decided for the
community and in what form that compensation would be.
Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Now, under current law, how many sites are authorized to be
evaluated and licensed as a single storage site?
Ms. Macfarlane. One.
Mr. Dingell. One. Now, does the NRC currently have the
funding to move forward to evaluate and license the Yucca
Mountain facility? Yes or no?
Ms. Macfarlane. My understanding is that there is some
funding available----
Mr. Dingell. I am sorry?
Ms. Macfarlane [continuing]. To complete the license--my
understanding is there is some funding available to complete
the license review.
Mr. Dingell. Some. Enough to complete the action?
Ms. Macfarlane. That I am not completely certain, and I
would invite my colleagues to----
Mr. Dingell. Could you give us an answer for the record
later or is----
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, certainly. Absolutely.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.021

Mr. Dingell. All right, if you please.
Now, in the audience today, I have constituents of mine who
are studying nuclear science at the University of Michigan,
which is an institution I have the honor of representing. In
its fiscal year 2013 budget request, NRC stated that it is not
requesting funding for the Integrated University Program, which
historically has been the sole provider of critical funding for
both student and faculty development in the field of nuclear
science. NRC states that this reflects the confidence that the
nuclear industry will create incentives for students to enter
nuclear-related programs.
Now, I have constantly watched the development of our
technical, scientific, and engineering people. And I have
always found that we are lagging a lot of other people around
the world. I had two boys who were metallurgical engineers. We
found that we are developing approximately 11 metallurgical
engineers. The Chinese are developing about 11,000. Do you
believe that there is a need to train nuclear engineers in this
country and do you support the NRC's role in the IUP? Yes or
no?
Ms. Macfarlane. Excuse me, the----
Mr. Dingell. In the IUP.
Ms. Macfarlane. Right. Certainly as a scientist myself, I
support education in science and engineering and I think that
the NRC Commission also supports that strongly.
Mr. Dingell. If you withdraw from this, however, I must
assume that there will be no Federal money for this kind of
exercise and that we will not be training the scientists,
engineers, et cetera, that we will need in this area. Are we
going to produce the scientists, engineers, and technicians
that we need if we withdraw and if the NRC withdraws or are we
not?
Ms. Macfarlane. I would leave some of the funding of
science and engineering education to you all.
Mr. Dingell. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have
got my serious doubts that we will be doing so.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes another chairman emeritus, Mr.
Barton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Well, and there is only really one and that is
Mr. Dingell. I am glad to be in the same sentence with him.
We are glad to have our new chairman of the NRC.
Mr. Dingell. You know, this business of being chairman
emeritus sounds mighty good but it really ain't much.
Mr. Shimkus. If the gentleman would yield to my colleagues
who are in the lower levels waiting to ask questions, I still
think it is very valuable.
Mr. Barton. Well, I tend to echo Mr. Dingell. Take that and
50 cents, and in Texas, you get a Dr. Pepper. But it is good to
be on the committee regardless of what the titles are.
Chairman Macfarlane, we are certainly glad to have you and
I noticed that the previous questioners have all been
unbelievably polite, which is somewhat unusual for this
committee but not unique.
I would like to go into waters that are a little bit
murkier. Your predecessor was not known for his collegiality
with his fellow commissioners. In fact, there were some fairly
rigorous attempts on his behalf to withhold information and to
manipulate the decision-making process. Would you care to give
us your view on how you plan to manage the decision-making
process and the information gathering and dissemination at the
Commission?
Ms. Macfarlane. Surely. I am committed to being as
collegial as possible. I regard my fellow commissioners as my
peer equals. And as such, I think they should have access to
all the information I have access to. I am committed to sharing
with them written information from my office, and I have
directed my staff as well to be as open with their staffs.
Mr. Barton. So you don't intend to use your position as
chairman to withhold and in some ways shape the outcome of
decisions? You plan to use the position to gather but to share
on an equal basis whatever information comes to you as
chairman? Is that a fair assessment?
Ms. Macfarlane. That is a fair assessment. I believe that
the intention of the Commission with five Commissioners is to
act together. We certainly will not agree on every issue but
that is not the intention of the Commission.
Mr. Barton. OK. Now, some of the members may have asked a
storage question, but there is an obvious--I don't want to say
elephant in the room because that has political overtones, but
there is a big issue that is not being addressed and that is
permanent high-level waste storage. I would say a majority of
our committee feels that it would be appropriate to move
forward at Yucca Mountain. There are members of the Energy
Committee that would prefer that we not. Do you have a view
that you want to express about how to assess what to do at
Yucca Mountain?
Ms. Macfarlane. About how to assess what to do at Yucca
Mountain? No, at this point I do not. I will wait to see what
issues are presented to us as a commission.
Mr. Barton. That is fair enough for the first time you are
here.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
There are two nuclear power plants in California. One is
Diablo Canyon in Mrs. Capps's district; the other is the San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station near San Diego. And I would
like to ask some questions about the San Onofre plant.
In February 2011, new steam generators were placed in
service at that plant, which was a major capital expense. The
project cost California ratepayers $670 million. This expense
was large, but the new equipment was supposed to last 40 years.
But on January 31 of this year, less than a year after
generators were put in place, a tube in one of the unit's steam
generators started leaking radioactive steam into the
atmosphere. An alarm sounded; the reactor was shut down. The
other unit was not operating at the time because it was being
refueled. Six months later, both reactors remain shut down.
Fortunately, NRC has determined that the actual release of
radiation into the environment was minimal in this case. Is
that right, Dr. Macfarlane?
Ms. Macfarlane. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Waxman. After the January shutdown, NRC sent in an
inspection team who issued their report last week, and
according to NRC's inspection team after just a single year of
operation, a large percentage of tubes in the steam generators
had been worn down because excessive vibration was causing them
to rub against each other. Last week's report found that this
problem was probably caused by faulty computer modeling in the
design of the steam generators and by manufacturing issues. The
report stated, ``the loss of steam generator tube integrity is
a serious safety issue that must be resolved prior to further
power operation.''
Do all of you agree that this is a serious safety issue?
Ms. Macfarlane. Certainly.
Mr. Waxman. I see the witnesses all shaking their heads in
the affirmative. Does anybody disagree? If not, I will assume
that all of you agree.
Dr. Macfarlane, can you explain why these significant
design and manufacturing flaws were not detected earlier? What
NRC oversight process was in place to ensure that the new steam
generators would be safe and why didn't that process identify
the flaws before the steam generators were turned on?
Ms. Macfarlane. Thanks for your question, Congressman
Waxman.
I am still learning about all the issues and the technical
details of the issues at the San Onofre plant. And I understand
that this past March the NRC issued a confirmatory action
letter to require evaluation and repair of the steam generators
prior to restart. And so the NRC will certainly ensure that the
plant is safe before it does restart.
As to why this was not detected prior, I will defer to my
colleagues for much of that question, but my understanding is
that the NRC did evaluate the plans for the new steam
generators, but certainly I think we will be evaluating the
lessons learned from this entire experience.
Mr. Waxman. Anybody else want to answer anything?
Ms. Svinicki. Yes, sir, to add to Chairman Macfarlane's
answer. I am in agreement with her answer. I would note that
the Augmented Inspection Team Report that you referred to that
was issued last week also identified 10 unresolved items that
will be the subject of additional follow-up. I would just
mention relevant to your question that there are, of these 10
items, some related to design issues, control of original
design dimensions, and adequacy of Mitsubishi's thermo-
hydraulic model that mentioned. So at least 3 of the 10 I think
have direct relevance to the question you asked.
Mr. Waxman. But why didn't the process identify these flaws
before the generators were turned on?
Ms. Svinicki. Well, I didn't mention another of the 10,
which is the methodology itself for the review is another
unresolved item for additional follow-up.
Mr. Magwood. Yes, I believe, Congressman, you are asking
the right questions, a question I have asked the staff myself
because I believe that if you look at what the licensee did in
going forward with the replacement, they followed our process
the way they should have. Everyone did what they were supposed
to do under the process. So when you have an outcome that is
not satisfactory, you have to take a look at the process. And I
think we should take a look at the process and see if there is
something that we can improve.
Mr. Waxman. Well, I hope that all of you will look to see
how we can prevent something like this from happening again at
a nuclear reactor. It is a relief that the shutdown of this
reactor went smoothly, the defects in the equipment were
discovered before there was a major release of radiation into
the atmosphere, but it should not take a release of any amount
of radiation into the environment before problems like this one
are detected. If ratepayers are going to foot the $670 million
bill for new equipment at a nuclear reactor, that equipment
needs to be safe and last a lot longer than 1 year.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Waxman, would you mind if we allow Mr.
Ostendorff to answer your last question, too?
Mr. Waxman. Oh, yes.
Mr. Shimkus. Without objection.
Mr. Ostendorff. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus. Thank you,
Congressman Waxman.
I was just at San Onofre just 2 days ago----
Mr. Waxman. Good.
Mr. Ostendorff [continuing]. And spent 3 hours there Sunday
afternoon this past weekend and had members of Congressman
Issa's staff, Senator Boxer's and Senator Feinstein's staff
with me to receive a briefing from the licensee about this
exact issue. And I agree with everything my colleagues have
said. I will also add that I believe there is a very
comprehensive, rigorous technical evaluation that still is
underway to look at these problems, and I assure you that
everyone shares your concerns on the safety aspects of this
issue.
Mr. Waxman. Well, I appreciate that. We want to be sure
that it operates safely and we don't want to have to find out
that it wasn't operating safely after the fact. We want to
prevent problems. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And certainly it has been unanimously noted here that the
previous chairman certainly was a brilliant manipulator of
rules and therefore exposed some weaknesses in the rules and
processes within the NRC, which we would like your feedback on
how to properly repair. If there is a bill that comes through
our committee on reforms of NRC rules, I would ask each of you
if you could within the next 30 days individually provide us
your views on legislative changes that you feel would be useful
in this process. It is nice that we can actually now ask you
for that type of help when before we felt like that would be,
well, not appropriate. So it is great that there is now a new
atmosphere that allows us to have open discussions about
reforms within the NRC rules.
One of the reforms that I think is necessary, and that is
in declaration of an emergency. Again, I think that was
highlighted by the last chairman that that is uncertain and I
would like, Mr. Ostendorff, because of your unique background
and view, your opinion on the lack of clarity in the management
and leadership in the NRC during times of emergencies and how
it could be improved.
Mr. Ostendorff. Congressman Terry, thank you for your
question. Let me make an overall comment first and then I will
get to the specific issue on perhaps emergency powers----
Mr. Terry. OK.
Mr. Ostendorff. --if that is acceptable.
Mr. Terry. Sure.
Mr. Ostendorff. I would say that we have certainly under
the Energy Reorganization Act, as well as the Commission's own
Internal Commission Procedures, we have in place a structure
that guides how the Commission does business. And I think
everybody here in this committee has experience in leadership
roles, management roles, and so often how those roles are
executed is a function of the personality and the character of
the person who has the key positions. And so I can say at one
level that there are no changes required to any of our
procedures just by virtue of the fact we have a different
chairman in place right now. At the same time I can say that
while it should not be situation- or personality- or
individual-specific, and therefore, there might be some changes
that would be appropriate. So I commit to you to providing this
feedback within 30 days on legislative remedies.
With respect to emergency powers, as I previously testified
before Congress, we had and other colleagues I think the same
situation with Chairman Jaczko at the time grave concerns on
his lack of notification as to whether we actually were in a
situation where he had taken emergency authority in the events
of Fukushima. And there was a clear lack of clarity as to
whether or not he had taken those powers, and I think certainly
trying to have a more bright line as to whether or not those
powers are being invoked would be appropriate.
Mr. Terry. All right, I appreciate that.
And Chairman Macfarlane, do you think in times of emergency
it is important or not important to have the input of your
other colleagues, the commissioners?
Ms. Macfarlane. I understand that the chairman has the
authority in an emergency and as chairman I would always follow
the law and commission procedures I would like to----
Mr. Terry. Is that a no, then?
Ms. Macfarlane [continuing]. Commit to that now. No,
certainly it is the opposite. If time allowed before emergency
powers were declared, I would absolutely consult with the other
commissioners to get their views and hear their concerns.
Mr. Terry. All right. I appreciate the answer, then. And I
have one more question regarding the voting process. One of the
things that we have learned is that there appears to be a lack
of transparency and commissioners, some have suggested that it
needs to be more transparent to the point of all discussions
should be live on camera and on the record. That is certainly
how we do it in the House but I kind of learned that it is more
of a collegial, almost like the Supreme Court discussions. So
yes or no, Ms. Macfarlane, do you believe that there needs to
be changes in how the voting process is done, you know, in 7
seconds.
Ms. Macfarlane. I think I need to learn more about the
history of voting practices at the NRC to better understand the
options for the internal voting procedures. And certainly, in
an effort to maintain collegiality, before any changes were
made to the voting process, I would consult again with my
fellow commissioners to understand their thoughts on this
issue.
Mr. Terry. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. I thank my colleague. I would just jump in and
just say there is also an issue of time when a vote is called
and how long people can vote and there was a problem identified
with that. So I appreciate that.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Barrow, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Members of the Commission, the biggest thing going on in my
State right now is the construction of the two nuclear cells at
Plant Vogtle in my district. And I wonder who is in a position
to give me an update on the status of the progress being made
there? Yes, sir?
Mr. Ostendorff. Congressman, I was down there 2 weeks ago
and visited the site, both Summer and Vogtle, and there is a
lot of activity down there. There is probably close to 2,000
workers on the site at Vogtle and they are working on both
units three and four. There had been a delay over some what is
called rebar issues on the framing that goes down for the base
mat concrete. I believe that there is a clear path forward for
the licensee, Southern Nuclear Company, to move forward with
that. Our NRC resident team is onsite with at least three
inspectors full-time plus other people from Atlanta, the Region
2 office, to inspect the status of construction and I think
things are moving along well.
Mr. Barrow. What impresses me about a project this large is
the relationship you got to have between the owners, the
contractors, and the regulators. How would you describe the
relationship between the three groups of actors who are
responsible for bringing this off?
Mr. Ostendorff. My other colleagues, I would ask them to
add in here, Congressman, but I think there is great openness
in communications between Southern, and they are part of a
consortium with Westinghouse and with Shaw, which run the
contracting group for the construction operation. I think those
three entities on the consortium are communicating well with
NRC and I think, as with any project, there are lessons
learned, some improvements that could be made, but I think as
far as where things are from where I sit, I think it is in
pretty reasonable condition.
Mr. Barrow. Mr. Magwood, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Magwood. I agree with Commission Ostendorff's comments.
I visited the site myself some months ago and have talked
recently with leadership associated with the project. And I
think one answer I give to your question is that it is a
learning process. This is the first time a nuclear power plant
has been built using the 10 CFR Part 52 process.
Mr. Barrow. First one we have done in this country in 30
years.
Mr. Magwood. It is the first one in 30 years but this is
the first plant in history ever to use this particular process.
And I think we have all learned a lot as we have gone forward
in the last several months that clearly the relationship
between the owners and the contractors is evolving as we speak.
The relationship between NRC and the project is evolving
because of the types of information that every side needs to
have during the construction process. It is something we are
all learning and it has actually been a very educational
process I think for everybody.
Mr. Barrow. Commissioner Svinicki, do you have anything to
add?
Ms. Svinicki. Congressman, I would only add that I share
your observation about the importance of this communication
three ways, the constructor, the licensee, and the regulator,
and I have heard that acknowledgement articulated from
Southern, from Shaw as well. And I think there is also a
commitment, although they realize that communications need to
get to a very high fidelity. Also accountability of who has the
authority to do what is something I think that they had been
working through some issues there, who approves what kind of
changes. But I think also there is a commitment that they want
to map these things out and learn these lessons one time, learn
them early, and have the process go smoothly moving forward.
Mr. Barrow. Chairman Macfarlane, what is your impression of
the progress being made?
Ms. Macfarlane. Of the--sorry?
Mr. Barrow. Of the progress being made on this project.
Ms. Macfarlane. As far as I understand, it is going well.
The process is working as it should and the communication
between the regulator, the NRC, and the licensee. And I have
not had an opportunity yet in my 2 weeks to visit the Vogtle
plant, but I do look forward to visiting.
Mr. Barrow. I look forward to your visit as well.
One last question to all of you all collectively. Are there
any concerns on the horizon that you are aware of that we need
to address that would help us to know about?
Ms. Macfarlane. At this point, no.
Mr. Barrow. Does that go for the rest of you? Thank you so
much.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the time and
also for you all coming in again to testify. I tell you, it is
a little bit different from the past testimonies we have had
when you have all assembled, quite refreshing.
If I could start with this question, during the hearing
process for a license renewal application, the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board and the Commission must adjudicate various
contention petitions and appeals. Historically, such decisions
were reached in little over 100 days on average. Beginning in
2009--I guess we got the chart right here, as you can see--the
average time frame doubled and remains at 185 days or higher.
Our research shows that several matters were pending before the
Commission for over a year. The NRC's reliability principle
states that, ``regulatory action should always be fully
consistent with written regulations, should be promptly,
fairly, and decisively administered so as to lend stability to
the nuclear operational and planning processes.'' And here is
the question. What steps are the Commission taking to address
this situation and promptly, fairly, and decisively administer
these matters?
Ms. Macfarlane. Let me take a first stab at this. I will
take the 30,000 foot view. My understanding is that the NRC
staff are working very efficiently, as efficiently as possible,
but we all must recall that these license renewals and
licensing issues are adjudicatory matters and they take time
before the Commission, especially when they are contested. And
we at the Commission have no control over whether these
licensing issues are contested.
I will let my colleagues answer, too.
Ms. Svinicki. In viewing your chart, Congressman, I think I
would share two observations. One is that when the time period
began to be protracted, I believe overlaps with periods where
the Commission only had three serving members--and although I
can't definitely attribute the prolonged durations to that
period--I would say that the Commission functions best when it
is at its full complement of five. When there are only three
members, if two vote, a quorum is not established and the third
has, in essence, a pocket veto. And so the Commission, in my
view, does not function as efficiently when it is down to three
members.
So although I can't prove that that is part of the
attribution of the prolonged durations, the other observation
that I would make is though I have only been on the Commission
for a little over 4 years, I have noticed that participants and
interveners in the Commission's proceedings have really
observed the evolution of license renewal issues over time.
They have become extremely skilled and informed in their
participation and intervention in these proceedings. Therefore,
the numbers of appeals and petitions to the Commission has
increased.
I think in response to your question of what can we do, I
would make a personal pledge to look at agency resourcing for
our Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication, which is a
group that, as a first instance, receives and reviews briefs on
these appeals and develops draft opinions and orders for the
Commission. I think that we could look at whether that office
is adequately resourced.
Thank you.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. Commissioner Magwood?
Mr. Magwood. Your chart actually raises some questions in
my own mind, so I would like to discuss with the staff to see
if there are some trends that we should be aware of, and if
there are some trends, find ways to correct them.
But as a general matter, let me say that it has always been
my view that regulatory actions take as long as they take. I
don't think the regulators should ever really apologize for
taking more time if more time is necessary to assure safety.
But at the same time, I do think it is our responsibility to be
efficient and to dispatch issues quickly and fairly. But if,
because of the contested process, we have a longer-than-normal
situation develop with a particular renewal, that is a process
we simply have to work our way through. And we have had, in
recent years, some plants that have had more difficult
renewals.
Mr. Latta. Commissioner Ostendorff?
Mr. Ostendorff. Thank you, Congressman. I agree with my
colleagues. I will add maybe just one statement that is while
these issues with the extended license renewal process have
typically almost always been in contested cases, I would say I
think the commissioners at this table and Commissioner
Apostolakis that have voted in a very timely matter on the
actions when those have been presented to the Commission, not
everything comes to us directly. There are certain activities
before the licensing boards that we don't get involved in. And
our voting record, I believe, has been very responsible as far
as acting in a timely manner once it gets to us. Oftentimes,
that is delayed because of contentions.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
And Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired.
Mr. Shimkus. Your time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California,
Mrs. Capps, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Chairman Macfarlane, congratulations on your new
position. I wish you every success. The fact that you are 2
weeks on the job and you are making an appearance here shows a
lot of courage on your part, and I appreciate your willingness
to do so.
Before I get to my questions, as my colleague, Mr. Waxman,
mentioned, I do represent--I have Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
Plant in California and the surrounding communities. Right now,
some of the best eyes and minds in our country and looking at
the seismic issues at this plant. And I have worked with the
NRC and the utility there, which is PG&E, to pause the
relicensing process until advanced seismic studies are finished
and reviewed. And I do give a lot of credit to PG&E, as well as
State and Federal regulators, for working to update their
seismic analyses. As a geologist, you surely recognize why this
type of analysis is very important. This is first and foremost
about safety.
But the seismic concern also impacts affordability and
reliable generation as well. My constituents living in the
communities around Diablo feel the same way. And I just want
your commitment to work with us and make sure these studies are
completed in a timely manner.
Ms. Macfarlane. Absolutely.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
Ms. Macfarlane. I am absolutely committed to that.
Mrs. Capps. And now, I want to turn to the Fukushima
disaster and the spent fuel pools. Fukushima clearly
illustrates how spent fuel pools can become unstable when a
nuclear power plant loses the power needed to cool them. The
spent fuel rods in Fukushima continue to pose serious problems
and many concerns as Japan attempts to stabilize and clean up
the site. My understanding is that many spent fuel pools in the
United States are even more densely packed with spent fuel
rods. Chairman Macfarlane, what are the safety concerns
associated with densely packed spent fuel pools?
Ms. Macfarlane. This is an issue in one of the Fukushima
activities, the Tier 3 Fukushima activities that the NRC will
be looking at. So I assure you, this issue will get attention.
And it is, I believe, also getting attention from a National
Academy of Sciences study as well.
Mrs. Capps. Exactly. The alternative to pool storage, of
course, is dry cask storage----
Ms. Macfarlane. Um-hum.
Mrs. Capps [continuing]. And in 2006 the National Academy
of Science issued a report showing that moving spent fuel from
pools to dry above-ground casks reduces both the likelihood and
potential impact of a radioactive release from spent fuel. This
is my question: Do you believe dry casks do rely on external
power sources to cool the stored fuel?
Ms. Macfarlane. No, they are passively cooled.
Mrs. Capps. OK. As we all know, the reactors in Fukushima
lost all power after the earthquake and the tsunami. So the
question is, how did the dry cask on Fukushima site withstand
the earthquake, the tsunami, and subsequent station blackout? I
am sure this is a question you have been addressing.
Ms. Macfarlane. My understanding is that the spent fuel
casks, the dry casks at Fukushima withstood both the earthquake
and tsunami very well. And we have additional information from
this country because there were dry casks at the North Anna
facility in Virginia during last summer's Mineral, Virginia,
earthquake, and those dry casks also performed very well.
I invite my colleagues to add anything if they would like.
Mr. Magwood. I would just add one comment and that is that
while there certainly has been a lot of concern and discussion
about the spent fuel pools at the Fukushima site, the fact is
that the spent fuel pools at Fukushima actually survived the
event reasonably well. And today, we believe from all the
information we received from our Japanese colleagues are safe
right now. And while we encourage them to move that spent fuel
out of those pools as quickly as possible, it does demonstrate
how rigorous these buildings and structures are, and the
ability of the facility at the Fukushima site to survive an
earthquake and tsunami does give some confidence that these
pools are safe and don't present a threat to the public.
Mrs. Capps. And of course this is a topic that is going to
take a lot of continued study, long-term study, and I don't
have to ask--I hope I can assume--that there is a tremendous
interest on your part in doing that given the benefits of dry
casks it would seem. And I ask for a confirmation from you or
some comments that accelerating transfer of spent fuel from
pools to casks lowers the risk posed by densely packed spent
fuel pools. And then to sum up in the few seconds your thoughts
on this particular area, which I wish to explore with you
further.
Ms. Macfarlane. Sure. And I would be happy to explore this
in the future with you at greater length, but as I said,
certainly the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is looking at this
specific issue and will gather more information about this
specific issue.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time is expired.
The chair will now recognize the gentleman from West
Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To the committee as a whole, I think earlier there was some
discussion about the--or Congressman Barton bringing up the
subject of the Yucca Mountain. There was some discussion about
it. I am curious. I have been reading about Yucca Mountain
since the '80s. I am just one of two engineers in Congress who
practice engineering. '82 is when the Act was put into effect.
In '87 is when Yucca Mountain was designated to be the
repository. Twenty-five years we are still talking about it. Is
that what I am hearing from the panel? We are not sure what we
are going to do with that?
Ms. Macfarlane. It is not the NRC's job to make policy. We
are a regulator. But given that and given my past experience as
a commissioner on the Blue Ribbon Commission, I will say, yes,
there is still discussion about Yucca Mountain. And let me just
say as a scientist--you are an engineer and maybe engineers,
you work faster than scientists--but science often works very
slowly.
Mr. McKinley. But I think we work faster than 25 years. I
am just curious how much money has been spent on Yucca Mountain
in terms of infrastructure, bricks-and-mortar? What have we
invested in that over these 25 years?
Ms. Macfarlane. This again is an issue that is not under
the control or purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
but I believe if you are looking just at what has been spent on
Yucca Mountain itself and not on the entire waste disposal
program, you are looking at a figure between 7 and $8 billion
Mr. McKinley. I am sorry?
Ms. Macfarlane. Between 7 and 8 billion dollars. I don't
have the exact number.
Mr. McKinley. Seven and eight billion dollars?
Mr. Shimkus. If the gentleman would yield, I think you can
make some claims for 15 billion. And the other thing, just to
put this in perspective, what the NRC needs to do is finish the
scientific study. A lot of Yucca Mountain issue is DOE and
money spent in that venue.
Mr. McKinley. We have the permit.
Mr. Shimkus. The NRC is tasked, we hope, eventually to
finish the scientific study, and then that would then be the
final aspect of proving the viability for Yucca. They won't
manage the site. There are not going to be empowered to do
that.
Mr. McKinley. I am just trying to get a better handle of it
up close. This glacial pace that we move around here is pretty
incredible to think that 25 years later we still don't have a
place to deposit. So my question would from you all, your
perspective, given there are probably two courses of action
dealing with spent fuel rods, they are either going to go into
a geological formation below the ground someplace or we are
going to recycle them as they do in France with AREVA La Hague.
So can you tell me which is the more likely direction you see
nuclear fuel rods going in in this country?
Ms. Macfarlane. Well, again, the NRC doesn't set that
policy for the U.S. The NRC regulates the reactors and
materials.
Mr. McKinley. I understand you don't, but in your opinion,
you are the regulatory group on nuclear power.
Ms. Macfarlane. Um-hum.
Mr. McKinley. Where do you think we are going as a nation
after 25 years we can't decide it is going to be Yucca Mountain
in Washington----
Ms. Macfarlane. Well----
Mr. McKinley [continuing]. Are we going to go to recycling?
Which direction do you think we should go as a nation?
Ms. Macfarlane. No matter whether you go in direct disposal
of spent fuel or you recycle as France does, you will need a
final repository. And France itself is working now on its final
site selection for a deep geologic repository.
Mr. McKinley. As a nation, do you see us in recycling ever?
Ms. Macfarlane. I think it is largely an economic and
policy question.
Mr. McKinley. OK. I don't think it comes under your purview
but I believe under the Act in '82 that they set up that the
consumers using nuclear power would be assessed charges for the
disposal of----
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, the Nuclear Waste Fund, yes.
Mr. McKinley. Right. Where is that money going? If we don't
have----
Ms. Macfarlane. You manage it. Congress manages the money,
the Nuclear Waste Fund and you appropriate it.
Mr. McKinley. I am trying to understand here. So we can
have that turned back over to the consumer or is it being
collected and just saved?
Ms. Macfarlane. It has been collected and saved into the
Nuclear Waste Fund and the consumers--sorry, it is the
ratepayers who pay into this fund at 1 mil per kilowatt hour.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. McKinley. My time is expired, I am sorry. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. Before I go to the gentlelady from Florida, I
would ask unanimous consent for my colleague, Mr. Green, for 1
minute.
Mr. Green. This is for my colleague. I think we need to
look at both long-term storage, which Yucca Mountain was the
solution from the '80s, but we also need to look at recycling.
But we have to have interim storage. And the success in these
other countries--France, for example--they have interim storage
but recycling--but again France doesn't have a long-term
storage solution either whereas Sweden--and I know Mr. Murphy
and I were there a while back and they at least have a
potential for long-term storage in Sweden.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
Castor, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all very much for being here this morning.
Dr. Macfarlane, in your testimony you reference that there
are currently two units in extended shutdowns, and one of those
is the Crystal River Unit 3 in Florida. Crystal River remains
in extended shutdown while its owner evaluates repair options
for a separation in the concrete wall of the containment
building. In 2009, you all are aware they were conducting some
repairs there, and during that time, they discovered and
unexpected crack, separation in the concrete wall. And I guess
the technical term is delamination. You all know more about
that than I do. They informed the NRC. NRC sent an inspection
team. You all followed up with a special inspection team. You
have had public meetings. You have issued a special inspection
report, came down for another public meeting. In June of last
year, Progress Energy, the owner then, stated their intent that
they intended to repair Crystal River and they were proceeding
with necessary engineering and construction plans, dealing with
insurance issues, and had stated an intent to return the plant
to service in 2014.
Since that time, just hear earlier in the month, Progress
Energy merged with Duke Energy, and reports following that
merger appear to make the future of the Crystal River Unit 3
plant a little more uncertain. It appears that the NRC's
position has been that Crystal River can be repaired safely. Is
that correct in your opinions? And have any of you traveled to
the site?
Ms. Macfarlane. Well, as you might suspect, I haven't had
the opportunity to travel to Crystal River yet but I intend to
learn more about the situation at Crystal River. And I will ask
my colleagues to comment.
Mr. Magwood. I had the opportunity to visit Crystal River.
I think it has probably been about 2 months ago. And I did
inspect the repair work that is underway. The NRC staff has
been watching this very closely. The repair work that is
underway is very complex in many ways. Some of it is actually
quite unique, but from everything that I was able to learn
during my visit and subsequent conversations, it is clearly
repairable. It is clearly something that the licensee knows how
to complete. I think that the kinds of discussions that you are
referring to are business decisions really. How long are they
willing to wait and how much will it cost them? But from a
regulatory standpoint, from a technical standpoint it seems
quite repairable. But whether it is a decision they plan to
make or not, we will wait and see.
Ms. Castor. Any other comment?
Mr. Ostendorff. I visited Crystal River maybe 2 years ago.
My understanding is not as up-to-date as Commissioner Magwood,
but I believe it is consistent with what I have heard
generally.
Ms. Castor. OK. Is it the NRC's role to examine the costs,
do a cost-benefit analysis of moving forward or not?
Ms. Svinicki. No, that would not be an appropriate role for
us.
Ms. Castor. OK. If the nuclear reactor is repaired, is it
subject to all of the updated NRC safety requirements?
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes.
Ms. Castor. Including ones--is that the same as if it were
going for a new license? The license for this plant expires in
2016. Is that the same analysis and the same requirements?
Ms. Macfarlane. Same requirements for?
Ms. Castor. A repair. Would NRC be asking for the same
updated safety requirements when they go for a license renewal?
The license expires there in 2016.
Ms. Macfarlane. My understanding is no, not necessarily.
Mr. Magwood. I think as a general matter that all of our
plants operate under the same safety standards. So we don't
differentiate between a plant that is operating under its
original license versus a plant that is operating under its
renewed license or a plant that has been repaired. They are all
expected to meet the same standards.
Ms. Castor. Are you aware that the Duke Energy Board of
Directors conducted an independent analysis of the Crystal
River plant? And has anyone received any report or the details
of that independent analysis conducted here over the last few
months?
Ms. Svinicki. I am not aware of that and I am not aware
that the agency has received any such report.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time is expired.
I do appreciate my colleagues really getting their
questions done and we have got a lot of Members that are still
obviously here to ask questions. And everybody has been doing
it in a timely manner. I appreciate that.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Gardner, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses for your time today. And welcome, Ms. Macfarlane, to
the committee.
In a previous question, there was a question about
emergency powers that were taken up by the previous chairman of
the NRC. Any of those powers left, residual powers? They have
all been business as usual has been restored, returned?
Ms. Macfarlane. It is my understanding.
Mr. Gardner. Thank you.
And a couple questions about the Office of Public Affairs I
think are very important to some of the interactions that we
have had as this committee with the NRC. If you take a look at
the Reorganization Plan of 1980 that provided the Office of
Public Affairs reports directly to the chairman to assist the
chairman as the principle spokesman for the agency, when this
committee began its investigation into governance of the NRC,
we identified some key questions about the role of the Office
of Public Affairs. And I wanted to just talk and read a little
bit about some of the work that we have seen coming out of the
Office of Public Affairs.
And this is from a July 2011 rollout plan for the Fukushima
Task Force recommendations, as prepared by the director of the
Office of Public Affairs. ``In this speech, the chairman can
lay out his thought for how to proceed, what he sees as his
priorities, the need to move with dispatch, et cetera. This
will be a subtle nudge to others to get on board or appear to
be foot-dragging. The speech needs to be a) newsworthy, and b)
collegial but firm with perhaps a notional timetable to set
expectations which, if not met, he can point to as evidence of
fill-in-the-blank criticism.'' That statement then was made.
And of course, in December to the Washington Post editorial
page, there was another statement from the Office of Public
Affairs. ``As you may have noticed, our chairman is in a
shooting match with his four colleagues on the Commission, a
very public and bitter dispute.''
The office director drafted a statement that read, ``I was
not the choice of the nuclear industry to sit on the
Commission, let alone be chairman. Time after time on critical
safety questions, my vote has been the lone tally cast in the
interest of stronger safety requirements and accountability.
Others have sought a different level of safety. Some have
sought to delay and dilute safety decisions.'' And I guess I
would ask to you, Madam Chairman and to the other
commissioners, do you believe it is appropriate for the Public
Affairs Office to devise press strategies to influence
commissioners' votes or to impugn commissioners' dedication to
public safety?
Ms. Macfarlane. Thanks for your question. As you said, my
understanding is that the Office of Public Affairs at the NRC
assists the chairman in carrying out his or her
responsibilities as principle spokesperson for the NRC.
Therefore, the director of Public Affairs and the Office of
Public Affairs work at the direction of the chairman. And all I
can point out is now, there is a new chairman. And in my 2
weeks there, I have been comfortable working with the Office of
Public Affairs.
Mr. Gardner. And so the question of do you believe it is
appropriate for Public Affairs to devise press strategies to
influence commissioners' votes, you would disagree with that
strategy?
Ms. Macfarlane. As far as I understand your question, yes.
Mr. Gardner. So you would not be using the Office of Public
Affairs--Public Affairs would not be used to try to influence
other commissioners?
Ms. Macfarlane. I have absolutely no intention of doing
that.
Mr. Gardner. Or to impugn dedication to public safety?
Ms. Macfarlane. I have no intention of that.
Mr. Gardner. Other commissioners care to comment?
Ms. Svinicki. I would note, Congressman, that a member of
the committee this morning asked for any recommendations where
statutory language could be perhaps clarified about the
appropriate uses of perhaps an office such as Public Affairs.
And so I would note that the legislative history of this matter
indicates that although the chairman is the principle
spokesman, he or she is to be bound in those communications by
the overall policy and guidance of the Commission as a whole.
So I didn't respond earlier to the question about proposing
changes to the Reorganization Act or plan, but I do feel that
my experiences of the last 4 years have exposed areas where
there was disagreements amongst members of the Commission about
what these statutory provisions meant.
And so in my commitment to provide any proposals, I think
they wouldn't be to change anything the Congress did after
Three Mile Island because I think it was appropriate to
strengthen the chairman's role, but I do think that we have
disputed each other over what some of the words mean. And to
the extent that the Congress were willing to clarify or
emphasize some of these points, I think it could further the
collegial functioning of the Commission in the future.
Mr. Gardner. And that is exactly right. And so going back--
I am running short on time here--just to make sure that we are
clear on what this Office of Public Affairs can and shouldn't
be used for, to the chairman, is it appropriate for the
chairman to use the Public Affairs Office to promote personal
views as a commissioner? I direct that to you.
Ms. Macfarlane. To promote personal views?
Mr. Gardner. Yes, to promote----
Ms. Macfarlane. No, the----
Mr. Gardner [continuing]. Their personal policy views,
excuse me.
Ms. Macfarlane. Sorry. The chairman is representing the
organization, so personal views should not be part of this.
Mr. Gardner. OK. And you made the comments on the collegial
structure. And I guess I would just ask for your commitment,
Madam Chairman. Will you commit to refrain from these tactics
that have been used in the past?
Ms. Macfarlane. As far as I understand them, yes, I commit.
Mr. Gardner. As far as you understand them? So you will not
use----
Ms. Macfarlane. As far as I understand what happened in the
past. I was not part of the Commission in the past and I am
trying to understand what has happened with the Office of----
Mr. Gardner. So you won't be using the Public Affairs--I am
out of time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Engel, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, everybody. Dr. Macfarlane, congratulations. I want
to talk to you about Indian Point in New York City suburbs. It
is one of the most serious issues facing New York. Indian Point
is located obviously by our Nation's largest metropolitan area.
It has an operational history that has been plagued by
irresponsible acts, unplanned shutdowns, lacking spent fuel
pools, and inadequate emergency notification and response
systems.
One of the planes hijacked on September 11 flew over Indian
Point on its way to the World Trade Center. We have learned
that the plant is located near two seismic faults that together
raise the possibility of an earthquake far larger than any
anticipated when it was built. And there simply aren't enough
roads to allow for a real evacuation in the event of an
accident or attack. Neither of the county executives in both
Westchester County, which I represent, and Rockland County,
which I also represent, both county executives--one Republican,
one Democratic--have refused to certify the evacuation plans
for Indian Point because they know they are ridiculous.
Indian Point's two active reactors are set to retire in
2013 and 2015 unless their application for license renewal are
approved, and there has always been a cozy relationship,
unfortunately, between the NRC and the industry which in my
opinion has precluded a serious and realistic evaluation of the
safety of Indian Point. I have toured it. I have been there
with your predecessor, Dr. Macfarlane, and I am interested in
meeting with you to discuss Indian Point in greater detail and
perhaps tour with me and Congresswoman Lowey. Would you be
willing to arrange a time to meet with me and talk?
Ms. Macfarlane. Would I be willing to do that in the
future? Absolutely. I would be willing to talk with you about
it and visit it together with you.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. And let me say at the outset I am not
opposed to nuclear power. I never issued a peep about Indian
Point until September 11 when it became clear to many of us
that this was a safety hazard. So thank you.
I want to talk about decommissioning. It is an expensive
process. The New York Times reported in March of this year that
the operators of 20 of the Nation's aging nuclear reactors,
including some whose licenses expire soon, have not saved
nearly enough money for prompt and proper dismantling. And
Entergy, which owns the Indian Point plant, again, just 24
miles north of New York City and is at least $500 million short
of the $1.5 billion estimated cost of dismantling Indian Point
Reactors 2 and 3. Entergy insists that the shortfall won't be a
problem because they expect Indian Point to be relicensed for
another 20 years, and over that period of time, they expect
interest to accrue to sufficient levels in the reactor's
retirement accounts. But the fact is that 12 reactors across
the country have been retired in the last 3 decades all on
short notice because of a design or safety flaw that the
economics did not justify fixing. The shortfall in these
retirement accounts raises the possibility that New York could
be sitting on sleeping reactors for decades.
So Dr. Macfarlane, I would like to ask you, what do you
envision happening if one of the Nation's 20 underfunded
reactors needed to be decommissioned?
Ms. Macfarlane. Well, I will note that the U.S. has
decommissioned a number of reactors and they have been
decommissioned successfully. So it can happen. There can be a
positive outcome.
As far as how to handle the scenario that you describe, I
think we will probably have to visit it if it happens.
Mr. Engel. OK. I want to finally talk about relicense
criteria because I have long been concerned that the
relicensing of aging power plants is not subject to the same
stringent criteria used in an application for new power plants
for initial construction. So let me ask you this, Doctor. Would
you support using the same criteria for relicensing an existing
plant as we used to license new plants?
Ms. Macfarlane. The brand new plants, my understanding that
we have a well established license renewal program. Of course,
that doesn't substitute for day-to-day regulatory oversight
that is required of the operating plants. There is a lengthy
public hearing process that engages a variety of stakeholders
in relicensing. And so all of this information is publicly
available. And I commit to ensuring that these reactors operate
safely.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. If I may just take about 5 more
seconds, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say that information that
wasn't available when the plant was originally licensed, in my
estimation, should that not be considered in relicensing?
Ms. Macfarlane. I think it depends on the particular
situation.
Mr. Engel. OK, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. I thank my colleague. The gentleman's time is
expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Burgess, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. I thank the chairman for the recognition.
And I thank our witnesses for staying with us through this
lengthy hearing today but it is important. And we hear a lot--
you all mentioned that in your opening statements about the
collegiality and the importance of that. And of course the
average American doesn't know what the NRC is and probably
would not be able to name the commissioners, but for the
average American, why should they care about collegiality on
the Board? Aren't you just supposed to do your jobs anyway?
Ms. Macfarlane. Certainly, we are supposed to do our jobs
anyway. I think we do them better and we do gain the trust of
the American people when they do realize that there is an NRC
out there. We gain a stronger sense of trust when we do operate
collegially. I think it is very important that we operate
collegially just to make the process and all the decisions that
we make work efficiently.
Mr. Burgess. I don't disagree with that, but in fact,
should not people be able to depend on your commission even in
the absence of collegiality?
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, absolutely. And I think that the
Commission did operate and handle all the issues that came
before it no matter what the situation.
Mr. Burgess. Well, it did seem that at times there were
whispers, there were rumors that, you know, legitimate
differences in policy were interpreted as some of the
commissioners being characterized as anti-safety. For the three
commissioners who set the historical precedence, did that ever
come up with your discussions amongst yourselves?
Ms. Svinicki. Congressman, I disagree with the
characterization that some of the recent issues on the
Commission had to do with disagreeing votes on policy matters.
I believe over the course of my tenure I have served with a
number of members of the Commission who are no longer on the
Commission. I think at one time or another I have probably
disagreed with everybody. I think that the dysfunction on the
Commission was much more substantive than a simple policy
disagreement.
Mr. Burgess. Was----
Ms. Svinicki. It was more substantive. It had to do with
impeding the flow of information and other very fundamental
issues that I felt obstructed the ability for this commission
to operate the way Congress intended.
Mr. Burgess. So legitimate policy differences really should
not be interpreted as anti-safety, but you are saying there was
an actual impediment of information flow that kept you from
doing your job. Whether there was a policy difference or not,
you were not able to do your job as far as public health and
safety was concerned?
Ms. Svinicki. That is correct.
Mr. Burgess. And I guess I am getting the impression this
morning that that situation has resolved?
Ms. Svinicki. I think we are off to a very, very productive
beginning.
Mr. Burgess. So the American public to the extent that they
are watching this hearing this morning can take some comfort in
the fact that whereas public health and safety may not have
been at the forefront in the past, it will be going forward?
Ms. Svinicki. I think all of us kept public health and
safety forefront, and as Chairman Macfarlane indicated, there
was an impressive amount of agency work that was conducted.
However, I would hope that some would view there is a great
unanimity here and there is an optimism about moving forward.
Mr. Burgess. Mr. Ostendorff, let me ask you a question
because you brought up your observation that the series of
events in Japan of March 2011 would be unlikely to occur in
this country. I suspect that the month before the earthquake,
that same statement could have been made about Japan, could it
not?
Mr. Ostendorff. Congressman, I think the way I would
respond to that is that there are significant regulatory
differences and some cultural differences between the United
States and Japan as it affects the nuclear industry. As other
members of the committee have noted, the Japanese Diet report
that came out just last week highlighted two substantive
differences between the United States' regulatory framework and
that in Japan, one dealing with the actions we took in this
country after the attacks of 9/11 to require additional
mitigating strategies called B.5.b under our rules to deal with
fires, explosions, and flooding; and second, to deal with the
station blackouts and loss of all AC power. And I think those
are two substantive differences between our two regulatory
frameworks that are significant factors from the comparison of
the two countries.
Mr. Burgess. Let me just ask you--and I may have to submit
this for the record because of time--but the month before the
Japanese earthquake, Chairman Shimkus took several of us out to
Yucca Mountain. And after the Japanese earthquake, one of the
big problems that was encountered was the loss of the spent
fuel rods that were in the cooling pools and the loss of
electricity. It seemed to me that just underscored the
importance of getting whatever the long-term storage solution
is--and I believe Yucca Mountain is still viable--but getting
that done and getting those spent fuel rods out of those pools.
Do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Ostendorff. Well, I think as others at this table have
mentioned earlier in today's testimony, the Office of Research
at the NRC is working on a study--it is almost finished--on the
spent fuel pool risk associated with keeping fuel in the pool
as contrasted to taking them out of the pool and putting them
into dry cask where they are air-cooled. There are a lot of
other factors associated with, you know, an accelerated
campaign of taking those out in an expedited manner, and I
think overall, our staff's assessment to date has been those
risks are very, very low. But it is still something we are
looking at as part of our Fukushima actions.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Scalise, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
having this hearing. I appreciate the commissioners for coming
before us.
We have had almost a year-and-a-half now since Fukushima to
receive vast amounts of data. A lot has been published about
the causes, the actions being taken by the global industry.
With the benefit of the information that we have, have any of
your initial conclusions--for those of you--we got a little
construction going on here.
Mr. Shimkus. Would the gentleman suspend for a second?
Mr. Scalise. Sure.
Mr. Shimkus. Committee staff, someone needs to find out who
is doing work and get them to stop.
Gentleman may proceed.
Mr. Scalise. Not sure if that is a shovel-ready project. I
guess I will proceed and we will just have to bear with it.
But based on the data that we have, have any of you maybe
have different reactions today than what the initial assessment
were back a year and a half ago or, you know, less than a year
and a half ago about the cause and the priority of the
regulatory actions associated with Fukushima? If we could just
start with Mr. Ostendorff and go down.
Mr. Ostendorff. Thank you, Congressman.
I think, you know, right after the Fukushima event, the
Commission made a decision that we did not need to shut down
nuclear power plants in this country. We felt that there was no
imminent risk. I believe that finding is still relevant today
and appropriate today. I think that at a big-picture level, the
intervening months have indicated that we were on a good track
and are on a good track to take an integrated, prioritized
approach to what actions we need to take. And I think the
emphasis on Tier 1 activities to date, mitigating strategies,
station blackout, looking at external hazards has been
appropriate. And I think that is echoed and been reinforced
over the last 16, 17 months.
Mr. Scalise. Thanks. Mr. Magwood?
Mr. Magwood. I think that over the last year, we have had
ample opportunity to talk to our international colleagues about
their response to the Fukushima events. And as I have talked
with regulators around the world, I have discovered a great
deal of commonality between what we are doing and the thoughts
that they are having. We actually are more advanced in many of
our efforts than they are, so that gives us some reassurance.
And I think that the more we know about how things actually
unfolded in Japan over the last several years, we see that the
Japanese have much more to learn from Fukushima than we did and
that they are trying to absorb those lessons themselves. And a
lot of them are cultural issues that are very difficult to
change.
So as the last year and a half has gone by, I actually have
grown in confidence that our steps we have taken are the
appropriate steps.
Mr. Scalise. Ms. Svinicki?
Ms. Svinicki. I agree with my colleagues.
Mr. Scalise. Thanks. I don't know if you have got maybe a
top five or just some top safety changes that you think both
the NRC and the industry have taken. What are some of the top
things to improve safety that you have seen or that you think
should be done that haven't been done based on the information
we know now?
Mr. Magwood. Let me take the first crack at that. First,
let me say I do think that the infrastructure that we had and
the approaches we had before Fukushima were very strong. I
don't think that they were lacking. But one thing I would point
to is a greater acceptance of the need to be able to respond to
beyond-design-basis events. And that is not one specific
change; it is more of a philosophical change I think that we
are all dealing with. The idea that you prepare to go beyond
the worst-case scenario, you provide equipment, you provide
training, you do whatever you can to be ready to respond in
case there is a large earthquake or a large flood or a large
storm. And that is a philosophical change that the agency is
adopting.
Mr. Scalise. All right. Thanks.
If you look at situations where the NRC comes out with new
requirements to hinder implementation of other recent NRC
requirements, when you look at the NRC efficiency principle,
which states, ``regulatory activity should be consistent with
the degree of risk reduction they achieve,'' I think,
Commissioner Magwood, you had written, ``it does not as a
general matter advance the cause of safety to inundate licensee
staffs with multiple actions when a more thoughtful process
might achieve the agency's safety goals without straining
licensee resources.'' Do you have a view on whether staff
industry concerns on potential cumulative effects on multiple
new requirements have merit?
Mr. Magwood. I think there is some merit, but I think it is
very important to understand why there is merit. And I think
the reason it is important is to make sure that--and I think
you and a previous Member put it very well--that you are not
distracted by issues of low safety significance, and in dealing
with those, miss something that is much more important. It is
always most important to focus on priority safety effects but
make sure you deal with those early. And I do think that we
ought to look for more ways of addressing that in our process
to make sure that we aren't focusing too much on the small
things and missing the big things.
Mr. Scalise. All right. I see I am out of time. I
appreciate the answers. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts,
Mr. Markey, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to welcome you, Chairman Macfarlane, and
congratulate you on your recent confirmation.
After the Fukushima meltdown, then-Chairman Jaczko created
a task force to recommend safety upgrades for American nuclear
reactors. That task force was made up of NRC officials who,
together, had more than 135 years of nuclear regulatory
expertise. Its report was released more than a year ago and
included 12 recommendations, which ranged from requirements to
upgrade seismic and flood protections against the long power
outages that were the ultimate cause of the Japanese meltdown.
They also concluded that each and every one of the
recommendations were necessary for the adequate protection of
nuclear power plants and that they should be mandatory for each
nuclear reactor--mandatory. Chairman Jaczko immediately
announced his support for all of the NRC staff's
recommendation. Regrettably, some of his fellow NRC
commissioners did not do likewise and initially insisted that
other NRC staff review the task force report before the
Commission voted on any of the recommendations.
But this second staff review reached the same conclusions
as the first one. They concluded that all recommendations
should be made mandatory. Despite this, the Commission has not
voted to endorse its top staff reviews, and thus, it is
possible that some of the Fukushima safety upgrades will never
be made mandatory for all nuclear power plants.
Chairman Macfarlane, do you support the conclusion of the
NRC's top safety experts that all of the post-Fukushima safety
recommendations are necessary for the adequate protection of
nuclear power plants?
Ms. Macfarlane. Thanks for that question. As chairman, I am
strongly committed to protecting the public health and safety
and I am strongly committed to shepherding the Fukushima Task
Force recommendations through. And I----
Mr. Markey. Do you believe that they should be mandatory?
Ms. Macfarlane. I think that I need to understand more
about, especially the Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities, especially
the Tier 3 activities.
Mr. Markey. Would it be a good idea or outcome if it turned
out that the nuclear industry argued its way out of adopting
some of the recommendations that top experts recommended on the
grounds that it would be too expensive or inconvenient?
Ms. Macfarlane. Certainly, that would not be a good
outcome.
Mr. Markey. Well, when the NRC staff reviewed the task
force report, it identified several safety measures that could
be implemented quickly and I am pleased that the Commission has
moved forward on these. The staff stated that the fact that
they had identified some recommendations that could be adopted
early ``should not be interpreted as a lack of support for the
other task force recommendations.'' But recently, the Nuclear
Energy Institute started to discourage the NRC from moving
forward on the rest of the recommendations saying that the
recommendations that were adopted would accomplish ``as much as
90 percent of the safety benefit from all recommendations'' and
that ``at this time, the safety benefits derived from the rest
of the recommendations are unclear.''
So I would like you to respond to this, Chairman
Macfarlane. Do you agree with the Nuclear Energy Institute that
the Commission should delay or stop the consideration of the
rest of the safety recommendations that the NRC's Fukushima
Task Force made?
Ms. Macfarlane. Absolutely not.
Mr. Markey. Absolutely not. And I agree with you. And I
know that there are other commissioners who disagree with that
point of view and I would just like to say that you have a very
difficult job ahead of you, Madam Chair, and you need to keep
in mind that your duty is not to win a popularity contest at
the NRC with commissioners who disagree with this safety agenda
but you must lead it in an absolutely critical time when it is
faced with a daunting task of responding to the lessons of the
Fukushima nuclear meltdowns in a way that ensures that such a
thing never happens in the United States. You are charged with
the task of ensuring the safety of our fleet of existing
nuclear plants, of licensing any new ones, and of responding to
what future course our nation takes with respect to the
seemingly intractable issues of how to dispose of all of the
toxic high level nuclear waste.
And while I would hope that all would be sweetness and
light over at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I seriously
doubt that that will be the case. So don't be afraid to stick
to your guns and do what is right for the American people, even
if that puts you on the losing side of a vote. For in the end,
Madam Chair, your term as chairman will be judged on whether
you have successfully completed the task of fully implementing
the NRC Task Force recommendation on Fukushima, on ensuring
that there is safety in the disposal of nuclear waste. And that
will be your legacy, notwithstanding the fact that there are
going to be other members of the Commission who disagree with
that agenda.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
Walden, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walden. I thank the chairman and I welcome the new
chairwoman to the Commission. We appreciate you and your
colleagues and the important role that you play in providing
safety and security to our nation's nuclear power facilities.
As my colleagues I think up and down the aisle and across the
aisle, we all believe that that is an essential part of your
job both moving forward with nuclear energy development but
making sure we are safe along the way.
I would like to ask the other commissioner since you
weren't given a chance to respond to my colleague's question
regarding the task force recommendations, your views on those
recommendations, and whether you believe they should be just
automatically adopted or not or why they are not. And maybe we
could just go from left to right since the chairwoman had a
chance to respond.
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
Upon receipt of those recommendations from the task force I
voted, as did a commission majority, to take that output of
that small group, albeit very experienced as Congressman Markey
mentioned, they were just a small group of individuals. And I
voted to subject those recommendations to the opportunity for
public outreach, for comment, for a wide diversity of
stakeholders to have an opportunity to comment on that and then
for the NRC staff to synthesize all of that input and
prioritize and propose to the Commission a plan for moving
forward on those recommendations. Sitting here today, I
continue to believe that that was a fulsome and appropriate way
to proceed.
Mr. Walden. So there had not been a transparent or public
process prior to that?
Ms. Svinicki. There had not been an opportunity to
ventilate or to have public comment on those recommendations.
Mr. Walden. Is that a normal process at an independent
agency?
Ms. Svinicki. I think that it is not inappropriate for
commissioners to have, as a starting point, a small experienced
group provide some advice. And it was comprised solely of NRC
staff. But I do think that it was important to take that very
timely and I think informed output and subject it to a much
broader kind of opportunity for public comment.
Mr. Walden. Appreciate that.
Mr. Magwood, would you care to comment?
Mr. Magwood. Yes, I think Commissioner Svinicki said it
very well. In addition, we also insisted that the Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards, our expert, outside
independent advisory group, give us input as to their thoughts
about these recommendations. And we also, because we were
learning as we went during that process, we individual
commissioners actually did make additions, not subtractions but
additions to what the task force recommended.
Mr. Walden. Is that right?
Mr. Magwood. Absolutely. There were several instances where
our colleague, Commissioner Apostolakis put in new items. I put
in new items. Others did as well. So we----
Mr. Walden. Additional safeguard items?
Mr. Magwood. Additional items for study that I believe will
eventually be adopted. And I think these are very important.
And Commissioner Ostendorff, for example, made the addressing
the station blackout a very high priority, higher than I think
the staff had originally anticipated. So the Commission took a
very active role in this and I think a very positive, very
beneficial role, and I am very proud of what we did.
Mr. Walden. Commissioner Ostendorff, so explain to me this
station blackout role and why that was an important addition
from your perspective.
Mr. Ostendorff. Yes, sir. The station blackout rule
evaluation really refers to when you have a loss of all
alternating current AC power onsite----
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. Ostendorff [continuing]. And AC power----
Mr. Walden. Much like what happened at Fukushima.
Mr. Ostendorff. Yes. And AC power is needed to drive
centrifugal pumps----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Ostendorff [continuing]. That provide cooling to remove
decay heat from a core. And so the ability of a plant to have
robust redundant power sources, including emergency diesel
generators, portable generators, DC batteries, the ability to--
--
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Ostendorff [continuing]. Recharge those batteries, all
those things are part of the calculus of how we can have a more
robust opportunity to provide this required decay heat removal
capability.
Mr. Walden. And was it your view that the task force
recommendations didn't go far enough along those lines?
Mr. Ostendorff. Well, I think the task force did a
tremendous job given the fact they had 90 days or less to do
what they did.
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. Ostendorff. But I will note that the task force
recommendations themselves were not accompanied by a regulatory
technical analysis. And before we go out as a regulator and
issue orders or require things to be changed, it is incumbent
upon us to have a regulatory technical analysis.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Ostendorff. And so that is part of the things that
Commissioner Svinicki, Commissioner Magwood, Commissioner
Apostolakis, and I have been very adamant about over the last
16 months is to ensure we have that technical analysis.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Ostendorff. I would tell you that, as Commissioner
Magwood said, that there are areas that have been added in.
Commissioner Magwood added in issues on spent fuel pool
instrumentation, as well as an ultimate heat sink, so the mix
before the Commission today is broader than that that was
presented in July of 2011.
Mr. Walden. Well, I appreciate that and I know I am just
out of time here, but I appreciate the fact you are doing a
public, transparent process so that more than just a handful of
inside staffers decide what is going to be mandatory across the
country. It is something I have drive as chairman of the
Communications and Technology Subcommittee at the FCC. I don't
think they do enough of the appropriate sort of public,
transparent process where everybody has a chance to weigh in.
After all, it is the public's business, in your case the public
safety, and I think it is important to get it right.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
Mr. Shimkus. I thank my colleague. The chair recognizes the
gentleman from Virginia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this
hearing. I have to tell you all, those of us who were here the
last time that you all were before us know that I was very
concerned that the process was completely dysfunctional. I feel
much better today.
That being said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the
time remaining to you for whichever questions you would like to
ask.
Mr. Shimkus. And I thank my friend and colleague.
Chairman Macfarlane, when nominated to become a
commissioner, Chairman Jaczko recused himself for 1 year on
matters relating to Yucca Mountain. In 2009, when asked by a
writer for the MIT Technological Review, ``is it (Yucca
Mountain) really unsuitable? And you answered yes. In your role
as NRC chairman you must be fair and objective in adjudicating
issues that come before the Commission. Your public criticism
at Yucca Mountain leads us to question your objectivity on the
matter.'' Will you recuse yourself on matters relating to Yucca
Mountain just as Chairman Jaczko did?
Ms. Macfarlane. Like any commissioner, I would examine each
and every matter before me on the legal specifics at the time
and take appropriate action, which could include possible
recusal. But at this point, I believe it is inappropriate to
commit to a general recusal on this matter without a specific
commission action in front of me to evaluate with counsel
input.
Mr. Shimkus. You have been well prepared. Thank you.
The DC Circuit Court is considering whether the NRC is
bound to finish its review of the Yucca Mountain license
application. In March, Secretary Chu committed to honor that
court's decision. Will you also commit to honor the court's
decision?
Ms. Macfarlane. Absolutely.
Mr. Shimkus. What do you see as the Federal Government's
proper role in encouraging the use of alternative fuels in
vehicles?
Ms. Macfarlane. Alternative fuels in vehicles?
Mr. Shimkus. I have no idea why this is on there.
Ms. Macfarlane. Because the NRC doesn't do that.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, when we talk about electric vehicles,
there could be some debate on electricity generation.
To each of the serving commissioners, you know, as a
hearing, this has been a very good hearing. Now, that is Mr.
Markey going up there to stop me in my final--see, I called him
out. So I think the hearing has been very, very good and we
have got one more colleague back to ask questions.
But there is some issues that have been raised that I want
to give Commissioner Svinicki, Commissioner Magwood, and
Commissioner Ostendorff an opportunity to--because some of your
votes have been questioned by people who say that you don't
support safety. So can each one of you give an example of a
vote that has been misconstrued and explain why your vote was
protective of public safety?
Mr. Shimkus. Commissioner Svinicki?
Ms. Svinicki. I would begin with the matter we were just
discussing, which is the Commission's very important actions on
the Fukushima Task Force recommendations. I will use the same
word as Commissioner Magwood. I am very proud of what the
commission majority put in place. I think that we have shown a
real commitment to safety, to moving forward in a way that has
technical discipline and rigor but at the same time is moving
forward very seriously with these recommendations. And I think
that the entire handling of the task force report has been
extremely misconstrued.
Mr. Shimkus. Commissioner Magwood?
Mr. Magwood. Yes, I think I am forced to point to the same
example. There has been this debate about the regulatory basis
for our decision as to whether they should be entered what we
call adequate protection or an administrative exemption. And in
some cases one of us or the other have advocated administrative
exemption. And in my case it wasn't because I thought that
these issues weren't important. It was simply, as Commissioner
Ostendorff pointed out earlier, that I thought we needed to
have a much more rigorous technical basis to evaluate these
issues. But I wanted them to go forward but still preserve the
opportunity to do the analysis so they could provide a very
strong framework for us to go forward. So operationally they
mean the same thing, but from a regulatory standpoint, it gives
you a stronger basis to go forward and that is what I was
looking for.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Commissioner Ostendorff?
Mr. Ostendorff. Thank you for the question. I think my two
colleagues have just provided very cogent examples which I
agree with. I will just state one overall comment that I think
the actions that the current commissioners have taken who have
been here through the Fukushima issues have been very
responsible, that I think in large part what gets left out of a
lot of the public press commentary is that we are by and large
following the recommendations of our close to 4,000-person
staff. Bill Borchardt here who is in the row behind us, he and
his team under the Steering Committee have been integrating and
prioritizing these recommendations, and I think we have been
very thoughtful in considering the recommendations. Also
realize that not all these issues are of the same safety
significance, and therefore, some deserve more urgency than
others. And I think today we have acted in that way.
Mr. Shimkus. And I thank you. And I know a lot of this was
post-Fukushima but I think there is also examples of other
issues that you could probably defend your vote on on public
safety. So with that, I appreciate it.
The chair now recognizes the vice chairman of the
committee, Mr. Murphy, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Murphy. Don't you want to say I am in the Navy?
Mr. Shimkus. I said beat Navy. You were here there, weren't
you? Or that is why you are so late and didn't ask questions
because you didn't get here on time?
Mr. Murphy. Admiral, I want to start out by asking you. You
have been involved with issues with the Navy nuclear for a
while. You are aware of that. Have we ever had any major
problems with nuclear energy systems in the Navy in its
history?
Mr. Ostendorff. I would say as far as major problems, no,
sir.
Mr. Murphy. That is an important record. How many years has
it been?
Mr. Ostendorff. I served 26 years active duty.
Mr. Murphy. But the Navy has been around----
Mr. Ostendorff. The Nuclear Navy has been around since USS
Nautilus back in 1954, I believe, they had nuclear power
submarines and carriers.
Mr. Murphy. Good track record. Thank you.
And then, Chairman, thank you for coming aboard. I
appreciate your comments about collegiality. And if it hasn't
been said before, I will say it now, and if it has, I will
repeat it. It is valuable. Not only collegiality among members
of the NRC, which up to this point--well, up to a point a few
months ago--has had a highly respected position and I believe
that collegiality is extremely important not just among members
of the Commission but with Congress and with the American
people. So I appreciate your motivation to turn this in a
different direction.
I just want to get a couple things on record. Have you been
to a nuclear power plant?
Ms. Macfarlane. Have I been to a nuclear power plant? Yes.
Mr. Murphy. OK. And have you been to a fuel manufacturing
facility where they make nuclear fuel and assemble it and
assembly rods, et cetera?
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, I have, actually.
Mr. Murphy. OK. Where was that?
Ms. Macfarlane. It was in Europe.
Mr. Murphy. Where? I am just curious.
Ms. Macfarlane. I think it was Belgium.
Mr. Murphy. OK. Thank you, ma'am. And when you were over in
Europe, did you have a chance to see what they do in France
with reprocessing nuclear fuel?
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, I have. I have been to La Hague.
Mr. Murphy. The AREVA place? Have you been over to Sweden
where they have nuclear storage there----
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, I have.
Mr. Murphy [continuing]. Underground in that massive cave?
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, to the Clab facility, yes, um-hum.
Mr. Murphy. Pretty incredible facility over there. Safe?
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes.
Mr. Murphy. I imagine you are particularly interested as a
geologist noting the entire country of Sweden is in one big
block of granite and fairly----
Ms. Macfarlane. Well, it is a little more complicated than
that.
Mr. Murphy. I understand, different types of granite but it
is an impressive facility. Have you been to Yucca Mountain?
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, many times.
Mr. Murphy. OK, you have been there. And with regard to
that, one of the concerns on record that you have stated before
you took on this position with the committee that you are not
in favor of Yucca Mountain and I believe you are not in favor
of reprocessing. Do I have those positions correct or am I
wrong on those?
Ms. Macfarlane. I think you are wrong on them. On the Yucca
Mountain position, I have never said that I am not in favor of
Yucca Mountain. In fact, I can read to you----
Mr. Murphy. I would love to hear that, thank you.
Ms. Macfarlane [continuing]. From the book that I co-
edited, ``Uncertainty Underground,'' and a direct quote is
``this book is not a judgment on the suitability of Yucca
Mountain as a repository''----
Mr. Murphy. I am sorry. What was the title of the book,
``Uncertainty?''
Ms. Macfarlane. ``Uncertainty Underground.''
Mr. Murphy. Sounds like a comment to me.
Ms. Macfarlane. It is a comment, yes----
Mr. Murphy. All right.
Ms. Macfarlane [continuing]. It is a comment about
uncertainty that exists. But it is a technical uncertainty.
Anyway, the quote is ``this book is not a judgment on the
suitability of Yucca Mountain as a repository for spent nuclear
fuel and high-level nuclear waste. We leave that judgment to
the reader.''
Mr. Murphy. I understand, but with a title like that, I am
serious, I am looking forward to reading your book.
And now your predecessor, Chairman Jaczko, held a fairly
negative view I think of the nuclear industry and nuclear
energy. In a speech earlier this year he indicated that 20
years from now, the nuclear industry is just as likely to ``be
dominated by a process of continuous decommissioning'' instead
of a process of continuous construction of nuclear reactors.
What is your view on that?
Ms. Macfarlane. On the future of the nuclear industry? I
think it depends on many, many factors. The economics,
certainly the economy right now.
Mr. Murphy. And policy?
Ms. Macfarlane. Policy, absolutely.
Mr. Murphy. Policy at the NRC?
Ms. Macfarlane. The policy at NRC to a smaller degree I
would imagine.
Mr. Murphy. All right. Please share your opinion regarding
the benefits and transparency of the notation voting process of
the members.
Ms. Macfarlane. As far as I understand the notation voting
process, I think it has the potential to operate fine. Were
there to be any changes to the voting process, I would discuss
those with my colleagues before proceeding.
Mr. Murphy. How about the other commissioners? Ms.
Svinicki, do you have a comment on that?
Ms. Svinicki. On the notation voting----
Mr. Murphy. Yes, um-hum.
Ms. Svinicki [continuing]. Process? I am supportive of the
notation voting process. When I was newly on the Commission, I
benefited greatly from the rich written record of prior votes
of Commissioners. Often we were dealing with the same issue in
a different form a few years later. The ability to tap into the
tremendous expertise of those who served before me was very
beneficial.
Mr. Magwood. I think about a week ago I saw a vote that
Commissioner Svinicki had written that raised issues that we in
my office had missed. So we investigated Commissioner
Svinicki's comments and her vote, took a few days to do that,
but after investigating it, I withdrew my original vote and re-
voted. That is an example of the kind of dynamic you get from a
notation voting process that you would completely lose----
Mr. Murphy. Um-hum.
Mr. Magwood [continuing]. If you go to an oral, at-the-
table process because you don't have time to go back and do
research and you don't have time to confer with staff. And so I
think a notation voting process works extremely well and I
wouldn't really change much of anything.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
Commissioner Ostendorff?
Mr. Ostendorff. I would just add I agree with my
colleagues. I pulled out a vote I cast July 27 of last year. It
is a 5-page vote on Fukushima issues. These are not yes-or-no
issues. These are not up or down. These are very complex, here
is my vote. Other colleagues have similar lengthy votes where I
think we have a very rich opportunity to learn from and explain
our viewpoints in a way that we would not have if this process
went away.
Mr. Murphy. I appreciate the complexity of those.
Mr. Chairman, can I just beg for one more since I don't see
anybody else?
Mr. Shimkus. Without objection.
Mr. Murphy. Thirty seconds. And then, Chair, in 2009 when
you were asked by a writer for the MIT Technology Review, the
question ``is Yucca really unsuitable?'' You answered yes at
that time. Are you saying your opinion has changed? And I put
this in the context of what the other commissioner said, the
value of having a more lengthy and detailed answer to things
because maybe these things cannot be reduced to a yes/no
answer. Has your position changed? Is it yes? Is it no? Is it
we have more work to do?
Ms. Macfarlane. I am not sure the context of that quote, so
I can't speak directly to that quote, but what I can tell you--
and maybe in a sense of reassuring--is that I have spent much
time researching Yucca Mountain. I believe all the analyses
that I have done are technically defensible. As a scientist, I
would not try to publish anything that wasn't technically
defensible; it wouldn't be publishable. Most of the analyses
that I did of Yucca Mountain for the book, which was published
in 2006, were done in the early 2000 time frame. That was
before the license application was submitted. I have not read
the license application. I have not read yet the NRC's
technical analyses. Of course, with time, knowledge, changes,
more evidence comes to light, and I intend to keep an open
mind.
Mr. Murphy. I appreciate your candor and your scientific
integrity. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
We were talking about votes. We took a vote this spring on
finishing the NRC study; 326 Members voted to do that so I
think it is by far the majority bipartisan consensus that we
move forward at least finishing the study.
With that, I would like to ask unanimous consent that June
26, 2012, NRC Office of Inspector General report concerning
possible violations of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980, NRC's
internal commission procedures be introduced into the record.
Without objection, the document will be entered into the
record.
[The information is available at http://www.hsdl.org/
?view&did=719161.]
Mr. Shimkus. In conclusion, I would like to thank you, all
you witnesses, and my colleagues, you could see it was very
well attended, a lot of good questions participating today in
the hearing.
I want to remind members that they have 10 business days to
submit questions for the record, and I ask the chairman and the
commissioners their willingness to agree to respond should you
receive any questions from members of the two subcommittees.
With that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.065