U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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

25–112 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 112–976 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: NRC’S IMPLEMENTATION 

OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCING NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY IN THE 21ST CENTURY 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 3 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 4 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 5 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 7 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 9 

WITNESSES 

Macfarlane, Hon. Allison M., Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................................................................................................................ 10

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 21 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 42 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 45 

Svinicki, Hon. Kristine L., Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................................................................................................................ 68

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 69 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 72 

Apostolakis, Hon. George, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................................................................................................................ 76

Magwood, Hon. William D., IV, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................................................................................. 77 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 79 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 84 

Ostendorff, Hon. William C., Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................................................................................. 89 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: NRC’S IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCING NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY IN 

THE 21ST CENTURY 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

JOINT WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Carper, Cardin, 

Alexander, and Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The meeting will come to order. 

What I want to do right before we start is to have a moment of 

silence for our Ambassador to Libya who was killed and three other 

Foreign Service officers. We know that our military and our Foreign Service officers put their lives on the line every single day. So 

let’s take one moment. 

[Moment of silence.] 

Senator BOXER. Today the Environment and Public Works Committee is holding its seventh oversight meeting on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear 

meltdown in Japan in March 2011. The consequences of those terrible events have prompted us to rethink how to ensure safety at 

the 104 nuclear reactors in the United States. 

Last year the NRC created a task force to review our nation’s 

safety requirements. And that task force made 12 recommendations to help prevent a similar disaster at nuclear facilities in the 

U.S. Earlier this year the NRC sent three orders to nuclear plants 

requiring high priority safety improvements, the acquisition and 

protection of emergency equipment, better monitoring of spent fuel 

pools, and improved venting at boiling water reactors to help maintain containment in the case of an emergency. 

The NRC also directed nuclear plants to take other actions, including reanalyzing earthquake and flooding risks and re-assessing 

their ability to safely operate following such events. In addition, 

the Commission issued two notices of proposed rulemaking, one 

2 

concerning steps plants should take if they lose electric power and 

the other on ways to improve nuclear plants’ emergency procedures. 

While on the one hand I am encouraged that the NRC has begun 

moving forward, I also have concerns that the Commission is allowing some nuclear plants to delay implementing safety improvements beyond the recommended 5-year period. Public safety of nuclear facilities must be the NRC’s top priority, and I call on this 

Commission to ensure that the recommended improvements are 

put in place within the next 5 years. I intend to do my best on this 

Committee to make certain that these safety upgrades are completed without delay. 

I also want to talk about an urgent matter in my home State of 

California that is extremely close to my heart. The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is located near San Clemente, and 8.7 

million people live within 50 miles of that site. This nuclear plant, 

which is currently offline, has experienced unexpected deterioration 

with the tubes that carry radioactive water in the plant’s new 

steam generators. This situation could pose health and safety risks, 

because if those tubes leak or rupture, they could release radiation 

at levels that exceed safety standards. 

I am pleased that the NRC has undertaken an investigation regarding the problems at San Onofre. Today I want to make certain—and I will be asking all of you—I want to make certain that 

the Commission continues to pay serious attention to this nuclear 

facility. Let me be clear: it is your duty to ensure that the appropriate actions are taken to address safety concerns related to the 

compromised tubes before San Onofre’s reactors are permitted to go 

back online. The San Onofre reactors must not be restarted until 

the NRC’s investigation is completed and the public has been assured of the plant’s safety. 

The NRC was created ‘‘to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials while protecting people and the environment.’’ The millions 

of people who live near San Onofre deserve to have peace of mind. 

It is critical that the NRC conduct this investigation at San 

Onofre in an open and transparent way. I am very pleased that the 

Commission has scheduled a public meeting in California in October. Today I want assurances that this meeting is on track and will 

take place. 

I also want to remind the Commissioners sitting here today 

about their commitments to me that the NRC will determine 

whether SoCal Edison was in full compliance with the regulations 

regarding the redesigned steam generators. We also need to evaluate whether the NRC regulations should be changed to avoid a 

similar situation in the future. 

I will continue to work with the NRC to ensure safety issues at 

San Onofre and other plants across the nation. I do look forward 

to hearing from the Commissioners about the progress that has 

been made to implement safety changes resulting from the lessons 

learned from Fukushima. 

Before turning to Ranking Member Inhofe for his opening statement, I would like to say a special welcome to Dr. Allison 

Macfarlane, who is testifying before this Committee for the very 

first time as the new NRC Chairman. We welcome you. 

3 

And now I turn to Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me apologize to 

our five guests that I will have to be leaving right after my opening 

statement because of a commitment that I have. But I am very excited to see all five faces in front of us now in a spirit of collegiality 

that I think has been needed. We are looking forward to working 

with you, particularly Chairwoman Allison Macfarlane. I am just 

very excited to have you, and of course you, too, Ms. Svinicki. 

Right now, we have been pretty busy over the last year. And for 

the first time in some 30 years now, new licenses to build two reactors were issued by the Commission. So good things are happening. 

When you look at the concern people have about our ability to 

produce our own energy in this country, recognizing the fact that 

we have the largest recoverable reserves in coal, oil, and gas, it is 

something where we can see the day when we are not going to 

have this reliance, whether it is Hugo Chavez or the Middle East. 

Then of course, nuclear has to be a part of it, and it is going to 

be a very significant part of it. I am very excited to see what we 

are going to be doing. So between nuclear, oil, gas, coal, hydro 

power, and renewable, we are going to do great things. 

Ensuring the safe use of nuclear energy is a very serious job. 

That is why unlike many countries, way back in the 1970s, Congress established the NRC, the independent commission, and 

charged five Commissioners with the responsibility to protect the 

public health and safety. We saw what happened at Fukushima. 

We are all committed to ensuring that the United States nuclear 

power plants will not experience a similar accident. 

That is why we have safeguards in place that would have prevented such a disaster here in the United States. For example, the 

Fukushima nuclear accident independent investigation committee 

formed by the Japanese government reported that the Japanese 

plants are not required to consider a possible station blackout scenario, something the NRC instituted here in the United States way 

back in the 1980s. This report concluded that ‘‘The accident may 

have been preventable’’ if an order already required by the NRC 

following the September 11th terrorist attack was instituted in 

Japan. 

So to all the Commissioners and the new Chairman, I am 

pleased to see what is going to be happening here. We are looking 

forward to great things. And we are going to continue to have, 

through our Subcommittee, oversight hearings to be sure we stay 

on the schedule that we commit to. I always remember actually 

back when Republicans were majority and I chaired that Nuclear 

Subcommittee, at that time, we had not had an oversight hearing 

in some 5 years. And oddly enough, it was the members of the NRC 

that wanted oversight hearings. So we’re going to be able to do 

that, work together and make nuclear a very important part of our 

energy package. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

4 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for holding this hearing and focusing on implementing the lessons learned from Fukushima. The efforts will ensure that the safety 

of nuclear plants in the U.S.—and around the world—will be enhanced and the use 

of nuclear energy will be sustained over the long term. 

First, I would like to welcome Chairwoman Macfarlane to the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) and welcome her to the EPW hearing room in her new, official 

capacity. You have big challenges ahead, and everyone here on this Committee has 

high hopes that you will be able to restore the collegial working environment at the 

Commission. 

The NRC has been busy over the past year. For the first time in over 30 years, 

new licenses to build two reactors were issued by the Commission. In March the 

Commission issued orders to implement the most significant post-Fukushima improvements. I am pleased that under Chairwoman Macfarlane the Commission is 

focusing on its mission of nuclear safety without unnecessary distractions. 

Our country needs affordable energy for any sustained economic growth. As a nation, we have the ability to produce this energy domestically, but nuclear must have 

a seat at the table for an all of the above energy policy that includes oil, gas, coal, 

hydropower, and renewable energy. 

Ensuring the safe use of nuclear energy is a very serious job. That is why, unlike 

many other countries, Congress established the NRC, an independent commission, 

and charged five commissioners with the responsibility to protect public health and 

safety. We saw what happened at Fukushima, and we are all committed to ensuring 

that a United States nuclear power plant will not experience a similar accident. 

That is why we have safeguards in place that would have prevented such a disaster 

here in the United States. For instance, the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (formed by the Japanese government) reported 

that the Japanese plants are not required to consider a possible station blackout 

scenario—something the NRC instituted in the 1980s. This report concluded that 

‘‘the accident may have been preventable’’ if an order already required by the NRC 

following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S. was instituted by 

the Japanese. 

No one—on either side of the aisle—in Congress is willing to accept anything 

other than the safe operation and regulatory compliance of the country’s commercial 

nuclear power plants. Throughout the NRC’s history, we have applied lessons 

learned from nuclear and non-nuclear events. At the same time, the NRC has the 

vital responsibility to determine the cumulative effects that its regulations actually 

have on safety. It is important that regulations provide significant, tangible, and 

necessary safety benefits that warrant the costs—costs that are ultimately borne by 

consumers. 

To all of the Commissioners, and the new Chairman, I am pleased to see that debates and the free flow of information seem healthy and respectful again. Combined, 

your actions are critical to ensure the safe operation of the nuclear power plants 

across this country. The nation is also counting on you to prevent the imposition 

of an unpredictable or unnecessary regulatory burden that undermines nuclear energy economically, and avoid the way EPA regulations are driving the premature 

shutdown of coal-fired power plants. 

It can continue to be a new day for the NRC, and it is up to you to uphold the 

NRC’s reputation for reasoned and balanced regulation. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. And we will miss 

you. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Nuclear energy is critical to meeting our nation’s energy needs. 

An emissions-free energy source, now providing one-fifth of America’s electricity. In New Jersey, our four nuclear power reactors 

provide our State with more than half of its electricity. 

But as we saw with the disaster in Japan last year, there are 

also many reasons for caution. The crisis in Japan left every AmerVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:19 Aug 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25112.TXT SONYA
5 

ican concerned: could it happen here? The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s Task Force studied this situation closely and determined that our nuclear facilities pose no imminent threat to the 

American people. While this is reassuring news, it was also clear 

that we needed to do more to improve nuclear safety here. 

The NRC’s Task Force issued 12 recommendations to strengthen 

nuclear preparedness and protect plants when earthquakes and 

other natural disasters occur. Since they issued these recommendations, the Commission has taken real steps to ensure our reactors 

are more secure. 

But some have raised concerns that we must do more and move 

more quickly. Let me be clear: when it comes to safety, we all agree 

that we cannot afford unnecessary delays. In addition to operating 

plants safely, the United States needs to have an effective policy— 

which I know that you are working on—for disposing and storing 

spent nuclear fuel. Right now, most nuclear power plants store 

more than 1,000 tons of nuclear waste in spent fuel pools onsite. 

Not a sustainable position. 

At New Jersey’s reactors, nuclear waste is stored onsite. Some of 

it is in dry cask storage and some if it is spent fuel pools, which 

rely on a steady supply of water and electricity. In Japan, when the 

earthquake and tsunami knocked the power out, we saw rescue 

workers desperately spraying water from fire hoses into the spent 

fuel pools. More than a year later, there are still serious concerns 

about the safety of spent fuel at Fukushima. 

One thing is clear: we have to find a better and safer way to 

store nuclear waste, to ensure that a disaster like the one that took 

place in Japan never happens here. It means finding more secure 

ways to store fuel onsite, finding agreeable places to store national 

spent fuel, and making certain that these sites have long-term viability. Nuclear power must be part of our energy future. 

But the disaster in Japan has taught us that nothing can be 

taken for granted where nuclear power is concerned. Japan’s leaders believed the Fukushima plant was strong enough to withstand 

a worst case scenario. But as we now know, it wasn’t. Likewise, 

going back years, Chernobyl taught us that the effects of a single 

nuclear accident can linger for generations. We have to learn from 

these lessons, learn from other mistakes. I thank the Commissioners—you do a good job—for coming today to testify. I am eager 

to hear about the NRC’s ongoing efforts. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

And it is Senator Alexander next. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. My view 

is that the more the American people hear about and know about 

nuclear power, the more confident they will be in the system that 

we have. So I welcome our Commissioners and am glad you are 

here. 

Several Senators visited Germany and Sweden over the last few 

days. It made me grateful that we have, as Senator Lautenberg 

6 

said, 20 percent of our electricity produced by nuclear power and 

70 percent of our emissions-free electricity produced by nuclear 

power. It is done in historically a safe way. 

The reason these hearings are important is the production of energy by nuclear power has been our safest method of energy production, but it is complex. And people need to know what we’re 

doing and understand what we’re doing. 

The lessons that we received in Sweden and Germany are instructive to us. Sweden on one hand, half their power is nuclear. 

Half their power is hydro. So they have absolutely clean electricity. 

And they have cheap electricity. And they have a repository which 

the communities in Sweden competed to win, and there is a picture 

of the mayor who won with a happy face and the mayor who lost 

with an unhappy face. So we could learn from Sweden. 

Germany, right next door, has an energy mess on its hands. They 

are closing their nuclear power plants. They are still buying nuclear energy from France, so that they will have enough energy, 

electricity for their big industrial state. They are building coal 

plants, and they are building gas plants, even though gas in Europe costs four or five times what it costs here. And one reason 

they are building gas plants is to have electricity when the windmills don’t blow, which makes you wonder, well, why do you have 

windmills if you are going to build gas plants. 

So their officials told us that if you want cheap energy, don’t 

come to Germany. So you can go to Sweden, or you can come to 

the United States, where we have a mixture of energy and a pretty 

good energy policy, I would say, based upon the free market with 

environmental regulations amended to that, which are producing 

right now a lot of reliable, low cost, cheap electricity and energy. 

That is a great boon to job growth over the future. 

So your job, making sure that our 104 reactors continue to operate well and safely, is important. 

In another hearing today, Senator Bingaman is introducing a bill 

to help us find a long-term repository for nuclear spent—for used 

fuel. We need to do that. Senator Feinstein and I, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Bingaman have been working this year to do 

it. We have made a lot of progress; we have a little difference, the 

three of us do, with Senator Bingaman on exactly one or two provisions of his legislation. 

But whether you are for Yucca Mountain or against Yucca Mountain, we need a new repository. Because if we took all the stuff we 

have today at our 104 sites and put it at Yucca Mountain, it would 

nearly fill it up. So we need consolidation sites, especially Senator 

Boxer, for plants that might already be closed. We could move the 

fuel from there. And we need a long-term repository. 

So I hope this Commission will continue to make that a top priority as we work together with the Congress and the Administration to move ahead on parallel tracks to find consolidation sites for 

spent fuel that is at our nuclear power plants and seeing that it 

is safe. And the Chairman, the previous Chairman said it would be 

safe for 100 years there. But that is not where it is supposed to 

be for 100 years. It is supposed to be in a long-term repository. And 

as I said, whether you are for or against Yucca Mountain, we need 

another one and we need consolidation sites. 

7 

Finally, I look forward to hearing from you in the question and 

answer session about your support for innovation and nuclear 

power. The Congress and the President are supporting small reactors. That is an important part of our ability to have plenty of reliable, clean electricity in the future in this country. We would like 

to be a leader in that area in the world, first, because it does provide jobs. But second, it simply provides another—perhaps better— 

way to produce clean electricity that is reliable over time. 

And as a good citizen of the world, we have such good safety 

standards here that if we do a good job with small reactors, those 

practices will be exported in the world like many of our practices 

have been for our large reactors and our nuclear reactors on our 

Navy ships. 

So I welcome this, and I thank the Chairman very much for the 

hearing, and I hope we continue to have them regularly. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator, and that would be 

my intention. 

Now we are going to hear from Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chair. 

To our Commissioners, welcome. I see broad smiles here before 

us today, Madam Chairman, and I would say it looks like a friendlier, happier group than I recall gathered before us in the past. So 

we welcome that as well. 

I want to express our thanks to our new Chairman, Chairman 

Macfarlane, who I believe was sworn into office in July, and to congratulate Commissioner Svinicki, who I believe was sworn in for a 

second term; was that in July as well? OK, thank you. 

Congratulations to both of you. Thanks for your willingness to 

take on this responsibility and your willingness to extend your stay 

on this Commission. It is important work, as you know. 

Currently, our country has some 104 nuclear power plants operating in I think about 31 States, with an additional 5 that are 

under construction and will come online, I hope, sometime in the 

next several years. Collectively, as others have said, these 104 nuclear plants provide about roughly 20 percent of the energy that we 

use in this country. I think maybe Senator Lautenberg was implying, and some others have said, that that energy comes with some 

special benefits. One, no carbon dioxide emissions; two, no sulfur 

dioxide emissions; three, no mercury emissions. And that is good; 

that is really good. We need to keep that in mind. 

But the energy from all those plants has helped to curb our nation’s reliance on fossil fuels, and it has helped reduce our air pollution and the damages it causes to health and global warming. We 

are especially mindful of that, Senator Lautenberg and I are, and 

Senator Cardin, as downwind States from all that pollution that is 

put up in the Midwest and just blows our way and fouls our air. 

And frankly, there is not a lot we can do just by our own about 

it. But nuclear energy helps relieve that. 

But as far as the benefits of nuclear power, we have seen from 

the crisis at the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi district, the damage 

that nuclear power can cause if not properly regulated. Safety must 

8 

always be our top priority when it comes to nuclear energy. That 

is why the Fukushima accident and before, this Committee has exercised its oversight repeatedly, as Senator Inhofe has suggested, 

to ensure that our nation’s nuclear power plants are prepared for 

the worst. We want to make sure that our nuclear power plants 

can respond effectively in any crisis to protect the American public. 

I was reassured when the NRC concluded that an accident like 

Fukushima is unlikely to happen in the United States and that our 

nuclear fleet poses no imminent risk to public safety. This is due 

in part to the diligence of the NRC to public safety. But as my colleagues have heard me say over and over and over and over again, 

if it isn’t perfect, make it better. And since our hearing last March, 

the NRC has required the implementation of several actions at our 

nuclear power plants in light of the lessons learned from 

Fukushima. The NRC has also required nuclear power plants to investigate and report back ways we can further enhance flood and 

earthquake protection at our 104 reactors. 

Today we look forward to hearing an update from the NRC Commissioners regarding their practice and progress. I sincerely hope 

that the Commission will continue to have a dialogue with key 

stakeholders and seek public input from all sides of these issues as 

the recommendations are being implemented. However, I will be 

very disappointed if by the second anniversary of the Fukushima 

accident, which will be, I believe, March 11th, 2013, our nuclear 

power plants are not where they are supposed to be according to 

the schedule the Commission has laid out. 

As I continue to support the pursuit of raw, clean energy—all 

clean energy—our top priority for domestic nuclear power industry 

remains public safety. We all know that we can do better. And that 

is the responsibility that this Committee shares with you. 

The NRC is moving forward to ensure that the U.S. nuclear industry continues to improve its safety and preparedness efforts. 

Part of that job, our job, is to make sure that that happens. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And again, welcome. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Let me begin by welcoming back the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) 

Commissioners to our Committee. I appreciate you taking the time to be before us 

today. In particular, I want to welcome Chairman Macfarlane who was sworn into 

office last July. This is her first appearance before this Committee as Chairman of 

the NRC. Welcome. 

Currently, our country has 104 nuclear power reactors operating in 31 States, 

with an additional 5 that are under construction and that will come online, hopefully, within the next several years. Collectively, these nuclear power plants generate approximately 20 percent of our nation’s total electric consumption. 

The energy from these nuclear power plants has helped curb our nation’s reliance 

on dirty fossil fuels and has helped reduce our air pollution that damages health 

and causes global warming. Despite the benefits of nuclear power, we have seen 

from the crisis at the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi facility the damage that nuclear 

power can cause if not properly regulated. 

Safety must always be our top priority when it comes to nuclear energy. That is 

why since the Fukushima accident—and before—this Committee has exercised its 

oversight authority repeatedly to ensure that our nation’s nuclear power plants are 

prepared for the worst. We want to make sure that our nuclear power plants can 

respond effectively in any crisis to protect the American public. 

9 

I was reassured when the NRC concluded that an accident like Fukushima is unlikely to happen in the United States and that our nuclear fleet poses no imminent 

risk to public safety. This is due in part to the due diligence of the NRC to public 

safety. But as my colleagues have heard me say over and over, if it is not perfect, 

make it better. 

Since our hearing last March, the NRC has required the implementation of several safety actions at our nuclear power plants in light of the lessons learned from 

Fukushima. The NRC has also required our nuclear power plants to investigate and 

report back ways we can further enhance flood and earthquake protections at our 

104 reactors. Today, I look forward to hearing an update from the NRC Commissioners regarding their progress. 

I sincerely hope the Commission will continue to talk to stakeholders and get public reaction—from all sides of these issues—as the recommendations are being implemented. However, I will be very disappointed if by the second anniversary of the 

Fukushima accident—which will be March 11, 2013—our nuclear power plants are 

not where they are supposed to be according to the schedule the Commission has 

laid out. 

As I continue to support the pursuit of all clean energy, my top priority for our 

domestic nuclear power industry remains public safety. We all know we can do better, and the NRC is moving forward to ensure that the U.S. nuclear industry continues to improve its safety and preparedness efforts. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I am going to call on Senator Barrasso, but before I do, I want 

to apologize, it was so very warm in here. We have had issues this 

morning. So without having a Commission meeting, I opened up all 

the doors. And I think it is feeling better. There must be a message 

in that, but we will figure it out. 

Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would also 

like to thank and welcome all the Commissioners here today. 

According to the Department of Energy, nuclear power provided 

about 19 percent of total U.S. utility scale electricity last year. The 

Department of Energy projects that America needs 40 to 50 large 

nuclear plants to be built and start operating within the next 20 

years for nuclear power to maintain or increase its share of the 

U.S. electricity supply. 

The fact is, we need to maintain and improve our nuclear industry. The only way we can do that is to promote responsible policies 

and regulations that protect public safety while maintaining nuclear share of our electricity output. We need to make America’s 

nuclear reactors as safe as we can as feasibly as we can, while 

growing this important energy source. After the nuclear disaster at 

Fukushima, the American people want to know that nuclear safety 

is improved. The American people want us to ensure that there will 

not be a repeat of such a disaster in Japan here in the United 

States, that communities across America are safe from harm, that 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is tasked with protecting us. 

It is not a responsibility, I know, that any of you are taking lightly. 

The incident at Fukushima has led to a process at NRC of developing recommendations to improve nuclear safety here in the 

United States. The Commission has decided upon those recommendations that are most significant, that has established a 

path that leads to timely implementation. Now it is incumbent 

upon the Commission to ensure that those who must implement 

10 

those recommendations are able to do so without impeding the 

growth of much needed nuclear power. 

A good step toward that goal is that the Commission appears to 

be regaining some measure of collegiality and strength lost during 

the reign of the previous Chairman. As many of you know, the 

President’s former Chairman resigned under fire. As a result, the 

Commission must now improve the process of permitting and licensing of nuclear power plants, a process the former Chairman 

slowed down by so frequently disagreeing with the bipartisan majority of Commissioners. 

Having turned the page with new leadership, the Commission 

must stick to its convictions so that the so-called Tier One recommendations be properly implemented. The Commission should 

not be distracted by the desires of some who wish to drive the resolution of all recommendations to suit an artificially established 

deadline. 

This collegial process needs to continue to be restored as the 

Commission returns to its traditional independent and respected 

role. The NRC must operate within procedures that are agreed 

upon in a professional and collegial manner. Doing so will ensure 

that Americans know that we will be protected from harm while 

having our energy needs met well into the future. 

Again, thank you, Madam Chairman. I look forward to the testimony. 

Senator BOXER. We are going to turn to our Commissioners, 5 

minutes for the Chairman, 3 minutes for everyone else who would 

like to be heard. Welcome again. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALLISON M. MACFARLANE, CHAIRMAN, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Ms. MACFARLANE.Thank you very much, Senator Boxer. 

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, Chairman Carper, 

Ranking Member Barrasso, and members of the Committee, my 

colleagues and I are honored to appear before you today on behalf 

of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Having appeared before you in June as a nominee, I want to 

thank you for confirming me and for your careful oversight of the 

NRC. 

I look forward to today’s hearing, my first before you as NRC 

Chairman. I am pleased to join with my fellow Commissioners to 

discuss the critical policy issues facing our agency. 

Two months into my tenure, I have a much better sense of the 

agency and its dedicated staff. I have spent many hours in meetings and briefings on the issues currently before the agency, both 

at NRC headquarters and at our four regional offices, three of 

which I have now visited. The fourth is tomorrow. 

I have also informally walked the floors of our headquarters 

building, eaten lunch with our personnel in the cafeteria, and met 

them in the gym. I have been consistently impressed by the seriousness with which the NRC staff approach their mission of protecting the safety of the American people and the enthusiasm they 

have for their work, and I have been touched by the warmth with 

which I have been welcomed by them. 

11 

I also appreciate the sincere welcome that I have received from 

my colleagues on the Commission, and I deeply value our working 

relationship. I am meeting with each Commissioner regularly, 

seeking their views on major issues facing the agency and benefiting from their expertise. I look forward to a sustained collegial 

relationship with them. 

I am committed to maintaining open lines of communication and 

a respect for their perspectives, insights, and best judgment. I believe that by working together collegially, the product of our efforts 

as a Commission will be stronger and much more protective of the 

public interest. 

I also look forward to working with this Committee and with the 

Congress. I inherited a backlog of congressional correspondence 

when I arrived at the NRC, and I am pleased to report that this 

backlog is now clear. 

Since arriving at the NRC, I have found an organizational culture that promotes an open, collaborative work environment, encourages all employers and contractors to share concerns and differing views without fear of negative consequences, and encourages 

any employee to initiate a meeting with an NRC manager or supervisor, including a Commissioner or the Chairman, to discuss any 

matter of concern. 

I am determined that these organizational commitments will continue under my leadership. 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. These values are especially pertinent 

at a time when the agency is dealing with a wide array of critical 

safety matters. It is in this context that we update you on the 

NRC’s implementation of the safety enhancements following the 

Fukushima Daiichi accident. 

With everything that we have assessed to date, the Commission 

continues to believe that there is no imminent risk from the continued operation of the existing U.S. nuclear power plants. At the 

same time, the NRC’s assessment of Fukushima leads us to conclude that additional requirements should be imposed on licensees 

to increase the capability of nuclear power plants to mitigate beyond design basis natural phenomena. 

The Commission has approved the prioritization of the recommendations of a post-Fukushima NRC senior level task force 

into three tiers. Tier One consists of actions to be taken without 

delay; these actions are already underway. Tier Two is the next set 

of actions that can be initiated as soon as critical skill sets become 

available and pertinent information is gathered and analyzed. Tier 

Three recommendations require that the staff conduct further 

study or undertaken short-term actions first. 

Under Tier One actions, the staff has already issued three orders 

and requests for information from our licensees. Safety upgrades 

are well underway at many of our licensees. NRC work on Tier 

Two and Tier Three recommendations is beginning. 

The NRC staff has presented the Commission with its plans for 

addressing each of the Tier Three recommendations. Of course, as 

we evaluate those recommendations, we will engage in extensive 

dialogue with all the relevant stakeholders. The NRC staff has 

12 

done an outstanding job of not only making progress addressing 

lessons learned from Japan but also continuing to ensure the safe 

and secure operation of all our existing license facilities. The Commission is dedicated to never losing sight of the fact that our effectiveness as a safety and security regulator depends first and foremost on the staff’s hard work and dedication. 

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. I 

would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Macfarlane follows:] 

13 


25112.001
14 


25112.002
15 


25112.003
16 


25112.004
17 


25112.005
18 


25112.006
19 


25112.007
20 


25112.008
21 


25112.009
22 


25112.010
23 


25112.011
24 


25112.012
25 


25112.013
26 


25112.014
27 


25112.015
28 


25112.016
29 


25112.017
30 


25112.018
31 


25112.019
32 


25112.020
33 


25112.021
34 


25112.022
35 


25112.023
36 


25112.024
37 


25112.025
38 


25112.026
39 


25112.027
40 


25112.028
41 


25112.029
42 


25112.030
43 


25112.031
44 


25112.032
45 


25112.033
46 


25112.034
47 


25112.035
48 


25112.036
49 


25112.037
50 


25112.038
51 


25112.039
52 


25112.040
53 


25112.041
54 


25112.042
55 


25112.043
56 


25112.044
57 


25112.045
58 


25112.046
59 


25112.047
60 


25112.048
61 


25112.049
62 


25112.050
63 


25112.051
64 


25112.052
65 


25112.053
66 


25112.054
67 


25112.055
68 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Hon. Kristine Svinicki. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Chairman Carper, 

Ranking Member Barrasso, and members of the Committee, for the 

opportunity to appear before you today at this oversight hearing to 

examine NRC’s implementation of recommendations for enhancing 

nuclear safety. 

I would like to begin by recognizing the commitment of the Commission’s new Chairman, Dr. Allison Macfarlane, to forging a collegial relationship with each member of the Commission, consistent 

with her stated approach of maintaining open lines of communication with her colleagues on all matters facing the agency. I am appreciative of her views and perspectives, of her reaching out to me, 

our fellow Commissioners and members of the NRC senior executive service since her arrival. The tone she is setting is constructive, collegial, and a welcome opportunity to move forward in a 

positive manner on the many important matters before this Commission. 

The tragic events in Japan in 2011 cast the NRC’s work into 

even sharper relief for the American public and once again remind 

us of the uniqueness of nuclear technology. Chairman Macfarlane 

has described in her testimony on behalf of the Commission the 

status of the many activities underway which comprise the NRC’s 

response to the lessons learned arising from the accident at 

Fukushima. These actions have as their foundation the objective of 

increasing the capabilities of nuclear power plants to mitigate the 

effects of beyond design basis extreme natural phenomena. 

The NRC continues to evaluate its Tier Two and Tier Three actions and to engage with a diverse set of stakeholders on all of 

these activities. This work is carried out through the day to day efforts of the women and men of the NRC and along with the Chairman, as she has expressed, I appreciate their sustained commitment to advancing the NRC’s mission of ensuring adequate protection of public health and safety and promoting the common defense 

and security. 

Chairman Boxer, Chairman Carper, and Ranking Member Barrasso, I appreciate the opportunity to give this statement and look 

forward to your questions. 

[The responses of Ms. Svinicki to questions for the record follow:] 

69 


25112.056
70 


25112.057
71 


25112.058
72 


25112.059
73 


25112.060
74 


25112.061
75 


25112.062
76 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Commissioner Apostolakis. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS, COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Barrasso, good morning. 

After a major accident like the one in Fukushima, it is natural 

and proper to focus on the engineering lessons learned and related 

actions to improve the safety of nuclear power reactors. As you 

know, the NRC is actively doing this. However, as more in-depth 

assessments of the accident are carried out, the significance of an 

additional contributor to the accident emerges—namely, safety culture. 

For example, the Chairman of the Japanese parliament’s investigation commission on Fukushima lists a reluctance to question 

authority as one of the fundamental causes of the accident. Major 

accidents in the nuclear industry have involved organizational failures and/or poor human performance that in retrospect could be 

considered a result of a weak safety culture. 

In 1989 the Commission first published a policy statement to 

make clear the Commission’s emphasis on a safety first focus with 

respect to the conduct of nuclear power plant operations. In June 

2011 we issued a new safety culture policy statement that applies 

more broadly to all users of radioactive materials. We defined nuclear safety culture as ‘‘the core values and behaviors resulting 

from a collective commitment by leaders and individuals to emphasize safety over competing goals to ensure protection of people and 

the environment.’’ 

It is recognized that core values cannot be regulated. However, 

we do have regulations and programmatic incentives to encourage 

behaviors that are consistent with a positive safety culture. For example, the NRC demands that licensee and contract employees be 

free to raise safety concerns without fear of reprisal, encourages 

self-identification of violations, and assesses licensee performance 

to identify root causes of violations that may indicate weaknesses 

in safety culture. 

To help with the overall efforts in this area, we have identified 

nine personal and organizational traits that we expect to see in a 

positive safety culture. For example, one trait is that issue potentially impacting safety are promptly identified, fully evaluated, and 

promptly addressed and corrected, commensurate with their significance. 

We have undertaken an extensive educational program to communicate to the licensees the Commission’s vision regarding safety 

culture. I am pleased that the industry has also developed methods 

for assessing safety culture. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Commissioner Magwood. 

77 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD, IV, 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Boxer, 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Barrasso. Thank you for today’s hearing, and thank you for your continued oversight. It has 

been very important to us. 

It has now been 18 months since the tragic events in Japan. 

Since that time, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has conducted 

thorough reviews of U.S. nuclear power plants and our regulatory 

framework. We have begun the task of reassessing the flooding and 

seismic hazards facing each nuclear power plant in the United 

States and the ability of those plants to cope with severe natural 

events. 

We have taken many other actions that the Chairman has detailed in her written statement, including orders that require licensees to develop strategies to cope with site-wide beyond design 

basis disasters. 

After all we have learned from the disaster in Japan and from 

our work over the last year and a half, my confidence that U.S. nuclear power plants are being safely operated has only increased. 

Nevertheless, we are applying the lessons of Fukushima to establish and enhance the level of safety for U.S. plants. Given the consequences of nuclear accidents such as that experienced in Japan 

last year, we must do no less. 

Over the last year, I have met with regulators from around the 

world and visited several overseas reactors. Also, at Chairman 

Macfarlane’s request, I recently led a U.S. delegation to a meeting 

of the Convention on Nuclear Safety attended by 63 countries, 

which focused entirely on the lessons of Fukushima. Through these 

interactions, I have found that all countries are learning essentially 

the same lessons from last year’s disaster and are taking essentially the same steps in response. We often use different terms and 

different methodologies, but the actions taken by the world’s regulators are roughly the same. This has only increased my confidence 

that the actions we have taken are appropriate. 

And real action is being taken. I have visited eight nuclear power 

plants in the U.S. since we issued the post-Fukushima orders earlier this year. Our licensees have purchased new equipment and 

devoted some of their best engineers to the task of responding to 

NRC orders. I have had valuable conversations with licensee staff 

about the installation of new equipment, the procedures and training that they are developing, and the ability of plant operators to 

deal with new requirements while still maintaining a firm grasp of 

the fundamentals related to the safe operation of their nuclear 

power plants. 

I am confident the steps we have taken have and will enhance 

nuclear safety in this country. With these actions underway, the 

Commission is now turning to complex policy matters that will determine the shape of U.S. nuclear regulation for years to come. 

These are very difficult matters. It has, therefore, not been the 

most gentle of welcomes for Chairman Macfarlane. However, I have 

appreciated the fact that she has created an atmosphere of open 

discussion and debate since joining the Commission. I believe this 

Commission, as it is constituted, is more than equal to the task 

78 

ahead, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and with 

this Committee as we go forward. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The responses of Mr. Magwood to questions for the record follow:] 

79 


25112.063
80 


25112.064
81 


25112.065
82 


25112.066
83 


25112.067
84 


25112.068
85 


25112.069
86 


25112.070
87 


25112.071
88 


25112.072
89 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Commissioner Ostendorff. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Chairman Carper, and Ranking Member Barrasso, for the chance to appear before you today. 

NRC continues to make strong, steady progress in implementing 

the lessons learned from Fukushima. At the same time, the Commission and our highly talented staff continue to be successful in 

performing other vital work. 

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, and concluded that there is no imminent risk 

from continued operation of U.S. nuclear power plants. As I appear 

and testify before this Committee, I firmly believe those conclusions remain true today. Nevertheless, along with my colleagues, I 

continue to support our efforts at the NRC to strengthen our regulatory framework where necessary in response to Fukushima. 

Days before the March hearing before this Committee, all of my 

colleagues here to the right, we voted to approve the issuance of 

three orders for additional requirements to our licensees dealing 

with action mitigation strategies, containment vent systems, and 

spent fuel pool instrumentation, based on lessons learned from 

Fukushima. We also supported information collection and analysis 

efforts necessary to inform proper decisionmaking. 

In the intervening months, the NRC has continued to make significant progress. The staff has developed and issued final implementation guidance on the March orders. The staff has also initiated an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to the station blackout rule, as well as for integrating emergency response procedures. 

The station blackout rule remains on an accelerated schedule. We 

need to continue to aggressively pursue these efforts. 

Finally, I join my colleagues in warmly welcoming Allison 

Macfarlane to the Commission. Her collegiality and leadership 

have already greatly benefited not just the Commission, but our entire agency. She is off to a very, very strong start as Chairman, and 

we are grateful for that. 

I appreciate this Committee’s oversight role and look forward to 

your questions. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Let me just first say how much I appreciate every Commissioner’s comments. I particularly want to home in on what Commissioner Apostolakis said. Because what he said was very critical. 

He said that after he’s examined everything that happened in 

Japan—and tell me if I state this correctly, Commissioner—that 

your opinion is there was a lack of a safety culture, that people 

didn’t speak up to authority there, and that was the main problem. 

Am I correct in summarizing it that way? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Yes, Senator, you are. 

Senator BOXER. I believe that is so important. It is what I wanted to hear. Because if you had said, well, it was one man who fell 

asleep on the job or some woman who walked out of the room, that 

90 

would be one thing. But I’m assuming you speak for the Commission on that. Is there any Commissioner who disagrees with this? 

Speak up now. Does anyone disagree with this, that there was a 

lack of a safety culture? So there seems to be agreement. 

This is a breakthrough for us here. Because it just underscores 

the importance of your work. And this renewed commitment I hear 

from all of you, I think I hear from all of you, to move forward, not 

just with rhetoric, but very specific rules that Commissioner 

Ostendorff cited, for example, that we must move forward. 

And we are facing a situation in California, so I am going to ask 

you if you each got the packet I gave you of letters from my cities. 

Yes, you have all gotten that. I hope that I can count on you, perhaps working with the Chairman, to try and address these letters 

directly and hopefully all of you can agree and you can all sign the 

same letter. 

But I would urge you if you don’t, then to write your own letter. 

Can I get, by showing me a nod, yes or no, that you will in fact 

work with the Chairman, or if you can’t get a community letter together, work individually to make sure that those letters are answered? Thank you. Beautiful. 

OK, that is excellent. I will tell my cities. The city of Irvine is 

very, very sincere in their concern. They ask you to withhold permission to restart the plant until the NRC provides full assurance 

that Units 2 and 3 will not exhibit any of the current vibration, 

corrosion, and degradation problems during the remaining 10 years 

of license operation. So these are very hard letters; they are frightened over there, because there are so many people that live so close 

to this area. Again, I have said this before, but when they asked 

the sheriff there if there were to be, God forbid, some tragedy, how 

could people get away, she said, the highway, and you can’t move 

on that highway, there is one highway, in rush hour. 

So we have to consider, in looking at this, the risks that we take 

if it is not all right. So I will ask unanimous consent to place all 

of these letters into the record. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. Also, the Committee to Bridge the Gap did a report on San Onofre, and they are very concerned. I am going to 

again ask you if each of you will commit to me to review this report. And after you read it, would you be willing to please meet 

with my staff so that we can discuss it? Because they go into— this 

isn’t rhetoric, this is page after page of specific worries. Can I get 

a reading from you all, would you be willing to meet with my staff 

after this? That is very good. Thank you for that. 

And again, if you all, if you meet first, and the Chairman can 

represent all of you, you don’t all have to meet, but I want to make 

sure that I know where each of you is coming from on this. It is 

very key. 

Chairman Macfarlane, the media has quoted you as saying, ‘‘As 

a geologist, I know that geological knowledge is constantly changing and that understanding the cause of earthquakes is based on 

‘a dynamic set of knowledge’ which requires regular feedback and 

interaction.’’ So what does this mean for safety licensing and license extension issues at nuclear plants? Do you believe it emphaVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:19 Aug 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25112.TXT SONYA
91 

sizes the need to regularly review these risks and to consider this 

updated information in license and relicensing decisions? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think actually it means that we should consider the updated information when it comes in, and that is the 

NRC’s policy, to consider this information when it comes in. 

One of the recommendations from the—— 

Senator BOXER. Well, when you say when it comes in, I want to 

take issue with that. Suppose you have a plant that in 6 months 

is ready for the relicensing, and there is a study underway, it is 

not yet complete. I would hate to think that, you say, when it 

comes in, who is responsible for getting it in? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thanks for the clarification. What I am referring to is, say, for example, if the USGS doesn’t update the seismic 

hazard analysis, then that is something that we should be considering. We shouldn’t wait until a plant applies for relicensing; we 

should consider it right away. 

Senator BOXER. OK, so I just want to be clear, because I want 

to know what my role is. So do you see your Commission as asking 

them to make these updated studies? Or do you just wait until they 

do it? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No, in fact we have just done an updated 

study in the central and eastern U.S. And we did that in conjunction with EPRI and the Department of Energy. We just did a reanalysis of the seismic hazard in the central and eastern U.S., and 

another one is in progress for the western U.S. 

Senator BOXER. We did it, meaning the NRC? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The NRC. 

Senator BOXER. Along with the USGS? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It wasn’t with the USGS. USGS provided 

some input. But it was with the Department of Energy and the 

Electric Power Research Institute. 

Senator BOXER. So just that my mind is clear, what you are saying is in your view, before you relicense, you want the most updated information on earthquake safety, if there is a situation 

where there hasn’t been a study in 10 years, you will move aggressively to get the latest information? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Certainly. I also want to point out that actually one of the recommendations from the Japan Near Term Task 

Force was to update and revise seismic hazards and other natural 

hazards, look at the updated information every 10 years. So there 

is a recommendation for periodic review, and I support that. 

Senator BOXER. Good. That is excellent. Is there any dissent that 

that ought to be done before relicensure? Any dissent at all? This 

would be the moment. OK. 

I also think it is important to look at the demographic changes, 

how does the population change around the plant. Sometimes these 

areas have a boom in growth; sometimes they don’t. But I just 

would urge you to look at all these factors. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman Macfarlane, obviously there is a lot going on. You have 

been there for 2 months now, I am sure you have assessed or tried 

to assess the internal capabilities and capacity of the staff to successfully complete the Tier One tasks. 

92 

My question is can you assure us that the resources that you 

have aren’t being diverted away from fully completing the Tier One 

recommendations because staff may be, as we say, there is a lot 

going on, working on other things like the revised waste confidence 

rule? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, we are adequate there. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK. Can you tell me what steps the Commission is taking to ensure that the addition of Tier Two and Tier 

Three requirements will be issued only after thorough analysis that 

Tier One recommendations have been thoroughly and successfully 

completed? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Tier One analyses are fairly far underway. 

There will be rulemakings that will come out of that. Now as resources and personnel are being opened up we will turn them to 

Tier Two and again, as the resources become available, the personnel become available, we will move them on to Tier Three. 

Senator BARRASSO. You had mentioned also about ongoing rulemaking. Can you assure me that other extraneous guidance or 

other rules that are not vital to protecting public health and safety 

won’t be forced upon nuclear power plants until they have fully 

completed the Tier One recommendations? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Until they have fully completed the Tier One 

recommendations? 

Senator BARRASSO. Until they focus on that. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. There are a number of issues that are before 

the NRC at the moment, and some are receiving priority, like the 

waste confidence issue. So we are prioritizing the issues that we 

feel are most important. 

Senator BARRASSO. But you have the resources to work on Tier 

One in spite of some of the needs for resources for the other? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, we do. 

Senator BARRASSO. Great. I understand that the other Commissioners, in your view as to the adequacy of the time afforded to licensees to comply with the initial set of post-Fukushima orders at 

the time that they have to comply, do any of you have concerns 

that the cumulative effects of complying with those orders by the 

time established could distract the licensees form other important 

safety issues? Are they going to have enough time to comply? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, I think of course we need to monitor 

closely whether or not there is any distraction of focus, that the operators need to be entirely focused on the safety of their facilities. 

So I’m not aware of any concern at the moment about their ability 

to carry out the post-Fukushima actions and operate safely. But I 

think that it is our obligation to watch that closely. 

Senator BARRASSO. Anyone want to add to that? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Just very briefly, I agree with Commissioner 

Svinicki’s comment on that. I would add that I think where we are 

today, I think things are quite good. I have talked to licensees 

about it; the situation is well under control. I think there is some 

concern in the licensee community about what might come down 

the road over the next few years. And I know that the staff is going 

to be watching very closely to make sure that we stage these things 

correctly so that the work can be done most effectively. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

93 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I would also agree with Commissioners Svinicki and Magwood in their response, and just provide 

that this is an issue that we are closely watching. We are having 

a lot of communications. We don’t want to see safety significant 

issues not pursued because of distractions. 

Senator BARRASSO. Great, thank you. Any additions? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I do agree with my colleagues. The schedule 

is very aggressive, it really is, especially for the seismic analyses 

that are required of the licensees in Tier One and the different 

analyses. So we have to appreciate that this is a very aggressive 

schedule. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Chairman Macfarlane, in my home State of Wyoming there is an 

abundance of domestic uranium. Yet the permitting of these sites 

has met with a lot of bureaucratic delay and red tape. These sites 

provide good paying jobs for folks in our State and other States 

where uranium is found. How if at all is the licensing of uranium 

mining going to be affected given some of your statements about 

the lack of staffing for Tier Two recommendations and the 24- 

month suspension of licensing and relicensing for new nuclear 

plants? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I don’t believe it will be affected. 

Senator BARRASSO. Can you ensure the Committee that everything is on track, including the staff and the resources for the timely processing, then, of uranium mine leases? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Let me just ask, who among you is, who on the Commission is 

closest to what is going on in Japan, in the prefecture, the areas 

around Fukushima? Can you give us an update on the status of the 

clean up there, how it is affecting the people there? Just give us 

a feel for the future of the nuclear industry in Japan. And the steps 

that they are taking to establish the kind of cultural safety that 

Commissioner Apostolakis was talking about. Who is best prepared 

to do that? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well, let me give you my brief understanding, 

and then I might turn to Commissioner Magwood, because he spent 

a lot of time there and has many close colleagues there. 

My understanding is that the government of Japan is in the 

process of making some very hard decisions about the future of nuclear power in the country. And I think in the next few months, 

we will see where they are going. At the same time, they are in 

the process of standing up a nuclear regulator. I understand that 

that is moving forward. They are in the process of populating a 

commission similar to ours. And that should be done within, I 

imagine, weeks. 

In terms of the Fukushima site, they are moving forward with 

beginning to think about taking the fuel out of the Unit 4 spent 

fuel pool, and stabilizing that building. Many of the events there, 

or activities there, will have to wait until some of these plants cool 

down and become less radioactive. 

94 

Let me turn to Commissioner Magwood. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I can offer a few things. The Chairman’s assessment is essentially correct. 

I would add a few things. First, at the Fukushima site itself, it 

is very difficult to overstate how difficult the work is going to be 

at that site. There will need to be new technologies, new methodologies created to enable them to clean this site up. And some 

of these technologies don’t yet exist. So there is a long way to go. 

However, from all the information that I have seen, the site does 

seem to be stabilized. The work is proceeding. They are continuing 

to keep the reactors cool and to treat the water they are using to 

cool the reactors. So that situation is stable. But there is a long, 

long way to go. 

The establishment of the new regulator is something that, quite 

frankly, one might have liked to have seen happen much sooner. 

But they have reached that point now. They have identified commissioners parallel to ourselves who will lead this new agency. I 

have seen the names and the roster of the people; they look like 

good people. They look like good people, so that is very encouraging. 

And the situation in the country is very difficult. The government, the regulators, the operators, all lost the confidence of the 

public. We have seen that in the form of demonstrations in the 

streets of Tokyo. So the fact that the Japanese government is now 

faced with a very, very hard decision about the future of nuclear 

power is a direct consequence of that loss of faith. That is something that, once you lose it, it is very difficult to build it back. We 

are watching the situation very closely because we have so many 

connections with Japan. All we can do is wish them the best. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much for those responses. 

I have a question, if I could, for the Chairman. I believe that our 

nuclear power plants are not required to submit their plans on how 

they intend to comply with the recent NRC orders until early next 

year. Is that true? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Sorry, I didn’t hear the beginning of your 

question. 

Senator CARPER. I believe that our nuclear power plants are not 

required to submit their plans on how to comply with the recent 

NRC orders until the early part of next year. My question is, is 

that true? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think yes, it is the early part of next year, 

and the end of this year. 

Senator CARPER. Since the NRC has issued the three orders, 

could you briefly—-and we talked about this a little bit, I just want 

to come back to it again, but can you just briefly tell us whether 

any of the operators have begun to make changes to satisfy these 

new orders at their nuclear power plants, and if so, what problems, 

if any, have they run into so far? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thanks for the opportunity. Yes, they have actually begun to institute changes. They have been buying additional equipment, additional diesel generators, in the case of a loss 

of offsite power, and additional pumps that they are staging around 

the sites themselves and offsite as well. And they are beginning 

their seismic and flooding walkdowns. 

95 

When I have met with licensees I do ask them, what are you 

learning from your seismic and flooding walkdowns. So far they report that they haven’t encountered any problems with this. 

Senator CARPER. OK, good. 

Commissioner Svinicki, if you could, do you have any sense of the 

response so far from the public regarding these orders? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, NRC has done extensive public meetings and 

outreach where we have explained the orders. We also had development of the guidance for their implementation that involved a series of meetings that were open to the public. I’m not aware of specific public concerns that were raised about how the orders were 

structured or the implementation guidance. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

We are going to have a second round, aren’t we? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thanks so much. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. Excuse me for 

leaving. But I’m glad to have the chance to come back. 

Mr. Magwood, I’m trying to evaluate in my own mind, I mentioned earlier that Sweden has this combination of nuclear and 

hydro power. Other countries have a different mix, they have renewable energy, which is intermittent, like wind is intermittent. It 

blows some of the time, and you can’t store it. 

I am trying to evaluate the effect of government policy on nuclear 

power of the government subsidies of wind power, for example. The 

government subsidy of wind power is 3.4 cents per kilowatt hour 

before tax. In the Midwest, the wholesale cost of electricity is less 

than that, 2.8 cents. So basically the government is paying the 

wind producer more than it costs to buy and sell electricity, so I 

suppose you could slip a little cash under the door of the utilities 

and pay them to take the wind power. But then what would they 

do with their nuclear plants? 

How easy is it to turn a nuclear plant off and on? Let’s say the 

wind blows at night but doesn’t blow during the peak hour, and 

you need the reliable power? How easy is it to do that? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. It is not. It is not. Nuclear plants are not designed to load follow, which is the term that is used to describe 

what you are talking about. Nuclear plants are designed to operate 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a year and a half to 2 years 

at a time without stopping. And they work best in that sort of operation. There are discussions that the new small modular reactors 

might be able to do some of this load following. But for our current 

fleet of nuclear plants, they are not designed to operate that way. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So we shut them down on purpose every so 

often for maintenance, right, what is that, 18 months or so? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. It depends on the plant, but usually it’s either 18 

months or 24 months. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So in a mix of energy generation, if you 

have a nuclear plant, your goal would be top rated, all the time, 

except when you close it down for maintenance or for some safety 

problem? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Correct. 

96 

Senator ALEXANDER. You mentioned the small modular reactors. 

Madam Chair, is the NRC planning to continue budgetary support 

for small modular reactor licensing activities? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The NRC is doing some pre-application activities, pre-design certification activities in terms of small modular reactors. We were informed by the industry, we were expecting our 

first small modular reactor design certification applications to come 

in about a year from now. So we are ready to meet that need. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Can you assure me that—we have worked 

pretty hard and came to an agreement to try to fund to assist with 

this project with the corporations over a 5-year period of time. Senator Feinstein and I are ranking on the Appropriations subcommittee that does that. Can you assure me that the money that 

we allocated for the small modular reactor program will be used for 

that purpose and not some other purpose? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Good. 

What impact does the court’s waste confidence ruling have on 

your ability to move forward with licensing a small modular reactor? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. At this point in time it should have no impact. 

The waste confidence decision issues that we have dealt with so far 

indicate that licensing activities will continue. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Would you agree with me that—or with 

many—that whether you are for or against Yucca Mountain, that 

we need to move forward as rapidly as we responsibly can to identify a repository for used nuclear fuel? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Wholeheartedly. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And as far as so-called consolidation sites, 

the President’s commission recommended that we move on parallel 

tracks to create some consolidation sites for the purpose, for example, of moving used fuel from reactors that have closed. Would you 

agree that it would be, do you agree with that recommendation to 

move along parallel tracks? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. As a member of that commission, yes, I do endorse that view. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So I stated it more or less accurately? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, you did. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Restate what you said, what the Chairman said 

was accurate. Restate that. 

Senator ALEXANDER. That we, the first part of my question was, 

whether you are for or against Yucca Mountain, do you agree we 

need to move forward to find a new repository for used nuclear 

fuel. And she said yes. 

The second part of my question is regarding what I call consolidation sites, places where used fuel from the 104 sites might be 

moved on its way to the final repository site. And the question was, 

do you agree with the recommendation of the Commission that 

while we are looking for a long-term repository, we also should be 

looking for one or more consolidation sites, which could be used, for 

example, to move fuel from reactor sites where the plant is closed 

and the fuel is still there. 

97 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, and I said that as a member of that commission, who signed that report out and endorsed that view, I still 

endorse that view. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Do you need more time? 

Senator ALEXANDER. No, I am through. But I want to make 

sure—— 

Senator BOXER. Yes, I just wanted to make sure I understood 

what the Chairman was saying, that she thinks whether you are 

for or against Yucca; in my view Yucca is dead. But we went 

through this the last time, and I am not going to—most of you told 

me it was dead the last time. 

But we do—as we look for another site, your point is, should we, 

is it wise to look for interim sites, regionally? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Before the final site is selected. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes. And we have had a lot of discussion 

about whether to call them interim or not, because in a sense they 

are not interim. Because the stuff might go there and then go to 

the final site. But then some other stuff might go to the consolidation site. But yes, that is correct. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, we will definitely be looking at the 

Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations. Thank you for that. 

I just was going to say that one of the things that is of grave concern to some States is the moving of this very toxic fuel through 

their communities. So we will definitely be looking at whether it 

is best to just let the waste stay where it is in the safest possible 

way and then move it once, not move it twice. So that is something 

that I am very open to discussing. But I know in California there 

was a lot of concern about movement, because certain States won’t 

let the waste go through the States. It was one area where California was just going to get everything. There was a lot of concern 

in my State. But this is definitely something we are going to look 

at. 

I am going to ask one question about the general issues, but then 

I am going to focus in on my California issues. So for those people 

who will find that a little bit State-centric, I will wait until the end 

to do that. But the one question I did have, it sort of piggy backs 

on Senator Barrasso. Does the NRC, Madam Chairman, have the 

resources to implement all the task force’s recommendations, including Tier Three, before the 2016 goal? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I believe we do. 

Senator BOXER. OK. That is good to hear. 

So now I am going to ask some questions that are related to the 

experience that we are going through in California with the shutdown of San Onofre. 

Chairman Macfarlane, the tubes on steam generators act as a 

barrier to the release of radioactivity that could endanger workers 

and the public if the tubes were to burst. Nuclear facilities have 

other systems that if they fail could also release radioactive material. Does the NRC automatically require a plant to amend its license if the plant makes a major structural change to one of these 

systems? Would you support the NRC examining whether plants 

should go through a license amendment process when they make 

such major structural changes to a plant? 

98 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The NRC has an oversight program that validates the day to day safety of the site. In terms of the steam generators, it is generally a licensee’s business decision whether or not 

to change a generator. I will note that 55 out of 69 pressurized 

water reactors in this country have actually changed their steam 

generators. 

Senator BOXER. I guess my question, because it is sort of two 

questions. The first question is, does the NRC automatically require a plant to amend its license if the plant makes a major structural change to one of these systems? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. If a steam generator is changed, under our 

5059 process, we allow licensees to change their steam generators 

without a license amendment, as long as they assure us that they 

have not introduced any accident scenarios, additional, different accident scenarios into the system. And we don’t do a design review 

of the steam generators. 

Senator BOXER. My concern is you have this plant that made this 

huge change. And it has led to a shutdown. So would you support 

the NRC examining whether plants should go through a license 

amendment process when they make such a major structural 

change? Because right now you’ve said they don’t have to under 

your rules. Would you take a look at that, you and your fellow 

Commissioners? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think we certainly, and the staff will certainly, definitely—they usually do this kind of thing after a situation like this, that we have at the San Onofre plant. We do reflect. 

And it wouldn’t happen right away; we would have to continue 

through the process. But we will look and see what lessons we can 

learn from this and whether we do need to implement any changes. 

So we will consider this. 

Senator BOXER. Well, let me humbly suggest that this not be 

something that is put on the back burner, Commissioners. Because 

what is happening now in California is we have lost an important 

source of power, very important source. And I have to compliment 

Commissioner Magwood when he said, what happens when the 

community loses faith. We can’t let that happen. And I will tell 

you, it has been terrible on the utility. They feel terrible about 

what is happening, and they spent a fortune. How much did they 

spend, do you remember? It was hundreds of millions, several hundred million dollars were spent. And there is a problem. 

So I would like to ask you to not give me an answer today, but 

at our next oversight hearing I am going to ask if you would consider examining the lessons learned already. We already know 

what happened. We already know that they didn’t have to get a 

new license to make structural change. And we already know what 

happened. It was terrible for the people in the community; it was 

terrible for the utility. And we still don’t know exactly why all this 

occurred. But I don’t think you should wait. 

And in respect, I would say out of concern for others in our nation, including the utilities themselves, the business people themselves, everybody, because it is already clear that they should have 

had your expertise take a look at this change. And maybe they 

wouldn’t have found anything. Maybe your great staff wouldn’t 

have found anything. 

99 

But I have a lot of confidence in them, as you do, and you all 

do, that they might have said, just a minute, this is a problem. 

So I am going to ask you not now to commit to anything, because 

I want you to think about it; maybe I am being too cautious. But 

I feel, we know enough about San Onofre. How many months has 

it been closed down already? Since the beginning of the year. And 

this is—I forget the percentage of power that comes out of this, not 

insignificant. It is pretty significant in the area. So we are missing 

that, 10 percent maybe, and nuclear is 20. So in that area, it could 

be as much as 10 percent. So this is serious business. 

And I think it underscores—I would say on this Committee, I am 

one of the people that really is pressing hard every minute to make 

sure there is safety. Because I do agree with what Senator Alexander said, for sure, that if people—he says every time we have a 

meeting, people get more confidence in nuclear power. I would say 

if they were listening to this Committee hearing, they would. I 

don’t think it is true about all the meetings we have had in the 

past. But I think we are in different ground now, with different 

leadership now; we are in difference circumstances. But somehow 

I feel we are all pulling for the same thing. This is important. 

And I just would like to see us not sit back when we have already had this problem in California; it is real. And I hope all of 

you talk about it at your next meeting, when you talk to each 

other. Maybe there is something you could put in place right now, 

an oversight review to see when somebody is making a real change 

that you get to have your good staff look at it. They may not catch 

a problem, but they may well catch a problem. 

I will turn to Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one follow up, continuing on what you were talking about, different leadership, all pulling for the same thing at this time. 

To Chairman Macfarlane, there seems to be early evidence of a 

renewed collegial environment at the NRC. We really do hope that 

continues. There were a number of issues raised by the Inspector 

General’s report related to the previous Chairman that the Commission hasn’t really been specifically asked to address. But I 

would like to ask a couple of questions. 

Since your arrival, have you taken steps to address issues raised 

by the Inspector General about the previous Chairman’s tenure? 

For example, have you initiated discussions, perhaps, to identify 

changes to the internal procedures of the Commission, to address 

the sharing of information, which was a big concern in the Inspector General’s report? What kind of agreements have you reached? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thanks for that question. 

I, as Chairman, have been talking to everyone, my fellow Commissioners, certainly, to the staff, to the managers, management in 

the staff, to all hands meetings, and expressing my values of 

collegiality and collaboration. I am very dedicated to making sure 

that all information is available to everyone, that everyone is informed of all issues in a timely fashion. I think I have been working pretty hard to make sure that that happens. 

Senator BARRASSO. I think one of the issues raised, not about 

you, but previously, is that other Commissioners were perhaps not 

as involved in conducting the agenda setting process, for meeting 

100 

the voting process, deadlines, those sorts of things. Have you been 

working together on those things as well? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, we have. And we had an agenda setting 

meeting a few weeks ago. I think it went fairly well. I think we 

came to some decisions as a group there. 

So I think so far it is proceeding well. I invite you to ask my colleagues. 

Senator BARRASSO. I will do just that, then. Anyone want to 

make any comments about these sorts of things? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator Barrasso, I think the simplest way to put 

it is that Chairman Macfarlane outlined how she intended to approach leadership under her chairmanship, the principles that she 

would follow, and she has done so. It is just that simple. We did 

have the agenda session that she just commented on. I remarked 

to her either in the session or afterwards that I felt it was a more 

collegial and open discussion as a Commission than we have had 

in some time. So I complimented her on that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Anyone else want to add? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Well, the environment now is great. I think 

this is to the Chairman’s credit. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I meet with groups of the staff quite often. It is 

interesting how often members of the staff will ask questions of 

that nature. The response I have taken to giving to staff is that 

things are very normal. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I agree with my colleague, Senator Barrasso, 

and would say, these are not just words from Allison Macfarlane’s 

perspective, they are actions. We have seen concrete steps that she 

has taken from day one to radically change the environment. 

Senator BARRASSO. That is good to hear. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Madam Chairman, I just got a copy of a letter 

that was sent before you took over from the staff that says, there 

are no resources included in the fiscal year 2012 budget and fiscal 

year 2013 congressional budget justification for Tier Three activities. So what makes you think you have adequate resources? Has 

there been a change? Have you gotten more resources? Or do you 

disagree with the staff on that point? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No, I believe that we do have adequate resources that will take us through 2013. We will not be beginning 

all activities for Tier Three in 2013. So we will have adequate resources. 

Some of these resources are personnel, and there are a limited 

number of personnel who are working on some of the Tier One and 

Tier activities who will not be freed up until after they are completed those activities. For example, seismologists. There are a limited number of seismologists in this country. 

Senator BOXER. You responded before that you would be able to 

do Tier Three in your response to me before. Your staff here before 

you got there, July 13, 2012, said there are not sufficient resources. 

So will you do me a favor? Will you please respond to me in writing? I don’t want to throw this at you. This is from Richard 

Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations. He is sitting right 

here. I think we need an answer, because your answer does not 

comport with his letter. 

101 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Sure. We would be happy to respond in writing. 

Senator BOXER. I would like to be assured that you can do Tier 

Three with the resources and how you disagree with this assessment. 

And also, I think Commissioner Magwood really said something 

important before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 

July. He was asked, what design and manufacturing flaws with 

San Onofre’s steam generators were not detected before the generators were turned on. And you said, ‘‘So when you have an outcome 

that is not satisfactory you have to take a look at the process. I 

think we should take a look at the process and see if there is something we can improve.’’ And I appreciate that. 

So I want to bring that to the Chairman’s attention. Because I 

didn’t ask you today for your answer. But it seems to me you could 

avoid a lot of these problems, when there is a major change to a 

plant, before the utilities invest hundreds of millions of dollars, 

there really should be a new reg. So I hope you will take a look 

at that, and we will discuss it the next time. 

Chair Macfarlane, in my opening statement, I talked about the 

fact that there is an open meeting scheduled in the San Onofre 

community for October. Is that firm, and is that happening, and 

who do you expect will be there leading that open process? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The meeting is set for October 9th. We are 

ironing out the final details of that. And the way that the meeting 

will go, it will be in two parts. There will be a roundtable discussion with 10 or 12 representatives from a variety of groups. And 

then the second half will be a public comment period. 

Senator BOXER. And who are the Commissioners who will be 

there? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The Commissioners will not be there. We will 

have—it will be facilitated by two NRC staff people. There will be 

the Region 4 regional administrator, I believe, will be there. And 

there will be a representative from my office as well. I am very 

dedicated to ensuring that the agency communicates very well with 

the public. 

Senator BOXER. OK, so who will brief all the Commissioners 

about the results of that hearing? Who will do that? Whose responsibility would that be? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The staff is responsible for doing that. And we 

will have either somebody from Region 4, the Region 4 office, who 

was at the meeting come. For example, yesterday the regional administrator from Region 4 came by my office to give me the latest 

update on the San Onofre facility. And I asked him specifically 

what was going to happen at this meeting. So we are in very close 

communication on this issue. 

Senator BOXER. So can I just ask Commissioners as a group, 

would you commit to being briefed by the staff, all of you, not to 

go but to be briefed by the staff? Did everybody say yes? Yes. Good. 

The other point I made in my opening statement is that I want 

to make sure that your investigation into the problems has been 

completed and that you are convinced that it is safe to operate that 

plant. Do I have your commitment that that is your aim, that you 

will not restart that plant until you believe it is safe? 

102 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. And that all the Commissioners, if any Commissioner has a problem with the safety, that you will listen to those 

Commissioners as well? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Let’s see, who’s next? Jump in here, folks; 

help me out. 

Senator CARPER. I want to thank both of my colleagues for yielding their time to me. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. That will give me a few more minutes to practice saying Apostolakis. That is one of the things I said to the 

Chairman, Mr. Apostolakis, is that I think I have served long 

enough in the Senate that I can pronounce your name easily. And 

names like Svinicki as well, and some of the easier names. But I 

am getting there. 

This is for Commissioner Apostolakis. I am just going to ask if 

you and Commissioner Ostendorff, first of all, I just want to say, 

Commissioner Ostendorff spent a lot of years in the Navy in submarines, trying not to be discovered, being very stealthy. I spent 

a lot of time in the Navy in airplanes, trying to find those 

stealthful submarines, not so much ours as the Russians. 

But when I heard you talking about a culture of safety, Commissioner Apostolakis, it reminded me very much of what we did in 

the Navy. You had it in the submarines, we had it in airplanes, a 

culture of safety. Every day, focus every day on safety, safety, safety. And the most important thing we ever did in airplanes was not 

just to find submarine or fly missions off the coast of Vietnam or 

Cambodia. The most important thing we were doing was to take of 

safely, fly safely, come back and land safely. That was it. It was 

always made clear. So I am very pleased with that culture of safety. 

One of the first hearings I ever chaired, Madam Chairman, on 

our Subcommittee on Nuclear Safety and Clean Air, was a culture 

of safety. I am pleased to hear that it is going strong. 

I want to ask Commissioner Apostolakis and Commissioner 

Ostendorff, could each of you just briefly tell us what you have 

heard. We talked about it just a little, but what you have heard 

from the nuclear industry and other stakeholders regarding NRC’s 

letters requesting information. I just want to come back and talk 

about that. What have you heard from the industry and other 

stakeholders regarding the NRC’s letters requesting information? 

Do you believe we will receive the needed information in a timely 

manner, in a timely manner for the NRC to meet its 2016 deadline? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I have not heard any significant complaints. 

As I said, there already is an aggressive schedule. From what I understand, I believe the Tier One items except possibly the order on 

the spent fuel pool instrumentation are safety significant issues. 

And they will respond, again, within the 5 years of the goal. So I 

have not heard any complaints. It is very different for Tier Three, 

though. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. 

103 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I would just add that these requests 

for information that went out in March are significant requests, 

very comprehensive, very detailed. They are challenging, I think, 

for some of the licensees, but they are important for us to make 

good decisions. So I think the industry is working very hard to 

comply with the required information in a given time period. I 

think we are watching it closely, but we are in good shape at this 

stage. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. 

Can I come back to you, Madam Chairman? Currently, the NRC 

is addressing, I believe, what we all believe to be the highest concerns, and those recommendations are considered Tier One. Can 

you just give us a little more information on what you believe will 

be the expected time lines for the lower priority but still important 

recommendations? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. As I think I said earlier, some of the Tier Two 

activities are already underway for us. And there are a couple of 

the Tier Three activities that we are already beginning to look into. 

In terms of a time line, right now we don’t have a specific time 

line, especially for the Tier Three activities. Again, it is a matter 

of resources and personnel and having the personnel be freed up 

to move on to the next activity. 

Senator CARPER. OK. I have one for Commissioner Svinicki and 

Commissioner Magwood. The NRC recently decided to suspend 

granting new and renewed regular licenses, so that the NRC could 

address the Federal court ruling regarding waste confidence, something we have touched on earlier here today. The NRC also decided 

that this process could take up to, I think, 24 months, if I am not 

mistaken. Which new reactor or renewal applications might be affected coming up between say now and 2014? How does the NRC 

intend to handle these license applications? Are either of you—either Commissioner Magwood or Commissioner Svinicki, are either 

of you concerned about what this issue might mean for future licensing of either new or existing nuclear power plants? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Senator Carper. After the court’s decision, the Commission determined a path forward. Since the court 

invalidated one of the legal underpinnings of the issuance of licenses that did require that the Commission no longer—we no 

longer had the legal basis to issue final licensing decisions. Since 

the reviews themselves can take multiple years, the Commission 

did direct that the safety and environmental reviews on other 

issues could continue in the interim. 

And in a parallel track, the Commission directed the NRC staff 

to undertake the analyses that the court in its decision found were 

missing or lacking. So we are working to remedy and substantiate 

the areas that the court’s decision found lacking. That process, we 

have estimated, will take 24 months. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thanks. 

Commissioner Magwood, do you want to add or take away? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I agree with Commissioner Svinicki’s comments. 

I would simply add that as I look at things that are approaching 

the licensing space over the next several years, obviously there are 

some things that will be delayed because of this. But I don’t believe 

there is any major disruption to either plant operation or considerVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:19 Aug 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25112.TXT SONYA
104 

ation of new nuclear power plants that will result, if we get this 

done in a 24-month period. 

Senator CARPER. Can I have one more, please? I want to pick on 

Commissioner Apostolakis again. I think Chairman Macfarlane 

mentioned hydrogen control in her opening remarks; did you? Well, 

you should have. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. They are in the written statement. 

Senator CARPER. I just want to ask Commissioner Apostolakis, 

her reference to a hydrogen control in her opening remarks—her 

opening statement, not her remarks—could you explain for those 

who might be watching or listening to this hearing who might not 

be familiar with this topic, what does the NRC actually mean by 

hydrogen control? What is the current practice in the United 

States? And what is the practice in some of the other countries who 

currently use nuclear power? Just give us a primer, call it hydrogen control 101. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Well, hydrogen is flammable. So we should not 

allow the accumulation of hydrogen gas anywhere, because then 

you will have an explosion or a big fire. And I believe we have a 

regulation, 50.44, that deals with that issue. And the intent is to 

prevent the accumulation of hydrogen or if there is hydrogen, to do 

something about it before it reaches critical mass. 

I don’t know what other countries are doing; I am sorry. 

Senator CARPER. Does anybody else want to comment on that? 

No? 

Commissioner Ostendorff. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Certainly the buildup of hydrogen, as Commissioner Apostolakis noted, is a concern. In my submarine experience, 

you don’t want the hydrogen to get above 8 percent, and the safety 

margin factor, you are never allowed to get above 4 percent assuming you only detect it by a factor of 2 error. Just as one example. 

So we had carbon monoxide hydrogen burners to remove the hydrogen from the atmosphere in the submarine, primarily associated 

with the ship’s battery. 

There are hydrogen recombiners that continually burn hydrogen 

in some of our nuclear power plants that are always functioning to 

keep it below a certain threshold. Some of the hydrogen that we 

are talking about from the explosions at Fukushima are associated 

with Zircaloy reactions. When that Zircaloy fuel became uncovered, 

high heat situation generated hydrogen. And that was—the inability of the plant to vent that hydrogen led to explosions. This has 

been a primary emphasis we have had on the reliable venting orders we put out in March for our boiling water reactors Mark I and 

Mark II. 

Senator CARPER. That was good. That was like hydrogen 101 and 

102. I thought that was very good, thank you. 

Thanks, Madam Chair. I see we have been joined by my neighbor 

from Maryland. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, we are going to call on him right now. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me thank Senator Boxer and Senator Carper both for your extraordinary leadership on this issue and related 

issues. I have been to Chernobyl, so I have seen first-hand the consequences of human error which could have been avoided, and obviously what happened in Japan tested the extremes of a natural cirVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:19 Aug 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25112.TXT SONYA
105 

cumstance. We appreciate very much the type of preparations that 

we are all doing to try to make sure that regardless of the severity 

of an external factor, we have safe nuclear facilities. 

The circumstances in Japan clearly tested our capacity and remind us that we have to manage these risks as best we can. In the 

State of Maryland we have Calvert Cliffs, which is located less 

than 50 miles from here by air. Around 3.3 million people live within the 50 miles of Calvert Cliffs. So we have a direct interest, not 

only in the State of Maryland, but as people who work in the 

Washington area, to make sure that all precautions are taken. 

I want to ask first, Madam Chair, if my entire statement could 

be made part of the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin was not received at 

time of print.] 

Senator CARDIN. I want to question another potential danger 

that was recognized several decades ago and the Commission took 

steps then by issuing regulations, which it is my understanding 

may to have been fully implemented, and that is the risk from fire 

at a nuclear plant and the impact it could have on its generation 

capacity to prevent the appropriate cooling of the nuclear material. 

Can you bring me up to date as to where we are on proper protections at our nuclear facilities from the danger of fire? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Sure, thank you very much, Senator, for that 

question. It is nice to see you again. 

Senator CARDIN. It is good to see you. Welcome to the Committee 

as a confirmed Chairman. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thank you. 

In terms of fire, the staff has issued a fire protection standard 

and is working with licensees to implement the standard. Many of 

the licensees are actively involved in the standard. I invite my colleagues to elaborate if they would like to. 

Senator CARDIN. Also, if you could comment, because I believe 

there were regulations issued several decades ago, it is my understanding that not all the power plants are necessarily in full compliance with those requirements. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. That is correct. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Fire was identified as a significant contributor 

to risk a long time ago, 30 years maybe or more. And of course the 

fire at Browns Ferry in the 1970s sensitized people to it. And at 

that time the first regulation was issued, the so-called Appendix R 

to the Code of Federal Regulations, which was very deterministic 

and based on experience. For example, cable trays should have 20 

feet of empty space between the fire barrier and so on. 

And that Appendix R turned out to be very difficult to implement, and a lot of the licensees complained. I believe we reached 

something like granting about 1,000 exemptions. And any time you 

have 1,000 exemptions that means the rule is not very good. 

So then the National Fire Protection Association, a group that 

participated in that, issued a standard which is now called NFPA– 

805, which is a combination of probabilistic and deterministic 

methods more modern than Appendix R. But it is voluntary. And 

I believe, last time I heard, 55 licensees, or around there, had 

agreed to do this. Some of them have submitted already their reVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:19 Aug 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25112.TXT SONYA
106 

evaluation of the fire risk. Our staff is reviewing those submissions. And I think it is primarily licensees that felt that implementing Appendix R for them was very difficult, or for whatever 

reason they didn’t want to do it. 

Senator CARDIN. I would just make this observation to this Committee. You have a responsibility to do everything you can for safety, and this Committee has a responsibility on oversight, and we 

work together. The tragedy you referred to I believe was in 1970. 

So it is far removed from the current thought process. 

If there were a fire at a nuclear plant that put us at risk, I would 

expect we would be having a hearing today on the first risks. I 

don’t want to have to have that hearing. I want to make sure that 

we have in place the precautions that are reasonable to mitigate 

or eliminate this risk factor. I would just ask that you keep this 

Committee informed as to how that review is taking place. 

It just disturbs me that there are nuclear power plants that are 

not in compliance with a regulation, or that there are 1,000 waivers that have been issued. You are absolutely right, we need compliance, we need regulations that provide the protection and are 

achievable. 

I would just ask, Madam Chair, that this Committee be advised 

as to the progress that you are making in this area. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Madam Chairman, the weeks after Fukushima, I wrote to the 

NRC encouraging you to work transparently, so that information 

gathered during your reviews of nuclear plants is made available 

to the public. The NRC has created a Web site. It is called Plant 

Specific Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident. 

Will you agree to keep that site up to date until all of the plants 

have implemented the NRC’s new safety requirements? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Is there any objection from other colleagues on 

that point? Excellent. That is important. 

Chair Macfarlane, in February I wrote to the NRC about safety 

issues at San Onofre plant, including the rapid deterioration of 

tubes that carry radioactive water. I asked the NRC to comprehensively review and address safety concerns at the plant. 

In July the NRC issued an interim report that you were augmenting inspection of the San Onofre plant. What is the NRC’s understanding of the causes of the problems at San Onofre, and how 

will the NRC address all of the safety issues at the plant? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The NRC is still working to understand the 

causes. We are waiting for the licensee to respond to our confirmatory action letter. 

Senator BOXER. Explain what you mean by confirmatory action. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. When the problems occurred with the plant, 

we issued, with agreement from the licensee, a confirmatory action 

letter saying that they would shut down the facility and work on 

understanding the root causes of this problem and then develop a 

way forward. So we are awaiting their response to this letter, 

where they tell us their understanding of the root causes of this 

problem. 

Senator BOXER. And they have not sent such a letter? 

107 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No. And we understand in talking with the licensee, I talked with them 2 days ago, they came by and visited, 

they told me that they will be sending this letter by the end of the 

first week in October. 

Senator BOXER. Have you heard that they want to startup parts 

of this plant? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I understand that there are two reactors 

there, Unit 2 and Unit 3. I understand that Unit 3 will likely be 

shut down for some time, unspecified. I know that the licensee is 

planning to remove the fuel from the reactor at Unit 3 this month. 

So Unit 2 is the reactor that is in play at the moment, and for 

which they will respond to the confirmatory action letter with their 

explanation of what caused the problem with the steam generator 

tubes, and a way forward. 

Senator BOXER. It is my staff’s understanding that 2 and 3 have 

similar problems. Is that your understanding? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, there are similar problems with the 

tubes. The tubes in 3 had more problems, more significant damage 

than the tubes in 2. 

Senator BOXER. But it is your understanding they have similar 

problems? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. I am assuming, because the rumors we are hearing is that they plan to start up in October. But you haven’t even 

gotten the letter back? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No. No, that is not correct. 

Senator BOXER. So you can say unequivocally that Unit 2 is not 

going to be restarted by October? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, absolutely. When we receive that letter 

from them, then we will—it will take us some time, I can’t tell you 

how long, it will take longer than days and weeks, it will be on the 

order of months, to understand whether they have understood well 

enough the root causes of the problem and to understand whether—what their plan forward is, if it is going to provide the adequate safety. 

We will not let them start up unless we are absolutely convinced 

that it is safe to operate. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that is music to the ears of the people in 

California. I am very appreciative. Is there any dissension to that 

from the Commissioners? Well, that is very important. 

Chairman Macfarlane—I am sorry, did you wish to comment? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you, Chairman. 

I just wanted to add one comment. I agree with everything 

Chairman Macfarlane said. But I wanted to highlight, this is a 

very complex, technical problem. When one of your staff joined me 

on a visit to the plant on July 22nd, we spent several hours there 

looking at what they are trying to do to bracket this flow instability 

problem. I just want to highlight, in echoing Chairman 

Macfarlane’s response, this is a very complex problem. It is one we 

have not seen before at plants in the United States. And it is one 

that is going to require significant NRC staff technical evaluation, 

depending on what the NRC receives from the licensee, and we 

don’t know what this is at this stage. 

108 

Senator BOXER. Well, I so appreciate the caution here. And it 

makes me feel comfortable that you are doing everything to make 

sure this is safe. That is why I so believe that doing what Commissioner Magwood suggested in front of the House, that we take another look at your regulations. Because what a shame that this 

money was invested in a way that turned out to be so wrong for 

the plant. Hundreds of millions of dollars. And that could have 

been—maybe it could have been stopped, had the NRC staff taken 

a look at this. 

We don’t know all the details, but it is a puzzle. Again, as I think 

about everything that has happened since Fukushima, almost the 

irony of this situation, and I know that the mindset of the Commissioners, I believe this today, is that this culture of safety has to be 

the centerpiece of what you do before you restart this plant. It just 

means everything. I think at the end of the day, it is going to give 

confidence to people going forward. 

So I have just, you will be happy to know, one last question. 

Chair Macfarlane, the Union of Concerned Scientists has reported 

that the reactors at Diablo Canyon and San Onofre are out of compliance with the NRC’s fire safety regulations and have been for 

some time now. The Union of Concerned Scientists believes the 

lack of NRC enforcement of fire safety regulations is one of the biggest threats to nuclear safety in this country. That is a very strong 

indictment they are making. 

Why does the NRC allow plants to keep operating out of compliance with these fire safety rules? That is what the Union of Concerned Scientists says. Do you agree with that? Do you allow plants 

to keep operating out of compliance with the NRC’s own fire safety 

regulations? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thank you for the question, and I appreciate 

the concern that was raised by the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

Every plant in this country is either in compliance with the fire 

safety regulations or they have taken approved or compensatory actions. 

Senator BOXER. So the NRC has provided them with an alternative to the regulations, is that correct? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I am sorry, can you repeat the question? 

Senator BOXER. So the NRC has provided an alternative to the 

regulations and some of them are operating without being in full 

compliance with the regulations? And you have given them an alternative? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We have given them potential alternative actions that they can take to make sure that they are safe in terms 

of a fire. Let me ask Commissioner Apostolakis to elaborate. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. As I said earlier, Appendix R was the original 

regional regulation that led, because of its inadequacies, to this National Fire Protection Association standard. The standard is voluntary. About 55 licensees, again, if my memory serves me, have 

agreed to enter the standard. And once they enter, they cannot get 

out. 

Now, as they find what may be inadequacies according to the Appendix R, when they are implementing NFPA–805, there is enforcement discretion. We don’t penalize them for it, as long as they 

109 

tell us what they are going to do about it and by when. These are 

minor things, and usually there are compensatory measures. 

Senator BOXER. There are what? I am sorry. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. There are compensatory measures to account 

for these weaknesses. So it is not that they don’t comply with the 

regulations. There is this period where they would be allowed to 

take action to correct whatever weaknesses they have. 

Senator BOXER. I am confused, I have to admit. Forgive me. 

So my understanding is that the NRC has fire safety regulations. 

Are these regulations or are these just an idea that you are putting 

out for power plants, if they want to do it they can do it, and if 

they don’t want to do it, they don’t have to do it? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No, there are regulations in place. 

Senator BOXER. So they are not voluntary? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No. 

Senator BOXER. So I don’t know how many are on this list here, 

but there must be 10, 20, 30, 40, how many? Seventeen States, 

about 31 reactors that are not in compliance. What I am hearing 

from you is you give them—they come forward before you with 

other ways to get you before there. And how much time do you give 

them to comply? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. To comply with the regulations? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Let me turn to Commissioner Apostolakis, or 

Commissioner Magwood. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I was going to try to give an illustration that 

might clarify this a bit. Part of the rule, the regulation that fire 

protection falls under what is called Appendix R in our lexicon. 

Under Appendix R, for example, we look for the separation of, say, 

electric control cables. Control cables would have to be a certain 

distance apart or be protected by some barrier. 

An alternative to actually moving the cables further apart might 

be to station a person at the location or to have a person check 

every half an hour at that location to make sure there is no fire 

taking place. That is a compensatory measure. That is the sort of 

thing a lot of licensees are doing. Those measures can stay in place 

for quite some time. 

Senator BOXER. I understand. Well, from what I know about my 

own, the reactors in my State, there are some personnel problems 

there by the handful. Somebody is supposed to be some place they 

are not; somebody falls asleep. 

I just want to say, this is concerning. And I don’t think you are 

all that concerned, all of you, and it is OK, it is a disagreement. 

I feel you need to get these plants up to code, in terms of, we would 

not allow this, would not allow this in a lot of areas. I will tell you 

something, I served as a county supervisor, and you had better pay 

attention to fire regulations. 

I was just at the Democratic Convention, which was great, in parentheses. And you should have seen the fire marshal there, seriously. Whoa. Get out of the aisle; I don’t care if you are on CNN, 

MSNBC, you get out of the aisle. They told Senators and everybody 

else. 

This isn’t something we should be giving them compensatory 

ways to do it, because then you are putting it in the charge of a 

110 

human being. And we know human error occurs in the best of people. 

So I guess what I would like to do is—not today, because this is 

kind of the first I have really read of this, and I thank you for this, 

I would like to work with all of you to figure out a way, A, I think 

the people in these communities ought to know that their nuclear 

power plants are not in compliance. Let them start to write letters 

and say, hey, get into gear here, and fix it up. 

I have problems. I have problems in California. I have my two 

power plants on here. We have enough problems. 

So I will tell you that I am going to work with my colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle in sending you a letter in short order that 

I think we need transparency, I think you ought to chastise these 

folks by just having a Web site and say, hey, go up and see who 

is in compliance; let’s have the good list. 

This is the thing that always gets me. There are so many people 

who are doing the right thing here. And then they look over, and 

they are spending the money making the capital improvements, 

and then you have people who are putting it off until something 

happens, and then they will have an excuse. Then they will say, 

well, the NRC said we could compensate, blah, blah, blah. 

And I don’t want to get you into that situation. So not today, but 

in the next few weeks, we will do a letter with some of our colleagues, hopefully on both sides, that just says, please bring the attention of this failure to comply with your own regulations to the 

people. Because my sense of it is the minute my city councilmen 

know and my mayors know, they are going to be on the phone to 

PG&E in the one case and SoCal in the other, saying hey, hey, we 

don’t accept this. This is not right. 

So anyway, I don’t want to end on a down note at all. I think 

we can work on this, and I really thank the staff here for all their 

work on this. We will get this done. 

But I just want to say in general, I am really happy to see the 

cooperation, the respect. You may have disagreements between 

you, and you know what? That is fine. That is part of what America is about. I don’t expect you all to agree. That is why I keep asking, do you agree, do you not. Don’t be fearful to disagree with one 

another. I think it is healthy, too. 

But I am so pleased to see the working relationship that is beginning to develop here and that personalities are meshing better. 

That is extremely important. We all want the same thing, we want 

safety first. You do, I do, everybody does, whether you love nuclear 

power, whether you hate wind power, wherever you are coming to. 

President Obama has an all of the above strategy. So it all has 

to be safe. I think most people have an all of the above strategy, 

and it all has to be safe. Whatever—whether it is natural gas or 

nuclear, solar, whatever. 

So thank you, thank you, I hope you feel as I do that we are all 

on the same page for now. We may not always be, but we are now. 

My people in California are counting on you. You stand in such an 

important place in their lives right now. I mean it, because I don’t 

have the expertise that you are going to have on this California 

plant. I am going to monitor the public meeting. My staff will be 

out there. 

111 

And I really want to thank my staff—all the staff here, both 

sides of the aisle—for helping us get ready for today. We stand in 

adjournment, and we will see you soon. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ