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

22–441 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1236 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 5, 2010 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH 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 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 5, 2010 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 4 

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 6 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 10 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 11 

WITNESSES 

Jaczko, Hon. Gregory B., Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ...... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 28 

Senator Carper......................................................................................... 30, 116 

Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse .................... 36 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Udall ............................................................................................. 40 

Senator Inhofe.......................................................................................... 45, 116 

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 88 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 94 

Svinicki, Hon. Kristine L., Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................................................................................................................ 118 

Apostolakis, Hon. George, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................................................................................................................ 119 

Magwood, Hon. William D., IV, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................................................................................. 120 

Ostendorff, Hon. William C., Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................................................................................. 121 

Meserve, Richard, President, Carnegie Institution for Science; former Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............................................. 147 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 149 

Response to an additional question from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 157 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 159 

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 160 

Bradford, Peter A., Adjunct Professor, Institute for Energy and the Environment, Vermont Law School; former Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 162 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 164 

Singh, K.P. ‘‘Kris,’’ President and Chief Executive Officer, Holtec International ................................................................................................................. 170 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 172 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 176 

Response to an additional question from Senator Voinovich ........................ 178 

Vanderheyden, George, President and Chief Executive Officer, UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC ................................................................................................ 179 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 181 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 199 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 200 

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 204 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: NUCLEAR 

REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY, Washington, DC. 

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

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Inhofe, Voinovich, Alexander, and 

Sanders. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. We can come to order. 

Good morning, one and all. Senator Inhofe and I are happy to 

welcome you. We will be joined by others of our colleagues as we 

get into this hearing. 

Senator Vitter, our Ranking Member, may be in Louisiana. I am 

not sure, but given the threats that they face, my guess is both he 

and Senator Landrieu may be down there today. 

But in any event, we are here, and we are happy that you are 

here. This is a timely hearing. I think it will be constructive. I 

think it will also be instructive, too. 

When Senator Inhofe was the Chair of the Subcommittee, he initiated a series of hearings on a regular basis to do oversight of the 

NRC and to help strengthen its ability to do its job and make sure 

they have the resources that they need. And we have attempted to 

continue that tradition, even to this day. 

Today’s oversight hearing is focused on the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission and gives us a chance to hear I think for the first 

time, at least before the Senate, from our new full complement of 

Commissioners. And we are very proud, actually, of the folks who 

serve today. We think this is a very strong group, and we are anxious to see how you act together and how you work as a team. This 

is the first chance we have had to see this. 

But I am going to make an opening statement. I am going to recognize Senator Inhofe and others who might come in. Then I will 

give a brief introduction of our witnesses, and then we will call on 

you to speak. 

But we are here today to examine the NRC to see if it is meeting 

its core principles of good regulation in the licensing of new reactors and in the oversight process of the current nuclear fleet. Over 
2 

the past 30 years the American public has dramatically shifted its 

views on nuclear energy. Every day, more Americans are recognizing that nuclear energy provides clean, reliable power and provides good paying American jobs. 

Public confidence in nuclear has risen because Americans have 

seen real clean air benefits from nuclear power. Unlike coal-fired 

plants, nuclear power does not emit dangerous air pollutants such 

as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury or even carbon dioxide, which combined can kill thousands of Americans every year. 

In fact, over the past 12 years the current nuclear fleet has prevented emissions, I am told, of 8.7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, 47.2 million tons of sulfur dioxide, and 18.9 million tons of 

nitrogen oxide into our Nation’s air. As our Nation’s energy demands grow, we are going to need more nuclear power to meet our 

clean air and our climate goals. 

Public confidence in nuclear has also risen because Americans 

have seen real job opportunities from nuclear power. As we will 

hear today, America’s nuclear manufacturers and vendors are 

growing high quality American jobs which produce parts, components and services known for quality and safety around the world. 

Building a new generation of nuclear power plants would create 

even more good paying jobs. 

According to an Idaho National Laboratory study, roughly 38,000 

additional manufacturing jobs are expected to be created in this 

country from nuclear power plants construction through the year 

2020. 

But the main reason that public confidence in the nuclear industry has grown over the past 30 years is safety. America’s 104 operating nuclear reactors have become safer. They have also become 

more efficient over the past 30 years, in fact, over the last 10 years. 

Today, the nuclear industry has one of the best safety records of 

any industry in the United States. Much of that safety record is 

due to a change in culture within the nuclear industry and due to 

the diligence of the NRC. Every nuclear power plant site receives 

a minimum of 2,000 hours of inspections by the NRC personnel 

each year, paid for by the nuclear industry and by ratepayers. The 

nuclear industry also conducts its own independent testing and 

safety reviews. 

As I like to say, if it isn’t perfect, let’s make it better. Today, we 

will explore how we might make the NRC even more effective 

through the prism of the NRC’s five founding principles of good 

regulation: independence, openness, efficiency, clarity, and reliability. There is probably an acronym for that, but I am not going 

to go there. 

In reading your testimony today, I am reminded that is an acronym for almost everything. This is probably a good point for me to 

say I don’t like acronyms. NRC is fine. We had a hearing last 

month where one of the fellows testifying in one sentence, he had 

four acronyms, each of which had other meanings in other contexts. 

So I would ask you, stay away from those acronyms, and it will 

make me a happier Chairman. 

As the oversight committee on nuclear safety, it is our job to 

make certain that safety is the No. 1 priority for the nuclear industry and for the NRC. It is also our job to make certain that the 
3 

NRC remains a strong, independent and effective regulator, a regulator that acts decisively, acts openly and transparently, and produces results and is worthy for the public’s confidence. 

Let me close by again thanking each of our witnesses for joining 

us here today. I want to thank you for your service to our country. 

It is an important and valuable service that you are performing. 

We look forward to your testimony. We look forward to the questions that will follow and the discussion that will ensue. 

And with that having been said, let me now recognize the former 

Chairman of this Subcommittee, who shares the interests of Senator Voinovich and Alexander and I on these issues. 

Senator Inhofe. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

We are here today to examine the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to see 

if it is meeting its core principles of good regulation in its licensing of new reactors 

and in its oversight processes of the current nuclear fleet. 

Over the past 30 years, the American public has dramatically shifted its views 

on nuclear energy. Every day, more Americans are recognizing that nuclear energy 

provides clean, reliable power and provides good paying American jobs. 

Public confidence in nuclear has risen because Americans have seen real, clean 

air benefits from nuclear power. Unlike coal-fired power plants, nuclear power does 

not emit dangerous air pollutants—such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury 

or carbon dioxide—which kill thousands of Americans every year. 

In fact, over the past 12 years the current nuclear fleet has prevented emissions 

of 8.7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, 47.2 million tons of sulfur dioxide, and 

18.9 million tons of nitrogen oxide into our Nation’s air. 

As our Nation’s energy demands grow, we are going to need more nuclear power 

to meet our clean air and climate goals. 

Public confidence in nuclear has also risen because Americans have seen real job 

opportunities from nuclear power. 

As we will hear today, America’s nuclear manufacturers and vendors are growing 

high quality American jobs, which produce parts, components, and services known 

for quality and safety around the world. 

Building a new generation of nuclear power plants would create even more good 

paying jobs. According to an Idaho National Laboratory study, roughly 38,000 additional nuclear manufacturing jobs are expected to be created in this country from 

new nuclear power construction through 2020. 

But the main reason that public confidence in the nuclear industry has grown 

over the past 30 years is safety. America’s 104 operating nuclear reactors have become safer and more efficient over the past 30 years. 

Today, the nuclear industry has one of the best safety records of any industry in 

the United States. And much of that safety record is due to a change in culture 

within the nuclear industry and due to the diligence of the NRC. 

Every nuclear power plant site receives a minimum of 2,000 hours of inspections 

by the NRC personnel each year, paid for by the nuclear industry and by rate payers. The nuclear industry also conducts its own independent testing and safety reviews. 

But as I like to say, if it isn’t perfect, make it better. 

Today we will explore how we might make the NRC even more effective through 

the prism of the NRC’s five founding principles of good regulation—independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, and reliability. 

As the oversight committee on nuclear safety, it is our job to make certain that 

safety is the No. 1 priority for the nuclear industry and the NRC. 

It is also our job to make certain that the NRC remains a strong, independent, 

and effective regulator. A regulator that acts decisively, that acts openly and transparently, that produces results and is worthy of the public’s confidence. 

Let me close by again thanking each of our witnesses for joining us here today. 

We look forward to your testimony and to the questions and discussion that will follow. 
4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You said something that kind of sparked a memory in me. When 

I first became Chairman of the Subcommittee, at that time, of 

course, Republicans were in the majority, the NRC hadn’t had an 

oversight hearing in 12 years. And so we started into that. I said 

a little bit about this, Mr. Jaczko, to you in my office. We set up 

something where we would have certain things that were going to 

be happening in the future, and then had oversight hearings every 

6 months, and it worked real well. 

Then along came Senator Voinovich. He was such an attractive 

addition to this Committee because when he was Governor of Ohio, 

he was kind of the expert in the Governors’ Association on air 

issues and nuclear issues. So he also has chaired this Subcommittee. So you have three of us up here now. 

I want to say welcome to our new Commissioners, particularly 

now since I have learned how to pronounce Apostolakis. And Mr. 

Magwood, it is good to see us all with a full complement here. 

Senator CARPER. Would the gentleman yield? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. If you look at the names of at least our first 

three witnesses, I think there has got to be a requirement for tough 

names in order to even be considered for this Commission. You 

don’t make it easy for us. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Acronyms might be better. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Anyway, we are beyond that now, and we are 

having these oversight hearings. We all, I think, want the same 

thing. Certainly, we up here are all united in wanting to get these 

licenses moving. We want to get deadlines adhered to. 

The Bipartisan Policy Center noted in its recent review that 

there have been problems in the process, which is not surprising 

since no one has licensed a new plant in some 30 years. And I 

share the Center’s view that both the NRC staff and the industry 

have been diligent in working through real challenges. 

They also noted, ‘‘nearly all applicants indicate that certainty in 

scheduling is more crucial than speed.’’ And I would add the word, 

something that we can anticipate is going to happen so that we 

would now. Because there are a lot of moving parts out there in 

terms of people in the financial community and others. We want 

predictability as well as certainty. 

Two and a half years have passed and NRC has yet to indicate 

whether it expects to issue any licenses. This raises questions of reliability in management. The Commission testimony states, ‘‘By 

2012, the NRC may be approaching a final decision on the first of 

the COLs.’’ Then again, it may not. That is hardly a recipe for predictable licensing. 

I am glad to hear the Commission’s high regard for the NRC 

staff and its reliability to conduct efficient, predictable and thorough reviews. The NRC staff and license applicants are laboring to 

produce safety evaluation reports and environmental reports according to schedules outlined by the NRC staff. 
5 

This part of the process is the bulk of the new plant license review that resolves the vast majority of issues and questions. I am 

pleased that there is a basic schedule for managing this large and 

complex workload. 

But following the conclusion of the staff’s review, there is no 

schedule. The NRC reliability principles state, ‘‘regulatory action 

should always be decisively administered so as to lend stability to 

the nuclear operational and planning process.’’ Let me say that 

planning the construction of $15 billion nuclear plants is a very 

complex process. How can these companies develop a construction 

schedule and plan the hiring of 3,000 construction workers if they 

don’t know when they can start? And how can investors feel confident about backing these projects if the agency itself is either incapable or unwilling to predict when it will finish its work? 

The Commission indicates in its testimony the Commission is 

fully confident that the agency can successfully and efficiently meet 

its regulatory responsibilities with regard to these matters. 

I am glad to hear that, but it is high time the Commission lead 

by example and give stakeholders a reason to have confidence. The 

NRC should make clear to the public, the applicants, and the investors how it is managing new plant licensing. They can do this 

by establishing a transparent process with complete schedules and 

milestones to measure results. And I am hoping that is exactly 

what we will do. That is kind of our challenge to you folks. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I want to start by saying welcome to our three new commissioners, Magwood, 

Ostendorff, and Apostolakis. It’s good to see the NRC with a full complement of commissioners. I appreciate Senators Carper’s and Vitter’s focus today on the NRC’s 

Principles of Good Regulation. These principles can help the public evaluate the 

NRC’s effectiveness as a regulator. I will focus my remarks on the new plant licensing process measured against the last principle: reliability. 

The NRC has been reviewing applications for new nuclear plants for over 2 and 

a half years. As the Bipartisan Policy Center noted in its recent review, there have 

been fits and starts in the process—which is not surprising since no one has licensed a new plant in 30 years. I share the Center’s view that both the NRC staff 

and the industry have been diligent in working through real challenges. 

The Center also noted, ‘‘Nearly all applicants indicated that certainty in scheduling is more crucial than speed.’’ I share that view and remain concerned with the 

lack of complete and publicly available schedules. Two and a half years have passed, 

and the NRC has yet to indicate when it expects to issue any licenses. This raises 

questions of reliability and management. 

The Commission’s testimony states, ‘‘By 2012, the NRC may be approaching a 

final decision’’ on the first COLs. Then again, it may not. That’s hardly a recipe for 

a predictable licensing process. 

I’m glad to hear the Commission voice high regard for the NRC staff’s ability to 

conduct efficient, predictable, and thorough reviews. NRC staff and license applicants are laboring to produce Safety Evaluation Reports and Environmental Reports 

according to schedules outlined by the NRC staff. This part of the process is the 

bulk of the new plant license review and resolves the vast majority of issues and 

questions. I’m pleased that there is a basic schedule for managing this large and 

complex workload. 

But following the conclusion of the staff’s review, there is no schedule. 

NRC Reliability Principles state, ‘‘Regulatory actions should always be . . . decisively administered so as to lend stability to the nuclear operational and planning 

processes.’’ Let me say that planning the construction of $15 billion nuclear plants 

is a very complex process. How can these companies develop a construction schedule 

and plan the hiring of 3,000 construction workers if they don’t know when they can 
6 

start? How can investors feel confident about backing these projects if the agency 

itself is either incapable or unwilling to predict when it will finish its work? 

The Commission indicates in its testimony, ‘‘The Commission is fully confident 

that the agency can successfully and effectively meet its regulatory responsibilities 

with regard to all these matters.’’ I’m glad to hear that, but it’s high time the Commission lead by example and give stakeholders a reason to have confidence. The 

NRC should make clear to the public, applicants, and investors how it is managing 

new plant licensing; it can do this by establishing a transparent process with complete schedules and milestones to measure results. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Voinovich. Another former Chairman. George and I have 

been working these issues for a long time. 

It is great to see you, George. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

I would like to publicly congratulate Senator Carper on doing an 

outstanding job as Chairman of this Subcommittee. I was concerned that after I did not have the chairmanship where we were 

going. And Senator Carper, as he has in the past, when I was 

Chairman of the National Governors Association, he became Chairman. He did a better job than I did. We are both active in the Jobs 

for America’s Graduates. He was Vice Chairman, then became 

Chairman. Did a better job. 

I just want to say that I am really tickled that Senator Carper 

has taken this on and is giving it the attention that it deserves, 

because it is very, very important at this time. I just want to publicly thank you, Tom, for what you are doing. 

Senator CARPER. The Chair will yield as much time as the gentleman from Ohio needs. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK, thanks. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Let me just say, I stand on the shoulders of 

those who came before, both in the NGA and Jobs for America’s 

Graduates, on this Committee and Subcommittee. It is just a joy 

to work with George. 

Senator INHOFE. Lamar, you and I are left out of this thing 

aren’t we? 

Senator ALEXANDER. So far. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Not for long. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Anyhow, I would like to welcome the Commissioners and the panelists, and I look forward to hearing your 

testimony. 

It is heartwarming to see we have a full panel today, five Commissioners. And I made a promise to a former Commissioner, a 

man by the name of Ed McGaffigan. And he was on his last legs, 

and he came to see me in my office. And he made me promise that 

I would continue to take an interest in the NRC as much as I had 

been, and that I would do everything in my power to make sure 

that we had outstanding people as Commissioners. 

And Mr. Chairman, I am very, very proud of the people that are 

sitting in front of us. They are an outstanding group of individuals 
7 

and we are lucky to have the quality of individuals that we have 

that are on the Commission. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have spent the better part of 10 

years involved in shaping nuclear energy policy for the country. 

During that time, the Committee has focused a great deal of time 

and effort on oversight of the NRC. We did this primarily to make 

sure it was doing its job ensuring the safety and security of our Nation’s nuclear plants, but also to ensure that the NRC was ready 

to meet the challenge of enabling a nuclear renaissance in this 

country. 

I take great pride in the fact that this Committee has helped the 

NRC become one of the best and most respected regulatory agencies in the world. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then 

the world is paying NRC a very high compliment because most of 

the countries in the world today adopt the NRC standards and 

practices. 

On a personal note, I was at the Santa Fe Seminar on Nuclear 

Energy in November of last year. I met with the Japanese representatives. They sought me out just to let me know how much 

they thought of our NRC and the fact that they thought it was the 

gold standard in the world. 

We worked very hard as a Committee to place the right people 

on the Commission, and I have already talked about that. The 

thing that I am also very proud of is that the NRC, and I don’t 

know if the Commissioners know that, is known as the best place 

to work in the entire Federal Government, the best place to work. 

Nevertheless, the Committee and the NRC have got to remain 

vigilant. Although the operating performance of today’s plants has 

continued to improve, both industry and the NRC must remain focused on safety, or we are going to lose the public support for nuclear power. Just see what has happened now with that oil rig 

down there and what it has done to the people’s feeling about going 

after more oil. 

For those at the hearing, I want to reinforce that we all understand that nuclear safety is a global issue. A reactor accident anywhere in the world will greatly affect public support for nuclear 

power here in the United States. This means that industry and the 

NRC cannot be inwardly focused on the U.S. and instead must 

monitor developments internationally and coordinate safety information with the appropriate nuclear authorities. 

Enhancing public support is absolutely essential for the rebirth 

of this industry. 

And our country does need nuclear power. I like to tell people nuclear is a three-fer. It provides the reliable baseload electricity our 

country demands. People forget about that. It is 20 percent of our 

energy; 70 percent of our clean energy comes from nuclear. It will 

help us reach our goal of reducing carbon emissions and it will 

strengthen our manufacturing base and create good paying jobs. 

Mr. Chairman, I wasn’t aware of how many jobs it is predicted 

they are going to have during the next 10 years. 

As demonstrated by President Obama’s recent call for increased 

use of nuclear power in the State of the Union Address and the 

DOE’s fiscal year budget for 2011, an additional $36 billion for nuclear loans are going to be provided. I think that momentum is 
8 

building and the policy environment in the U.S. is shifting toward 

the growth of nuclear power. 

The Bipartisan Center, Senator Inhofe, you mentioned what they 

did. They came back with a pretty darn good evaluation of both sitting down and looking at the Commission and getting opinions. 

And Chairman Jaczko, I want to commend you for the great job 

that you are doing as the leader there. The fact that people looking 

over your shoulder have said, hey, these people are trying to do the 

right job. And although there are still things that need to be done, 

and my suggestion would be they have some suggestions. And I 

know in your response, you indicated that we start to look at some 

of those in 2011. 

I would really like to particularly look at the environmental studies that have to be made to try and make sure that whoever does 

that has got the gear to get that job done. 

I am also hearing from CEOs of companies that are very interested in new plants, not just for new large light water reactors but 

also for the SMRs. And we met recently with American Society of 

Nuclear Scientists. They talked about how we have fallen behind 

after Three Mile Island, and that we have this excellent opportunity to get back in the business with these modular units, and 

particularly in light of the fact that the cost of the big ones is almost prohibitive, that this is a wonderful opportunity for our country and also to not only create jobs but get back in the international marketplace. 

And that is one of the things that I am hoping that the Commission will look at to see where we are juxtaposed, say, with China. 

China is trying to get into the business, and others are. Where are 

we? And how can we recapture our leadership in this area? 

Mr. Chairman, I have spoken too long and exceeded my time, but 

I am just excited to be here today, and Brother McGaffigan is looking down at us now, and he has a big smile on his face. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Chairman Carper, thank you for holding this hearing. I would like to welcome the 

NRC Commissioners and industry panelists, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. I note with pleasure that we have a full complement of Commissioners for 

the first time in several years. 

I want to share with you at the outset that I had made a promise to a friend of 

mine, the late Commissioner Ed McGaffigan, who I greatly respected for his service 

and contributions to our country. I had promised him that I would take care of NRC 

and ensure that the NRC Commissioner positions would be filled with high quality 

people, people who were dedicated to enabling the safe use of nuclear materials in 

the U.S. I am pleased to say that I have now been able to honor my promise to 

Ed McGaffigan. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have spent the better part of the last 10 years in 

the Senate involved in shaping nuclear energy policy for this country, mainly as 

Chairman or Ranking Member on this Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee. 

During that time, this Committee focused a great deal of time and effort on oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). We did this primarily to make 

sure it was doing its job of ensuring the safety and security of our Nation’s nuclear 

power plants but also to ensure that the NRC was ready to meet the challenge of 

enabling a nuclear renaissance in this country. 

Mr. Chairman, I take great pride in the fact that this Committee has helped the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission become one of the best and most respected regulatory agencies in the world. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then the 
9 

world is paying NRC a very high complement, because most of the countries in the 

world today adopt the NRC’s standards and practices. 

On a personal note, I was at the Santa Fe Seminar on Nuclear Energy in November of last year, and the Japanese representatives sought me out to tell me what 

they thought of NRC. They were very complimentary, calling NRC approval of procedures or designs the ‘‘gold standard’’ in the nuclear industry. 

We have worked very hard as a Committee to place the right people on the Commission, provide the NRC with the right resources and tools necessary to do its job, 

and hold them accountable for results. I believe we have been very successful in this 

endeavor, and at the same time we have created the positive environment necessary 

for a high performing organization. I think we should take great pride in the fact 

that NRC continues to be ranked as ‘‘the best place to work’’ among large Federal 

agencies. 

Nonetheless, both this Committee and the NRC must remain vigilant. Although 

the operating performance of today’s plants has continued to improve, both industry 

and NRC must remain focused on safety, or we will lose public support for nuclear 

power. For those at this hearing, I want to reinforce that we all understand that 

nuclear safety is a global issue. A reactor accident anywhere in the world will greatly affect public support for nuclear power here in the U.S. This means that industry 

and the NRC cannot be inwardly focused on the U.S. and instead must monitor developments internationally and coordinate safety information with the appropriate 

nuclear authorities. Enhancing public support is absolutely essential for a rebirth 

of the nuclear industry. 

And our country does need nuclear power. I like to tell people nuclear is a threefer: it provides the reliable, base load electricity our country demands; it will help 

us reach our goal of reducing carbon emissions; and it will strengthen our manufacturing bases and create good paying jobs. As demonstrated by President Obama’s 

recent call for increased use of nuclear power in his State of the Union address and 

the DOE’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for an additional $36 billion for nuclear 

loan guarantees, I think that momentum is building, and the policy environment in 

the United States is shifting toward the long awaited growth in nuclear power. 

The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) issued its independent assessment report of 

the new reactor licensing process on April 6, 2010. This was a very positive report. 

The Center’s assessment was that the NRC and industry have done a remarkable 

job under trying circumstances during this initial licensing of new nuclear power 

plants. It speaks very well for making the nuclear renaissance in the U.S. a reality. 

I’d like to commend Chairman Jaczko and the NRC Commissioners, the NRC staff, 

and the nuclear industry for their coordinated effort and hard work demonstrated 

to date. Keep up the good work. 

While the BPC report is very encouraging, we must keep the momentum going. 

I am very concerned that we are allowing our global leadership in nuclear power 

to erode. I have been informed that we have actually fallen behind in this key U.S. 

technology—reportedly China is breaking ground on building a new fleet of reactors 

as we speak. 

I am hearing from the CEOs of companies that they are very interested in new 

plants, but not just for new large light water reactors similar to today’s plants. They 

are also very interested in the development of small modular reactors (SMRs) that 

are more affordable and adaptable to the specific needs of a company. SMRs represent a whole new area where America can regain its leadership role and export 

our technology, and as such they represent a very unique and important opportunity 

for us. In particular, the SMRs of light water reactor technology build upon our expertise from small Navy nuclear reactors and represent a near-term, high technology growth industry for the U.S. 

I have met with Mr. Steven Chu, the Secretary of the Department of Energy, and 

DOE is very much trying to support the nuclear renaissance, including the development of these new SMRs. I believe that many of the pieces of the nuclear puzzle 

are being put into place, which makes it a very exciting time for those at this hearing. 

In summary, I believe that today’s oversight hearing is a very important one. I 

urge all of us to continue to maintain our focus on the safety of operating reactors 

while we thoughtfully address the challenges remaining to enable the development 

of a technology so vital to America’s future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from our distinguished 

panelists. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for invoking that name, George. 

Among the things that unite the four of us on this side of the 

dais is our interest in reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 
10 

oxide and mercury. And the four of us have probably worked as 

hard as anybody in the Senate on those issues. One of the things 

that draws us together is the realization that nuclear power done 

right can help us reduce those emissions and do a lot of other good 

things as well. 

I am very pleased to be able to partner with Lamar Alexander 

on this issue as we work, and I think are coming closer to finding 

common ground with Senator Inhofe and with Senator Voinovich. 

Lamar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I salute Senator Carper for his leadership on clean air, and Senator Voinovich’s years of work on the subject, and Senator Inhofe’s 

leadership on the subject. And that was a very important statement that you made in the last month and should make a great 

difference. 

This hearing is taking place in the shadow of an oil spill that 

may turn out to be our worst. We are also aware of other recent 

tragedies: coal mine explosions in Virginia, natural gas plant explosions in Connecticut, a billion gallons of coal ash in Tennessee. 

So when we talk about the risks of nuclear power, I think it is 

important that we compare then with risks of other forms of energy. I believe nuclear has something to teach other forms of energy. 

Overall, the nuclear industry has an outstanding safety record. 

There have been accidents at nuclear power plants. We all think 

of Three Mile Island, but it is important in light of what is happening this week in the Gulf to remember that that was a partial 

meltdown. The containment systems worked. It released a non-hazardous radioactive gas. There were no health effects of damage to 

the environment that I am aware of from Three Mile Island. 

The latest figures from OSHA show that working in the nuclear 

industry is safer than working in finance, insurance and real estate. You are safer doing maintenance or engineering work on a 

nuclear reactor than you would be sitting in front of a computer 

terminal trying to figure out how derivatives work. 

Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, and who is now a 

prominent supporter of nuclear, says he wouldn’t mind living in a 

nuclear reactor, which should be no surprise to sailors who have 

been doing that since the 1950s without a nuclear reactor accident 

in the United States. So we can be proud of that. But we shouldn’t 

be complacent. We have all seen what happened in the Gulf this 

week. We don’t want that to happen in the nuclear industry. 

I would like to move along the certifications and licenses. I believe climate change is a problem. I think nuclear is the preferred 

solution for carbon-free electricity, but I want to make sure we do 

that as safely as possible. And as we examine this today and in 

other hearings, I want to make sure we weigh the dangers of nuclear against what might replace it. 

Twenty-four thousand people die, according to the Environmental 

Protection Agency, every year from coal plant emissions. I mentioned other tragedies that we have seen. Well, here is another ex-
11 

ample. We are horrified by what we see that may be happening to 

water fowl in the Gulf of Mexico, but a major oil company was 

fined $600,000 under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for the death 

of 85 birds not long ago. But the American Bird Conservancy says 

that wind turbines are killing 275,000 birds a year, just the ones 

we have, and what if we had the 180,000 wind turbines that it 

would take to produce 20 percent of our electricity? 

And as we think about the new big wind farm in Cape Cod, in 

scenic Nantucket Sound, we should remember that we can compare 

other costs and benefits. It will produce about the same amount of 

electricity, although it covers an area the size of Manhattan Island, 

that one small modular reactor would produce more reliably and 

over the long term, I believe, at a cheaper cost. 

I am enormously pleased with the President’s appointments to 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I am glad to have strong, sensible members of the Commission, all of them here, who are not 

afraid of nuclear power and who are not afraid to keep it safe. That 

is what we want. 

At the same time, the rest of the world has moved ahead of us. 

There are 56 reactors being built around the world in many countries. Only one is about to start in the United States, and one 

hasn’t started for 30 years. If we were going to war, we wouldn’t 

put our nuclear Navy in mothballs, and if we are serious about 

clean energy, we shouldn’t put our nuclear power plants in mothballs, either. 

So I congratulate the Chairman on holding this hearing. I would 

think one of our major responsibilities would be oversight of nuclear power, as committed as we all are to its success and as committed as we all are to its safety. So I look forward to spending 

whatever time you think is necessary, Mr. Chairman, in other 

hearings and meetings as we try to help the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission do its job. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Alexander, thank you very, very much. 

Again, we welcome our panelists today. Our lead-off hitter is the 

Chairman, Chairman Jaczko, and he will be followed by Commissioner Svinicki. 

And we have been joined by Senator Sanders. You slipped in on 

me, pal. Welcome. You are recognized. Please proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will 

be brief. 

My views are a little bit different than Senator Alexander’s, so 

let me give you the other side of the story. The other side of the 

story is that in the State of Vermont, Senators and members of the 

Commission, we have had a significant number of problems with 

the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, which is an old plant 

and had a radioactive tritium leak that started in January at levels 

many times higher than EPA’s standard for drinking water. 

Tritium is known to cause cancer and birth defects, and although 

no tritium has been detected in area drinking water there is evidence that tritium has leaked into the Connecticut River, a major 
12 

river between Vermont and New Hampshire. And the entire crisis 

has severely undermined public confidence in the plant. No question about that. I think if you asked the people of the State of 

Vermont today how they feel about the Yankee nuclear power 

plant, I think there is overwhelming distrust of the plant. 

And this is in part because Entergy, the operator of the plant, 

misled State officials and the public as to the existence of underground pipes at the plant that carried radioactive material. They 

had denied that to members of the State legislature. 

As you may know, I in fact strongly support the bipartisan decision of the Vermont State Senate, which under Vermont law voted 

26 to 4, not a close vote, not to extend the operations of Vermont 

Yankee beyond 2012. The vote was 26 to 4 in the Vermont State 

Senate. 

Vermont is showing the Nation that we do not need nuclear but 

that we can in fact rely on energy efficiency and sustainable energy. And if there is anything that I think the disaster in the Gulf 

should remind us, it is that technology as risky as offshore drilling 

or in fact nuclear cannot be 99.9 percent safe. That is not good 

enough. And I think there are other ways to address our energy 

needs. 

Vermont is a leader in the Nation on energy efficiency. For 3 consecutive years—and I want to underline this point, and I hope my 

colleagues hear this—we have reduced our electricity consumption 

thanks to cost effective energy efficiency, and our people don’t live 

in caves. Our economy is quite as robust, or not robust given the 

recession, as any other economy. 

In Burlington, where I was Mayor from 1981 to 1989, we now 

have a lower unemployment than we do nationally. And today we 

use—and I want to underline this point, Mr. Chairman—in Burlington, Vermont, we use only 1 percent more electricity today than 

we did in 1989. And Burlington is a normal functioning city. 

And let me put this hearing in the proper context. If over the 

next 10 years every State in the Union cut their electric consumption by 1.5 percent per year, a rate slightly less aggressive than 

what Vermont achieves today, we could by 2020, according to analysis by the American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy, reduce peak electric demand by 117,000 megawatts, 117,000 

megawatts. That would save—and I want my colleagues to hear 

this—more power than the entire capacity of the existing United 

States nuclear power plant fleet. How is that? That is what energy 

efficiency could do, and would save consumers $168 billion on their 

bills while creating hundreds and hundreds of thousands of new 

jobs. 

Now, I know there are disagreements in this Committee about 

the importance of nuclear, about what we should do in the future. 

I would argue, and I think we have charts here to show this, that 

if you want new energy creation in the United States, you know 

what? Nuclear is the most expensive way to go, the most expensive 

way to go. You want to build new power? Go to solar. Go to wind. 

Go to geothermal. Do not go to nuclear. 

And I would just conclude by simply saying this, and I am not 

a fear monger here, but I would argue that if people are so pronuclear, they may want to volunteer to replace Yucca Mountain. 
13 

The people of Nevada have spoken pretty clearly through their 

Democratic and Republican Senators here. They don’t want the 

waste. And I don’t know if Tennessee wants the waste. I don’t 

know if Ohio wants the waste. I don’t know if Oklahoma wants the 

waste, but you may stand up and say you want a Yucca Mountain 

in your State. 

But we have not solved the waste problem. You are looking at 

an expensive form of technology, and I worry about the safety hazards, and there are cheaper and more effective ways to go forward 

to solve our energy crisis. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much. We could probably debate these issues for a while, but the purpose of the hearing is to 

hear from our witnesses and have a good conversation with all of 

you. While we may not agree entirely on this panel on the role of 

nuclear energy and the future of nuclear energy in this country, I 

think maybe we do agree that the cleanest, most affordable form 

of energy is the energy we never use. 

So that I think will unite us, and with that having been said, I 

again will call on Chairman Jaczko to be out lead-off hitter as the 

Chair. We will ask you to keep your comments to about 5 minutes, 

please, and then you will be succeeded by Commissioner Svinicki, 

by Commissioner Apostolakis, by Commissioner Magwood, and by 

Commissioner Ostendorff. 

So I think the Chairman is going to take about 5 minutes. I 

would ask the other Commissioners to take about 3 minutes. And 

if you run a little bit over that, that is OK. If you run a lot over 

that, that is not OK, so we will rein you back in. 

Chairman Jaczko, please proceed. Your entire statement will be 

made part of the record. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GREGORY B. JACZKO, CHAIRMAN, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. JACZKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you 

and to the other Members of the Subcommittee. 

The Commission, including my colleagues, Commissioners 

Svinicki, Apostolakis, Magwood and Ostendorff, is pleased to appear before you today. And I want to thank the Subcommittee as 

well as the full Committee for your support and leadership in the 

recent confirmations of our new Commissioners. 

With the benefit of their added expertise and insights, the Commission stands fully prepared to continue to vigorously advance the 

NRC’s mission of protecting public health and safety, ensuring the 

common defense and security, and protecting the environment. 

The agency’s critical mission entails broad responsibilities. We 

currently license, inspect and assess the performance of 104 operating nuclear power plants as well as many fuel cycle facilities and 

research and test reactors. Furthermore, nuclear materials are in 

use at thousands of hospitals, universities and other locations 

around the country. 

The NRC staff, which provides oversight of our licensees, is now 

nearly 4,000 employees strong. And the Commission is continually 

impressed by the staff’s expertise, experience and commitment to 

public service. 
14 

The NRC team has remained united by a common set of organizational values and principles of good regulation, as the Chairman 

stated in his remarks. Those values and principles guide the NRC 

in accomplishing its mission, engaging the public, licensees and 

other stakeholders openly and transparently, and pursuing excellence in all aspects of the NRC’s work. 

The last few years has been a time of dramatic change for the 

agency, during which the number of NRC employees has grown by 

more than 25 percent and the size of the NRC budget has increased by more than 50 percent. To accommodate this growth and 

reconsolidate the headquarters staff, construction will soon begin 

on the NRC’s new 14 story office building adjacent to our current 

headquarters. This would not have been possible without the support of this Subcommittee, so I want to personally thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, Senator Voinovich, and the other members of the Subcommittee for providing the support to accomplish that significant 

milestone. 

To maintain the agency’s strong oversight programs, the NRC is 

focused on making progress on longstanding technical issues and 

safety issues as well as addressing emerging issues in a proactive 

and effective way. In recent months age-related degradation has attracted widespread public attention in the context of buried piping 

and tritium. This is a public confidence issue that requires that 

both the NRC and licensees continually listen to people’s concerns 

and effectively communicate what the risks are and what is being 

done in response to these leaks. 

The agency has also not lost sight of its critical security mission. 

A major power reactor security rule went into effect in March of 

this year that addresses issues such as physical barriers and detection and assessment systems. 

The NRC has also worked collaboratively with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to coordinate our roles and responsibilities for implementing cybersecurity requirements. 

The agency is also committed, consistent with our principles of 

good regulation, to ensuring that any new reactors are licensed, 

constructed and operated in accordance with the NRC’s safety, security and environmental regulations. At the present time, the 

agency is actively reviewing 13 combined license applications for 22 

new reactors under the Part 52 licensing process. 

By 2012 the NRC may be approaching a final decision on the 

first combined license application for new reactors, as well as making final decisions about the operation of the Watts Bar Unit 2 nuclear power reactor. 

The Commission is fully confident that the agency can successfully and effectively meet its regulatory responsibilities with regard 

to these matters, and do it in a way that is consistent with the 

principles of good regulation. 

One need look no further than the NRC’s existing licensing processes to see that the agency knows how to do licensing reviews. We 

complete approximately 1,500 reactor licensing actions and tasks 

per year. 

The agency is also actively preparing for the licensing and other 

regulatory work related to the advanced generation of reactors, 
15 

such as the small modular reactor which Senator Voinovich referred to. 

And finally, the NRC has also seen greater interest in the construction of uranium recovery and enrichment facilities. The agency has a strong regulatory framework in place for ensuring that 

these facilities are constructed, operated and decommissioned in a 

safe, secure and environmentally sensitive manner. 

The significant issues that I have discussed today make it all the 

more important that the NRC continue to advance its mission in 

an open and transparent way, and the Commission is committing 

to doing so. 

Over the past few months, the NRC has moved forward with implementing the President’s Open Government Directive. Greater 

openness and transparency, I believe, will build public confidence 

in the agency by highlighting the agency’s strengths, the experience, expertise and dedication of the NRC staff, and the vitality of 

the members on the Commission itself. 

So on behalf of my fellow Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee. We look forward to 

continuing to work with you to advance the NRC’s important mission of protecting public health and safety and the environment. 

And we would be pleased to respond to any questions that the 

Subcommittee may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jaczko follows:] 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Commissioner Svinicki, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairman Carper, Senator Inhofe and members 

of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 

you to discuss the NRC’s principles of good regulation and how the 

NRC is meeting these principles. 

Originally issued by the Commission in 1991, the principles are 

intended as a guide to agency decisionmaking and the individual 

conduct of NRC employees. They are described as fundamental 

guideposts in ensuring the quality, correctness and consistency of 

our regulatory activities. I believe these principles articulate the 

standards by which the regulated community and the broader public should judge the NRC as a regulator charged with ensuring the 

public trust. 

The first principle, that of independence, calls for the highest 

possible standards of ethical performance and professionalism but 

notes that independence does not imply isolation. All available 

facts and opinions must be sought openly. Conflicting public interests must be considered, and final decisions must be based on objective, unbiased assessments of all information, and documented 

with reasons explicitly stated. 

The second principle, openness, describes nuclear regulation as 

the people’s business. The public must have the opportunity to participate in regulatory processes and open channels of communication must be maintained. 

The third principle, that of efficiency, notes that the American 

taxpayer, the rate paying consumer and licensees, are entitled to 

the best possible management and administration of regulatory activities, which should also be consistent with the degree of risk reduction that they achieve. Regulatory decisions should be made 

without undue delay. 

The fourth principle, clarity, calls for regulations that are coherent, logical and practical. Agency positions should be readily understood and easily applied. 

The fifth and final principle, reliability, states that regulatory actions should always be fully consistent with regulations and should 

be promptly, fairly and decisively administered so as to lend stability to the nuclear operational and planning process. Most importantly, this principle supports the objective that once established, 

regulations should be perceived to be reliable and not unjustifiably 

in a state of transition. 

In issuing the principles of good regulation, the NRC has offered 

to be judged against them. Where we fall short, the Congress and 

the public should challenge us to do better, as they sometimes 

have. Where we can further improve an already good process, we 

should seek to do that as well. 

I appear before you this morning for the first time alongside the 

three new Commissioners to whom the Senate gave its unanimous 

support. I am honored to have colleagues of such caliber join the 

Commission and look forward to working with each of them. I am 
119 

also grateful for this Subcommittee’s sustained interest in and support of the important work of the NRC. 

When I sat before this Committee for my nomination hearing, 

the Senators described for me the many issues and concerns that 

would face the NRC in fulfilling its responsibilities. With 2 years 

of service now behind me, I can report to you that I have a deep 

appreciation for the complexity of issues facing the NRC. Addressing the agency’s current significant workload and doing so while 

fulfilling our principles of good regulation is a real and significant 

challenge. 

The work before us will require the best efforts that we have to 

apply to it, both from the NRC staff and from the Commission 

itself, but the public and the importance of our mission demand no 

less. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Ms. Svinicki. 

Commissioner Apostolakis, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS, COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Good morning, Chairman Carper and members of the Subcommittee. I thank the Committee for supporting 

my confirmation as Commissioner. I was sworn in on April 23 and 

I have been on the job for all of 7 days. 

I also thank you for holding today’s meeting to examine the 

NRC’s core principles of good regulation and how the NRC is meeting these principles in licensing new reactors and oversight processes for the current nuclear fleet. 

I would like to add a few thoughts about the ways in which risk 

information contributes to these core principles. Risk information 

has been crucial in the development of a successful reactor oversight process for the current fleet. It focuses our attention on items 

important to safety and allows us to respond to inspection findings 

in a way that is commensurate with their safety significance. This 

process has clearly contributed to openness, efficiency and clarity. 

We are currently considering proposals for the development of 

risk informed and performance based revisions to the oversight 

process for fuel cycle facilities. Thus, the Commission may be able 

to advance the principles of good regulation through greater use of 

risk information and analysis in the oversight of these facilities 

also. 

In the context of licensing new reactors, an important activity 

that deserves to be mentioned is the interaction of our staff with 

the Department of Energy to develop a licensing plan for the next 

generation nuclear plant. As reported to Congress in 2008, this licensing process is to be risk informed and performance based to the 

extent justified by the quality and completeness of the associated 

Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) design specific probabilistic risk assessment. This effort is to be a significant step toward meeting the direction of the Energy Policy Act to ‘‘develop 

risk based criteria for any future commercial development of a 

similar reactor architecture.’’ 
120 

It could also contribute to the development of a technology neutral licensing process which would make future licensing more effective and efficient. 

Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Apostolakis. 

Commissioner Magwood, welcome. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD, IV, 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Subcommittee. I am pleased to join you today as a member of 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I thank you for your support during my recent confirmation, and I wanted you to know that 

my colleagues and I have been working as a team. As a matter of 

fact, Commissioner Ostendorff and I were sworn in at a joint ceremony on April 1 as a symbol of our joint activities together. And 

actually, we are planning to take a trip together next week. 

This Commission comes together at a time when the Nation’s interest in expanded use of nuclear energy is at a new high, and the 

agency’s workload has increased substantially. In addition to our 

existing responsibilities for overseeing nuclear power plants, the 

NRC is actively reviewing combined license applications for 22 new 

reactors, 19 operating reactors are getting new license renewals, 

and applications for power upgrades at 16 plants across the country are currently under review. 

We as a Commission would be unable to address these crucial 

issues without the dedicated and talented staff at NRC. Since my 

confirmation, I have had the opportunity to meet with many of the 

staff and been impressed by the breadth of their experience, the 

depth of their commitment to public health and safety. With this 

panel’s support, Chairman Jaczko and his immediate predecessor, 

former Chairman Klein, have presided over a very substantial expansion of the agency staff that will enable us to meet our responsibilities in a timely manner. 

In addition, I applaud Chairman Jaczko’s efforts to guide this increase in staff while helping to ensure the agency makes no compromises on our Nation’s high standards for safety, security and 

environmental protection. 

In my brief time with the Commission, I have come to believe 

that the development of strong safety cultures is an essential element for the success of all NRC licensees. Without a strong safety 

culture, even the best technology can fail to protect the safety of 

workers, the public and the environment. 

Management at both power reactors and materials licensees 

must continually focus on creating the right type of work environment, one that is open and collaborative and allows employees to 

voice dissenting views, which by the way, Senator Voinovich, is a 

value that Commissioner McGaffigan emphasized during his tenure. I hope to make development of increasing safety cultures a 

central theme of my tenure on the Commission. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform you that I have decided to publish the calendar of my meetings with external groups 

such as utilities and nongovernmental organizations on a monthly 

basis on the agency’s Web site. While this information can be illu-
121 

minating, this raw data about which groups with which a Commissioner meets can be easily misunderstood and mischaracterized. 

Because of these risks, I neither encourage my fellow Commissioners to take this step, nor do I wish my decision to be viewed 

as a precedent. 

However, as the Commissioner who created the Nuclear Power 

2010 program in a previous position with the Government, I feel 

I have a special obligation to provide this extra measure of transparency. 

With that, I thank you for your time and look forward to answering any questions you have today. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Magwood. 

Commissioner Ostendorff, welcome. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe, 

members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to be here 

today. 

I also thank the Committee for its support in the confirmation 

process. I applaud the Committee’s objective to discuss NRC’s core 

principles of regulation and how NRC is meeting these principles 

in the licensing process. 

I have been a Commissioner for just over 1 month. In that time, 

I have had the chance to get out in the field and visit various locations. I have seen NRC staff at the headquarters in Rockville, 

Maryland. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Ostendorff, would you bring that microphone just a little closer to your lips please. Thanks. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Is that better? 

Senator CARPER. That is just fine. Thanks. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I am sorry. 

I have visited Region I up in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; Region II in Atlanta; and the Technical Training Center in Chattanooga. 

Since I am a newcomer to the commercial nuclear industry, I 

have made the effort to get out by visiting regulated facilities. I 

have gone to two power reactors at Watts Bar Unit 1 in Tennessee; 

Hope Creek in New Jersey; a power reactor under construction at 

Watts Bar Unit 2; a research reactor at the University of Rhode 

Island; a blood irradiator facility in Providence, Rhode Island; and 

a commercial food irradiator in New Jersey. 

I would like to share some very brief observations of my impressions from those visits. From what I have observed, the NRC’s 

principles of good regulation are being followed. However, it is important to avoid complacency, as you have noted, and it is important to continuously focus on improvement. 

I have been very impressed with NRC staff. The resident inspectors, project managers, technical reviewers, operator license examiners, and managers that I have met have demonstrated high levels of competence, enthusiasm and commitment to the NRC’s mission. 
122 

I have also observed a very open and collaborative work environment from thoughtfully taking lessons learned and using them to 

improve the agency. It is evident that the NRC invests in its people, and I am honored to part of that team. 

With over 31 years of Federal service, including military experience, experience with the House Armed Services Committee and 

Department of Energy, in comparison, my initial impression is the 

NRC is very open in how it performs its regulatory functions. The 

NRC goes to great lengths to make our documents publicly available via the Web sites, to listen to views of external stakeholders 

during meetings, and to communicate the basis of our activities to 

the public and other parties. 

I would like to note how professional the NRC team has worked 

and evolved its existing reactor oversight process using stakeholder 

feedback and lessons learned. 

Therefore, I am confident that in a similar fashion, the NRC and 

its staff will capture feedback and lessons learned, including the insights provided by the Bipartisan Policy Center to improve the 

NRC’s processes for licensing new reactors. 

In closing, I again thank the Subcommittee for its support. I look 

forward to answering your questions. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much, Captain Ostendorff. Nice to 

have you on board today. 

Looking over your left shoulder, I see a fellow that I think Senator Sanders and I once served with for a number of years in the 

House, Jim Saxton sitting down in the front row. 

Congressman Saxton, it is very nice to see you, and welcome. 

I want to start off by just asking a quick question. Don’t spend 

a lot of time on this, but how are the five of you coming together 

as a team? 

We will just start, Commissioner Ostendorff, with you. How are 

you all coming together as a team? Three new people. We think it 

is an excellent, excellent line up of Commissioners, but how is it 

coming together? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I think it is coming together very well, Mr. 

Chairman. We meet one on one to share views with each other on 

a weekly basis. We also have had probably two meetings a week 

in a public setting to discuss issues after receiving briefings by the 

staff, and I think we are off to a great start. 

Senator CARPER. Good. 

Mr. Magwood. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I am quite pleased with the way 

we have worked together so far. We have coordinated very closely 

on several important issues. As Commissioner Ostendorff mentioned, we meet together on a one on one basis on a very regular 

basis. There is lots of traffic back and forth between our offices. 

And our staffs also work very well together. 

As a matter of fact, I also wanted to thank Commissioner 

Svinicki and Chairman Jaczko for the help they have provided in 

getting my staff and myself up to speed with how to operate in the 

environment of the NRC. 

So I think it is going very well. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. 

Dr. Apostolakis. 
123 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I second what my two colleagues just said. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Commissioner Svinicki. 

Ms. SVINICKI. As I noted, the caliber of my colleagues is very impressive, and I appreciate the Committee’s recognition that a fiveperson Commission functions best. Procedures are always optimized around a certain number, and a full Commission I think 

most effectively moves the business forward. So thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Good. 

Chairman Jaczko. 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, I would agree with everything that has been 

said. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Recently, we have seen several nuclear power plants reporting 

tritium leaks. And I believe that these leaks were found because 

the plants were participating in what I think was a voluntary monitoring program. I would like to ask, is that correct? Are they participating in a voluntary monitoring program? 

And second, do you think the voluntary monitoring program is 

working? 

Mr. JACZKO. Mr. Chairman, plants are required to monitor releases of radioactive materials on a regulatory basis by the NRC. 

But in an effort to do a better job of earlier detection of leaks of 

tritium that don’t necessarily have an impact on public health and 

safety, the industry initiated a program several years ago to begin 

more actively monitoring releases of material on the reactor sites 

themselves. 

So from a regulatory perspective, they are required to monitor 

very closely their releases off the reactor site, but onsite, they have 

now an enhanced voluntary program to monitor these releases. 

I think the impact has been much greater openness, much greater awareness of the real risks that are out there. And what we 

have seen is with all of these leaks, they have not posed a threat 

to public health and safety. They have not posed an immediate 

threat to the safe operation of the facilities. 

So right now, I think we have a good program in place, but I 

think consistent with the principles of good regulation, the agency 

is moving forward to look at lessons learned to see if there are 

things we can do to enhance this program. And so the staff established a task force to look at tritium and see if there are other 

ways to deal with some of these situations, and we are anticipating 

that task force will be publishing their findings in the coming 

weeks. And I think that will provide some interesting information 

for the Commission to look at, possibly some policy issues to address, and perhaps some changes in our practices. 

Senator CARPER. Good. 

Any other Commissioners, please feel free to add to those comments. 

OK. 

For new license applications, what concretely can we do to ensure that the next tranche of applications is processed a bit more 

smoothly? The Bipartisan Policy Center study will be represented 

here later in the second panel. The Bipartisan Policy Center study 
124 

suggests that the new licensing process will improve over time, and 

we hope that is true. 

Could you all talk with us just for a little bit about how the NRC 

might apply lessons learned to date and to increase clarity for applicants? 

Mr. JACZKO. Mr. Chairman, after the Bipartisan Policy Center 

report came out, I asked the staff to be prepared to look at lessons 

learned from the current process to see if there are ways that we 

can make enhancements and improvements, while still maintaining 

the right focus on safety and security. 

We don’t want to do that at this point because it would be a little 

bit like trying to change the tires on a car that is driving down the 

highway at 80 miles an hour. So we want to get through this current wave and complete our reviews, and then really be able to 

take a good look at lessons learned. 

But there is clearly one issue that stands out right now that I 

think has been driving most of the schedules and most of the activities, and that has to do with the actual design review work 

itself. The agency in the late 1980s and early 1990s established a 

new process that would change the way licensing was done. And 

one of the enhancements to that was to allow vendors to separately 

have a design approved irrespective of a particular site application. 

And right now it is really that design work that is providing most 

of the bulk of the work and most of the time of the activity from 

the staff, as well as from the vendor. 

So I think the biggest enhancement that we will have after this 

first wave is completed is that we expect that some of these designs 

will be approved, and then those designs will be finalized and then 

the licensees would have the ability for future construction to turn 

to some of those existing designs, which should significantly simplify the process of new reactor licensing. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Any other Commissioners want to briefly comment as well? 

Ms. Svinicki. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Just as a very brief supplement to what Chairman 

Jaczko stated. At the NRC staff level, I want to give them credit 

that they are looking at this as they are moving reviews along 

right now. Albeit modest, there are efficiency gains. They are looking at whether there are things that can be done in parallel instead 

of series. Already, even prior to my arrival on the Commission, 

they have been able to squeeze a few months out of the schedule. 

So at the working level, they are looking at it constantly. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. 

Dr. Apostolakis. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I support my colleagues. I agree with what 

Chairman Jaczko said. I just want to point out that we do have a 

case where this process was implemented and very successfully. 

The staff put together a so-called GALL Report, Generic Aging Lessons Learned report, after the first two or three reviews of applications for license renewals. That was considered universally as a 

major milestone, and people use it extensively. 

So I believe putting together a report like this after the first 

maybe one or two or three license applications have been approved 
125 

would be, I mean, we have a precedent that we can do that. Thank 

you. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks very much. OK. 

Mr. Magwood, did you want to make a comment, just very briefly, Mr. Magwood? Then Mr. Ostendorff. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Just a very brief comment. I agree with my colleagues on this issue. I make an observation that before we performed the first license renewal there was a lot of concern about 

how long it would take and how complicated the process would be. 

I think that the experience that was gained especially after the 

first few shows that it is now a very stable process, highly predictable process. I think it is one that shows that the agency does learn 

lessons as it goes forward. I fully expect that will be the same story 

with COL applications. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. Ostendorff. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I would just add one anecdote. Last Friday, I 

was in a briefing with NRC staff at headquarters. About eight staff 

were there from the Licensing Division. I was impressed with the 

demographic spread. Some people had been there 30 years. Some 

people had been there 5 years and in between. I was heartened to 

see the mentorship coaching going on to capture those past experiences, to bring them to the present day. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. 

OK, I have used about 8 minutes, and I will ask each of my colleagues, you are entitled to 8 minutes, so have at it. 

You are recognized, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me first of all say to Commissioner 

Ostendorff, I was with your son actually at Fort Sill, I think it was 

last Friday, and I just want everyone to know that you come from 

a military family. You have had experiences with nuclear submarines personally. Your son, the Captain, was injured I guess in 

Iraq and had to have reconstructive surgery, so we all wish him 

the very best. 

Since you did have that experience, I think it was Senator Alexander who talked about our background and the experience we 

have had with nuclear submarines. Would there be any comments 

you want to make in terms of safety that would draw from your 

own personal experience? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I would say, Senator Inhofe, it was high level. 

Just by comparison, when I took command of a submarine back in 

1992, USS Norfolk, it was a Los Angeles class nuclear attack submarine. I was in command for 3 years. And at that time, there 

were 55 other submarines in that same class in the United States 

Navy. 

A problem or material issue identified with one component in 

that plant was pretty well understood because of the commonality 

across the other submarines in the fleet. By way of comparison to 

what I am seeing here in my very brief time in the NRC, I would 

say the degree of difficulty, whether you are using a gymnastics or 

diving experience in the Olympics, the degree of difficulty of this 

effort with NRC staff I think quite frankly is much more complex 

than my military experience in the Naval Reactors Program. So it 
126 

is going to take I think a bit longer time than what I was used to 

in a different setting. 

That said, I think the same core competence, qualification, due 

diligence principles I saw in the Naval Reactors Program are clearly evident in the NRC’s processes. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

Commissioner Magwood, both you and Commissioner Svinicki 

talked about the successes, really, in the 59 reactors’ renewals that 

have taken place. And I think it was you, Commissioner, who made 

reference to the fact that it was slow at first, and it got better. 

That happened right after we started doing the oversight in 1997. 

And I looked at that, and appreciate the fact that you both brought 

that up, because that is kind of a model that I would like to see 

take place in terms of new licenses. 

Commissioner Svinicki, you talked about the successes of the 

NRC at the working level and the fact that it is more predictable 

now. They have been able to get a lot of these things done. I am 

thinking now on the Commission level. I talked to Commissioner 

Jaczko in my office about trying to come up with some guidelines, 

some kind of predictability on what we would be able to do at the 

Commission level. 

Now, the Commission level for final approval is a step that 

should be done, as I understand the process, fairly rapidly. All of 

the real hard work is done at the working level that you referred 

to. So I would like to have each one of you give me an idea is there 

any way you can get together and come up with something and 

say, it is going to take approximately this long once the working 

level is done, and it comes to the Commission for final approval. 

Recognizing unforeseen things can happen. I understand that. 

But so that we would have some idea, not just we, but people who 

are looking for financing, people who are looking for support, would 

have some general idea about to look forward to. 

Let’s start on this side with Commissioner Ostendorff. Do you 

think that you could get your heads together and come up with 

something that would be a target for performance at the final Commission level? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, that is a very insightful question. I 

would comment that we have been briefed on, and I am aware of 

the milestone targets for how long it takes to review a design certification, combined operating license, and early site permit. Those 

are three of the key processes for a new construction plant. 

I am aware, and the Chairman has mentioned that he has asked 

us, the staff, to take a hard look at what lessons learned and efficiencies, as Commissioner Svinicki mentioned, might be achieved 

early on at appropriate steps. 

And so I just would commit to you I will engage with my other 

Commissioner colleagues to have that discussion and get back to 

you. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

Would you agree with that, Commissioner Magwood? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Absolutely. I have already spent some time 

thinking about this, and I expect to spend a lot more time thinking 

about it as we go forward. 
127 

I would add one cautionary note to this, which is it is so important to get these first plants. 

Senator INHOFE. Which was also the case in the renewals. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Absolutely. Doing it right is really the most important thing that I am focused on. So I am watching those processes very closely. But the question you asked is an absolutely essential question we should face and is one I am giving a lot of 

thought to. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. That is good. 

Well, I think it is a good time to do that in that we have almost 

a new Commission here, so you are not encumbered by things in 

the past that made it more difficult. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I fully agree with my colleagues that this is a 

very good idea. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Good. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator Inhofe, after you raised this issue I believe 

at the nomination hearing of my colleagues, I found it thought provoking, and I went back and looked more closely at our posted 

schedules for the new reactor reviews. I noticed just what you had 

remarked upon, which is that our schedules do not include the 

steps at the very end that have Commission action. There is no 

predicted time line. 

I was pondering why that was, and the best I can think of is that 

there was a rush of applications that came in in 2007 and 2008. 

I think that the focus at that time was on the environmental review and the safety review and publishing the schedules for those. 

But speaking only for myself, I am hard pressed now to say that 

if we are in 2010 and some of these documents now will be issued 

in 2011 and 2012, it may be that the time is right—and you mentioned that the Commission has had a significant change in membership—that as a Commission we should get together and look at 

what kind of schedule predictions that we can put out there. Of 

course, we would keep in mind that they are dependent on all of 

the steps prior to that being fulfilled on time. 

The cautionary note you mention is that we need to be careful 

about making sure that people understand that the estimate is 

predicated on a lot of other things. But I, candidly in reading your 

remarks, I have to say that I found a lot of logic in them. If in 2008 

we weren’t ready, maybe we need to be ready now to send some 

public signal about schedules. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that very much. Thank you. 

Mr. JACZKO. Senator, I would love to share my understanding on 

the process of how the Commission approves licenses for new reactors. The license approval process is actually a staff action. So once 

the staff issues its final documentation, there actually is a schedule 

for completion of activities. If there is a contested hearing in the 

process, so if there are parties who have engaged through the hearing process and gotten submittal of a contention, there are milestones in our rules and regulations that establish when the board 

is required to complete its work. 

So those are triggered, for instance, to completion of the staff review of the final evaluation report, which is the safety review the 

staff does. So once that document is complete, then those board 
128 

milestones pick up again and have targets for completion of the 

board’s work. 

Once the board issues its final decision, whether or not there is 

a contested proceeding, that is the final action for licensing, pending any appeals to the Commission itself. When the Commission revised our regulations in Part 52, which is the regulation that covers the procedure for the reactor licensing, the Commission actually 

at that time removed the provision in the procedures which would 

require those decisions to actually come in front of the Commission. 

So in the past, there was a required step where the Commission 

had to approve affirmatively the staff licensing action. That was actually removed. So the point that the board issues the decision, 

again pending appeals, that decision is final. Those decisions would 

go on while the license was issued. 

Now, with or without no contested hearing, then the Commission 

work that actually has to be done is what is called the mandatory 

hearing, which is an activity that the Commission agreed that the 

Commission would take on itself. That is something that arguably 

we don’t currently have a schedule to complete. I have proposed a 

meeting to the Commissioners for later in July to begin working 

out how we would establish the schedule and how we would actually work through completing that mandatory hearing. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. I would just like to have all five of you get 

together and address this and maybe come back. I am specifically 

talking about now the final Commission activity. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. You are quite welcome. 

Senator Sanders, you are recognized. Please proceed. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. And we will have a second round, so we will 

have another chance to ask more questions. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to put into the record an Associated Press article, 

February 1, 2010, headline: ‘‘A quarter of U.S. nuclear plants leaking: 27 of 104 plants leak radioactive tritium, a carcinogen, raising 

concerns about Nation’s aging plants.’’ 

First paragraph: ‘‘Radioactive tritium, a carcinogen discovered in 

potentially dangerous levels in groundwater at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant now taints at least 27 of the Nation’s 104 nuclear reactors, raising concern about how it is escaping from the 

aging nuclear plants.’’ 

Senator CARPER. Without objection, it will be made part of the 

record. 

Senator SANDERS. Yes, thank you. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, has the NRC leveled any fines 

against Vermont Yankee or any of these other nuclear power 

plants for these tritium leaks? 

Mr. JACZKO. I am not aware that the NRC has leveled fines. 

Senator SANDERS. Any punitive action? 

Mr. JACZKO. Yes. We have taken review of these actions from an 

enforcement perspective or as part of our reactor oversight process. 

So the way we establish our oversight is that when there are violations or there are issues that are not consistent with the license, 

we have a system of increased inspections that we do to identify 

and address the issue. 

Senator SANDERS. My question was 27 plants are leaking trit- ium. Have any of these plants been fined? A nickel, a dollar, $100? 

Mr. JACZKO. I am not aware of any fines that we have issued. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

Mr. JACZKO. Senator, if I could say that when we changed our 

oversight process, we took away that aspect of our enforcement program. So for instance in the case of Braidwood, which was one of 

the first places where we had a really significant issue with tritium, we did take an action and give them a higher level of inspection. 

Senator SANDERS. In all due respect, a higher level of inspection. 

People are leaking a possible cancer causing product, and your response was to do a higher level of inspection. I think most Americans would not be satisfied with that. 

Let me go to my second question, which is a broad one. And Mr. 

Chairman, maybe you could help me here because I don’t want to 

mistake what I think are the facts. 

My understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong on this, 

anybody on the panel or fellow Senators, my understanding is that 

the U.S. Government spent some $7.7 billion researching and developing Yucca Mountain. Mr. Chairman, does that sound like a 

roughly correct fact? Seven point seven billion dollars. 

I was in the House when that whole debate took place. And when 

you spend over $7 billion of taxpayers’ money in order to develop 

a national repository, the thought is that it is absolutely essential 

that you have that repository to deal with existing radioactive 

waste and any future waste that may be developed. 

As far as I understand, somebody can correct me if I am wrong, 

Yucca Mountain is now dead. The people of Nevada don’t want it. 

Their Senators don’t want it. It is dead. It is gone. 

To the best of my knowledge, I have not heard any other State 

come forward and say we want existing radioactive waste, not to 

mention any new waste that might be developed in future plants. 

So my question is, if we spent $7 billion developing Yucca Mountain as a national repository for nuclear waste, if that is not going 

anywhere, how with a straight face can anybody be talking about 

building new nuclear power plants where we don’t have a national 

repository to take care of the waste generated by the plants currently in existence? 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. In responding, let me just say the question, whether it is $7 billion or some other number, I just would point 

out I don’t believe we are talking about the taxpayers’ money. I 
134 

think the money is ratepayers’ money. Many of them are taxpayers, but there is a distinction there. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Thank you. 

Chairman Jaczko. 

Mr. JACZKO. The Commission looks at this issue in two ways. 

One, we look at it from the standpoint of the safety of spent fuel, 

and can spent fuel be maintained safely and securely. Right now, 

the Commission believes that spent fuel can be maintained safely 

and securely for at least 100 years. 

Senator SANDERS. Then why did we spend $7 billion looking at 

Yucca? 

Mr. JACZKO. Certainly from the NRC’s perspective, I can’t get 

into specifics of Yucca Mountain and the status of Yucca Mountain. 

Senator SANDERS. I don’t want you do. All that I am saying, and 

correct me if I am wrong, obviously there was a belief that we 

needed a national repository at Yucca or anyplace else. That isn’t 

going to happen. 

Mr. JACZKO. I think there is a strong sense, and the Commission 

has gone on record that the storage of spent fuel can ultimately be 

done in a geologic repository. 

Senator SANDERS. So we wasted $7 billion by looking at Yucca 

under the thought that we needed a national repository. Is that 

what you are suggesting? 

Mr. JACZKO. What I am suggesting is that the NRC’s focus is on 

the safety and security of this fuel. And we think fundamentally 

that can be done for at least 100 years, and right now the agency 

is looking at what would happen beyond that 100 years until we 

have an ultimate decision about where this fuel would go, whether 

it would go through a reprocessing cycle; whether it would be ultimately put in a geologic depository somewhere. 

But right now, we believe that the risks and the safety and security of the spent fuel are very, very low, and that it is something 

that can be maintained safely. It has been maintained safely at reactor sites both in wet storage and in dry storage for decades. So 

we believe that there is a strong program in place right now to look 

at the safety of it. 

The other piece of it is the environmental impacts, and that is 

something that we do through a regulation that we have called 

waste confidence. And that is something that the Commission is 

looking at revising right now, given just the current state. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Does anybody else want to comment? It is an interesting 

thought. I was in the House. I guess in the Senate that debate took 

place and $7 billion spent on what essentially the Chairman is saying didn’t happen, not a problem. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The bottom line is that money was collected 

from ratepayers and it is about $29 billion; $7.5 billion or whatever 

has been Yucca Mountain. The rest of it has been used to balance 

the budget, so there is no money in the trust fund. 

Senator SANDERS. But be that as it may. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes, but the fact is that every year, the Department of Energy is sued by the utilities, and they lose the lawsuits because they promised that they were going to find someplace 

to put the waste instead of putting it in dry storage. 
135 

Senator SANDERS. That is fair enough. My only point, Senator 

Voinovich, is that we have spent an enormous amount of money 

under the premise that we needed a national repository. We don’t 

have one. To the best of my knowledge, we are not looking at one. 

And now people apparently are comfortable about building 100 new 

nuclear power plants. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, I have 

to say frankly. 

Do other people want to comment on that on the panel? Am I 

missing something here? 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. You bet. 

Let’s see, Senator Voinovich, I think you are up. 

Senator VOINOVICH. First of all, many of us have legislation we 

have introduced to create a vehicle where that money would go and 

not go in the general fund that would deal with used fuel. And Secretary Chu has a Blue Ribbon Committee right now that he has 

set up that supposedly will report back in 18 months about what 

the alternatives are in terms of dealing with that situation. He is 

not for recycling it right now because he thinks it is too expensive, 

as they do in France, and he is worried about the problem of plutonium. So they are aware of the problem, and they are aware of getting lawsuits. 

Second of all, I think it is really important, and I think you 

should send a news release out. I am not even asking for a comment. I would like to know the harm done by tritium versus living 

in Denver or taking a flight. I would like to know what it is in relationship to and in terms of human health and problems. I am not 

going to get into that now. 

Senator Sanders raised a question. I have other questions to ask. 

Mr. JACZKO. I would just briefly say, Senator, we have a fact 

sheet that talks about the impacts of tritium, and we can send you 

a copy of that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. I would appreciate it. 

The other thing is that you had Dick Meserve then you had Nils 

Diaz, then you have Chairman Klein and now you. And your organization has gone through systemic change and transformation. It 

takes a long time for it to happen. In any quality organization, you 

are going to have continuous improvement, and that is what we expect that this board is going to provide us. I would love someday 

to have somebody look back and see the improvements made. 

But I would like to point out, if you are talking about safety, that 

we went through some really tough hearings back in 2002 because 

of what happened at Davis-Besse. As a result, Mr. Chairman, I 

would like for you to comment about the fines and the things that 

happened because of the fact that the Commission wasn’t doing 

their job, and the company wasn’t doing their job, and what happened to them. 

Last but not least, I would like to point out that because of the 

lessons learned there, that is the real issue, lessons learned, recently there was discovery of some problems that they had at 

Davis-Besse. They found them out because of the new protocol that 

you folks have established. 

I want people to understand that things do happen to people 

when they don’t do what they are supposed to do, and how you try 
136 

to correct the situation. And because you have, we are in a lot better position today than we were, say, back in 2002. 

Can you comment on that? 

Mr. JACZKO. Senator, you are correct. We have a new oversight 

program in place. The focus of that oversight is on getting the licensees to improve and correct their behavior. So we have moved 

away, other than in very specific situations, from using monetary 

fines as our enforcement mechanism. We rely on orders. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes, but there were criminal charges filed 

against people. I think the company was fined millions of dollars, 

wasn’t it? 

Mr. JACZKO. That is correct. Like in Davis-Besse, when there is 

a willful violation of our regulations, we take very severe enforcement action that involves civil penalties and fines. When we are 

talking about things like inadvertent leaks, if there is not a willful 

activity on the part of an employee, we deal with that through our 

oversight process. 

The way that oversight process works is it focuses on improving 

licensee behavior. So we have inspections programs that we use. 

We require the licensees to have a corrective action program to ensure that they take corrective action and that they take lessons 

learned. And we monitor all of these performance indicators that 

tell us how the plant is performing. 

If we see negative information from those indicators, then we 

take more and more aggressive action in our oversight, to the point 

where we would shut them down if we needed to. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. The other thing is that a lot of people 

are not aware that the industry itself is doing a lot more policing. 

I don’t know what the organization is called, but I have talked to 

some of the people that run these places and say they are really 

tough on them. In other words, the industry itself understands that 

they have to put peer pressure on other members because they realize that if something goes wrong, it is not only going to impact 

on that individual, but it is going to also impact on the entire industry. 

Mr. JACZKO. The organization is INPO, the Institute for Nuclear 

Power Operations that you are referring to. They perform an industry self-regulatory function, and we do communicate with them to 

compare how they see performance of licensees as well as how we 

do. 

I think one very telling statistic, I think as Commissioner 

Apostolakis mentioned, are efforts to put in place a new process for 

the fuel cycle oversight program. The reactor oversight program 

that we implemented about 10 years ago has really helped us focus 

on the real safety significant issues. When that program first started, we began a process of having annual meetings where we would 

have power reactors come in who were not performing well, to talk 

about their performance. 

I think because of this enhanced and improved oversight process, 

this year will be the first year that we don’t have a plant that has 

significant enough safety problems to warrant coming to that meeting. So I think it is really a reflection on the fact that we are focusing on the issues that matter from a safety and a security standpoint. 
137 

The issues like tritium I think are significant issues from a public confidence standpoint, but right now we don’t see that they are 

having an impact on the safe operations of the facilities, and we 

don’t see them having immediate impact on public health and safety. 

They are very significant issues, and I think the agency takes 

them very seriously, and we have done a tremendous amount of 

outreach to talk about these things and to talk about the issues because they are of concern to the communities. I think it is very important for us to make sure that we are able to communicate and 

address those issues. So that is the approach we have taken. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The other thing is in terms of what I talked 

about in my statement regarding the SMRs. I think it is significant 

that the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Dr. Chu, had an 

article in the Wall Street Journal entitled America’s New Nuclear 

Option. He talked about the fact that their small size makes them 

suitable for locations that cannot accommodate large scale plants. 

The modular construction process would make them more affordable. Their modular nature allows utilities to add units as demand 

changes or use them for onsite replacement of aging fossil fuel 

plants. And last but not least, some of the designs for SMRs use 

little or no water for cooling, which would reduce their environmental impact. 

And I know you are starting to look at this issue of SMRs, but 

could you comment on where you think you are with that and 

when you would be prepared to handle any applications that would 

come in to deal with them? 

Mr. JACZKO. I think I would break that group of small modular 

reactors into three categories. The first category, I would say, are 

what we call the integral light water reactors. Those are small 

modular reactors that use the more traditional technologies to 

what we are using today in the nuclear reactor fleet. 

We are preparing to review two design certifications sometime in 

mid-2012 to 2013 for those smaller light water reactors. 

Senator VOINOVICH. In other words, it is going to take that long 

for all that process to go through? 

Mr. JACZKO. That is when we are anticipating that the applicants would be ready to submit an application. So we are basing 

that off of their schedules and when they anticipate submitting 

those. And that is working in conjunction with the Department of 

Energy program to help provide some financial assistance to those 

particular vendors. They intend to fund two different vendors for 

design certification. 

The second piece is the gas reactor technology that I think Commissioner Apostolakis may have referred to, the so-called next generation nuclear plant. And we are on process to receive a design 

review for that in 2013. So that would be on a separate track as 

well, because it is a slightly different technology. 

The third piece of that—and probably the least certain right now 

and the one that is most far into the future—would be small modular reactors that rely on non-light water or gas reactor technology, 

things like sodium cooled reactors and other more exotic types of 

reactors. That program is probably the least well developed at this 
138 

point, and I wouldn’t anticipate the agency being really ready to 

deal with that in the near term. 

But we also don’t see any real immediate commercial interest in 

those particular applications, so I think focusing our efforts on the 

light water reactors and the gas reactors, because that is a statutory program, is really the best place to put our focus. But I think 

we are prepared to deal with at least a portion of the applications 

that would be coming forward. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The last thing, I am out of time, but could 

somebody give me a survey of what is happening internationally in 

this regard? You have it there. If you don’t have it, I will try to 

get it from the Department of Energy. 

Mr. JACZKO. We can certainly look to see what we have. If we 

don’t have anything, we will let you know and see if we can point 

you to a place that can provide that for you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jaczko, has there ever been a fatality as a result of an accident at a commercial nuclear reactor in the United States? 

Mr. JACZKO. There has not as a result of plant operation, not at 

a commercial power plant. There have been other nuclear facilities 

where there have been fatalities, but not in a nuclear power plant. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Not as a result of the reactor. 

Mr. JACZKO. Not as a result of a reactor accident. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Ostendorff, has there been a fatality as 

the result of the operation of the Navy nuclear reactors in the history of the Navy program? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. No, Senator. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Jaczko, is it approximately correct that 

the amount of used nuclear fuel that we have stored onsite at the 

104 commercial reactors, if we put it all together would it about 

cover a football field and be 10 or 20 feet deep? Is that about the 

volume we are talking about? 

Mr. JACZKO. I have heard estimates to that effect. It is several 

tens of thousands of metric tons. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But to give a picture of that, would it be 

about the size of a football field to a depth of 10 or 20 feet? 

Mr. JACZKO. I believe that is approximate. 

Senator ALEXANDER. The volume isn’t very high. And you said it 

could be stored safely onsite for 100 years. 

Mr. JACZKO. Currently, we believe at least to 100 years it can be 

stored safely onsite, and with very little risk to the public or to the 

environment. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Apostolakis, what is tritium? What is 

it? We have been talking about it. What is this tritium we are talking about? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. It is an isotope of hydrogen. Is that the answer 

you want? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, we are talking about it as a scary substance. Is it harmful? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Well, it could be. 
139 

Senator ALEXANDER. What would it take? Let me put it this way. 

The Senator said that there has been release of tritium in 27 

plants. Has it been released in any amount that would be harmful 

to humans or create environmental damage? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. As far as I know, the amount released would 

not be harmful, but I really don’t know the details. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Jaczko, do you know? 

Mr. JACZKO. At this point, we have not seen any releases off the 

reactor sites that are above Environmental Protection Agency limits for what are safe levels of tritium, which right now I think it 

is 20,000 picocuries per liter. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So the information we have heard about so 

far, it doesn’t harm anybody. 

Mr. JACZKO. We have no information yet that there have been 

any consequences to public health and safety for this. There is, I 

think it is fair to say, I would look at it from perhaps a good neighbor policy in a way that this is not the way the NRC would like 

to see these reactors operate. 

Senator ALEXANDER. No, no. No one is suggesting that. 

Mr. JACZKO. It is certainly not the best behavior to have these 

kinds of leaks and to have these kinds of occurrences happen. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But if you have $100 and you lose $1, that 

is a problem. You don’t want it to happen, but it is not necessarily 

harmful to you. It is not necessarily dangerous. 

Let me, if I may, go on. The Senator from Vermont and I have 

some agreement as well as some differences of opinion on energy. 

One agreement we have is on energy efficiency. We absolutely 

agree on that. 

A second agreement we have is our hope for the success of solar 

power, making it cheaper because it operates at peak time. But 

just for the record, Secretary Chu, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who is President Obama’s Energy Secretary, says it is still too 

expensive by a factor of four compared to other forms of energy. 

That is his judgment, and we hope that it will get better because 

we make a lot of the polysilicon in Tennessee, so that would mean 

more jobs for Tennessee if that happens. 

As far as wind goes, I would have to observe that if we closed 

the Yankee Nuclear plant in Vermont, it would take about 1,800 

50-story wind turbines all over the scenic hillsides of Vermont. It 

would cover every scenic ridge up there, I think, to replace that. 

So there are some costs that come from other things. 

I would like to go back to this. What could the oil industry learn 

from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? Oil drilling is regulated 

by about 14 agencies, not a single entity like nuclear power. 

And I wonder, Mr. Ostendorff, you, from your Navy experience, 

and Mr. Jaczko, you as Chairman, are there any lessons from the 

Navy’s safe operation of nuclear reactors and America’s safe operation of nuclear commercial reactors that other forms of energy 

might learn from those operations? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I would suggest the concept of accountability, where accountability is clear and understood by all 

parties involved. Our responsibilities here at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission involve the safe operation of the country’s reactor plants, but we hold the licensees responsible. And so it is clear 
140 

those licensees are accountable to the Government via this body of 

individuals and staff that work with us. 

Senator ALEXANDER. My impression, not to interrupt, but if you 

are a commander of a Navy vessel, and there is a single problem 

with a nuclear reactor, that is not somebody else’s fault. Correct? 

It is your fault. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. That is correct. Just as an anecdote, when I 

went through my commanding officer training in 1992, there were 

11 people in the class, and 4 of those 11 very fine individuals at 

some time or another had some time of disciplinary action taken 

against them because of something that happened during their 

time as commanding officer of a submarine. And so that accountability practice and series of principles are very much real in that 

environment. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Jaczko, just quickly, as you look at 

what is happening in the Gulf, is there anything you would think 

that regulating the drilling of oil could learn from the experience 

we have had with nuclear commercial reactors? 

Mr. JACZKO. I think there are several things. One I think is this 

idea of having an oversight program that is focused on the safety 

significant issues, and really making sure that you don’t get distracted with minor violations, but really focus on the things that 

matter from a safety perspective. 

The other thing that I think is very important piece is the idea 

of safety culture. That is really a developing aspect of the nuclear 

power industry, and it is really I think an area in which are continuing to lead in the ideas of safety regulation. 

I would mention that there was a very significant incident at an 

oil refinery in the southern United States. I don’t remember exactly 

which State now, but I believe it was Texas. A study was led about 

that oil refinery accident. It was a significant accident. People died, 

I believe. One of the things that came out of that was a significant 

recognition that this concept of safety culture was extremely important and was lacking in these kinds of industries. 

So it is an area where we are focusing in the nuclear side, and 

I think it is an area where other safety sensitive industries could 

really be enhanced by a focus on that area. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Could I say something, Senator? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I think the most important principle that we 

have implemented in the nuclear business that I think other industries can benefit from is the concept of defense in depth, which says 

basically and asks us all the time to ask the question: What if we 

are wrong? We have these multiple defenses against the release of 

radioactivity and every single time we are saying, well, gee, everything is good, but what if we are wrong? Maybe we should do something about it. 

A good example is the emergency evacuation plans. We know 

that the probability of a catastrophic accident is very, very low, and 

yet we demand there be evacuation plans. 

Judging from what I read in the media, I think the oil industry 

and other industries of this kind could benefit from that philosophy 
141 

of defense in depth. What if something happens? How are we going 

to respond? And be ready for it. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might just ask this question which 

might get a yes or a no. 

Senator CARPER. As long as it gets a yes or a no. 

Senator ALEXANDER. To the Chairman, if the goal of the Department of Energy program for small reactors is to have two design 

certifications completed by 2015 and licensed by 2018, is the Department dedicating enough money to permit you to do your job 

with everything else that you have to do? 

Mr. JACZKO. In my discussions with the Department of Energy, 

I think they are providing what I would say they believe is a right 

level of funding. I think the most important indicator will be in the 

technical quality, in the technical completeness of the application. 

For us to review it in a relatively straightforward manner, it needs 

to come in at a very high quality with a very high degree of completeness. 

So as I became aware of the Department of Energy program, it 

was clear that they were putting resources to support those vendors in a way that would work toward getting that high quality application. 

I can’t speak for sure to say whether it is enough or not. I would 

probably defer that question to the Department of Energy. 

Senator ALEXANDER. That didn’t sound like a yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALEXANDER. But thank you very much. 

Mr. JACZKO. I would prefer not to speak for the Secretary of Energy on those matters. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Fair enough. 

We will have a second around. We used about 8 minutes on our 

first round, and then I will ask that we use about no more than 

4 minutes on our second round. We need to get a second panel up 

here, so they will have their moment in the sun. 

For currently operating plants, what are you doing to look at 

NRC performance indicators for plant oversight and to revise them 

over time? Could you also describe for us how the NRC cooperates 

with or how you share data with the Institute for Nuclear Power 

Operations? We understand the NRC and the Institute use different standards to measure safety performance. 

Mr. JACZKO. Every year, the agency does a self-assessment of our 

reactor oversight program. And every year, that includes a look at 

those indicators that we have to measure licensee performance. In 

the last year specifically, the staff went out and met with members 

of the industry, with INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, to look at performance indicators that they use that we currently don’t use. 

So they are continuing that dialogue to see if there are other indicators that we could perhaps use in place of the ones that we are 

currently using to ensure that we are continuing to find the right 

kind of information and measuring the right performance or actually measuring the performance. 

With regard to the information with the Institute of Nuclear 

Power Operations, we have a memorandum of agreement to share 
142 

information with them about their assessments of plant performance compared to our assessment. Our staff does meet with them 

at least on an annual basis to review those kinds of assessments, 

and we have other more informal dialogues certainly throughout 

the year. 

As a measure, in many ways a second look at how we view performance, what I often hear from the staff is that they find the 

plants that are the most interesting from the perspective of our attention are those plants in which we have a slightly different view 

of the licensee performance than INPO does. Often, we may learn 

some things from them about performance that we weren’t necessarily looking at as part of our process because they do have a 

slightly different review, given their focus is also a little bit more 

on management than we focus on. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

I welcome comments from anyone else on the panel. 

Dr. Apostolakis, did you want to say something? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I think the oversight process is one of the most 

successful processes that has been proposed by the Commission. It 

is being improved all the time, but I got some crazy ideas as we 

were discussing earlier the tritium issue that maybe we ought to 

include something, and again, this is completely personal now, as 

I have not even talked to my colleagues about it, to add to the process something that deals with events that undermine public confidence, that are not safety significant. They are not threatening 

the health of anybody, but it might be a good idea to at least think 

about it because the oversight process I think works very well now 

to protect the public health and safety. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Senator Alexander, do you have any last questions you want to 

ask? 

Senator ALEXANDER. I have a couple. I don’t mind if Senator 

Sanders wants to go ahead. I can wait on him if he likes. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Senator Sanders, go ahead. 

Senator SANDERS. I will be brief. Thank you, Senator Alexander. 

Senator Alexander and I do agree on a number of issues, solar 

and energy efficiency. And I don’t want to beat a dead horse. I am 

not a biologist here, but picking up on Senator Alexander’s point 

and implication that tritium is not dangerous. The truth is, let me 

quote from an article, the AP article: ‘‘Many radiological health scientists agree with the EPA that tritium, like other radioactive isotopes, can cause cancer.’’ 

And the article further says there is disagreement about the risk. 

‘‘Somebody would have to be drinking a lot of water, and it would 

have to be really concentrated in there for it to do any harm at all,’’ 

said Jacqueline Williams, a radiation biologist at the University of 

Rochester. But in 2005 the National Academy of Sciences concluded 

after an exhaustive study that even the tiniest amount of ionizing 

radiation increases the risk of cancer. 

So we don’t want to be fear mongers here, but I think this stuff 

is probably not something you would sprinkle on your dinner tonight. And I think, as Mr. Apostolakis indicated, we have to err in 

a sense in terms of public confidence on the side of caution. 
143 

I would just conclude, first of all, by expressing my respect to all 

of you. I think you are serious people. You understand the enormity of the responsibility that you have. But in light of—I guess 

the only point that I want to conclude, is that in light of what we 

are seeing now in Louisiana, I have the feeling that at some time, 

some place, Mr. Chairman, a group of people like you stood before 

some House or Senate Committee and when asked question about 

the potential danger of offshore drilling made it clear that there 

was no danger whatsoever; that the latest technology is there, and 

rest assured, there is no problem. I suspect that hearing took place 

at some time, and right now we are dealing with this horrendous 

catastrophe in the Gulf Coast. 

So you are dealing with a potentially very dangerous technology. 

People are concerned about it. Some of us believe that the risk is 

just not worth it. There are other ways to solve the energy needs 

in this country, energy efficiency being one; sustainable energy 

being the other. 

But having said that, I know that you are serious people, that 

you take your job of protecting the American people with the utmost sincerity, so I thank you for what you are doing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Sanders. 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I wonder if I could ask the Chairman, I really am grateful for 

this hearing. How many of these do you think we should have? I 

mean, how regularly do you think we should invite the Commissioners here for a couple of hours and do our oversight job? Sometimes I think oversight in Congress is the authority and constitutional responsibility we have that we exercise the least. What are 

your plans? 

Senator CARPER. It is a good question and one that actually we 

should discuss further. For our friends, Senator Alexander described hearings. He says they really are misnamed. They should 

be called talkings, because at most of the hearings, the people on 

this side of the dais do most of the talking. 

This has not been that way in this case. But he has encouraged 

me, as has Senator Voinovich, to have a different kind of approach, 

not an official hearing, but the idea of doing something, either a 

hearing or a less formal process even more frequently than an annual basis. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I would like to suggest that, and to tie that 

to the suggestion from Mr. Apostolakis and Senator Sanders’ point 

about tritium. I think it is important that we have a regular and 

an open discussion about such things as tritium so that we, Senators, understand it. We shouldn’t have a hearing about it until 

somebody explains to us what it is and compares it to some other 

things. So we should know what we are talking about. Too often, 

we get into these things and we act like we know what it is, but 

none of us, if pressed, could define it. 

And the suggestion that maybe a function of the NRC should be 

to take these exotic concepts and help us understand the risks and 

help the public understand that. The fact was, as I mentioned at 

the beginning of the hearing, Three Mile Island was a partial melt-
144 

down of a reactor where the containment system worked, and nobody was hurt. And so far as I know, there was no environmental 

damage. Yet that was the catalyst, along with other factors, for 

causing several States to pass laws saying you can’t build a nuclear 

plant here, and causing the country for 30 years to put nuclear 

plants in mothballs, which is the energy equivalent of going to war 

in sailboats. 

So I think the idea of having more regular oversight by this Subcommittee would be helpful, and I think the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, and I have great confidence in its membership. I applaud the President for the quality of his appointments here and 

for the Commission that is looking at used nuclear fuel. 

Such items as how much used nuclear fuel do we have, if it all 

fits in one football field that is 10 feet deep, I think it is important 

for the country to know that. If it is safe for 100 years to be stored 

at the 100 sites that we now have, I think it is important for the 

country to know that. If releases of tritium at 27 plants are dangerous, we should know that. If they are not in dangerous 

amounts, we should know that. 

So I think a little more attention to that would be helpful. 

Mr. JACZKO. Senator, if I could just comment specifically on the 

tritium, I think that is a very good suggestion. One of the things 

that we have done with this issue is a more aggressive outreach 

program. We had a meeting in Vermont just to talk specifically 

about the tritium issue, to hear from your constituents, Senator, 

but to hear from the people in the community about what their 

concerns are. 

We followed that up with a meeting in Washington to do exactly 

what you said, which is to talk about tritium, to talk about what 

it is so that people understand, and we can do a better job of helping them understand what it is and how we address it and deal 

with it. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes, but even to be more specific, if I may, 

Mr. Jaczko, I mean soft drinks can be dangerous if you swim in it. 

I mean, if it is not being released in harmful amounts and if that 

is the opinion of scientists at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

someone should say that. If it is, we need to know that. Either way. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, may I comment on that please? 

Just to follow up on the Chairman’s comments, I recognize and 

Senator Sanders has raised the public confidence issue, which is a 

critical issue. And I think we are completely in agreement, Senator, 

that the public confidence piece is extraordinarily important and 

that right now in Vermont many people do not have that confidence. We appreciate that reality. 

The education piece, and I am going to just maybe give you a 

couple of numbers to put this in perspective based on my understanding, and I will ask my colleagues to correct me if I am wrong, 

the average American citizen receives background radiation, radiation from dental x-rays, CAT scans, et cetera, that amount to 

about 200 to 300 millirem per year. The Federal occupational dose 

limit is 5,000 millirem per year or 5 rem. 

The tritium piece that was referred to earlier, the limit in drinking water is 20,000 picocuries per liter. That is the drinking water 

limit. The picocurie, that is one times 10 to the minus 12 is the 
145 

mathematical piece. If I were to drink water every day over the 

course of 1 year of 20,000 picocuries per liter of concentration, then 

I would receive 4 millirem per year radiation exposure. Since 4 

millirem per year exposure for drinking water at the limit that we 

are talking about, in context of an overall background of about 200 

to 300 millirem per year. So about one-fiftieth to one-sixtieth of 

your annual average radiation dose would result from drinking 

that level of water. 

So far to date, none of the drinking water samples taken at any 

of the plants have had any contamination in excess of the 20,000 

picocuries per liter. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. With that, I am going to have a drink. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. And I will conclude. We appreciate very much 

each of you being here. We appreciate your preparation. As you 

leave, I want you to take with you this thought. As Commissioners, 

you lead the agency in charge of nuclear safety that is most admired throughout the world, of all the nations, as an agency. The 

people that you lead have helped us preside over the improvement 

in operating efficiency of nuclear power plants in this country, from 

maybe less than 70 percent to today as high as 90 percent or greater. 

And the folks who work at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

have been recognized, and the agency has been recognized year 

after year as the best place to work in Federal Government. Those 

are very high standards to maintain, but we are going to ask you 

to do more than just to maintain because we know if it isn’t perfect, make it better. We know it is not perfect. Nothing that I do 

is perfect. And as good as the NRC is doing, we know that it is not 

perfect either. And thus we would ask you to continue to strive for 

perfection. 

And the other thing I would say, as I am sure Captain 

Ostendorff and I recall from our time in the Navy, there are times 

when whether it is a submarine or a fleet of submarines or aircraft 

or ships, when you find out that a procedure that is being followed 

on a submarine or ship or aircraft is unsafe or unwise. And the 

idea is not just to internally digest that, but frankly to share that 

with others so that other ships, submarines or aircraft carriers, if 

you are doing something that is wrong or foolish or stupid, the others can correct that. And when somebody steps forward and really 

makes the admission that, hey, we are doing this, and this isn’t 

good, or this particular piece of equipment there is something 

wrong here, it needs to be shared. 

So while on the one hand we want to respond to inappropriate 

behaviors. On the other hand, we want to do so in a way that does 

not convince the agency or convince the industry to hide things, to 

keep secrets that actually will lead to problems further down the 

road. 

So you have a proud legacy to uphold, but you still have your 

hands full. A lot is riding on this, and we are counting on you to 

continue to do a great job. 
146 

Our colleagues have about 2 weeks that they can ask additional 

questions. If you receive any additional questions, we would just 

ask that you respond to them promptly. 

Thank you so much. 

And now we will welcome the second panel. 

Gentlemen, I am going to ask you to go ahead and take your 

seats with the right name tag in front of you. Good to see you all. 

Thank you for our patience. I am going to take a moment to just 

briefly introduce our witnesses. 

On this panel we have a couple of you who are no strangers here. 

You have been before this Subcommittee any number of times and 

we welcome you back. 

First, we have Hon. Richard Meserve, President of Carnegie Institute for Science, and with us today on behalf of the Bipartisan 

Policy Center, which was established by a number of our former 

colleagues and does good work. 

Dr. Meserve is a former NRC Chairman. As many of you know, 

he currently serves on the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s 

Nuclear Future established by Department of Energy Secretary 

Chu, as referenced earlier today. He also currently serves as Chairman of the International Nuclear Safety Group, which is chartered 

by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and is a member of 

the National Commission on Energy Policy. You are pretty busy. It 

is good to see you. 

Next we have Mr. George Vanderheyden, President and Chief 

Executive Officer of UniStar Nuclear Energy, a Constellation Energy and EDF Company. Mr. Vanderheyden leads the company’s 

efforts to develop and deploy the first new generation of nuclear energy facility in North America. Mr. Vanderheyden also serves as 

Senior Vice President of Constellation Energy’s Nuclear Group, 

overseeing Constellation’s new nuclear interests, president of 

UniStar, LLC, a project to market evolutionary power reactor technology adapted specifically to the United States. 

Next, Hon. Peter Bradford. Again, we appreciate you being with 

us previously. But Mr. Bradford was an NRC Commissioner during 

the Three Mile Island accident and today is an Adjunct Professor 

at the Institute for Energy and Environment at the Vermont Law 

School. He is also a former Chair of the New York and Maine Utility Commissions, and has advised many States on utility restructuring issues. He has also served on the board of the Union of Concerned Scientists. We welcome you back to the Subcommittee, Mr. 

Bradford. Nice to see you again. 

And finally, we have Dr. Singh, President and CEO of Holtec 

International, an energy technology manufacturing company that 

he established I believe 24 years ago, 1986. His company designs 

equipment and systems that improve the safety and reliability of 

nuclear and fossil fuel power plants. Dr. Singh serves on several 

corporate boards, including the Nuclear Energy Institute and the 

Board of Overseers at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of 

Engineering and Applied Sciences, just up the road from Wilmington, Delaware. 

Again, we want to ask you to try to limit your statements to 

about 5 minutes, and the full content of your written statements 

will be included in the record. 
147 

Welcome and all, and Mr. Meserve, why don’t you kick us off? 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD MESERVE, PRESIDENT, CARNEGIE 

INSTITUTION FOR SCIENCE; FORMER COMMISSIONER, U.S. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. MESERVE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased 

to appear before you on behalf of the Bipartisan Policy Center. I 

am here to discuss the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing 

process for new reactors. 

The Bipartisan Policy Center was created to help forge bipartisan consensus across a range of difficult policy challenges. Last 

fall, the NRC Chairman asked the Center to conduct an independent review of the progress that has been made in licensing 

new nuclear power plants. Together with former Senator Pete 

Domenici, who is currently a Senior Fellow at the Center, I cochaired this effort. I very much enjoyed working with your former 

colleague. 

We began by conducting a series of confidential interviews. The 

group included former NRC Commissioners, representatives of reactor vendors, applicants for combined operating licenses, nuclear 

engineering firms, and representatives of environmental and other 

organizations. We also met with NRC staff. 

We then hosted a half-day forum to elicit additional views and 

comments. A copy of our letter report is attached to my testimony. 

I would like to highlight here in this oral testimony just a few 

of our key findings. Although the licensing process is new, we 

found that both the NRC and the industry have been diligent in 

pursuing the timely evaluation of license applications. The parties 

have experienced some problems. Nonetheless, there was a near 

unanimous view among the stakeholders that all parties had acted 

appropriately and in good faith, and the NRC has not needlessly 

delayed or extended the licensing process. 

The licensing process for new reactors that is now underway has 

been a learning experience for all involved. The licensing system 

embodied in Part 52 of the NRC’s regulations had envisioned that 

applications for combined operating licenses would reference designs that had been certified and sites that had the benefit of an 

early site permit. 

As it happened, numerous applications for combined operating licenses were filed in parallel with applications for certified designs. 

The staff thus had the challenge of dealing simultaneously with a 

large number of overlapping applications. This was further complicated by the fact that new plant licensing has been dormant for 

many years and needed to be resuscitated. Overall, we believe that 

the NRC staff has done a remarkable job under trying circumstances. 

It was also clear from our interviews that there has on occasion 

been some miscommunication between the NRC staff and applicants, leading to some confusion and delay. Much of the confusion 

can apparently be traced to misunderstandings as to NRC expectations in regard to the level of detail required or expected in applications. In our judgment, many of these issues should resolve themselves as all sides gain more experience. 
148 

The Commission and NRC staff should also strive to provide 

clear guidance to applicants. The Commission can and should continue to exercise clear leadership to ensure that the processing of 

the application continues with the same attention to detail and to 

efficiency as has been the case to date. The Commission should ensure that the lessons learned in the first round of applications are 

rigorously applied to make the processing of subsequent applications more efficient. 

The study revealed that both the NRC and the industry are 

genuinely respectful of each other’s efforts. With clear leadership 

by the NRC, the lessons learned in the first round of applications 

should ensure that the processing of subsequent applications is 

both thorough and efficient. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am very happy to respond to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meserve follows:] 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 

Senator CARPER. Good. Dr. Meserve, thank you so much. 

Dr. Bradford, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF PETER A. BRADFORD, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, 

INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 

VERMONT LAW SCHOOL; FORMER COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. BRADFORD. Thanks very much for the invitation to testify 

today. 

Regulatory oversight hearings are of special importance now. 

From the housing and financial sector collapses to the Big Branch 

coal mining disaster, to the spreading oil in the Gulf of Mexico, we 

see consequences of insufficient precaution and enforcement in the 

face of risks that were known or knowable. 

The nuclear industry has shown that it is not immune. It will be 

kept safe by diligence and care and not by goals that emphasize 

growth or subsidy or governmental preference for a particular and 

a well established technology. 

I have arranged my testimony in four parts. First, the interplay 

between the NRC licensing process and the cancellations, cost overruns and delays that have affected nearly all of the license applications pending before the NRC; second, the experience of citizen intervener groups in the NRC licensing process, as revised since the 

last round of nuclear power plant construction; the third part remarks on areas of potential safety concern; and the fourth part reflects Vermont’s recent experience with tritium leakage at the 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. 

Almost all of the applications for nuclear power plant licenses 

that were said to constitute a nuclear renaissance have fallen significantly behind their original schedules. Some have been canceled 

outright. Many have seen significant escalations in their cost estimates. Several are not being actively pursued. 

If the past is any guide, some will assert that the NRC is causing 

these delays and cancellations and that the dramatic cost overruns 

of the 1970s and 1980s were also caused by regulation and by 

delays brought on by licensing proceedings. No serious study of the 

causes of power plant delays confirms this, but the myth persists. 

The NRC licensing process is not the cause of these delays and 

cancellations today either. The cost increases have nothing to do 

with licensing, nor do the decline in demand, the falling cost of alternatives, or the customer backlash against rising rates. Unwillingness by Wall Street and by vendors to assume economic risk is 

not traceable to the NRC. 

In the years ahead, Congress will need to assure that the incentives for new reactors do not replicate the 2008 gold rush to the 

NRC’s doors, overwhelming the goals of the revised licensing process and the NRC’s own goals for sound regulation. 

As the Subcommittee knows, the NRC licensing process has undergone major revision in the last decade, primarily to assure early 

resolution of as many issues as possible. To date, aspects of this 

process have not gone smoothly. A major difficulty is that individual construction and operating license applications are being reviewed before the generic designs that they referenced have been 

approved or even finalized. This situation reverses the process con-
163 

templated when the new licensing rules were adopted, requiring 

participants in the COL proceedings to guess at the outcomes of 

the ongoing design proceedings. 

A second goal of the revised licensing process—about which the 

Commission has generally not been candid—has been to reduce the 

ability of the public to question either applicants or the NRC staff. 

The potential weakness of most regulatory processes in banking, 

housing, coal mine safety and oil drilling, as well as nuclear regulation, is the extent to which these processes rely almost exclusively 

on information provided by the regulated entities. If regulators 

compound this weakness by treating other potential sources of information, such as citizens’ groups, whistleblowers, State governments, with hostility, then they are asking for trouble. 

The NRC has done this with new rules that prohibit cross-examination by parties to its proceedings in most circumstances as well 

as by sharply curtailing discovery rights. These rules, adopted 

against the strong recommendation of the Commission’s own licensing board chairman, are absolutely inconsistent with the agency’s 

core principles of good regulation: independence, openness, efficiency, clarity and reliability. 

They are also potentially inconsistent with the behavior of an 

agency wise enough to welcome the skeptical function that an informed public can provide in an era of such widespread regulatory 

failure. 

The final portion of my testimony discusses the events surrounding the highly publicized tritium leakage at Vermont Yankee. 

Four interrelated reasons explain the high visibility of these 

events. First, Entergy’s Vermont Yankee personnel had repeatedly 

incorrectly assured the State of Vermont, at times under oath, that 

the plant had no underground piping system carrying radionuclides. 

Second, Vermont Yankee had startled the public with a 2007 

cooling tower collapse. Third, the leaking tritium, though not detected offsite, progressed rapidly from insignificant quantities to 

much larger concentrations. And finally, the Vermont Senate voted 

overwhelmingly against approving operation of the plant after its 

current license expires in March 2012. 

The NRC has recently announced further reviews of its initiative 

in the area of groundwater protection. While the existing regulatory framework may be adequate, enforcement under it clearly 

leaves something to be desired. The public’s tolerance for leaks of 

radionuclides from systems whose existence is denied by plant 

management before the event is inevitably low even when public 

safety is not directly threatened by the leaks. 

The sense conveyed by these failures that the older plants do not 

have their act together has embarrassed the industry and the NRC 

in ways incompatible with licensing new units or extending the 

lives and increasing the outputs of the existing plants. 

This completes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bradford follows:] 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Dr. Bradford. 

Dr. Singh. 

STATEMENT OF K.P. ‘‘KRIS’’ SINGH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. SINGH. Thank you, Chairman Carper. It is my pleasure to 

provide my perspective on the U.S. NRC and what may be done, 

particularly to help the people who have been the nuclear industry 

and now are kind of on the sidelines, namely the American worker. 

We have manufacturing facilities all over the United States. We 

have offices in New Jersey, in California. We also have manufacturing plants in Pennsylvania, in Pittsburgh, in Ohio, in Orrville, 

Ohio, and in Florida. 

These plants are where our people work, where most of our employees are. And their livelihood depends on where the nuclear industry goes, how it develops, and whether they will be able to 

apply their trades and their craftsmanship in the industry. 

We maintain one of the largest plants in the United States that 

manufactures nuclear power plant equipment in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. And we manufacture equipment there to all national and 

international codes, and we ship it all over the world. 

We are particularly known in the field of spent fuel, which was 

discussed here with some passion earlier in the testimonies. My appeal to the leadership in the country, and particularly to you, Mr. 

Chairman, is to not give up on technology. As we discuss the issue 

of spent fuel, we should also realize that people like us, with dirt 

behind our fingernails, are trying to make things better so fuel can 

be stored for a much longer time at the nuclear plants. 

We last year licensed an underground storage system where fuel 

would be completely underground in canisters. And we anticipate, 

our initial calculations show that that configuration will be stable 

with guaranteed absence of release [of radioactivity] for as long as 

500 years. 

So the technology is moving forward. We should keep faith in the 

developments that are occurring, and I believe spent fuel will not 

be a problem for the growth and rise of the nuclear industry. 

But my central focus of this testimony is to present to you some 

problems that we face as exporters of nuclear equipment to overseas markets and as employers of American workers. One of our 

missions is to create jobs and we have been, I am glad to tell you, 

creating jobs even through this recession. 

We opened a plant in Orrville, Ohio, recently that we are increasing employment. It will go up to some 300 employees by the 

end of the year. The problem we have is that our export applications to the NRC, the applications for licensing equipment for export, go to the back of the bus. It does not get reviewed promptly, 

and our competitors overseas know it. They in competing against 

us inform the host country that if you buy from the American supplier, you are not going to get the licensed equipment in time, and 

time, of course, is of the essence. 

So what I am asking here is to direct the NRC that if we file applications for export to overseas markets, that they do get a high 

priority for review. Otherwise, it directly costs jobs in this country. 

It is a direct loss of jobs. 
171 

The other point I would like to make is our companies here, no 

offense to George, are foreign-owned. Their ownership is no longer 

in the United States. And they do look at the market internationally. I believe and the initial evidence is that custom manufacturing work in the United States will not occur. Most of the work 

that will be generated from nuclear renaissance will in custom 

manufacturing of equipment components will go overseas. It already is, which means the plants where we employ people, we will 

not be able to boost employment, and this bad unemployment situation that exists right now will not be alleviated. 

When we put out ads for employees, for workers in Ohio, for 

every position we advertised, we had 200 to 300 applicants. That 

is how bad it is. And in the middle of all this, we are shipping work 

that is going to be developed here with government loan guarantees to go overseas. And I don’t think that is terribly smart for any 

country. The U.S. seems to be the only country following that policy. 

So my request to you is to direct the regulatory powers of the 

NRC to help creating employment here, to help maintain our manufacturing know-how in this country so we don’t complete de-industrialize ourselves. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Singh follows:] 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much for that message. 

Mr. Vanderheyden, welcome. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE VANDERHEYDEN, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNISTAR NUCLEAR ENERGY, LLC 

Mr. VANDERHEYDEN. Thank you, Chairman Carper, and thank 

you for the opportunity to testify on the future of new nuclear energy and the critical role of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 

new licensing process, 10 CFR part 52. 

This oversight hearing demonstrates your commitment to refocus 

attention on performance and provide a sense of accountability. 

My name is George Vanderheyden. I am the President and Chief 

Executive Officer of UniStar Nuclear Energy, a strategic joint venture and an American company between Constellation Energy and 

EDF Group. I have been working in the nuclear industry for over 

30 years. 

UniStar was formed after the passage of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 to support and advance the development of a fleet of new 

nuclear energy facilities. To date, UniStar and our partners have 

submitted four combined license applications to the NRC for nuclear energy facilities in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Missouri and 

New York. 

The United States has not built a new nuclear energy facility in 

more than 30 years. Given this fact, the Federal Government has 

attempted to address two historically problematic issues: the ability 

to finance the facilities and the regulatory uncertainty of obtaining 

a Federal license for construction and operation of the plant. 

The Federal Loan Guarantee Program is an important first step 

at addressing the financial challenges of raising the investment 

capital. UniStar’s proposed Calvert Cliffs 3 project in southern 

Maryland remains one of the three projects under consideration for 

a share of the remaining congressional appropriation. 

My testimony today is based on UniStar’s experience as a current participant in the NRC’s licensing process. The Part 52 process allows the NRC to issue a single license before the start of construction to ensure that licensing issues are addressed prior to significant expenditures. While this process holds much promise, it 

has never been fully executed. 

Our interactions with the NRC staff have been professional and 

transparent. The NRC is using new project management tools such 

as resource loaded schedules and earned value metrics to manage 

and monitor the simultaneous licensing of 13 independent applications. 

I am encouraged by the high level of commitment demonstrated 

by the NRC staff to act in a fair and consistent manner, and it is 

my judgment that they are meeting their principles of good regulation. 

However, in terms of planning of a project of this magnitude, the 

most critical milestone is the issuance of the combined license by 

the NRC. As of today, the NRC has not provided a target combined 

license issuance date for any of our projects. It is not our intent to 

expedite the review process in a way that would compromise safety 

or lose the public’s confidence in the NRC. The goal should be to 
180 

create a predictable process that results in a reasonable certainty 

for the start of safety related construction for project applicants. 

Second, as in all major projects, there is an opportunity to improve and to capitalize on lessons learned from the initial licensing 

efforts. There is not enough detail provided to the applicant in the 

current NRC scheduling process. This lack of detail inhibits the development of comprehensive lessons learned and improvements to 

the efficiency of future licensing efforts. 

We believe that this commitment to a rigorous lessons learned 

process and self-assessment could result in reducing the NRC review time for the next wave of combined license applications from 

approximately 42 months to as little as 24 months. 

I believe that the NRC’s principles of good regulation provide an 

appropriate self-assessment mechanism for the Commission and 

the NRC staff. Therefore, I encourage you to request the NRC to 

provide quarterly feedback to this Subcommittee on how the NRC 

comports with these principles in the new licensing process. 

This should be coupled with public and industry comments on 

the NRC’s performance, as well as periodically holding license applicants such as UniStar Nuclear Energy accountable to the timely 

implementation of the new license process. 

We are working with the NRC staff to improve efficiency by examining opportunities for schedule acceleration and to create 

schedule certainty. We support the Commission’s ongoing independent examination of the license hearing process to identify ways 

to improve and streamline. 

A similar effort in 2009 was successful in significantly reducing 

the duration of the certified design rulemaking process. We believe 

such opportunities also exist for the combined license process. 

In closing, I would like to thank the Subcommittee. We have an 

opportunity as a Nation to create jobs, stimulate the economy, rebuild the domestic manufacturing infrastructure, and curb greenhouse gases with nuclear energy. UniStar and its partners have already invested in the creation of 850 jobs in Maryland, Virginia 

and North Carolina. In addition, our partner, Alstom, is investing 

$200 million and creating 350 manufacturing jobs in Tennessee, 

while AREVA is investing $360 million and creating 500 jobs at 

Newport News. 

Mr. Chairman, I have submitted greater detail in my written 

statement, but that concludes my prepared remarks. I am available 

for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vanderheyden follows:] 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you for that overview. 

What I am going to do here initially is just to ask each of you 

to take a minute or two and to react to some of what you heard 

your colleagues on this panel say. You could just say, well, that is 

interesting, or you could say, well, I don’t agree with that. Or 

maybe you do or not. But I would just like to hear your reaction 

to some of the comments that your colleagues have made on this 

panel. 

Mr. MESERVE. I would be very happy to react. I think that actually when one steps back, that the testimony you heard was really 

very consistent among all of the witnesses. I fully agree with Mr. 

Bradford’s comments that the slow-down in the process of proceeding with the licenses is not because of regulatory concern. In 

this financial climate, it is very difficult to finance nuclear power 

plants. 

I also agree that it is essential, as he has emphasized, to make 

sure that the safety concerns are not only evaluated in the licensing process but are ones that are demonstrated to be evaluated in 

the licensing process. 

I think that there is a great complexity that has been confronted 

by the NRC in dealing with the fact that they were operating at 

the same time with the certified design applications being processed as the same time they were trying to process the combined 

operating licenses. There is an interplay between the two that had 

not been anticipated. That has created grave complications for 

interveners. It has created complications for the applicants as well 

to try to sort things out. 

I think the important thing going forward is to make sure, as I 

think all of us have emphasized with regard to the new reactors, 

that the process is one in which one learns from the current experience, gets efficiencies into the process, while still maintaining the 

thorough evaluation which the public is entitled to and expects. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. 

Dr. Bradford, would you just react to some of the comments of 

your colleagues, please? 

Mr. BRADFORD. Let me pick up perhaps on the quest for predictability because in the two and a half decades I spent actually regulating, I think I always heard that the process needed to be more 

predictable. 

But it is important to understand that predictability is something of a two-way street. It does depend very heavily on the quality of the initial applications and also the quality of the response 

to the regulators’ questions. It can’t just be a matter of the legislative body establishing firmer deadlines and firmer oversight of the 

Regulatory Commission. There has to be a firm basis for the regulatory agency to go forward. 

My understanding, just as an observer, is that the NRC has had 

problems with some of the applications, both for combined operating licenses and for generic designs in terms both of the adequacy of the application and the adequacy of the response. 

It will be important to factor that in in terms of an embrace of 

a goal of predictability. You just can’t get there unless you are dealing with very high quality applications. 
207 

Second, it is worth recalling that the 2005 Act was passed somewhat in the context of the MIT report—Dr. Meserve was involved 

in it—recommendation of a few first mover plants and the need to 

stimulate those and get the process going. That might perhaps 

have been manageable in the context of reviewing the generic designs that were pending. But unfortunately it was done in such a 

way that it triggered a much larger rush of applications than a few 

first mover plants. 

So you now have a situation in which a much larger and less 

well coordinated slug of work than was contemplated is going 

through the NRC process that is going to take several years. 

My additional concern arising from both this testimony and the 

previous panel’s interaction with the Committee is that steps are 

now being taken that will make that dilemma even worse. That is, 

the piling of yet a larger number of applications into a regulatory 

process that is already having a great deal of trouble dealing with 

the ones that it already has. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. Thank you for those comments. 

Dr. Singh, some reactions, if you would, to your colleagues’ comments. 

Mr. SINGH. I will be glad to follow on. The one thing that we 

should realize that the NRC is undergoing a huge turnover in staff. 

The experienced people are retiring. They are bringing in new people, and the new people, of course, are not as versed in NRC’s principles such as reliability. And we are seeing a great deal of changes 

and confusion in their regulatory positions coming from the staff. 

And that is making licensing longer. It is consuming more of NRC’s 

resources. It is causing trouble all the way around. 

To the extent that NRC were to increase its training and indoctrination programs and have additional resources, they will need to 

get to them, and they will need to deal with these basic principles 

that people have talked about here, such as reliability, consistency 

in rulemaking and so on. We have a problem there right now. 

The other area is employment, which is, as I said, a central 

theme of my presentation here. I am very pleased to hear that 

UniStar and their partners are establishing employment centers in 

the country, and that will help. And that is wonderful. But I think 

that from the NRC standpoint, and I say that in my written testimony that I have submitted, it probably would be not abnormal for 

the Government to direct the regulator that for applications that 

will create jobs within the U.S., they will get priority. They will all 

be reviewed, but the ones that will create greater employment in 

the country will get priority. 

I don’t think that is illegal. I don’t think it is against WTO rules. 

I am speaking for the people who don’t have work. I get letters 

from them every month asking for employment. And I say something is wrong if people with 20, 30 years of first rate experience 

in making things are sitting home. That just isn’t right. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. I agree. 

Mr. Vanderheyden, any comments and reflections on your colleagues’ remarks? 

Mr. VANDERHEYDEN. Yes, thank you, Senator Carper. 
208 

I think actually as Dr. Meserve said, I think there is more in 

agreement than we disagree on. 

Senator CARPER. Sometimes that happens. 

Mr. VANDERHEYDEN. That does happen, and it is good. I agree 

with Dr. Bradford’s comments, and I would sort of summarize it 

this way in my own words. New nuclear energy cannot advance in 

this country without a strong regulator, nor can it advance without 

a public that has confidence that we have a strong regulator, and 

also confidence in us as the applicant. 

To further some of those comments and give you some statistics, 

as we pursued our new nuclear project in southern Maryland, we 

have had so far over 15 public meetings. And we have had over 

1,000 members of the public participate in those public meetings 

and provide comments to both us, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the State of Maryland, and the local community that also is 

required to permit these projects, on what they think is necessary 

in order to protect their health and safety. 

And in all cases, we have honored those requests and answered 

those questions to the point that we have answered today some 

1,937 questions and requests for additional information from both 

our regulators and the public. 

I do think that in this environment of a very open and transparent process in dealing with the regulator and the public, it is 

still important that we set at least goals and targets versus requirements, but goals and targets for the completion. Because it is 

important to us to have a relatively predictable process, given these 

are multi-billion dollar projects. 

And I just would recommend, as was discussed between yourself 

and Senator Lamar Alexander, I thought that was an excellent discussion, that you review our requests for additional congressional 

oversight. And I meant what I said to hold both us as the applicant, as well as the NRC, accountable to completing these efforts 

that are important for our country. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for those comments. 

I want to come back to the central theme, if I could, of Dr. 

Singh’s comments on employment. As our folks, both Democrats 

and Republicans, here like to say, and I suspect Independents, we 

have a couple of Independents, too, that our priority for this year 

has been really three-fold. The first most important priority has 

been jobs. The second has been jobs. And the third has been jobs. 

We are proud in Delaware that sometime in 2012, the deployment of a windmill farm 12 miles off the coast of Rehoboth Beach 

will proceed. And we are excited about the prospect of the clean energy that it will create. We have this vision of eventually windmill 

farms maybe from off the coast of North Carolina up to Maine, and 

all kind of linked together and providing carbon-free energy for 

fleets of plug-in hybrid vehicles, some of which would be made in 

Wilmington, Delaware, at an old G.M. plant by a new car company 

called Fisker. 

And that seemed to me to be a pretty good vision. It would be 

unfortunate if the windmills and the windmill farms and transmission systems, and frankly, if the plug-in vehicles were all made 
209 

someplace else or components made someplace else. If we let that 

happen, shame on us. 

When I hear your comments, Dr. Singh, with respect to nuclear, 

I am reminded that the same is true with other forms of carbonfree electricity. 

Let me ask our colleagues on the panel just to focus, to drill 

down, if you will, probably the wrong term right now, drill down, 

but to drill down on Dr. Singh’s comments about revitalizing the 

manufacturing base in this country and particularly with respect 

to the nuclear industry. If others would reflect on what he said and 

share your thoughts with us, including what we ought to be doing 

legislatively either in Congress or the Administration, maybe the 

NRC. I would welcome your thoughts. 

Yes, sir. Mr. Vanderheyden. 

Mr. VANDERHEYDEN. I agree with Dr. Singh’s comments and the 

importance of jobs, jobs, jobs, as you said, Senator Carper. And I 

would just state that when we started UniStar Nuclear Energy 

back in 2005 with the passage of the Energy Policy Act, one of our 

requirements that we did not need to do, but we thought was very 

important, to Dr. Singh’s comments, is anyone that does business 

with UniStar Nuclear Energy, wherever they may be around the 

world, is required to reinvest in America and required to reinvest 

in jobs in the United States. 

And I mentioned earlier that we signed a very large contract 

with our strategic partner, Alstom, who is a French company, to 

Dr. Singh’s comments, but what they did was reopened the facility 

in Chattanooga that has been closed since the 1950s. And as I 

mentioned, created about 350, they are in the process of creating 

350 manufacturing jobs. And that facility will actually have its 

grand opening in about a month. 

So it has been our passion, and it has been our requirement that 

for foreign companies that we do business with, they open U.S. offices. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Bradford, any comment? 

Mr. BRADFORD. The jobs issue with regard to new nuclear is a 

complicated one. Let me just give you a sense of the way I have 

seen it playing out in Florida, where I have been involved in a couple of regulatory proceedings. 

Right now what is happening as a result of laws the State has 

passed, electric rates are going up in order to pay for the Levy 

County and Turkey Point units, even though the two utilities that 

want to build them have not made a firm commitment to do so. 

So there’s been a backlash among the industrial customers and 

the large commercial customers saying essentially this is a job killing proposition in the short run when we most need new jobs, because we are paying higher electric bills which has an interplay 

with our productivity and the number of people we can employ. But 

the jobs in terms of nuclear construction are pretty minimal. A fair 

part of what we are paying is going to hold places in line in Japan 

where the equipment will be manufactured. 

So the new nuclear jobs are off in the future and the recession 

we are trying to deal with is imminent. 

The second concern, which comes from my own experience regulating in the Northeast during the last round of nuclear construc-
210 

tion, is similar. That is that utilities heavily committed to building 

a new nuclear plant, especially one on which the costs seem endlessly to be escalating, will de-emphasize alternatives. 

We saw Public Service in New Hampshire fighting against the 

Hydro-Quebec transmission line to supply the Boston area because 

of concerns about the marketability of Seabrook Power. We saw the 

Long Island Lighting Company reluctant to expand its gas system 

because of the need to protect the market for Shoreham. We saw 

resistance throughout the region to energy efficiency programs as 

long as the struggles over those two plants, as well as Nine Mile 

3, were continuing. 

So, yes, there certainly are jobs to be created in building new nuclear plants, but it is important to focus on the net impacts, not 

the gross impacts. And it is much less clear that the net impacts 

are all that favorable, especially in the short run. 

The situation, I should add, is somewhat different in Maryland’s 

case where you don’t have a Utilities Commission regulating generation and therefore can’t charge construction work in progress, 

and so you are not seeing those short-run rate impacts. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Dr. Meserve, any comment? 

Mr. MESERVE. Well, let me say I can comment on this, but I cannot comment on this from the perspective of the Bipartisan Policy 

Center because we did not look at this issue. And I am considerably less knowledgeable than some of my other panelists on this 

subject. 

I think it is apparent if one thinks about the actual construction 

of the plant that a lot of the construction workers, a lot of the craft 

workers, ultimately the operators of the plants are going to be 

Americans. The issue is going to be for the equipment that goes 

into the plants, various pumps and those sorts of things. And because we haven’t built plants in the United States for a long time, 

we have some reliance that we have to have on foreign vendors for 

those things. 

My expectation would be that once there is a market and we 

build more nuclear plants that market forces will apply and that 

these business opportunities, people will take them. 

You started this with a question whether there is anything that 

the Congress could do in this area, and I don’t have a clear answer 

to that. It does seem to me that there is a phase-in problem and 

that you need to get these things in place, certainly in terms of personnel. Having educated personnel is a pipeline issue in terms of 

having people who have the necessary education. I know that traditionally Congress has tried to stimulate that in various ways, and 

that is clearly appropriate with regard to some of these issues. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Let me come back to Dr. Singh for a follow up. Americans regard 

ourselves as the early pioneers. We are the early pioneers of nuclear technology. And at least to me, American nuclear manufacturing and technology represents maybe the highest quality of safety and reliability. Is that a statement you would agree with? 

Mr. SINGH. Yes, I absolutely do. Nuclear energy originated here. 

This is where it became a safe form of energy. If you look at the 

parallel development in the Soviet Union, they ended up in 
211 

Chernobyl. The development of safe nuclear power in the United 

States, this is where it occurred, and it is a matter of pride for 

human civilization, what happened from the mid-20th century and 

continuing on now. 

The tragedy is that in the past 30 years, as Mr. Meserve said, 

there has been significant loss of manufacturing base. Yet, I would 

also state that there is enough of the residual of that base available 

here that we can build. We can begin building all of the complicated equipment that currently is going overseas. 

Now, all I am asking is that the multinationals who operate in 

this country through the regulatory process get some incentives to 

explore those domestic resources. We can revive manufacturing in 

the United States. And I think it could be the critical technology 

base for the country. It is the same people who make aircraft carriers, the same people that make defense equipment, the same 

know-how, welders, fitters. It is the same skill sets. 

And we have billions in loan guarantees coming from American 

taxpayers. Heck, we should also channel the legislation, the law, 

the guidance in such a way that these people instead of watching 

daytime television are working in factories making the equipment 

and keeping our technology know-how intact in this country. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

A group of us in the Senate had the privilege of spending some 

time yesterday afternoon with Chairman Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and we talked about a wide range of 

subjects. One of the issues we discussed was the state of the economy and economic recovery. 

I mentioned to him that oftentimes when we see our economy 

bouncing back as it is today, it is not uncommon for the resurgence 

to be led by consumer spending. Or it is not uncommon for it to 

be led by home building, the housing industry. This is one of those 

recoveries which has the very real potential of being led by manufacturing, a resurgence in manufacturing. 

We were part of a meeting that Senator Stabenow of Michigan 

hosted earlier today with a number of green energy companies from 

around America, some pretty big ones and some fairly small. And 

I was very much encouraged by what they are reporting in terms 

of increased business, increased employment opportunities, and the 

potential for more. 

They pretty much had a consistent message for us, in their view, 

to really launch the tsunami of economic activity and creating jobs 

and technologies that we cannot only use here, but export abroad 

with respect to conserving energy and providing carbon-free energy. 

Basically, there are three things that we ought to do. The first 

thing that they suggested was put a price on carbon. The second 

thing they asked us to do is put a price on carbon. And the third 

thing they asked us to do was put a price on carbon. 

So my hope is that we find ways to use less energy, and that we 

will find a way to put a price on carbon. We have 60 votes here 

and should be able to send something to the President’s desk this 

year. 

I will just make this a short question and ask you just to comment very briefly, Dr. Singh. But with respect to our nuclear manufacturing base and the technology, if we lose our nuclear manufac-
212 

turing base, and I think we have gotten pretty close to losing it, 

but if we lose it altogether in this country, does that somehow 

threaten our energy and our national security? If you could each 

briefly comment on that, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. SINGH. I believe so. I believe that a country that loses its 

base for manufacturing complicated weldments, vessels and component systems that involve complicated welding and fitting and machining, if it loses that base, then along with it it loses a level of 

national security. After all, in times of crisis, you are not going to 

order the warships to be made in China. 

And if you don’t have domestic welders and fitters, and please realize it is a skill that is acquired over decades. People work. They 

learn. They acquire the knowledge to make complicated things. 

And if we put them out of work, and we keep them out of work, 

and they get old, and they pass on, you basically have de-industrialized yourself. 

And that is where this country is at. The people I worked with 

30 years ago, they have retired. Most have died. And there are no 

replacements because there is no work in this country. The work 

has gone overseas. So it is a matter of national security. 

Senator CARPER. I want to turn to the subject of openness and 

transparency for a little bit, if we could, and invite several of you 

to comment on that. I would be interested especially in Dr. Bradford your thoughts and comments, maybe those of Dr. Meserve, but 

really anyone. 

The Congress used to operate with a lot less openness and transparency than we do today. Sessions like this were not televised. We 

had reporters who could attend, but they weren’t generally made 

available to a variety of media to people throughout this country, 

throughout the world. We didn’t televise the Senate or the House 

in session. I think the House went first and then later the Senate. 

I will be real honest with you. Sometimes I have probably been 

guilty of this before, but every now and then discussions can be 

more fruitful to an extent when they are held in confidence than 

if they are broadcast live. Every now and then I have seen a couple 

of my colleagues, I won’t use the term demagogue, an issue, but 

say some things in public for public consumption that maybe in 

their hearts they didn’t fully subscribe to. 

On the other hand, people in this country have a right to know 

what we are thinking and what we are doing. And so there is a 

tension here on what is the right amount of openness and transparency, and maybe can there be too much of a good thing. 

I would welcome any thoughts that Dr. Bradford and Dr. 

Meserve and others have on this point. This is probably my last 

question. 

Dr. Bradford. 

Mr. BRADFORD. I certainly can sympathize with the proposition 

that some forms of openness can be corrosive in terms of discussions that go on within a group. I have chaired commissions that 

were subject to sunshine laws, and I have chaired commissions 

that weren’t. 

In most respects, it didn’t make that big a difference, but from 

time to time I saw exactly what you have seen, the demagoguing 

of an issue because of a public forum. To me, the public access to 
213 

information, that is the freedom of information law, is a much more 

vital protection than sunshine law types of arrangements, the ability to get at the documents, get at the numbers. 

For example, just to pick on that is current, the Department of 

Energy’s proposal to withhold the amount that it will charge for 

loan guarantees seems to me to be just incomprehensible in terms 

of principles of transparency. But that is different from sunshine 

law types of concerns. 

The other area that is of concern to me in terms of openness in 

governance principles are, as I mentioned, the ways in which, it 

seems to me, the Commission has closed off access within its proceedings to effective participation by intervener public interest citizen groups, even State government participants, by denying crossexamination, by denying discovery. 

I have been an expert witness often enough in the last few years 

to know that there is a big difference between the level of scrutiny 

one experiences in a proceeding that allows real cross-examination 

by lawyers representing interested parties and ones where the 

cross-examination function is somehow funneled entirely through 

the presiding officer. 

There is a lot more effective openness when the attorneys are actively participating. And there is not a big time savings to be had 

from foreclosing that road. What does change is the exposure of the 

applicant and of the NRC staff to potential embarrassment if they 

have done something wrong, but that is exactly what you don’t 

want to protect. 

So it is in those areas that I am most concerned. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Dr. Meserve. 

Mr. MESERVE. Let me say, I understand there has been some 

comment or criticism that the actual processes within the Commission itself have been some doubt about the openness issues there. 

I am not going to comment on the hearing issue, which usually 

typically involves a licensing board. 

In my experience, it is a very open process that the Commission 

currently follows. And I would be cautious about changing it in 

radical ways. I say it is an open process in the following sense. 

Typically, when there is an important issue, there is a staff paper 

that is prepared. It is called a SECY document. It is one of those 

acronyms. 

Senator CARPER. What is it called? 

Mr. MESERVE. S-E-C-Y. It indicates that the Secretary circulates 

it to the Commission. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. MESERVE. But that goes to the Commission, and it is available publicly at the same time the Commission is deliberating. 

Typically, the Commission has a public meeting on an important 

issue where it brings in panels of people who have stakes in these 

issues, and it has an opportunity for interchange with them in a 

fully public process. 

And then the next step is then a voting process within the Commission. And that typically involves—it always involves the preparation of a written vote which is then circulated among the Com-
214 

mission and eventually becomes a publicly available document, as 

it should be. 

I would be quite hesitant on changing the notation process. And 

I am not sure that there is any serious proposal to do so. Because 

in many respects, on the issues that the Commission decides, they 

are detailed technical issues that involve congressional history at 

times; at times involves interpretation of statute; involves detailed 

engineering questions. 

And actually having written submissions from each of the Commissioners explaining their vote and how they got there is a very 

useful exercise for not only crystallizing their own thinking but 

also making transparent to the public exactly how people came out 

in a way that would not otherwise be available. 

And I can note from my own experience that there were times 

when, after people reviewed the written vote from someone else, 

they changed their own vote in a way that would never have happened at a meeting because they had an opportunity to think about 

the vote, look at the review materials, and so forth. 

And so I am sure there are ways the process could be improved, 

but I think that to the extent that the notation voting process itself 

is being criticized, I think that we ought to be quite cautious before 

we make changes in it. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Singh, Mr. Vanderheyden, any comments at 

all? 

Mr. SINGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no comments. I am 

looking to catch the train. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. All right. I know that feeling. I know that feeling every day. 

It has been terrific, and you are good, some of you, to come back 

again to share your thoughts with us in this forum. It has been 

very constructive and instructive, which is what I hoped would 

happen. 

Some of my colleagues will have some questions they would like 

to submit to you for the record. I may have one or two as well. And 

my staff reminds me that we will have 2 weeks to submit the questions to you, and we would ask that you respond promptly. 

I want to thank our staff for the work that they have done in 

helping us prepare for this hearing, and to each of you who joined 

us today. 

Good luck on catching that train, and I hope to catch one later 

today myself. 

Thanks very much. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ