S. HRG. 113–744 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: NRC’S IMPLEMENTATION 

OF THE FUKUSHIMA NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND OTHER ACTIONS TO 

ENHANCE AND MAINTAIN NUCLEAR SAFETY 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 30, 2014 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
OVERSIGHT HEARING: NRC’S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FUKUSHIMA NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND OTHER ACTIONS TO ENHANCE AND MAINTAIN NUCLEAR SAFETY 
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

97–582 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–744 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: NRC’S IMPLEMENTATION 

OF THE FUKUSHIMA NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND OTHER ACTIONS TO 

ENHANCE AND MAINTAIN NUCLEAR SAFETY 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 30, 2014 

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 THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JANUARY 30, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 3 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 4 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 5 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 7 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 8 

Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi ........................ 10 

Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 515 

WITNESSES 

Macfarlane, Hon. Allison M., Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................................................................................................................ 11

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 35 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 57 

Senator Gillibrand ..................................................................................... 61 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 71 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 192 

Senator Boozman ....................................................................................... 210 

Senator Fischer ......................................................................................... 225 

Svinicki, Hon. Kristine L., Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................................................................................................................ 228 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 229 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 231 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 312 

Senator Boozman ....................................................................................... 325 

Apostolakis, Hon. George, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................................................................................................................ 331 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 332 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 333 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 335 

Senator Boozman ....................................................................................... 338 

Magwood, Hon. William D. IV, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................................................................................. 341 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 342 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 346 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 461 

Senator Boozman ....................................................................................... 474 

Ostendorff, Hon. William C., Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................................................................................. 486 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boozman ......................... 487 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 488 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 491 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: NRC’S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FUKUSHIMA NEAR-TERM 

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

OTHER ACTIONS TO ENHANCE AND MAINTAIN NUCLEAR SAFETY 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

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

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

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Vitter, Carper, Sanders, Gillibrand, 

Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Boozman, and Fischer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Hearing will come to order. 

Today we are holding our eighth NRC oversight hearing since 

the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown in Japan. 

The third anniversary of Fukushima is coming, and Japan is still 

struggling. Failed efforts to prevent radioactive water from washing into the sea have led officials there to build a huge underground ice wall. And it will be at least 3 more years before 60,000 

local residents can return to their homes safely. 

We must learn from the tragic events in Fukushima and take all 

necessary steps to ensure the safety of our own nuclear facilities. 

Now, more than 2 years ago the NRC charged its most senior nuclear safety officials with making recommendations to help prevent 

such a disaster here. Some of the 12 recommendations that NRC’s 

task force proposed have been acted on. The NRC issued orders to 

enhance safety when plants lose electrical power and to increase 

the reliability of venting systems to prevent explosions. That is 

good. 

But other measures have not moved forward. For example, the 

NRC has allowed 3 full years for seismic evaluations of nuclear reactors in the western United States to be completed. If a seismic 

evaluation finds that there is a seismic risk, the NRC provides an 

additional 3 years for yet more analysis. To me, this is an unac-
2 

ceptable delay, because earthquakes aren’t going to wait until your 

paperwork is done. 

Now, when the NRC is made aware of a new seismic risk, as it 

was for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Facility near San Luis Obispo 

in my State, it should require immediate steps be taken to protect 

the people who live and work near these facilities. 

On another issue, our ability to conduct oversight is being impeded by a lack of cooperation from the NRC. During my investigation of the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in California, I learned 

that NRC’s general counsel directed NRC staff to withhold documents that I requested. My investigation into why flawed equipment was installed at San Onofre is very important, as it will provide lessons learned for the Commission’s future safety decisionmaking activities. 

The NRC’s response to my investigation is not the only recent example of the agency’s effort to avoid congressional oversight. Last 

fall, the NRC attempted to unilaterally change its policy on providing information to Congress from one that generally made nonpublic documents available to one that did not. The new policy 

even added restrictions that could have been used to withhold information from the chair and ranking member of this oversight 

committee, even though each of you, as you were up for your confirmation, absolutely agreed to make all documents available; and 

my counsel tells me, whether you were sworn in or not, it is considered a sworn statement. 

Congress unambiguously rejected this new policy when it rescinded that policy, your policy in the appropriations, and I want 

to thank the bipartisan leadership of that committee for making 

sure that you can’t do that. 

NRC still has not responded to my document requests in a manner that is consistent with congressional direction, and I will not 

back down on this matter. In recent letters, the NRC cites non-specific constitutional separation of powers as a basis for continuing 

to withhold documents from our committee. However, there is simply no constitutional basis that this is applicable to the documents 

in question. 

Finally, I note that excessive travel by NRC commissioners is of 

concern. I am going to ask you about your travel. It has been difficult to schedule oversight hearings because one or the other is 

somewhere in the world. I am also mystified as to why the travel 

records provided to me are marked ‘‘non-public.’’ I plan to ask questions about the lack of transparency and scheduling of your travels. 

During a period where reactors are closing unexpectedly due to 

adverse safety or economic conditions, the NRC’s role as a strong 

safety regulator has never been more important. However, I am 

concerned that whistleblowers who have raised safety and other 

concerns within the NRC have been ignored. 

So those are issues of deep concern to me. I intend to ask you 

about all of them. I look forward to hearing your open and complete 

answers. 

And I would turn to my ranking member. 
3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair, for convening today’s 

hearing. I also want to thank our NRC commissioners for being so 

accommodating with your schedules after the previous hearing was 

postponed to facilitate the majority’s vote on the nuclear option. 

Thank you for coming back. 

As the chair alluded, many of these hearings have been scheduled and canceled because of the chair’s ongoing pursuit of documentation from the NRC. While I disagree with the chair on many 

aspects of that issue, I do want to note for the record her aggressive fight for complete transparency of agencies under the jurisdiction of this committee, and I welcome her to that position and look 

forward to following up on that, with regard to the EPA, as well. 

I want to briefly revisit some of the points I made during the November hearing before we get to your testimony. 

The NRC’s compliance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit’s decision is a very important step forward in addressing the long-term management of nuclear waste in the legal commitment to Yucca Mountain. More importantly, it is a step in the 

right direction for the Federal Government, after years of political 

games, quite frankly, taking precedent over good policy and agency 

stewardship. To date, Yucca Mountain has resulted in over $15 billion of spending, with very little forward movement. It is really irresponsible and a failure of leadership that the Yucca Mountain 

safety evaluation report was halted in the first place, and it 

shouldn’t have required a court ruling for the agency to comply 

with that law. 

Nuclear energy has become an indispensable contributor to our 

base load electricity needs, and it will continue to be for years to 

come. As the Commission continues to develop new regulations, it 

should certainly keep in mind the negative consequences that have 

resulted in specific cases from misguided regulations and Federal 

interferences. We have seen, in recent years, what clearly negative 

results can ensue when either the Commission loses sight of its 

clear mission or partisan politics sway decisions. 

Regulations for the sake of regulating can become a profound 

burden on our fellow Americans who rely on nuclear energy to 

meet their everyday needs, and the negative effects of an unwarranted plant closure can result in more than just a diminished 

power supply, but economic hardship, loss of jobs, negative environmental impacts. The very nature of the NRC requires its leadership to operate independently of political and ideological pressures, 

and in a transparent manner, that focuses on the safety and energy 

reliability needs of all of our communities. 

Certainly, the effects of the 2011 Fukushima accident will continue to play a significant role in future regulation of the nuclear 

industry, and we all agree with that and we all care, first and foremost, by far, about safety. But we need to put that in proper context and understand our U.S. nuclear fleet, which is the safest in 

the world; was before Fukushima, is today. 

Thank you all very much for being here. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Vitter. 
4 

Senator Carper will go next; he is the subcommittee chair. And 

if it is OK with your side, Senator Sessions will then go; he is the 

subcommittee ranking member. All right. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very 

much for pulling this together today; it is nice to see all the members of our panel, and thank you for your service. 

My colleagues have heard me say more than a few times, but it 

bears repeating today, that I believe the NRC plays a critical role 

in protecting the public and our environment, and impacting our 

energy security. It is with that in mind that we must continue to 

have the nuclear power and the mix of energy resources as part of 

the all of the above approach that the President referred to Tuesday night in his state of the Union address with respect to our Nation’s energy policy. 

I believe that again today, because sometimes here in Congress 

we lose sight of the importance of good governance, we lose sight 

of the important work that our Federal work force does on a dayin and day-out basis. When Congress decides not to do our basic 

job, like providing funding certainty for the Federal Government, 

Federal agencies like the NRC have a really difficult time in trying 

to do your jobs, and I would say that the NRC’s job is one of the 

most important in our country. 

But as many of you know, I do try to find, whenever I can, a silver lining in most situations, the Government’s shutdown is no exception here. Despite the extreme obstacles that we in Congress 

put before the NRC and other Federal agencies this last October 

during the Government shutdown, the Commission and its employees at the NRC rose to the challenge and found ways to ensure that 

our nuclear facilities remained safe in this country. I hope we 

never have to go through that again, and I am sure you share that 

sentiment, but I would like to commend the leadership of the Commission and the NRC work force for their outstanding efforts during a particularly trying time. 

Since October, Congress has passed a budget, as we know, and 

a spending plan that sees us through the near future. These accomplishments are stepping stones, we hope, toward a functioning Government and away from the model of governance that has led us 

moving literally from one crisis to the next. 

Finally, I think we are starting to do our jobs, and when we do 

our jobs the NRC is better able to do its job. Right now, the NRC 

has plenty on your plate. Not only is the NRC ensuring existing reactors continue to run safely, but the Commission is implementing 

lessons learned from Fukushima and all of our reactors, overseeing 

the construction of the first new reactors in some 30 years, and trying to help our reactors grapple with their nuclear waste as we 

continue to debate our nuclear waste policy. All the while our nuclear reactors are facing economic and climate challenges that they 

have never seen before, putting additional challenges on the nuclear industry. 

Today is an important opportunity to check in and see how the 

NRC is doing and how you are handling these challenges, and I 
5 

look forward to today’s dialogue with the Commission and with our 

colleagues here on the panel. 

One final word, and that is despite where my colleagues may sit 

on this dais and where we are on the issue of nuclear power, I believe we all want a safe nuclear fleet. I also believe that is true of 

the commissioners that are here before us. Sometimes we disagree 

on how to get there, but at the end of the day we all do share the 

same goal. And because nuclear power is a very sensitive and often 

a very technical issue, I have found that many of our disagreements are caused not by differing views, but because maybe of a 

lack of communications or breakdown in communications. That is 

why I encourage my colleagues and this Commission to continue to 

find ways to communicate better with one another and with the 

public that we serve. 

As I have said a time or two before, I believe that our nuclear 

power plants are some of the safest, maybe the safest in the world. 

We look forward to working with the Commission, our colleagues, 

and the nuclear industry to ensure that we reap the benefits of nuclear power by ensuring that safety continues to be our No. 1 priority. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Subcommittee Chairman. 

Now we turn to the ranking member on the subcommittee, Senator Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, 

Senator Carper, for your leadership on the subcommittee. You are 

indeed an excellent chairman; work hard, you take responsibility 

for this, and, to a degree unusual in this Senate, you stay on top 

of the Commission and the activities, and you have invited me, in 

a bipartisan way, to participate in that. A good example for us all. 

This is our first meaningful oversight hearing with the NRC 

since September 2012, when the NRC had just emerged from a tumultuous period under your previous chairman. It is good that 

under the leadership of Chairman Macfarlane, and with the support of her four colleagues, the NRC has stabilized and seems to 

be functioning well. It is an important task that you have at this 

time of fragile support, fragile, I guess, stability in the nuclear industry. A few bad decisions could deal a body blow to that whole 

industry. 

There are many issues to review this morning, such as postFukushima actions, the cumulative effect of regulations, status of 

Yucca Mountain licensing activities. 

In 2001, nuclear energy comprised 20.6 percent of total U.S. electricity generation, and even more recently many of us here anticipated a nuclear renaissance that would allow the percentage to increase. Congress took steps, such as streamlining the NRC licensing process, to help facilitate expanded reliance on nuclear power. 

We thought it was the right thing to do. 

Regrettably, however, by 2012, our reliance on nuclear power has 

declined to 19 percent. The U.S. is still producing basically the 

same amount of megawatt hours of nuclear power as it did in 2001, 
6 

and I am deeply concerned about a rash of shutdowns on U.S. nuclear power plants like Kewaunee Power Station, Wisconsin, 

Vermont Yankee, Crystal River Unit 3 in Florida, SONGS Unit 2 

and 3 in California. 

Last August, Duke Energy announced it would not move forward 

with its Levy County, Florida, nuclear power plant project, which 

was previously scheduled for licensing. 

Last June, the Tennessee Valley Authority announced plans to 

scale back work at the Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station, raising new doubts about when that important project would be completed. 

Modern nuclear power plants, which Bellefonte would be, constitute long-term assets that can provide safe, affordable, reliable, 

and clean energy for taxpayers and ratepayers for decades to come. 

In last month’s edition of Nuclear News, a publication of the nuclear society, the senior editor noted that the United States is, to 

our dismay, now in an era in which decisions can be made to close 

reactors, some of which have been operating and continue to be exemplary performers, producing electricity safely and at close to 

peak capacity. 

So what factors are at issue here? There seem to be many. Are 

decisions by grid operators skewed away from nuclear energy and 

toward other sources like wind power or due to Federal policies? 

The article seems to raise that question. The article also notes that 

nuclear operators are still counting the costs of compliance with 

lessons learned from Fukushima. Total costs can currently only be 

estimated, he says, but any extra cost to normal operation could 

cast doubt on any reactor’s continued operation. So this is a factor. 

What about the confidence issue, waste confidence issue, is that 

a factor? We haven’t settled that sufficiently. What market forces 

are at work? 

So there are many important questions to consider. I hope Congress will take the time, as we look to develop a coherent energy 

policy, to consider the role of nuclear power in our energy future. 

I firmly believe the U.S. should remain the world’s leading nuclear 

producer. 

Plant Vogtle. There has been some good news. Southern Company and their partners continue to make good progress with Plant 

Vogtle, where two new 1,100 megawatt AP1000 units, the most advanced in the world, are under construction. Vogtle Units 3 and 4 

will be the first new nuclear units built in the United States in the 

last three decades. Operations are expected to begin in 2017 and 

2018, not too far away. 

Since the focus of our hearing today is post-Fukushima actions, 

it is important to keep in mind that these new units at Plant 

Vogtle will have pressurized water reactors, including Westinghouse AP1000 and a passive cooling system. The technology is designed to ensure that the kinds of failures experienced at 

Fukushima cannot occur here. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senator. 

We have a vote at 11:15. That means most of us have to get 

there by 11:30. So my hope is to conclude, so I am going to be 

tough on the gavel. 
7 

Senator SESSIONS. I offer the remainder of my remarks for the 

record, please. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely, put them in. 

Senator Inhofe, followed by, if there is no Democrat—oh, no, I am 

sorry. Right now it is Senator Sanders. 

[The referenced remarks were not received at time of print.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding this hearing and, commissioners, thank you very much for 

being with us this morning. 

Madam Chair, this oversight hearing is covering a wide range of 

very important issues, but I would like to focus on one specific 

issue, an issue I chatted about with with Chairperson Macfarlane 

not so long ago, and that is the need to provide a strong role for 

States, States, in the decommissioning process when a nuclear 

plant shuts down. 

Senator Sessions bemoaned the fact that the nuclear power plant 

in Vermont is going to be shut down. Senator, I would suggest to 

you that the people of Vermont would respectfully disagree with 

you. Many of them have wanted to shut that plant down for a very 

long period of time and feel pretty good about the decision to see 

it cease at the end of this year. 

The important point is, however, and I know our Governor and 

his administration have been working with Entergy, the owners of 

Vermont Yankee. The important issue here is the role of the State 

itself in terms of the decommissioning process. Right now, the 

rules, as I understand it, and obviously this applies not just to 

Vermont Yankee, but to nuclear power plants all over this country 

which are in the process of being shut down, what the rules do is 

allow the NRC to sit down with the companies and negotiate a decommissioning process. Generally speaking, the States do not have 

any significant role, Madam Chair, in that process. They can be observers, there can be public meetings, they can provide input, but 

at the end of the day the company and the NRC work out the plan. 

Madam Chair, I think on the face of it that just doesn’t make a 

whole lot of sense. The people of a given State, whether it is 

Vermont or your State of California, it seems to me, have a right 

to have a place at the table. How long is the decommissioning process going to take place? Well, in the case of Vermont Yankee, I 

don’t think this is going to be the case, but there was at one point 

some suggestion, well, it may take 60 years. Sixty years. I don’t 

think that is going to happen. 

Senator BOXER. Six-zero? 

Senator SANDERS. Six-zero. Sixty years. That was a suggestion. 

Now, frankly, I don’t think that that is going to happen; I don’t 

think that is Entergy’s intention. But imagine having a hulking 

mass in southern Vermont deteriorating for 60 years. Nobody that 

I know in Vermont wants that to happen. 

What about the jobs? We are concerned one of the negatives of 

the shutdown of the nuclear power plant is the loss of decent paying jobs in southern Vermont. Everything being equal, we would 

like to see those workers who are currently employed get a shot at 
8 

being part of the decommissioning process. They know the plant. 

I understand there is a difference in job description. Can that take 

place? I think it can. Should the State, maybe the union, be involved in that discussion? I think that they should. 

Now, the important point here is this is not an issue that just 

impacts Vermont. We have a number of nuclear power plants that 

are being decommissioned in the foreseeable future, including in 

States like California, Florida, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New York, 

and Ohio. And this clearly is not a Democrat or Republican or 

Independent issue; it is not rural or urban. This is a simple issue: 

Do the people of those States get a seat at the table? 

Right now the rules, as I understand it, really preclude States 

from sitting down. We can either change it through rules, and I 

will be asking you questions about that, or we can change it 

through law. But one way or another I think the States in this 

country should have a strong seat at the table. 

So, Madam Chair, that is my area of interest in this discussion 

and I thank you very much for allowing us to have it. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

After we hear from our two Senators, my intention is to give everyone 10 minutes to have their back and forth, and hopefully that 

will mean we don’t have to come back after. 

Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

It was in 2003, when I was chairman of this committee, that the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission asked Congress for a bigger budget to build new buildings and add significantly to the number of 

people. They expected approval of four design certifications for new 

reactor designs and 17 construction and operating license applications, or COLAs. 

Now 10 years later, that was 4 and 17, 10 years later the NRC 

has only approved one design and two COLAs. The NRC’s workload 

did not increase the way that it was expected, and I have some 

questions about that, but the Commission still increased its staff 

by over 30 percent. 

Now, this is very concerning to me because over the past few 

years the Commission has been developing sweeping new regulations that impose draconian costs on the industry without producing sufficient benefits. It is as if the NRC, with its new building 

and all of its new people, have been using its spare time to come 

up with new things the nuclear industry must do to maintain compliance with the law. 

The NRC has done this most clearly in its reaction to 

Fukushima. While it is reasonable for us to review what went 

wrong there and to make sure that we are not vulnerable to the 

same problems, it is not reasonable for the NRC to use the disaster 

to justify new expensive rules that don’t reduce risk. I question 

whether the NRC is still employing its own principles of good regulation. 

Just a few months after Fukushima, the NRC near-term task 

force released its papers showing that there is a minimal chance 
9 

that the disaster at Fukushima would happen here. Not only are 

the U.S. nuclear plant designs more robust than Japan’s, but our 

significant cultural differences, both within the plants and between 

the plants, and the NRC make it much less likely that we would 

face the same problem. It is really apples and oranges. 

Despite all this, the NRC is continuing to push new regulations 

in response to the Fukushima disaster, presuming that planning 

more and more contingencies and implementing more and more 

redundancies the right path to take, even when cumulative costs 

of these actions can exceed $100 million a plant. 

Everyone here wants to ensure that a disaster like the one at 

Fukushima does not happen in the United States and that really 

it comes down to keeping the reactor cool in the event of both offsite and onsite power is lost. Our plants are designed to protect 

against all external hazards with the occurrence rate of one in a 

million years. Unlike the plant in Fukushima, our onsite emergency diesel generators and fuel packs are located safely above the 

ground from floods, and we have external pumps ready to operate 

like a fire department in the event that first and second 

redundancies fail. The United States nuclear fleet is safe and it is 

well prepared to face the unforeseen events. 

The NRC has also continued to press the nuclear fleet to prepare 

for terrorist attacks in the wake of 9/11. The NRC has required a 

fleet to implement new security features and many of them work 

quite well, but we are getting close to crossing the point where additional requirements are simply adding cost without any benefits. 

When you add in the efforts of the EPA to impose more regulations on the water being used to cool reactors, claiming the new 

rules cost is justified because of all the fish it will keep from getting damaged, it is as if Government at the EPA and the NRC is 

trying to regulate the nuclear energy industry out of business, just 

like it has been trying to regulate fossil fuels out of business. 

Today there are more than 50 rules and other regulatory actions 

on tap at the NRC, which is more than I can remember since serving on this committee. 

I would submit the rest for the record, since I know I won’t have 

time to do it, but I would say that this is something that we will 

cover in the questions that we ask. I think it is very significant 

that we keep in mind we need the nuclear energy, and there are 

some who don’t want nuclear energy, and we don’t want to use 

overregulation to accomplish the wrong goals. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you all for being here today. 

It was in 2003, when I was chairman of this committee, that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asked Congress for a bigger budget to build a new building and 

add significantly to its staff to support the expected approval of four design certifications for new reactor designs and 17 construction and operating license applications (COLAs). Now, 10 years later, the NRC has only approved one design certification and two COLAs. The NRC’s workload did not increase the way that it was 

expected, but the Commission still increased its staff by almost 30 percent. 

This is very concerning to me because over the past few years the Commission 

has been developing sweeping new regulations that impose draconian costs on the 
10 

industry without producing sufficient benefits. It is as if the NRC, with its new 

building and all of its new people, has been using its spare time to come up with 

new things the nuclear industry must do to maintain compliance with the law. 

NRC has done this most clearly in its reaction to Fukushima. While it is reasonable for us to review what went wrong there and make sure we aren’t vulnerable 

to the same problems, it is not reasonable for the NRC to use the disaster to justify 

new, expensive rules that do not reduce risk. I question whether the NRC is still 

employing its own ‘‘Principles of Good Regulations.’’ 

Just a few months after Fukushima, the NRC Near-Term Task Force released its 

paper showing that there is a minimal chance that the disaster in Fukushima would 

happen here. Not only are the U.S. nuclear plant designs more robust than Japan’s, 

but our significant cultural differences—both within the plants and between the 

plants and the NRC—make it much less likely that we’ll face the same problem. 

Despite this, the NRC is continuing to push new regulations in response to the 

Fukushima disaster, presuming that planning more and more contingencies and implementing more and more redundancies is the right path to take, even when the 

cumulative cost of these actions can exceed $100 million per plant. 

Everyone here wants to ensure that a disaster like the one in Fukushima does 

not happen in the United States, and that really comes down to keeping the reactor 

cool in the event that both offsite and onsite power is lost. Our plants are designed 

to protect against all external hazards with an occurrence rate of one in a million 

years; unlike the plant at Fukushima, our onsite emergency diesel generators and 

fuel packs are located safely above ground from floods, and we have external pumps 

ready to operate like a fire department in the event the first and second 

redundancies fail. The United States nuclear fleet is safe, and it is well prepared 

to face any unforeseen events. 

The NRC has also continued to press the nuclear fleet to prepare for terrorist attacks. In the wake of 9/11, the NRC has required the fleet to implement new security features, and many of them work quite well. But we’re getting close to crossing 

the point where additional requirements are simply adding cost without any benefits. 

When you add in the efforts of the EPA to impose more regulations on the water 

being used to cool reactors, claiming the new rule’s cost is justified because of all 

the fish it will keep from getting entrained and impinged, it’s as if the Government—at EPA and NRC—is trying to regulate the nuclear energy industry out of 

business, just like it’s trying to do with every other industry. 

Today there are more than 50 rules and other regulatory actions on tap at the 

NRC, which is more than I can remember since serving on this committee—many 

without any clear linkages to safety enhancement. Some are relatively small, but 

others—like EPA’s 316(b) rule or the post-Fukushima required change to the Spent 

Fuel pool level instruments, are outrageously expensive. And when you look at them 

all together—when you take the cumulative impact of all of them—even many of 

the small ones become unjustifiable. In the grand scheme of things, they just do not 

add much value to our already rock solid nuclear fleet. 

For the industry that is providing 20 percent of our Nation’s electricity, we need 

to be careful not to overreact to world events by imposing unjustifiably expensive 

regulations onto this industry based on the assumption that more regulations will 

yield more safety and security. 

I thank you again for coming to testify here today. I look forward to the Q&A. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you. 

Senator Wicker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this 

hearing, and thank you to the NRC commissioners for again being 

here to offer their testimony. 

Our hearing in November was unexpectedly cut short due to the 

majority’s regrettable insistence on changing the longstanding 

rules of the Senate with a nuclear option, so I am eager to hear 

today from our witnesses on some of the important issues facing 

the nuclear industry. 

The United States must truly embrace a comprehensive energy 

portfolio that includes all the best resources and technologies avail-
11 

able today. We must also plan for the energy developments of tomorrow. Nuclear power is a vital component of this approach. 

In Port Gibson, Mississippi, we are proud to have Grand Gulf 

Nuclear Station, which opened in July 1985, becoming the first and 

only nuclear power plant to produce electricity in Mississippi. 

Today, Mississippi’s Grand Gulf is the largest single unit nuclear 

power plant in the country and the fifth largest in the world. It 

provides Americans with an affordable energy resource and is a 

key component of the State’s industrial base. 

For plants such as Grand Gulf to have continued viability and 

success, it is vital that NRC exercise its oversight responsibilities 

in a manner that provides certainty for the country’s nuclear industry. Currently, all final licensing decisions for nuclear plants are 

stayed pending the new waste confidence decision. The NRC previously has provided assurances that the Commission is on schedule to complete this decision, but it recently was announced that 

the time line may be delayed. Perhaps we can hear about that 

today. I hope the Commission recognizes the importance of making 

this action a priority and will address this during question and answer. 

In addition, I have heard from many industry stakeholders who 

are concerned about the cumulative impacts of existing NRC regulations, as well as further actions that may turn out to be unworkable or financially untenable. 

There is no doubt that the Fukushima disaster in Japan has reemphasized NRC’s principal role to ensure the safety of U.S. nuclear plants and their surrounding communities. In the wake of 

this tragedy, however, we must not lose sight of the fact that, absent clear priorities, regulatory actions can divert management and 

staff attention from the most important matter, safe and reliable 

operation. 

It is vital that NRC balance the needs of the industry with effective regulatory measures as it continues its important work to ensure the safety and success of the U.S. nuclear industry. 

So welcome to our witnesses and thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you. 

So as we previously agreed, we will open it up and the chair will 

have 5 minutes and each commissioner 2 minutes, and then we 

will begin the questioning. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALLISON M. MACFARLANE, CHAIRMAN, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter, Ranking Member Sessions, 

and distinguished members of the committee. My colleagues and I 

appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

The NRC continues to have a full plate of regulatory responsibilities, from the operation, construction, and decommissioning of reactors to nuclear materials, waste, and security. The Commission 

continues to function effectively and collegially. Today I would like 

to share some of our accomplishments and challenges. 

We continue to address lessons learned from the Fukushima 

Daiichi accident and implement appropriate regulatory enhance-
12 

ments. Licensees have purchased and staged backup equipment at 

reactor sites, installed supplemental flood barriers and pumps to 

mitigate extensive flooding, and are developing plans to install 

hardened vents and improve spent fuel pool instrumentation. Implementation of these and other activities will continue throughout 

this year under NRC oversight. We plan to conduct audits at every 

site to assess licensees’ implementation efforts and follow up with 

detailed inspections once implementation is complete. 

We are also making progress on several important rulemakings. 

We are carefully ensuring that this work does not distract us or the 

industry from day-to-day nuclear safety priorities. The highest priority safety enhancements for the operating reactor fleet will be implemented by 2016. 

The NRC has held more than 150 public meetings to get input 

on our Fukushima work and share progress. The NRC receives regular reports on the status of the Fukushima site from the government of Japan and the Tokyo Electric Power Company as they continue their work at the damaged reactor buildings. We are also 

closely coordinating with other U.S. Federal and State agencies regarding information about current concentrations of radioactive 

contamination in the Pacific Ocean. Based on the best scientific information available, no agency in the United States or abroad has 

identified any evidence of concerns for U.S. food and water supply 

or public health. 

The vast majority of operating reactors in the United States are 

performing well, while a few warrant enhanced oversight to ensure 

their safe and secure operation. Several reactors have recently shut 

down or announced their decision to cease operations. As they transition from operating to decommissioning, they have 2 years to develop and provide to the NRC their decommissioning plans. The 

NRC will adjust its oversight accordingly and ensure these plans 

meet our regulations, keeping the public informed all the time, of 

course. 

The NRC has acted expeditiously to comply with the D.C. Circuit 

Court of Appeals decision directing us to resume review of the 

Yucca Mountain license application. The Commission carefully reviewed feedback from participants to the adjudicatory proceeding 

and budget information from the NRC staff. Last November and 

again last week the Commission issued orders directing the staff 

to complete the safety evaluation report for the application and to 

make the licensing support network documentation publicly available in the NRC’s Adams data base, among other things. The 

project planning and building of the technical capability to finish 

the safety evaluation report is nearing completion. 

The NRC also continues to make progress in its waste confidence 

work. The proposed rule and draft generic environmental impact 

statement were available for public comment from September 

through December of last year. We conducted 13 public meetings 

in 10 States to get feedback and address questions, and the agency 

has received more than 33,000 public comments. The Commission 

has recently revised its review schedule for publication of the rule 

and GEIS no later than October 3rd, 2014, this year. In the interim, the NRC continues to review all affected license applications, 

but we will not make final licensing decisions dependent upon the 
13 

waste confidence decision until the court’s remand has been fully 

addressed. 

Construction of the new units at Vogtle and V.C. Summer is well 

underway under rigorous NRC inspection. Construction also continues at Watts Bar Unit 2, and the staff is working toward an operating licensing decision for that plant in December of this year. 

We are also busy preparing for the first design certification application of a small modular reactor, which we expect to receive later 

this year. 

The NRC has accomplished a great deal and I am confident will 

continue to meet the challenges ahead. Let me assure you safety 

and security at our operating and licensed facilities and materials 

remains our top priority. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am 

pleased to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Macfarlane follows:] 
14 
15 
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 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
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 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Commissioner Svinicki. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Vitter, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Sessions, and members 

of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today at 

this oversight hearing. 

The Commission’s chairman, Dr. Allison Macfarlane, and her 

statement on behalf of the Commission has provided a comprehensive description of key agency accomplishments and challenges in 

carrying out NRC’s important mission of protecting public health 

and safety, and promoting the common defense and security of our 

Nation. 

In a recent communication to all agency employees, the NRC’s 

senior career official, the executive director for operations, stated 

the following: ‘‘Our future is likely to be dynamic and unpredictable, and the agency will need to remain flexible and agile as we 

respond to new events and external pressures. We will need to continually evaluate the work we are doing, give careful consideration 

as how best to use resources, and remain focused on safety and security.’’ I agree with his statement. 

As an organization which embraces the precepts of continuous 

learning, the NRC consistently seeks to improve its organizational 

effectiveness. As a member of the Commission, I will continue to 

work with my Commission colleagues and the NRC staff to support 

the agency’s assessment of how we can accomplish our work efficiently and effectively, and in light of the circumstances and factors 

we face day to day. 

I am confident that the NRC’s dedicated and highly professional 

staff members are up to the task of meeting these challenges, as 

they have proven time and again over the course of the agency’s 

history. I thank them for their sustained commitment to the agency, to its work, and to each other. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and look forward to 

your questions. Thank you. 

[Ms. Svinicki’s responses to questions for the record follow:] 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, commissioner. 

Commissioner Apostolakis. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS, COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter, 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Sessions, and members of the 

committee, good morning. 

As Chairman Macfarlane stated, we have made a great deal of 

progress in implementing the lessons learned from the Fukushima 

accident. I would like to add that we know a lot more today about 

what it will take to implement the lessons learned than we did in 

2011, when the Commission set its goal to ‘‘strive to complete and 

implement the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident within 

5 years, by 2016.’’ 

It is important not to focus exclusively on the 5-year goal to complete the recommendations but, rather, on the entire process, which 

allows us to improve safety significantly by implementing the highest priority safety enhancements in a well informed and effective 

manner. 

I emphasize that for the most safety significant enhancements 

we expect to meet the 5-year implementation goal. Schedules will 

extend beyond 2016 in the case of the boiling water reactor containment vents because additional requirements were imposed 

after issuance of the initial orders. In another case the guidance for 

addressing seismic hazard reevaluations was revised in order to 

implement safety enhancements and actual plant modifications 

earlier, while allowing licensees more time to complete comprehensive site-specific seismic risk analysis. 

In my view, these actions are consistent with the original intent 

of the Commission to promptly and effectively implement the lessons learned from Fukushima. Thank you. 

[Mr. Apostolakis’s responses to questions for the record follow:] 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, commissioner. 

Commissioner Magwood. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD, IV, 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. Good morning to 

you and to Ranking Member Vitter, Chairman Carper, Ranking 

Member Sessions, and members of the subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the 

work of our agency. 

Chairman Macfarlane’s comments capture the full range of activities and, as you can see, it has been an extraordinarily busy 

time for the NRC. I will add briefly that we appreciate the encouragement from this committee as we have received to the 

Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Since March 2011, the NRC has 

learned vital lessons from this disaster and taken clear, rational 

action to enhance nuclear safety. We have kept our pledge to neither overreact nor underreact to the events in Japan, and I believe 

we have gotten it just about right. 

Our challenge now, both for NRC and its licensees, is to absorb 

the post-Fukushima activities into our normal work and prioritize 

it appropriately. Doing so will require us to understand how to 

manage the preparation for beyond design basis events in concert 

with our ongoing efforts to protect against much more likely accident scenarios. Considerable work lay ahead, and I am confident 

that the agency is up to the challenge. 

So again I thank you for your engagement during the last 3 

years of hard work. I look forward to answering any questions you 

have. 

[Mr. Magwood’s responses to questions for the record follow:] 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 
462 
463 
464 
465 
466 
467 
468 
469 
470 
471 
472 
473 
474 
475 
476 
477 
478 
479 
480 
481 
482 
483 
484 
485 
486 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Commissioner Ostendorff. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter, 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Sessions, thank you for the 

chance to be before you today. 

After receiving the Fukushima near-term task force recommendations back in July 2011, it was clear to myself and my colleagues at the table that those recommendations needed to be 

prioritized to focus on those safety significant action items, the socalled Tier 1 activities. I personally believe that great strives have 

been made in implementing Tier 1 activities. 

Chairman Macfarlane has, in depth, in her written and oral testimony, covered these issues. I think a lot of progress has been 

made, and I agree with my fellow colleagues that we have gotten 

it, from our perspective, about right. 

I acknowledge there have been a lot of things done. There have 

been things added to the plate since the original near-term task 

force report, a lot of discussion about what we should do, what we 

should not do. I would say that the Commission decision process 

has been very thoughtful and deliberate in these areas. A great 

deal of work has been done. 

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

your questions. Thank you. 

[Mr. Ostendorff’s responses to questions for the record follow:] 
487 
488 
489 
490 
491 
492 
493 
494 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. So now each of us will get 10 minutes of questions. 

Madam Chairman, I have sent the NRC five letters requesting 

documents that relate to the flawed steam generators at San 

Onofre. Just 2 days ago you told me in writing that NRC didn’t 

provide me with everything I requested, and you admitted that, because of constitutional concerns. 

I have here the Comprehensive Congressional Research Service 

Manual on Congressional Oversight. I have confirmed there are 

two constitutionally based privileges that allow an agency to withhold documents from Congress. One is an assertion of executive 

privilege and the other is the exercise of the Fifth Amendment 

right not to incriminate one’s self. So which one of these are you 

asserting as you do not give me my documents that I have asked 

for? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Madam Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to answer your questions here. We certainly want to have 

a good relationship with the oversight committee—— 

Senator BOXER. No, no. I don’t have time. I like you; I have a 

good relationship with you. What are you asserting? I need these 

documents. Is it—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We have been trying—— 

Senator BOXER [continuing]. Right not to incriminate yourself or 

is it executive privilege? Those are the two that are allowed. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We have been working with your staff, with 

the committee staff to provide documents. In fact, we just provided 

another tranche of documents yesterday and the day before to the 

staff that was responsive to your request. 

Senator BOXER. So you will give me all of the documents I have 

requested? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. If we have not been responsive to your request, as you go through the documents that we just provided, we 

of course would like to continue to work with the committee to see 

how we can accommodate your request. 

Senator BOXER. No, no, I don’t want you to work with the committee. You have promised the ranking member and myself that 

whenever we ask for documents, you get them to us. You have also 

committed that to everyone else. So I am just saying to you if we 

do not have the documents that we request rightfully and legally, 

you better assert why you are withholding them. Either it is incrimination or it is executive privilege. And you have talked about 

separation of powers. We will share with your legal people. We also 

heard other things from your counsel that deal with other reasons 

which just don’t make any sense, so we will continue to work with 

you. 

We have had eight oversight hearings. I am glad that my colleagues want more, because I want more as well; and that leads 

to an issue of your travel, all of your travel. Now, we all travel on 

business because sometimes it is extremely important to do so. But 

I have looked over how many trips each of you have taken in your 

time. Commissioner Svinicki, 17 international trips to 23 countries; 

Commissioner Magwood, 127 days on international travel since 

2010. 
495 

And I know that Chairman Macfarlane has requested that all 

five commissioners be in town at least 1 week each month in order 

to ensure that the Commission can meet to conduct its business 

and be available to testify before Congress. So I am asking if each 

of you would agree to her request, starting with Ms. Svinicki. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, I think we work very collegially on scheduling 

matters and I—— 

Senator BOXER. I am asking if you agree with her request, that 

you be in town 1 week a month, all of you together. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. I don’t think there is any month where I 

haven’t been in town 1 week. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. That is good, because it will make it easier on 

us, because some of my colleagues are complaining that we don’t 

have enough oversight. We are going to do more oversight. 

Now, the NRC travel records I received are marked ‘‘non-public,’’ 

which is mystifying to me since there is no good reason to keep 

that information secret. The taxpayers are paying for it. Now, 

when we travel, we get heat sometimes. We have to show where 

we go and what it costs, et cetera. Some of you publicly disclose 

some of your travel and your meetings, but most of you don’t. So, 

yes or no, will each of you commit to this committee to making all 

of your travel and meetings publicly available going forward? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I already do make my schedule publicly available 

and my travel publicly available. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Yes. Will you do that? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I think I am already doing it. 

Senator BOXER. You will do it. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes, I currently do that. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I currently make my meetings public. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, my understanding is, Commissioner 

Magwood, you haven’t in the past. So we look forward to seeing 

that in the future. 

I am going to be introducing legislation that will ensure that the 

Commission and staff are more open about their travel. 

Chairman Macfarlane, I think we all agree NRC must be independent, it is essential, and I am concerned that your independence 

may have been compromised as you considered a request by SoCal 

Edison to restart the San Onofre nuclear reactor. That reactor shut 

down in early 2012 when its steam generators were found to be in 

very bad shape. The NRC properly requested considerable amount 

of technical information from the licensee in order to inform its decision on whether the reactor was safe. You were right to do that. 

But documents I have received—at least I have received some—indicate the NRC staff was preparing a document declaring that the 

restart of the reactor was safe months before it received all of the 

responses to the technical questions. So how can we have confidence in NRC’s independence when it was preparing to grant industry’s request months before it received the necessary safety related information? 
496 

Ms. MACFARLANE. During the investigation of the steam generator failure at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, there 

were many concurrent issues that were working at the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. It was a very complicated proceeding and 

there was an active investigation—— 

Senator BOXER. Well, I am just asking a specific question. Documents show that you were ready to allow that plant to startup before all the technical studies were done and you had something 

drafted. I mean, I am just concerned. And I guess what I am getting at, you closed that reactor down, it is gone, thank God, because of the problem. Well, the company actually did it, you didn’t. 

But the bottom line is what I want to make sure of, in the future, 

if there is an investigation going on, you shouldn’t reopen. So I 

guess my question is do you think it is right to reopen a facility 

while an investigation is still going on? You don’t really know what 

the problem is. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It depends on the particular situation. Unfortunately, I can’t give you a specific answer because it depends on 

the particular situation, and in some situations our regulations 

allow for a plant to restart while an investigation continues. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Fair enough. So I am going to just continue 

to work on this in my investigation. 

Chairman Macfarlane, are these statements accurate? One, 

NRC’s former senior resident inspector for Diablo Canyon filed a 

formal dissent, saying that Diablo was operating outside the seismic requirements of its license. Is that accurate? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I believe that the senior resident, in years 

past, did file nonconcurrence. 

Senator BOXER. You believe that is correct, then. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I believe that is correct. 

Senator BOXER. Second, he also said that PG&E’s own analysis 

showed that the newly discovered faults could cause ground shaking that was 70 percent stronger than the NRC license allows. Is 

that correct? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I would have to look, I am not—— 

Senator BOXER. Would you get back to me on that and let me 

know? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. I can take that for the record. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I have a number of other questions I want 

to ask about that for the record, so I will ask all those. 

Madam Chairman, recently the NRC voted to delay a recommendation by its own staff that two people be present whenever 

highly enriched uranium or plutonium were being handled in order 

to protect against an insider threat. The Department of Energy has 

had a rule like that in place for decades, and in 2011 the Department of Homeland Security warned that violent extremists have 

obtained insider positions at utilities and that ‘‘insiders and their 

actions pose a significant threat to the infrastructure and information systems of U.S. facilities.’’ 

So I would like you to answer do you support the quick adoption 

of the two-person security rule that your own staff recommended? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The Commission decided not to go forward 

with that at this time. 

Senator BOXER. Why? 
497 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It was a Commission decision. 

Senator BOXER. Why? What was the vote? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I am not sure. I don’t recall what the vote was. 

Senator BOXER. Does anyone recall what the vote was not to go 

forward with this? None of you remember? Yes, sir. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Madam Chair, the specific issue was that the 

staff had not completed a cost-benefit analysis to assess whether or 

not the two-person rule was appropriate. 

Senator BOXER. Well, could I just say—— 

Senator SANDERS. We don’t have an answer to what the vote 

was. Could you tell me what the vote was? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I don’t recall what the vote was. I voted—— 

Senator SANDERS. Does anybody? Five people is not a lot of people. What was the vote, 3 to 2, 4 to 1? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I voted against the rule because of the two-person piece. 

Mr. SANDERS. OK. 

Senator BOXER. How did you vote on it? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. As I recall, I voted against it. 

Senator BOXER. How did you vote on it? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I can’t remember. 

Senator BOXER. How did you vote? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I believe I voted against it. 

Senator BOXER. How did you vote? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I don’t recall right now either. 

Senator BOXER. I am completely flummoxed. This is a big and 

important issue, and this business of a cost-benefit analysis when 

you are dealing with a potential terror attack and a takeover of a 

nuclear plant? You have got to be kidding. 

Now, let me say, you have never done a cost-benefit analysis for 

these sorts of materials tracking in the past, and you found the 

costs were minimal, less than a million a year; and I would say the 

benefit of preventing someone from stealing nuclear weapons materials is pretty much priceless. And I would suggest if you don’t 

move and reverse yourselves on this, there will be legislation. 

I thank you and I turn to my colleague. 

Senator VITTER. You know, I think oftentimes in Government, 

and in Washington in particular, we become very process-oriented 

and lose the forest for the trees. So I am just going to suggest a 

question, not to be answered here, but suggest a question for all 

of us to think about. Senator Sessions went through the rash of 

shutdowns very recently: Kewaunee in Wisconsin; Vermont Yankee; Crystal River Unit 3 in Florida; SONG 2 and 3 in California. 

Duke Energy announced it wouldn’t move forward with Levy County, Florida. TVA announced that it would scale back work at 

Bellefonte. 

Now, if any of us as individuals think most or all of those sites 

were unsafe or not safe enough, well, that is a good result. But if 

we think, as I do, that most, probably all of those sites were safe, 

were safe enough, that is a fundamental failure on the part of all 

of us; NRC, Congress, the whole establishment. So I just want to 

try to have us focus on the forest, and not lose sight of it. 

Let me ask some specific questions about Yucca Mountain. First 

of all, Madam Chair, at your confirmation hearing you stated very 
498 

clearly, ‘‘To be effective, a regulatory body must be independent 

from economic, policy, and political interest.’’ However, in the majority opinion on Yucca Mountain, Judge Cavanaugh stated that, 

‘‘The Commission’s political prognostication may or may not ultimately prove to be correct. Regardless, an agency may not rely on 

political guesswork about future congressional appropriations as a 

basis for violating existing legal mandates.’’ And he didn’t consider 

it a close call. 

Why did it take you a court decision to move forward with that 

legal mandate? Why was not that political prognostication and political guesswork about congressional appropriations not being 

independent from political interest and considerations? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thanks for the question, Senator. I was not on 

the Commission when those decisions were made, so I will not try 

to second guess the decisions that were made in the past. What I 

can assure you is that we are fully complying with the court’s decision and we are moving forward, continuing with the proceedings, 

and we are moving forward promptly on this. 

Senator VITTER. OK, well, let’s move to that. The Commission 

has repeatedly acknowledged in its order, including this week, that 

it does not have adequate resources to fully complete the Yucca review and issue a decision. Is that correct? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. To fully complete the licensing decision? 

Senator VITTER. Yes, to fully complete the review—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We do not have adequate resources. 

Senator VITTER [continuing]. And issue a decision pursuant to 

the review. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. That is correct. 

Senator VITTER. OK, so what action are you taking to solve that 

problem? For instance, have you proposed a supplemental budget 

to OMB? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No, we have not. 

Senator VITTER. Have you taken any other action to solve that 

problem? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We are complying with the court’s decision. 

They told us to use the existing funds that we had, and we are 

going forward using those funds. 

Senator VITTER. Let me ask you about existing resources. As was 

pointed out by other members a few minutes ago, NRC staff has 

increased about 34 percent at least since 2000. Meanwhile, the expected increase in workload has never materialized. Quite the opposite. So huge increase in staff, no increase in workload in terms 

of applications for licenses, et cetera. Are you moving any of that 

staff to solve this resource problem? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. You know, I would like to actually submit 

something for the record, if that is OK. I have a little chart here 

which shows our budget from 2003 to 2013. And I know it is a bit 

of an eye test for you, but it shows it in actual dollars and constant 

dollars. And if you look at the constant dollar chart, which is in 

red, our current budget is the lowest it has been since 2007, I believe. And in that time period since 2007 our workload has increased significantly. We have been dealing with Yucca Mountain, 

we have been dealing with waste confidence, we have been dealing 

with Fukushima, in addition to all the other work that we are 
499 

doing, the new construction work, all of that work. So we are actually now doing more with less. 

Senator VITTER. Well, there are going to be a lot of folks who disagree with you and that goes back to my original statement. If you 

become completely process oriented, I am sure you are dealing with 

more because you have created that process. If you step back, I 

think you come to the opposite conclusion. And, as you know, those 

resources were given to you to meet an expected increase in license 

application, an increase in sites, increase in nuclear reactors. None 

of that has happened. Yes, regulations have multiplied almost exponentially, but that fundamental growth of the industry has not 

happened. 

Let me re-ask my question about people, because you will agree 

that at least since 2000 there has been a huge increase in bodies 

at the NRC, correct? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Since 2000? We hit our maximum a couple 

years ago, and we have decreased in size since 2010, and we now 

have around 3700 employees. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Well, not that long ago it was 2900, so there 

has been a big increase over that time period. Are you moving any 

of those folks to solve the Yucca resources? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Oh, absolutely. We are currently about—— 

Senator VITTER. How many of those folks have been moved recently from something else to Yucca? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well, I can assure you that we are currently 

about 80 percent staffed up for dealing with the safety evaluation 

reports, so we are going to be ready to go on those very soon. 

Senator VITTER. But again I was talking about following the 

whole process through. You have said several times you don’t have 

adequate resources, so I am talking about that broader challenge. 

How do you propose to solve that problem? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think right now that the budget appropriations have been settled. We are in a reasonable position going forward. I would ask my colleagues to weigh in, if they would like to. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, if I could just add to the chairman’s answer. 

Senator VITTER. Sure. 

Ms. SVINICKI. In terms of reallocating appropriated money to 

Yucca Mountain related activities, there are prohibitions on our 

doing that. We would have to seek a congressional reprogramming 

because activities used for Yucca Mountain, I believe, must be appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund, so our other appropriated 

moneys would have to receive a congressional reprogramming. 

Senator VITTER. Are you all going to make that request? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. This will be a Commission decision, so it is 

something we will have to decide as a body. 

Senator VITTER. Are you considering making that request? Has 

there been any discussion? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. There has been some discussion. We will entertain this as it comes up in future budgets. 

Senator VITTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, if I may add to Commissioner Svinicki 

and Chairman Macfarlane’s comments. Glenn Tracy, who directs 

our Office of New Reactors, a New Orleans native, has moved a 
500 

number of his personnel over the last 2 years, because of the dropback in licensing of new reactors, over to help with Fukushima action items and the seismic and flooding area. I think Mark Sartorius, our executive director for operations, who is back here in the 

back row, has taken a lot of steps to ensure the appropriate fiscally 

prudent use of these resources. 

Senator VITTER. Well, I hope you can understand my general 

concern, which is it took a court order to have the NRC follow a 

clear legal mandate, and even as that is happening there are all 

sorts of statements, well, we don’t have the decisions to follow 

through and get everything done down the line. I realize we are not 

talking about the immediate work at hand, but the full review and 

decision. So why don’t we start thinking about how we solve that 

problem? I don’t hear any request for reprogramming, any significant movement of individuals, even though there has been a major 

increase over a decade, any proposal to OMB. So can you all discuss how we solve that problem over time and present to us and 

Congress and everyone appropriate your plan for solving that problem, not just identifying the problem or not just pointing to the 

problem? 

Thank you. That is all I have. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chair. 

I want to go back to the issue raised by my chair, and that is 

the two-person rule. Let me just note for the record we have heard 

around here hundreds of times, thousands of times, and people ask 

me from time to time how did you vote on such-and-such. Frankly, 

I don’t always remember, so I can understand how you may not remember how you voted. But, for the record, let us know how you 

voted. The other thing, for the record, let us know why you voted 

that way. 

In my old job in the Navy, the Navy PT aircraft world, as Commissioner Ostendorff knows, we handled, from time to time, nuclear weapons, and we had an aircraft rule: when using nuclear 

[unclear] bombs, you want to arm them or whatever, two people involved in that; and that was for a good reason. So just let us know 

what is your rationale for doing this. If there is a good reason for 

it, we would like to know it; and if ultimately there is not a good 

reason for it, we would like to know that too, and we would like 

to know sooner rather than later. So if we can put that out there, 

that would be great. 

Another thing, just clarify for the record. You all do a fair 

amount of travel. We do a fair amount of travel. I am the chairman 

of Homeland Security Committee. I need to do more international 

travel, and I am more cognizant of that and am going to try to do 

a better job this year, now that I have my first year of my chairmanship behind me. But you all travel a lot. Some of you travel 

a lot. The chairman doesn’t travel that much; she has not been in 

the Commission for as long, which may be the explanation. Some 

of you travel a lot to Japan. That is understandable. Some of you 

travel to places where it is less clear. And I would just ask, in 

terms of taxpayers paying for your travel, my understanding is 

that the lion’s share of the expenditures at the NRC, and I pre-
501 

sume it is travel as well, come not from taxpayer dollars, but from 

fees collected from utilities and so forth. Can you all give me the 

breakdown of that? What is it, 90/10? What is it? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, it is 90 percent. We are a 90 percent fee 

recoverable agency. 

Senator CARPER. It sounds like you are fairly transparent on the 

travel that you do. Just make sure. We get criticized for foreign 

travel, and a lot of cases it is stuff that is justified. I usually go 

to places where we have Americans getting shot at, killed at, and 

so forth, and it is kind of hard to criticize that. But just make sure 

that you continue to be transparent; explain why it is important. 

I always like to think what if the trip that I take is going to be 

on the front page of the newspaper, banner headlines, and I have 

to defend it. Just kind of take that approach to it and make sure 

that you are using good common sense. 

I want to turn to Sandy. Sandy visited my State a little over a 

year ago, our region of the country, did a lot of damage, and I think 

if climate change stuff is real, I think it is, we are going to see 

more Sandys in the future that are going to come to other places 

around our country and around our world. What were our lessons? 

What were our lessons learned from Sandy? What could we have 

done better not just from our nuclear power plants, but within the 

Federal, State, and local governments? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. What were the lessons learned? 

Senator CARPER. Yes. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well, certainly we were actually very impressed with our licensees’ response to Sandy; they were all on 

alert, they were all prepared. We, ourselves, were prepared; we had 

extra inspectors at the facilities ready and watching. So we were 

all ready to manage, and the plants managed very well. The only 

plant that had any kind of incident during that time was Oyster 

Creek in New Jersey, which did have high water levels, but it 

didn’t reach the design basis and didn’t affect the plant. 

Senator CARPER. Other commissioners, what are some things we 

learned from Sandy that we are acting on now, we could have been 

better, not just within the NRC, the plants themselves, maybe 

State and local government in their response? Anybody? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, thanks for the question. We had a 

Commission meeting earlier this month, in public, from Rockville, 

and we had operation supervisor from Salem Hope Creek there, 

and I think the licensee learned some things, we learned some 

things. The two comments I had were regional coordination and 

how the licensee and the NRC communicate with FEMA. Then, onsite there were some areas identified to enhance the operating procedures in the event of a flood. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Anything the NRC is doing—and this could 

be for the chair or the other members as well, but anything that 

the NRC is doing to better ensure, to better ensure that our nuclear plants and the communities around them are better prepared 

for storms like this in the future? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well, we asked all our plants to reevaluate the 

flooding hazard at the plants, and we are getting their flood hazard 

reevaluations in. We got a big tranche in last year; we are expecting another this year, to keep up with the potential for increases 
502 

in flood hazard from climate change or what have you. So we are 

on top of that and we are going to be analyzing other aspects of 

weather and natural disaster events, as we work through the 

Fukushima Tier 3 activities. 

Senator CARPER. Let’s go across the world to Fukushima this 

morning. How are they doing there in their recovery? Just somebody give us—30,000 foot. How are they doing in their recovery 

from the terrible disasters that they were visited by? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. How are we doing? 

Senator CARPER. No, no, how are they doing. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. At Fukushima? 

Senator CARPER. Yes. They are like a sister State to us in Delaware, so we care about it. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. They are working very hard. It is a very difficult situation and it is an unprecedented situation, so they are 

really having to make things up as they go, in other words. There 

is a constant issue of radiation leakage into groundwater. They 

have a lot of water issues there and they are working very hard 

to minimize it. They really literally, I think, are working around 

the clock. But new problems will crop up, and as Commissioner 

Apostolakis noted, we are learning more all the time now about the 

accident, about what happened, and that is giving us more insight 

into our own operations here. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Some of you travel extensively to 

Japan. Anybody else want to just give us a quick 30 seconds or so? 

How are they doing over there in their recovery? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Appreciate the question, Senator. There has been 

some very important progress. They have begun, for example, to 

begin relocating some of the spent fuel from the damage in the fuel 

pools, and that is a very important milestone that the people in 

Japan were watching very closely. I think the biggest challenge 

they have in Japan, quite frankly, is the continued skepticism that 

the public has about the ability of the government and the regulators to speak clearly to requirements and making decisions, and 

they still have those doubts; and I think that is a big challenge for 

our colleagues at the Nuclear Regulatory Authority as they try to 

make good decisions. I think they are doing a very good job so far, 

but that public skepticism is still very high in Japan. It is a big 

challenge for them. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Sticking with Fukushima for another 

minute or so, in response to the Fukushima event, the Commission, 

I know, continues to pursue a long list of lessons learned from the 

accident. That is good. The NRC has several deadlines to meet in 

the next couple of years, I believe, to meet the time line established 

in March of, I think it was 2012. Are there any issues that have 

been a lot more difficult than you might have expected? If so, what 

have they been? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Issues that have made achieving the activities? 

Senator CARPER. Are there any issues that have been more difficult to address than expected? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I would say at this moment not directly, no. 

We are certainly learning as we go and shifting things around a 

little bit as we go. You know, we issued an order, for example, on 
503 

hardened vents to make them more secure. Last year the Commission revisited this issue and said, you know, we really need to 

make sure that these vents are hardened, it is possible to open 

then in an accident scenario, but these vents have to be able to 

withstand the conditions of an accident; the temperature, pressure, 

intense radiation conditions of an accident. So we revised the order 

and reissued it so that these vents will be capable of being operated under those conditions as well. So we are doing that as we go 

along. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Commissioner Apostolakis, it was last September, along with 

Senator Sessions and Senator Barrasso and Cardin, we sent a letter to the Commission encouraging the NRC to streamline the licensing process for dry cast storage. Since we sent our letter, we 

understand that the NRC has implemented a new expedited process for approving dry cast storage designs, and I was wondering if 

you might elaborate for us on that process, if there was any feedback that you have been receiving from the industry, please. Commissioner Apostolakis, if you would, please. Do you have some feedback that you have received from the industry? How are we doing 

here? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I have not heard any complaints from the industry. I think we are doing fine, as far as I know. 

Senator CARPER. Anybody else want to respond to my question? 

No? All right. 

Chairman Macfarlane, can you give us an update on where the 

NRC is on waste confidence, please? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. As I said, we have finished our public 

comment period of getting public comments on the waste confidence rule and the generic environmental impact statement. We 

are now in the process of going through those over 33,000 public 

comments and addressing them, and we will be about, right now 

the estimate is 1 month over time. So we will be done by the beginning of October. 

Senator CARPER. Madam Chair, our colleague, Senator Sanders, 

raises interesting questions. I put my old Governor hat on, about 

the appropriate role for State and local governments. I have a clear 

interest in the decommissioning of these facilities around our country, including Vermont and other places. And I don’t know that we 

need a law to do that, I don’t know if we need regulations to make 

sure that they have the ability to play an appropriate role. There 

is clearly an interest and a concern. I would have it as well. And 

let’s see if we can’t use some common sense to make possible for 

the State and local governments to have some involvement. We will 

follow up, Senator Sessions and I will follow up with you, some further discussions, and involve Senator Sanders if he would like to 

be part of that. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have to confess, I was hoping the Senator Sessions would make it back, because I always do so much better when I ask my questions after 

Senator Sanders has asked his questions, and you will find out in 

a minute. 

[Laughter.] 
504 

Senator INHOFE. Let me ask this also. I really think, and I have 

been here for quite a while and I used to chair this committee a 

long time, and I think we have an excellent Commission. I mean, 

all five of you, I just appreciate your service so much, and it is well 

balanced. 

I noticed, Mr. Apostolakis, that you are going to be the next one 

that would be coming up for renomination, and I would hope that 

you would continue on and, if you are inclined to do so, I would 

appreciate your service to continue. 

In my opening statement, I am going to repeat something that 

I said there because it is kind of following up a little bit on what 

Senator Vitter was talking about, but it may be in a different way. 

And I remember it so well because at that time I chaired this committee; this was 2003. The NRC asked Congress for the bigger 

budget to build new buildings, add all these employees. And, by the 

way, I have some specific numbers. 

Madam Chair, you weren’t here at that time, so you are off the 

hook, partially. 

But they wanted to do this so they could add expected approval 

of four design certifications for new reactor designs and 17 of the 

COLAs; not the normal COLAs we talk about, the construction and 

operating license applications. So that was 4 and 17. 

Now, that was actually, at that time, in discussing this, we were 

looking in terms—because I went back and checked our notes—that 

we would have to anticipate having that increase workload in 3 to 

5 years. Now, that has been a long time, and now 10 years later 

we only have approved one design certification and two COLAs. So 

it has gone from an expectation of 4 design certifications and 17 

COLAs down only 1 and 2. 

Now, I say this, and I would like to get a response from each 

member, maybe start with, well, since you weren’t here at that 

time, let’s start with Ms. Svinicki. Tell me how that can happen. 

Why did that happen? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, I would note, Senator, some statistics I 

found, just very quickly here, is that NRC does have under review 

right now three design certifications and—the chairman is helping 

me out. 

Senator INHOFE. I am not talking about under review. We said 

at that time that we would have those in 3 to 5 years, not be reviewing them 10 years later. 

Ms. SVINICKI. As some members of the committee have noted in 

their opening statements, some of the larger economic circumstances for the utilities that were interested in building these 

new reactors have changed somewhat significantly. As a result, 

some have suspended or withdrawn their applications, but some 

have decreased the pace at which they are supporting the review 

of their application, by which I mean when we generate questions, 

they have indicated that they are content with a slower pace to our 

review. So some of the schedules have become protracted for that 

reason. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Because of timing, I am going to—if there 

is time, I will come back and ask the same question of the other 

three, but I want to get another thing in here in the meantime, and 

that is that the NRC near-term task force in two Japanese reports 
505 

on Fukushima determined that the disaster was one that we call 

made in Japan; in other words, the cultural differences, the gaps 

that are out there. It would seem that we need to have that determined. And we talked about this way back in 2011, when it happened. We said there are differences here, there are cultural differences here. 

So I would ask Chairman Macfarlane has the NRC conducted a 

thorough gap analysis between the Japanese and United States 

systems and regulations to compare and contrast the complete picture comparing U.S. and Japanese models to more closely and 

wisely cost-effectively suggest policy changes? Have we made that 

kind of a study? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, we did a comparative study of the U.S. 

and Japanese regulatory systems, but it wasn’t comprehensive. 

Senator INHOFE. It was not comprehensive. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No, it wasn’t completely comprehensive. 

Senator INHOFE. It didn’t include all the cultural—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. In part because to get into the weeds of comparing the U.S. and Japanese, we would have to translate all of 

their regulations to fully understand the differences. But let me 

just jump to the conclusions of the study that we did. We found 

some similarities and we found some differences. But the bottom 

line was that there was no evidence that a Fukushima-type accident would have been completely avoided in the U.S. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. And what I have learned from the fantastic 

staff at the NRC is that one of the most important things for a regulator is operating experience. And the operating experience that 

we gained during the Fukushima accident is significant. We did 

not, prior to the Fukushima accident, expect or analyze for more 

than one reactor at a site to have an accident. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. So that was not planned for. We had not prepared properly for extended long-term station blackout; no electricity, no backup sources. And we are now addressing that. And 

do you know what? Every country with a significant nuclear program around the world came to the same conclusions and they are 

doing the same thing. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, what I would like to have is a copy of this 

report that you have. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Certainly. It is publicly available. 

Senator INHOFE. Even though you state that it is not as complete 

as we would all probably want. But I want to compare it with the 

notes that we took 3 years ago on the changes. For example, you 

have to actually go get permission in advance to do things that we, 

through the NRC, empower those people on the site to do; and 

there are so many changes like that. 

I would like to ask, Captain Ostendorff, would you think it is important for us to have the benefit of a complete report, even more 

complete than the one we have right now? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I appreciate the question. I agree with 

Chairman Macfarlane’s response, and I know that this has been 

some discussion over the last couple of years with this committee. 

I think we have thoughtfully taken aboard the Fukushima lessons 
506 

learned, including the scope of Japanese regulations in place at the 

time for those areas that were important. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Well, we would just like to have the benefit 

of everything. While we are talking about getting reports, Madam 

Chairman, I know we have had enough funding to complete the 

Yucca Mountain report, and I will be watching real closely to see— 

do you have a date that we would have that report? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think it is about a year from January, but 

I need to get back to you on that, so let me take that for the record. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. When you get back to me, and for the 

record I would like to have you give me a date that we should anticipate receiving it, because I think, to me, anyway, that is very 

important. 

Now, in the remaining time, I asked the question, in opening up, 

how we can—first of all, increasing the staff. It is my information 

that we have 900 more employees right now than we had in 2004. 

Now, I don’t know whether that agrees with your chart or not, but 

what I would like to have you do is take your chart, since this action took place in 2003, extend it to the 3 years prior to 2003 so 

we can get a better look on how much of that came from the increased activity that we anticipated were going to happen in 

COLAs and design certification. So I would ask that you take the 

chart, go back to, instead of starting at 2003, start at 2000. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Certainly. We can do that for you. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

Now, the rest of you, in terms of the increase from anticipating 

4 design certifications and 17 COLAs, and only getting 1 design 

certification and 2 COLAs in that time, would the other three of 

you who didn’t have a chance to respond to that tell me what I am 

overlooking here? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Well, on the face of it, I must agree it doesn’t 

look good. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, that is a good response. 

How about you, Mr. Magwood? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Senator, I think that when you look at what actually has taken place over the last several years, you find that the 

applicants and the licensees have actually struggled somewhat 

when it comes to answering some of the technical questions. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, but somewhat is a little bit different than 

the gap that I am talking about. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. There has been significant back and forth with 

the applicants over technical issues, and it has taken significantly 

longer than I think anyone thought. But as Commissioner Svinicki 

pointed out, there are still reviews underway as we speak. 

Senator INHOFE. I am almost out of time. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Also, real quick, Senator, I will give you two 

examples on the design certifications. Mitsubishi had a design certification submitted to the NRC for what is called the APWR. They, 

the submitting group, backed off their resources to focus them back 

in Japan. 

Second one, ARIVA had an application in for the EPR. There 

have been problems in the international community with digital alliance—— 
507 

Senator INHOFE. My time is up. I will tee up one more thing for 

my good friend, Senator Sanders—— 

Senator BOXER. We have a vote at 11:15, so I am afraid people 

aren’t going to get a chance. 

Senator INHOFE. No, just one sentence. Out of your time, that is 

good. All right, that is good. 

Do you think it was unfair for me to assert that perhaps we are 

trying to regulate the nuclear energy out of business, just like we 

are trying to regulate the fossil fuel business out of business? That 

is it. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for that provocative thought. 

With that, we will turn to Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me begin. Senator Inhofe and I disagree 

every now and then, despite being very good friends, but I share 

your line of questioning about the growth of employees at the NRC. 

And as Commissioner Apostolakis said, it doesn’t look so good on 

the surface, and I would agree with you. That is something we 

want to pursue together. 

The other issue I want to back to the point that I made earlier 

about the role of State government in the decommissioning process, 

but before I do that I want to get to this voting issue, which concerns me. It is actually an issue that has been raised for a number 

of years. Every person up here as United States Senators has to 

cast some very difficult and controversial votes, and occasionally 

those votes are distorted and put on to 30-second ads. That is our 

reality; we live with that. 

Is there any reason why every vote that you cast should not be 

made public? Right down the line. Madam Chair. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think there are, when we vote—— 

Senator SANDERS. Very briefly, please. Maybe yes or no. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. When we vote in our adjudicatory role. Those 

votes I don’t believe are public. 

Senator SANDERS. My point is just give me an answer. We cast 

votes about whether we go to vote or not, of some consequence. 

They are made public. Any reason why your votes should not be 

made public? You are saying yes, you think there are some occasions when they should not. I hear that. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. Ms. Svinicki. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I agree with that and would add that if there are 

security-related matters, those are not made public as well. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, that is a big word, security. We can hide 

a whole lot under security. 

Mr. Apostolakis. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I agree with my colleagues. 

Senator SANDERS. All right. 

Mr. Magwood. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. The vast majority of our votes are public. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Ostendorff. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator Sanders, every single one of our 

Fukushima-related votes that come to us sticky paper, when the 

voting process is complete, those votes are all made public. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, you know, I happen to think that unless 

there is some extraordinary circumstance, votes should be made 
508 

public. That is just my own view and that is an issue I want to 

pursue. I think Ranking Member Vitter raised the issue of a ‘‘rash’’ 

of nuclear shutdowns in this country. The truth of the matter is 

there are a whole lot of people who are concerned about nuclear 

power. We are concerned about safety aspects of nuclear power; we 

are concerned about the cost of the production of nuclear power. 

You know, many of my very conservative friends here say over and 

over again they want the Government to deregulate; they want the 

Government out of the private sector. We hear that every day. The 

truth of the matter is if we did not have legislation like Price-Anderson, which is not a well known piece of law—what Price-Anderson is about, if, God forbid, there were ever a nuclear disaster of 

consequence, a Fukushima in the United States, I am not sure that 

everybody is aware the taxpayers of this country would be called 

upon to come up with who knows, tens and tens and tens of billions 

of dollars to deal with the cost incurred in that disaster. 

Am I right, Ms. Macfarlane? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. You are correct. 

Senator SANDERS. So I would, in the goal of getting the Government out of the private sector and overregulating, I would wonder 

if any of my conservative friends would cosponsor with me legislation to repeal Price-Anderson so we can leave the nuclear power industry alone and not get involved with Government. And I look forward to working with Senator Vitter or Senator Inhofe getting the 

Government out of the nuclear power industry. Any volunteers at 

this point? 

Senator INHOFE. [Remarks made off microphone.] 

Senator SANDERS. OK. There we go. 

Senator VITTER. Bernie, I am not going to volunteer. I just want 

to underscore exactly what I said. I listed all those shutdowns and 

I said if you believe most or all of these sites are not safe or not 

safe enough, then that is a good result. But if you don’t, I think 

the vast majority of informed folks do not, then I think it is a failure on our collective part. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, David, my only point here is—— 

Senator BOXER. We can’t do too many more back and forths, because I am so nervous people aren’t going to get a chance. It is not 

fair. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. I would just say—— 

Senator BOXER. But finish your time. 

Senator SANDERS. David, I have heard all of your given speeches, 

we have heard speech after speech about the Government being involved in the private sector, not letting free enterprise do its thing, 

and here you have a situation. Without Price-Anderson, it is quite 

likely the nuclear industry in America would collapse tomorrow. 

And you know why? Because Wall Street, whose job is to make 

money, and the insurance company, whose job is to make money, 

they don’t think insuring nuclear power plants is a pretty profitable enterprise, and they won’t do it. So I look forward to working—maybe Jim and I can work together on this—getting the Government out of the nuclear power industry. 

All right, that is an aside. 

I also wanted to mention in terms of nuclear power, I think everybody here knows Germany is in the process, the people in Ger-
509 

many are not dumb, they are in the process of phasing out their 

nuclear industry, I think by the year 2022. Switzerland and Spain 

have indicated they don’t want any more nuclear power plants. So 

people around this planet have different views on nuclear power. 

All right, here is the issue that I did want to focus on, and that 

is the role of States. And I appreciate Senator Carper for reiterating my concerns. There are a number of States in which nuclear power plants will be shut down; California, Vermont, elsewhere. It is of enormous importance to the people in those States 

how the decommissioning process works. Will it take 60 years? Will 

it take, as has been the case, 10 years? Will the people of the State 

be satisfied about the lack of radioactivity in the area? Where will 

the nuclear fuel rods be placed? Who will get the jobs? What about 

the financial arrangements? All of which are of very much concern, 

I can tell you, to the State of Vermont. So I have three questions 

that I would like to ask for brief responses to the members of the 

Commission. 

Do you agree that States have a strong interest in how their nuclear plants are decommissioned? Ms. Macfarlane. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I would agree that States and the public certainly have a strong interest. 

Senator SANDERS. Ms. Svinicki. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, States have an interest. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Apostolakis. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Magwood. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Ostendorff. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. 

Do you agree that it is fair and reasonable for the host State to 

have a real seat—now, I know the term real seat is not quite a 

technical term, but a significant role to play—during the decommissioning process; not just a hearing, not just giving their opinion, 

but having a seat at the table helping to determine the outcome? 

Ms. Macfarlane. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Let me just explain something. What we do is 

regulate the safety and security of these facilities as they decommission. Let’s just talk about the decommissioning piece of this. 

And in that our relationship is with the licensee. We are holding 

them accountable to make sure that they are providing safety and 

security. Now, the public should have some kind of role, OK? And 

we do encourage public engagement; we do hold public meetings—— 

Senator SANDERS. You and I chatted about this issue. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We encourage strongly that the licensee form 

some kind of community advisory board in which they can—— 

Senator SANDERS. OK, I apologize, I just don’t have a whole lot 

of time. I understand all that; we chatted. Community advisory, 

that is not satisfactory to me because advice can be rejected. So my 

question to you all is should the States themselves, who have to 

deal with the consequence of the decommissioning process, have a 

real—and I understand real is not a technical term, but be part of 

the process such that if what is negotiated between the industry 
510 

and the NRC is not satisfactory, that will not happen; to be a real 

player in the process? Should the States have that type of authority? Ms. Macfarlane, very briefly. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think it depends on the specific situation in 

the State. I think that there are more interests at stake than just 

the Governor of the State; there are local interests as well. 

Senator SANDERS. Absolutely. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Those need to be represented. 

Senator SANDERS. But in our democratic society it is the State 

government that ends up getting elected to do those things. 

Let me just say this, because I think I am probably not going to 

get a clear answer from any of you. This is a very, very important 

issue. I think your rules right now are not satisfactory. I think you 

do not give enough input—not input, you don’t give enough power, 

if you like, in the decisionmaking power to the people of the States. 

I would hope, and you and I will chat about this, Ms. Macfarlane, 

that we will change the rules as they are currently constituted. If 

you do not change the rules, I will introduce legislation to make 

sure that States do have that authority. 

Madam Chair, thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. And you can count on my support for 

that, because I think decommission; I think Massachusetts has one 

coming as well. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Well, we don’t want to get the Government out, I assume, of 

solar, auto, ethanol, wind powers. 

Senator BOXER. How about oil? 

Senator SESSIONS. Oil? There is not much in that except—— 

Senator BOXER. Except $6 billion a year. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is a disputed fact. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Senator SESSIONS. As to whether or not that is any special tax 

break or whether it is just a normal tax situation oil corporations 

have. 

OK, what I would like to see Bellefonte done in Alabama. I don’t 

know whether Vermont does. They sued Vermont Yankee multiple 

times. I guess they finally just gave up and closed the plant. That 

is all right; Vermont wants to have their electricity produced using 

carbon fuels or whatever, so be it. I would like to see clean nuclear 

power be used more around the country. 

Now, I raise this concern because I am really worried about it. 

I think all of you are aware of the situation we have concerning 

constriction of nuclear power, and it is staged now. I get to second 

guess your regulatory powers and maybe they have a right to do 

so, but if they jump in and double up on the cost of closing a plant 

or opening a plant, it is just one more burden that makes it even 

less likely that we will have an expansion of nuclear power and 

more likely that we will see this decline continue. So I am worried 

about it. 

Ms. Svinicki, you have been on the Commission for some time 

and you have observed these issues develop. Would you give your 

thoughts to us and share your thoughts with us about what might 

be contributing to the erosion of nuclear power generation and the 
511 

failure of new plants to get started that we thought would be started? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, I think, as is well acknowledged by economic 

experts, the situation of abundant natural gas, while good for the 

United States in many ways, does affect the economics of both new 

nuclear, but also current nuclear. So from the regulatory standpoint, although we don’t control any of those macroeconomic factors, I think that our pledge as a Commission is to make certain 

that we do the most disciplined sort of analysis and work so that 

we are only imposing regulations that we have thoroughly analyzed 

and justified. 

Senator SESSIONS. Is it possible that these regulatory factors 

and, let’s say, a lack of final certainty over waste disposal and 

Yucca Mountain and cumulative costs of compliance are affecting 

the future of nuclear power? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I support the Commission’s action to address the 

court’s remand to us of our waste confidence decision. I think that 

the Commission and the agency staff are taking quick and responsible action to address the deficiencies that the court identified, 

which were not the entirety of the rule that we had put forward, 

but the court asserted and found that our analysis and evaluation 

lacked certain points. We are remedying those specific deficiencies 

and, as the chairman has noted, although we have delayed our 

schedule by 1 month, we still continue to push forward very aggressively. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, it is worse than that. The court hammered the Commission and Congress and declared it was an absolute violation of multiple requirements of law, and it goes to the 

very core of who writes law in America. Congress passed laws, we 

chose this site, it has been authorized and directed, fees have been 

collected in billions of dollars, and very little action has been done. 

Wouldn’t you agree that the court’s decision was a real critique of 

the failure to act on the congressionally approved Yucca Mountain 

site? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, on the matter of Yucca Mountain, the court’s 

language was unequivocal and was very, very strong. But, again, 

we have taken actions to address the writ of mandamus. 

Senator SESSIONS. Will that be completed in what time? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, we are providing monthly reports to this 

committee. We do not have the team of NRC experts who will address that work fully assembled; I believe the last I heard last 

week we have 75 percent of the experts assembled. And as Chairman Macfarlane noted, I think they still anticipate it will take approximately 1 year. 

Senator SESSIONS. I understand she has talked about that previously, but I think if you need to reprogram money you should ask 

for it. It just comes down, at some point, to a constitutional question: Will the Government of the United States execute the laws established by the duly elected Congress? And you have a duty to do 

that. Not one member of the U.S. Senate, some powerful Senator, 

ought to be able to block what has been decided by the majority 

of Congress. 

I will say this, I believe if you are seeking investments to build 

a nuclear plant in the future, the fact that we have failed to have 
512 

an approved disposal site is a factor—how much, I don’t know—in 

weighing against building and going forward with investments in 

a plant. If you are not sure that that will ever be affected, ever 

saw, it could reduce your confidence that you can have the waste 

disposal disposed of as required, you will be less confident in investing. 

Ms. Macfarlane, how many plants are in license or re-license 

process now? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. In licensing process? We have nine combined 

license reviews underway. Many of them have been slowed down 

in part because there are delays in the design certifications for the 

plants, and those delays were requested by the vendors themselves. 

And there are no firm construction plans right now for those, including Bellefonte. 

Senator SESSIONS. Right. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. But we do have five reactors under construction actively in the U.S. and we will be seeing, most likely, the 

completion of the Watts Bar 2 Unit. 

Senator SESSIONS. So you take the TVA, Watts Bar 2, the two 

at Vogtle—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Two at Vogtle and two at Summer in South 

Carolina. 

Senator SESSIONS. OK. And the Vogtle and Summer are entirely 

new? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. They are entirely new designs, yes, the Westinghouse AP1000. 

Senator SESSIONS. I know you visited the Vogtle plant recently 

as part of your inspecting tour. I hope they don’t complain about 

that travel; that is good travel. You can go and you can observe the 

plant and see what is going on. Was it your observation that these 

plants with the new design, AP1000 with passive cooling, so if all 

power is shut off, you can still allow the water to cool the system 

and prevent disaster, would that be an improvement on the 

Fukushima design and avoid some of the dangers that occurred 

there, and how would they? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Passive systems are certainly better than active systems, systems that have to be activated, so those passive 

systems are an improvement. 

Senator SESSIONS. For people who are listening, would you describe how the passive system would work? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. In light of the time, I am going to take that 

one for the record. 

Senator SESSIONS. OK. Well, do you feel like these plants, the 

new ones that are moving forward, could help the United States be 

a leader in a modern nuclear plant and set an example for the 

world, as well as our country? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well, it is our job at the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission to ensure that the operating plants and the plants 

under construction are moving along safely, the plants are operating safely and securely. We are protective of public health and 

safety. It is not our job to prognosticate on the health of the nuclear industry or what is best in terms of nuclear policy or energy 

policy, we leave that up to Congress and the Administration. 
513 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you have a role to play in it, and excessive regulation at this time of real competition from low cost natural gas that is fairly clean, carbon fuel, but not as clean as nuclear power, I think that the scales could be tilted in a way that 

we could see a collapse in the future of nuclear power; and I think 

you have to be aware that there are ramifications from your decisions. 

Thank you for your work. I think all of you have tried to do the 

right thing for the country. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you all for being here today. Nice to see you, Dr. 

Macfarlane. 

The NRC Principles of Good Regulation, they emphasize efficiency and focusing on activities that have the greatest safety significance. Rulemakings are a small portion of the total scope of 

your activities that licensees must respond to. How does your agency prioritize its non-rulemaking activities to ensure that your finite 

resources are focused on activities of the highest safety significance 

and in the most significant manner? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Let me first say thank you for your question. 

Senator FISCHER. Do you believe that a prioritization process is 

necessary? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, and we do use a prioritization process 

and we do work with industry in helping set that prioritization 

process, and I believe we are going to be receiving a staff paper on 

this topic this year. But let me just say that, in general, we weight 

safety and security as the highest priority setting factor, but we 

also depend on how new rules would fit into our strategic plan and 

what the interests are within the NRC, within Congress, within 

other governmental bodies, the public, NGOs, and, as I said, industry, of course. 

Senator FISCHER. With regard to Fukushima and what is happening there, part of evaluating that lesson I think needs to be how 

you look in the future, the consequences and working with other 

agencies here within our Government, and especially with regards 

to more dams upstream, and if there would be any failures of those 

dams. This is a subject, I know, that is not just of interest to you, 

but also to our other agencies out there, the Corps, for example, 

Department of Homeland Security. How is the Commission coordinating its research on that? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We are working with the other agencies that 

you mentioned, as well, as the FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which also has some purview over dams. But 

we are working closely with them to deal with these issues. They 

are significant issues. 

Senator FISCHER. Do you look at any uniformity in trying to 

come up with a good assessment on that? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Uniformity among the Federal agencies? 

Senator FISCHER. Yes. How is that working? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We have our differences. 
514 

Senator FISCHER. Do you think you are going to be able to work 

together? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. Yes. Certainly. 

Senator FISCHER. I mean, this is a huge concern. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Senator FISCHER. Do you have a formal process in place that you 

are following right now? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. To work with other agencies? Yes, we do. Our 

staff has been coordinating with them and meeting with them on 

a regular basis. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. Do you anticipate you are going to be coming up with a plan soon or is it going to be targeted for each area? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Let me get back to you with a specific answer 

on that one, OK? 

Senator FISCHER. OK. And then from a review of industry performance over the last 20 years, it appears that the most significant safety improvements have been attained as a result of voluntary industry assessments to identify and fix those latent 

vulnerabilities. Do you agree with that? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No, I don’t, actually. 

Senator FISCHER. Good. Tell me why. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I don’t think there is any evidence that any— 

let me put it this way, there have been a number of voluntary actions taken by the industry, but I think those have been prompted 

by actions within the NRC, in anticipation of new rules at the 

NRC. 

But my colleagues might disagree, and I encourage you to ask 

them. 

Senator FISCHER. Yes. Do any of you have anything to add to 

that? Can you give me specific examples? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. The studies that were done in the mid- to 

late 80s to identify so-called vulnerabilities certainly contributed to 

enhancing the safety of the plants, but I wouldn’t call those the 

most significant safety improvements. I think we have made tremendous progress in fire protection, for example, where both the 

industry and the NRC staff have come up with ways of improving 

fire safety and understanding better. So I would say that is a more 

significant improvement. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, thanks for the question. I would just 

provide another example, and that is in the context of the 

Fukushima action items. I would make two comments. One, the 

Commission, back in 2011, made a very concerted decision to 

prioritize those safety issues into Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3, Tier 

1 being the most important. And I think that served the Commission and the industry and the country well. 

The second piece I would mention is that in the context of 

Fukushima, industry developed what is called a flex proposal to 

deal with loss of power offsite, onsite, to deal with other issues associated with a catastrophic event. That has been a partnership; industry has developed that in response to our mitigating strategies 

order, so I would say it is really a partnership with lots of discus-
515 

sions, interactions between the regulator and the industry and the 

public on these issues. 

Senator FISCHER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Senator, I think it is an excellent question and 

I think it is a complicated question because if you look at the operations of each individual nuclear power plant, licensees take actions both in response to NRC initiatives and also to their own desire to build margin and increase safety; and there is a handshaking that goes along with those. So I think each plant benefits 

from voluntary actions taken by licensees. How to add that up and 

compare them to regulatory actions, I don’t think we have ever 

tried to do that, but I agree with my colleagues that I think the 

regulatory framework we put together is one that is built to assure 

safety, and when licensees go above that, that is just a good thing. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Fischer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter, thank you for holding today’s hearing. Chairman Macfarlane and Commissioners, thank you for being here and sharing your time with us today. 

When Chairman Macfarlane was before our committee last year, I shared with 

her Nebraska’s unique distinction of being the only State in the Nation that is 100 

percent public powered. We are very proud of our public power system in Nebraska 

and thankful that we enjoy some of the lowest electricity costs in the country. 

In Nebraska, electricity costs are well below the national average—thanks, in 

part, to nuclear energy. Nebraska normally receives more than 25 percent of its 

electricity from its two nuclear power plants. 

Recent nuclear power plant shutdowns have shown us just how important nuclear 

energy is in keeping electricity rates down. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in July that the California power market experienced a 59 percent 

increase in wholesale power prices, which it attributed in part to the outage of the 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. 

In Nebraska, we are very grateful that Omaha Public Power District’s Fort Calhoun plant is now back online. We appreciate NRC’s efforts to ensure a safe restart. 

We are also hopeful that following a process of more than 7 years, the license renewal for the Crow Butte uranium mining operation will be completed. Also pending 

before the NRC are license applications for development of three expansion sites in 

Nebraska, so our nuclear fuel resources can be safely developed for years to come. 

It is critical that we ensure the continued viability and success of the U.S. nuclear 

energy industry. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission plays an important role in 

that task. We must have an NRC that ensures the safety and security of our nuclear 

power and inspires public trust and confidence in our system. As the NRC does its 

work, it is critical that the Commission adheres to its principles of good regulation— 

independence, openness, efficiency, clarity, and reliability. 

As NRC works to implement new safety enhancements, complete a safety evaluation of the Yucca Mountain repository, and review and approve licensing requests, 

we need a Commission that truly puts these principles into practice. 

Commissioners, I look forward to our discussion on these important issues at today’s hearing. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. So I want to thank my colleagues because this 

is really great. The votes, I guess, have just started? They just 

started, so that is really good. 

I want to thank all you commissioners for coming here today. We 

are going to have you back real soon because there are many more 

issues we didn’t get to. Specifically, we are going to go in the next 

hearing, we are going to look at more of the transparency by com-
516 

missioners. We are also going to look at the 12 recommendations 

that were made post-Fukushima for safety by your own staff, who 

between them all had 150 years’ experience, who laid out 12 things 

you should be doing, you should do; and at that time there was a 

hope in the Commission to get those things done in 5 years. So 

Fukushima is March 2011 and March 2012 has passed and March 

2013, and we are approaching March 2014. My understanding is 

there is one rule out of the 12, and everything else is in stages. 

I also found it very interesting, talk about cost-benefit, and we 

are going to make public your vote because you don’t seem to mind 

on who voted which way. My understanding is, chairman, you 

voted with everybody else not to do—I mean, everybody agreed not 

to do the two-person rule, so that, just to jog your memory, we 

found that in the public record somewhere, we dug for it. So the 

issue is that your own staff, who had 150 years of experience, said 

get these 12 things done, don’t do a cost-benefit analysis because 

the cost of Fukushima, might I remind you, is pretty much immeasurable, and the benefits of avoiding that is pretty much immeasurable. But, no, you are doing cost-benefits on everything. So 

I am going to find out from you next time, all of you, the status 

of each of these 12 recommendations, and I hope you can move forward on them. That is very, very critical. 

The other thing, I am going to put in the record, Madam Chairman, a letter that I just got as you delivered, you signed it, this 

next tranche of information, and your answer to me was, well, if 

you still have a problem, call me. I have a problem, because you 

asserted some kind of a legal bar to your giving me everything. Is 

your general counsel here? I have never met her. Is she there? 

Could I meet her, please? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. She is here. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I think it is important that you talk to my 

counsel and that you also speak with those who advise us, because 

our understanding is the privilege that you are suggesting is absolutely off the wall. And our understanding from every legal expert 

here is that you can assert executive privilege or your Fifth 

Amendment right not to incriminate yourself, and you are talking 

about some separation of powers. Well, the arrogance of that is unbelievable, because you wouldn’t be here without the Congress. You 

wouldn’t be here without the Congress setting you up. You 

wouldn’t be here. And you have to be subjected to oversight and we 

have a right to documents, and when you sit there and you tell me 

and you tell Senator Vitter you are going to hand us all the documents we want, and then you don’t, and you say very sweetly, oh, 

I would be happy to find out, if you need any more. Yes, I need 

them all. And I need to know what whistleblowers are saying. I 

need to know that all because I swear that I will uphold this Constitution and defend and protect the people that I represent and 

the people of this country. 

So this is not a good relationship. It certainly isn’t. I feel very 

bad. It is not personal; I am sure each of us could just be very 

friendly on a personal level, but that is not what this is about. It 

is about openness and transparency; it is about safety; it is about 

accountability. And for you to withhold documents, which you 

admit that you are doing, based on some phony legal argument is 
517 

beyond the pale. Maybe it winds up in court, maybe we sue you, 

I don’t what we do. I want the information and I will get it, even 

if I have to go to whistleblowers. But I am just telling you get me 

the information, because when I have a situation where a plant 

was obviously in a dangerous situation, and even before the inquiry 

there was a staff opinion to let it go and open it, and I can’t find 

out why and how is just wrong. So I am really sorry that this continues on and on. 

I thought maybe with a new chairman and a new spirit here 

things would change, but whether it is your travel that some of you 

want to have buried, you have asked us to make it confidential, 

don’t tell people what we spend. What is that about? You are not 

above the American people. I want you to travel somewhere; I want 

you to go to Japan. I don’t know, some of these other places look 

like they are really fun to go to. I don’t know how much they have 

to do with anything. But I am hoping that you would go back and 

talk to each other, instead of going back and saying, oh, that Barbara Boxer, ooh. You have a right to do that, but I hope you will 

also change your attitude about openness, transparency, about 

moving a little quicker. 

To have adopted one out of these 12 recommendations, I don’t 

understand it. Just look at the faces of the people who got caught. 

And you could say all you want it will never happen here. Don’t 

say that. We never thought we would be hit on 9/11. We never 

thought we would see the likes of Hurricane Sandy. No one ever 

thought kids would have to be on a bus on an ice road for overnight, either. We are just not that powerful, we are just not. We 

are humble in the face of what could happen. 

So I hope you will go back and I hope your counsel will look at 

the law in the light that our experts are telling us, and our experts, 

they don’t have anything to hide or anything to gain; they have 

just been advising Congress forever. And I have the opinion here. 

You know what? I will give it to your counsel. This is the summary 

of it. And we have the full book if you need it. But I hope you will 

take a look at this. Shall we give her the whole thing? OK, we will 

give you the whole entire book about it, because what you are telling us is simply unheard of, and we don’t get it from any other 

agency, just so you know, we don’t. People complain about EPA, 

but they are not asserting—they are asserting either executive 

privilege or one of the arguments that are legitimate. 

So we will have you back soon. We are going to look at the 12 

recommendations and how you are going about it. And I thank you 

for being here and for answering all the questions you did. 

Thank you very much. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ