U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–036 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 112–959 

LESSONS FROM FUKUSHIMA ONE YEAR LATER: 

NRC’S IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCING NUCLEAR REACTOR 

SAFETY IN THE 21ST CENTURY 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 15, 2012 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 15, 2012 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 3 

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

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 6 

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

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 150 

WITNESSES 

Jaczko, Hon. Gregory B., Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ...... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 15 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 32 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Gillibrand ..................................................................................... 33 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 43 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 59 

Svinicki, Hon. Kristine L., Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................................................................................................................ 66

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 67 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 69 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 70 

Apostolakis, Hon. George, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................................................................................................................ 77

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 78 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 81 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 82 

Magwood, Hon. William D., IV, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................................................................................. 95 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 96 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 98 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 100 

Ostendorff, Hon. William C., Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................................................................................. 113 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 114 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 117 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 118 

(1) 

LESSONS FROM FUKUSHIMA ONE YEAR 

LATER: NRC’S IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCING NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY IN THE 21ST CENTURY 

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2012 

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

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

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

the full Committee), presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Carper, Sanders, Udall, 

Merkley, Barrasso, and Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. This hearing will come to order. 

A year ago this week in Japan a magnitude 9.0 earthquake 

struck off the coast of Japan, triggering a tsunami that is reported 

to have reached up to 45 feet high and stretched up to 6 miles inland. The Fukushima-Dai-ichi Nuclear Plant was hit hard. It lost 

power, multiple hydrogen gas explosions tore apart reactor buildings, containment structures were damaged, three nuclear reactors 

melted down, and radiation poured out into the environment. People’s lives were uprooted by evacuations to avoid the threat of radiation poisoning. 

Many of these men, women, and children have yet to return to 

their homes. Some may never be able to go back. I know that our 

thoughts and our prayers go out to the people of Japan and the victims of this catastrophe. 

The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on the NRC’s 

efforts to ensure that the 104 nuclear reactors in our Nation are 

operating safely and that these plants are swiftly implementing the 

lessons learned from the disaster in Japan. 

I would like to take a moment to discuss the safety issue concerning the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in California. After I 

learned of increased deterioration of tubes that carry radioactive 

water into the plant’s steam generators, I wrote to the NRC and 

Southern California Edison and asked for focus on resolving the 

safety issues. If these tubes rupture, radiation could be released at 

levels that exceed safety standards. 

2 

Today the NRC announced that it is flying out a special investigation team to conduct a more intensive evaluation of the plant. 

And I want to say thank you to each and every one of you. I have 

9 million people living within 50 miles of that plant. It is critical 

that the NRC thoroughly review all of the safety implications of 

this problem, and that the public is assured that the plant can operate safely before it is restarted, and that the NRC keep me up 

to date on its investigation. 

So today is the sixth time after the events in Japan that members of the Committee have gathered to conduct oversight of the 

NRC. In late March 2011 the NRC created a task force to review 

our safety requirements in light of the events in Japan. In July 

2011 the task force made 12 safety recommendations to help prevent and reduce the impact of such a disaster in the United States 

of America. The NRC staff prioritized these recommendations and 

said that several should be implemented without delay. 

On Monday the NRC sent three orders requiring these high priority safety improvements at domestic nuclear power plants. So a 

couple of days ago you took this important action. The first order 

requires plants to better protect safety equipment needed to address emergencies, to have enough equipment to address an emergency that hits all the reactors at a plant. 

The second order requires plants to install enhanced equipment 

to better monitor the conditions in spent fuel pools. And the third 

order requires the 31 boiling water reactors in the U.S. that are 

similar to Fukushima to improve or install venting systems that 

help to maintain safe conditions within the plants. 

The NRC also directed nuclear power plants to re-analyze earthquake and flooding risks, assess their ability to safely operate following such events as well as their capacity to communicate with 

a prolonged loss of power and to address emergencies at more than 

one reactor. The NRC has said it will also issue two notices of proposed rulemaking in March and April on steps to take if plants lose 

electric power and to approve emergency procedures. 

I am very encouraged that the NRC has moved forward. It shows 

the public that the NRC is acting on the information gathered since 

the Fukushima disaster. 

But I want to say something here. I am concerned about the time 

lines for requiring plants to meet these safety standards. The Commission asked the NRC staff to ‘‘strive to complete and implement 

the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident within 5 years, 

by 2016.’’ However, some of the proposed time lines allow plants to 

avoid meeting needed safety improvements for longer than 5 years. 

And I will have questions for all the Commissioners on this issue. 

You have done good work. Now let’s make it happen in the field. 

According to FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 120 million people live within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor, including more than 9 million people in my home State of California. 

I also want to take this opportunity to say to you that your actions 

on San Onofre are very pleasing to me. I have had a history here 

of having to push hard, and I didn’t have to do that in this case. 

I feel, since I have been critical, that I owe you a thank you. 

So that thank you not only comes from me and from Senator 

Feinstein, believe me, and I am sure the whole congressional deleVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:16 May 04, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25036.TXT SONYA
3 

gation, but it comes from the people who are counting on you. They 

don’t know your faces. But they appreciate the fact that you care 

enough about them to send an investigative team out there today 

to make sure that you understand what is happening with these 

tubes and why they are failing. They shouldn’t fail. They are too 

new to fail. And something is happening there, whether it is the 

chemistry of the water, we don’t know. 

But I so appreciate this. 

And with that, I will turn to Senator Sessions, who came first 

here on the other side. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Senator Inhofe 

is at the Armed Services Committee, where he is the senior member. 

Good morning. I thank all of you for being here, and appreciate 

the work that is being done to deal with the aftermath of the 

Fukushima incident, to review that carefully. It is an important 

challenge for us. We need to look at that, and from everything I 

see you have been focused and working hard on it. We need to confront the fact that the Administration claims to be in support of 

American energy, but their policies continue to drive up the price 

of energy and reduce the amount of energy produced in the States. 

It is certainly true with oil and gas production and also with nuclear power. He says he is committed to restarting the nuclear industry, but the record indicates otherwise. 

I was disappointed that the President’s appointment as chairman 

of the NRC was the only member to vote against issuing a license 

to the Vogtle plant in Georgia. You can’t delay these things forever 

and ever. They drive up the cost, create uncertainty, and basically 

will kill the new restart of nuclear power in America, which we 

need for energy, for the economy, and for the environment. 

Also, I would note that the chairman has played a central role 

in the Administration’s efforts to close down Yucca Mountain Repository, an endeavor that essentially eliminates 25 years of investments; $14 billion in Government money has gone into that. 

On December 15th we heard testimony about the abusive behavior of Chairman Jaczko, his abuse of the law, including the unlawful use of emergency powers, his withholding of information from 

other members of the Commission, his abusive personal behavior, 

and intimidation of staff. We heard testimony about the troubling 

circumstances that led the other four Commissioners, including 

those appointed by the President, to write a letter to the President, 

to the White House. It told the President that the chairman’s actions are ‘‘causing serious damage to the NRC and are creating 

chilled work environment.’’ 

Yet 5 months after that letter was sent the President has not responded in a responsible manner. And regrettably, instead of seeking to get to the bottom of these facts, the President and the Senate Democrats have circled the wagon to protect the chairman from 

accountability. So I am concerned about it, and I have to say I 

think it is obvious that there are serious problems in the leaderVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:16 May 04, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25036.TXT SONYA
4 

ship of the Commission—in the chairman’s office—and it needs to 

be confronted. 

And one other thing I would like to say, and I think that President Obama should act soon to ensure that Commissioner Svinicki 

is not forced from the Commission in June. She was confirmed by 

the Senate in 2008 with broad support. She brings to the NRC a 

long and distinguished career as a nuclear engineer and public 

servant. She has worked at various levels of State and Federal 

Government. She held an important staff role dealing with nuclear 

issues for Senator John Warner on the Armed Services Committee. 

She is a hard worker, competent, and of sound character. Very recently she was willing to sign the letter that blew the whistle on 

the problems in the Commission. 

The NRC needs a full panel of experienced, qualified commissioners. And I am sure and am convinced that Commissioner 

Svinicki should not be urged to leave. I would urge the President 

to re-nominate her. She has the support of the Republican seat, 

and she has the support of the Republican leader. So it would be 

a travesty, I think, if we reached a situation where Commissioner 

Svinicki’s service on the NRC is allowed to expire and then we 

would keep the chairman who has created so much controversy. I 

don’t intend to let that happen. I am not going to let that happen, 

if I have anything to do about it, even if we have to bring the Senate to a grinding halt. 

So Madam Chairman, thank you for having this hearing. You 

have been an open and fair Chairman. I was pleased to know you 

are still celebrating that big highway bill. 

Senator BOXER. How quickly one forgets. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. I am pleased to work with you, and you really 

demonstrated a tremendous amount of energy in bringing people 

together on that highway bill, and you deserve great credit for it. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that is very sweet of you. 

I just want to remind everybody that this hearing, what the title 

is, just to focus ourselves: Lessons from Fukushima One Year 

Later: NRC’s Implementation of Recommendations for Enhancing 

Nuclear Reactor Safety in the 21st Century. 

And with that, I turn to Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. I have a prepared statement, but I am going to 

go off of it a little bit. 

I am just going to say to my friend from Alabama, who, a lot of 

times we call one another friends, this guy is my friend, I like him 

a whole lot. I concur with you on your views on Commissioner 

Svinicki. She is a valued member of the Commission. My hope is 

that she will be reconfirmed, and I expect to support her. 

I also want to say this Commission has been through a tough 

time over the last year or so, trying to figure out how to work together, for this chairman to figure out how to lead effectively and 

to play his role well. We had really a public come-to-Jesus meeting 

here several months ago; you were part of that; I was part of that. 

My sense is it maybe had a positive effect. We will find out. We 

5 

have seen the license now issued for not one but the first two new 

nuclear power plants that have been built in this country for 20, 

30 years. I think that is pretty good progress. Two out of the three 

appointees of our President actually voted for that. And I think 

that is a good sign. 

So I just, I hope that this hearing focuses more on what can we 

learn from the awful events of Fukushima, what are we doing 

about what we have learned, what is the timetable, what do we 

need to do on this side of the dais to make sure that all those lessons learned are implemented in a timely and effective way. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

This past Sunday marked the 1-year anniversary of the massive earthquake and 

tsunami that struck Japan and triggered the crisis at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power facility. 

The citizens of Japan—especially the friends and families of the thousands of disaster victims—still are struggling to put their lives back together. My thoughts and 

prayers continue to go out to all of them. 

We cannot predict when or where the next major disaster will occur. We do know, 

however, that robust preparation and response planning are vital to minimize injury 

and death when it does happen. 

That is why over the past year this Committee has exercised its oversight authority repeatedly to ensure that our Nation’s nuclear power plants are prepared for the 

worst. 

We want to make sure that our nuclear power plants have the right tools to respond effectively in any crisis to protect the American public. 

Even though the NRC concluded that an accident like Fukushima is unlikely to 

happen in the United States and that we have some of the safest nuclear power 

plants in the world, I’m still convinced that we can learn from the Fukushima accident. 

As President Harry Truman once said, ‘‘It’s what you learn after you know it all 

that counts.’’ 

Fortunately, we have seen that the NRC—and quite frankly the nuclear industry 

and other stakeholders—agree with Truman’s statement. 

We all know we can do better, and the NRC is moving forward to ensure that 

the U.S. nuclear industry continues to improve its safety and preparedness efforts 

as life begins to return to normal in many parts of Japan. 

Today, I look forward to hearing an update from the NRC Commissioners on their 

actions to enhance safety at our Nation’s nuclear power fleet in light of the lessons 

we have learned from Fukushima. 

Since our last hearing in December the NRC has made several major decisions 

on how to move forward with these efforts. I am especially interested in hearing 

today about the seven actions recently issued by the Commission. 

Before I conclude my brief remarks this morning, though, I’d like to repeat something that my colleagues have heard me say a number of times before. I doubt that 

there have ever been five better qualified people to serve as Commissioners than 

those who serve the American people today. I still believe that. 

Since we last heard from the Commissioners in December, I have been encouraged 

to see that they are still able to get things done despite the differences that were 

clearly in evidence in this room 3 months ago. 

For example, since December the NRC has approved the AP1000 design for new 

nuclear plants, which uses some of the newest and safest nuclear technology available. 

The NRC also reached a true milestone in its history recently by approving Southern Company’s licenses to build and operate two new reactors at the Vogtle site in 

Georgia. They will be the first new nuclear reactors to be built in this country in 

more than three decades. 

In addition the NRC has moved forward on several actions relating to Fukushima 

in an effort to make sure that our current nuclear power fleet is safe. 

6 

Both of those developments suggest—at least to me—that while interpersonal relationships among Commissioners frayed badly last year, the Commission still remains a functioning body. 

Moving forward I want to encourage the Chairman and each of the other four 

Commissioners to continue to work every day to further improve cooperation and 

collegiality among the Commission members while we attempt to do the same thing 

here in the Senate. 

Most importantly, though, I want us to do everything in our power to ensure that 

safety is never compromised and that Congress provides the tools and resources the 

NRC needs to carry out its mission of protecting public safety through responsible, 

effective nuclear regulation. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

On the 1-year anniversary of Fukushima the American people do 

want to know that nuclear safety has improved. The American people want us to ensure that there will not be a repeat of the nuclear 

disaster in Japan here in the United States, that communities 

across America are safe from harm. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is tasked with protecting 

us. It is not a responsibility that any of them should take lightly. 

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

United States. I have stated before, this process should be allowed 

to continue free of partisan politics. 

At our last hearing we learned from four commissioners who said 

that the agency isn’t working as effectively as it should under this 

chairman’s leadership, and an inspector general’s report on the activities of the chairman is pending. It is my hope that once the report is released, it is thoroughly reviewed and taken seriously by 

the Committee no matter what the findings. 

We also need to have a full slate of commissioners that is stocked 

with the best, most experienced men and women in the field. As 

both Senator Sessions and Senator Carper have said, in a bipartisan way, that among those is Commissioner Svinicki. She is very 

well qualified, and I hope that her renomination is not being 

stalled by the White House or others for political reasons. That 

would not serve the public interest in keeping folks safe. We need 

the most qualified people to serve on this Commission, and I agree 

in a bipartisan way that Commissioner Svinicki is a very critical 

member of this Commission. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure that that happens. 

Second, in a February 9th speech at the Platts Eighth Annual 

Nuclear Energy Conference in Rockville, Maryland, the chairman 

spoke of two futures for the nuclear industry. He spoke of one future 20 years from now where there was continuous process of construction of new reactors, as Senator Carper just mentioned. The 

other future was one where 20 years from now we would see an 

industry dominated by the process of continuous decommissioning 

and embarking on a process of long-term trend of continuous decommissioning. The first option to me is the only way forward for 

America’s energy future. It is the only responsible course of action 

for this Committee to follow if we are serious about providing afVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:16 May 04, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25036.TXT SONYA
7 

fordable domestic energy for seniors, for working families, and for 

small business owners. 

The President has called for an all-out, all of the above energy 

strategy at this year’s State of the Union address. The President, 

if he is serious, then he will join those of us who seek to strengthen 

this important energy source and staff the Commission with qualified and experienced people. 

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

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Sanders. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the 

members of the Commission for being here. 

Clearly we must focus—continue to focus—on the need for safety 

reforms after the unthinkable disaster in Japan happened, reminding us—and one of the issues that we always have to be aware of 

with regard to nuclear power, 99.9 percent safe is not good enough. 

Today, tens of thousands of people remain evacuated from homes— 

tens of thousands—due to the three Fukushima reactors that suffered meltdowns, an area that has elevated radiation levels in everything from fish to rice to vegetables. 

I found it interesting that my friend from Alabama used the 

word incident. I suggest you were talking about the Fukushima 

disaster, is that correct? I think that for the people of Japan, probably it was not quite an incident. I think it was a disaster impacting their country. And when we understand that, we have go to understand how serious we must be in making sure the nuclear 

power in this country is safe. 

In a letter to the President following Fukushima I called for a 

moratorium on license renewals until we could examine what happened and implement reforms. I am especially concerned about 

that because in the southern part of my State we have a nuclear 

power plant with a similar design of what took place in 

Fukushima. And in fact we have 23 reactors in the United States 

with the same GE Mark I design as Fukushima. 

But license extensions continue without accounting for lessons 

learned. Safety officials expressed concern about this design in the 

early 1970s, and a top NRC official said in 1986, ‘‘Mark I reactors 

had a 90 percent probability of bursting should the fuel rods overheat and melt in an accident.’’ That was in 1986. 

A week after Fukushima, the NRC—timing was extraordinary— 

relicensed a Mark I reactor in my own State, the Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Plant, for 20 years without taking time to examine 

the implications of Fukushima. Relicensed, Vermont Yankee, 1 

week after Fukushima. The NRC has granted 71 license renewals 

and has never rejected one. Seventy-one to zero, in every single instance the NRC has said it is appropriate to relicense a nuclear 

power plant. 

The NRC also voted 3 to 2 in secret to recommend the Government side with Entergy in litigation against Vermont’s energy future. In my very strong view the NRC’s job is safety—safety. That 

is what your job is. It is not to tell the people of Vermont or any 

8 

other State how they go forward in terms of energy. In my State 

there is a strong feeling we want to go forward with energy efficiency and sustainable energy. I believe that we have that right. 

I believe that every other State in the country has that right. If we 

want to move to sustainable energy and not maintain an aging, 

trouble-plagued nuclear power plant, I think we should be able to 

do that. 

Finally, I am troubled that a year removed from Fukushima the 

NRC recently voted 4 to 1 to move forward with the first new nuclear plant license in this country since Three Mile Island without 

requiring the plant to fully incorporate all post-Fukushima safety 

reforms recommended by the panel of expert senior NRC staff. The 

last time we had a hearing with the NRC we heard that the chairman, and we have heard it again today, was responsible for all of 

the problems associated; he just beats his wife; he is a terrible guy. 

Interestingly enough, I would mention to my colleagues there 

was a 4 to 1 vote on whether or not to go forward with the relicensing of the new plant in Georgia. And there was a division, 

chairman voted one way, four members voted the other. I would 

suggest as I did at the last meeting that maybe the difference that 

is taking place here is not the personality flaws of the chairman 

but a philosophical difference that exists about how the NRC 

should proceed. 

I look forward to the questioning, Madam Chairman. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Merkley, welcome. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Is it my turn for 

questions? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, go ahead. 

Senator MERKLEY. Great. 

I wanted to ask a couple of things, particularly around the venting of gases. Because one of your orders, the third order requires 

improving or replacement of venting systems—— 

Senator BOXER. Oh, Senator, this is your time for an opening 

statement. 

Senator MERKLEY. I want to pass on the opening statement so 

we can get to your testimony. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that is fair enough. 

OK, we will turn to our esteemed panel now, and we will start 

off with our Honorable Chairman Jaczko, and he is going to have 

5 minutes as chair, and each member will have 3. 

Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GREGORY B. JACZKO, CHAIRMAN, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. JACZKO. Chairman Boxer, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Barrasso, members of the Committee, on behalf of the Commission I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to provide 

an update on the NRC’s implementation of safety enhancements 

based on our review of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident. 

I would stress that the Commission continues to believe that 

there is no imminent risk from continued operation of nuclear 

power plants in the United States. At the same time, however, our 

assessment of the events at Fukushima Dai-ichi leads us to conVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:16 May 04, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25036.TXT SONYA
9 

clude that additional requirements should be imposed on licensees 

to increase the capability of nuclear plants to mitigate and protect 

against beyond design basis extreme natural phenomena. 

When we last appeared before you in December the Commission 

was considering the staff’s report on prioritizing the recommendations of the near-term task force into three separate tiers. Tier 1 

consists of actions to be taken without delay and for which sufficient resource flexibility, including the availability of critical skill 

sets, exists. Tier 2 actions can be initiated as soon as sufficient resources or critical skill sets become available. And finally, Tier 3 

recommendations require further staff study or shorter-term actions be undertaken first. 

I would stress that these are not necessarily in a priority order. 

While Tier 3 items may require additional staff study, they are not 

necessarily actions that are of less importance to safety. 

As a result of public meetings with stakeholders, including the 

industry and the public, and with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, there have been a number of enhancements to the 

Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 recommendations. As has been mentioned, on March 12th the Commission issued three immediately 

effective orders to U.S. commercial nuclear reactors. The orders reflect a tremendous effort on the part of the NRC staff and the Commission to produce a comprehensive package in an expedited manner. 

The first order requires the plants to better protect safety equipment installed after the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks 

and to obtain sufficient equipment to support all reactors at a 

given site simultaneously. The second order requires the plants to 

install enhanced equipment for monitoring water levels at each 

plant’s spent fuel pool. 

And the third order applies only to U.S. boiling water reactors 

that have Mark I or Mark II containment structures. These reactors must improve venting systems or for the case of the Mark II 

plants, which is a smaller number, install new systems that help 

prevent or mitigate core damage in the event of a serious accident. 

For all three of these orders licensees are required to submit 

their plans for implementing the requirements to the NRC by February 28th, 2013, and complete full implementation no later than 

two refueling cycles after submittal, or December 31st, 2016, 

whichever comes first. 

Additionally, licensees are required to provide periodic status reports so that staff can monitor their progress. 

Now, in addition to these three orders licensees were also issued 

a request for information. Licensees were asked to reevaluate the 

seismic and flooding hazards at their sites using current NRC requirements and guidance and identify actions that are planned to 

address vulnerabilities. Licensees were requested to develop a 

methodology and acceptance criteria and perform seismic and flooding walk-downs. 

Finally, licensees were required to assess the ability of their current communications to perform under conditions of onsite and offsite damage and prolonged loss of electrical power. As part of this 

initiative they were also requested to assess their staffing levels 

10 

needed to respond to a large scale natural event and to implement 

strategies contained in the emergency plan. 

There are remaining Tier 1 recommendations which address station blackout in the integration of emergency procedures. These 

continue to be worked by the staff. The station blackout rulemaking is a high priority activity with a goal of completion within 

24 to 30 months from October 2011. And the staff has recently provided—or is finalizing an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking 

for that particular rulemaking. 

Now, we anticipate beginning work on Tier 2 recommendations 

when we have the necessary information from the Tier 1 activities 

and when we can free up critical resources from these efforts. The 

issuance of the orders and letters on March 12th is a significant 

step forward on our post-Fukushima efforts. We are making strong 

progress, and as always I continue to be impressed by the staff’s 

dedication and expertise. 

There is still, however, a great deal of work ahead of us, for both 

the Commission and the staff. This past year was very challenging 

for the NRC, but it was also a very productive year for us. As we 

look forward the agency expects to meet new and unanticipated 

challenges. We are confident that the NRC will continue to ensure 

the safe and secure operation of the existing licensed facilities 

while also ensuring the safe and secure construction and operation 

of new nuclear plants, possibly including small modular reactors. 

So with that, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

and would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jaczko follows:] 

11 


25036.001
12 


25036.002
13 


25036.003
14 


25036.004
15 


25036.005
16 


25036.006
17 


25036.007
18 


25036.008
19 


25036.009
20 


25036.010
21 


25036.011
22 


25036.012
23 


25036.013
24 


25036.014
25 


25036.015
26 


25036.016
27 


25036.017
28 


25036.018
29 


25036.019
30 


25036.020
31 


25036.021
32 


25036.022
33 


25036.023
34 


25036.024
35 


25036.025
36 


25036.026
37 


25036.027
38 


25036.028
39 


25036.029
40 


25036.030
41 


25036.031
42 


25036.032
43 


25036.033
44 


25036.034
45 


25036.035
46 


25036.036
47 


25036.037
48 


25036.038
49 


25036.039
50 


25036.040
51 


25036.041
52 


25036.042
53 


25036.043
54 


25036.044
55 


25036.045
56 


25036.046
57 


25036.047
58 


25036.048
59 


25036.049
60 


25036.050
61 


25036.051
62 


25036.052
63 


25036.053
64 


25036.054
65 


25036.055
66 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Chairman. 

And Hon. Kristine Svinicki. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

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

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

opportunity to appear before you today on the topic of the NRC’s 

implementation of recommendations for enhancing nuclear safety 

in the 21st century. 

In his testimony on behalf of the Commission, Chairman Jaczko 

has described the progress that NRC has made to further strengthen nuclear power plant safety. I also join Chairman Jaczko in acknowledging the hard work of the NRC staff and their sustained 

efforts toward the progress that NRC has made to date. As he has 

described, we have now issued a series of orders to nuclear power 

plant licensees, which require features to mitigate beyond design 

basis extreme natural events, require hardened venting systems, 

and require greater capacity of measurement for spent fuel storage 

pool instrumentation. 

We are also requiring that nuclear power plant licensees conduct 

system walk-downs by teams of relevant experts and undertake 

substantial reevaluation of seismic and flooding hazards at their 

sites using current NRC requirements. Licensees must also identify 

actions to address vulnerabilities found. The NRC will assess the 

results of these evaluations to determine whether additional regulatory actions are needed. 

In implementing these recommendations the agency’s broad set 

of stakeholders have been engaged through multiple public meetings. We have benefited from the insights and perspectives of nuclear operators, nuclear safety and environmental groups, and the 

public. I believe that all of these efforts have strengthened the 

NRC’s activities in response to the Fukushima events and will continue to do so. 

Additionally, as the NRC acquires more information about the 

accident we will assess the impact of such information on actions 

already underway and consider appropriate actions going forward. 

Thank you, and I look forward to the Committee’s questions. 

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

67 


25036.056
68 


25036.057
69 


25036.058
70 


25036.059
71 


25036.060
72 


25036.061
73 


25036.062
74 


25036.063
75 


25036.064
76 


25036.065
77 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Commissioner. 

Hon. George Apostolakis. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS, COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Chairman Boxer, Chairman Carper, Ranking 

Member Barrasso, and members of the Committee, good morning. 

As I reflect on the lessons from Fukushima 1 year after the accident I find that my views have evolved. The first time I testified 

on this subject before you, I indicated that the accident was a lesson in humility. I said that as a community of safety analysts. We 

had been pretty confident that there would be no new surprises, 

but Fukushima challenged that belief. 

As more information was obtained, I then said the accident was 

not of extremely low probability, it was not unthinkable, it was not 

unforeseen. Today I can report that others have reached a similar 

conclusion. For example, the report issued by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace last week states, ‘‘The plant would 

have withstood the tsunami had its design previously been upgraded in accordance with state of the art safety approaches.’’ 

Furthermore, a report by the American Nuclear Society Special 

Committee on Fukushima also issued last week states, ‘‘The committee believes that in responding to the accident at the 

Fukushima Dai-ichi plant human error and flaws in governance 

and regulatory oversight contributed to the severity of the accident.’’ 

In light of these observations it is reassuring to know that the 

NRC is a strong and independent regulator, our decisionmaking 

progress is open and transparent, and we have long recognized the 

importance of a positive safety culture. However, there are still lessons to be learned from the accident. For example, we are requiring 

all operating plants to reevaluate their design bases and strengthen mitigation strategies for external events, taking into account all 

units at the site. 

I am pleased with the progress the Commission has made as well 

as the fact that the process for reaching decisions has been transparent and methodical. I continue to work with my fellow commissioners to apply the lessons learned from Fukushima. 

Thank you very much. 

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

78 


25036.066
79 


25036.067
80 


25036.068
81 


25036.069
82 


25036.070
83 


25036.071
84 


25036.072
85 


25036.073
86 


25036.074
87 


25036.075
88 


25036.076
89 


25036.077
90 


25036.078
91 


25036.079
92 


25036.080
93 


25036.081
94 


25036.082
95 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

And Hon. William Magwood. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD, IV, 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman Boxer, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Barrasso, 

members of the Committee and Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to 

be here before you today to talk about our work regarding the 

Fukushima disaster. 

First, let me say: U.S. plants are safe. We are quite confident 

about that. But as we reported during our last appearance before 

this Committee, our agency has moved swiftly and systematically 

to understand the events in Japan and to design a prudent, effective regulatory response to address the lessons of Fukushima. This 

matter has been our central focus over the last year. The Commission has devoted a large portion of its time and energy to this challenge. 

The Chairman has already outlined the details of our response, 

so I won’t repeat that now. But let me say that while we have 

moved quickly, I am very confident the decisions we have made to 

date are appropriate and when fully implemented will address the 

large portion of any risk that we revealed by our insights gained 

from studying the Fukushima event. 

This week, we met with many of our international colleagues at 

the 24th Regulatory Information Conference. From my conversations with our colleagues it is clear that many of the world’s regulators have viewed these issues in much the same way. I expect 

that the response to Fukushima across the world will have considerable similarity in many countries. 

I want to point out the NRC staff has performed in an outstanding fashion in pursuit of this outcome. They have worked tirelessly to review these complex issues in a holistic fashion, working 

with our many stakeholders and consulting with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. I would like to recognize the valuable contributions provided by Marty Virgilio, who served as chairman of the steering committee that leads this overall effort in the 

agency. Marty recently announced that he will soon retire after 34 

years with the agency, and his leadership will be sorely missed. 

Finally, I want to conclude by extending my thoughts and encouragement to the citizens of Japan as they continue to recover 

from last year’s earthquake and tsunami. Commissioner Ostendorff 

and I visited the Fukushima site in January and saw first-hand 

how hard our friends in Japan are working to deal with the aftermath of what they now call 3/11. That term has a deep, enduring 

resonance that Americans understand quite well. I wish our Japanese colleagues the very best success in their efforts. 

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions. 

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

96 


25036.083
97 


25036.084
98 


25036.085
99 


25036.086
100 


25036.087
101 


25036.088
102 


25036.089
103 


25036.090
104 


25036.091
105 


25036.092
106 


25036.093
107 


25036.094
108 


25036.095
109 


25036.096
110 


25036.097
111 


25036.098
112 


25036.099
113 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Commissioner Ostendorff. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Barrasso, members of the Committee. 

It was just over 1 year since an earthquake and tsunami devastated Japan and led to a severe accident at the Fukushima Daiichi. Last July the Fukushima Task Force of the NRC concluded 

that a sequence of events in the United States similar to that experienced in Japan is unlikely. The Task Force also concluded there 

is no imminent risk from continued operation of U.S. nuclear power 

plants. I believe those conclusions remain true today. Nevertheless, 

I continue to support the NRC’s actions to make our plants even 

safer. 

The NRC has taken positive, concrete steps to strengthen the 

NRC’s regulatory framework in response to Fukushima. I join my 

colleagues here at this table in also commending the men and 

women of the NRC for their hard work. I have also appreciated a 

chance to engage with my four colleagues to my right. 

Since I last appeared before this Committee in December I voted 

to approve the three orders that were submitted to the Commission 

in February. As mentioned by others, those orders were issued earlier this week. I think it is important for this Committee to know 

that while we may have had slightly different variations on the 

bases for these orders that all five of us in a unanimous act approved all three orders. I think that is a significant statement. 

Senator BOXER. It is. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. To me these three orders represent sound policy decisions for nuclear safety. And as Commissioner Magwood 

mentioned, I think we saw in our visit to Fukushima the importance of us taking strong, decisive action as a regulator. 

I am confident of the path the NRC is on today. I think we are 

taking responsible actions. I appreciate the chance to appear before 

this Committee, and I look forward to your questions. 

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

114 


25036.100
115 


25036.101
116 


25036.102
117 


25036.103
118 


25036.104
119 


25036.105
120 


25036.106
121 


25036.107
122 


25036.108
123 


25036.109
124 


25036.110
125 


25036.111
126 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir, very much. 

Commissioner Magwood, you said our nuclear plants are safe. I 

just want to point out that is exactly what the Japanese said before 

Fukushima. So I think we need to be cautious. 

What I think the answer is, we are doing everything in our 

power to ensure that they are safe. And that is crucial. 

So I have some questions. Chairman Jaczko, the NRC staff has 

proposed two rulemakings to implement high priority safety recommendations. I am very happy to hear everybody supported 

these. It is very, very heartening to me personally. 

And one of those rules would require plants to have the ability 

to safely operate when they lose all electric power, a station blackout. Another rule would require emergency operating procedures 

and guideline to address severe accidents. 

Chairman, when will the NRC propose and finalize these rules? 

Mr. JACZKO. Right now, the station blackout rule, the first proposal, what we call an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, is 

due this week to be finalized and then to be released to the public. 

The emergency operating procedures, the second rule you referred 

to, an advance notice is also planned for next month. 

The station blackout rule, the Commission has asked for that to 

be done in about 24 months from now. And that would put it somewhere in the 2014 timeframe. The second rule right now I think 

is on a much later schedule to be finalized, closer to 2016 or sometime in 2016. 

So I feel comfortable we are on a good track with the station 

blackout rule. That is a high priority, the Commission has recognized that. I certainly do have concerns that the second rule will 

be a challenge for us to not only complete the rule itself, but the 

implementations within the 5 years that I think the Commission 

has laid out. So again, I think part of our work in the next couple 

of years is to figure out ways we can get some of this work done 

a little bit more timely. 

Senator BOXER. Right, because as I understand it the Safety 

Commission recommended that these all be done in 5 years; is that 

correct? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, the Commission itself encouraged the efforts 

to get these things done within 5 years. And we did have our Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards that encouraged some of the 

rulemakings be accelerated, the station blackouts in particular, because it is such an important piece of the Fukushima response. 

Senator BOXER. Do you feel comfortable that on this issue, you 

are speaking for everyone when you say you are striving to meet 

that 2014 and 2016 date, you are striving? Because if not, I want 

to just ask, let me just not put you on the spot, because you can’t 

speak for everyone. Does anyone disagree that those two rules, you 

should do everything in your power to implement the first one, 

2014 station blackout and the second one, 2016? Is there any dissent? 

OK. The NRC staff has stated that high priority safety recommendations should be implemented without delay. We talked 

about them, the NRC told its staff to strive by 2016. So I just want 

to make sure that you would keep us up to date, our Committee, 

on the progress being made so that if there is slippage we would 

127 

know about that. Would you do that, Chairman and Commissioners, if you see things slipping? 

Mr. JACZKO. Absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. Otherwise, we are going to assume it is on track, 

unless you tell us. I don’t want to be surprised and find out it is 

going to take 12 years or 14, because that is what happened last 

time, after 9/11, the recommendations took I think 10 years or 

more. 

Mr. JACZKO. Chairman Boxer, if I could just add right now, one 

of the areas where I do have some concern is with the efforts to 

re-examine the seismic hazards at the nuclear power plants. This 

is an effort right now that would probably push out to the earliest 

completion date, around some time in 2017, the latest completion 

dates for some—the lower risk plants into 2019. So that is one that 

at this point does appear to be off target a little bit. 

And given the importance of seismic hazards, and I think as 

Commissioner Apostolakis said this is an area in which we recognize that there is new information that tells us that the plants may 

not be designed to the right seismic standards. For this one to be 

taking so long is a bit of a concern to me. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I couldn’t agree with you more. At another 

time in place, and also I will work with all of you, this is very concerning. Because in California we have updated reports that are 

not good, that say there has been a lot of changes. 

Did you want to add something? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Yes, I would like to add something. First of all, 

I agree with the Chairman’s statement. There will be a lot of activities related to seismic upgrades. And right now the focus is on 

the plants east of the Rocky Mountains where the U.S. Geological 

Survey has issued new seismic data. And the staff will prioritize 

in terms of risk the activities there. 

So a lot of it will have been accomplished before these dates, 

after the 15 years. It is that, according to the staff and my understanding, it is the plants with low risk that we will have to do 

some upgrades, perhaps, that will take longer. And the California 

plants, by the way, according to what I know today, will complete 

their upgrades before the 5 years. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

OK, one last question. Chairman Jaczko, when the Fukushima 

reactors released large amounts of radiation, people were evacuated, and many have yet to return home. Does the NRC consider 

harmful impacts beyond the radiation exposure impact, including 

such things as evacuations, the clean up of contamination, when 

determining whether to require safety measures at our nuclear reactors? In other words, the costs and the benefit ratio would 

change, it seems to me, if the NRC considered what it would take. 

Just look at my southern California plant with almost 9 million 

people living within 50 miles. 

So I am interested as to whether or not you consider harmful impacts beyond the public radiation when you determine the cost benefit of improvements. 

Mr. JACZKO. We really don’t. Our focus is really primarily on the 

direct and the short-term and then the longer-term direct health 

impacts from radiation exposure when we are making our safety 

128 

judgment. This is clearly an area that I think we need to look at 

and we need to examine. Because as you look at the Fukushima 

event that is really right now what is going to be the long-term impact. And it is significant. 

Senator BOXER. It is. When I asked—and I am going to give everybody an extra 2 minutes because I have gone over—when I 

asked the sheriff near my San Onofre plant what she thought, I 

said, how do you get people out of here? She said, well, if it were 

to happen, an earthquake were to happen during rush hour, this 

is the road. And you can’t even move on that road. 

So it seems to me there needs to be more work done. Because radiation is the worst of the things that can happen. But being homeless is a whole other situation. Not being able to evacuate. 

So I would like to work with all of you on that. Would you agree 

that you would be open to looking at that as far as cost-benefit 

ratio? Thank you. I see everybody nodding. 

Senator Barrasso, you can go forward with 7 minutes, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I think we have heard good news, U.S. plants are safe, there are 

steps to make them safer, and we are on the right path. I have 

heard that across the board. The views have evolved; there have 

been lessons learned. So I do have a couple of questions. 

Specifically, there was actually a critical report that came out by 

a group called the Union of Concerned Scientists, critical of the 

NRC’s response to address protecting U.S. plants. The report goes 

on, and I am going to ask Commissioners to comment on it, it says 

that U.S. reactors remain vulnerable to Fukushima-like severe disasters, the NRC does have a plan to reduce the vulnerabilities but 

must proceed more expeditiously to fully implement the lessons 

learned from Fukushima. 

Their critical report goes on to say, unless the NRC strengthens 

measures to prevent and mitigate such beyond design basis accidents, it may be only a matter of time before a similar disaster 

happens here. I know you are very thoughtful on this; we have 

seen that views have evolved. I would maybe start with Commissioner Magwood, and tell me what your thoughts are on this report 

that seems to be critical. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Well, let me not overstate or take a defensive reaction to that. It is easy to be defensive on these things. But I 

think that the thought that UCS is bringing out, which is that we 

need to take action, is an appropriate thought. And the Commission fully agrees with that. 

We have already agreed to take steps as a body and as an agency 

that will enhance the safety of U.S. plants, to make sure that a 

Fukushima-type scenario doesn’t unfold. That said, I think that our 

infrastructure, our regulatory approach, the practices at our plants, 

our equipment, our configuration, our design bases would prevent 

Fukushima from occurring under similar circumstances at a U.S. 

plant. I just don’t think it would happen. 

But we can still improve, and we are going to improve. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Commissioner Svinicki. 

129 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator Barrasso, I agree with my colleagues. I 

think the chairman has outlined the actions that we are taking in 

response to just that concern, to learn the lessons, to move forward. 

I would say on the time lines, I think the Commission, to a person, has urged the NRC staff to come up with schedules that are 

implementable but yet have the appropriate sense of urgency about 

moving forward. I think they have done their best. I agree with my 

colleagues who say as we move forward we need to continue to look 

at those timeframes. If things can be accelerated, we should do 

that. 

But I think right now we are moving forward on a solid plan. 

And as Commissioner Ostendorff mentioned, on a Commission that 

has strong and occasionally divided views, there was unanimous 

support for the actions that we have issued. 

Senator BARRASSO. Great. 

Commissioner Apostolakis. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I disagree with the statements from UCS. I 

don’t think that what happened at Fukushima can happen here. 

And I repeat, it was not unthinkable. They made terrible mistakes. 

Senator BARRASSO. And you did comment that actually over the 

course of a year, I think your phrase was, my views have evolved. 

So it is helpful to know that people aren’t kind of locked, decided, 

this is it. We can study more, learn more, and views can evolve in 

ways that can improve the situation. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Yes, they have evolved. Yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Commissioner Ostendorff. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you, Senator. I agree with the comments of my colleagues. I also disagree with the UCS report, and 

I would like to make two comments. I agree with the Chairman’s 

and Commissioner Apostolakis’ comments on the seismic piece. I 

think we are concerned with the overall time period to look at seismic hazards. And I think our staff requirements memorandum that 

was issued a few days ago does request that our staff and industry 

look at ways that might be alternatives to speed up this process. 

I think we all want to move forward as quickly as we can. That 

said, I think we are doing it very responsibly. 

The second piece, if I can comment just very briefly, Senator, is 

the Chairman—I agree with his comments completely on station 

blackout. I think one of the things to throw into the mix here is 

the fact that many of the nuclear power plants in this country, licensees have already ordered additional portable diesel generators, 

portable battery charging equipment, and other steps they are taking to enhance their ability to deal with the loss of all AC power. 

That is happening now. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

I noted that a Member of Congress, Anita Lowery, recently wrote 

a letter to the NRC asking that the Commission expand the evacuation zone around nuclear power plants to 50 miles. It is a number—50 miles is something that the chairman just mentioned in 

terms of some of the specific plants in California. The NRC has had 

a report on NRC Clarifies Misconceptions about Emergency Preparedness. It states that it is important to note that the exact size 

and shape of the specific conditions at each site are unique and are 

130 

developed through detailed planning that looks at the specific conditions at each site and demographic information. 

In addition, it says these zones are not limits and are meant to 

be expanded as necessary. 

You are shaking your head, Mr. Magwood. Could you comment 

on that and your specific thoughts? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I think that statement is accurate. The emergency planning zones are just that, they are planning zones. They 

don’t represent necessarily what would happen in the case of an actual emergency. In the case of an actual emergency we would respond appropriately depending on what was actually going on. 

So I am comfortable with the regime we have in place. But I 

should say that as part of our post-Fukushima review the staff 

does anticipate a look at the 10-mile EPZ and the question about 

whether it should be expanded. So we will be analyzing that in the 

coming months and years. 

Senator BARRASSO. And then a final question to all Commissioners. We talked about the chairman’s statements February 9th, 

about the two potential paths and the futures 20 years from now, 

new nuclear plants licensed and the life of existing plants being extended, which of course is, in my opinion, the right path. The other 

future was for nuclear plants in a downward spiral of decommissioning. 

Which path is the right one for us to be on now? 

Commissioner Magwood, then we can run down the line. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I don’t think those paths are really—will be decided by regulators. I think those paths will probably be decided by 

economic considerations that are beyond the scope of our agency. 

So I don’t really have much more to say on that one. 

Senator BARRASSO. And my time has expired. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I am going to ask unanimous consent to place in the record the 

biography of the author of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ report. His name is Dave Lochbaum, he is one of the Nation’s top 

independent nuclear power experts. He has been quoted in the 

Wall Street Journal, all of our major newspapers. And he is—he 

has studied the crisis at Fukushima and issued this report. Since 

you are bashing it, I just through we would put his credentials, and 

I would match those against anybody sitting across from me. 

[The referenced biography follows:] 

131 


25036.112
132 

Senator BOXER. And I just want to say, when we bash a report, 

maybe we will just have to have them come up here. I think we 

are going to do that in the near future. 

I am turning it over to Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Earlier in your statements I think you indicated 

two of you traveled together to Japan to personally visit the area 

where the incident or the disaster occurred. I think it was probably 

closer to a disaster myself. 

Just give us a sense for the views of the people of Japan toward 

our intervention, toward the assistance that we provided for them. 

I would be interested in hearing that. Sometimes we help folks in 

distress. I was in Pakistan a year or so ago after a big flood. We 

were providing enormous help for a million or so refugees. I didn’t 

feel a lot of understanding or appreciation for that. 

I would just welcome what you felt when you were in Japan in 

terms of the recognition of the work that we have done to help 

them. 

Go ahead, Commissioner Ostendorff. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator Carper, I think that is a great question. I think all of us have had different interactions. But I think 

we have heard nothing but gratitude and tremendous thanks offered to the U.S. Government, the military, to the NRC, to the Department of Energy, and other cabinet agencies. I know that when 

Commissioner Magwood and I were in Japan in the middle of January, we received a lot of thanks. I know that a number of us were 

at a Japanese embassy event last week where we also received 

thanks, along with other sectors of the government in this country. 

And the Chairman led a commemoration ceremony this past— 

just 3 days ago at the NRC, where the Japanese Ambassador to the 

United States also passed on his significant thanks to our country. 

I think it has been very positive. 

Senator CARPER. Commissioner Magwood. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I echo that. I have had a lot of conversations with 

people from Japan, and there is a great deal of appreciation for the 

contributions of NRC in particular. I think a lot of people recognize 

the expertise NRC brought at a critical time was very important. 

But really, to the overall U.S. response, I heard a lot of really 

positive things about our military and particularly the Navy and 

the response that the Navy provided to the incident, helping 

logistically and providing supplies. So I think we have made a lot 

of friends in Japan in the last year. 

Senator CARPER. Good. 

During the time that you were there or the time since, would you 

just share with us how many lives were lost because of this disaster? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Because of Fukushima? 

Senator CARPER. Yes. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. That we are aware of, none. I believe that there 

were two people who were killed at the plant when the tsunami 

swept in; they were drowned. But other than that I am aware of 

no fatalities or no expected fatalities resulting from the nuclear incident. 

Senator CARPER. Do any of the Commissioners have different information on that? 

133 

Commissioner Svinicki. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator Carper, in addition to the two workers 

who I also understand were immediately drowned onsite in the 

event, I am aware of two workers that had been engaged in the heroic recovery efforts under extremely uncomfortable and adverse 

conditions. I understand that these two individuals have died of 

heart attacks. I don’t know the direct relation, but some of the 

workers have to work in anti-contamination clothing. It is very hot, 

it is very uncomfortable, and it may be that they had a stress reaction. 

But heroic efforts to recover after the event, of course, required 

tremendous efforts by workers. I am aware that two additional 

workers—it was not a radiological event, but it was a heart attack 

from the extreme efforts they were making. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Just before I move on to my other questions, in the United 

States, since the first nuclear power plants were built, how many 

lives have been lost? Does anybody know or recall, off the top of 

your head? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I believe the answer is none, as far 

as any deaths due to radiation exposure at a nuclear power plant 

in this country or any of our nuclear-powered warships. 

Senator CARPER. Does anybody have different information? 

Mr. JACZKO. At the risk of being contrary here, I think it is just 

very important that we not send a signal that Fukushima was not 

a significant incident. 

Senator CARPER. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that. 

Mr. JACZKO. Certainly I have been in international meetings 

where people have asked similar questions and insinuated that it 

is really an event that we can ignore because of that. And I think 

it is very important—— 

Senator CARPER. Let me just interrupt you. You can stop. Think 

of the lives of people, where they live, 12 miles around, in a radius 

around Fukushima of 50 miles, their lives have been badly, badly 

disrupted and in many cases will be so for years. So no one is attempting to diminish that. 

I chair the subcommittee here on clean air. We have had any 

number of hearings here in recent years where we talk about the 

number of people, not whose lives have been disrupted but who 

have been killed in this country because of dirty air, because of the 

dirty air that we breathe put out by utilities, which in many cases 

blows from the Midwest to my part of the country, where Senator 

Sanders and I happen to live and represent people. 

So I just think we need to put this in a little bit of perspective, 

and I appreciate you helping us to do that. 

Anybody listening to this, and this hearing is televised, I believe 

at least on C-SPAN, but anyone listening, they may be thinking, 

what is an order, what are these different tiers, these letters, people trying to make some sense of it. Can somebody just in about 

a minute just try and explain so that a regular American citizen 

watching this hearing would know what we are talking about, 

please? 

Commissioner Svinicki. 

134 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, in perhaps layperson terms, an order is 

a set of compulsory actions that the NRC has authority to issue to 

private entities such as nuclear power plant operators. So under 

our authorities to regulate nuclear safety, we can issue a directive 

or order to compel actions. And Chairman Jaczko has described 

what those actions were, so when we say orders, it is separate from 

the long process of establishing a new regulation. We can through 

an order take action very quickly. 

Senator CARPER. And how does an order differ from a letter, 

please? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, an order is a requirement that a power plant 

has to take. The letter is kind of the first step in gathering information. So it is something that they have to tell us; it is information that they are required to provide to us. But in and of itself it 

doesn’t necessarily direct any particular action. So in many cases 

it will be the precursor to additional action as we gather the information. 

Senator CARPER. And I will stop with this, but I understand that 

in terms of the agreement among the Commissioners has there 

been unanimous agreement on the orders that have been issued. 

And essentially unanimous agreement in terms of the, what is Tier 

1, what should be a Tier 2 and a Tier 3 and the time line, is there 

broad agreement on those points? 

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative]. 

Senator CARPER. That is good. That is encouraging. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Madam Chairman and members here, I just 

came to apologize for not being here. We are doing our Armed Services Committee hearing right now, and if it is all right with you, 

I want to pass for a moment here to reprogram my mind. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. 

Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to pick up on a statement that Commissioner Magwood 

made a moment ago in response to question from Senator Barrasso. 

When the Senator asked him about the future of nuclear power in 

this country, as I heard Mr. Magwood, he said the future of nuclear 

power in America will not be primarily made by the Commission 

but by ‘‘economic considerations.’’ 

And I strongly disagree with what Commissioner Magwood said, 

because the future of nuclear power will 100 percent be determined 

by whether or not the taxpayers of this country continue to provide 

huge, huge financial support to the nuclear power industry for the 

indefinite future. That is the issue. 

And I always find it amusing that at this moment in American history, when we have a $15 trillion national debt, when our middle class is declining, when poverty is increasing, and I have many 

of my friends, many on this Committee, who say we have to cut 

Social Security, we have to cut Medicare, we have to cut Medicaid, 

we just can’t afford it. But when it comes to taxpayer support for 

nuclear power, there is no end in sight. Billion after billion after 

billion. 

So here is my question for the Commission. And correct me if I 

am wrong, now. My understanding is that the nuclear power indusVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:16 May 04, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25036.TXT SONYA
135 

try is unable to get support insurance from Wall Street and the private sector because it is too risky, and that we have a Price-Anderson piece of Federal legislation which guarantees that if, God forbid, there is a major nuclear power disaster in this country, taxpayers would have to pay billions and billions and billions of dollars in liability. Am I wrong on that? 

Mr. JACZKO. Senator, the way I would characterize it, there are 

really two tiers to the Price-Anderson system. The first tier is private insurance. 

Senator SANDERS. Absolutely. And if it’s a disaster, say a $50 billion disaster, would the taxpayers of this country have to pay tens 

of billions of dollars? 

Mr. JACZKO. Beyond the $15 billion. 

Senator SANDERS. Now, many of my good friends here say, well, 

get Government off the backs of the business community. So why 

doesn’t nuclear power go to Wall Street and the private sector and 

get that insurance? 

Mr. Magwood, we believe in the genius of the private sector. Why 

isn’t Wall Street helping out the nuclear power industry, and why 

not? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Well, the only thing I can really say to that, Senator, that I am aware of, no one has actually tried to go to Wall 

Street to do this. 

Senator SANDERS. So the Federal Government steps in because 

nobody in the nuclear power industry can get on the phone and call 

up Wall Street and say, we don’t want taxpayer support; we don’t 

like the Federal Government? No one has thought about going to 

the insurance industry? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. And the Price-Anderson structure has been in 

place for a very long time. 

Senator SANDERS. That is right. Would you agree with me that 

maybe we want to, because we are so concerned about our deficit, 

that we may want to end Price-Anderson? 

Senator Barrasso, are you going to work with me on that? Because we don’t want the Federal Government getting involved in 

the private sector, right? 

All right, you have no comment. 

Second thing. The new plant in Georgia is going to require, as 

I understand it, about $8 billion of loan guarantees. So my question, once again, the Federal Government, why are we getting the 

Federal Government involved in the genius of the private sector? 

Why do we need loan guarantees? Why aren’t they going to Wall 

Street if nuclear power is so safe and can make profits for the industry? Am I right in saying that in fact we have proposals now 

for tens of billions of dollars in loan guarantees for the future of 

the nuclear industry? Anyone disagree with that? 

Last point I want to make, if we are going to get rid of the waste 

that exists, nuclear waste in Vermont and plants all over the country, it is a very, very expensive proposition. Do you think we can 

get private sector to get involved in that rather than tens of billions of dollars of Federal money? Anyone think that is a good 

idea? I don’t hear that. 

So here is the point. The point is that despite all the talk of 

many of my friends about how the Government should not be inVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:16 May 04, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25036.TXT SONYA
136 

volved in picking winners and losers, of course the Government 60 

years ago picked a winner. And that winner is the nuclear power 

industry. Tens and tens and tens of billions of dollars of direct subsidies are going to that industry. 

Now, my last question in this regard is, when does it end? I am 

a believer in sustainable energy. I think it is absolutely appropriate 

that when you have new technologies it does receive Federal support. The nuclear industry is now in this country 60 years old. It 

is a mature industry. When do we get it off of the Government welfare programs? When does it begin to stand on its own? 

Is 60 years enough, Mr. Magwood? How many more years do you 

foresee the Federal Government having to support the nuclear 

power industry? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. As I indicated earlier, the economic issues are 

really beyond our scope. 

Senator SANDERS. Whose scope is it? Do you think the Federal 

Government is going to be there another 60 years supporting these 

guys? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I think I would defer the question to the Department of Energy. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, that really—Ms. Svinicki, how many 

more years do you think the Federal Government has to subsidize 

nuclear power? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I see these as policy deliberations that occur in the 

Congress. The loan guarantee program is in law and executed by 

the Department of Energy. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JACZKO. Senator, when we look at nuclear power plants, one 

of the things we want to make sure is that they have the financial 

resources to be able to support safe operation. 

Senator SANDERS. Right. 

Mr. JACZKO. And so it is very important that these utilities can 

finance the plants, that they can ensure that they have appropriate 

work force. So in the end these finances do have an impact on safety. And it is important—— 

Senator SANDERS. But why can’t the private sector make them 

safe? My friends over here tell me about the genius of the private 

sector. They don’t want the Federal Government involved in all 

kinds of private sector activities. Why can’t the private sector pay 

for that? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, I think, Senator, as you know, we try and stay 

out of those specific decisions and try to remain as an objective determiner of safety. And no more would we want to make safety decisions that are based on cost, I think, in a good way than in a bad 

way. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Apostolakis, how many more years does 

the Federal Government have to continue to subsidize—— 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Senator, I think these are decisions for the political leadership of the country, not for the Commission. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. 

Mr. Ostendorff, how many more years? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I don’t have anything to add to what 

my colleagues have said. 

137 

Senator SANDERS. Let me just conclude. The Federal Government 

has picked winners and losers. The big winner is the nuclear power 

industry, and all of my conservative friends who want the Federal 

Government not to be involved in energy are very silent on their 

desire to pump tens of billions more into nuclear power. 

I yield back. 

Senator CARPER [presiding]. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First let me again 

apologize for not being here because of the conflict with Armed 

Services, which is still going on. 

Let me start off by saying the short response to our good friend 

Senator Sanders is, I disagree with everything he is saying. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. But what I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, I 

had made a request back in December. In December I asked the 

question for the record that you would send me something, in talking about this allegation of harassment and intimidation that you 

are being accused of. And I would ask what actions you plan to 

take to address the allegations of intimidation for safety managers. 

Do you want to respond to that briefly? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, I think, Senator, I certainly appreciate your 

question. I think as I talked about at the last hearing, if there is 

any time I have ever done anything unintentionally to cause anyone to feel—— 

Senator INHOFE. No, the accusations are there. I am saying, how 

are you going to respond to the accusations of intimidation and 

these things? 

Mr. JACZKO. As I said, I think at the last hearing, I think that 

I have never done anything intentionally to intimidate or do the 

things that I think were being talked about the last time. So in the 

end, what I think I am interested in is making sure that we continue to do our job, that the staff is continuing to be focused on our 

important safety mission, that the Commission continues to make 

timely decisions in an effective way. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, that is good, that is what you said last 

time. 

Let me just get to this thing on, first time in 34 years we have 

issued licenses to build two new reactors. We want to move forward 

with this. And Mr. Chairman, you had said you split with the rest 

of the Commission. And you said, I can’t support issuing this license as if Fukushima had never happened. 

Now, I want to ask any of the other four Commissioners who 

would like to respond to this, No. 1, get into the record, unless it 

happened before I came down here, the differences between the 

regulatory performance in Japan and the United States. I am talking about the fact that they didn’t have an independent NRC, 

which we put together back in 1974. I’d like to have one of you 

kind of describe to us the differences and then what Japan is doing 

now copying the progress that we have made. 

If any of you—let’s start with you, Mr. Ostendorff. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, thank you for your question. 

Just briefly, Commissioner Magwood and I were in Tokyo on 

January 18th and met with our counterparts at what is called 

NISA, the NRC’s counterpart agency in Japan for regulation of 

138 

their nuclear industry. We had long discussions with the NISA 

leadership about their plans to reform their regulatory structure. 

I do think they were borrowing heavily from the United States’ 

model. But I would also say that they are looking at enhancing 

independence. They are trying to increase technical competence in 

their leadership. And the Japanese, through their own reports, 

have acknowledged there are some significant improvements they 

need to make. 

So I think—— 

Senator INHOFE. Improvements based on some of the things we 

have done? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. And also an assessment of where their system in 

some areas came up short. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

Any of the rest of you want to comment as to some of the basic 

differences that they are facing over there, not you, Mr. Chairman, 

we have already heard from you, the others, in terms of what they 

might be getting from us? The point I am trying to make here is 

what happened over there and what happens here, we are talking 

about two totally different things, a different system, different geology, different weather patterns, and all that. Maybe you could address some of these differences. Because we keep hearing this, and 

of course the chairman has said we don’t want to move forward 

until we explore Fukushima more. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. There are, I think, a couple of things that 

stand out, if you look at what happened in Japan. The first one is 

what you just discussed with Commissioner Ostendorff. The regulatory authority there, NISA, was very weak technically. And they 

didn’t have the amount of independence that we have, for example. 

The second is more technical; it has to do with the tsunami calculations. They were very poorly done, let’s put it that way. They 

ignored data from the past. There was a report by some technical 

society in Japan a couple of years ago that pointed out that they 

had to update the tsunami calculations, and that was not done. 

So these two things, it seems to me, stand out. There were both 

organizational issues and technical issues. 

Senator INHOFE. And the fact that they had not ever put together 

an independent source, like you folks, right now, the NRC. 

Any comments on that, Mr. Magwood? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Senator, this is something that the Japanese government is wrestling with right now. They are spending a lot of effort to try to reform their system. They know that there are issues. 

I have discussed with Japanese officials the issue of independence 

of regulation, for example, the quality of technical expertise in the 

regulatory organization. And to be honest I think they are right in 

the middle of wrestling with this, and I don’t think they have 

reached any conclusions yet. 

So I hesitate to really give much of a firm opinion about the state 

of things. But I do agree with the thrust of your question. Those 

are issues, particularly the independence of the regulatory agency, 

that I think will be essential if they are going to rebuild the trust 

that a regulator must have with the public. 

Senator INHOFE. Ms. Svinicki. 

139 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, I agree with the comments of my colleagues. One item that I would add is that I think that the Japanese acknowledge that their, what I will call command and control 

structure, in this crisis situation was severely challenged. And even 

in circumstances where decisionmaking is well established and well 

rehearsed, in times of crisis it becomes very difficult. I think the 

Japanese now understand that the decisionmaking lines of authorities were not as clear as they needed to be for a severe accident 

situation. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Chairman, I just want to continue to get on the record how 

important it is that we develop our nuclear energy. I sit back and 

I see that it is accepted now that we in the United States have the 

largest recoverable reserves of oil, gas, and coal of any place in the 

world. Our problem is a political problem that won’t allow us to exploit our own resources. We are the only country in the world that 

does that. 

And I see a similar thing here, too. We have this opportunity 

that is out there, and we want to exploit it. It was quite a number 

of years ago that I was the Chairman of this Subcommittee, when 

the Republicans were in majority. At that time we hadn’t had an 

oversight hearing in 12 months, and we started changing things 

around, started moving forward, getting into the safety of all this. 

And I regretted when Fukushima came along, somehow people are 

assuming that there is—that that threat is here, when in fact the 

point we want to keep hammering is, it is not. 

So between the opportunities that we have out there with oil, 

gas, and coal, and nuclear, we can solve this problem. Numerically, 

we have all given speeches as to how long it would take. People are 

concerned about our dependence on the Middle East. We don’t have 

to be dependent on the Middle East if we just exploit our own resources. A very important part of that is nuclear energy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. I was born in West Virginia, my colleagues, I 

don’t know if you know that. It is a big coal State. 

Senator INHOFE. I knew that. 

Senator CARPER. I take pride in the fact that the United States 

is recognized as the Saudi Arabia of coal. Given what we are learning about our natural gas resources, it appears we are the Saudi 

Arabia of natural gas. I understand we are in a position now to 

begin fairly soon to actually liquify it and begin exporting natural 

gas. 

Like my colleagues here I believe and have for a long time believed that nuclear energy has to be an important component of our 

portfolio of sources of energy in this country done right. And we 

have worked hard over the years to make sure that it is done right. 

It has not been perfect, but we always know if it isn’t perfect we 

try to make it better. 

One of the reasons why—I am sorry that Senator Sanders had 

to leave, but one of the reasons why we believe it is important to 

ensure that we have a vibrant nuclear industry going forward is 

what I alluded to earlier. I am not aware of anyone, I asked how 

many people died in nuclear accidents, radiation accidents, in the 

history of this country. One of the virtues of nuclear power is that 

140 

it doesn’t emit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, CO2, we 

don’t have to worry about contributing to climate change or global 

warming. It doesn’t poison us in our lungs; we don’t have folks 

dying because they are ingesting the waste that comes out of the 

smokestacks of other utilities around the country. 

And in terms of the money—I don’t know if anybody has ever sat 

down, Senator Inhofe, and tried to figure out how much money we 

have saved from the 100 or so nuclear power plants that we don’t 

have to pay through Medicaid or Medicare for folks to go to the 

hospital, to doctors’ offices for treatments, for funerals, for enormous numbers of costs. It would be interesting to run the tab on 

that and see how much we add up to in savings. 

There is, I think, a rationale for investing some Federal dollars 

in loan guarantees for the opportunity it costs to avoid all those 

health care costs that are otherwise burdensome, helping to bankrupt Medicare and putting a huge burden on States for their Medicaid costs. I just wanted to get that out there. 

I will say this to the panel: it is my understanding that the Commission has decided to move ahead with a rulemaking to address 

what a facility should do if it experiences a loss of all electric 

power, referred to as station blackout. However, the NRC expects 

utilities will have up to December 2016 to comply with this new 

rule once it is final. 

It is my understanding that losing all electrical power for a long 

period of time was the underlying issue behind much of the equipment failure at Fukushima. My question would be, is the NRC requiring the nuclear power plants in this country to address these 

issues in any way from now until when the rule would become 

final? 

Mr. JACZKO. I think as was mentioned, we did issue an order 

which requires additional equipment to help mitigate the impact of 

a loss of all electric power. So that basically means you have additional portable generators, power supplies, and fuel, these kinds of 

things, and the ability to connect that power into the vital systems. 

So that is kind of the short-term enhancements that would be 

there to get us through to the point at which we have the more permanent changes made. 

I would also add that right now we do have a requirement that 

plants deal with this complete loss of electric power. Right now we 

think those requirements are not sufficient, that they don’t require 

them to be able to deal with this situation for a long enough period 

of time, that Fukushima showed us is probably much longer, days 

rather than hours that they have to be able to cope with this situation. 

So there is not completely a void of requirements in this area. 

But we don’t think right now that it is really where we want it to 

be in a few years. 

Senator CARPER. Do any other Commissioners want to add to 

that? 

OK. 

My next question is, during the December 15th hearing, about 3 

or 4 months ago, I asked Chairman Jaczko if the day to day NRC 

staff work was being compromised with the staff working on the 

Fukushima recommendations. I specifically asked about the licensVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:16 May 04, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25036.TXT SONYA
141 

ing process for new reactor and the relicensing process for our current reactors. 

Chairman Jaczko responded that there may be some delays in 

the relicensing process for our current reactors due to the constraint of resources. I followed up with a question for the record for 

all of you. It asked how many staff were working for relicensing 

leading up to the Fukushima crisis and how many are working on 

relicensing today. You all answered me the same answer, I believe, 

that 82 employees were working on relicensing before Fukushima, 

and 77 are working on it now. 

And that doesn’t seem to be a large shift of resources, a modest 

shift of resources. But I also asked how many additional staff are 

needed to ensure that there are not any delays. And I did not get 

a clear answer from any of you. 

So let me just ask again, if I can. Is the day to day NRC staff 

work being compromised with the staff working on Fukushima recommendations? Do you expect delays in licensing and/or relicensing 

because of that? And if there are any extreme gaps that will reduce 

performance, what do you need, if anything, to fill those gaps? 

And that would be for the whole panel. We will start with Commissioner Ostendorff, and we will just go to your right. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I am not aware of any significant impacts that Fukushima is having on licensing. There are some small 

impacts. I think Bill Borchardt, who is here in the room today and 

is our executive director for operations, is doing a very good job of 

managing priorities for staff work. So I am not aware of there 

being any significant impacts. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Commissioner Apostolakis. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I agree with Commissioner Ostendorff. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, there certainly are impacts. We have put a 

large number of people working on the Fukushima efforts. So low 

priority activities will not be done in the area of licensing. Probably 

the most significant impact is in the area of extended reviews of 

so-called power uprates. Those will likely take longer than we originally had anticipated. But again, nothing that would have certainly 

an impact on safety and our safety efforts and our safety oversight 

will continue in that area. 

So if there is a shortcoming it is not so much in the area of financial resources, it is simply expertise and staff expertise that we just 

don’t have, and additional finance resources won’t necessarily improve. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. 

Commissioner Svinicki, please. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, I have no different information than the 

written response I provided to the Committee on March 5th. But 

I would just emphasize my agreement with Chairman Jaczko: it is 

both resources and what we call critical skill sets, meaning that 

some of these issues require niche expertise, and we have a limited 

number of some experts. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Commissioner Magwood, please. 

142 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I think my colleagues have covered it. I don’t 

think I have much to add except to say that I have asked this question multiple times within the agency to make sure I understand 

how our Fukushima efforts have impacted things like license renewal activities. It seems that, as one of my colleagues mentioned 

a minute ago, that the staff has been able to manage through this 

very effectively and has been able to where, if a particular person 

is necessary to be moved to work on Fukushima, there was another 

person ready to backfill that was prepared to take on that work. 

So we have been able to manage this effort without a major 

interruption of our important work. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you all for those responses. 

We have been joined by a Senator, not just any Senator, but a 

Senator from New Mexico, Senator Udall. 

Welcome, you are recognized. 

Senator UDALL. Senator Carper, thank you very much, and 

thank you to the Commission for being here. 

I first wanted to ask about—several of the priority recommendations from the NRC may not be implemented until 2016, 4 years 

from now and 5 years after the Fukushima disaster. The average 

American, it seems to me, expects the Government to keep them 

safe from disasters at nuclear power plants. Why does it take 5 

years to implement the short-term safety recommendations following the worst nuclear disaster in a generation? 

Mr. JACZKO. I think the one area right now where we know there 

will be some challenges is in the area of seismic, analyzing the seismic or earthquake risks at nuclear power plants. I think the simple 

answer to that is that the industry does not have the experts to 

do this. And I think that is indicative of the fact that this is not 

an issue that we probably paid enough attention to in terms of updating our requirements, updating our standards, updating our 

skill set and our knowledge base. 

That has clearly, I think, been exposed as a weakness. And that 

is why it is going to take us time, because there are limited people 

who can do these kinds of analyses, so they are going to have to 

be shared among the very licensees that need to do this work. 

So I think in that area in particular, it is part of the reason. 

Senator UDALL. Are there any other reasons why? In that area 

I can understand that. Are there other reasons? 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, there is a certain point at which this is technically complex. And it does take some time to do these analyses. 

It takes time to then— once, for instance, we understand what the 

problems are at a plant, then proposals need to be made about how 

to fix those. Those changes then ultimately need to actually be 

made in the plants themselves. 

So that work does take some amount of time, and we can’t unfortunately do these things overnight. But I think it is reasonable to 

shoot for a target to get it all done within 5 years. And that means 

getting all the parts of the plants changed as well. I am not confident right now that we are on target to do that for everything we 

need to do. 

Senator UDALL. Do any of the other Commissioners have comments on that question or on what the chairman said? 

Please, go ahead. 

143 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I appreciate the question very much. 

I would just like to comment that a foundational element to the 

Commission’s actions here had been the Near-Term Task Force’s 

findings that there is no imminent risk from continued operation 

of our existing nuclear power plants. If there had been a finding 

of imminent risk, we would have shut them down. We did not find 

there is imminent risk. 

So a more measured approach is appropriate, given that 

foundational entering assumption and finding. 

Senator UDALL. Please. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I would like to add that, I mean, maybe the 

impression is that we are doing something about seismic now. I 

mean, this has been an issue that has been of concern for decades. 

And the plants have been found safe by our staff. 

There is some new information from the U.S. Geological Survey 

that now is being evaluated. So it is not like we are looking at the 

issue for the first time. They are safe as far as I am concerned. 

Senator UDALL. Commissioner Magwood. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Senator, I appreciate your question on this. I 

think one of the things that is very important to emphasize—and 

I think Commissioner Apostolakis mentioned this in an earlier response—as the agency goes through this process we will be 

prioritizing based on the hazard and risk presented at each individual plant site. So I think you will find that as we move forward, 

you will see us having greater activity on sites that, after we go 

through the initial hazard assessment, we will deal with the plants 

that need to be dealt with first. 

So I think that where the risk is highest we will take action 

sooner. I think that is an appropriate way to proceed. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

I understand there are dozens of nuclear power plants across the 

country whose operating licenses are about to expire. These plants 

are seeking to extend their licenses for another 20 years beyond the 

original predicted life span of the plants. Do all U.S. nuclear plants 

have to meet all the newer safety standards, or do older plants get 

exemptions from new standards? 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JACZKO. Well, in general, as we get new requirements we 

will in some cases require plants to update to those new requirements, and in some cases we won’t. It depends on the particular 

issue and the particular way in which the plant was licensed. If 

you go back to the very first plants that were licensed in this country, they were not licensed at a time when we had kind of a generic 

set of basic safety requirements or basic design requirements. So 

some of those plants are licensed to a very different type of standard than other plants. 

So there is variety in the way the plants are licensed and the requirements that have been applied to different plants. When it 

comes to the relicensing itself, we don’t do a kind of a de novo review. It is like when you get a driver’s license, every 5 years you 

have to get—or 10 years, whatever the frequency is—to get your 

driver’s license extended often you send something in the mail, and 

you get a new license. 

144 

Well, our license renewal is not a brand new licensing action, 

much like going in and taking a driver’s test again and doing all 

the things in the written test that you would do initially getting 

a driver’s license. We don’t require that for license extension. We 

require that they have programs in place that we review to ensure 

that the plant will deal with the aging of the components that are 

important to safety. That is the decision we have made and really 

the basis for our decisions about license extension. 

Senator UDALL. Do any of the other Commissioners, do you have 

thoughts or comments on that question? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I think the chairman is right, that we look at 

the subset of the requirements for the license extension. But once 

the license is extended then they are subject to all of our orders 

that apply to everything else. They are just treated like any other 

operating plant. 

Senator UDALL. The point here though is if they have been given 

exemptions in the past and then post-Fukushima, are you going to 

re-look at those and see, are those safe in light of what is going 

on and what you have learned from the process and the accident. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I am not aware of any exemptions. And the orders we issued this week apply to everybody. 

Senator UDALL. Can I do one more question? 

Senator CARPER. I don’t know, what do you think? 

Senator UDALL. Oh, Senator Barrasso is here, I didn’t see him. 

Senator CARPER. Go right ahead. 

Senator UDALL. I will wait. 

Senator CARPER. We are just here to listen to you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Chairman, nuclear power makes up about 80 

percent of the French electricity supply. The French nuclear industry is quite different than ours, with a much more involved, as you 

know, government role. I was interested to learn that regulators 

there are going to require safety equipment designed to survive disasters even worse than what the plants are designed for. In the 

U.S. apparently the nuclear industry is taking the lead in updating 

emergency equipment prior to the NRC action. 

When is the NRC going to implement a similar requirements in 

the U.S., and what are the key differences between the two national approaches? 

Mr. JACZKO. I am reluctant to too much characterize what the 

French are doing because we focus more on what we are doing, and 

that has occupied a bit of our time. But the basic ideas, I guess I 

would say, for what we are doing here is really to get at preventing 

these kind of very severe accidents, which means making sure that 

all the plants can handle the external hazards, earthquakes, flooding, other challenges like that, then really on mitigation. So if you 

get into a situation in which Mother Nature does something we 

didn’t plan for, then you can minimize the likelihood of a very severe accident, which means new equipment, new procedures and 

other enhancements to the system to deal with that. 

The last piece is to make sure we have a robust emergency preparedness system to respond in the event that all those other 

things we planned for fail. So that is really the approach that we 

145 

have taken, is to try and bolster each of those three areas with 

some new requirements in some regard. 

My limited understanding of what the French are attempting to 

do is to, if you will, to kind of harden everything, make everything 

a little bit more robust, with greater physical infrastructure to protect equipment from external hazards, to ensure that you have an 

additional way to control the reactor. That is in a hardened facility. 

So some of the things that they are doing are things that we have 

already required even before Fukushima for some of our plants. 

Sometimes it is a little bit hard to compare the changes they are 

making to the changes that we are. 

But I think in general in the international community there is 

a lot of consensus about what really needs to be done. I think in 

general we are moving forward relatively consistently. But there 

are differences just because of the uniqueness of each country and 

its regulatory program. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you on that. The thrust of my question 

was just to get to the issue of safety, and are other countries pushing more into safety. And in hindsight, if we do have, which none 

of us want, future disasters, is it going to be found that they took 

actions that they had the safest plants? All of you have said over 

and over again, we have very safe nuclear plants. So I hope that 

you are looking at everything that we do, from exemptions to additional policies that are going to be put in place, new licensing to 

make sure that we have the safest nuclear plants in the world. 

Thank you for that, and I very much appreciate, Senator Carper, 

your courtesies, and Senator Barrasso. I am going to slip out for 

a meeting here but I may come back and ask an additional question. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Let me just say, you asked excellent 

questions. One of the things that we are trying to do here is to 

learn from the disaster. Einstein used to say in adversity lies opportunity, terrible adversity in Japan, opportunity for us to learn, 

to make sure that we can avoid some problems and mistakes that 

they made. 

And you referred to France as well; I had the opportunity to go 

over and take a look at what they are trying to do in terms of reprocessing spent fuel rods and that kind of thing. Somebody somewhere around the world is going to figure this out. Somebody is 

going to figure out how to do it, and they are going to figure out 

how to derive additional energy from the spent fuel rods and reduce the amount of time that they have to be stored. And folks up 

at MIT, where Dr. Apostolakis comes from, they have been working 

on this and a lot of other places as well. The French have been 

working on it for a number of years. We will figure this out eventually. 

And when somebody does, I hope we are the first. But I think 

we will probably, in the end, we are going to need some repositories 

around the country to store the stuff for an indefinite period of 

time. We don’t need them immediately. But the idea of learning 

from others in the world, they can learn from us, and we will learn 

from them as well. 

Senator UDALL. Senator Carper, I did—like you, I went to 

France, and I spent 2 weeks, and I toured their nuclear plants. The 

146 

big question I had, because as you probably know, New Mexico has 

the first, for transuranic waste, it is called the Waste Isolation 

Pilot Project. So I was trying to find out from the French, because 

they are putting all their eggs in the nuclear basket, where are 

they moving in terms of permanent storage of waste. 

The question, after I kept asking the question in place after 

place, to group after group, they said, we were waiting for America 

to find a permanent solution. 

Senator CARPER. Well, that is good. When were you there? 

Senator UDALL. I was there in the period when I was State attorney general and had the opportunity to travel over on a program 

that was an exchange. I think I was there in about 1995, 1996. 

Senator CARPER. Good. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Barrasso, anything else? 

Senator BARRASSO. No, thank you. 

Senator CARPER. I am going to telegraph a pitch here, Commissioners. One of the ways I like to close down a hearing like this 

is just to invite the witnesses sometimes to just offer a closing 

statement, something that has come to your mind, something that 

because of the interaction of the questions or the answers that you 

think you would like to add, sort of like a benediction. 

So you can be thinking about that; I am going to ask one last 

question of Chairman Jaczko, then we will do that. 

Chairman Jaczko, though we know a lot about what happened in 

Japan, and if adopted, lessons learned from the accident here in 

the U.S., we are still learning and will continue to do so for some 

time, maybe a long time. Based on the continual information coming from Japan, how has the Commission ensured that the NRC 

will continue to evaluate and analyze that information so that it 

is incorporated into the current process? 

Mr. JACZKO. We have established an organization, it is our Japan 

Lessons Learned Directorate, that is going to be working on all the 

identified issues. Part of their task is also, as new information 

comes in, to evaluate that information and determine if it needs to 

get added formally to the tasks that we have in front of us. So they 

will be reporting back to the Commission on a periodic basis, every 

6 months, I believe, to update us if they have new information. 

So I think we are well prepared to deal with new information as 

it comes along. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Why don’t you all go ahead and give me a closing thought? 

Chairman Jaczko, why don’t you go first. Just a closing thought 

you would have for us, use maybe a minute or so if you will. 

Mr. JACZKO. I would just say, today I think is Thursday, which 

is the first day of the March Madness basketball tournament. I 

think we are, in our lessons learned enhancements, we are in the 

first round of the tournament. We have a long way to go to get to 

the Final Four. I think the progress we have made has been substantial. But I think we need to keep the focus, and we need to 

keep the effort on making progress. 

As time goes on, perhaps unlike the Final Four, interest wanes 

rather than increases. I think it is very important that we not lose 

147 

sight of the need to complete these actions and move on, because 

there will be other challenges that we need to deal with. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks for that. 

Commissioner Ostendorff. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you, Senator. I agree with Chairman 

Jaczko’s comment. I strongly agree that we need to keep focused 

on these issues and that there is a long road ahead. But I will also 

say that I am very comfortable with where we are as an agency. 

I think the processes that we have followed to date have stood us 

in good stead. The integrated prioritized approach of the staff, the 

steering committee, et cetera have really put us in a good position. 

I think along with other colleagues here, we have had a chance 

just in the last 2 days, with our annual Regulatory Information 

Conference, to meet with a number of international counterparts. 

I have met with 12 here in the last couple of days and with situational awareness of what is happening elsewhere in the world, I am 

very comfortable with where we are. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Commissioner Apostolakis. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Thank you, Senator. 

I do agree with my colleagues regarding Fukushima. But I would 

like to say something else. Senator Barrasso earlier quoted from 

the recent Union of Concerned Scientists report. I said I disagreed 

with the statement that was contained in that report, and Chairman Boxer implied that we were bashing the author, David 

Lochbaum. 

I would like to correct that impression. I have great respect for 

David. I always look forward to reports that he authors; usually 

there is something good there. But I don’t agree with him all the 

time, and in this particular case, I do disagree. I do disagree. 

But I have great respect for him. In fact, yesterday I invited him 

and met with him for 15 minutes to see what he thinks about the 

current state of affairs. That is the respect I have for him. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. I am glad you made that clarification. Thank 

you for saying that. 

Commissioner Svinicki. 

Ms. SVINICKI. My comment was going to be the same as Commissioner Ostendorff’s, which is that I have tremendous confidence in 

the disciplined process that the NRC and the Commission and the 

staff have followed to get us to the point where we have, I think, 

prioritized appropriately. We are moving forward on high priority 

items. 

I think that we have done a very searching review of lessons 

learned, and I do think that we are focused on the right things. Not 

everything can be pursued at the same pace. I think we have put 

the emphasis appropriately on the highest priority items. And I 

think we have followed a tremendously rigorous process in getting 

to where we are today. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Commissioner Magwood. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Thank you for the opportunity. 

148 

One thing, a couple of thoughts. First, I think it is always easy, 

since we are the center of this, as the regulatory agency of the 

United States, to think that what we do is very important, and it 

is. But there are so many other people who have taken a role in 

thinking about these issues, including the Union of Concerned Scientists with their report American Nuclear Society, American Society for Mechanical Engineers who presented some thoughts yesterday which were quite intriguing. 

So there are a lot of people in this country thinking about this, 

including the nuclear industry. I think it is really important that 

the American people understand that the nuclear industry really 

has been very forward leaning in this. They have not resisted what 

we have been doing. In fact, they have offered very good ideas on 

their own. I think they should be recognized for the good work they 

have done. 

But I also wanted to close just to let you know that while Commission Ostendorff and I visited the Fukushima site, the most lasting impression for me wasn’t really what I saw at the site. It is 

what I saw on the way to the site. On the van ride through the 

12-mile evacuation zone, as you went through neighborhood after 

neighborhood, going past business after business and realizing 

there are no people there, it leaves a strong impression on you. 

And for me, the image that stays in my mind is that when I 

looked at the houses going by as we rode past, I noticed that the 

last thing people seemed to do when they left their homes—maybe 

for the last time—was draw the drapes to a close. I am not sure 

what reflex there is in the human psyche that brings that out. But 

that is what I saw time after time. For me, it is very clear that 

we have to do everything in our power to make sure nothing like 

that ever happens in this country. So I have completely devoted 

myself to making sure that doesn’t happen. 

Senator CARPER. That was a very poignant comment there. 

Hopefully, if we are vigilant, we are not going to have to close 

those drapes as they did over there. But at the same time, maybe 

we can help them open their drapes again. That is what we are trying to do. 

I read in the newspaper the other day that we have been conducting, I think the Federal Reserve has been conducting of late 

yet another stress test for some of our major banks. You may have 

seen that. I think they looked at 19 banks and said 15 of them 

passed with flying colors and 4 others have some work to do in 

that. That work continues. 

I think the NRC has gone through a stress test of its own in recent months. And in terms of how to grapple with Fukushima, how 

to be supportive and helpful to the folks over there, at the same 

time to make sure we learn whatever lessons are to be garnered 

from their tragedy and to ensure that we infuse those lessons and 

deploy them in an appropriate way here with our nuclear power 

plants. I am encouraged by what you shared with us today, that 

we are doing pretty well with respect to that stress test. 

We have a couple new nuclear power plants that have been licensed for the first time in some 30 years. And their construction 

has begun, I think with appropriate Federal support, direct or indirect. 

149 

I think it is too bad my colleagues had to leave, but as I am one 

who supports not tens of billions to support the nuclear industry, 

but some support as appropriate, particularly through loan guarantees and to making sure that the NRC has the resources that it 

needs to do your jobs, but at the same time, as I support Federal 

funds for nuclear, I also think it is appropriate for us to support 

Federal investments for renewable energies, whether it is offshore 

wind or biofuels and clean coal, really clean coal. 

But the other thing, and I didn’t mention it, I don’t know if it 

has been mentioned here today, but the design approval for the 

new AP1000, I think that is something you can feel good about. I 

am pleased you have been able to reach that agreement. 

So I think with respect to working through agenda, we are at a 

better place today than we may have been in the past. 

My last thought goes back to the visit that Commissioner 

Magwood and Commissioner Ostendorff paid in Japan. I mentioned 

I had been on the border of Pakistan, right up against Afghanistan 

a year or two ago when they had so many Pakistanis evacuated because of the terrible flooding they had there. I had a chance to visit 

a refugee camp where there were probably about 150,000 refugees 

still encamped. Through the United Nations, Red Cross, we had 

provided the resources, most of the people there had no idea that 

we had done that. 

I had the opportunity to address a shura of the elders from the 

tribes that were there. This was kind of like a surprise, and before 

we left, the folks running the camp said, would you like to address 

the shura? I said, well, sure. And I talked to them through a translator about the golden rule. Then I told them, I said, when your 

children have no food, our children have no food. When your children have no medical care, our children have no medical care. 

When you have no place to live, then our families have no place 

to live. 

I told them about the golden rule. And I think they got it. Because the golden rule is part of their faith as well. 

One of the things, when we were last here, I implored all of you, 

Commissioner, Chairman and the other Commissioners to keep in 

mind the golden rule and to treat each other, whether it is just the 

Commissioners, the other folks who work with you and for you at 

the NRC to always keep that in mind. I would just say that again 

today. 

And this is actually something I share with my colleagues a 

whole lot as well, that is a lesson we need to learn and re-learn 

and re-learn every day. So I would urge you to continue to do that. 

I am very pleased with today’s hearing and pleased with the work 

that is being done, and thank you all for joining us today. 

I would note for the record that some of our colleagues weren’t 

able to join us and still have 2 weeks to submit questions and materials for the record. I would ask that our witnesses respond 

promptly to those questions so they can become part of the hearing 

record. 

Again, we appreciate each of you, the work that you are doing, 

your attendance today, and look forward to continuing to work with 

you to make sure that everything we do, including nuclear power, 

we do better. 

150 

Thanks so much. With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

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

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

of nuclear energy sustained over the long term. 

Ensuring the safe use of nuclear energy is a very serious job. That is why Congress established an independent commission, the NRC, and charged five commissioners with the responsibility to protect public health and safety. The public is best 

served by a commission that functions collectively and collegially to pool their expertise. That is why I’m anxious to see progress on the renomination of Commissioner 

Svinicki, which I hope President Obama sends us soon. She is due for renomination 

in June, and given the scope of issues before the Commission it is important that 

the agency continues to benefit from her valuable expertise. 

As Chairman Jaczko frequently reminds us, we can’t be complacent in regard to 

nuclear safety. At the same time we can’t allow ourselves to be paralyzed by fear. 

Harnessing any energy source carries some measure of risk that must be safely 

managed. 

For the first time in 34 years the NRC has issued a license to build two new reactors creating 3500 construction jobs and 800 permanent jobs. This is a true milestone in the Agency’s history and reflects well on the Commissioners present and 

past that worked so hard to prepare for new applications. Congratulations to those 

of you who have worked on this license. The Chairman split with his fellow Commissioners and opposed the license saying: ‘‘I can’t support issuing this license as 

if Fukushima had never happened. But without this license condition, in my view, 

that is what we are doing.’’ In fact, 1 month later, the Commission voted for the 

new Vogtle units to receive the same Orders issued to existing plants. There was 

no need for Chairman Jaczko to take his ‘‘my way or the highway’’ approach here, 

lashing out at his colleagues and implying that they were ignoring the lessons of 

Fukushima. These Orders, reflecting the lessons of Fukushima, are as applicable at 

Vogtle as they are at any U.S. facility. 

License renewal is an issue I have worked on for over a decade. When I chaired 

the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee beginning in 1996, we made sure 

the NRC was prepared to review license renewal applications efficiently in 24 

months (or 30 months if it was contentious). In Massachusetts the Pilgrim plant 

filed its application over 6 years ago. For almost 5 years, 3 of those years under 

Chairman Jaczko’s leadership, Pilgrim has been subjected to an unprecedented cycle 

of contentions and petitions from interveners. Chairman Jaczko again dissented 

from his colleagues in a recent Commission decision on yet another petition. He 

wanted to lower a long established threshold for contentions to allow even more 

delay to the renewal process. 

Chairman Jaczko gave a speech last month and stated that one scenario for nuclear energy’s future includes new plant construction and license extensions. He said 

the other scenario, which is ‘‘just as plausible’’ is that the industry is 

‘‘unsustainable’’ and ‘‘dominated by a process of continuing decommissioning.’’ He 

said, ‘‘I think today there are a number of decisions about nuclear safety and actions 

related to nuclear safety that may move you on one of those paths versus the other 

path.’’ 

It’s clear which path Chairman Jaczko prefers, and it’s no secret that I strongly 

disagree with him on that. As NRC Chairman he takes every opportunity to portray 

himself as the sole Commissioner most dedicated to public safety while condemning 

his colleagues and doing his utmost to hinder and delay licensing actions. 

To the other four Commissioners, let me say that your debates and disagreements 

are healthy and respectful. Your actions may prevent the imposition of an unpredictable regulatory burden that makes nuclear energy economically unfeasible, 

much the way EPA regulations are driving the premature shutdown of coal-fired 

power plants. It’s up to you four to uphold the NRC’s reputation for reasoned and 

balanced regulation. 

Æ