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

25–055 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 112–971 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF ALLISON 

MACFARLANE AND RE-NOMINATION OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI TO BE MEMBERS OF THE 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 13, 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 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 13, 2012 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ............ 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 3 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 23 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 25 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 27 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 29 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 34 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 35 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 36 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 38 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 39 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 217 

WITNESSES 

Macfarlane, Allison, Ph.D., Associate Professor, George Mason University ....... 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 43 

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

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 48 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 60 

Response to an additional question from Senator Alexander ....................... 63 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Udall ............................................................................................. 64 

Senator Boozman ....................................................................................... 67 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 69 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 71 

Svinicki, Hon. Kristine L., Commissioner. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................................................................................................................ 72

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 75 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 79 

Senator Udall ............................................................................................. 81 

Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso ......................... 85 

(1) 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF ALLISON 

MACFARLANE AND RE-NOMINATION OF 

KRISTINE L. SVINICKI TO BE MEMBERS OF 

THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

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

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

the Committee) presiding. 

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

Sanders, Udall, Gillibrand, Barrasso, Sessions, Alexander, and 

Boozman. 

Also present: Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BOXER. We will proceed. And because we know Senators 

have schedules, we will withhold our opening statements and allow 

you to do your introductions. So we will start with Senator 

Blumenthal, please, introducing the nominee for Chairman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member Inhofe. I am very, very honored today to introduce Allison Macfarlane, President Obama’s nominee to be a Commissioner, in fact, Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I 

want to thank the Chairwoman and members of the Committee for 

giving me this opportunity. 

Dr. Macfarlane is a native of Connecticut; she was born in Hartford, raised in Avon, went to Avon High School, which is an area 

just a few miles north and west of Hartford, our capital. And I 

would like to say that is her most important distinction, but actually, as you know, she is a geologist of national, indeed, international stature, and I think supremely well qualified to head the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at this critical point in its history 

and our nation’s. 

She is a remarkable scholar and leader, and a person of genuine 

vision and courage, and she has been an Associate Professor of Environmental Science and Policy at George Mason University since 

2006, but she has been in a variety of academic positions at Harvard, Stanford, and other universities before the one that she has 

now. 

2 

She has also served on the Blue Ribbon Commission established 

by the President, 15-member commission which produced a report 

very recently that addresses one of the principal challenges for the 

NRC in coming years: to develop an integrated nuclear waste facility management program and make sure that we move from spent 

pools to dry casks in as many of our nuclear facilities as possible. 

This issue is extraordinarily important to Connecticut because of 

our Connecticut Yankee and our Millstone plants, where some of 

our fuel is still stored in pools and where we have a substantial 

amount of nuclear waste, and the interest of Connecticut in this 

issue is very, very profoundly significant. 

Dr. Macfarlane is not only a person of academic and scholarly 

distinction, but she is also a person of great collegiality and integrity, and I am very proud to introduce her to this Committee and 

to support her for this profoundly important position, and I hope 

that members of the Committee—I know they will—will be as impressed as I am by her personal, her professional, and her academic distinctions and her qualifications for this profoundly important position. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

And Senator Sessions is going to reintroduce Hon. Kristine 

Svinicki, Commissioner. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking 

Member Inhofe and members of the Committee. 

It is a delight for me to be able to introduce you this morning 

Kristine Svinicki. She is no stranger to the Committee, having appeared before us at least five other times in the last several years. 

I have personally known Kristine for more than 7 years, time 

enough for me to show and learn what an impressive and good person she really is. Let me tell you a few things about her. 

She was born and raised in Jackson, Michigan, a mid-sized town 

in the southern part of the State. Her Grandfather Svinicki came 

to America from Eastern Europe to work in the iron mines of 

Michigan. Kristine is the youngest of seven children of Amol and 

Jane Svinicki. Her father was an Army veteran of World War II. 

Although her father never spoke about his war experiences, as so 

often is the case, Kristine and her siblings were surprised and very 

moved to learn, after his death, of his multiple commendations for 

valor in combat, including two bronze stars, of which he never 

talked. 

After the war, Amol Svinicki was the first of his family to go to 

college, attending Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, studying architecture. Kristine was raised to understand that her parents valued education above all else, so although she lost both of 

her parents to illness by the time she was 20, she knew that they 

would want her to finish her college degree, which she did, graduating from the University of Michigan with a Bachelor of Science 

in Nuclear Engineering, appropriately, in 1988. Since then, Kristine has been a true public servant, applying her many talents and 

keen intellect to the benefit of a nation that she loves so dearly, 

approaching now three decades of public service. 

After college she worked for the State of Wisconsin at the Public 

Service Commission, where she learned a lot about destruction regVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:47 Jul 06, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25055.TXT SONYA
3 

ulation of electric power companies. From there she took a position 

with the U.S. Department of Energy at their Idaho Operations Office, working on nuclear waste programs associated with the Department of Energy’s Idaho Nuclear Laboratory. She eventually 

transferred to DOE’s headquarters in Washington. She came to 

Capitol Hill as a Brookings Institute legislative fellow in 1997. She 

decided to continue working on the Hill as a permanent staff. 

I came to know Kristine when she was hired as a staff member 

of the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2005 by Senator John 

Warner, then Chairman of the committee. Chairman Boxer and 

Inhofe will probably recall that Senator Warner gave her an especially warm introduction when her first confirmation hearing occurred here in 2007. He referred to Kristine as ‘‘one of the extraordinary persons’’ that he had served with in his three decades in the 

Senate. 

Kristine’s work also supported me in my role as Chairman of the 

Strategic Forces Subcommittee and Armed Services. Her knowledge of nuclear security and nuclear defense issues, which we dealt 

with, for which she was the lead staffer, was acknowledged and appreciated by the staff members on both sides of the aisle, and her 

work was highly regarded. I was very impressed. She was one of 

the best I have ever worked with. I valued her opinion greatly. 

In fact, she was still working on the Armed Services Committee 

staff when she was nominated in 2007 by President Bush to serve 

on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and her nomination was 

strongly supported by the Senators serving on the Armed Services 

Committee on both sides of the aisle. She was confirmed in 2008 

by unanimous consent. As a Commissioner, she has demonstrated 

a strong commitment to understanding the practical effects of NRC 

regulation at the facilities that they regulate. For example, she has 

visited approximately half of the nuclear power plants in the 

United States. She takes a practical, as well as a theoretical approach to her work. 

The NRC has seen its share of controversy in the past several 

years, and through it all Kristine has exhibited tremendous character, professionalism, and courage. Although members of her family were not able to travel to Washington, DC, to be here today, she 

has the enthusiastic support of her siblings spread across the country, as well as her many nieces and nephews, some of whom are 

tuned into the Webcast, I am sure cheering her on today. And I 

know her parents and grandparents would be very proud of her 

today, as I am and as are many of her fellow supporters and 

friends. She has earned the respect of many employees at the NRC 

who wish her success today and very much want to see her return 

to the Commission for another term. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

So now the Senators are welcome to go on to their next activity, 

and I am sure that the nominees are extremely grateful to both of 

you for your wonderful introductions, and we thank you very much. 

4 

We will do our opening statements, and then we will hear from, 

first, Dr. Macfarlane and then Hon. Kristine Svinicki, and then we 

will do some questions. 

Today we consider the nomination of Dr. Allison Macfarlane as 

Chairman of the NRC and the renomination of Kristine Svinicki to 

the NRC. 

The NRC has one critical mission; it is the key Federal agency 

charged with ensuring safety at the nation’s 104 commercial nuclear reactors. Safety. That is the mission. 

Nothing underscores the important role played by the NRC more 

than the Fukushima disaster. That disaster in Japan was a wake 

up call to each of us that safety at our nuclear power plants can’t 

be taken for granted and must reflect the lessons of Fukushima. 

I want to remind everyone here today what happened in Japan 

about a year ago. A magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck off the coast, 

triggering a tsunami that’s reported to have reached 45 feet high 

and stretched up to 6 miles in length. 

The Fukushima Daiichi 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 those men, women, and children have yet to return 

to their homes, and some may never get back. 

As I reflect on the Fukushima disaster, I think about communities in my home State of California. Those communities are right 

close to two nuclear facilities, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating 

Station and the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Nearly 8.7 

million people live within 50 miles of San Onofre and almost 

500,000 people live within 50 miles of Diablo Canyon. 

The thought of those families facing an unimaginable accident 

even a fraction of what the people of Japan faced during the 

Fukushima disaster makes me even more vigilant about safety 

when it comes to nuclear power. Much more work needs to be done 

by the NRC in the aftermath of Fukushima. As I review the activities of the NRC, I feel that within the leadership of the current 

Chairman, we would be even further behind on safety than we are. 

I am impressed by the President’s nominee, Dr. Macfarlane, who 

brings to this position the critical experience, the intelligence, scientific background, and integrity that we need so much at the 

NRC. 

I ask unanimous consent to place in the record statements of 

support for Dr. Macfarlane, including one from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which stated, ‘‘We expect her to be a strong advocate for practical steps to enhance nuclear power safety, and security.’’ 

In addition, I would like to place in the record the Nuclear Energy Institute letter urging us to ‘‘confirm Dr. Macfarlane expeditiously.’’ 

[The referenced documents follow:] 

5 


25055.001

UCS Gives Thumbs Up to Macfarlane as New NRC Chair 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

May24, 2012 ~ sun:scrfbe Tor news 

UCS Gives Thumbs Up to 

Macfarlane as New NRC Chair 

Statement by Lisbeth Gronlund, Union of Concerned Scientists 

WASHINGTON (May 24, 2012) This afternoon the White House 

nominated Allison Macfarlane, a nuclear waste expert, to replace 

Gregory Jaczko as chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Below is a statement by Lisbeth Gronlund, co-director of the Global 

Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

"The Union of Concerned Scientists applauds President Obama's 

decision to nominate Allison Macfarlane as chair of the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. Professor Macfarlane is a scientist with a 

long history of working on complex technical public policy issues. 

She was receptive to public feedback during her tenure on the Blue 

Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, and understands 

the importance of openness to the commission's effectiveness. We 

expect her to be a strong advocate for practical steps to enhance 

nuclear power safety and security." 

S :,ctt.'D<.'~--b~t~cd non1'111ftt t'rgnninlli,,n worktn)l 

!9('9 t·<.. ·s m C;m1hndgc, 

41JCOOVIO' 

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ucs-gives-thumbs-up-to.html?print=t 

Page I of I 

6/19/2012 
6 


25055.002

Nuclear Energy Institute- NEI Comments on Impending Nomination of Allison Macfarla... Page 1 of 1 

News Release 

Nuclear Energy Institute FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Contact:202.739.8000 

• For Release: May 24, 2012 

NEI Comments on Impending Nomination of Allison Macfarlane as NRC Chairman 

WASHINGTON, D.C.-The Nuclear Energy Institute's president and chief executive officer, Marvin Fette/, made 

the following remarks in reaction to the White House's announcement today that it intends to nominate Allison 

Macfarlane to be a commissioner on the US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to seNe as chairman of the 

commission. 

"The nuclear energy industry congratulates Professor Macfarlane on her selection by the president. She has 

been an active contributor to policy debates in the nuclear energy field for many years. 

"Given the importance of having a fully functioning, flve~member commission to carry out the NRC's safety 

mission, the nuclear energy industry urges the administration to submit her confirmation paperwork as 

expeditiously as possible. It would not serve the public interest to have her nomination linger with the term of 

Commissioner Kristine Svinicki set to expire at the end of June. We urge the Senate to confirm both 

Commissioner Svinicki and Professor Macfarlane expeditiously. 

"The NRC must continue to be an effective, credible regulator if the nation is to maximize nuclear energy's role in 

achieving America's economic growth and energy security." 

http://www .nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/nei-comments-on-impending-nomination-... 6119/20 I 2 
7 


25055.003

June 18, 2012 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

Senator James Inhofe 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

Dear Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member lnhofe: 

On behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council, we urge 

you to confirm Dr. Allison Macfarlane as Chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The 

NRC's primary responsibilities are to protect public health and safety, promote the common defense 

and security, and protect the environment. We feel that Dr. Macfarlane's background has prepared her 

well for advancing these objectives. 

Dr. Macfarlane is an accomplished scientist with a strong background in public policy and a particular 

expertise on the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle giving her strong qualifications to lead the 

Commission at this particular juncture. She has a history of working on complex, technical public 

policy issues and a track record of taking strong, informed positions on nuclear safety policy. She is 

professional and collegial, and will work well with the other commissioners and the NRC staff. Dr. 

Macfarlane understands the importance of a transparent and accountable NRC, and we believe that she 

can play a vital role in helping to improve the regulatory effectiveness of this institution, and thus the 

public's confidence in it. 

The importance of the NRC's ability to regulate an aging fleet of reactors effectively was highlighted 

by the meltdown and breach of containment of three reactors at the Fukushima Dai-chi nuclear power 

plant last year. The Fukushima disaster caused governments around the world to reassess the safety of 

nuclear power and to question their ability to protect the public from the combined effects of natural 

and man-made events such as those that struck Japan on March 11,2011. 

In the United States, the NRC appropriately convened a "Near-Term Task Force" to study the accident 

and recommend improvements to our domestic regulatory requirements to make new and existing 

reactors safer. We think Dr. Macfarlane can move that work forward and do so in a way that inspires 

public confidence, particularly in light of her attention to public involvement and consensus building 

during her tenure on President Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. 

For these reasons, we urge you to swiftly confirm Dr. Macfarlane's nomination. 

Respectfully, 

Is/ 

Christopher E. Paine 

Director, Nuclear Program 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

1152 IS'h St., NW 

Is/ 

Lisbeth Gronlund 

Director, Global Security Program 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

2 Brattle Square 
8 


25055.004

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 289-6868 

Cambridge, MA 02138 

(617) 547-5552 
9 


25055.005

June 18,2012 

Chairman Barbara Boxer 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

Ranking Member James M. Inhofe 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

Dear Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe: 

We write to express our support for the President's nomination of Dr. Allison Macfarlane to chair the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight 

(POGO) is a nonpartisan independent watchdog that champions good government reforms. POGO's 

investigations into corruption, misconduct, and conflicts of interest achieve a more effective, 

accountable, open, and ethical federal government. Thus, we are deeply concerned with how the NRC 

operates, and we have worked for decades to strengthen its independent oversight and openness. 

We are pleased that Dr. Macfarlane exhibits an apparent independence from the industry she will be 

regulating, which gives us confidence in her appointment. She also shares our interest in better 

governance on the Commission. In her prepared statement at your Committee's nomination hearing on 

June 13, Dr. Macfarlane indicated that she is committed to "openness, efficiency and transparency" in 

the NRC. She is correct in stressing that "protecting the safety of the American people and the 

environment" should be the key mission of the Commission.' 

Dr. Macfarlane's impressive combination of scientific and policy expertise will be assets to the NRC. 

We therefore urge you to confirm her as Chair. 

Sincerely, 

CJ~ (h.;._ 

Danielle Brian 

Executive Director 

cc: Members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

1 Prepared Statement of Dr. Allison Macfarlane, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, June 13,2012. 

http://cpw .scnale.gov /public/i ndcx.c lin"'FuscAction -Fi Jes. View&Fi leStorc id-4517 data-eadf-404J-bd9e-122 707bcd629 

(Downloaded June 18, 2012) 
10 


25055.006

PSR supports the nomination of Allison McFarlane as chair of the Nuclea... http://www.psr.org/news~events/press~releases/psr~supports~the~nominat... 

PSR supports the nomination of Allison McFarlane as <:hair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

toft 6/19/20!23:17PM 
11 

Senator BOXER. So, Dr. Macfarlane, I look forward to hearing 

your views on the role of the NRC in ensuring the safety of the 

American people. 

Regarding Commissioner Svinicki’s nomination, it should come 

as no surprise that I am deeply troubled by this Commissioner’s 

statements at her prior nomination hearing that she did not work 

directly on Yucca Mountain, which she clearly did. I also believe 

Commissioner Svinicki has not demonstrated the commitment to 

safety that the American people have a right to expect in this postFukushima era. 

Just yesterday—just yesterday—I learned that Commissioner 

Svinicki actively opposed my reasonable request for an NRC investigation into how a redesign of the San Onofre nuclear plant occurred without proper oversight by the NRC. She did not support 

that request. Now, that plant is shut down, shut down due to unexplained deterioration of steam generator tubes containing radioactive material. Had Commissioner Svinicki’s position prevailed, 

we would have seen stonewalling by the NRC. I want to thank 

Commissioner Ostendorff and Chairman Jaczko for not allowing 

the stonewalling to occur, and I ask unanimous consent to place in 

the record letters of opposition to Commissioner Svinicki’s renomination. 

Now, one of these was a letter written by 94 organizations who 

said, during her first term as an NRC Commissioner, Ms. Svinicki 

uniformly voted for nuclear industry interests at the expense of 

public health and safety. 

And a letter that came from another set of concerned Americans 

said, ‘‘Since the Fukushima catastrophe began, Commissioner 

Svinicki voted against an advisory committee on reactor safety recommendation for measures to address accident risk posed by the 

hotter reactor cores and higher pressures associated with power-up 

rates, against measures to improve security screening for personnel 

gaining access to reactors, against measures to increase NRC enforcement direction, discretion for reactors that do not comply with 

fire regulations, and against measures to gather more information 

to enhance control of leaks of radioactive materials, and she voted 

in favor of adding further consideration of the cost of burden of 

NRC regulations to industry by requiring NRC staff to analyze the 

cumulative financial impact of all the regulations on licenses.’’ 

[The referenced documents follow:] 

12 


25055.007

NUCLEAR INFORMATION 

AND RESOURCE SERVICE 

6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, MD 20912 

301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); Fax: 301-270-4291 

nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

April 30, 2012 

Contact: Michael Mariotte 

301-270-6477 

94 ORGANIZATIONS URGE SENATE TO REJECT POSSIBLE RE-NOMINATION 

OF KRISTINE SVINICKI TO NRC 

GROUPS CITE CONSISTENT PATTERN OF SUPPORTING NUCLEAR INDUSTRY 

INTERESTS AT THE EXPENSE OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. 

Ninety-four national, regional and local organizations and small businesses today urged the 

Senate Environment Committee to reject the possible re-nomination of Kristine Svinicki to a 

second term at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

In a letter sent to Senate Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ranking 

Member James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the groups said that" ... during her first term as an NRC 

Commissioner, Ms. Svinicki uniformly voted for nuclear industry interests at the expense of 

public health and safety." 

For example, the letter noted that Ms. Svinicki was the only member of the Commission who 

voted against implementation of critical post-Fukushima safety reforms under a framework that 

would ensure they be considered necessary for "adequate protection" of nuclear reactors-a 

standard that would enhance NRC enforcement of the rules. 

While many of Ms. Svinicki's other pro-industry votes were unfortunately supported by a 

majority of the Commissioners, often against the stance of NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko, the 

letter stated that "Ms. Svinicki's positions have been the most egregious and extreme of all." 

Most of the groups signing the letter rarely take a public position on NRC nominees. But, as the 

letter states, "The March 2011 nuclear disaster at the U.S.-designed reactors at the Fukushima 

Daiichi site has brought a new level of public attention and scrutiny to the manifest dangers of 

nuclear power. The ability of U.S. nuclear reactors-23 of which are virtually identical to those 

at Fukushima Daiichi with a dozen more using the same design concept-to withstand 

earthquakes, loss-of-power situations and other challenges both natural and man-made is of 

critical importance." 
13 


25055.008

"Fukushima is a clear warning that the regulatory standards of the past are not adequate," said 

Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which 

coordinated the letter. "The NRC's mission is to protect the public health and safety, and 

Fukushima shows the need for higher safety standards. But Ms. Svinicki's record over the past 

five years indicates she will neither challenge the nuclear power industry nor support reforms 

that might improve nuclear safety." 

"Nuclear power is an inherently dangerous technology. We need NRC Commissioners who 

understand that basic fact and will act accordingly. Ms. Svinicki has proven herself to not be that 

kind of Commissioner, and therefore she has not earned a second term. The American people 

deserve better," added Mariotte. 

President Obama has indicated he intends to re-nominate Ms. Svinicki for a second term at the 

NRC, over the opposition of some lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and 

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. However, this re-nomination has not yet taken place, thus the 

letter to the Senate was copied to President Obama as well. The groups signing the letter 

encouraged the White House to rethink its position and not move forward with the nomination. 

Separately, more than 9,000 e-mails to the Senate have been sent in the past week by individuals 

opposed to a second term for Ms. Sviniciki. 

The letter with signers is available here: 

http://www .n i rs.org/reactorwatch/1 icensing/svin ickiboxerletter42 712.pdf 

This press release is available here: 

http://www .nirs.org/reactorwatch/1 icensing/svinickipr430 12.pdf 

--30--
14 


25055.009

April 30, 2012 

Hon. Barbara Boxer 

Chair, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Hon. James Inhofe 

Ranking Member, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senators Boxer and Inhofe, 

We are writing to urge you to do everything in your power to oppose the confirmation of 

Kristine Svinicki to a second term as a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

The purpose of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to regulate the nation's nuclear power 

industry in order to protect the public health and safety. Yet during her first term as an NRC 

Commissioner, Ms. Svinicki uniformly voted for nuclear industry interests at the expense of 

public health and safety. 

The March 20 II nuclear disaster at the U .S.-designed reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi site has 

brought a new level of public attention and scrutiny to the manifest dangers of nuclear power. 

The ability of U.S. nuclear reactors-23 of which are virtually identical to those at Fukushima 

Daiichi with a dozen more using the same design concept-to withstand earthquakes, loss-ofpower situations and other challenges both natural and man-made is of critical importance. 

Yet on March 9, 2012, Ms. Svinicki, alone among the five current NRC Commissioners, voted 

against the implementation of all of the first three post-Fukushima safety measures 

recommended by NRC staff through the use of a regulatory framework that concludes that they 

are necessary for the adequate protection of nuclear reactors. 

This follows a long pattern of similar votes that gives the appearance Ms. Svinicki is far more 

concerned about the economic health of the nuclear power industry than the protection of the 

American public: 

March 15, 2011: The Commission voted 4-1 1 (with only Chairman Jaczko voting to 

disapprove) to approve a staff proposal to ignore a recommendation by NRC's Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards to ensure that safety measures that are assumed to address the 

hotter reactor cores and higher pressures associated with 'power up-rates' would work to prevent 

a meltdown in the event of an accident. The ACRS believed that the possibility that a fire or 

earthquake could breach the containment of the nuclear reactor needed to be considered. 

I SECY 11-0014 
15 


25055.010

June 10,2011: The Commission voted 4-1 2 (with Chairman Jazcko disapproving) to reject a 

request to further extend the NRC's enforcement discretion policy for nuclear reactors that do 

not comply with the NRC's fire protection regulations. The path chosen by the majority of the 

Commission allows some nuclear power plants to go longer than eight years without identifying 

their fire-related safety deficiencies and taking steps to mitigate them. Many U.S. reactors are 

still not in compliance with fire protection regulations established by the NRC after the nearcatastrophic fire at the Browns Ferry complex in 1975. 

November 8, 2011: The Commission voted 3-2 (with Chairman Jaczko and Commissioner 

Ostendorf[ voting to approve) to disapprove a staff proposal that the Commission adopt an 

amendment to its Reactor Oversight Process3 to add a new performance measure related to leaks 

of radioactive materials from nuclear reactors. 

December 15,2011: The Commission voted4 (with Chairman Jaczko voting to support) to reject 

a recommendation made by the NRC's own Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima and the NRC 

staff review of that Task Force's recommendation to consider all the post-Fukushima safety 

upgrades to be mandatory for the "adequate protection" of nuclear power plants. The other four 

Commissioners said it was "premature" to approve this recommendation. Without it, all safety 

upgrades would be required to go through a cost-benefit analysis in order to justify 

implementation, and some may never be required as a result. 

In each of these four votes, Ms. Svinicki was unfortunately in the majority, as most of the current 

NRC Commissioners seem more intent on thwarting the NRC Chairman's efforts to enhance 

nuclear safety than in meeting the responsibilities of their positions. But Ms. Svinicki's positions 

have been the most egregious and extreme of all. 

Given this record--and this is just a small sampling of votes taken by Ms. Svinicki that have been 

against the public interest-we believe she has not earned confirmation by the Senate for a 

second terrn. We trust you will agree and will take whatever measures are appropriate to prevent 

such confirmation. 

Please contact Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource 

Service at 301-270-6477 or nirsnet@nirs.org or Damon Moglen, Friends ofthe Earth, 202-783-

7400, dmoglen@foe.org, if you have any questions or would like further elaboration on this 

issue. Thank you. 

cc: President Barack Obama 

2 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-nnidoc-collections/commission/cvr/20 ll/2011-0061vtr.pdf 

3 http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/ooerating/oversight/rop-description.html 

4 httr://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/cvr/20 1112011-0 137vtr.pdf 
16 


25055.011

Michael Mariotte 

Executive Director 

Nuclear Information and Resource Service 

Jim Riccio 

Nuclear Policy Analyst 

Greenpeace 

Erich Pica 

Executive Director 

Friends of the Earth 

Tyson Slocum 

Director 

Public Citizen Energy Program 

Marcia J. Cleveland 

Director, Safe Energy Program 

Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Ken Bossong 

Executive Director 

SUNDAY Campaign 

Paul Gunter 

Beyond Nuclear 

Susan Gordon 

Director 

Alliance for Nuclear Accountability 

Regional, State and Local Organizations and 

Businesses 

Patricia Birnie, Chair 

GE Stockholders' Alliance 

Tucson, AZ 

Robert M. Gould, MD 

President 

SF-Bay Area Chapter 

Physicians for Social Responsibility 

San Francisco, CA 

Rinaldo Brutoco 

Founding President & CEO 

World Business Academy 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Mary Beth Brangan, James Heddle 

Co-Directors 

EON, The Ecological Options Network 

Bolinas,CA 

Michael Welch, volunteer 

Redwood Alliance 

Arcata, CA 

Grandmothers for Peace/San Luis Obispo County 

Chapter 

Molly Johnson, area coordinator 

San Miguel, CA 

Dan & Val O'Connell 

SANEPianet.org 

Cayucos, CA 

Philip M. Klasky 

Bay Area Nuclear Waste Coalition 

San Francisco, CA 

Barbara George 

Executive Director 

Women's Energy Matters 

Fairfax, CA 

Susan Harvey 

President 

North County Watch 

Templeton, CA 

Gene Stone 

Residents Organized For a Safe Environment (ROSE) 

San Clemente, CA 

Libbe HaLevy 

Producer/Host, Nuclear Hotseat Podcast 

Los Angeles, CA 

Steve Zeltzer 

No Nukes Action 

San Francisco, CA 

Carol Jahnkow 

Director Emerita/Special Projects Consultant 

Peace Resource Center of San Diego 

San Diego, CA 

Delia Horwitz, Owner 

BRC 

San Luis Obispo, CA 

Gary Headrick 

Founder, San Clemente Green 

San Clemente, CA 

Catherine Meyrick 

President 

Tallahassee Area Community 
17 


25055.012

Canon City, CO 

Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center 

Boulder, CO 

Colorado Coalition for the Prevention ofNuclear War 

Denver, CO 

Nancy Burton 

Director 

Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone 

Redding Ridge, CT 

Barbara Backman 

Vice-President 

People's Action for Clean Energy 

Canton, CT 

Lucy Lee Grimes Evans 

Chair 

Sierra Club of Connecticut's Nuclear-Free Committee 

New Canaan, CT 

Alan Muller 

Executive Director 

Green Delaware 

Port Penn, DE 

Bernard August 

Executive Director 

Committee Against Plutonium Economics 

Newark, DE 

Cara Campbell, Chai.r 

Ecology Party of Florida 

Nancy O'Byme 

Coordinator 

Pax Christi Florida 

St. Augustine, FL 

Norman K Hopkins 

Director 

The Amy H Remley Foundation Incorporated 

Crystal River, FL 

Barry J. White 

President 

Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Inc. 

Miami, FL 

Glenn Carroll 

Coordinator 

Nuclear Watch South 

Atlanta,GA 

Mike Carberry 

Director 

Green State Solutions 

Iowa City, !A 

David Kraft 

Executive Director 

Nuclear Energy Information Service 

Chicago, IL 

Carolyn Treadway 

No New Nukes 

Normal, IL 

John Blair, president 

Valley Watch, Inc. 

Evansville, IN 

William S. Linnell 

Spokesperson 

Cheaper, Safer Power 

Portland, ME 

Max Obuszewski 

Baltimore Nonviolence Center 

Baltimore, MD 

Dagmar Fabian 

Crabshell Alliance of Greater Baltimore, MD 

June Sevilla 

Representative, 

Southern Maryland CARES 

Lusby, MD 

Jeannette Bartelt 

Founder & CEO 

Green Earth Goods, LLC 

Frederick, MD 

Deb Katz 

Executive Director 

Citizens Awareness Network 

Shelburne Falls, MA 

Leo Waters, Treasurer 

Fair Environment Corp. 

Canton,MA 

Judi Poulson, Chair 

Fairmont, Minnesota Peace Group 

Fairmont, MN 

MarkHaim 

Chair 

Missourians for Safe Energy 
18 


25055.013

Columbia, MO 

Ed Smith 

Safe Energy Director 

Missouri Coalition for the Environment 

St.Louis,MO 

Chris Daum, President 

Oasis Montana Inc. 

Renewable Energy Supply & Design 

Stevensville, MT 

B. Bruce 

Staff Ecologist 

Western Nebraska Resources Council 

Chadron, NE 

Judy Treichel 

Executive Director 

Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force 

Las Vegas, NV 

Peggy Maze Johnson 

Citizen Alert 

Las Vegas, NV 

Lori Gold 

Genesis Farm 

Blairstown, NJ 

Joellen Lundy, President 

NJ Friends of Clearwater 

Red Bank, NJ 

Greg Mello 

Los Alamos Study Group 

Santa Fe, NM 

Rose Marie Cecchini, MM 

Coordinator 

Office of Life, Peace, Justice & Creation Stewardship 

Catholic Charities of Gallup Diocese 

Gallup, NM 

Alice Slater 

Abolition 2000 NY Metro 

New York, NY 

Barbara Warren 

Executive Director 

Citizens' Environmental Coalition 

Albany, NY 

Judy Braiman, President 

Empire State Consumer Project 

Rochester, NY 

Leah R. Karpen 

PSR--Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Asheville, NC 

Wells Eddleman 

Staff Scientist 

NC Citizens Research Group 

Durham, NC 

Kris Cunningham 

Laura Sorenson 

Founders and Activists 

SAFE CAROLINAS 

Asheville, NC 

Mali Lightfoot 

Executive Director 

Helen Caldicott Foundation 

Asheville, NC 

Terry J. Lodge 

Convenor 

Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy 

Toledo,OH 

Linda Musmeci Kimball 

Director, Peace Center 

Oxford Citizens for Peace & Justice 

Oxford,OH 

B. Geary 

Organizer 

Citizens Action for Safe Energy 

Tulsa, OK 

Nina Bell, J.D. 

Executive Director 

Northwest Environmental Advocates 

Portland, OR 

Lynn Sims 

Don't Waste Oregon 

Portland, OR 

Titus North 

Executive Director 

Ted Robinson 

Staff Attorney 

Citizen Power 

Pittsburgh, PA 

Karen Barton 
19 


25055.014

Coordinator 

Bryn Mawr Peace Coalition 

Bryn Mawr, PA 

Ernest Fuller 

Vice-Chairman, 

Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety 

Six Mile Run, PA 

Bob Riggs 

LEPOCO (Lehigh-Pocono Committee of Concern) 

Bethlehem, PA 

Karen H. Prather, President 

Concern About Radiation In the Environment (CARIE) 

Corry, PA 

Carl J. Romanelli 

Chair Green Party of Pennsylvania 

Richard Aston 

Luzerne County Green Party, P A 

Jay Sweeney 

Secretary 

Green Party Wyoming County, PA 

Dr. Finian D. Taylor 

Hilton Head for Peace 

Hilton Head, SC 

Sara Barczak 

High Risk Energy Choices Program Director 

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy 

Knoxville, TN 

Ann P. Harris 

Board Director 

We The People, Inc. 

Rockwood, TN 

Barbara O'Neal, Trudy Wallack and Linda Modica 

Officers 

Erwin Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. 

Erwin, TN 

Linda Cataldo Modica 

Convenor 

AEROJET ACTION 

Jonesborough, TN 

Donald B. Clark 

Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice 

Pleasant Hill, TN 

Network for Environmental & Economic 

Responsibility 

United Church of Christ 

Pleasant Hill, TN 

Louise Gorenflo 

Solar Valley Coalition 

Crossville TN 

Cynthia Weehler 

Spokesperson 

Energia Mia 

San Antonio, TX 

Sarah M. Fields 

Program Director 

Uranium Watch 

Moab, UT 

Nancy Braus 

Safe and Green Campaign 

Brattleboro, Vermont 

Charlie Higley 

Executive Director 

Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin 

Madison, WI 

Marcia Halligan 

Kickapoo Peace Circle 

Viroqua, WI 

Diane Farsetta 

Executive Director 

Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice 

Madison, WI 

Christopher LaForge 

Great Northern Solar 

Port Wing, WI 
20 


25055.015

Alliance for Nuclear Accountability 0 Beyond Nuclear 0 Friends of the Earth 0 Green peace 

0 Natural Resources Defense Council 0 Nuclear Information and Resource Service 0 

Physicians for Social Responsibility 0 Public Citizen 0 Sierra Club 0 SUN Day Campaign 

April27, 2012 

President Barack Obama 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

Washington, DC 

Submitted via FAX to (202) 456-2461 

Re: Opposition to the Re-nomination of Kristine L. Svinicki as a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

Dear President 0 bam a: 

We write to express our opposition to the re-nomination of Kristine L. Svinicki to the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC). We respectfully oppose Commissioner Svinicki's re-nomination to the 

Commission for a number of nuclear safety-related reasons. 

The paramount importance of the NRC's ability to regulate effectively was highlighted by the 

meltdown and breach of containment of three reactors at the Fukushima Dai -chi nuclear power plant last 

year, The Fukushima disaster caused governments around the world to reassess the safety of nuclear power 

and to question their ability to protect the public from the combined effects of natural and man-made 

events such as those that struck Japan on March II, 20 II. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission appropriately convened a "Near-Term Task Force" to study the accident and recommend 

improvements to our domestic regulatory requirements to better protect the public from existing and new 

reactors. 

Unfortunately, Commissioner Svinicki consistently either voted against or temporized on incorporating the 

lessons of Fukushima into the regulation of nuclear reactors in the United States. On December 15, 2011, 

she voted to reject the recommendation of the Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima that post-Fukushima 

upgrades be made mandatory. 1 This vote is consistent with other important safety related votes. Since the 

Fukushima catastrophe began, she voted against an Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety recommendation 

for measures to address accident risks posed by the hotter reactor cores and higher pressures associated 

with "power up-rates," against measures to improve security screening for personnel gaining access to 

reactors, 2 against measures to increase NRC enforcement discretion for reactors that do not comply with 

fire regulations' and against measures to gather more information to enhance control of leaks of radioactive 

materials,' and in favor of adding further consideration of the costs or burden of NRC regulations to 

industry by requiring NRC staff to analyze the cumulative financial impact of all regulations on licensees. 5 

Additionally, Commissioner Svinicki voted to expedite approval of the AP 1000 reactor design and 

to grant Southern Company a combined operating license for two new reactors at the Vogtle plant before 

Fukushima-related safety regulations are adopted and without requiring the company to comply with such 
21 


25055.016

regulations when they are adopted. 6 Finally and most troubling, in a series of votes last month she opposed 

specific safety enhancements recommended by the Near-Term Task Force. Her votes before the Fukushima 

accident demonstrate the same tepid perspective on making further reactor safety improvements. 7 

For these reasons, we urge you not to nominate Commissioner Svinicki for a second term as a 

commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Respectfully, 

Susan Gordon 

Executive Director, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability 

Paul Gunter 

Executive Director, Beyond Nuclear 

Damon Moglen 

Director, Climate and Energy Program 

Friends of the Earth 

Jim Riccio 

Nuclear Policy Analyst, Greenpeace 

Christopher Paine 

Director, Nuclear Program 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Michael Mariotte 

Executive Director, Nuclear Information and Resource Service 

Catherine Thomasson, M.D. 

Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Tyson Slocum 

Director, Energy Program 

Public Citizen 

John Coequyt 

Senior Representative, Climate Change and Energy 

Sierra Club 

Ken Bossong 

Executive Director, SUN Day Campaign 
22 


25055.017

1

http:/ /www.nrc gov/rcading~nn/doc~collcctions/commission/cvr/2011 /20l1-0137vtr.pdf Four 

Commissioners indicated in their comments that they be1ieved it was premature to decide on the question of 

''adequate protection}) or a change in the plant's design basis, instead calling for more study of this question on a caseby-case basis. Chairman Jaczko did not rescind his support for all of the Task Force recommendations. 

' SECY 11 0014(http·//www.nrc.gov/rcading-rm/doc-collcctions/commission/cvr/2011/201 1-0014vtr.pdf) 

3 SECY 10-013 (http://www.nrc.gov/rcading-rm/doc-colk-ctions/commission/cvr/201 1/201 l 006htr pdf) 

' http://www .nrc.gov /reading-rm I doc-collections/ commission/ cvr /2011/201 l -0076vtr.pdf 

5 http://www nrc.gov/rcading-rm/doc-collcctions/commission/cvr/201 1 /201l-0032vtr.pdf 

6 http· I I wwvv .nrc.gov /reading-rm/doc-collet:tions/ commission/ t:vr/2011 I 2011-0 145vtr.pdf 7 SECY 08-0184 (http://www.nrc.gov/rcading-rm/doc colkctions/commission/cvr/2008/2008-0184vtr.pd(); 

SECY 09-0086 (http·// www .nrc.gov I rcading-rm I doc-collections/ commission/ cvr /2009/2009-0086vtr. pdf); 

SECY-09-0183 (http://www .nrc.gov /rcading-rm/ doc-collections/ commission/ cvr/2009/2009-0 183vtr.pdf); 

SECY 10-0078 (http://www .nrc.gov/rcading-rm/ doc-collections/ commission/ en /2010/201 0-0078Ytr.pdf); and 

SECY -1 0-01 OS (http://www .nrc.gov I rcading-rm/ doc-collections/ commission/ cvr /2010/2010-01 05-vtr.pdl). 
23 

Senator BOXER. What is key here to me is the safety of the people. Now, my two nuclear power plants happen to be located on or 

near earthquake faults and tsunami zones, and all I could tell you 

is this: the burden on the NRC should be taken seriously by every 

Commissioner. The safety of millions of people, women, men, children, rests on your shoulders. So for me, post-Fukushima, I will be 

supporting people who I believe will put the safety of the people 

ahead of the special interests. That is critical to me. 

So, as we move on, I will be asking questions. The American people have a right to expect the best public servants in these critical 

positions. 

I now turn to Ranking Member Inhofe for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

One of the Senate’s most important responsibilities is to offer 

service and provide consent to the President’s nominations, and 

that is what we are doing here today. 

The nomination of Kristine Svinicki to continue to serve on the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission is crucial, especially as the Commission enters a tumultuous time with the lack of transparent 

leadership, while continuing to make important decisions regarding 

nuclear safety. Five years ago she was confirmed by this Committee, as was stated in her introduction, and in the Senate by 

unanimous consent, and President Obama has taken the prudent 

step to re-nominate her to serve in another 5-year term. 

Commissioner Svinicki’s qualifications are stellar. Prior to her 

term on the NRC, she had many years of experience on Capitol Hill 

serving as staff on the Armed Services Committee, where I serve 

now as a second ranking member, and I enjoyed my service with 

her at that time. 

In her current role as Commissioner, her contribution has been 

essential as the Commission has worked to unravel lessons learned 

from the Fukushima accident. Commissioner Svinicki’s perspective 

was also crucial in finalizing the Commission’s view of Vogtle and 

Summer nuclear plants, the first two new nuclear plant licenses in 

over 30 years. Her voting record at the NRC shows that she is a 

conscientious and objective policymaker, with a strong dedication to 

safety. Her demonstration, collaborated with her Commission colleagues, shows her to be a studious, thoughtful, and compelling, 

with an admirable capacity to produce bipartisan results. 

We are considering also the nomination the nomination of Dr. Allison Macfarlane to complete the term of Chairman Jaczko. Given 

the numerous reports of Chairman Jaczko’s failed leadership to the 

NRC, it was right of him to resign last month. I am glad it happened. By removing himself from the distraction of the agency, the 

Commission can once again focus on its mission of nuclear safety. 

It is my expectation that Dr. Macfarlane can step into be a valuable member of the Commission. Although I have some concerns 

about perhaps a lack of background in management experience, 

that is something certainly that she will pick up quickly, as well 

as the areas of nuclear safety. 

24 

While she is obviously well informed on the back end of the fuel 

cycle, I hope that her previous research and publications won’t inhibit her ability to be a fair judge of the licensing of nuclear waste 

repository. 

Despite those modest concerns, I think we can all agree that the 

NRC functions most effectively as a full Commission. I am encouraged to hear from her individual meetings with my staff that she 

intends to treat her peers—both fellow Commissioners and the general staff—at the NRC as equals and a valuable knowledge base, 

and I am certainly expecting that that will happen. I had a chance 

to visit with Dr. Macfarlane, and I probably shouldn’t say this in 

a meeting like this, but I said I would like to have kind of the same 

relationship as I do with Lisa Jackson, the Director of the EPA. 

She has always been very honest with me, and while we have disagreements, I am sure we will have the same relationship, and I 

look forward to it. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

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

Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for holding this hearing. One of the Senate’s more 

important responsibilities is to offer advice and provide consent to the President’s 

nominations. 

The nomination of Kristine Svinicki to continue to serve on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is crucial, especially as the Commission enters a tumultuous time with a lack of transparent leadership while continuing to make important decisions regarding nuclear safety. Five years ago she was confirmed by this 

Committee, and in the Senate, by unanimous consent, and President Obama has 

taken the prudent step to re-nominate her to serve another 5-year term. Commissioner Svinicki’s qualifications are stellar: Prior to her term on the NRC, she had 

many years of experience on Capitol Hill, serving as staff of the Armed Services 

Committee. She is a nuclear engineer dedicated to public service and has drawn 

praise from both Democrats and Republicans. 

In her current role as Commissioner, her contribution has been essential as the 

Commission has worked to unravel lessons learned from the Fukushima accident. 

Commissioner Svinicki’s perspective was also crucial in finalizing the Commission’s 

review of the Vogtle and Summer nuclear plants, the first two new nuclear plant 

licenses in over 30 years. Her voting record at the NRC shows that she is a conscientious and objective policymaker with a strong dedication to safety. Her demonstrated collaboration with her Commission colleagues shows her to be studious, 

thoughtful, and compelling with an admirable capacity to produce bipartisan results. 

We are also considering the nomination of Dr. Allison Macfarlane to complete the 

term of Chairman Greg Jaczko. Given the numerous reports of Chairman Jaczko’s 

failed leadership at the NRC, it was right of him to resign last month. By removing 

himself as a distraction to the agency, the Commission can once again focus on its 

mission of nuclear safety. 

It is my hope that Dr. Macfarlane can step in to be a valuable member of the 

Commission, although I have some concerns about her lack of management and nuclear safety experience. Additionally, I am concerned with her pre-conceived notions 

of spent fuel disposal. While she is obviously very well informed in the back end 

fuel cycle, I hope that her previous research and publications will not inhibit her 

ability to be a fair judge of the licensing of a nuclear waste repository. 

Despite my concerns, I think we all can agree that the NRC functions most effectively as a full commission. I am encouraged to hear from her individual meetings 

with my staff that she intends to treat her peers—both fellow Commissioners and 

general staff at the NRC—as equals and as a valuable knowledge base. I sincerely 

hope she follows through on her statements, because that collegiality has been severely tarnished in recent years. 

This Committee has a longstanding bipartisan tradition of considering nominations in a timely fashion. Nominees have historically been given an up or down vote 

by the Committee the week following the hearing. Therefore I am hopeful that a 

25 

vote will be quickly scheduled to avoid an unfortunate lapse in service by Commissioner Svinicki. 

Commissioner Svinicki and Dr. Macfarlane, I look forward to hearing from you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I just want to start my statement with a question of Dr. 

Macfarlane. How do you pronounce your name? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Do you want an answer? 

Senator CARPER. Yes. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Macfarlane. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

We have never mispronounced Commissioner Svinicki’s name. 

Actually, we have the potential to butcher names badly here, so I 

hope we will get your name right. Your name is misspelled, I would 

note that, Dr. Macfarlane. 

I want to welcome both Commissioner Svinicki and Dr. 

Macfarlane to our Committee, and I look forward to today’s hearing. Quite favorably impressed by the technical breadth and depth 

of our two nominees and by the set of skills that each one has already brought and would bring if confirmed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

I am encouraged that the President would move quickly to nominate Dr. Macfarlane to serve as Commissioner and to chair the 

NRC. I am also pleased that he submitted the name of Kristine 

Svinicki to serve a full 5-year term on the Commission. Hopefully, 

we can make a decision on both of these nominees before June 30th 

of this year so that the Commission will have a full complement 

of Commissioner and new Chair leader. 

I believe that it is important for us to have a fully functioning 

Commission because today the NRC is addressing some of the most 

pressing issues that the nuclear industry has faced in years. Clarity and leadership as we face the future are critical. 

On this Committee’s encouragement, the NRC is reviewing our 

domestic nuclear fleet and implementing lessons learned from the 

Japan Fukushima Daiichi crisis that occurred last year. We need 

to make sure that every precaution is being taken to safeguard the 

American people from a similar nuclear disaster here. 

Just a few months ago the NRC approved the construction of 

four new nuclear reactors, an undertaking the United States has 

not witnessed in some 30 years. The events of destruction that disabled the Fukushima Daiichi plant last year are a reminder that 

adequate preparation and response planning are vital to minimize 

injury and death when it does happen. In no small part because 

of the hard work of the NRC, there have been no direct deaths 

from nuclear power plant radiation exposure in this country. 

While I am a strong proponent of clean energy, my top priority 

for our nuclear power has been and remains public safety. The past 

11 years I worked with the NRC, my colleagues, and the industry 

to ensure that we build and maintain a culture of safety in every 

one of our 104 nuclear power plants. I expect—and I believe the 

26 

public expects—the NRC to be a strong, independent, and effective 

regulator, a regulator that acts prudently, firmly, and decisively; a 

regulator that acts openly and transparently; and a regulator that 

produces results and is worthy of the public’s confidence and that 

of both the executive and legislative branches of our Government. 

In sum, the NRC must continue to work every day to ensure our 

nation’s health, safety, and security, while also endeavoring to protect our environment. 

Commissioner Svinicki has been a member of the Commission for 

almost 5 years now and has appeared before this Committee a 

number of times to answer questions since her nomination. Over 

the course of those years, I have had the opportunity to discuss a 

wide range of nuclear power issues with the Commissioner, and 

while I may not have agreed with her on every single one of them, 

I found her to be knowledgeable, hard working, and committed to 

safety, as well as to ensuring that the NRC remains a strong and 

impartial regulator. 

And while I do not know Dr. Macfarlane, although I do know 

how to pronounce her name now, I welcome the opportunity to 

meet with her earlier this week for a wide ranging conversation of 

issues that have come and will come before the NRC, and by the 

conclusion of that meeting I am encouraged that her expertise, her 

experience, and past leadership on some of the most pressing nuclear issues facing our country could bring a valuable and unique 

perspective to the Commission on policy issues. I look forward to 

learning more about her and her views on nuclear policy and the 

NRC today in the days ahead. 

At a time when there are so many challenges facing the nuclear 

industry, I hope that this proves to be a productive hearing that 

will enable us to move forward through the nomination process for 

both Commissioner Svinicki and Dr. Macfarlane. 

In conclusion, I believe that both of these nominees clearly have 

the potential to play important leadership roles that will help to 

strengthen the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and their critical 

work that it does for our nation in the coming years, and I hope 

that when the hearing is concluded my colleagues on this Committee will share that believe. 

We want to thank you both for being here today and for your 

willingness to serve our country on this important Commission. 

I notice there are two young men sitting over your right shoulder 

there, Dr. Macfarlane. One of them is younger than the other, your 

10-year-old son Graham. Graham, welcome today. Thank you for 

sharing your mom. And to your dad, thank you for sharing your 

wife. 

Kristine, I don’t know if you have any of your family here, but 

in absentia, we wish them well. 

Thank you both. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Carper, thank you for recognizing the 

family of our soon to be, we hope, Chairman, because I didn’t know 

she had her family here. I am very thrilled that you noted them. 

Senator Alexander, you are next. 

27 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Madam Chairman, Senator Inhofe. 

Dr. Macfarlane, Commissioner Svinicki, welcome. We are glad 

you are here. 

I have been very impressed with President Obama’s nominees to 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and that includes Commissioner Svinicki, whom I know well. I do not know Dr. Macfarlane, 

but I am beginning to get to know her, and I have noticed her distinguished background. I too believe it is important for our country 

to have a full complement of members of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, so I hope, Madam Chairman, we can make a prompt 

decision soon. 

I would like to, rather than surprise you with the questions I am 

going to ask when my time comes, I would like to tell you about 

them in advance, because that will help express my concerns and 

my attitude as I look forward to talking with you. 

First, and this will be especially for Dr. Macfarlane, is the management question. I have never seen anything in my public life, in 

and out of government over the last 40 years, as the dispute that 

has occurred among very well qualified members of the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, and without even getting very far into 

why that happened or how that happened, Dr. Macfarlane, if you 

are going to be the Chairman designee, I will be asking you about 

what you intend to do about that; what your manner and attitude 

will be in terms of leadership in an organization where you have 

well qualified colleagues and 4,000 or so employees. 

Second, I will be asking about used nuclear fuel, nuclear waste; 

what are we going to do about it. And you may get some questions—especially Dr. Macfarlane will, maybe both of you will— 

about whether you are for or against Yucca Mountain. I won’t be 

asking that. I will be asking whether or not you are against it 

should we not move ahead to find a repository and to find consolidation sites along parallel tracks, as recommended by the bipartisan Commission on Nuclear Waste, on which Dr. Macfarlane 

served. 

Three, I will be asking about small nuclear reactors and your attitude toward that. That is an opportunity our country has; it has 

broad support here in the Congress. We are funding a jump start 

of it. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s nurturing of that process over the next 3 or 4 years will make a difference whether the 

United States is able to move ahead with it successfully. I will be 

asking about that. 

Two other things. One is the MOX fuel. TVA, as a Federal agency, has volunteered to use it, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will have to qualify it and then license the reactor. This is all 

a part of the United States’ effort to take nuclear weapons that 

were intended to blow us up and turn them into fuel that we can 

use to heat our homes, and we have invested a lot of money in it 

in the United States, and this would be a beginning use of this 

fuel, which, if it works properly, could even reduce the cost of fuel 

at our civilian nuclear plants. 

And finally, I will be looking for a general attitude toward nuclear energy and its importance in the United States. Senator 

28 

Boxer mentioned Japan, which is a concern for all of us. Of course, 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has an exemplary safety 

record; never a death at a civilian reactor in the United States, no 

one even hurt in Three Mile Island, which is our most celebrated 

accident. 

We would like to continue that, and I think one reason why support for nuclear power has continued in the United States, despite 

the pictures of Fukushima, is because we understand it pretty well 

and because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has done such a 

good job over the years of safety in so many different ways. In fact, 

other parts of our energy industry, such as drilling for oil offshore, 

could take a lesson from the shared responsibility that nuclear 

power plants have with each other for making sure that they are 

safe. 

My own view is, particularly as I look at Japan—I was speaking 

to one of the former Ambassadors the other day—Japan has closed 

its plants. That gets rid of 30 percent of its power for the nation’s 

second or third largest economy. That is a terrible blow. They are 

having manufacturing on weekends and thermostats are up, and 

the emperor was running around the palace with a candle to set 

a good example. That is not the way you build a vibrant, strong, 

prosperous economy. We need lots of clean, low cost, reliable electricity. Thirty percent of Japan’s has been nuclear; 20 percent of 

ours is. 

The former Ambassador said two of the Japanese plants will be 

opening soon. He hoped that two by two by two they would come 

back for the welfare of the Japanese people. They don’t even have 

the advantage of cheap natural gas over there that we have here. 

So I will be looking for your general attitude about the next 20 

or 30 years of nuclear power. Mine is that we will probably need 

100 new plants, partially to replace the ones we have and partially 

to keep our air clean and to meet the demand for electricity in a 

country that uses 25 percent of all the electricity in the world. But 

I wouldn’t ask you to endorse that idea; I simply will be asking you 

about whether you are prepared to envision a future where nuclear 

power is a significant part of our base load electricity. 

I know the TVA, where I am from, is putting pollution control 

equipment on its coal plants. We can operate them in the future 

and produce about a third of its power from electricity, but it plans 

to make 30 to 40 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. TVA 

is the largest public utility. 

Right south of that is the Southern Company. They are the largest private utility. They have about the same idea; they are going 

to make about a third of their electricity from coal plants with pollution control equipment, and then they are going to make about 

a third of it with nuclear power. So I will be asking do you envision 

a future in which you can regulate that kind of large percentage 

of our electricity coming from nuclear power. 

So I welcome you here. I thank you for the opportunity to do this, 

and I thank the Chairman for having the hearing. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Sanders. 

29 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Welcome to Dr. Macfarlane and Commissioner Svinicki. Thanks 

for being with us. 

Let me begin by expressing a little bit, for a change, of disagreement with Senator Inhofe. That happens every once in a while. I 

think he referred to Chairman Jaczko as ‘‘having exercised failed 

leadership.’’ Let me respectfully disagree. I happen to think, while 

I have had disagreements with Chairman Jaczko, I think he has 

done a good job, and I will tell you what I am upset about. I am 

upset about the level of personal attacks that have been waged 

against him from this Committee and within the NRC itself. And 

I happen to believe that those attacks, personal attacks, were a 

smoke screen for a philosophical divide that existed within the 

NRC and exists there today. 

Now, in this Committee we have fundamental philosophical differences; no great surprise. But I hope and believe that it is not 

necessary to wage personal attacks against each other to disguise 

our philosophical differences, and I fear very much that has been 

the case within the NRC. So I happen to believe that Commissioner 

Jaczko has been a strong defender of the most important task of 

the NRC, and that is to protect the safety and the well being of 

the American people. And sometimes he has cast a lone vote; he 

has been outvoted 4 to 1. But I think he has tried to do his job with 

dedication and sincerity. 

Let me express a few words about—— 

Senator INHOFE. If you would yield on that point. As I told the 

Chairman—— 

Senator BOXER. Could you stop the clock and allow Senator 

Inhofe to ask a question? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. It is not even a question, but we had a 

whole hearing on Chairman Jaczko and on some of the alleged 

treatment of employees, disagreements with the Commission, and 

the failure to share things with the Commission. So I think it 

would be a good idea, anyone who is interested in this subject and 

the statements that the Senator made, go back and get the script 

of that hearing. I think it is pretty revealing. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, I think it is, in all due respect, not revealing. I think he was subject to McCarthyite tactics, and I hope 

we don’t see a repetition of that. 

In terms of some of my concerns about Commissioner Svinicki, 

she was one of the three members of the NRC who voted in secret—in secret—to recommend to the Department of Justice that it 

weigh in on Entergy’s side in litigation with the State of Vermont 

over the future of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. 

In my very strong opinion, the role of the NRC is not to represent Entergy or any other nuclear power company against 

Vermont or against any other State; it is to ensure the strongest 

safety standards possible at nuclear plants. That is its job; not to 

be an advocate for nuclear energy, not to be an opponent of nuclear 

energy, but to do everything possible to protect the safety of the 

American people from potentially a very dangerous technology. 

30 

Not only do I believe that Commissioner Svinicki’s vote was 

wrong on the merits, but I am concerned that she voted without 

having reviewed the major Supreme Court ruling that defines the 

role States have in regulating nuclear plants. This is a very big 

issue. 

Everybody agrees that the function of the NRC is to protect the 

safety of the American people; that is its job; it is not to be a proponent of nuclear power, and in the case of Vermont, against the 

wishes of the people of Vermont, who did not want to see that plant 

extended. 

In terms of Fukushima reforms, Commissioner Svinicki has, consistent with an industry request, required that Fukushima reforms 

be subject to a cost-benefit test that could water down their effectiveness. Commissioner Svinicki’s votes do not require new reactors 

comply with all Fukushima reforms. Too often she defers to industry-led voluntary initiatives instead of voting for NRC mandated 

safety requirements. That concerns me very much. 

Another very, very important issue that I hope we deal with in 

the near future has to do with the issue of transparency at the 

NRC. And I will be speaking to Dr. Macfarlane about this in my 

questioning as well. 

Commissioner Svinicki, along with some of her colleagues, does 

not disclose stakeholder meetings and will not agree to public 

meetings for NRC votes. Very important issue. 

More broadly, I am concerned that Commissioner Svinicki appears to be a promoter of nuclear power, and interestingly, my 

friend and colleague, Senator Inhofe, seems to agree with me. And 

I would like to present to the record an article appearing in a publication called Energy Guardian on April 20th, 2012, and let me 

quote from that article. It is an interview with Senator Inhofe. He 

said in that article, entitled Inhofe Says Second Svinicki Term: 

Good for Nuclear Energy, ‘‘I happen to be on the pretty extreme 

side in wanting to do more quicker, and I think she has that tendency too.’’ Well, frankly, I do not want to see somebody on the extreme side of any issue being on the NRC. It is one thing for elected officials who go before their constituents; they have whatever 

position they want. But that concerns me very much. 

[The referenced document follows:] 

31 


25055.018

Newsmaker: lnhofc says second Svinicki term good for nuclear energy I EncrgyGuardian 

GENERGY 

UARDIAN 

Newsmaker: Inhofe says second Svinicki term 

for nuclear energy 

U.S,CONGRES 

11'11!'!!1 l) 

't1H! White House decision lo nominate Nuclcar~tdatmy Commissioner Kristine L. 

Svinicki to a second term was tm~t with resistance~· om some Dcmoera1s. But the top 

Republican on the Senate Emironmcnt and Public orks Committee apJ>Iaudt-'<1 the 

decision, telling EnergyOuardian it is a victory for U o.sc who want to keep nuclear 

cncr~y moving forward. ././ 

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okln., has been pushil;g1'or S\·inicki, a Republican, to gel unoUwr four 

years on tlH!t.'Ommis:'iion as a countcrwejW{t to Chainnan Gregory ,Jaet..ko, a Democrat whose 

UJmrcssivc management has <lt times..afigcrcd his collcngucs and slirrcd criticism from 

Republicans. 

J 

"The balance ls important. I happen to he on the pretty extreme side in wantJng to do more, 

quicker, and I think she has that tendency too," Inhofesaid during a brief interview after the 

\Vhitc Houseannmmccd its decision ·nmr~day. 

The par!i5...1.n split will be on display nt he1·nomination beuring before the Senate 

Endrnnmcnt and Public Works Committee. Chairman Barham Boxer, D-Calir., has long bc(m 

eriticul orSvinkki and opposes a sct.'ond term for her, in part based on her record nt the 

commis.<>inn. 

Boxer also contends Svinicki misled the committee at hcrconfirmnlion hearing i112007over 

her ptt.<;t work on the Yucca Mountain waste dump, whh:h the administration has canceled. 

Here i.<> more of what Inhofc told EncrgyGu.ardian about Svinicki. 

EnergyGuardian: What is your reaction to the White House fllannlng to n "-nominate .. 

Kristine Svinicki to the Nuclear Regulatory Cum mission? 

Page I of2 

http://www.cnergyguardian.net/newsmaker-inhofe-says-sccond-svinicki-term-good-nuclea... 6/11 !20 12 
32 


25055.019

Newsmaker: Inhofe says second Svinicki term good for nuclear energy I EnergyGuardian 

nhofe: First of al~ she has the baclcground. Others do too, but she has a ha<:lcground that 

oes back on both sides. She has been a legislative (aide) in Sen. Larry Craig's office, and 

hat's \'ery helpful. and I think she's as knowledgeable as anyone else. 

d, of course, the balance is important. I happen to be on the pretty extreme side in wanting 

do more, quicker, and I think she has that tendency too. 

ergyGuardian: How much is she seen as a proxy for those who want to open up Yucca 

ountain? 

nhofe: I don't see her as a proxy.l see her as someone who is so knowledgeable that people 

on't question her abilities. That makes her opinion a lot stronger. Her demeanor is kind of 

hat way, she's very quiet. I'm a real fan. 

nergyGuardian: What would have been the impact if she had not come bac:k, if the 

dministration had sent up someone more Uke Chairman Jaczko? 

nhofe: It would not be good for the future of nuclear energy. We're at the point now where 

want to get .•. we have applications that need to be processed, and hopefuUy we'll be able to 

othat. 

nhofe: I'm trying to remember if there's ever been a hold on one of these. I'm not sure there 

as been. It would not have been good. 

ags: 

t"'">llll"'-lllll!lJIJlli_Ci!W_ll!ulJ:l. Krjstjm: Srinkkj l!t·"·~rkrhtim•·srinkkjl NRC!I!ng~rno:l 

Page 2 of2 

http://www.energyguardian.net/newsmaker-inhofe-says-second-svinick:i-term-good-nuclea... 6/11/2012 
33 

Senator SANDERS. We need Commissioners who are thoughtful 

and safety conscious. Commissioner Svinicki has given multiple 

speeches over the past several years that cite a ‘‘nuclear renaissance,’’ a term nuclear advocates use in the hopes of building dozens of new plants with billions and billions of dollars of Government support. In those speeches she has stated that the NRC’s job 

is ‘‘to enable commercial energy activities to proceed’’ provided certain requirements are met. I disagree. I believe, again, that the 

NRC’s job is to protect the public and be a strong and fair regulator, without bias in favor of or against the nuclear industry. 

We have before us today another nominee, Dr. Macfarlane, to be 

Commissioner and Chair of the NRC, as well, and I look forward 

to hearing more about her view. My hope is she will make strong 

commitments to us today that ensure the NRC can move forward 

aggressively toward transparency and openness as a good starting 

point for reform. 

However, I want to be clear, and I want to make this point as 

clear as I possibly can, that if the NRC does not move forward to 

reform its voting process to be open and transparent, I will be introducing NRC reform legislation to mandate a transparent public 

voting process. The current situation is opaque. The public does not 

understand how NRC members are voting, and that has got to 

change. 

I would hope, Dr. Macfarlane, that if you are confirmed you will 

lead the NRC in that direction. If not, I will be offering legislation 

to mandate that we do that. 

Madam Chair, thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. I would yield the remainder of the time to Senator Inhofe if he would like to respond. 

Senator INHOFE. No, just a quick response. 

The article, and I think it was an accurate article, when I was 

mentioned, but keep in mind the context of that. I think, rather 

than extreme, I should have used the word impatient. I am ready 

for nuclear energy, it said. We have to have it in our mix, and it 

seems to me, in the years I have been on here, that it takes so long 

to get anything done. So that was the context in which I—— 

Senator SANDERS. Well, let me just respond. It is one thing to be 

impatient, but I do not want to see, in this country, a nuclear accident. I want to see the Commission do everything possible to protect the safety of the American people. 

Senator INHOFE. I agree, I agree, I agree. 

Senator SANDERS. And impatience, by the way, Senator Inhofe, 

is not one of the qualities we want in those Commissioners. I want 

them to be patient; I want them to be thoughtful. I want them to 

go the extra 10 miles. Nuclear power cannot be 99.99 percent safe. 

That is the problem we have with that technology. So impatience 

or extreme is not a quality that I would like to see on the Commission. 

Senator BOXER. All right. 

Senator Sessions. 

34 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Let me make a couple points about professionalism of this nominee, Kristine Svinicki. Her record shows that she is dedicated to 

the safe operation of nuclear plants and collegial work. In the past 

4 years, while on the NRC, Kristine Svinicki voted on 135 or so significant policy or rulemaking matters; in over 90 percent of the 

votes she voted to approve the recommended action of the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission professional staff and voted with the majority well over 90 percent of the time during that period. 

Let me also mention this concern that was raised about her testimony that she did not disclose involvement in a paper concerning 

Yucca Mountain when she testified last time. Her involvement in 

the Yucca project was fully evaluated during her confirmation process in 2007, 2008. She was fully forthcoming in her written questionnaire and written responses to questions about her involvement 

in nuclear waste issues early in her career and testified before the 

EPW Committee. She was unanimously confirmed. 

Ironically, the technical paper that her opponents claim she was 

hiding from the Senate during her confirmation process was actually the first of her articles listed in her Senate EPW questionnaire 

submitted 5 years ago. So I don’t want to use McCarthyite phrases, 

but we need to be careful about somebody of her integrity and ability in suggesting motives that aren’t there. 

Also, I would note that the paper that was referred to, that she 

coauthored as a young engineer working in the Clinton Department 

of Energy, it was very short, less than 3 pages, and briefly described the Yucca Mountain site and described the potential waste 

acceptance and disposal process. She left this particular DOE 

waste program in 1997, during the Clinton administration time, 

long before Secretary Abraham, under the Bush administration, 

recommended Yucca Mountain to President Bush in 2002. 

I would also note and am pleased to learn that just this week 

Ms. Svinicki was awarded the 2012 Presidential Citation by the 

American Nuclear Society, an organization of 11,000 engineers, scientists, and educators. When she was issued the award, the ANS 

president said, ‘‘Commissioner Svinicki has demonstrated leadership and adherence to the highest professional conduct while serving on the Commission. She combines an unshakable demeanor 

with proven technical and professional qualifications, and we support her nomination to a second term on the Commission.’’ The 

award specifically recognized her ‘‘courageous leadership, dedication to public service, unwavering commitment to a regulatory 

framework that enables facilities to operate safely and securely 

with nuclear technology.’’ 

Also, I would note that Mr. David Lochbaum, who is the Nuclear 

Safety Project Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, basically anti-nuclear and take very liberal views, said this about her, 

according to the EE newsletters: She in no way is a ‘‘industry puppet’’ and her views have stayed consistent since he first met her 

more than a decade ago. ‘‘I don’t agree with some of the positions 

she takes, but I think they are sincere views. I don’t think that the 

35 

industry is getting to her or she is reading their script.’’ Mr. David 

Lochbaum, concerned scientist. 

So I just would make that point, and I know that we have a good 

record here that she would operate under. 

And Dr. Macfarlane, I did enjoy very much meeting with you; it 

was a good conversation. I note that you are taking over a very important task, and if appointed Chairman, as the President indicated he will do, which is his prerogative, that you will be undertaking to supervise 4,000 employees, a supervisory role you have 

never had before, and it would be a real step for you. I hope that 

you can handle that effectively. So it raises that concern with me 

and the other issues that I might question you about as we go forward. But I have enjoyed meeting with you. 

I think the President does have—I think there is a situation that 

has occurred with regard to the controversy at the Committee, and 

I am supportive of the idea that we need to move forward. I will 

support—I will not seek to block your confirmation, and I think it 

will be the right thing for us to do, to do both of these nominations 

and move them together, although I would express that your background is not the kind of background I would normally look for in 

a Chairman of the NRC. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, 

and thanks for bringing us together to consider the nomination of 

Dr. Allison Macfarlane and renomination of Kristine Svinicki to the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Nuclear energy, everyone knows, has been critical to meeting our 

nation’s energy needs, and it is an emissions-free energy source 

that provides one-fifth of America’s electricity. My State of New 

Jersey, our four nuclear power reactors provide the State with 

more than half of its electricity. But as we saw in Japan last year, 

there are also many reasons to be cautious. In order to operate 

plants safely, the United States must have an effective policy for 

disposing and storing spent nuclear fuel, and right now most nuclear power plants store more than 1,000 tons of nuclear waste in 

spent fuel pools onsite. It is not a sustainable situation. 

In New Jersey, nuclear waste is stored onsite at our four nuclear 

reactors, and some of it is in dry cask storage, but most is in spent 

fuel pools, which rely on a steady supply of water and electricity. 

In Japan, when the tsunami knock the power out, we saw rescue 

workers desperately spraying water from fire hoses into the spent 

fuel pools. More than half a year later there are still serious concerns about the safety of spent fuel at Fukushima and one thing 

is clear: we have to find better and safer ways to store nuclear 

waste to ensure that a disaster like the one that took place in 

Japan never happens here. That means finding more secure ways 

to store fuels onsite, finding agreeable places to store national 

spent fuel, and making sure that these sites have long-term viability. 

36 

We have now heard from the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission, which made a number of recommendations that could provide 

the path forward, and I look forward to hearing from the two nominees on how they plan to approach the Commission’s proposals and 

fill their mandate. If confirmed, these nominees will hear from industry interests that may oppose strong safety regulations, and we 

have to be particularly careful about proposing a particular company or organization. Let the question be, is this safe enough; are 

we doing what we can to protect the public? That is where the interest must lie. But don’t forget companies that are accountable to 

shareholders often have to focus, or have focused, on short-term 

costs and quarterly profits. 

In contrast, the NRC must be accountable to the people, must 

stay focused on ensuring the safety of this generation and the next. 

So I expect both of these nominees, if confirmed, to always err on 

the side of safety. Relaxing regulations could harm the public and 

would do the industry no favors. Just look at Japan. They were not 

prepared to withstand last year’s disaster, and last month they 

shut down the last of their 54 nuclear reactors. 

I find it shocking that they are able to get by after shutting 54, 

all of their nuclear reactors, and still have the society functioning, 

but that is life, and we have to evaluate how much of our energy 

ought to be created in nuclear facilities. Nuclear energy has been 

critical to our nation’s energy needs in the past, but we have to 

take the necessary precautions now in order for that to be true in 

the future. 

Thank you, and I wish each of you luck in continuing your service to the country. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I would first like to also welcome our two distinguished nominees 

who are here with us today. Congratulations to both of you on your 

nominations. 

Madam Chairman, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has gone 

through a very dark period recently. The Commission has experienced a crisis of leadership at the top of the agency; incidents of 

harassment of staff, outbursts of rage, and withholding of information from fellow commissioners by Chairman Jaczko. It has hurt 

the agency’s image. 

Throughout it all, the other four NRC Commissioners and the 

staff have persevered as they always have, ensuring that the mission of the agency—nuclear safety— is not compromised. 

Today we should be pleased to have this opportunity to work toward strengthening the leadership of this agency by ensuring the 

agency has a full complement of Commissioners. I believe that 

Commissioner Svinicki is eminently qualified to continue her distinguished career on the Commission. She has shown leadership 

and expertise that have earned her the praise from fellow Commissioners, both Democrat and Republican. Despite delays in getting 

her re-nominated by this Administration, I and many of my colVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:47 Jul 06, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25055.TXT SONYA
37 

leagues on this Committee will work to ensure that she is swiftly 

confirmed. 

With regard to Dr. Macfarlane, who has yet to serve on the Commission, I believe that we do need to look at what are the qualifications that we seek in a nominee to serve out the rest of Chairman 

Jaczko’s term. She has a long career, distinguished career in academia; has served on the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s 

Nuclear Future. It is our job as the Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee to explore her positions on what she sees as the 

future of nuclear power; that is, what are her views on uranium 

production, which is very important to my home State of Wyoming, 

where uranium is in abundance. We need to explore her views on 

nuclear power plant permitting and the long-term storage of nuclear waste. 

If we are to have a true, all out, all of the above energy strategy 

that the President has talked about, we must continue with building new power plants and developing a long-term place to store nuclear waste. These are all essential to the future of nuclear power 

in America. 

As I have stated, there has been a crisis of leadership at the top 

of the Commission. We need to find a leader of the Commission 

who doesn’t try and run the Commission with a top-down command 

and control approach; someone who is not afraid to reach out and 

utilize the years of technical expertise that the other distinguished 

Commissioners offer; someone who has a demonstrated record as a 

successful manager, knows how to take a large, complex organization with different personalities and backgrounds and get it working toward a common goal without compromising ethics. 

At a time when there is a void of leadership at the very top of 

the NRC, we need the best, most qualified person that we can find. 

When it comes to the issue of nuclear safety in America’s energy 

future, the public expects no less. 

We have great challenges ahead of us in the next few years to 

secure America’s energy future. With the need to address America’s 

demand for clean, safe, domestic, affordable energy, we need to 

work together to strengthen the Commission. As the Ranking 

Member of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, I 

pledge to work with my colleagues to accomplish this goal. 

I would like to say, once again, congratulations to both of you on 

your nomination by President Obama. I would also like to read to 

you both quotes from both industry and from labor which describe 

the qualities that they have seen, both industry and labor, that 

both have seen from Commissioner Svinicki during her tenure. The 

American Nuclear Society says, ‘‘Commissioner Svinicki combines 

an unshakable, unshakable demeanor, with proven technical and 

professional qualifications, and we support her nomination to a second term as NRC Commissioner.’’ 

The American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, the AFL-CIO, says, ‘‘We believe a review of Ms. 

Svinicki’s qualifications and her previous service at the NRC demonstrate that she is precisely, precisely the kind of public servant 

that gives all Americans confidence in the safe operation of our Nation’s nuclear energy industry.’’ 

38 

And the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers stated, 

‘‘Through her dedication and leadership, Commissioner Svinicki 

has demonstrated the right kind of approach to technical and legal 

issues before the agency that is critical to ensure the safe operation 

of our nation’s nuclear energy industry.’’ 

This all high praise, very well earned. So, Commissioner 

Svinicki, I trust that you will commit to continue to serve the public interest and work collegially with your current colleagues and 

your prospective new colleague in the same exemplary way. 

And Ms. Macfarlane, I trust that you will work with this fine 

Commissioner, and her colleagues as well, in hopes that you will 

earn similar respect and praise. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Carper. Oh, Cardin. We already heard from Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. I am glad to give Senator Carper more time. 

That is fine. 

Madam Chairman, I know that we are anxious to hear from our 

witnesses, but first let me thank both of our participants today for 

their willingness, one, to continue in public service; the other to put 

herself in a very important position for our country. So we thank 

you for your willingness for public service. And we know this is not 

just your commitment, it is a family commitment, so we thank your 

families for being willing to share you with your country. 

I just want to make one observation and will ask that you focus 

either in your presentations or in the questions as to the storage 

issue of spent fuel. I think it is important for the Commission to 

make decisions. Inaction, causing policies to be formed because of 

inaction, is not, I think, the best interest of our country, and I very 

much want to focus on safety. That is a critically important part 

of your responsibility, but also how we move forward with nuclear 

energy in this country. I think we need to have that right balance, 

and the Commission must act in order to give us the guidance to 

do that. The failure to act can cause policies to move in a certain 

direction that perhaps is not in the best interest of our country. 

One of the areas that had been the most difficult, I think, for all 

of us to get a grip on is how do we deal with the spent fuels. Can 

we safely store long-term, onsite, the spent fuels, whether they are 

in pools or whether they are in cask storage? And I think it is important for us to get your views as to how you see the future of 

nuclear energy in America based upon the storage capacities and 

where we need to be looking at from the point of view of our nation 

from the safety and the need for nuclear energy. 

Once again, I thank you very much for your willingness to step 

forward. This is a very important assignment, and we very much 

look forward to your testimony and your service. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Udall. 

39 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am just going to be 

brief and ask that my full statement be put in the record. But I 

want to also echo what other members have said in terms of safety. 

The buck really stops with the NRC when it comes to safety, and 

I hope that you hear that message from us. It is tremendously important that you have that as a focus, and when you look at regulating, that you highlight that. And we don’t have to look any further than Japan to see what happens if safety goes wrong. The articles I have been reading about Japan, as Senator Lautenberg 

said, 54 plants have been shut down. Their businesses are talking 

about moving overseas. Their economy is collapsing. They are having serious problems. So safety inter-reacts with all the other 

issues that are out there and the vital issues that we all share here 

about our economy and our economic development. 

With that, let me just thank Dr. Macfarlane for your service on 

the BRC, on the Blue Ribbon Commission. I know that you traveled to New Mexico; you took a great interest in that Blue Ribbon 

Commission that is looking at where do we go on the waste that 

is stored around the country, and how do we thread the balance between interim sites or consolidated sites, as we are calling them, 

and these long-term depositories that we are studying, and we very 

much appreciate that Blue Ribbon Panel’s recommendations. 

And our Chairman, Chairman Boxer, has been already on top of 

this, and this Committee has. We have had hearings on your report 

and we believe—Senator Carper was the Chairman of the Subcommittee that looked into that—that our Committee has the jurisdiction on that, and we intend to weigh in and take your recommendations seriously and come up with legislation. 

So, with that, thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Udall was not received at 

time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

At this time we are going to actually get to our nominees. But 

I want to thank colleagues, because I thought we are just laying 

things out on the table here, and I thought Senator Sessions was 

extremely honest about what is happening and how it will play out. 

So thank you for that. 

Now, I would like to turn to Dr. Allison Macfarlane, who has 

been nominated to be Chairman, and we are very honored that you 

are with us today, and we look forward to hearing from you. 

STATEMENT OF ALLISON MACFARLANE, PH.D., 

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thank you. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee, it is an honor to appear 

before you today as President Obama’s nominee for the position of 

member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Before continuing, I want to thank my husband, Hugh 

Gusterson, and my son, Graham, who are here with me today, for 

their unwavering support and encouragement. 

I am also pleased to be at the table today with Commissioner 

Kristine Svinicki. If confirmed, I look forward to working with 

40 

Commissioner Svinicki and Commissioners Apostolakis, Magwood, 

and Ostendorff. They are all talented individuals engaged in the 

high calling of public service, and I look forward to forging a collegial relationship with them, if confirmed. 

Over the last week and a half, I have had the opportunity to 

meet some of the talented staff of the NRC, who have provided me 

with a number of briefings on some of the important issues before 

the NRC. While I was aware of the staff’s reputation, these briefings have reinforced my observations about both the quality of the 

NRC staff and their level of commitment to the mission of the 

Commission, and that mission boils down to a simple concept: protecting the safety of the American people and the environment. 

The NRC’s main mission is to protect public health and safety, 

promote common defense and security, and protect the environment, and my background has prepared me for of all of these mission areas. 

My background is as a scientist and a public policy scholar. We 

are trained to be objective, analytical, and to treat our peers as 

equals. I note that academics over the years have made important 

contributions to nuclear safety. Among those are former Chairs 

Shirley Jackson, Nils Diaz, and Dale Klein, and now Commissioner 

Apostolakis, with whom I share an MIT connection. 

I earned a doctorate in geology from the Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology in 1992. Geology, as you are aware, plays an important role in the safety of a variety of nuclear facilities. Recent history in Japan, as many of you have mentioned this morning, has 

reminded us of the relevance of geology in reactor safety. 

I have worked at both public and private institutions, including 

Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Georgia Tech, and George Mason University, and I have contributed to nuclear policy debates since 1996 

and have served on National Academy of Science panels reviewing 

nuclear energy programs and nuclear weapons issues. Most recently I was honored to serve on the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, another area where my primary background had a role. 

I make this commitment to you today: if confirmed, I will devote 

all my energies to serving on the NRC with the attributes that I 

consider important to good governance: openness, efficiency, and 

transparency. I will make a strong commitment to collegiality at all 

levels. An agency endowed with the public trust, such as the NRC, 

requires a respectful working environment to assure its integrity. 

I am absolutely committed to working with all interests: industry, the public, Government agencies, and especially Members of 

Congress. I will solicit a wide range of opinions, ask questions, examine the facts objectively, and reach decisions based on those 

facts. And I will work to ensure that the NRC remains the global 

standard among regulatory agencies and continues to be a top 

ranked workplace for its employees. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Macfarlane follows:] 

41 


25055.020

Prepared Statement of Dr. Allison Macfarlane 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

June 13, 2012 

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member lnhofe and members of the Committee. 

It is an honor to appear before you today as President Obama's nominee for the position of 

member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Before continuing I want to thank my husband, Hugh Gusterson, and my children, Graham and 

Sascha, who are here with me, for their unwavering support and encouragement. 

I am also pleased to be at the table today with Commissioner Kristine Svinicki. If confirmed, I 

look forward to working with Commissioner Svinicki and Commissioners Apostolakis, Magwood 

and Ostendorff. They are all talented individuals engaged in the high calling of public service, 

and I look forward to forging a collegial relationship with them, if confirmed. 

Over the last week and a half, I have had the opportunity to meet some of the talented staff at 

the NRC, who have provided me with a number of briefings on some of the important issues 

before the NRC. While I was aware of the staffs reputation, these briefings have reinforced my 

observations about both the quality of the NRC staff and their level of commitment to the 

mission of the Commission. That mission boils down to a simple concept- protecting the safety 

of the American people and the environment. 

The NRC's main mission is to protect public health and safety, promote the common defense 

and security and protect the environment. My background has prepared me for of all of these 

mission areas. 

My background is as a scientist and public policy scholar. We are trained to be objective, 

analytical, and to treat our peers as equals. I note that academics over the years have made 

important contributions to nuclear safety. Among those are former Chairs Shirley Jackson, Nils 

Diaz and Dale Klein, and now Commissioner Apostolakis, with whom I share an MIT 

connection. 

I earned a doctorate in geology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1992. 

Geology, as you are aware, plays an important role in the safety of a variety of nuclear facilities. 

Recent history in Japan has reminded us of the relevance of geology to reactor safety. I have 

worked at both public and private institutions including Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Georgia Tech, 

and George Mason. I have contributed to nuclear policy debates since 1996, and have served 

on National Academy of Science panels reviewing nuclear energy programs and nuclear 

weapons issues. Most recently I was honored to serve on the President's Blue Ribbon 

Commission on nuclear waste, another area where my primary background had a role. 
42 


25055.021

I make this commitment to you today: If confirmed, I will devote all my energies to serving on 

the NRC with the attributes that I consider important to good governance - openness, efficiency 

and transparency. I will make a strong commitment to collegiality at all levels. An agency 

endowed with the public trust such as the NRC requires a respectful working environment to 

assure its integrity. 

I am absolutely committed to working with all interests- industry, the public, government 

agencies, and especially members of Congress. I will solicit a wide range of opinions, ask 

questions, examine the facts objectively, and reach decisions based on those facts. And I will 

work to ensure that the NRC remains the global standard among regulatory agencies and 

continues to be a top-ranked workplace for its employees. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer your questions. 

### 
43 


25055.022

Environment and Public Works Committee 

Confirmation Hearing for Dr. Allison Macfarlane 

June 13, 2012 

Responses to Follow-up Questions from 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

1. Describe your approach to working with and managing people and the 

experience you would rely on in the job as Chairman of the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission? 

My approach is to operate in a collaborative and collegial manner, always 

reaching out to the others for input and ideas. If confirmed and designated 

Chairman, I intend to meet regularly with individual commissioners, seek their 

thoughts on major issues facing the NRC, and benefit from their expertise. I 

would also plan to engage the very competent staff at the NRC. 

In the past, I have worked with people with diverse backgrounds and views, for 

example, as a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear 

Future. I worked there to forge consensus on the issues we tackled. I have also 

had a variety of other managerial positions within my university and I sit also on 

several boards of directors. 

2. Describe some of the radioactive materials released by the Fukushima 

Dai'ichi plant, the length of time that they stay radioactive, and their potential 

to harm human health and cause damage to such industries as agriculture 

and fishing. 

Two isotopes of greatest concern are cesium (Cs) and iodine (I). Iodine can 

affect the thyroid glands, possibly causing cancer in the future. Cesium can 

replace potassium, especially if lodged in the soil, taken up by plants, consumed 

by animals, and concentrated up the food chain. 

I understand that Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco ), the owner-operator 

of the Fukushima plant, has recently released an update of radiation emitted 

from the accident. They claim that 500 petabequerels (PBq) ofi-131 was 

released to the air, whereas 10 PBq of Cs-137 was released into the air, along 

with 10 PBq of Cs-134. There were also reported releases into the sea at the site, 

including an estimated 11 PBq ofi-131, 3.6 PBq ofCs-137, and 3.5 PBq ofCs-134. 

Releases into the sea, if ingested by marine life, and if concentrated up the food 

chain, could result in doses of radiation to those who consume the fish at the top 

of the chain. 

1-131 has a half-life of 8.04 days. A radionuclide is considered fully decayed after 

10 half-lives have passed, so within 3 months of releases, the 1-131 threat was 
44 


25055.023

gone. Cs-137, on the other hand, has a half-live of 30.17 years, so it will be 

around for 300 years, while Cs-134 has a half-life of 2.065 years, so it will remain 

a threat for 20 years or so. 

3. Will you commit to review the current Internal Commission Procedures to 

ensure that the Commission conducts its work with the utmost openness and 

transparency? 

If confirmed, I intend to conduct business as transparently as possible. I 

understand that the NRC reviews its procedures at least every two years and I 

would look forward to participating in such reviews, if confirmed. 

4. Will you commit to review whether there are any opportunities to expedite 

the Near-term Japan Task Force recommendations? 

Yes, if confirmed, I will. 

5. The NRC is currently investigating problems at the San Onofre nuclear 

Generating Station. Do you commit to work with me on assuring the safety of 

the plant and people who live near the facility in connection with NRC's 

current investigation and review? 

Yes, if confirmed, I will work to ensure the safety of the San Onofre plant and the 

people living nearby. These are essential elements of the NRC mission. I will 

ensure that your office is kept informed of the investigation and review. 
45 


25055.024

Environment and Public Works Committee 

Confirmation Hearing for Dr. Allison Macfarlane 

June 13, 2012 

Responses to Follow-up Questions from 

Senator James lnhofe 

1. Do you believe the other four NRC commissioners, soon to be your 

colleagues, are committed to protecting public health and safety? 

I am confident that all four commissioners are committed to protecting public 

health and safety. 

2. Do you believe the NRC should cease new plant licensing and license 

renewals until all Fukushima lessons have been implemented? 

My understanding is that the NRC has decided that there is no reason to cease 

issuing new plant licenses and license renewals until all Fukushima lessons 

learned have been implemented. If confirmed, I would be committed to ensurir 

that the NRC carries out the Near-Term Task Force recommendations. 

3. Do you believe NRC's regulatory framework is broken? 

I am not aware of discussion about NRC's regulatory framework being "broken. 

4. During the Spring of2011, we learned that Chairman Jaczko had been 

operating the agency under Emergency Authorities delineated in Section 3 c 

the Reorganization Plan of 1980. We had a number of discussions with him 

about this matter and found that he believes: (a) he did not need to declare 

that he assumed these powers despite the clearly stated requirements ofth1 

law and (b) that such authority somehow automatically descended upon hir 

whenever the Commission's Operations Center went into so-called 

"monitoring mode." Other explanations we received from the Chairman did 

not square with a plain reading of the law. 

a. Will you commit to work with your colleagues to reach a better and 

collective understanding of the procedures by which we will know 

when the exercise of such authorities is declared, exercised, and 

terminated? 

If confirmed, I would follow the law and commission procedures, and I would 

work with the other commissioners to reach a collective understanding of the 
46 


25055.025

Chairman's authorities and the commission procedures. I would consult with 

NRC's Office of General Counsel as I proceeded. 

b. Will you be transparent in your decision to use the Emergency 

Authority granted to the Chairman of the NRC if a situation calls for 

such action? 

Yes, I would be transparent about exercising such authority. 

5. I have noticed that there have been an extraordinary number of delays in the 

time it has taken to bring certain matters before the Commission to a vote 

and to closure. In fact, the procedures the NRC has established and published 

were violated often. The Office of the Secretary has a valuable role in the 

functioning of the Commission and must be given leave to conduct the 

ministerial affairs of the agency. 

a. Will you commit to vote in accordance with the Commission's Internal 

Commission Procedures? 

b. Do you believe the chairman is bound to act in accordance with the 

Commission's Internal Commission Procedures? 

If confirmed, I would act in accordance with Internal Commission Procedures. 

6. Your predecessor's strongly held beliefs prevented him from effectively 

managing the agency as evidenced by his repeated attempts to enforce his 

will rather than work collegially with the Majority and respecting the agency 

staffs recommendations. Will your personal beliefs be a similar stumbling 

block to your ability to manage? 

If confirmed, I will, to the best of my ability, solicit a wide range of views, and 

make judgments based on facts, not personal beliefs. I will work closely with my 

fellow commissioners to reach collegial decisions in a timely manner. 

7. The Reorganization Plan of 1980 states that the NRC chairman "shall be 

governed by the general policies of the Commission." As Chairman, would 

you respect and adhere to the general policies of the Commission? 

If confirmed, I will respect and adhere to the general policies of the Commission. 

8. The Reorganization Plan of 1980 states that the Chairman and Executive 

Director "shall be responsible for insuring that the Commission is fully and 
47 


25055.026

currently informed." As Chairman, will you interfere or seek to influence the 

flow of information between Commissioners and the agency staff? 

I believe that the Commission best operates when all commissioners are fully 

and currently informed. If confirmed, I would endeavor to ensure an open flow 

of information within the Commission. 
48 


25055.027

Environment and Public Works Committee 

Confirmation Hearing for Dr. Allison Macfarlane 

June 13, 2012 

Responses to Follow-up Questions from 

Senator Jeff Sessions 

1. Please list all the conference panels, meetings, public rallies, or other public 

events that you have attended at which nuclear energy or nuclear waste 

issues were discussed. 

During my career I have attended many events related to nuclear energy or 

nuclear waste and do not have an exhaustive record or recollection of every 

single one. The following list represents my best efforts to reconstruct as 

complete and exhaustive a list as is possible. To the extent that I discover any 

additional panels, meetings, rallies, or other public events at which nuclear 

energy or nuclear waste issues were discussed, I will provide those names to the 

Committee as well. 

In addition to the list below, I have regularly attend( ed) the following meetings: 

The MIT Security Studies Seminar Series, the Belfer Center for Science and 

International Affairs multiple speaker series, History of Science Department, and 

Department of Earth and Atmospheric Science, at Harvard University, the Center 

for International Security and Cooperation multiple speaker series at Stanford 

University, the Nuclear Engineering Department and the Energy Resources 

Group at University of California, Berkeley, Princeton University multiple 

speaker series, Georgia Tech multiple speaker series, University of Toronto 

seminar series, University of Michigan seminar series, Oberlin College seminar 

series, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies seminar series, 

the Peace Studies Program at Cornell University, the Bulletin of the Atomic 

Scientists nuclear energy workshops and Doomsday workshops, the Carnegie 

Conferences, seminar series at Brookings, the Carnegie Endowment for 

International Peace, the Monterrey Institute, the Center for Strategic and 

International Studies, the Center for International and Security Studies at 

Maryland, the Elliott School at George Washington University, the National 

Republican Club/National Defense University, the Federation of American 

Scientists, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Brookings Institution, the 

Partnership for Global Security, the Watertown, Massachusetts RAB, Society for 

Risk Analysis, Massachusetts, Los Alamos National Laboratory public hearings, 

meetings of the Society for the Social Studies of Science, the American 

Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, the American Association 

for the Advancement of Science, and the Summer Symposia on Science and 

Global Affairs. 
49 


25055.028

My Blue Ribbon Commission public meetings were: 

Full Commission Meetings 

• Washington- March 25, 2010- March 26, 2010 

• Washington- May 25, 2010- May 26, 2010 

• Kennewick, WA- July 14, 2010- July 15, 2010 

• Washington- September 21, 2010- September 22, 2010 

• Washington- November 15, 2010- November 16, 2010 

• Augusta, GA- January 6, 2011- January 7, 2011 

• Carlsbad, NM- January 26, 2011 

• Washington- February 1, 2011- February 2, 2011 

• Washington- May 13,2011 

• Washington- December 2, 2011 

Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology Subcommittee 

• Washington- October 12, 2010 

• Washington- August 30, 2010- August 31, 2010 

• Idaho Falls- July 12, 2010- July 13, 2010 

Disposal Subcommittee 

• Washington- July 7, 2010 

• Washington- September 1, 2010 

• Finland- October 21, 2010- October 22, 2010 

• Sweden- October 23, 2010- October 26, 2010 

Regional Public Meetings with State Regional Governments 

• Denver, CO- September 13, 2011 

• Boston, MA- October 12, 2011 

• Washington- October 20, 2011 

Events I have attended and at which spoken about nuclear energy or nuclear waste 

include: 

4/12 School of foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 

4/12 Nautilus, Seoul, South Korea (workshop) 
50 


25055.029

4/12 Elliott School, George Washington University, Washington, DC 

4/12 Teaching the Fuel Cycle Workshop, Elliott School, George Washington 

University, Washington, DC 

3/12 Burden of Choice, Heyman Center for the Humanities, Columbia University, 

New York NY 

3/12 Radioactive Waste Management Committee, 451h meeting, Nuclear Energy 

Agency, Paris, France 

3/12 Fukushima: Lessons Learned? Workshop Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH 

2/12 Federation of American Scientists, Global American Business Institute, 

Washington DC 

2/12 American Association for the Advancement of Science, Vancouver, Canada 

(annual conference) 

2/12 Platts 8th Annual Nuclear Energy Conference, Bethesda, MD 

2/12 Keystone Center Energy Board Meeting, Keystone, CO 

1/12 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' Doomsday Symposium, Washington, DC 

12/11 Tokyo Democratic Party, the Diet, Tokyo, Japan 

12/11 Japan Association of Science, Technology and Society, Tokyo University, 

Tokyo Japan 

12/11 Japan Atomic Energy Commission, Tokyo, Japan 

12/11 Joint-Fact-Finding Process, Graduate School of Public Policy, Tokyo 

University, Japan 

11/11 Society for the Social Studies of Science, Annual Meeting, Cleveland, OH 

10/11 American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Stanford, CA 

10/11 National Journal Policy Summit, National Press Club, Washington, DC 

10/11 Elliott School oflnternational Affairs, George Washington University, 

Washington, DC 

10/11 Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 

5/11 School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, 

Washington DC 

12/10 Vision Series Lectures, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 

12/10 Nuclear Futures Workshop, UC Berkeley, CA 
51 


25055.030

11/10 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Annual Meeting, Washington, DC 

11/10 The STS Circle, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 

Cambridge, MA 

9/10 STEP Symposium, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 

4/10 School of Public Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 

3/10 Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 

3/10 ANS Lecture, Nuclear Science & Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA 

2/10 The Future of Nuclear Energy, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 

2/10 American Association for the Advancement of Science, Annual Meeting, San 

Diego, CA 

2/10 Platts Nuclear Energy Conference, Bethesda, MD 

2/10 Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 

1/10 GEEi School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins, Washington, 

DC 

12/09 Kettle Run High School, Nokesville, VA 

11/09 School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins, Washington, DC 

11/09 Nuclear International Research Group, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada 

11/09 Society for the Social Study of Science, Annual Conference, Crystal City, VA 

10/09 Nuclear Power- Back on the Table Conference, Penn State, State College, PA 

8/09 PAGES Summer School, Nuclear Engineering Department, UC Berkeley, CA 

6/09 Institute for Energy and the Environment, Summer School, Takoma Park, MD 

6/09 Fresh Energy, St Paul, MN 

4/09 58th Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, The Hague, 

Netherlands 

4/09 21st Annual Environment Virginia Conference, Virginia Military Institute, 

Lexington, VA 

4/09 Carnegie Conference, Washington, DC 

4/09 Roanoke Valley Governor's School, Roanoke, VA 
52 


25055.031

3/09 Center for International Security Studies at Maryland, University if Maryland, 

College Park, MD 

3/09 Meridian Institute, Washington, DC 

3/09 Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World Course, Princeton University, 

Princeton, NJ 

2/09 Mason Energy Roundtables, GMU, Fairfax, VA 

1/09 AI Gore Summit, New York, NY 

11/08 Partnership for Global Security, Washington DC 

11/08 Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC 

6/08 Senate Briefing, Washington DC 

5/08 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC 

5/08 Science Symposium, St Olaf College, Northfield, MN 

4/08 Committee on Energy and Water, US House of Representatives, Washington, 

DC 

4/08 Symposium, Lake Forest College, Lake Forest, IL 

1/08 Center for International and Security Studies, University of Maryland, College 

Park, MD 

1/08 School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 

7/07 Toward a Plan B for High-Level Waste, George Mason Univ., Arlington, VA 

6/07 California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA 

6/07 Center for Science and Global Security, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 

4/07 Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, SUNY Albany, NY 

3/07 Technology and Culture Forum, MIT, Cambridge, MA 

2/07 Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Arlington, VA 

2/07 Waste Management Symposium, Tucson, AZ 

1/07 Keystone Center Energy Board, Keystone Colorado 

12/06 Science, Technology and International Affairs Program, Georgetown 

University, Washington, DC 

11/06 Materials Research Symposium, Nuclear Waste Management Symposium, 

Boston, MA 

11/06 Future of Nuclear Energy Conference, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 

Chicago,IL 
53 


25055.032

11/06 Keystone Joint Fact-Finding on Nuclear Energy, Washington, DC 

10/06 Department of Geology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 

9/06 Geological Society of Washington, Washington, DC 

7/06 Nevada Nuclear Projects Board, Reno NV 

5/06 American Geophysical Union Conference, Baltimore, MD 

5/06 Lifetime Learning Group, Newton, MA 

5/06 High-Level Nuclear Waste Management Conference, Las Vegas, NV 

4/06 Capitol Hill Briefing, organized by AAAS, Washington, DC 

3/06 Technology and Policy of Weapons Course, MIT, Cambridge, MA 

11/05 Nuclear Policy Research Institute, Airlie, VA 

9/05 Technology Review Magazine's Emerging Technologies Conference, 

Cambridge, MA 

7/05 Plutonium Workshop, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 

3/05 Nuclear Engineering Department, MIT, Cambridge, MA 

3/05 School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 

3/05 School of Computational Sciences, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 

2/05 Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Ml 

2/05 Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, 

Cambridge, MA 

11/04 Radioactive Waste Management Course, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 

MI 

11/04 Technology Policy Course, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard, 

Cambridge, MA 

11/04 Knight Fellows Program Seminar Series, MIT, Cambridge, MA 

10/04 Scientific Integrity Roundtable, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 

9/04 Student Pugwash, MIT, Cambridge, MA 

9/04 Technology and Culture Forum, MIT, Cambridge, MA 

7/04 16th Summer Symposium for Science and World Affairs, Beijing, China 

4/04 Environmental Politics Course, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 

2/04 Great Decisions, Atlanta, Georgia 

11/03 School of Earth and Atmospheric Science, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 

11/03 American Anthropology Association National Meeting, Chicago, IL 

9/03 Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 

4/03 Earth, Atmospheric & Planetary Sciences, MIT, Cambridge, MA 

4/03 Peace Studies Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 

2/03 School of Earth and Atmospheric Science, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 
54 


25055.033

2/03 Sam Nunn School of International Affairs, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 

1/03 Western Hemisphere Project, MIT, Cambridge, MA 

1/03 Congressional Briefing 

10/02 Geological Society of America meeting, Denver, CO 

9/02 World Energy Policy in the 21•1 Century, University of Maryland, College Park. 

MD 

7/02 International Professional Meeting of Independent Technical Security 

Analysts, Chicago, IL 

7/02 Workshop on Radiological Hazards Posed by Nuclear Power Plants, SSP, MIT 

4/02 Congressional House staffers, Washington, DC 

11/01 Society for Risk Analysis, New England, Cambridge, MA 

11/01 Institute for Science and Interdisciplinary Studies, Hampshire College, 

Amherst, MA 

11/01 Society for the Social Studies of Science Conference, Cambridge, MA 

10/01 Swords to Solar Flares: Earth Science and the Cold War Workshop, Cornell U, 

Ithaca, NY 

9/01 Center for International Studies, MIT, Cambridge, MA 

9/01 Department of Nuclear Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA 

9/01 Managing the Atom, BCSIA. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 

7/01 13th Summer Symposium for Science and World Affairs, Berlin, Germany 

7/01 Security Studies Program, MIT, Cambridge, MA 

6/01 Sino-American Transparency Project, Beijing, China 

2/01 Japan-US Nonproliferation Workshop, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 

11/00 Managing the Atom Group, BCSIA, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 

10/00 Plutonium 2000: International Conference on the Future of Plutonium, 

(conference) Brussels, Belgium 

10/00 Harvard Museum of Natural History, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 

8/00 121h Summer Symposium for Science and World Affairs, Moscow, Russia 

8/00 New jersey Governor's School for Science, Drew University, NJ 

7/00 International Workshop on Interim Storage of Spent Fuel, Tokyo University, 

Tokyo, Japan 

5/00 American Geophysical Union meeting, Washington, 

4/00 Managing the Atom Group, BCSIA. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 

3/00 JANUS Group, University ofDarmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany 

3/00 German Physical Society Conference, Dresden, Germany 

3/00 Civil Plutonium Workshop, ISIS Conference, Washington, DC 

3/00 Security Studies Program, MIT, Cambridge, MA 
55 


25055.034

2/00 German Reactor Safety Commission Hearing, Bonn, Germany 

2/00 Japan-US Nonproliferation Workshop, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 

1/00 Plutonium Workshop, Jiilich, Germany 

11/09 Ethics and Science Class, MIT, Cambridge, MA 

10/99 Geological Society of America National Meeting. Denver, CO 

8/99 GLOBAL '99, Jackson Hole, WY 

8/99 Social Science Research Council- MacArthur Foundation, New Delhi, India 

7/99 11th Summer Symposium for Science & World Affairs, Shanghai, China 

6/99 American Geophysical Union, Boston, MA 

3/99 Living with Nuclear Technologies: Our Enduring Nuclear Legacy, University of 

Wyoming 

3/99 Environmental Earth Science Department, Eastern Connecticut State 

University 

3/99 US- Japan Nuclear Non-Proliferation Dialogue, Tokyo, Japan 

2/99 Harvard University- Tokyo University Joint Meeting, Harvard University, 

Cambridge, MA 

7/98 Landau Network-Centro Volta and UNESCO School on Science for Peace, 

Como, Italy 

6/98 Center for International Security and Arms Control, Stanford University, 

Stanford, CA 

5/98 Social Science Research Council- MacArthur Foundation, San Salvador, El 

Salvador 

3/98 Geophysics Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 

2/98 Center for International Security and Arms Control, Stanford University, 

Stanford, CA 

9/97 INESAP International Meeting, Shanghai, China 

7/97 9th Summer Symposium for Science and World Affairs, Cornell University, 

Ithaca, NY 

6/97 21st Actinides Separations Conference, Charleston, SC 

5/97 Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, Cambridge, 

MA 

4/97 Defense and Arms Control Program, MIT, Cambridge, MA 

2/97 Japan- CSIA Workshop, Kennedy School. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 

2/97 Anthropology Department, MIT, Cambridge, MA 

2/97 Bunting Institute, Radcliffe College, Cambridge, MA 

7/96 8th Summer Symposium on Science and World Affairs, Beijing, China 
56 


25055.035

2. Please provide copies (written, audio, or video) of all speeches you have 

made concerning nuclear energy, nuclear safety, spent nuclear fuel, Yucca 

Mountain, nuclear waste, or other issues of relevance to the work of the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Enclosed please find a CD that contains a copy of pertinent speeches for which I 

have been able to locate a written record. To the extent that I identify text for 

any additional speeches, I will provide that text to the Committee. 

3. Please provide a list of all organizations (with an interest in nuclear energy, 

nuclear waste, nuclear safety, or related matters) of which you are, or have 

been, a member? 

As indicated on my Committee questionnaire, I have been a member of the Blue 

Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, the Bulletin ofthe Atomic 

Scientists, Keystone Center Energy Board, National Academy of Sciences, and the 

Keystone Center. 

I have also held professional memberships with the American Nuclear Society, 

the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the 

Society for the Social Studies of Science. In the past I have been a paid member 

of the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club, and participated in 

the Resident Advisory Board discussions in Watertown, Massachusetts. 

4. Do you support expansion of nuclear power generation in the United States, 

at the present time, in a manner that would ensure that nuclear energy 

remains a significant component- in the range of 20% or greater- of the 

Nation's electric generation mix? 

It is not the role of the NRC to determine the overall national energy policy. That 

being said, I do believe that a diverse supply of energy, including nuclear power, 

is necessary for the security and continued growth of the United States. I have 

written and said as much in the past and I continue to believe this to be the case. 

5. Has any member of your immediate family received funding, either directly 

or indirectly, from organizations opposed to licensing Yucca Mountain as a 

repository for spent nuclear fuel or from organizations opposed to licensing 

new nuclear reactors? If so, please describe. 

I consider my immediate family to consist of my husband, my sister, and my 

mother. To the best of my knowledge, they have not received funding from 

organizations opposed to licensing Yucca Mountain or new nuclear reactors. 
57 


25055.036

6. The law of the land- the Nuclear Waste Policy Act- established Yucca 

Mountain in 1987 as the designated site for the nation's geologic repository. 

You have stated that "it was clearly a mistake for Congress to select only one 

site to characterize" and that Congress did so because Nevada was "politically 

weak" at that time. 

a. Do you stand by these words? 

I am not certain from where the first quote originates; the second quote comes 

from my co-edited volume, Uncertainty Underground, chapter 6. My analysis 

presented in chapter 6 notes that a number of political reasons existed for the 

selection of the Yucca Mountain site, among them, that Nevada had "a small 

population and two recently elected senators, it was outranked by Texas and 

Washington, which were represented by long-serving congresspeople who had 

acquired far more power and influence than had Nevada's delegation in the 

Capitol." I noted these as a few of the potential reasons why the 1987 

amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act reduced the requirement of the 

simultaneous characterization of three geologically distinct sites to only Yucca 

Mountain. 

b. Would you agree that the law has not changed- that Yucca remains 

the only lawful repository for spent nuclear fuel? 

I recognize that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as amended in 1987 called for the 

characterization of only the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. 

c. Wouldn't you agree that, if Congress had maintained 3 possible sites, 

the federal government would have spent a great deal more of the 

taxpayer's money than the $14 billion spent on Yucca, without 

achieving an operational repository? 

I cannot speculate how much would have been spent and whether we would 

have an operational repository if Congress had continued consideration of three 

sites. 

d. If confirmed, will you follow and implement the statutes of this nation, 

as written, not as you would like them to be? 

If confirmed, I would work with my fellow commissioners to faithfully fulfill the 

mission of the NRC and would follow the law. 
58 


25055.037

7. You stated 2003, as part of a Senate field hearing, that you are "not against 

nuclear power" and that it is a "viable source of energy ... as long as the 

problems are solved, and one of the problems is nuclear waste." What are 

other "problems," besides waste, that would not make nuclear power a 

"viable source of energy?" Do you believe that, as the laws and regulations of 

the nation and NRC currently exist, that license for new nuclear reactors can 

be issued? 

I have written that nuclear energy is an important part of the energy diversity in 

the United States. Nonetheless, the NRC issued two reactors licenses this year 

for the construction of four new reactors in Georgia and South Carolina, 

demonstrating that licenses for new reactors can be issued under the laws and 

regulations as they currently exist. 

8. You stated at the 2003 Senate field hearing that "DOE has 

underestimated ... the future infiltration of water into (Yucca] mountain from 

precipitation, because they have not adequately accounted for the effects on 

the climate .. .from the extreme carbon dioxide levels that the planet will 

likely experience in only 100 years." You also state that DOE has not 

"adequately accounted for the effects of increasing C02 levels on climate 

warming." Do you continue to have these concerns? 

In my 2003 Senate testimony, I discussed analyses completed by MaryLynn 

Musgrove and Daniel Schrag of Harvard University. The studies were completed 

about ten years ago, prior to DOE submitting the license application to construct 

a repository at Yucca Mountain. 

Knowledge changes with time, more evidence comes to light, and I have not 

reviewed either the DOE's license application, nor the NRC's technical analyses, 

both of which post-date my analyses. I would have to analyze both of these 

documents to see if the questions raised during my testimony were addressed. 

9. Do you support the idea, endorsed by the Blue Ribbon Commission, of 

establishing a new federal corporation to focus solely on nuclear waste 

management? In your view, what should be the purpose, role, jurisdiction, 

and authority of such a federal corporation? 

As a Commissioner on the Blue Ribbon Commission, I stand by our findings and 

recommendations, including the recommendation to "establish a new 

organization to implement the waste program." As discussed in the BRC report, 

this organization should manage the consolidated storage of spent nuclear fuel, 

the transportation of commercial spent fuel, and disposal of spent fuel and highlevel waste, as well as conduct non-generic research, development, and 

demonstration activities related to these functions. The new organization would 
59 


25055.038

be tasked with finding suitable sites and transportation routes, and in doing so 

interacting with affected units of federal, state, local, and tribal governments. It 

would be overseen by Congress and regulated by the NRC based on standards 

set by the EPA, working with the NRC. 

10. In a December 2004 article in MIT Technology Review entitled "A New Vision 

for Nuclear Waste" which discusses concerns with Yucca Mountain, you are 

quoted as saying, "If it goes on for another SO years, it doesn't matter. It could 

go on for 100 or 200 years, and it's probably for the better .... We've got plenty 

f time to play with it." Could you explain what you meant by this statement in 

2004, and do you stand by that statement today? 

I do not recall giving that quote. To the extent that I did make any such 

statement, I cannot recall the context in which it was given. 

11. Probabilistic Analysis: 

a. Are you familiar with the NRC guidance to the staff on the use of 

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) (60 Fed. Reg. 42628), which 

states that this kind of analysis should be increased in all NRC 

regulatory matters? 

I am aware that Commissioner Apostolakis convened a Risk Management Task 

Force and the NRC staff is now evaluating the Task Force's report. 

b. You have criticized this approach. For example, in Chapter 6 in the 

book you edited, Uncertainty Underground, you contend that DOE 

erred by using "probabilistic" analysis to review the Yucca project. 

How would you approach this issue as a member of the NRC- would 

you seek to revise existing NRC guidance regarding probabilistic 

assessment? 

I would approach all issues that I address at the NRC, if confirmed, in the same 

manner: by assessing the current state of knowledge on the issue, objectively 

examining the facts, seeking the thoughts and input of my fellow commissioners 

as well as NRC staff, and making a final decision based on that information. 
60 


25055.039

Environment and Public Works Committee 

Confirmation Hearing for Dr. Allison Macfarlane 

June 13, 2012 

Responses to Follow-up Questions from 

Senator John Barrasso 

1. The NRC has been in turmoil under the leadership of the current chairman. 

What experience or experiences do you have that demonstrate your 

effectiveness as a manager? 

There is an exceptional structure in place at the NRC to manage the day-to-day 

operations and oversee the dedicated and talented employees of the agency. I 

note that the NRC is consistently ranked among the top government agencies in 

staff satisfaction. If confirmed, I view my role as one of leadership in continuing 

the mission of the NRC, while being accountable to you and the people of the 

United States. 

My background reflects a broad array offunctions and opportunities that I've 

had throughout my career that demonstrate leadership skills that will serve me 

well at the NRC. As the Principle Investigator on numerous grants, I was solely 

responsible for managing the budgets, contracting with different entities, 

selecting staff, and making executive decisions. I also have chaired positions on 

academic committees, which involved making difficult decisions on senior 

positions at large academic institutions, and have served in a leadership role as a 

Commissioner on the Blue Ribbon Commission and on panels for the National 

Academy of Sciences. Finally, as Chair of the Science and Security Board of the 

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, I was required to call and chair regular meetings, 

regularly interact with the Governing Board, work with the editorial staff, and 

evaluate personnel. 

Based on these experiences, I understand the need for a chairman to operate in a 

collegial manner, reaching out to the other commissioners on the matters facing 

the agency. In past leadership positions, I have worked with people from a 

variety of viewpoints and demonstrated effective leadership as we worked to 

forge consensus on the issues we tackled, and I look forward to hopefully being 

able to do so yet again as a part ofthe NRC. 

2. As a follow up to Senator Sessions' questions during your confirmation 

hearing, what is the largest organization you have managed in terms of 

people who have reported to you? 
61 


25055.040

As noted above, I have led a variety of different organizations, and in this 

capacity have worked with many employees who have reported directly to me. 

My management and interpersonal skills will allow me to effectively harness the 

talents and experience of NRC's corps of outstanding officials. 

3. During your confirmation hearing, Senator Sessions asked you what was the 

largest budget you have ever managed. Your response was unclear. Please 

provide additional details regarding the largest budget you have ever 

managed, including the size of the budget, and your fiduciary responsibilities 

in managing the budget. 

As noted above, I have served in various leadership positions on Boards and 

committees during which I had budgetary oversight, and this includes my time 

on the Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which was responsible for 

overseeing a budget of over a million dollars. 

4. How would you characterize your management style? 

I work collegially with those under my leadership. 

5. Do you believe Yucca Mountain is unsuitable as a permanent nuclear waste 

repository? 

I have not examined all the recent evidence on Yucca Mountain, including the 

Department of Energy's license application and the NRC's technical review of 

that application and would have to do so to reach a judgment about its current 

suitability. 

6. My home State of Wyoming has an abundance of domestic uranium, yet the 

permitting of these sites has met with bureaucratic delay and red tape. In 

your opinion, does licensing and developing uranium production 

domestically, as opposed to relying on foreign uranium, make America more 

or less secure? 

The role of the NRC is to ensure public health and safety, not to make policy. If 

confirmed, I would endeavor to carry out that mission. Together with my fellow 

commissioners, and the NRC staff, I would continue ongoing efforts to ensure 

that NRC regulatory processes are as efficient as possible, consistent with its 

safety mission. 
62 


25055.041

7. If confirmed, will you ensure that uranium licensing is done more 

expeditiously while maintaining your agency's high standards for safety? 

If confirmed, I would work to ensure that the NRC addresses all business in an 

effective and efficient manner as possible as long as that does not compromise 

safety. 

8. Do you think the NRC should have a specific process for Section 106 

Consultations for dealing with cultural sites on or near licensed uranium 

recovery operations? If so, what would the process be? 

If confirmed, I would work to thoroughly review and analyze all of the issues 

involved in uranium recovery licensing and operations. I would welcome an 

opportunity to discuss this issue with you and hear your concerns. 

9. At the annual briefings on uranium recovery with the Commission, 

stakeholders are limited to 5 minutes in addressing their issues. Would you 

be willing to allow stakeholders additional time to address the Commission 

at briefings to the Commission on uranium recovery issues? 

I place a high priority on public involvement. If confirmed, I would work to 

understand how these briefings are structured, and if possible and agreeable to 

my fellow commissioners, be willing to consider adding more time to all 

stakeholders at these meetings. 
63 


25055.042

Environment and Public Works Committee 

Confirmation Hearing for Dr. Allison Macfarlane 

June 13, 2012 

Responses to Follow-up Questions from 

Senator Lamar Alexander 

1. DOE is building a facility in South Carolina that is scheduled to start 

producing mixed oxide fuel (MOX) fuel assemblies in 2018 by blending 

weapons plutonium with uranium. TVA is expected to be one of the first 

nuclear utilities to use MOX. TVA expects MOX fuel to cost less than uranium 

fuel, and to be safe. Can you assure me NRC will work expeditiously to 

approve the licensing of MOX fuel? Can you provide a timeline for the record? 

Although I am familiar with MOX fuel technology, I have not yet received a 

briefing on the status of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility and thus cannot 

speculate on license approval or timing. 
64 


25055.043

Environment and Public Works Committee 

Confirmation Hearing for Dr. Allison Macfarlane 

June 13, 2012 

Responses to Follow-up Questions from 

Senator Tom Udall 

1. The U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. recently struck down the NRC's "waste 

confidence" rule extending the amount of time we can store nuclear fuel on 

site at reactors. 

a. How do you think the Commission should respond to that decision? 

b. What do you think this decision means for future NRC regulation of 

spent fuel at reactor sires and for approving additional nuclear power 

plants? 

My understanding is that the Office of the General Counsel and the NRC staff are 

evaluating the effect of the court's decision. If confirmed, I look forward to 

participating in Commission deliberations on this important matter. 

2. Will you continue to improve U.S. nuclear plant safety following the disaster 

in Japan, including specifically fire safety requirements that have been 

waived numerous times over many years? 

If confirmed, I will endeavor to carry out the mission of the NRC, ensuring public 

health and safety. In doing so, I would look forward to learning more about the 

issue of fire safety requirements at nuclear power plants. I would be happy to 

discuss this issue with you further, if confirmed. 

3. There are reports that significant radioactive risks still remain at Fukushima, 

especially at the damaged spent fuel pools. Do you believe there are still 

serious risks at the Fukushima site today, and does the NRC have 

independent information about the site, beyond what is provided by TEPCO? 

I am aware of discussion of significant risks at Fukushima in the press, especially 

with regards to the spent fuel pools and seismic stability. As a nominee, 

however, I do not have access to all agency information. If confirmed, I look 

forward to reviewing the information compiled by NRC staff and will be happy to 

discuss this issue with you further after completing this review. 
65 


25055.044

4. In New Mexico, the NRC is actively involved with the URENCO LES uranium 

enrichment facility. Will you ensure that NRC continues to be as responsive 

as possible as this facility continues to ramp up production? 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the NRC carries out its mission as 

effectively and efficiently as possible without compromising safety. 

5. New Mexico has proposals for in-situ leach uranium mining, which is 

regulated by the NRC, in areas that are still cleaning up from uranium mining 

contamination from decades ago. Will you ensure that NRC fulfills its role in 

ongoing cleanups and that any new mining will not contaminate New 

Mexico's scarce water resources, especially in already impacted areas? 

I am aware that New Mexico faces the dual challenge of cleaning up old uranium 

mining contamination while opening new uranium recovery facilities. NRC 

regulates in situ uranium recovery facilities in addition to uranium milling and 

waste disposal from uranium recovery operations. Part of NRC's mission is to 

protect public health and safety and the environment. If confirmed, I will ensure 

that the NRC fulfills its mission to protect public health and safety, and the 

environment to the best of my ability. 

Questions regarding the NRC's regulation of the government supported U.S. 

Enrichment Corp. (USEC): 

6. USEC continues to be the recipient of large federal subsidies and special 

treatment from the Department of Energy, while competing with the 

URENCO facility in New Mexico, which my constituents believe is unfair. 

a. Will you ensure that NRC exercises its full safety regulatory authority 

over this financially struggling facility, particularly in light of recent 

arrangements by DOE, where it is "immediately tak[ing] ownership of 

the systems, equipment and IP" at the American Centrifuge Plant? 

If confirmed, I will endeavor to learn more about NRC's regulation of USEC and 

ensure, to the best of my ability, that it is regulated properly to maintain safety. 

b. USEC is granting IP rights to DOE to provide to 3rd parties, will you 

ensure the NRC regulates this properly? 

If confirmed, I will endeavor to Jearn more about NRC's regulation of USEC and 

ensure, to the best of my ability, that it is regulated properly. 
66 


25055.045

c. Will you ensure that NRC investigates whether USEC has the 

necessary financial assurances to operate with an adequate margin of 

safely, despite posting large operating losses in recent reporting 

periods? 

If confirmed, I will endeavor to learn more about NRC's regulation of USEC and 

ensure, to the best of my ability, that it is regulated properly to maintain safety. 

d. Will you make sure the NRC acts objectively despite the significant 

ongoing political pressure to keep these facilities operating, 

particularly in light of the June 2011 centrifuge crash and subsequent 

investigations? 

If confirmed, I will endeavor to learn more about NRC's regulation of USEC and 

ensure, to the best of my ability, that it is regulated properly to maintain safety. 

e. Has the NRC conducted a foreign ownership review associated with 

Toshiba's involvement with USEC? 

As a nominee, I do not have access to all of the NRC's information about USEC, 

but if confirmed, I will strive to develop a thorough understanding of the current 

situation. 
67 


25055.046

Environment and Public Works Committee 

Confirmation Hearing for Dr. Allison Macfarlane 

June 13, 2012 

Responses to Follow-up Questions from 

Senator John Boozman 

1. Last year, the NRC Inspector General found that the current Chairman has 

threatened to withhold his administrative approval of Commissioner travel 

funds for official business as a way to gain support for policy issues. 

a. In your view, what is the Chairman's role in approving travel funds for 

his colleagues for official business? 

According to the NRC's Internal Commission Procedures, "Commissioners 

approve requests for official travel (domestic and foreign) for themselves and 

their immediate staff." The Chairman is informed of foreign travel to "ensure 

adequate coordination and to avoid scheduling conflicts." 

b. Should the Chairman involve him or herself in anything more than an 

administrative check for funds availability? 

The Chairman should follow the guidelines in the Internal Commission 

Procedures and adhere to the applicable regulatory and statutory provisions. 

c. Do you believe that approval can be withheld on the basis of nonrelated policy disagreements? 

It is my understanding that Internal Commission Procedures do not provide for 

withholding travel funds based on unrelated policy differences. 

d. Should the Commissioners be given a role in approving travel funds 

for the Chairman's official travel requests? 

According to the NRC's Internal Commission Procedures, "Commissioners 

approve requests for official travel (domestic and foreign) for themselves and 

their immediate staff." The Chairman is informed of foreign travel to "ensure 

adequate coordination and to avoid scheduling conflicts." I believe that under 

the current Procedures, each Commissioner is responsible for him or herself. 
68 


25055.047

e. Do we need legislation to make such a change? 

It is my understanding that the NRC recently changed its Internal Commission 

Procedures so that each Commissioner is now responsible for his or her own 

travel approvals. 
69 


25055.048

Environment and Public Works Committee 

Confirmation Hearing for Dr. Allison Macfarlane 

June 13, 2012 

Responses to Follow-up Questions from 

Senator Mike Crapo 

1. As a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission you participated in a multi-year 

review of our Nation's policies on the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle and 

development of a comprehensive set of recommendations. As an 

independent regulatory agency, the NRC has a critical role in assuring that 

spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste is managed safely, 

securely, and in an environmentally sound manner. Are there BRC 

recommendations that fall into NRC's scope that you think should be a 

priority for Commission action? 

If confirmed, I look forward to hearing from BRC staff and working with my 

fellow commissioners on these issues. The BRC, in its final report, made a few 

recommendations that fall under the NRC's scope. For example, the BRC 

recommended that NRC continue its work "to develop a regulatory framework 

for advanced nuclear energy systems." In addition, the BRC supported a risk 

assessment approach to evaluating the safety of advanced nuclear energy 

systems. 

The BRC report suggested that the NRC and Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) should begin working closely together to develop a process for 

establishing a new generic disposal facility standard as well as a regulatory 

framework and standards for deep borehole disposal of high-level nuclear 

waste. 

The BRC recommended that a proposed NRC project, the Package Performance 

Study, concerning transportation packages, be re-assessed in light of recent 

developments and, if the proposed test has value independent from timing, 

licensing or other issues related to Yucca Mountain, NRC should fund and 

conduct such a test. 

The BRC report suggested that the NRC should undertake studies to develop the 

technical basis for transport of higher burn-up spent fuel from reactors and to 

better understand how spent fuel stored for extended periods would perform 

when subsequently shipped. 

2. The Blue Ribbon Commission briefly examined but did not take a stance on 

the issue of co-mingling defense and civilian nuclear waste under a new 
70 


25055.049

nuclear waste management organization. Do you believe the disposal of 

defense wastes should remain the responsibility of the Department of Energy 

in order to ensure commitments made in state settlement agreements are 

properly preserved? 

The Blue Ribbon Commission report noted that a number of issues require 

detailed re-examination before deciding on the commingling of defense and 

commercial wastes. I agree with this position. The issues requiring reexamination include the "shift in focus at DOE away from the production of 

materials for nuclear weapons to the cleanup and disposal of legacy wastes ... the 

establishment oflegally-binding site clean-up commitments that require DOE to 

remove defense wastes from some sites ... the current lack of statutory authority 

to develop a repository at a site other than Yucca Mountain ... successful 

development and operation of a geologic repository (WIPP) ... and our 

recommendations to establish a new organization outside of DOE to develop and 

operate repositories." 

3. In interviews and publication you have stated that the Yucca Mountain site is 

not suitable for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 

radioactive waste. As NRC Chairman, what would you do if either court 

decisions or congressional direction dictate that NRC must restart the Yucca 

Mountain licensing proceedings? 

If either a court decision or congressional direction dictate that the NRC must 

restart the Yucca Mountain licensing proceedings, I would consult with my 

fellow commissioners and general counsel to ensure that all appropriate next 

steps are taken. 

I also wish to reiterate that I have not examined all of the recent evidence and 

analysis on Yucca Mountain, including the Department of Energy's license 

application and the NRC's technical review of that application and I have no 

position on this issue. 

4. Considering the tremendous amount of study devoted to Yucca Mountain 

over the past decades, isn't there significant value in utilizing the consentbased approach called for in the BRC report to complete the Yucca Mountain 

licensing review? 

It is my under existing law, the NRC does not select sites, but instead licenses 

sites for use. 
71 


25055.050

Environment and Public Works Committee 

Confirmation Hearing for Dr. Allison Macfarlane 

June 13, 2012 

Responses to Follow-up Questions from 

Senator Thomas Carper 

1. Currently, there is significant research and development into technologies 

that will allow us to have safer, waste reducing, proliferation resistant, and 

more cost competitive reactors. If you are confirmed, what will you do to 

ensure coordination with the Department of Energy and the private sector to 

help push these technologies along? 

The mission of the NRC is to "license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of 

nuclear materials to protect the public health and safety, promote the common 

defense and security, and protect the environment." As such, the NRC does not 

promote technologies. I understand that the NRC is in contact with the DOE to 

better understand emerging technologies and prepare to regulate them. 

2. Can you talk more about your work and your involvement in nuclear issuesas a citizen and informed participant in that discussion, what could the NRC 

do better? What ideas do you have to make the NRC better? 

The NRC is a highly regarded organization internationally, and has an excellent 

and dedicated staff that work hard every day to maintain that reputation. I have 

spent most of my career analyzing policies and technical issues related to 

nuclear waste and energy from a scientific viewpoint. If confirmed, I will 

continually examine ways to apply my experiences working with external 

stakeholders, academics, and other regulatory bodies to improve the NRC. 

[Note: A supplement to Ms. Macfarlane's responses to questions for the 

record is available in Committee files.] 
72 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Commissioner Svinicki. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you Madam Chairman, Ranking Member 

Inhofe, and members of the Committee. I am grateful to President 

Obama for nominating me to an additional term of service on the 

Commission. If the Senate acts favorably on my nomination, I 

would be privileged to continue this work. 

I congratulate Dr. Macfarlane on her nomination and extend my 

best wishes to her in this confirmation process. 

I am grateful for and humbled by the kind introduction of Senator Sessions. I was very privileged to serve Senator Sessions and 

other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and 

learned much in those years of service. 

When I arrived at the NRC in March 2008, I joined an agency 

already deeply active in the review of applications for the construction of new nuclear plants and new reactor designs, an agency continuing to adapt its security framework to post-9/11 realities, and 

an agency whose regulatory program is regarded as among the 

most informed and disciplined in the world. In approaching this 

work, I have researched the facts and history of issues, and have 

endeavored to understand fully the effect of proposed regulatory 

changes. I have also looked to the fundamental guidepost envisioned in the NRC’s Principles of Good Regulation, of Independence, Openness, Efficiency, Clarity, and Reliability, in assessing the 

issues. 

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

sharper relief for the American public. Nuclear technology is 

unique, and its use demands an unwavering commitment to safety 

principles. When I last appeared before this Committee in March, 

the NRC had just issued a series of orders to nuclear power plant 

licensees requiring features to mitigate beyond design basis extreme natural events, requiring the installation of hardened venting systems, and requiring enhanced instrumentation for spent fuel 

pools. 

The NRC is also requiring nuclear power plant licensees to undertake substantial reevaluations of seismic and flooding hazards 

at their sites. Since issuing these requirements 3 months ago, the 

NRC has been developing and communicating the specific guidance 

for implementing the requirements and has continued to hold public meetings on these topics. This work has benefited from the 

input of nuclear operators, nuclear safety and environmental interest groups, and the public. 

Of course, none of this could be achieved without the hard work 

and commitment of the women and men of the NRC, and their sustained efforts to advance the NRC’s mission of ensuring adequate 

protection of public health and safety and promoting the common 

defense and security. Their commitment over the last 4 years has 

inspired and impressed me. I would like to take this opportunity 

to convey my personal gratitude to each of them for welcoming me 

to the NRC in 2008 and supporting me in the contributions I have 

endeavored to make to our shared goals. 

73 

Madam Chairman, Senator Inhofe, and members of the Committee, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today 

and look forward to the Committee’s questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Svinicki follows:] 

74 


25055.051

WRITTEN TESTIMONY 

OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER 

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

BEFORE THE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

JUNE 13, 2012 

Thank you Madam Chairman, Ranking Member lnhofe, and members of the Committee. I am 

grateful to President Obama for nominating me to an additional term of service on the 

Commission. If the Senate acts favorably on my nomination, I would be privileged to continue 

this work. 

When I arrived at NRC in March of 2008, I joined an agency already deeply active in the review 

of applications for the construction of new nuclear plants and new reactor designs; an agency 

continuing to adapt its security framework to post-9/11 realities; and an agency whose 

regulatory program is regarded as among the most informed and disciplined in the world. In 

approaching this work, I have researched the facts and the history of issues, and have 

endeavored to understand fully the effect of proposed regulatory changes. I have also looked to 

the fundamental guideposts envisioned in the NRC's Principles of Good Regulation -

Independence, Openness, Efficiency, Clarity, and Reliability- in assessing the issues. 

The tragic events in Japan in 2011 cast NRC's work into even sharper relief for the American 

public. Nuclear technology is unique and its use demands an unwavering commitment to safety 

principles. When I last appeared before this Committee in March, the NRC had just issued a 

series of orders to nuclear power plant licensees requiring features to mitigate beyond design 

basis extreme natural events, the installation of hardened venting systems, and enhanced 

instrumentation for spent fuel pools. The NRC is also requiring nuclear power plant licensees to 

undertake substantial reevaluations of seismic and flooding hazards at their sites. Since issuing 

these requirements three months ago, the NRC has been developing and communicating the 

specific guidance for implementing these requirements and has continued to hold public 

meetings on these topics. This work has benefited from the input of nuclear operators, nuclear 

safety and environmental interest groups, and the public. 

Of course, none of this could be achieved without the hard work and commitment of the women 

and men of the NRC and their sustained efforts to advance the NRC's mission of ensuring 

adequate protection of public health and safety and promoting the common defense and 

security. Their commitment has inspired and impressed me. I would like to take this 

opportunity to convey my personal gratitude to each of them for welcoming me to the NRC and 

supporting me in the contributions I have endeavored to make to our shared goals. 

Madam Chairman, Senator lnhofe, and members of the Committee, thank you. I appreciate the 

opportunity to appear today and look forward to the Committee's questions. 
75 


25055.052

Questions from; 

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing 

June 13, 2012 

Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

1) Will you commit to review the NRC's current Internal Commission Procedures to ensure that 

the Commission conducts its work with the utmost openness and transparency? 

The Internal Commission Procedures are reviewed by the Commission biennially. The next 

review of Internal Commission Procedures is scheduled for July 2013, and I will continue to 

strive to ensure that the Procedures adhere to the NRC's Principles of Good Regulation, 

which include the principle of openness. 

2) Provide a copy of all written exchanges (known as "COMs'J on matters that you have 

brought to the attention of your fellow Commissioners during your appointment to the 

Commission. 

I have not formally introduced any COMs during my tenure on the Commission. 

3) Will you support a review of the adequacy of NRC's regulations (at 10 CFR 50.59) to provide 

assurance of the safety of modifications to nuclear power plants? 

On January 31, 2012, the licensee at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Unit 

3 performed a rapid shutdown because of indications of a steam generator tube leak. The 

licensee subsequently identified unexpected wear caused by steam generator tubes 

rubbing. This was the first cycle of operation with new replacement steam generators. The 

licensee's evaluations of steam generator replacement designs were done in accordance 

with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR} 50.59, "Changes, Tests and 

Experiments," and did not require license amendments for the new designs, except for 

related aspects such as tube plugging thickness changes done under amendments. 

Following the steam generator tube leak at SONGS Unit 3, the question has been raised 

regarding how steam generator replacement could be performed without formal NRC review 

and approval of the design through a license amendment, giving the NRC the opportunity to 

identify and correct the deficiencies resulting in tube leak. 

An NRC Augmented Inspection Team (AlT) was dispatched to evaluate the steam generator 

replacements in SONGS Unit 2 and 3. The NRC will review the AIT results and any 

associated lessons learned, and consider the NRC's overall licensing and inspection 

framework- including, but not limited to, 10 CFR 50.59. I support this review. 

4) The first recommendation of the NRC's near-term task force on enhancing reactor safety 

following Fukushima stated that the NRC should establish •a logical, systematic, and 

coherent regulatory framework for adequate protection" of public health and safety. Will you 

commit to take steps to expedite this recommendation? What specific steps could you 

underlake to expedite this recommendation? 

Enclosure 
76 


25055.053

2 

In the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) for SECY-11-0093, "Near-Term Report and 

Recommendations for Agency Actions Following the Events in Japan," the Commission 

directed the NRC staff to provide options and a staff recommendation for disposition of 

Recommendation 1 in a notation vote paper within 18 months of the issuance of the SRM 

(February 2013). The Commission deliberately directed that Recommendation 1 should be 

pursued independent of activities associated with the review of the other Task Force 

recommendations. This timeframe is intended to allow the staff to take into account the 

cumulative lessons learned and stakeholder input from the review of other Task Force 

recommendations, and therefore, would enable the staff to present a full range of options for 

addressing this recommendation. I continue to support the Commission's selection of this 

timeframe and the benefits provided by this approach. 

5) Describe some of the radioactive materials released by the Fukushima Daiichi plant, the 

length of time that they stay radioactive, and their potential harm to human health and cause 

damage to such industries as agriculture and fishing. 

Reactor operations create many types of radioisotopes, either as a direct result of the fission 

process {fission products) or radiation impinging upon materials (activation products). 

Those radionuclides that are gaseous, volatile at high temperatures, or contained in 

particulates, can be released in a nuclear accident. Each radioisotope has a specific halflife, which is the time for half of the radioactivity to decay. Example radioisotopes that are 

often of most interest to studying human health effects of releases from reactor accidents 

include Cesium-137 (30 year half-life), lodine-131 (8 days), Cesium-134 (2 years), and 

Strontium-90 (29 years). Specific to the Fukushima accident, there have been multiple 

estimates of the amount of radioactivity released. The operator, Tokyo Electric Power 

Company (TEPCO), provided its most recent estimate on May 24, 2012. This detailed 

information can be found at !J1!JW.Y:f:!:!.Y!L!~~~i.Q/!lliLJ[llil§.§L£QJJ2: 

On May 23, 2012, an initial evaluation of radiation exposure from the nuclear accident at 

Fukushima was published by an International Expert Panel convened by the World Health 

Organization (WHO), to be found at 

http:/lwww.who.int/iQ!11Zing radiation/pub meetlfukushirna dose assessmentlen/. This 

study makes preliminary radiation dose estimates based on official information on the 

amount of radioactivity in air, soil, water, and food supplies after the accident The WHO 

study concluded that in most of Fukushima prefecture, the estimated effective doses are 

within a dose band of 0.1 - 1 rem (1-1 0 mSv), except in two of the example locations 

where the effective doses are estimated to be within a dose band of 1-5 rem (1Q-50 mSv), 

For comparison, the average background radiation from natural sources in the U.S. is 0.31 

rem. 

In the aftermath of Fukushima, the Japanese closely monitored the uptake of radionuclides 

in the surrounding flora and fauna. This included assessments of the impacts of the event 

on the marine environment and surrounding agriculture. Where necessary, the Japanese 

took measures to restrict certain of these goods from entering the food chain. 

6) To what extent does the NRC consider all costs, including such things as the cost of 

evacuations, and long-term impacts to the environment and industries, from a potential 

release of radioactive material from a nuclear power plant when determining whether to 

require safety enhancements at nuclear power plants? Do you think the NRC adequately 
77 


25055.054

3 

captures all related costs to public health and safety, defense and secunly, and the 

environment in determining whether to require safety measures at the nation's nuclear 

power plants? How would you assess the nuclear disaster at Fukushima in connection with 

these types of costs? 

The NRC considers a broad range of costs and benefits when determining whether to 

require safety enhancements at nuclear power plants. The NRC's NUREG/BR-0184, 

"Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook," directs that a value-impact analysis 

consider a wide range of attributes that could be affected by the proposed regulatory action 

(e.g., a proposed safety enhancement at a nuclear power plant). One of these attributes, 

discussed in Section 5 of NUREG/BR-0184, considers changes to offsite property in various 

forms, including costs of evacuations and indirect impacts to tourism and other industries. 

This same analysis also considers interdiction measures, such as decontamination and 

cleanup costs. 

In determining whether to require additional safety measures at nuclear power plants 

(beyond what is required to provide adequate protection), the NRC first determines whether 

a proposed safety enhancement provides a substantial increase in public health and safety. 

Assuming the safety enhancement does provide a substantial safety increase, the NRC then 

assesses whether the costs are justified, given the additional benefit of the enhancements. 

The NRC staff believes that the regulatory analysis guidelines, which are used to conduct 

the cost/benefit analysis, are comprehensive with regard to assessing costs and benefits. 

In light of the recent events at Fukushima, the staff intends to submit to the Commission a 

paper on how economic consequences are addressed in regulatory analyses. This paper 

will provide a historical summary of "backfit" and regulatory analysis policy considerations, 

and discuss current staff practices. This paper will also provide options for the 

Commission's consideration regarding whether, and the extent to which, the NRC's 

regulatory framework should modify consideration of economic consequences of the 

unintended release of licensed nuclear materials to the environment. 

7) How do you document meetings and other activities that you conduct as an NRC 

Commissioner and how do you make this information available to the public. Do you agree 

that this information should be made available to the public, including a complete description 

of meetings with stakeholders? 

To foster an atmosphere of open and free communication within the agency and with the 

agency's stakeholders, I adopted the NRC's existing open door policy. Consistent with the 

open door policy and safety culture values, I strive to create an environment where any 

person or organization may raise concerns with me without the potential chill of that meeting 

being publicly advertised. I do maintain a record of my meetings on my professional 

calendar, which has been requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In 

response to these requests. I have released my calendar fully, with the exception of 

personal privacy information protected under FOIA. 

8) Provide the NRC guidance for staff bonuses and awards for the two most recently 

completed fiscal years. 

Please see Attachments 1 and 2. 
78 


25055.055

4 

9) Provide documentation of the individual amounts of bonuses and awards that you provided 

to each of your staff for the past two completed fiscal years. Describe whether these 

bonuses and awards conformed to the guidance on bonuses and awards. 

The appraisal period for my staff is based on Commissioner terms (July 1 -June 30) rather 

than fiscal year (FY). The bonuses and awards for the 2010 and 2011 periods of 

performance conformed to agency guidance (Attachment 1) and were processed by the 

NRC Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO). The bonuses and awards for the 

period of performance from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012, when they are issued, will 

conform to the OCHCO guidance issued on November 16, 2011 (Attachment 2), which 

imposed limits on the amounts agencies can spend on various types of awards beginning in 

FY 2012. 

Bonuses and Awards for the Office of Commissioner Svinicki 

Period of Performance 2010 2011 

Staff Pay Plan Bonus Award Bonus Award 

Senior Level Service (SLS) $10,000 $12,000 $10,000 $6,000 

SLS $0 $0 $9,000 $5,000 

SLS $8,000 $0 $7,000 $0 

SLS $8,000 $0 $8,500 $0 

General Grade (GG) $3,000 $0 $5,000 $0 

GG $3,500 $0 $5.000 $0 
79 


25055.056

5 

Senator Carper 

1) Currently, there is significant research and development into technologies that will allow us 

to have safer, waste reducing, proliferation resistant, and more cost competitive reactors. If 

you are confirmed, what will you do to ensure coordination with the Department of Energy 

and the private sector to help push these technologies along? 

The NRC's role is the regulation of commercial uses of nuclear material and not the 

development or promotion of nuclear technologies. Nevertheless, NRC maintains close 

contact with the Department of Energy and private industry so that we are aware of new and 

emerging technologies. This enables NRC to address regulatory policy issues in a timely 

manner and have our staff prepared to engage in pre-application and licensing reviews to 

ensure the safety and security of licensed designs. 

2) Now that you have almost five years with the Commission, could you please highlight for this 

committee how the NRC has addressed safety culture at U.S. nuclear plants and how the 

NRC continues to work to assure a culture of safety for the future? 

The NRC fosters continuous efforts to assure that a positive safety culture exists at nuclear 

power plants and will continue to do so. Over the last five years, the NRC has engaged in 

multiple activities to address safety culture at nuclear power plants in the United States. 

In 2007, after safety culture was incorporated into the Reactor Oversight Process {ROP), the 

NRC performed the first supplemental inspection that included an independent safety 

culture assessment by the NRC. This procedure was developed to inspect the adequacy of 

safety culture at nuclear power plants that have degraded performance. The lessons 

learned from this inspection led to a significant revision in 2009 of the inspection procedures 

used by the NRC to evaluate indications of a licensee's safety culture. Subsequently, the 

inspection guidance used for the oversight of facilities that are shut down due to 

performance/operational concerns was improved to reflect these lessons learned. 

The NRC encourages open communication with external stakeholders and observes 

activities involving plant safety culture. In 2010, the NRC observed the activities associated 

with a Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) initiative on fostering a strong nuclear safety culture. 

This included observing safety culture assessment methods, as well as meetings at several 

sites, and providing feedback on our observations to the external stakeholders. 

The Commission published a Safety Culture Policy Statement in the Federal Register on 

June 14, 2011. The Policy Statement communicates the Commission's expectations that 

individuals at nuclear power plants establish and monitor a positive safety culture 

commensurate with the safety and security significance of their activities. These 

expectations have been communicated to the industry and shared with other government 

entities through outreach activities. 

Following the publication of the Safety Culture Policy Statement, the NRC restarted an effort 

to work with external stakeholders to develop a common language to describe the attributes 

of safety culture for use both by the NRC and the industry. In addition, the NRC is 

improving inspector training to include more aspects of safety culture and the Safety Culture 

Policy Statement 
80 


25055.057

6 

3) Since this is your second time being nominated for the NRC, what do you wish you knew 

then that you know now? 

As a Commissioner-nominee in 2007, I had an understanding of the NRC and its important 

missions derived principally from things I had studied and read. Over my term of service as 

a Commissioner, this conceptual understanding has been put to use in the day-to-day 

regulatory environment. I have applied myself to continued study of the regulatory programs 

and processes of the NRC, as well as its organization and administration. I have also 

continued to study the history of issues and the development of NRC's regulatory 

framework. I believe it was Admiral Rickover who first said, "Thoughts arising from practical 

experience may be a bridle or a spur. • If I have the privilege of being confirmed by the 

Senate for another term, I will further apply this accumulated experience to the significant 

issues before the Commission. 
81 


25055.058

7 

Senator Tom Udall 

1) The U.S. Court of Appeals for D. C. recently struck down the NRC's "waste confidence" rule 

extending the amount of time we can store nuclear fuel on site at reactors. 

a) How do you think the Commission should respond to this decision? 

b) What do you think this decision means for future NRC regulation of spent fuel at reactor 

sites and for approving additional nuclear power plants? 

My understanding is that the Office of the General Counsel and NRC staff are evaluating the 

D.C. Circuit's waste confidence decision and its implications, and will be providing options 

for the Commission's consideration. A carefully review this analysis would underlie any view 

I would form on how the agency should respond to the decision. 

2) Will you continue to improve U.S. nuclear plant safety following the disaster in Japan, 

including specificafly fire safety requirements that have been waived numerous times over 

many years? 

The Commission assures adequate protection of the public health and safety through 

inspections, including fire protection inspections, performed as part of the reactor oversight 

process. The NRC continues efforts to resolve fire safety legacy issues through the 

following activities: 

Sites reassessing their fire protection program and making plant modifications to 

voluntarily transition their licensing basis to the risk-informed fire protection regulation 

(10 CFR 50.48(c), referred to as "NFPA 805"). 

o Four reactor units at two sites have transitioned as part of the pilot plant program. 

o Ten units at nine sites are currently undergoing license amendment reviews. 

o Thirty-four units intend to submit requests to transition over the next .couple of years. 

• Fifty-six reactor units, which are not transitioning to NFPA 805, are utilizing new 

regulatory guidance and risk-informed insights to evaluate their fire safety legacy issues. 

Exemption requests and plant modifications are utilized, as appropriate, to resolve these 

issues. 

• Ongoing research, nationally (e.g., at the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology) and internationally, increases the level of knowledge and leads to 

development of tools to further reduce the risk of fires at nuclear power plants. 

3) There are reports that significant radioactive risks still remain at Fukushima, especially at the 

damaged spent fuel pools. Do you believe that there are still serious risks at the Fukushima 

site today, and does the NRC have independent information about the site, beyond what it 

provided by TEPCO? 

The Japanese government, in coordination with the facility owner Tokyo Electric Power 

Company (TEPCO), has made significant progress in addressing technical and health and 

safety issues at the Fukushima Dai-ichi facility that resulted from the earthquake and 

tsunami events of March 2011. By year end 2011, they had completed initial site 

stabilization activities required prior to pursuing plans for spent fuel removal and further site 

decommissioning. These initial efforts included more stable cooling of spent fuel pools 

(SFPs), stabilization of all reactors at the site in a state equivalent to cold shutdown, steady 

decreases in radiation levels, and greater control over the release of radioactive material at 
82 


25055.059

8 

the site. Onsite activities are currently working within Phase 1 of a three-phase 

decontamination and decommissioning plan for the site, consisting of preparation for sp 

fuel removal activities from the Unit 1 through Unit 4 SFPs. Spent fuel removal is schec 

to begin in late 2013. Phase 2 targets a period of up to 10 years, during which spent fut 

will be removed from the four SFPs, and Phase 3 addresses the removal of fuel debris 1 

the reactor vessels and final decommissioning activities, lasting from 30 to 40 years fror 

beginning of Phase 1. This work is a complex undertaking, the risks of which must be 

carefully managed. 

The NRC is aware that the Japanese public has expressed concern regarding the stabil 

the Unit 4 SFP, in particular, the stability of the Unit 4 SFP located at an elevation abovt 

ground level within the Unit 4 reactor building. The Unit 4 reactor building did suffer 

considerable damage from a hydrogen explosion at the site. NRC staff met with 

representatives of TEPCO and the Japanese Nuclear Industrial and Safety Agency (NI~ 

who shared information with the NRC staff regarding TEPCO's plan to install additional 

support (steel beams with a concrete fill) to further stabilize the Unit 4 SFP. NRC learnE 

that TEPCO had performed the necessary calculations and analysis to conclude that in 

current condition, the Unit 4 SFP could withstand another design basis seismic event 

without the planned additional steel and concrete support. By August 1, 2011, TEPCO 

completed the installation of additional support to the Unit 4 SFP. Based upon TEPCO' 

reported actions and the independent review and acceptance of these actions by the Ja 

Nuclear Energy Safety Organization on behalf of NISA, the NRC believes that the stabil 

the Unit 4 SFP has been enhanced by the additional steel and concrete reinforcing feat1 

Further, on February 7 and Apri112, 2012, in response to concerns raised by interested 

Japanese stakeholders, TEPCO completed measurements within the Unit 4 reactor buil 

at the elevation of the Unit 4 SFP and concluded that the Unit 4 reactor building was lev 

TEPCO also provided additional, summary information from further analyses and 

inspections at the site and concluded that the Unit 4 reactor building is capable of 

withstanding a future seismic event with ground motion at the site equivalent to the 

earthquake that occurred on March 11, 2011. 

4) In New Mexico, the NRC is actively involved with the URENCO LES uranium enrichmet 

facility. Will you ensure that NRC continues to be as responsive as possible as this fac1 

continues to ramp up production? 

Yes. The NRC has sought to be, and will continue to strive to be, as responsive as pos 

to licensing actions and inspections for the URENCO LES facility as it ramps up produc 

5) New Mexico has proposals for in-situ leach uranium mining, which is regulated by the f\ 

in areas that are still cleaning up from uranium mining contamination from decades ago 

Will you ensure that NRC fulfills its role in ongoing cleanups and that any new mining w 

contaminate New Mexico's scarce water resources, especially in already impacted arec. 

Under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978, NRC and its 

Agreement States have responsibility for regulatory oversight of uranium milling, which 

includes the process of in-situ recovery of uranium (otherwise know as in-situ leach). 

Regulation of uranium mining is the responsibility of other state and Federal agencies. 

Contamination resulting from the milling of uranium ore in New Mexico occurred at lega 

mills that operated during the 1950s into the 1980s, prior to implementation of the statu: 

and regulatory infrastructure needed to prevent contamination from the mill operations. 
83 


25055.060

9 

Since passage of UMTRCA, the NRC has worked with the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of New Mexico to address the 

contamination from these legacy mills. Progress has been made, but more needs to be 

done and the NRC is committed to supporting the restoration of these legacy sites. 

Although NRC does not have regulatory responsibility for mining, NRC is cooperating with 

other state and Federal agencies in coordinated efforts to address contamination on Navajo 

lands under a five-year plan, and is similarly working with EPA and the State of New Mexico 

on contamination from uranium mining activities in the Grants Mineral Belt, near Grants, 

New Mexico. 

In terms of new uranium recovery mills that might be licensed by the NRC in New Mexico, 

the NRC implements generally applicable standards developed by EPA that now require 

measures such as liners for tailings impoundments to prevent groundwater contamination 

and strict restoration of groundwater in areas of in-situ recovery of uranium. Moreover, NRC 

shares regulatory oversight of protection of groundwater with EPA and state agencies under 

their underground injection control authority. 

Companies are also required to maintain adequate financial assurance for decommissioning 

of conventional and in-situ recovery mills and to provide for decommissioning in a timely 

manner. These requirements are intended to protect against the potential for the formation 

of new legacy sites in New Mexico. 

Questions regarding the NRC's regulation of the government supported U.S. Enrichment Corp. 

(USEC): 

6) USEC continues to be the recipient of large federal subsidies and special treatment from the 

Department of Energy, while competing with the URENCO facility in New Mexico, which my 

constituents believe is unfair. 

a) Will you ensure that NRC exercises its full safety authority over this financially struggling 

facility, particularly in light of the recent arrangements by DOE, where it is "immediately 

tak[ing] ownership of the systems, equipment and IP" at the American Centrifuge Plant? 

Yes. NRC exercises its full regulatory authority over USEC. The NRC will continue to 

ensure that USEC's activities under NRC's purview continue to be performed safely and 

securely, in accordance with its NRC license and NRC regulations, and to ensure 

protection of public health and safety. 

b) USEC is granting IP rights to DOE to provide to :1" parties, will you ensure the NRC 

regulates this properly? 

The NRC has no regulatory jurisdiction over this matter. 

c) Will you ensure the NRC investigates whether USEC has the necessary financial 

assurances to operate with adequate margin safely, despite posting large operating 

losses in recent reporting periods? 

Yes. As part of its regulatory process, the NRC routinely inspects licensees to ensure 

facilities are operated in accordance with NRC requirements. If, at the time of an 

inspection. the NRC determines that any part of licensee operations is not safe, the NRC 
84 


25055.061

10 

will evaluate the cause and take the necessary actions to have the licensee correct the 

deficiencies. The NRC can take enforcement actions and, if necessary, suspend the 

license. In the event of premature shutdown of the facility, the licensee's 

decommissioning financial assurance instrument can be accessed to decommission the 

facility if the licensee is unable to perform the activity. 

d) Will you make sure the NRC acts objectively despite the significant ongoing political 

pressure to keep these facilities operating, particularly in light of the June 2011 

centrifuge crash and subsequent investigations? 

Yes, the NRC will continue to carry out its regulatory mission objectively. 

e) Has the NRC conducted a foreign ownership review associated with Toshiba's 

involvement with USEC? 

Yes. By letter dated March 30, 2010, USEC informed the NRC of negotiations 

concerning Toshiba's investment in USEC's American Centrifuge Project. 

Subsequently, USEC submitted a request for a Foreign Ownership, Control, and 

Influence (FOCI) determination related to this transaction. The NRC reviewed the 

information provided by USEC and, on the basis of its review, the NRC determined that 

the initial investment by Toshiba does not significantly impact the current FOCI status of 

USEC. Definitive agreements between USEC and the investor were provided to the 

NRC in June 2010. The NRC reviewed the definitive agreements between USEC and 

Toshiba and noted that the agreements stipulate that Toshiba will have the right to elect 

one member to the USEC Board. Based on the information provided by USEC, after the 

completion of the Phase 1 transaction, the Board of Directors would consist of 1 0 to 12 

Directors, one of whom would be appointed by Toshiba. This Director would have no 

veto rights. The NRC required USEC to adopt resolutions to ensure that the Toshiba 

representative will not have access to classified and export controlled information. The 

NRC has confirmed that these resolutions have been adopted. 
85 


25055.062

11 

Senator Barrasso 

1) Is there any issue that you would like to clarify for the record with regard to accusations or 

statements made by fellow members of the Senate Environment and Public Works 

Committee? 

I have great respect for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its staff. I recognize that 

my positions on policy matters have not always gained universal support, but I have 

endeavored to assess all issues before the Commission objectively, based on facts and 

technical analyses. Although unanimity is not always achievable, I am committed to working 

colfegially with my colleagues and believe that the Commission, as an institution, benefits 

from the diverse views of its members. 
86 


25055.063

ATTACHMENT 1 
87 


25055.064

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE (MD) 

MD 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION DT-11-08 

Volume 10, 

Parl3: 

Approved By: 

Date Approved: 

Personnel Management 

Performance Appraisals, Awards, and Training 

Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman 

July 18,2011 

Expiration Date: July 18. 2016 

Issuing Office: Office of Human Resources 

Human Resources Policy and Programs Team 

Contact: Alison Tallarico 

301-492-2326 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Management Directive and Handbook 10.72 contain the program requirements and practices 

used to award and recognize NRC employees. 

Directive and Handbook 10.72 are being revised to reflect the following changes in policies 

and procedures: 

• The name of the Management Directive has been changed from "Incentive Awards" to 

"Awards and Recognition" to clarify the intent as well as the objectives of the program. 

• The directive and handbook now emphasize the expectation that cash awards based 

on performance ratings reflect meaningful distinctions in levels of performance. 

• Senior Level System (SLS) employees, except SLS Commissioner Assistants, are 

now allowed to receive the cash component of NRC's Distinguished and Meritorious 

Service Awards. 

• Employees receiving performance ratings of Fully Successful are now eligible to 

receive performance awards. 

• Employees receiving performance ratings of Outstanding, rather than Outstanding and 

Excellent, are now eligible to receive High Quality Increases. 

• The directive and handbook now include information on referral awards. Also, the 

referral award amount has been increased. 

• Time off may be used as a performance award. Also, the maximum amount of time 

that may be granted has been revised. 

• The amounts of NRC's Meritorious Service Awards have been increased. 

• NRC's Commendation Awards have been revised so that they may be granted to 

individuals as well as groups. 

Attachment 1 
88 


25055.065

MD 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date Approved: 07/18/2011 

I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Higher award amounts may be approved for individual cash and time-off awards (see 

Exhibit 1). 

Procedural guidance on pay, awards, and incentives contained in the previous 

directive and handbook has been incorporated into a document, "General Procedural 

Guidance for Awards and Recognition," on the Office of Human Resources (HR) 

intranet Web site, http://www.internal.nrc.gov/HRiaward:auidance.html. 

• The NRC's Edward McGaffigan, Jr. Public Service Award has been established. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. POLICY .............................................................................................................................. 3 

II. OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................... 3 

Ill. ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY ........... 3 

A Chairman ...................................................................................................................... 3 

B. Commissioners ............................................................................................................ .4 

C. Executive Director for Operations (EDO) ..................................................................... .4 

D. Inspector General (I G) ................................................................................................. .4 

E. Senior Performance Officials (SPOs) ........................................................................... .4 

F. Director, Office of Human Resources (HR) ................................................................. ..4 

G. Office Directors and Regional Administrators ............................................................... 5 

H. Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) ................................................................. 5 

I. Managers and Supervisors ........................................................................................... 5 

J. Employees .................................................................................................................... 5 

IV. APPLICABILITY ................................................................................................................ 5 

A. All NRC Employees .................................................................................................... 5 

B. Administrative Law Judges, Experts, Consultants ......................................................... 5 

V. HANDBOOK ...................................................................................................................... 5 

VI. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 6 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 
89 


25055.066

MD 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date API)rO\rea: 07/18/2011 

I. POLICY 

It is the policy of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC} to recognize and reward 

the individual or group achievements of its employees who, in connection with or related to 

official employment, contribute to meeting organizational goals or improving the efficiency, 

effectiveness, and economy of the agency and/or the Government, or that are otherwise in 

the public interest 

II. OBJECTIVES 

- To improve agency and Government efficiency, economy, and effectiveness; support 

and enhance the NRC and national goals; and obtain maximum benefits for the 

Government. 

- To express appreciation for the contributions that benefit the agency. 

- To motivate employees to increase the quality, productivity, and creativity of their work. 

- To motivate employees to improve agency operations. 

- To provide an incentive for excellence. 

- To celebrate individual and organizational successes. 

- To reinforce not only NRC's core values but also its safety culture. 

- To ensure that performance awards granted based on ratings of record make 

meaningful distinctions based on levels af performance. This will ensure the integrity of 

rating-based cash awards. 

Ill. ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY 

A. Chairman 

1. Provides personal leadership to the Awards and Recognition Program. 

2. Approves awards for employees of the Chairman's immediate staff as well as other 

awards as indicated in Exhibit 1 of this handbook. 

3. Approves exceptions to award scales and to the provisions of this directive for 

employees under the jurisdiction of the Chairman, the Commissioners, and 

Commission staff offices. 

4. Submits award recommendations that are in excess of $10,000 up to $25,000 for 

individuals, or individuals as part of a group, to the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) for approval and in excess of $25,000 for individuals, or individuals as part of 

a group, to OPM for Presidential approvaL 

5. Appoints the Senior Performance Official(s). 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 3 
90 


25055.067

MD 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION 

B. Commissioners 

Approve awards as indicated in Exhibit 1 of this handbook. 

C. Executive Director for Operations (EOO) 

1. Approves awards as indicated in Exhibit 1 of this handbook 

2. Approves exceptions to the provisions of this directive and to the award scales set 

forth in Exhibits 2 and 3 of this handbook. 

0. Inspector General (IG) 

1. Approves awards for employees of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) as 

indicated in Exhibit 1 of this handbook, as well as other awards in accordance with 

the awards policies and procedures outlined in the "OIG Employee Recognition and 

Awards program" guidance. 

2. Approves exceptions to the provisions of this directive and the awards scales set 

forth in Exhibits 2 and 3 of this handbook. 

3. Establishes and maintains a system for funding and allocating funds or other 

appropriate recordkeeping procedures relating to incentive awards that are approved 

by the Inspector General. 

E. Senior Performance Officials (SPOs) 

Provides oversight of and guidelines for performance evaluation and awards for Senior 

Executive Service members. 

F. Director, Office of Human Resources (HR) 

1. Manages the agency's Awards and Recognition Program. 

2. Ensures that personnel resources are available for the coordination of the awards 

ceremony to be held annually at headquarters. 

3. Provides for technical review of and concurrence on proposed awards, as 

appropriate. 

4. Submits an annual report to OPM on program activities and expenditures for the 

fiscal year. 

5. Periodically evaluates the program and prepares reports, as required. 

6. Provides appropriate information about the program to supervisors and other 

employees. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 4 
91 


25055.068

MD 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION 

G. Office Directors and Regional Administrators 

1. Recommend and/or approve awards as indicated in Exhibit 1 of this handbook. 

2. Provide program support and active management participation in the activities of the 

Awards and Recognition Program, as appropriate. 

3. Manage the distribution of awards within the funding provided for awards. 

H. Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) 

1. Establishes and maintains systems and associated payroll, attendance, or other 

appropriate recordkeeping procedures related to the Awards and Recognition 

Program. 

2. Ensures that proper payment is issued promptly for approved cash awards. 

3. Allocates funds to office directors and regional administrators for incentive awards. 

4. Establishes procedures to ensure that funds are certified available before incentive 

awards are issued. 

I. Managers and Supervisors 

Recommend and/or approve awards as indicated in Exhibit 1 of this handbook. 

J. Employees 

Recommend employees for awards such as Employee of the Month or similar peerrecognized award programs, and actively disseminate information about vacancies and 

encourage individuals with needed skills to apply. 

IV. APPLICABILITY 

A. All NRC Employees 

The policy and guidance in this directive and handbook apply to all NRC employees, 

except where specifically excluded. 

B. Administrative Law Judges, Experts, Consultants 

The policy and guidance with regard to time off from duty do not apply to Administrative 

Law Judges, experts, or consultants who are excluded by regulation, or Administrative 

Judges who are excluded by agency policy. 

V. HANDBOOK 

Handbook 10.72 contains the program requirements and practices to award and recognize 

NRC employees. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 5 
92 


25055.069

MD 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION 

VI. REFERENCES 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Title 5, "Administrative Personnei"-

Part 451, "Awards." 

Part 531, "Pay Under the General Schedule." 

Part 534, "Pay Under Other Systems." 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Date Approved: 07/18/2011 

"Collective Bargaining Agreement Between U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 

National Treasury Employees Union," November 1, 2009. 

NRC Management Directives10.67, "Non-SES Perfonnance Appraisal System." 

10.137, "Senior Executive Service Performance Management System." 

10.145, "Senior level System." 

1 0.148, "Senior level Perfonnance Appraisal System," 

14.1, "Official Temporary Duty Travel." 

HR Web site, General Procedural Guidance for Awards and Recognition: 

http://www.internal.nrc.gov/HR/award-guidance.html. 

United States Code 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S. C. 2011 et seq.). 

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.). 

Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (5 U.S. C. 5301 note). 

"Prohibition on Cash Awards to Certain Federal Officers" (Pub. L. 103-425, 

108 Stat 4369). 

5 U.S.C. Chapter 45, Subchapter I, "Awards for Superior Accomplishments." 

5 U.S.C. Section 5384, "Performance Awards in the Senior Executive Service." 

5 U.S. C. Appendix 3, "Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended." 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook. see the online MD Catalog. 
93 


25055.070

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DIRECTIVE HANDBOOK (DH) 

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION DT-11-08 

Volume 10, 

Part 3: 

Approved By: 

Date Approved: 

Personnel Management 

Performance Appraisals, Awards, and Training 

Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman 

July 18, 2011 

Expiration Date: July 18, 2016 

Issuing Office: Office of Human Resources 

Human Resources Policy and Programs Team 

Contact: Alison Tallarico 

301-492-2326 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Management Directive and Handbook 10.72 contain the program requirements and practices 

used to award and recognize NRC employees. 

Directive and Handbook 10.72 are being revised to reflect the following changes in policies 

and procedures: 

• The name of the Management Directive has been changed from "Incentive Awards" to 

"Awards and Recognition" to clarify the intent as well as the objectives of the program. 

• The directive and handbook now emphasize the expectation that cash awards based 

on performance ratings reflect meaningful distinctions in levels of performance. 

• Senior Level System (SLS) employees, except SLS Commissioner Assistants, are 

now allowed to receive the cash component of NRC's Distinguished and Meritorious 

Service Awards. 

• Employees receiving performance ratings of Fully Successful are now eligible to 

receive performance awards. 

• Employees receiving performance ratings of Outstanding, rather than Outstanding and 

Excellent, are now eligible to receive High Quality Increases. 

• The directive and handbook now include information on referral awards. Also, the 

referral award amount has been increased. 

• Time off may be used as a performance award. Also, the maximum amount of time 

that may be granted has been revised. 

• The amounts of NRC's Meritorious Service Awards have been increased. 

• NRC's Commendation Awards have been revised so that they may be granted to 

individuals as well as groups. 
94 


25055.071

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Higher award amounts may be approved for individual cash and time-off awards (see 

Exhibit 1). 

Procedural guidance on pay, awards, and incentives contained in the previous 

directive and handbook has been incorporated into a document, "General Procedural 

Guidance for Awards and Recognition," on the Office of Human Resources (HR) 

Intranet Web site, http:/lwww.internal.nrc.gov!HR/award-guidance.html. 

• The NRC's Edward McGaffigan, Jr. Public Service Award has been established. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................ 3 

A. Use of the Awards and Recognition Program ............................................................... 3 

B. Funding ....................................................................................................................... .4 

C. Appeals and Grievances ............................................................................................... 5 

D. Annual Awards Ceremony ............................................................................................ 5 

E. Procedural Guidance .................................................................................................... 5 

II. AGENCY-LEVEL AND GOVERNMENTWIDE RECOGNITION ......................................... 5 

A. Presidential Executive Rank Awards ............................................................................ 5 

B. NRC's Distinguished Service Award ............................................................................. 7 

C. NRC's Meritorious Service Award ................................................................................. 8 

D. NRC's Meritorious Service Award for Equal Employment Opportunity 

(EEO) Excellence ......................................................................................................... 9 

E. NRC's Edward McGaffigan, Jr. Public Service Award ................................................. 1 0 

F. NRC's Commendation Award ..................................................................................... 11 

G. NRC's Length-of-Service Recognition ....................................................................... 12 

H. NRC's Retirement Recognition ................................................................................... 12 

I. Awards From Outside NRC ........................................................................................ 12 

Ill. PERFORMANCE AWARDS ............................................................................................ 12 

A. Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Awards (Bonuses) .............................. 12 

B. Senior Level System (SLS) Performance Awards ....................................................... 13 

C. General Grade (GG) Performance Awards ................................................................ 13 

D. High Quality Increase (HQI) Award ............................................................................. 14 

IV. SPECIAL RECOGNITION AWARDS ............................................................................... 15 

A. Awards for Special Acts or Services ........................................................................... 15 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 2 
95 


25055.072

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date 07/18/2011 

B. Employee-of-the-Month Award ................................................................................... 17 

C. Instant Cash Awards .................................................................................................. 17 

V. OTHER AWARDS AND PROGRAMS ............................................................................. 17 

A. Time-Off Awards ......................................................................................................... 17 

B. NRC's Certificate of Appreciation ............................................................................... 18 

C. Nonmonetary and Informal Recognition Awards ......................................................... 19 

D. Suggestion Program .................................................................................................. 19 

E. Gainsharing Program .................................................................................................. 20 

F. Referral Awards .......................................................................................................... 20 

Exhibit 1 

Exhibit 2 

Exhibit 3 

Exhibit 4 

EXHIBITS 

Approval Authorities for Awards ......................................................................... 22 

Scale for Performance Awards Other Than for Senior Executive 

Service/Senior Level System Members .............................................................. 26 

Award Scales for Suggestions and Special Acts or Services With 

Tangible Benefits ............................................................................................... 27 

Award Scales for Suggestions and Special Acts or Services With 

Intangible Benefits ............................................................................................. 28 

I. GENERAL INFORMATION 

A. Use of the Awards and Recognition Program 

1. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) encourages supervisors at all 

levels to use the Awards and Recognition Program to motivate employees to make 

full use of their talents, skills, and ideas to improve the efficiency, economy, and 

effectiveness of Government operations. Supervisors should do the following: 

(a) Encourage, recognize, and reward employees' excellence in performing their 

work; outstanding contributions to achieving NRC and Government goals; and 

exceptional improvements in the quality, productivity. and economy of NRC 

operations. 

(b) Use management reviews and productivity measurement processes, when 

available, to identify and reward or recognize those who have exemplified NRC 

core values and contributed to organizational excellence, creativity, and 

improvements. 

(c) Weigh all aspects of an employee's relevant background, including past 

recognition, when considering employees for merit selection (e.g., promotion, 

career reassignment, etc.). 

(d) Take appropriate precautions to avoid the premature release of information on 

award nominations and to protect personal information. 

latest version of any NRC directive or handbook. see the online Catalog. 
96 


25055.073

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION 

2. Consistent with applicable law and regulation, NRC may grant a cash, honorary, or 

informal recognition award, or a time-off-from-duty award without charge to leave or 

loss of pay. Such recognition may be given to individuals or members of a group or 

team on the basis of the following: 

{a) A suggestion, invention, superior accomplishment, or other personal effort that 

contributes to the efficiency, economy, or other improvement of Government 

operations or achieves a significant reduction in paperwork; 

(b) A special act or service in the public interest in connection with or related to 

official employment; or 

(c) Performance as reflected in the employee's most recent rating of record. 

3. Awards, with the exception of High Quality Increases and time off, may be granted to 

former employees and the legal heirs or estates of deceased employees for efforts or 

contributions made or performed before their death or separation. The term 

"employee" as used in this Management Directive (MD) refers to current and former 

employees, including those deceased, with the two exceptions noted. 

4. Where provisions of the "Collective Bargaining Agreement Between U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission and National Treasury Employees Union" are in conflict with 

this directive and handbook, the provisions of the agreement govern with reference 

to bargaining unit employees. 

B. Funding 

1. Agency-level and Govemmentwide recognition, including Presidential Rank Awards, 

NRC Distinguished Service and Meritorious Service Awards, suggestion, 

gainsharing, referral, and Senior Executive Service (SES)/Senior Level System 

(SLS) performance awards, will be funded centrally by the NRC. Special act or 

service, nonmonetary and informal recognition, and General Grade {GG) 

performance awards will be funded by individual offices. OIG employee awards, as 

enumerated in Exhibit 1, are funded by the OIG. Additional information on 

gainsharing can be found in Section V.E of this handbook. 

2. A cash award is a lump-sum payment in addition to regular pay and does not 

increase an employee's rate of basic pay. It is expressed as a gross rather than net 

amount and is subject to tax withholding but is not subject to health or life insurance 

or retirement deductions. A cash award is not creditable for inclusion in the average 

pay computation for retirement benefits. 

3. When an award is approved for an employee of another agency, the benefitting 

agency makes arrangements to transfer funds to the employing agency to cover the 

cost of the award. If the administrative costs of transferring funds would exceed the 

amount of the award, the employing agency may absorb the cost and pay the award. 

4. Awards for time off cannot be converted to cash payments under any circumstances. 

5. When performance awards are expressed as a percentage of basic pay, they are 

based on the rate of basic pay including locality-based comparability payments, 

special law enforcement, or special rates. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online Catalog. 
97 


25055.074

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date 07/18/2011 

6. The total of an employee's basic salary, performance award, and rank stipend 

received in any calendar year may not exceed the annual rate of pay for Executive 

Level I. For SES employees, the total may not exceed the Vice President level if the 

SES performance appraisal system has been certified by OPM. If the SES 

performance appraisal system has not been certified by OPM, the cap is Executive 

Levell. The Chair of the NRC Executive Resources Board (ERB), after consultation 

with the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), recommends annually to the Commission the 

total dollar amount to be budgeted for SES performance awards. Up to 1 0 percent of 

the total SES payroll as of the end of the preceding fiscal year may be budgeted for 

performance awards. This limitation does not apply to SES rank awards. Consistent 

with OPM guidance, OIG budgets for its own SES performance awards. 

C. Appeals and Grievances 

1. Employees may not appeal or grieve the following: 

(a) A decision to not grant an award; or 

(b) The amount of an award. 

However, this restriction does not affect any employee right or remedy under the 

provisions of the Office of the Special Counsel (appointed by the President), rights 

and duties of labor organizations, or equal employment opportunity rights and 

remedies. 

2. If the NRC does not adopt an employee's suggestion, rejection may not be the 

subject of a grievance under NRC employee grievance procedures. 

D. Annual Awards Ceremony 

The Office of Human Resources (HR) coordinates an awards ceremony to be held 

annually at NRC headquarters to present awards and to publicize contributions 

recognized under the NRC Awards and Recognition Program. 

E. Procedural Guidance 

Please refer to HR's Intranet site for Procedural Guidance for all types of awards 

included in this handbook. (See http://www.internal.nrc.gov!HR!award-guidance.html.) 

II. AGENCY-LEVEL AND GOVERNMENTWIDE RECOGNITION 

A. Presidential Executive Rank Awards 

1. Types 

(a) The Presidential Rank Award of Distinguished Executive 

(i) The Presidential Rank Award of Distinguished Executive is granted for 

sustained extraordinary accomplishment. 

(ii) The evaluation criteria focus on the executive's leadership in producing 

results. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 5 
98 


25055.075

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date Approved: 07/18/2011 

(iii) The amount of the Distinguished Executive Award is equal to 35 percent of 

the recipient executive's annual salary. 

(b) The Presidential Rank Award of Meritorious Executive 

(i) The Presidential Rank Award of Meritorious Executive is granted for 

sustained accomplishment. 

(ii) The evaluation criteria also focus on the executive's leadership in producing 

results. 

(iii) The amount of the Meritorious Executive Award is equal to 20 percent of the 

recipient executive's annual salary. 

2. Eligibility 

(a) All NRC SES career appointees are eligible for consideration for rank awards if 

they are on the NRC rolls as career SES employees by the deadline for 

submission of nominations. 

(b) The performance for which a nomination is submitted will have been sustained 

over a minimum period of at least 3 years. Preferably, the nominee's 

performance over an even longer period should be taken into account. 

Performance must have been at the SES or equivalent level in the career or 

career-type Federal civilian service. 

(c) The minimum 3-year period that is the basis for recognition, must have been as a 

career appointee, in the SES or constitute equivalent Federal civilian service, 

such as Senior Foreign Service or administratively determined executive 

classifications. 

(d) A former SES career appointee who received appointment to an Executive Level 

position in the executive branch and met the criteria for eligibility to retain certain 

SES benefits also may be eligible for a rank award, so long as the executive 

elected to retain that benefit and also meets the other criteria for nomination. 

(e) A reemployed annuitant who holds a career SES appointment is eligible as long 

as the individual meets the other criteria for nomination. However, careful 

consideration will be given as to whether the nomination is in the best interests of 

NRC's SES program because of the very limited number of awards that can be 

made. 

(f) An individual who leaves the SES or who dies after being nominated but before 

receiving the award remains eligible unless NRC withdraws the nomination. 

3. Limitations 

(a) To provide for progression in awarding ranks, nominees for the Distinguished 

Executive Rank Award usually would have received the Meritorious Executive 

Rank Award in a previous year. However, at any time, it may be appropriate to 

confer the Distinguished Executive Rank Award without regard to progression 

when only the highest rank would serve as fitting recognition. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 
99 


25055.076

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION 

(b) Any individual who receives a rank.of either Meritorious Executive or 

Distinguished Executive will not be entitled to receive that same award during the 

following 4 fiscal years. There is no prohibition, however, against receiving one 

rank award, then the other, at a closer interval. 

4. Criteria 

(a) A nominee must have demonstrated sustained extraordinary accomplishment for 

the Distinguished Executive Rank Award and sustained accomplishment for the 

Meritorious Executive Rank Award. Specific nomination criteria are described in 

the call for nominations that is issued annually. Please see HR's Procedural 

Guidance for the most recent criteria issued. (See 

!:ll!R://www.internal.nrc.gov/HR/award-guidance.html.) 

(b) In meeting the criteria and in all other areas cited in support of the nomination, it 

must be clear that the nominee has demonstrated qualities of strength, 

leadership, integrity, industry, and personal conduct that have established and 

maintained a high degree of public confidence and trust. These are not awards to 

recognize long and faithful service. 

5. Award Payment 

(a} Subject to aggregate pay limitations, recipients of a Distinguished Executive 

Rank Award may receive up to 35 percent of their salary and recipients of a 

Meritorious Executive Rank Award may receive up to 20 percent of their salary. 

(b) Any portion of the award that would cause total compensation to exceed the 

aggregate pay limitation can be deferred for payment during the following 

calendar year. 

B. NRC's Distinguished Service Award 

The Commission grants NRC's highest award for an individual on a highly selective 

basis for distinguished service and excellent achievements. 

1. The NRC's Distinguished Service Award consists of the following: 

(a) A citation; 

(b) A certificate signed by the Commissioners; 

(c) A gold medal inscribed with the recipient's name; 

(d) A lapel ornament which is a miniature of the gold medal; 

(e) $10,000 for recipients who are not Senior Level System (SLS) Commissioner 

Assistants or members of the SES; and 

(f} SLS Commissioner Assistants/SES members receive a lapel ornament, a gold 

medal, and a citation or scroll signed by the Commissioners. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 7 
100 


25055.077

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION 

2. Eligibility 

(a) All employees are eligible to receive the NRC's Distinguished Service Award. 

However, an individual may receive the Distinguished Service Award only once 

in their career, unless the previous award was received before 1988. 

(b) Employees nominated but not selected for this award may be considered for the 

NRC Meritorious Service Award, if appropriate. 

(c) The occasion of an employee's retirement, transfer, or long periods of service do 

not constitute sufficient basis for this award. 

3. Criteria 

This award is granted to an employee who has made unique or notable contributions 

that clearly distinguish job performance and achievements from those of other highly 

qualified competent employees in the same areas of work activity, with performance 

that exceeds the requirements for the Meritorious Service Award. Examples of these 

contributions include the following: 

(a) Outstanding activities in direction, leadership, or skill in devising or implementing 

the operation of a basic NRC program; 

(b) Outstanding service and activities in a scientific or technical field contributing to 

the advancement of nuclear regulatory safety and/or engineering; 

(c) Outstanding activities in nontechnical staff functions that provide a major 

contribution to the management, guidance, and support of NRC operational 

programs; and 

(d) Unique and/or notably creative service that is marked by exceptional success in 

meeting high-level responsibilities in a manner to reflect credit on NRC. 

4. Nomination Procedures 

(a) The Director of HR, in consultation with the Chairman and the EDO, will 

coordinate the annual nomination and selection process. 

(b) Nominations are reviewed and approved in accordance with Exhibit 1 of this 

handbook. 

C. NRC's Meritorious Service Award 

NRC's second highest award for an individual is granted for meritorious and outstanding 

achievements or services of an unusual value that substantially contribute to the 

accomplishment of NRC's mission or assigned major work programs. Such 

achievements must have agencywide significance. 

1. The NRC's Meritorious Service Award consists of the following: 

(a) A citation; 

(b) A certificate signed by the Commissioners; 

(c) A silver medal inscribed with the recipient's name; 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 8 
101 


25055.078

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date API>rOited: 07/18/2011 

(d) A lapel ornament which is a miniature of the silver medal; and 

(e) $7,500 for recipients who are not SLS Commissioner Assistants or members of 

theSES. 

2. Eligibility 

All employees are eligible. However, an employee may receive the Meritorious 

Service Award only once in his or her career, unless the previous award was 

received before 1988. 

3. Criteria 

The following are examples of achievements that should be considered for 

recognition: 

(a) Outstanding results in increased productivity, efficiency, or economy of 

operations substantially contributing to the accomplishment of NRC programs 

and mission; 

(b) Unusual initiative or teamwork in developing new and improved work methods 

and procedures that result in substantial savings in staffing, time, space, 

materials, and other expense items; 

(c) Performing assigned tasks in such an exemplary manner as to set a record of 

achievement that will inspire and motivate other employees to improve the quality 

and quantity of work productivity; 

(d) Unusual professional achievements in work advancing an understanding and/or 

participation in issuing licenses or environment and security requirements that 

regulate the conditions under which nuclear energy or source material is used 

and safeguarding the public's health and safety; and 

(e) Exercising unusual courage or competence while on official duty. 

4. Nomination Procedures 

(a) The Director of HR, in consultation with the Chairman and the EDO, coordinates 

the annual nomination and selection process. 

(b) Nominations are reviewed and approved in accordance with Exhibit 1 of this 

handbook. 

D. NRC's Meritorious Service Award for Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) 

Excellence 

An annual Meritorious Award for EEO Excellence will be awarded to recognize 

exemplary performance in the implementation of the NRC's EEO program. All NRC 

employees who have helped advance equal employment opportunity in the agency are 

eligible to receive this award, including managers, supervisors, EEO committee 

members, and EEO counselors. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 9 
102 


25055.079

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date Approved: 07/18/2011 

1. The NRC's Meritorious Service Award for Equal Employment Opportunity Excellence 

consists of the following: 

(a) A citation and certificate signed by the Commissioners; 

(b) A silver medal inscribed with the recipient's name; 

(c) A lapel ornament that is a miniature of the silver medal; and 

(d) $7,500 for recipients who are not SLS Commissioner Assistants or members of 

theSES. 

2. Nomination Procedures 

(a) Solicitation for this award will be consistent with the solicitation for other 

meritorious awards and will include input from the EEO Advisory Committees. 

(b) Nominations for the award should be provided through the EDO to the 

Commission. 

(c) The Commission will make the final selection based upon recommendations 

provided by the staff. 

E. NRC's Edward McGaffigan, Jr. Public Service Award 

The Edward McGaffigan, Jr. Public Service Award is an honorary one-time career tribute 

given to NRC employees or retirees who demonstrate extraordinary commitment to 

public service and who exemplify the integrity, professional dedication, and moral 

courage that Commissioner McGaffigan exhibited. The award will be considered 

annually but granted only when warranted by a nominee who meets the requirements for 

this award. 

1. Eligibility 

All NRC employees and retirees are eligible. 

2. Criteria 

This award seeks to recognize, encourage, and perpetuate the qualities and 

attributes associated with dedication to public service, including putting interests of 

the nation and health and safety of the public above a desire for personal advantage; 

pursuing and advancing sound public policy; and being an advocate for and having 

the moral courage to bring about change. Nominations will be evaluated on the basis 

of the totality of their careers in public service. 

3. Nomination Procedures 

(a) Nomination packages consist of a cover letter, nominating form, justification, and 

letters of endorsement. Packages should be submitted to HR during the month of 

September. A special selection committee will review nominations and submit its 

recommendations to the Commission. Please refer to HR's Procedural Guidance 

for additional instructions. (See http://www.internal.nrc.gov/HR/award· 

guidaJl~.ht'll!.) 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 10 
103 


25055.080

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date Approved: 07/18/2011 

(b) Nominations and approvals will be made in accordance with the information 

provided in Exhibit 1 of this handbook. 

4. Award 

The Edward McGaffigan, Jr. Public Service Award consists of a crystal obelisk 

engraved with the likeness of Commissioner McGaffigan and the recipient's name on 

the front. The obelisk will be accompanied by a citation signed by the current 

Chairman and Commissioners. The obelisk and citation will be presented in a 

ceremony befitting an award of this magnitude. 

F. NRC's Commendation Award 

This prestigious NRC honorary award is granted to individuals or groups for significant 

acts or achievements that materially aid or affect the successful accomplishment of NRC 

missions and programs. To be considered for this award, the employee's or employees' 

performance would exceed the requirements for recognition by a Certificate of 

Appreciation. 

1. Eligibility 

All employees are eligible. 

2. Criteria 

Examples of service or contributions that may be considered for recognition are-

(a) Accomplishment of a particularly difficult or important project, assignment, 

operation, or study that reflects positively on the group or individual contributor, 

as well as the agency; 

(b) Outstanding success in working in support of programs to advance the licensing 

and regulatory aspects of the agency's mission leading to improved safety and 

safeguards, while upgrading the level of health and safety operations; 

(c) Superior accomplishment in fostering agency programs leading to improved 

efficiency, productivity, and administrative operations; or 

(d) Demonstration of unusual initiative or creativity in the development and 

improvement of methods, procedures, or devices resulting in substantial 

improvement in economy of operations. 

3. Nomination Procedures 

(a) Nominations may be received at any time. 

(b) Nominations and approvals will be made in accordance with the information 

provided in Exhibit 1 of this handbook. 

4. Award 

The NRC Commendation Award consists of a certificate containing the citation and a 

lapel pin. Letters from other officials may also be presented. 

NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 
104 


25055.081

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date Approved: 07/18/2011 

G. NRC's length-of-Service Recognition 

1. Eligibility 

NRC length-of-service emblems are presented to employees, excluding consultants, 

in recognition of total creditable Federal service at 5-year increments beginning at 

the completion of 10 years of service. 

2. Nomination 

Employees who are eligible for career service recognition are identified by the 

employee's total creditable service anniversary date. Total creditable service is all 

creditable Federal service, including honorable military service. 

3. Award 

HR, OIG, or the regional personnel officer will prepare length-of-service certificates. 

The appropriate office will present the certificates, letters, and plaques for its 

employees. 

H. NRC's Retirement Recognition 

1. Plaque and Letter 

A plaque reflecting the employee's name and years of Federal service is presented 

to all employees retiring from Federal service, along with a letter from the Chairman, 

the IG, the EDO, the office director, or the regional administrator, as appropriate. 

2. Pin 

Employees will be issued a service pin based on the highest number of years of 

service. provided that the pin has not been issued previously. 

I. Awards From Outside NRC 

Each year NRC is invited to submit candidates for various awards made by both 

private entities and Government agencies. Please see HR's Procedural Guidance for 

more information. (See http://www.internal.nrc.gov/HR/award-guidan_ce.html.) OIG 

submits candidates for outside awards for OIG employees. 

Ill. PERFORMANCE AWARDS 

A. Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Awards (Bonuses) 

Performance or bonus awards are granted in recognition of high caliber work performed 

over the annual rating period. Bonuses cannot be substituted for Executive Rank 

Awards. Further information on eligibility, limitations, and procedures regarding SES 

performance awards may be found in MD 10.137, "Senior Executive Service 

Performance Management System." 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online 
105 


25055.082

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date 07/18/2011 

B. Senior Level System (SLS) Performance Awards 

1. Eligibility 

Within-band pay adjustments and performance-based cash awards are directly 

linked to performance for SLS employees based on a threshold eligibility of a 

performance rating of Fully Successful. Time-off awards may also be granted in lieu 

of, or in addition to, cash. 

2. Limitations 

(a) It is not expected that every SLS employee will receive a performance-based 

increase each year. These increases are not employee entitlements and should 

be provided only for those employees whose performance warrants a 

performance-based increase, just as performance-based bonuses are awarded 

in theSES. 

(b) If an SLS employee moves from one band to another during the appraisal period 

and the supervisor recommends recognition of the employee's performance in 

the previous (lower) band, a one-time cash award would generally be appropriate 

rather than a performance-based increase to base pay. 

(c) A performance-based increase to base pay should be considered if performance 

in the new position warrants and the individual has been in the position for at 

least 120 days before the end of the appraisal period. A performance-based 

increase to basic pay cannot exceed the top of the pay band to which the 

position is assigned. 

(d) Individual adjustments to base pay that are based on performance can be made 

only once for each appraisal period. 

(e) SLS employees may receive a within-band increase of normally 3 percent to 5 

percent 

(f) Further information on SLS performance awards may be found in MD 10.148, 

"Senior Level Performance Appraisal System," Part Ill. 

C. General Grade (GG) Performance Awards 

Performance awards are lump-sum payments and/or time-off awards based on the 

employee's rating of record for the current appraisal period. Managers and supervisors 

may consider individual employee preferences as well as budget and workload in 

determining the type of award (i.e., cash or time-off). 

1. Eligibility 

(a) Employees whose current rating of record is Fully Successful or higher may be 

considered for performance awards. 

(b) No employee who has received a High Quality Increase (HQI} Award may 

receive another performance award for the same period of performance. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 13 
106 


25055.083

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date Approved: 07/18/2011 

2. Criteria 

(a) When considering employees for performance awards, the supervisor will 

consider employees rated Outstanding before considering those rated Excellent. 

The supervisor will consider those rated Excellent before considering those rated 

Fully Successful. 

(b) Managers should ensure that performance awards granted based on ratings of 

record make meaningful distinctions based on levels of performance. 

{c) There will be no automatic or mandatory awards solely on the basis of ratings. 

(i) Awards are a prerogative of management. 

(ii) Factors such as recency of promotion and availability of funds may also affect 

award decisions. 

(iii) Award recommendations should be submitted at the same time that the rating 

of record is determined. 

• The rating will serve as sufficient justification for the award. 

• When the rating of record is more than 90 calendar days old, a written 

justification explaining the reason for the delay must accompany the 

recommendation. 

0. High Quality Increase (HQI) Award 

An HQI is an increase in an employee's rate of basic pay from one rate of the grade to 

the next higher rate of the same grade. It immediately raises the employee's basic rate 

of pay one step and has possible continuing benefits affecting life insurance and 

retirement computations. 

1. Eligibility 

(a) HQ!s may be granted only to employees on the General Salary Schedule who 

are covered by the GG performance appraisal system. 

(b) SES, SLS, Wage Grade, and Administratively Determined employees are not 

eligible. 

(c) There are no automatic HQI awards solely on the basis of performance ratings. 

(d) An employee may be considered for an HQI if the employee meets the following 

criteria: 

(i) The employee's performance is rated Outstanding; 

(ii) The employee's performance has been sustained at a high level for a 

sufficient time so that it is considered characteristic {not less than 6 months); 

and 

(iii) The employee is expected to continue such performance in the future. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 
107 


25055.084

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date Approved: 07/18/2011 

(e) HQis may not be granted to an employee in any of the following situations: 

(i) The employee is in the maximum step of any grade; 

(ii) The employee is not expected to remain for at least 60 days in the same or 

similar position at the same grade level, the employee has been promoted 

recently, or a promotion is imminent; 

(iii) The employee's primary responsibility during the year was participation in a 

formal training program, such as the Nuclear Safety Professional 

Development Program; 

(iv) The employee was granted an HOI in the prior 52-week period; or 

(v) The employee was granted a performance award for the same period of 

performance. 

(f) An HOI may not be granted to resolve personnel problems. 

2. Criteria 

(a) A recommendation for an HQI must be supported by the employee's most recent 

rating of record. In addition, when the appraisal is more than 90 days old, a 

written justification explaining the reason for the delay must accompany the 

recommendation. 

(b) Generally, no more than 90 calendar days should elapse from the time of the 

recommendation until the award is granted, unless to do so would be a 

disadvantage to the employee in that the HQI would cause the employee to be 

placed in a higher waiting period for the next within-grade increase (WGI). If the 

employee would be disadvantaged, it is acceptable to delay processing of the 

HQI until after the WGI to take advantage of his or her placement in the waiting 

period for the next WGL 

IV. SPECIAL RECOGNITION AWARDS 

A. Awards for Special Acts or Services 

For the 

1. When Special Acts or Services Awards are Appropriate 

(a) Special acts or services awards are appropriate when an employee or a group of 

employees-

(i) Performs substantially beyond expectations on a specific assignment or 

aspect of an assignment or function; 

(ii) Has a single scientific achievement. invention, act of heroism, or similar onetime special service; or 

(iii) Has an achievement of a nonrecurring nature, either within or outside of job 

responsibilities. 

(b) An award based on a special act or service may consist of either a lump-sum 

cash award and/or a time-off award. 

version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 
108 


25055.085

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date API)rO\rea: 07/18/2011 

(c) Managers may consider individual employee preferences as well as budget and 

workload in determining the nature of the award. 

2. Eligibility 

All employees or groups of employees are eligible to receive this award. This 

includes SES and SLS employees. 

3. Limitations on SES Special Act or Service Awards 

(a) For SES members, this award should be considered only under those limited 

circumstances in which a bonus would not be appropriate. A job-related superior 

accomplishment award may be used to recognize a nonrecurring contribution, 

such as an extraordinary effort on a project not anticipated in the annual 

performance plan or a scientific achievement that may have culminated after a 

significant period. 

(b) NRC is prohibited from using this award to circumvent either statutory or 

regulatory provisions concerning the following: 

(i) Limitations on eligibility for SES performance bonuses; 

(ii) The size of individual performance bonuses; or 

(iii) The total amount of funds available to pay SES performance bonuses. 

4. Criteria 

(a) Awards for special acts or services provide a prompt form of recognition and 

reward for specific achievements that contribute to the economy and efficiency of 

Government operations or directly increase effectiveness in carrying out 

Government programs or missions. 

(b) Awards must be for individual or team accomplishments that are clearly superior 

and beyond those normally expected. 

(c) The amount of the cash or time-off award must be commensurate to the tangible 

or intangible benefits of the employee's or the group's contribution or 

achievement. 

(d) Achievements may range from "going the extra mile" to significant contributions 

to science, engineering, management, or other areas of operations. The following 

are examples of such achievements: 

(i) Producing exceptionally high quality work under tight deadlines; 

(ii) Performing added or emergency assignments in addition to their regular duties; 

(iii) Showing exceptional courtesy or responsiveness in dealing with clients or 

colleagues; 

(iv) Exercising extraordinary initiative and creativity to address a critical need or a 

difficult problem or improve a product, activity, program, or service; 

(v) Culminating a scientific achievement or developing an invention; 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 16 
109 


25055.086

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION 

(vi} Engaging in an act of heroism; 

(vii) Demonstrating special initiative and skill in carrying out a project or 

completing an assignment before deadline; and 

(viii) Making suggestions or taking actions that improve protection of public health 

and safety and the environment 

B. Employee-of-the-Month Award 

NRC offices and regions may choose to recognize one employee each month for 

outstanding contributions or achievements under the Special Act Award category. The 

employee so honored should be identified in the office awards event Exhibit 4 contains 

guidelines on the amounts of awards. 

C. Instant Cash Awards 

NRC no longer maintains separate procedures and forms for processing special act or 

service awards formerly categorized as Instant Cash Awards, which were previously 

utilized to quickly recognize one-time and short-term efforts by employees that resulted 

in service of an exceptionally high quality or quantity. However, NRC continues to 

emphasize the importance of providing immediate recognition for a job well done, and 

supervisors are strongly encouraged to nominate employees for special act or service 

awards for this purpose. 

V. OTHER AWARDS AND PROGRAMS 

A. Time-Off Awards 

1. General 

(a) Time-off awards, alone or in combination with cash, are an alternative to 

lump-sum cash awards. 

(b) Time-off awards are granted without loss of pay or charge to leave. 

(c) Time-off awards do not convert to a cash payment under any circumstances. 

(d) Time-off awards carry no time limitations as to when they must be used. 

(e) Time-off awards cannot be transferred when an employee transfers from one 

Federal agency to another, or when an employee is assigned out of a covered 

position. 

2. Eligibility 

Any employee or group of employees having a full- or part-time work schedule may 

be eligible for time-off awards, except the following: 

(a) Administrative Law Judges; 

(b) Experts or consultants, who are excluded by regulation; or 

(c) Administrative Judges, who are excluded by agency policy. 

the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the MD Catalog. 
110 


25055.087

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION 

3. Criteria 

(a) These awards are appropriate to recognize achievements in performance or 

special acts/services. 

(b) To the extent practical, managers should initiate the type of award that the individual 

employee is most likely to welcome and view as a meaningful incentive. 

(c) When determining whether a particular award should take the form of lump-sum 

cash or time off, managers may consider the following: 

(i) An employee's general preferences; 

(ii) The nature of the contribution; 

(iii) The budget; 

(iv) The workload; and 

(v) Time off that is already available to the employee. 

4. Limitations 

(a) Time-off awards are not to be used to circumvent statutory limitations placed on 

the granting of performance awards for SES members. 

(b) An employee may generally not receive more than 80 hours oftime off from duty 

for a single contribution, including Outstanding performance. The total amount of 

time that should be granted to an employee during any leave year is 80 hours. 

{c) When an employee receives a combination of time off and cash, the overall value 

of the award in its combined form should not exceed the value to the organization 

of the contribution recognized. Thus, the award should be commensurate with 

the contribution of the employee and must comply with any awards limitations. 

5. Award 

(a) Use of time off granted is subject to approval by the employee's immediate 

supervisor. Scheduling should be handled similarly to scheduling annual leave. 

(b) To determine the amount of time off to be granted, the recommending official and the 

deciding official consider the benefits realized by the Government and/or NRC from 

the employee's contribution. Exhibits 2 and 4 of this handbook provide general 

guidelines on amounts. Approval authorities are reflected in Exhibit 1 of this handbook. 

B. NRC's Certificate of Appreciation 

1. This award is presented to an employee or group of employees who have performed 

an assignment particularly well but where the assignment and performance do not 

warrant a higher level award. This award also may be granted to an employee in 

recognition of exemplary service upon transfer or termination of service at the 

discretion of the Chairman, the EDO, an office director, or a regional administrator. 

2. This award provides a certificate, and also may include a personalized letter, to 

the recipient. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 18 
111 


25055.088

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION 

C. Nonmonetary and Informal Recognition Awards 

Nonmonetary and informal recognition awards may be given to recognize significant 

individual or team contributions that would not merit formal recognition. 

1. Eligibility 

Any employee or group of employees may be eligible for a nonmonetary or informal 

recognition award. 

2. Criteria 

(a) Informal recognition and nonmonetary items must not exceed nominal value. The 

value of the award should be commensurate with the contribution being recognized. 

(b) Nonmonetary awards should be items of nominal value that are customarily used 

or displayed in the workplace and, through suitable imprinting, are readily 

recognizable as an NRC award. Nonmonetary awards may include such items as 

appropriately inscribed coffee mugs, pens, flags, apparel, and desk sets, as well 

as commemorative medals and plaques. 

(c) Every item given in recognition reflects on the agency. It is therefore important to 

exercise care and good judgment in selecting items to be given as recognition. 

Items may be selected with preferences of the individual in mind but must 

preserve the integrity and credibility of the NRC awards program and constitute 

an appropriate form of recognition to be purchased with public funds and used in 

the public sector. 

3. Limitations 

Informal nonmonetary awards are not to be used as substitutes for performance 

awards for employees or to circumvent the statutory limitations placed on the 

granting of other types of awards. 

D. Suggestion Program 

The suggestion program is intended to recognize and reward employees, either 

individually or collectively, for suggestions that directly contribute to productivity, 

economy, or efficiency, or that directly increase effectiveness in carrying out NRC or 

Government programs. 

1. Eligibility 

An employee or group of employees may be eligible for an award if the suggestion is 

adopted in whole, in part, or in modified form. 

2. Criteria 

(a) Suggestions Acceptable for Consideration 

(i) A suggestion that duplicates an idea, method, or device used elsewhere is 

eligible if the suggestion was not used by the organization concerned until 

suggested by the employee. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 
112 


25055.089

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date Approved: 07/18/2011 

(ii) A suggestion that concerns a matter already under study or in developmental 

stages may be eligible for an award if the evaluator considers the suggestion 

to be a unique innovation. 

(iii) A suggestion within the employee's job responsibilities may be eligible for an 

award ifThe suggestion is superior or meritorious enough to warrant special 

recognition; and 

• The employee who made the suggestion does not have the authority to 

put the suggestion into effect. 

(b} Suggestions Not Acceptable for Consideration 

A suggestion that substantially duplicates the subject matter, procedure, or method of 

another suggestion previously approved, adopted, or being considered for adoption. 

E. Gainsharing Program 

1. Employees who obtain free airline tickets for official NRC travel by redeeming 

frequent flyer mileage credits are eligible to receive an award for 50 percent of the 

savings to the Government. 

2. Gainsharing awards are subject to applicable income taxes and will be directly 

deposited to the same bank account that is used for the employee's pay. 

3. A gainsharing award will not affect an employee's consideration for other agency 

incentive awards. 

4. See NRC MD 14.1, "Official Temporary Duty Travel," Part 4, Section 4.3.3, for 

further information. 

F. Referral Awards 

Referral awards are cash awards intended to serve as both incentives and recognition for 

NRC employees who actively disseminate information about vacancies and encourage 

individuals with needed skills to apply. Eligible employees may receive a $1,000 referral 

award for referring a successful candidate who is hired into a covered position. 

1. Eligibility 

Employees are generally eligible unless they-

( a) Have specific duties that include recruitment, such as Human Resources 

Specialists with recruiting responsibilities, or employees who serve as NRC 

representatives at recruitment events. 

(b) Are the selecting official, a rating panel member or officially associated with the 

selection of the individual. 

(c) Serve as a supervisor, member of the SES, or at the Executive Level. 

(d) Are related to the selectee. For the purposes of this handbook, "relative" will have 

the same meaning as provided in 5 U.S.C. 3110. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 
113 


25055.090

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION 

2. Successful Candidates 

Candidates referred must be non-NRC employees who enter on duty with the NRC. 

3. Covered Position 

Referral awards are provided for all NRC positions except the following: 

(a) Positions in student employment programs. 

(b) Temporary positions, which are time-limited appointments with not-to-exceed 

dates of 1 year or less. ("TERM Appointments, • which are time-limited 

appointments having not-to-exceed dates exceeding 1 year, are considered 

"covered.") 

(c) Positions with the Nuclear Safety Professional Development Program. 

(d) Executive Level and SES positions. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 21 
114 


25055.091

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date Approved: 07/18/2011 

EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 1 Approval Authorities for Awards 

The Office of Human Resources (HR) provides technical advice on and review of all awards. 

The Office of the Inspector General (IG) provides technical advice on and review of Presidential 

Executive Rank Awards and NRC's Distinguished and Meritorious Service Awards for OIG 

employees. 

AWARD NOMINATING RECOMMENDING DECIDING 

OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL 

Presidential Office Director or Commission Office of 

Executive Rank Regional Administrator, Personnel 

Awards with Executive Management 

Resources Board (OPM)f President 

(ERB), Performance 

Review Board (PRB), or 

Executive Director for 

Operations (EDO) 

review coordinated by 

HR 

NRC's Office Director or Agency panel Commission 

Distinguished and Regional Administrator 

Meritorious Service 

Awards 

NRC's Edward Any NRC Employee Office Director or Commission 

McGaffigan, Jr. Regional 

Public Service Administrator 

Award 

NRC's Supervisor Office Director or Chairman or EDO 

Commendation Regional 

Award Administrator 

NRC's Length of N/A N/A Chairman, IG, 

Service Commissioner, 

Recognition EDO, Office 

Director, or 

Regional 

Administrator, as 

appropriate 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 22 
115 


25055.092

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date Approved: 07118/2011 

------------------------------------~------------

EXHIBIT 1 (CONTINUED) 

I 

AWARD i NOMINATING RECOMMENDING DECIDING I OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL 

NRC's Retirement IN/A N/A Chairman, 

Recognition Commissioner, 

EDO, Office 

Director, or 

Regional 

Administrator, as 

appropriate 

Awards from Office Director or EDO, IG, ERB, or EDOor 

outside the NRC Regional Administrator Office Director Chairman• 

reporting directly to 

the Chairman 

SES Performance Supervising Executive NRCoriG SES Commission or IG 

Awards Performance Review 

(Bonuses) Board 

Senior Level Commissioner or Performance Review Chairman, 

System (SLS) Cash Supervising Executive Board; or IG Commissioner, 

Awards** Performance Review IG, or EDO, as 

Board; Commissioner appropriate 

Assistants do not 

require panel review 

GG cash awards Supervisor When required, Chairman, 

up to and including normally the second- Commissioner, 

$6,000 for level supervisor IG, EDO, Office 

Individuals or Director, Regional 

individual Administrator, or 

members of designee, as 

groups appropriateChairman is deciding official for OIG employees. 

Includes Special Act or Service Awards and Performance Awards. Special Act or Service Award 

limits are the same as those shown for GG cash awards below. Please note that only 

performance awards are reviewed by the PRB. 

MD 10.67, "Non-SES Performance Appraisal System," provides that approval authority for 

performance awards may be delegated no lower than division directors or equivalent organization 

level. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 
116 


25055.093

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date AP!)rolred: 07118/2011 

EXHIBIT 1 (CONTINUED) 

AWARD NOMINATING RECOMMENDING DECIDING 

OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL 

GG cash awards Supervisor Office Director or Chairman, IG, 

from $6,001 up to Regional Commissioner, or 

and including Administrator, or EDO 

$10,000 for Deputy !G 

individuals or 

individual 

members of 

groups 

Cash awards from Supervisor, reviewed EDO, IG, or Office Chairman, with 

$10,001 up to and by Office Director or Director reporting OPM concurrence 

including $25,000 Regional Administrator directly to the 

for individuals or Chairman 

individual 

members of 

groups 

Cash awards over Supervisor, reviewed EDO, IG, or Office Chairman, with 

$25,000for by Office Director or Director reporting Presidential 

individuals or Regional Administrator directly to the approval 

individual Chairman 

members of 

groups 

High Quality Supervisor N/A Chairman, 

Increase Commissioner, 

IG, EDO, Office 

Director, or 

Regional 

Administrator, as 

appropriate 

Time-off awards up Supervisor N/A Chairman, 

to 80 hours for a Commissioner, 

single IG, EDO, Office 

contribution; Director, or 

generally no more Regional 

than 80 hours per Administrator, or 

leave year designee, as 

appropriate 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 24 
117 


25055.094

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date Approved: 07/18/2011 

EXHIBIT 1 (CONTINUED) 

AWARD NOMINATING RECOMMENDING DECIDING 

OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL 

Time-off Awards Supervisor Office Director or Chairman, IG, or 

over 80 hours Regional EDO 

Administrator, Deputy 

IG 

Certificate of Supervisor N/A Chairman, 

Appreciation Commissioner, 

IG, EDO, Office 

Director, or 

Regional 

Administrator, or 

designee, as 

appropriate 

Nonmonetary Supervisor N/A Chairman, 

Award and Commissioner, 

Informal IG, EDO, Office 

Recognition Director, 

Regional 

Administrator, or 

designee, as 

appropriate 

Suggestion Employee Technical Chairman, 

recommendation on Commissioner, 

adoption by official EDO, Office 

having jurisdiction Director or 

over the function(s) to Regional 

which the suggestion Administrator, or 

pertains designee, as 

appropriate, if 

adoption is 

recommended 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 25 
118 


25055.095

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date Approved; 07/18/2011 

Exhibit2 Scale for Performance Awards Other Than for Senior Executive 

ServicelSenior Level System Members 

The availability of cash awards is subiect to fundina constraints. 

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AMOUNT OF CASH AWARD SUMMARY RATING 

Outstanding Up to 15% of base salary 

Excellent Up to 1 0% of base salary 

Fully Successful Up to 5% of base salary 

-

Performance award percentages are based on the rate of basic pay including any locality-based 

comparability payment, interim geographic adjustment, or special law enforcement adjustment. 

An employee may receive cash, a combination of cash and time off, or time off in recognition of 

exceptional performance. When an employee receives a combination of time off and cash, the 

overall value of the award in its combined form should not exceed the value to the organization 

of the contribution reccgnized. Thus, the award should be commensurate with the contribution 

of the employee and is subject to any limitations for awards. 

Time-off awards cannot be converted to cash but the cash value should be considered when 

recognizing performance. For comparison purposes, a 40-hour time-off award represents about 

2 percent of an employee's total salary (not including benefits), and a 1-day time-off award 

represents about .4 percent of the salary. 

In determining the award amount, consideration should be given to the difficulty of the job, 

caliber of the performance plan, actual performance, recent promotions, equity in comparison to 

other awards, and relative cash value of the award. 

Managers may consider an employee's general preferences as well as the nature of the 

contribution, budget, workload, and time off already available to an employee when determining 

whether a particular award should take the form of lump sum cash or time off. To the extent 

practical, managers should initiate the type of award that the individual employee is most likely 

to welcome and view as a meaningful incentive. The authority of office directors and regional 

administrators is limited to $6,000 or 80 hours oftime off. For amounts exceeding $6,000 or 80 

hours, see Exhibit 1 of this directive handbook. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 26 
119 


25055.096

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date Approved: 07/18/2011 

ExhibitS Award Scales for Suggestions and Special Acts or Services With Tangible 

Benefits 

BENEFIT OF CONTRIBUTION TO AWARD 

THE AGENCY 

Up to $10,000 1 0% of benefit 

$10,001 to $100,000 $1,000 plus 3% of benefit in excess 

over $10,000 

$100,001 or more $3,700 plus 1% of benefit in excess 

over $1 oo, ooo• . Awards exceedmg $10,000 up to $25,000 requ1re approval from the Office of Personnel 

Management. Awards exceeding $25.000 require Presidential approval. 

The minimum award for tangible benefits may be granted only when the benefits reach $250. 

When a contribution has both tangible and intangible benefits, the amount of the award is based 

on the total value of the contribution to the Government. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 27 
120 


25055.097

DH 10.72 AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Date Am>rov·ed: 07/18/2011 

Exhibit4 Award Scales for Suggestions and Special Acts or Services With Intangible 

Benefits 

NATURE AND IMPACT OF RECOMMENDED 

CONTRIBUTION OR BENEFIT CASH AWARD 

One-time, short-term effort resulting in exceptional quality or Up to $850 

productivity 

or 

Employee of the Month 

Substantial effort resulting in exercise of extraordinary Up to $5,000 

initiative and creativity to address a critical need or a difficult 

problem, or to very significantly improve a product, activity. 

program, or service. Affects a broad area of science or 

technology or major NRC functions. 

Extended effort resulting in initiation of a new principle or a Up to $10,000 

major procedure or in an innovative major improvement to the 

quality of a critical product, activity, program, or public service. 

Affects the broad NRC mission or improves the protection of 

public safety and the environment throughout the Nation 

and/or abroad. 

This exhibit serves as a general guide to help managers exercise their judgment and discretion. 

When a contribution produces both tangible and intangible benefits. the award amount is based 

on the total value of the contribution to the Government. 

Managers may consider an employee's general preferences as well as the nature of the 

contribution, budget, workload, and time off already available to an employee when determining 

whether a particular award should take the form of lump sum cash or time off. To the extent 

practical, managers should initiate the type of award that the individual employee is most likely 

to welcome and view as a meaningful incentive. 

When an employee receives a combination of time off and cash, the combination should be 

commensurate with the contribution being recognized and any limitations for awards. 

Time-off awards cannot be converted to cash but the cash value should be considered when 

recognizing the suggestion or special act or service. For example, an Employee of the Month 

Award of $850 might correspond to about a 2-day time-off award. 

Exceptions to the award scales must be approved by the Chairman or the Executive Director for 

Operations. 

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 28 
121 


25055.098

ATTACHMENT 2 
122 


25055.099

MEMORANDUM TO: 

FROM: 

UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055(1.0001 

November 16, 2011 

Those on the Attached List 

Jennifer M. Golder, Budget Director 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

Andrea 

Human 

Valentin. 

Resources 

Associate 

Operations 

Director 

and Policy 

~ r ~ 

SUBJECT: FY 2012 AWARDS 

In June 2011, OPM and OMB issued guidance that imposed limits on the amounts agencies can 

spend on various types of awards. This is approximately a 50% reduction over the amount the 

NRC spent on performance and individual special act awards in FY 2011. The Chairman, with 

input from senior management, decided that the awards pool throughout the agency, GG, SLS, 

and SES, would each be reduced equally. Your office's FY 2012 allocation for non-SES/SLS 

awards is shown in Enclosure 1. This allocation is to be used for the following types of awards: 

Bargaining Unit Performance Awards 

Non Bargaining Unit Performance Awards 

Individual Special Act Awards 

Enclosure 2 pro,vides guidelines on the financial management of awards funds with respect to 

performance and individual special act awards. HQ's offices must submit their performance 

data back to HR no later than COB on Friday, December 2, 2011, if they wish it to be paid out 

by December 27, 2011. HR will make every effort to process the awards for payment the 

second pay period in December. 

In addition, you will be receiving, by separate email, from the Office of Human Resources, a tool 

that you may use to assist your Office in determining your individual awards amounts. 

Headquarter Offices. Offices should submit their performance awards via a SF-52 and 

list of employees and award amounts to their HR servicing branch. In addition, an email 

from each PMDA Director or equivalent, certifying that the amount cited in Enclosure 1 

has been appropriately distributed to bargaining and non-bargaining unit employees, 

should be sent to Dawn Powell and Angela Bolduc. Performance Awards will not be 

released for payment until HR receives this certification. 

Enclosures: 

1. Office Award Funding Allocations 

2. Guidelines for Financial Management of Awards Funds 

3. Additional Guidance on Agency Award Limitations 

Attachment 2 
123 


25055.100

-2-

Regional Offices - Before your regional HR staff processes the performance awards, 

an email from the DRMA Director, certifying that the amount cited in Enclosure 1 has 

been appropriately distributed to bargaining and non-bargaining unit employees, should 

be sent to Dawn Powell and Angela Bolduc. 

Given recent developments, we continue to discuss the use of nonmonetary awards for all GG 

employees. We will be issuing separate guidance on nonmonetary awards in the near future. 

The following awards are not charged against your allocation. These bonuses and awards will 

continue to be paid from the NRC Central Allowance. 

The SES and SLS bonuses 

Presidential Distinguished and Meritorious Service 

Suggestion awards 

Additionally, there is a direct affect on many aspects of the agency's awards program for FY 

2012. The OPM/OMB guidance provides additional limitations on other aspects of the NRC 

awards program. Please refer to Enclosure 3 for additional information pertaining to agency 

limits on spending amounts. 

As part of our on-going effort to keep employees informed on the status of awards, an EDO 

update will be going out within the next few days that details the information contained in this 

memorandum. 
124 


25055.101

MEMORANDUM TO THOSE ON THE ATTACHED LIST DATED: 

SUBJECT: FY 2012 AWARDS 

Chairman Jaczko 

Commissioner Svinicki 

Commissioner Apostolakis 

Commissioner Magwood 

Commissioner Ostendorf! 

Brooke D. Poole, Director, Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 

James E. Dyer, Chief Financial Officer 

Edwin M. Hackett, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards 

Margaret M. Doane, Director, Office of International Programs 

Stephen G. Bums, General Counsel 

E. Roy Hawkens, Ch;ef Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board Panel · 

Rebecca L. Schmidt, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs 

Eliot B. Brenner, Director, Office of Public Affairs 

Annette Vielti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission 

R. William Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations 

Michael F. Weber, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, 

Research, Slate, Tribal, and Compliance Programs, OEDO 

Darren B. Ash, Deputy Executive Director 

for Corporate Management, OEDO 

Martin J. Virgilio, Deputy Executive Director for Reactor 

and Preparedness Programs, OEDO 

Nader L. Mamish, Assistant for Operations, OEDO 

Kathryn 0. Greene, Director, Office of Administration 

Patrick D. Howard, Director, Computer Security Office 

Roy P. Zimmerman, Director, Office of Enforcement 

Mark A. Satorius, Director Office of Federal and 

State Materials and Environmental Management Programs 

Cheryl L. McCrary, D;rector, Office of Investigations 

Thomas M. Boyce, D;rector, Office of Information Services 

Miriam Cohen, Director, Office of Human Resources 

Michael R. Johnson, Director, Office of New Reactors 

Catherine Haney, Dir•ector, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

and Safeguards 

Eric J. Leeds, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

Brian W. Sheron, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

Corenthis B. Kelley, Director, Office of Small Business and Civil Rights 

James T. Wiggins, Director, Office of Nuclear Security 

and Incident Response 

William M. Dean, Regional Administrator, Region I 

Victor M. McCree, Regional Administrator, Region II 

Cynthia D. Pederson, Acting Regional Administrator, Region Ill 

Elmo E. Collins, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region IV 

E-Mail Mail Stops 

Send a Hard Copy to 0-16G4 

Send a Hard Copy to 0-16G4 

Send a Hard Copy to 0-16G4 

Send a Hard Copy to 0-16G4 

Send a Hard Copy to 0-16G4 

RidsOcaaMai!Center Resource 

RidsOcfoMaiiCenter Resource 

RidsAcrsAcnw_MaiiCTR Resource 

RidsOipMaiiCenter Resource 

RidsOgcMaiiCenter Resource 

RidsAslbpManagement Resource 

RidsOcaMaiiCenter Resource 

RidsOpaMail Resource 

RidsSecyMaiiCenter Resource 

RidsSecyCorrespondenceMCTR 

Resource 

RidsEdoMaiiCenter Resource 

RidsEdoMaiiCenter Resource 

RidsEdoMaiiCenter Resource 

RidsEdoMai!Center Resource 

RidsEdoMai!Center Resource 

RidsAdmMaiiCenter Resource 

RidsCsoMaiiCenter Resource 

RidsOeMaiiCenter Resource 

RidsFsmeOd Resource (A) 

RidsOiMaiiCenter Resource 

RidsOis Resource 

RidsHrMaiiCenter Resource 

RidsNroOd Resource (I) 

RidsNroMaiiCenter Resource (A) 

RidsNmssOd Resource 

RidsNrrOd Resource (I) 

RidsNrrMaiiCenter Resource (A) 

RidsResOd Resource (I) 

RidsResPmdaMail Resource (A) 

RidsSbcrMai!Center Resource 

RidsNsirOd Resource (I) 

RidsNsirMaiiCenter Resource (A) 

RidsRgn1Mai!Center Resource 

RidsRgn2MaiiCenter Resource 

RidsRgn3MaiiCenter Resource 

RidsRgn4MaiiCenter Resource 
125 


25055.102

Enclosure 1 

OFFICE AWARD FUNDING ALLOCATION 

The awards funding for your office is provided below: 

r---

Bargaining Unit Non Bargaining Unit 

Individual Total 

Performance Performance Special Office 

Office FTE Awards FTE Awards Act Allocation 

Commissioner 

Svinicki 0 $0 2 $2,706 $295 $3,001 

Awards Methodology 

The formula for Bargaining Unit (BU) performance awards is the average of 2 factors: 1) 

percent of office Bargaining Unit (BU) FTE on board as of September 30, 2011 against the 

agency (BU) FTE on board as of September 30, 2011 and 2) percent of BU office salary 

costs against total agency BU salary costs as of September 30, 2011. That average percent 

is applied to the total agency BU awards pool. The same formula applies for Non Bargaining 

Unit performance awards. Please note that Offices must spend all of the amounts 

allocated for performance awards on performance awards. 

There is a separate allocation for individual special act awards. Each office is receiving a 

pool for individual special act awards based on the same formula used to determine their 

performance award allocation. Individual special act awards can be granted to all GG 

employees as well as SLS employees in accordance with the criteria contained in MD and 

DH 10.72. If your office has an Employee of the Month or other type of similar award, these 

awards should continue to be processed as individual special act awards. 

While offices must spend all of the monies allocated for performance awards on 

performance awards, each Office has the discretion to utilize their individual special act 

allocation for performance awards. However, Offices should carefully consider the impact of 

their decisions and seek to maintain sufficient funds to allow recognition throughout the fiscal 

year of performance warranting a special act award. In addition, given recent guidance 

regarding government spending and the ongoing discussion of agency non-monetary 

recognition, offices may want to consider setting aside a portion of their special act allocation 

for FY 12 non-monetary awards. 
126 


25055.103

Enclosure 2 

GUIDELINES FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF AWARDS FUNDS 

Each allowance holder will receive a separate funding line on their financial plan for awards 

funding under a unique Budget and Reporting Number. Note, allowance holders may not 

execute funding changes to their allowances without requesting a financial plan change from 

the OCFO Budget Director. As a matter of policy, increases to approved offices' award 

allocations are not permitted. 

o Consistent with other agency salary and benefits funds, cash awards funds will not 

be assigned to existing agency programs on the Advice of Allowance and Financial 

Plan (AAFP) or in the agency accounting system (FAIMIS). 

o For consistency across the agency, the table on the following page provides the 

document numbering scheme for FY 2012 awards commitments. Only the fiscal year 

indicator (first two digits of document number) should change in future yeans. All 

commitments for monetary awards should be entered into FAIMIS with a budget 

object class (SOC) of 1153. Commitments for non-monetary awards should be 

entered in FAIMIS under (SOC) 2690. 

The general process for nominating and approving employees for awards is on the SF- 52, 

"Request for Personnel Action". Allowance holders must ensure that adequate cash awards 

funds have been certified as available before releasing approved nominations to the Office 

of Human Resources (HR) for processing. HR's approval of the award through the SF-50, 

"Notification of Personnel Action," creates an obligation of funds against the office's 

allowance. HR directs that the obligation and payment of the award occur by processing the 

award in the Federal Personnel Payroll System (FPPS). 

o HR's processing of the award includes identification of the appropriate office 

allocation. This information will be uploaded to FAIMIS and will be available in the 

monthly accounting reports for allowance holder reconciliation. 

o Allowance holders are reminded that amounts on the SF 52 are the gross amount of 

the award. Employees will receive the award amount less all applicable income 

taxes. Taxes will be reported on the employee's earnings and leave statements. 
127 


25055.104

FY 2012 AWARDS REQUISITION NUMBERS 

All awards commitments will be entered into FAIMIS with a transaction code of NQ. The first two 

digits in the document number indicate the fiscal year and should be changed in future years as 

appropriate. The remaining characters are alphas that primarily designate the office. 
128 


25055.105

Enclosure 3 

Additional Guidelines on Types of Agency Award Limitations 

HQis. The OPM/OMB guidance limits the number of high quality increases the NRC may grant 

in FY 2012 to the number granted in FY 2010. After discussion and deliberation of how to 

implement this limitation in an equitable fashion among the various agency offices and in view of 

the salary and benefrts challenges the NRC is faced with, the agency will suspend granting of 

HQls for FY 2012. 

Group Special Act Awards. Under the OPM/OMB guidance, group special act awards are 

limited to the total amount spent by the agency in FY 2010. OHR wil.l be issuing separate . 

guidance on group special act awards in the near future. 

Time-Off Awards. Time off awards given in lieu of all or part of a cash performance award do 

not count towards the performance awards cash values. Because time off awards do not 

involve cash expenditures, they are not included in the OPM/OMB limits. However, the 

guidance specifically states that agencies should "refrain from increasing time off awards to 

compensate for the restrictions on cash awards.· HR will monitor the time off awards granted 

and provide monthly updates to the Human Capital Council and quarterly updates to offices. 

Suggestion awards. The OPM/OMB guidance limits the amount the NRC may spend on 

suggestion and invention awards to that spent in FY 2010. HR will monitor the amount spent on 

this program and provide monthly updates to the Human Capital Council and quarterly updates 

to offices. Since suggestion awards are mandatory based on the tangible and/or intangible 

benefit of the suggestion to the agency, in the event that this limit is reached prior to the end of 

FY 2012, we will contact OPM to discuss this matter. 

Recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives. The amount spent on recruitment, 

retention and relocation incentives is frozen for both calendar years 2011 and 2012 at the total 

amount spent for all three types of incentive awards during the 2010 calendar year. HR will 

monitor the amount spent on this program and provide monthly updates to the Human Capital 

Council and quarterly updates to offices. In addition, HCC will continue to review the NSPDP 

program. 

Referral awards. Referral awards are limited to the amount spent in FY 2010. Referral award 

amounts have been increased recently from $500 to $1000 per referral. HR will monitor the 

amount spent on this program and provide monthly updates to the Human Capital Council and 

quarterly updates to offices. 

For your informaticn, guidance on awards considerations is available at 

http://www. internal.nrc.gov/HRiawards. html. 
129 


25055.106

Commissioner Svinicki's Office 

FY 2012 SLS Performance Award Pool 

5% SLS Performance Award Pool Based on Aggregate SLS Salaries as of 09/3012011 

SLS PERFORMANCE AWARD POOL: 

SLS.Performance Award Pool: $24,730 

SLS Staff as of 09/3012011 

Name Salary 

1 Castleman, P. $163,995 

2 Reddick, D. $165,300 

3 Sharkey, J. $165,300 

Aggregate SLS Salaries as of 09/30/2011 $494,595 

SLS AWARD STRUCTURE 

The following performance award structure is being applied for most SLS employees (award amounts 

reduced by 50% from last year consistent with S&B constraints, OPMIOMB restrictions, and equity 

with award pool reductions for SES and GG): 

Subelements Exceeded Award Amount 

5-6 (or 83%- 100%) $5,000 

4- 5(or67%- 83%) $4,000 

3-4 (or 50%- 67%) $2,500 

2-3(or33%-50%) $1,500 

0- 1 (or 0% • 16%) $0 
130 


25055.107

Talking points on anticipated FY SES and SLS bonuses 

In proposing the SES and SLS bonus structure for FY 2011 performance awards that will be 

paid out in FY 2012, the EDO, DEDOs, GC and CFO agreed that NRC should primarily strive to 

meet the following goals: 

• Recognize and show appreciation for successful performance, including recognizing as 

much of the high performing workforce as feasible 

• Comply with OPMIOMB limitations and statutory requirements, and make meaningful 

distinctions based on rating level. Among other things, statute requires that an SES 

bonus be a minimum of 5% of the individual executive's pay. 

• Preserve consistency, equity, and alignment among awards for SES and SLS. In 

essence, the awards pools will be reduced. 

• Keep it simple and clear 

Use public funds prudently during difficult economic times 

When considering possible approaches to bonuses, we assumed that NRC appraisals would 

follow a similar rating pattern to last year. We will need to revisit the approach if there are 

significant changes in ratings (for example, a large increase in the number of Outstanding 

ratings given). 

• The amounts of SES and SLS bonuses will be significantly smaller, especially for the 

higher rating levels and the higher tier SES positions. 

• Because of the minimum 5% individual SES bonus requirement, NRC will be unable to 

recognize every executive, but we expect to recognize as many high performing 

executives as feasible. Senior leadership could not in good conscience accept a 

$25,000 or $30,000 bonus if that meant that a high achieving executive in Group C 

might receive no bonus. 

• The distinctions between SES bonus amounts for different rating levels and position 

groups are likely to be in the range of several hundred or a thousand dollars rather than 

the approximately $5,000 range of the past few years. 
131 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

We are going to have 6 minutes per member for questions. 

Before I ask my questions, I wanted to put two items into the 

record. One is a ranking of the NRC from its employees in 2010. 

Senator Barrasso said this was a dark time for the agency and how 

horrible it was under Greg Jaczko. The fact is the employees rated 

it No. 1 out of all the different agencies. So I put that in the record. 

[The referenced document follows:] 

132 


25055.108
133 


25055.109

The 20!0 Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings offer 

the most comprehensive assessment of how federal employees perceive 

their jobs and agencies, providing unvarnished insights into issues ranging from leadership and pay to teamwork and work-life balance. 

The rankings, representing the first in-depth look at the views of federal employees during the Obama administration, reveal good newsan increase in the overall satisfaction with the government workplace. 

But this positive response is leavened by a wide divergence of opinions 

about the capability of leadership and the conditions at individual agencies and departments. 

The Best Places government-wide employee satisfaction score for 20!0 

reached an all-time high of 65 out of !00, representing a 2.7 percent increase from 2009 and a 7.4 percent jump from 2003 when our ran kings 

were first published. 

A high level of satisfaction and employee commitment translates into 

better organizational performance and govemment effectiveness. V'ihen 

these conditions exist, employees often have a sense of personal accomplishment, believe their talents are well used, that they can develop professionally and arc encouraged to innovate. 

For the third consecutive time, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

ranked first and the Government Accountability Office placed a close 

second in the Best Places list of 32 large agencies. Perhaps as noteworthy, both agencies improved their scores even though they were already 

top-ranked. If either had simply maintained their 2009 index score, they 

would have dropped down the list, suggesting that to stand still is to fall 

back when it comes to employee satisfaction and commitment. 

At the other end of the spectrum, the lowest-rated large agency in 2010 

is the National Archives and Records Administration, which was second 

from the bottom in 2009 and dropped a notch this year even though it 

showed a slight improvement. Tied for last place is the Department of 
134 


25055.110

Housing and Urban Development, which lost ground as other agencies 

improved. 

This year, the most improved large federal agencies were the Department of Transportation, which raised its standing among employees by 

15.8 percent, and the Department of the Treasury, which increased its 

score by 8.2 percent. On the flip side, the Securities and Exchange Commission dropped by 6.4 percent-the second survey in a row that employees downgraded the financial regulator. 

Although some federal agencies are lagging behind, the improvement 

by 68 percent of federal organizations demonstrates that a determined 

focus on good management can have a relatively qukk and significant 

impact in the workplace. 

While many factors are involved in shaping how employees view their 

workplace, the 2010 survey for the fifth time in a row showed the primary driver in the federal space is effective leadership, and in particular, senior leadership. Two other key factors influencing satisfaction revealed by the analysis were a belief by employees that their skills were 

well-suited to their agency's mission, and a satisfaction with pay. 

Employees in the private sector, meanwhile, continued to be more satisfied with their jobs, organizations and supervisors than their counterparts in the federal government. But the attitudes of federal employees 

regarding these three work-related areas are improving, perhaps a reflection of better government management and the economic realities 

of today's difficult job market. 

The Best Places rankings and detailed analysis are based on data from 

the Federal Employee Viewpoint Sttrvey that was conducted by the Office of Personnel Management during February and March of 2010. The 

ran kings provide a benchmark to measure agency progress, to identify 

signs of trouble, and to spur our government to improve the way it manages its most important asset-its people. 
135 


25055.111

11 Environmental Protection Agency 

27 Equal Employment OpportUJiity Commission 

The Best Places to \1(/ork !N THE FEOERA\. GOVERNMENf ?010 
136 


25055.112
137 


25055.113

2 o~rse~lPti~atein~~~~mt(~W~Mmn 

3 Congressional Budget Office 

29 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 
138 


25055.114
139 


25055.115

The Best Places to Work JN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 2010 
140 


25055.116

Civil Division (DOJ) 

Qffice of the Comptroller 

Office ofinspector General (Rl}) (tie) 
141 


25055.117
142 


25055.118

ABOUT BEST PLACES TO WORK 

The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government® rankings-the most 

comprehensive and authoritative rating of employee satisfaction and 

commitment in the federal government-are produced by the Partnership for Public Service and American University's Institute for the Study 

of Public Policy Implementation (ISPPI). 

The Partnership for Public Service is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to revitalize our federal government by inspiring a new 

generation to serve and by transforming the way government works. 

The Partnership's workshops, webinars and resources can help you turn 

your Best Places data into workforce solutions that drive real results. To 

learn more, visit ourpublicservice.org. 

ISPPI at American University conducts research and facilitates dialogue 

among stakeholders in the public policy implementation process: members of Congress, political appointees, career executives, union leaders, 

academics and consultants. ISPPI along with American University's 

Key Executive Leadership Programs focuses on increasing leadership 

capacity among public sector leaders. ISPPI is part of the American University's School of Public Affairs which offers education on the graduate, undergraduate and executive levels in public administration, public 

policy, political science, organization development and justice. To learn 

more, visit american.edu/spa/isppi. 

METHODOLOGY 

The Best Places rankings are based on the Office of Personnel Management's 2010 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, which included responses from more than 263,000 civil servants. Working with the global 

management consulting firm Hay Group, the Partnership for Public Service and the Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation created a statistical model to transform these raw survey data into an overall 

measure of workplace satisfaction and commitment, and lO workplace 

environment indices. This information was then used to calculate the 

results for each organization. Small agencies are those independent 

agencies that have at least 100 but less than 2,000 full-time, permanent 

employees. Large agencies are those independent agencies or Cabinet 

departments with 2,000 or more full-time, permanent employees. Finally, statistical analysis was performed to determine the relationship between the workplace dimensions and the overall Best Places index score. 

The Government Accountability Office, the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation, the Intelligence Community, the Smithsonian Institution, 

the Congressional Budget Office, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Peace Corps 

and the Army Audit Agency did not participate in the 2010 OPM survey. 

In order to participate in Best Places, these organizations conducted a 

comparable survey that included the three index questions. The survey 

needed to be administered during the same timeframe, and have a 50 

percent response rate. These organizations are not ranked on any of the 

workplace dimension categories. Only GAO participates in the demographic rankings. 

The Best Places to Work IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 2010 
143 


25055.119
144 

Senator BOXER. Now, I do think it has been a dark time in terms 

of what Senator Sanders said about the terrible situation with the 

Commissioners, and I am so happy with what you said, Dr. 

Macfarlane, about this, because the point is we can disagree and 

not be disagreeable. We can disagree and be respectful. Look, the 

two of us agree on one thing out of a thousand, and it is the highway bill. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Outside of that, we don’t agree on much. But we 

really like each other, care about each other, and respect each 

other. Now, that is just two of us. And every colleague here could 

say the same about a colleague on the other side of the aisle. And 

that is the kind of thing we need at the agency, not trying to destroy people, OK? That is wrong. You don’t destroy people, as Senator Sanders said. And I also worry about that, that that is what 

was going on over there. It is very disturbing. 

I also want to put in the record, because Senator Alexander 

talked about the support for nuclear power. This last article said 

that it had dropped among the people. Now, it is understandable 

that it fell, given what happened at Fukushima, but it dropped to 

42 percent from 61 percent. Support for building more nuclear 

power plants fell to 42 percent from 61 percent that it was in 2008. 

So I just want to put that in the record. 

[The referenced document follows:] 

145 


25055.120

PubliC split over eliminatlOn of U.S. ener9Y subsidies, pol! finds -Los Angeles T!mes 

!Ios Angeles [:imcs ARTIC!l cotLEcnoNs 

Public split over elimination of U.S. energy subsidies, poll finds 

coul. nw:/eor m· l't>llewuble crwryy, u.'!1ile -J-7'-);) favor the idea. Support 

April 26, 2012 I By Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times 

The American public is divided about whether to eliminate federal subsidies for any form of energy and is giving less support to nuclear power and U.S. 

funding of renewable energy, a new poll has found. 

Fifty-four percent of respondents opposed doing away with subsidies for oil, gas, coal, nuclear or renewable energy, while 47% favored the idea. Suppo1t for 

building more nuclear power plants has fallen dramatically, to 42% from 61% in 2008. 

The Yale-George Mason University poll being released Thursday found that 76% of Americans support regulating carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas 

pollutant and that two-thirds believe the U.S. should pursue policies to reduce its carbon footprint. 

Support for federal funding of renewable energy appears to be slipping, perhaps in response to the bankruptcy of the solar manufacturing company Solyndra, 

which had received federal loan guarantees. 

Nearly So% of Americans support federal funding of renewable energy research, but those who say they strongly support it has dropped to 36%, down from 

53% in 2008. In addition, those who say they oppose the funding has more than doubled to 21%, up from 8% in 2008. 

A handful of recent polls have identified renewable energy as a wedge issue, particularly among Republicans. 

"All of this is politicized- climate change is politicized; that's part of the real problem right now," said Anthony Leiserowitz, a Yale research scientist who was 

among those who analyzed the poll results. 

"Back in 1997, Democrats and Republicans were not that far apart on this issue," he said. 'The gap betvveen the two parties has widened and widened ever 

since." 

I.eiserowitz said public support for renewable energy remains strong, despite the slippage. Some of that support has come at the expense of the oil and gas 

industry, even as the poll found that 62% of Americans favor offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters. That number, too, has decreased. 

In a nod to the political season, pollsters asked respondents if they were likely to support a candidate who advocated increasing taxes on coal, oil and natural 

gas, if the federal income tax was reduced by the same amount - in what is sometimes called a tax swap. About 6t% said they would be more likely to favor a 

candidate who supported such a carbon tax, while 20% said they would be less likely. 

Support for the revenue-neutral tax falls along predictable party lines: 51% of Republicans say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who 

supported a carbon tax, compared with 71% of Democrats, Among independents or those with no party affiliation the figure was 60%. 

The online survey has a 3% margin of error, 

A P€\v Research Center study last month found that Americans still consider developing alternative sources of energy a higher priority than expanding 

exploration of fossil fuels, but the gap has narrowed by 11 percentage points in the last year, 

A survey released Wednesday found that more than 2 out of 3 respondents think it is "a bad idea for the nation to 'put on hold' progress toward cleaner energy 

sources during the current economic difficulty." 

That poll, released by two nonprofit groups, Women's Energy Matters and Civil Society Institute, suggests strong support for renewable energy, finding that 

73% agree that federal energy spending should shift to wind and solar. 

julie,cart@latimes.com 

£os .AUJ)tlt$ tbuntS Copyright 2012 Los Angeles Times Index by Keyword i Index by Date 1 Privacy Policy 1 Tenns of Service 

http://artldes.latimes.com/pr!nt/2012/apr/26/local/la·me-enviro-poll·20120426[6/19/2012 2:05:56 PM] 
146 

Senator BOXER. Having said all that, I am now going to ask some 

questions, mostly to Commissioner Svinicki, because my request of 

Dr. Macfarlane, I don’t have questions for her, is just to bring that 

collegiality, bring that professionalism, as you have shown that you 

have done in every job you have had, to the Commission, because 

it is necessary to have a fresh start over there from everyone. And 

also a lot of transparency. And we are going to be holding a lot of 

oversight to see how it is going with all the Commissioners, because I think it is important. 

OK, so, Commissioner Svinicki, there are serious problems with 

the steam generators at the San Onofre Nuclear Plant. I know you 

are aware of that. It is shut down, and we don’t know when it is 

going to open. The operator is very concerned. There are many people who believe it was the design changes that were permitted to 

go forward. So I asked, wrote and asked if we could have a review 

whether or not there should have been a license amendment. Do 

you agree or disagree that there should have been a license amendment? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, I understand that, as a part of the augmented inspection team that was begun a couple of months ago, 

that the NRC staff has underway a review of the justification of 

the licensee for not submitting a license amendment. I support that 

review and look forward to the results from our augmented inspection team, which will look into the issue of whether or not there 

should have been a license amendment. 

Senator BOXER. I appreciate that. But again, that is not what 

you did. I would place in the record the Commission correspondence. You crossed out the sentence that Chairman Jaczko wrote, 

and this is what it said: We are reviewing in retrospect whether 

the licensee’s evaluation should have resulted in a determination 

that the changes to the facility required NRC review. You crossed 

that out. Why did you cross that out if you say now you want to 

see it reviewed? 

Ms. SVINICKI. In voting on that, the Commission’s response to 

you, Senator, I understood that the review was already underway 

as part of the augmented inspection team. I did not intend for that 

editorial change to change that; the augmented inspection team 

was already looking at that issue. 

[The referenced document follows:] 

147 


25055.121
148 


25055.122

UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555·0001 

CHAIRMAN 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chairman, Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Madam Chairman: 

On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC}, I am responding to your 

fetter of May 15, 2012. regarding recent problems with the steam generators at the San Onofre 

Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS}. You requested a summary of the NRC's plans for 

establishing whether Southern California Edison's (SCE} replacement of the steam generators 

required a license amendment, any documents related to the NRC's review of the design 

change, and documents in the NRC's possession related to SCE's determination that a license 

amendment was not necessary. 

«1- !OC.f''( S'"C·S"t, <t.wl a.H<J<:.•<>-+•J 1"',£"'-Ct ; ... i"']okh•oy {;v..cf• {.!'6'7

, 

NRC regulationMnclude criteria for a licensee to determine when a license amendment 

is required for proposed changes to a facility. Historically, replacement steam generators 

(RSGs) have been evaluated against these criteria and no license amendment was required. 

SCE's evaluation for the SONGS RSGs was consistent with these past practices and supported 

by all NRC inspections to date. As requested, copies of four publicly available NRC inspection 

U:!)\.+r:t:"' reports that IGYG!i.oo the reviews of the SONGS RSGs are enclosed. 

~m.~. /t,e NRC is currently re-examining the need far a license 

amendment at SONGS as part of an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) review that is now 

undetay. AITs are used by the NRC to promptly evaluate significant issues that arise at NRCX 
149 


25055.123

2 

~see'~'El'<taltlatiortshouldhave resulted in a determination!hatthe J2. 1: 

.changes-te-tile-faGllity-roHile·SONGS RSGs required NRC review and approval for a design-e. )< 

ehMge through a license amendment:C:.~ 

a part of this effort, we have obtained from the licensee various documents that relate 

to SCE's determination that a license amendment was not necessary. As requested, copies of 

those documents are included as Enclosures 5 through 8. Because they contain sensitive 

:J: •SL +~yo,; 

licensee information.~·please hold them in confidence, with access limited to Members and 

Committee staff. 

The Office of Congressional Affairs (OCA) will inform your staff of the results of our AIT 

ana_ly~~W!'E>r1~!ho_:_e_a()~()r:!s..'!~~mplete9-\lf you need additional information, please contact )c 

~ or Ms Rebecca Schmidt, Director of OCA, at (301) 415-1776 

<AS "VQ\t .,., -.(tr+- ';f•Jr Sincerely, 

o++, ( ~ +·• "tl f""\. \. <-

l.M..-t q_J,-f)S c. )Sc.C\~-1-c Jl ,..,......, ">oi•G-S 

Gregory B. Jaczko 
150 

Senator BOXER. Well, this is a letter to me from the Commission. 

If that is what you believed, and this is all your writing, I have it, 

you could have written in, Senator, this is already taking place. It 

is another one of those examples of my being extremely disappointed in the way you answer me. If it goes back to Yucca, 

which Senator Sessions said you were very obvious on, you weren’t 

obvious on it. I mean, the record speaks for itself. 

I simply asked you a very straightforward question, did you do 

work on Yucca, and you said no. But I will put all that in the 

record; we are not going to retread that. It is one of the reasons 

I am not supporting your renomination, and I don’t have to go 

through it again. But this is another example. I ask you a question; 

you say, oh, you support me. But when you had the chance to support it in writing, you cross it out, said to me now it already was 

happening, but the facts don’t comport with that. 

[The referenced document follows:] 

151 


25055.124

AUTHENTICATED(} 

\101 \,(JVI.'RNMCNT 

lNFORMATJON 

GPO 

S. HRG. 110-1102 

CONSIDER PENDING NOMINATIONS 

HEARING BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC ·woRKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

THE PENDING NOMINATIONS OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, TO BE A 

MEMBER OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND LYLE 

LAVERTY, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH, WILDLIFE AND 

PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

JULY 17, 2007 

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

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

61-976PDF 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHrNGTON : 2011 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpu.gov Phone: toll free ($66) 512-1800; DC area (2021 512-1800 

Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 
152 


25055.125

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming> 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

1Note: During the llOth Congress, Senator Craig Thomas, of Wyoming, 

passed away on June 4, 2007. Senator John Barrasso, of Wyoming, joined 

the committee on July 10, 2007. 
153 


25055.126

CONTENTS 

JULY 17, 2007 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Warner, Hon. John, W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia ...... 1 

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ............................... 3 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 6 

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

Voinovich Hon. George, V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 12 

Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia .......................... 13 

WITNESSES 

Svinicki, Kristine, L., nominee for Member of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................................................................................. 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 16 

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 17 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 17 

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 18 

Laverty, Lyle, nominee for the position of Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior ............................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 23 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 23 

Senator Lieberman .................................................................................... 28 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 29 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 30 

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 31 

Survey Summary, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Union of Concerned Scientists .................................................................................................................... 41 

(III) 
154 


25055.127

CONSIDER PENDING NOMINATIONS 

TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

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

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

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Carper, Whitehouse, Warner, 

Voinovich, Isakson, Craig, and Barrasso. 

Senator BOXER. The committee shall come to order. I am very pleased to welcome one of the senior members of this committee, 

a great Senator, John Warner. I thought, just given your schedule, 

Senator, before other Senators speak, I would love for you to introduce Kristine to the committee. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Perhaps the 

distinguished Ranking Member might like to make a remark or 

two and then I will proceed. 

Senator BOXER. All right, well, it was his idea to say you should 

go first. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. It was my idea, I thought you might want to 

join us up here in your regular position. Since Kristine was a staffer for you, I understand, as well as for Senator Larry Craig, I knew 

you had some comments you wanted to make and this might be a 

good time to go ahead and do that, if you would like. I am sure 

Senator Craig will want to make a comment or two about Ms. 

Svinicki also. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Warner, please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I am extremely pleased to be here this morning. All of us have 

these opportunities. This one I particularly look forward to, because 

this is one of the extraordinary persons that I have been privileged 

to serve with my now 29 years here at the U.S. Senate. She was 

on the staff of the Armed Services Committee following service 

with our distinguished colleague, Senator Craig, for well over 2 

years. She is also a resident of my State, and for that reason, in 

addition to her career, I am happy to be here. 

She was a senior policy advisor to Senator Craig. I interviewed 

her at that time for the position on our staff. Senator Craig warmly endorsed her and it all worked out extraordinarily well. Not well 

(1) 
155 


25055.128

2 

known in some quarters, but the Armed Services Committee has 

jurisdiction over approximately two-thirds of the budget of the Department of Energy, including the very sizable nuclear weapons 

production sites and laboratory complex as well as the extensive 

environmental program to clean up the legacy of nuclear contamination created during the cold war era. These are programs which 

we engaged Kristine to work on with our staff. 

With her extensive background and experience in nuclear matters, both at the Department of Energy and subsequently in her 

work in the Senate, she ably discharged her responsibilities, very, 

very ably, I might say. Her service has been appreciated not only 

by me, but by the other members of the Armed Services Committee, including our distinguished Ranking Member of this committee. 

I recall the first interview with this outstanding nominee. She informed me a little bit about her family, and I would like to mention 

that, because it strikes me as the very pillars of the foundation of 

our great Nation, what her family did. Her grandfather had come 

from their native country of Slovakia in the early part of the last 

century. He worked off the cost of his passage in the iron mines 

of Michigan's upper peninsula. He saved up enough money to bring 

his wife and daughters to America, and Kristine's father was born 

in this country after the family was reunited in Michigan. 

Ms. Svinicki's father served with distinction in the Army's Fifth 

Infantry Division in Europe during World War II, earning two 

Bronze Stars for distinguished valor in combat. The service secured 

for him the opportunity to attend college under the G.I. Bill, the 

first in his family to do so. 

I mentioned to the nominee when she greeted me this morning 

that I was going to tweak her a little bit. In these 2Vz years, I expect you have been in my office probably 30 or 40 times. On the 

wall is a picture of my father, who served in World War II, likewise 

wounded and decorated-excuse me, in World War I. He served in 

the Fifth Division, and you never told me about the story of your 

father having succeeded my father in the Fifth Division. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. Now, following in her father's footsteps, she 

went on to college, choosing to major in nuclear engineering at the 

University of Michigan. I inquired of her during the first interview 

as to why she would have majored in nuclear engineering in college. I recall that she commented to me that because she had lost 

both of her parents when she was still quite young, a teenager, she 

had wanted to honor their memories by cherishing the value they 

held highest, which was education in the sciences. 

Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee, this is a very 

able nominee of the President. I urge the committee to confirm this 

nominee and send her name to the floor, where I will be privileged 

to once again address the Senate on your behalf. Good luck. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF VmGINIA 

Madame Chairwoman, I am pleased to introduce to the Committee the nominee 

to serve as Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Ms. Kristine 

Svinicki (Suh-ven-e-key). Ms. Svinicki is both a long time resident of my State, and 
156 


25055.129

3 

a staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which I have had the 

privilege to serve on for over 28 years. 

I was first introduced to Ms. Svinicki, then a Senior Policy Advisor for Senator 

Larry Craig, when I interviewed her for a position on my Armed Services Committee staff in December of 2005, as I needed someone to take on the nuclear issues 

for the committee after the departure of another capable staff person. 

It is not well known in some quarters, but the Armed Services Committee has 

jurisdiction over approximately two-thirds of the Department of Energy-including 

the very sizable nuclear weapons production sites and laboratory complex, as well as the extensive environmental program to clean up the legacy of nuclear contamination created during the Cold War. These are the programs which I hired Kristine 

to staff. With her extensive background and experience in nuclear matters both at 

the Department of Energy and subsequently in her work here in the Senate, she 

has ably taken on this challenge. Her service has been appreciated by not only me, 

but the other members ofthe Armed Services Committee-on both sides of the aisle. 

I recall in that first interview that I asked Ms. Svinicki about the origin of her 

last name. She informed me that her grandfather had come to this country from 

his native Slovakia in the early part of the last century and that he had worked 

off the cost of his passage in the iron mines of Michigan's upper peninsula. He saved 

up money to bring his wife and daughters to America, and Kristine's father was born in this country, after the family was reunited in Michigan. 

Ms. Svinicki's father served with distinction in the Army's Fifth Infantry Division 

in Europe during World War II earning two bronze stars for distinguished valor in 

combat. His service secured for him the opportunity to attend college under the GI 

Bill, the first in his family to do so. Following in the her father's footsteps, Ms. Svinicki went on to college, choosing 

to major in nuclear engineering at the University of Michigan. When I inquired with 

Kristine, during that first interview, as to why she would have majored in nuclear 

engineering in college, I recall that she commented to me that because she had lost 

both of her parents when she was still quite young-a teenager-she had wanted 

to honor their memories by cherishing the value they held highest-which was education. 

Madame Chairwoman, Kristine Svinicki will be a favorable addition to the Commission and she has my full support. It is my hope that both the committee and 

the Senate will move favorably and quickly to apfrove her nomination, as the seat 

she is nominated to fill is currently vacant and believe we all support having a Commission at full strength (of five commissioners). 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Warner. 

Senator Craig. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. I have 

the unique opportunity this morning of being amongst friends on 

both sides of me here, and very talented people. But I am here specifically to introduce you to Kristine Svinicki, who, as Chairman 

Warner has said, served on my staff as a senior policy advisor for 

7 years prior to going to the Armed Services Committee. You have 

heard a good deal of her background. 

I must tell you, when you can get the support of the diversity of 

a Craig, a Warner and a McCain in your person, I think that 

speaks fairly highly, because we are all very different people 

around here. But I would like to approach her nomination to you 

this morning, Madam Chairman, in this way. I don't know of another time in our country when we need on the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission some very unique talents. 

As you know, from the establishment of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 until today, when there was not one nuclear reactor on the 

drawing board, there are now some 35 or 37. Clearly, for this country to get back into the business of building nuclear generating reactors, in a way that our country and our economy demands it, we 
157 


25055.130

4 

are going to need a very strong Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

The personalities that make up the Commission, I believe, are 

going to have to be multi-task capable. 

What do I mean by that? They are going to have to have background in the nuclear energy industry itself, they are going to have 

to have knowledge of it. They are also going to have to have knowledge of the public policy that we have shaped to drive that industry 

at the rate that it appears to be driven today. The new concepts 

of licensing that we are trying to perfect, not unlike other countries 

around the world have, that bring us back into this business, are 

going to be tremendously important. Kristine brings that uniqueness to the Commission. She has worked here on the Hill, she has 

worked in policy, she has helped shape a good deal of that policy 

while she was with me before she went over to the Armed Services 

Committee with Senator Warner. 

All of those experiences, I think, are very unique combinations 

that make her a highly qualified person. So when the President 

nominated her, I was, to say the least, very pleased and excited. 

Sure, to have somebody who had been on my staff is a pleasing 

kind of thing. But I have been under the evil eye of Kristine for 

a long while. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAIG. Maybe that is a better way of saying it. No, no, 

I mean the very instructive, clear-thinking eye of Kristine for a 

long while, who would say it the way it was in a very frank and 

forthright manner, in a way that was always appreciated by me 

while she was working with me on the committee and on my personal staff. So when I look at those combinations, and having been 

somebody that has helped shape the policy that is now driving us 

in a direction that takes us from the 104 commercial reactors that 

are out there today that she would have immediate jurisdiction 

over and the 4,000-plus licensees that handle radioactive materials 

in our country. But to take it a step further and into a whole new 

generation is going to take the uniqueness of talent that I think 

Kristine has, has demonstrated to me and is a blend of those experiences. 

So I speak very highly of her to this committee and hope, as Senator Warner does, that we can handle her expeditiously and take 

her to the Senate desk for our consideration. 

Last, let me say that my experience with Lyle Laverty, who sits 

to my immediate left here, as the Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks, has been a tremendously positive one over the 

years. I don't know of anyone who brings to this nomination the 

credentials that Lyle has. I highly recommend him. He and I 

worked on the Continental Divide National Trail System. We have 

worked on fire issues over the years. The West is burning today, 

maybe you ought to be out fighting fire, Lyle, and not here in front 

of this committee. But it is the nature of the process. 

So I certainly can recommend both of these people with their 

skills and their talents to this committee without reservation. 

Again, I feel very privileged to be here speaking on Kristine's behalf as it relates to the position she is aspiring to. Thank you, 

Madam Chairman. 
158 


25055.131

5 

Senator BOXER. Well, Senators Craig and Warner, thank you so 

much. Kristine, you must be so honored. You have two just really 

notable Senators who have just spoken so beautifully of you. You 

should be very, very proud. 

I want to talk to both my colleagues here for a minute. You can 

all listen in on where I see we are in this whole situation. 

Senator Reid has a great interest, Senator Craig and Senator 

Warner, of course, in what happens on the NRC. We all do. He is 

particularly concerned because of Yucca Mountain. You all know 

that, regardless of where we stand, it is in his State and Senator 

Ensign's State. Now, he has been trying to get Greg Jaczko renominated by the President since April. My own belief, because I want 

to get this done, is I'm looking at a pairing here, because Greg 

Jaczko has been on there and Harry Reid feels very strongly. 

The reason there was a little give and take on-off in where we 

were going is that I decided I am excited about this nominee too, 

and I want to give her her chance, and I want to get her on there 

with you. But I also understand the fact that in this Commission, 

we just need some balance here. So I think we have the makings 

of making this happen really quickly, if you can help me with the 

White House, because we have not, as I understand it, heard a 

word back since Harry Reid made this renomination in April. 

So I, just because, in the interest of openness and fairness and 

honesty, I want you to know that this would be very helpful, if we 

could get both of these good people together. So I wanted to say 

that. 

Senator CRAIG. Madam Chairman--

Senator BOXER. I will be happy to yield. 

Senator CRAIG. If you would, please. 

Senator BOXER. I would be happy to. 

Senator CRAIG. I am simply seeking instruction from you as to 

how we proceed hereSenator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator CRAIG [continuing]. With Ms. Svinicki's nomination. How 

would you plan to handle that, hold a hearing? Would you plan to 

move her, if it is the desire of the committee, to the full Senate 

committee? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator CRAIG. With the understanding that she would not move 

until the other issue were resolved, or what is your plan? 

Senator BOXER. Well, I want to work with you. I want to work 

with Senator Warner, I want to work with Senator Inhofe, Senator 

Voinovich, if he is interested in this, and Senator Reid. 

Senator CRAIG. Sure. 

Senator BoXER. I want to do this in a way where everybody wins 

this thing. Because I have absolutely no interest in delaying 1 

minute on this nomination. 

But the reason I wanted to have this hearing today was to get 

us started. We will all work together to determine how we will do 

this. Now, as I say, Senator Reid made this nomination in April. 

Mr. Jaczko isn't up for a while, but there is precedent for this in 

many cases in the past. This is so important to Senator Reid that 

I think we need to work with him. There is no reason why we can't 

make this all happen. 
159 


25055.132

6 

This isn't anything that I consider to be that unusual. We have 

had situations before where both sides work together. So I wanted 

to get that out on the table. 

Senator CRAIG. I appreciate your work. 

Senator BOXER. I have every interest in getting them both done 

as quickly as possible. 

Senator INHOFE. Madam Chairman? 

Senator BoXER. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. I am sorry I was out of the room when this conversation started. I guess I overheard that somehow this might be 

paired with Jaczko who, it is another year before he even comes up. 

Is there precedent for that? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. I do not recall that. 

Senator BoXER. Yes, there is-we will give you the precedents in 

writing. We don't have them in writing right now, but we will give 

you the precedents in writing for that. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. I just think that, on behalf of the minority, 

it is a very, very significant position that needs to be fulfilled, and 

we have such a quality individual. I would hate to see that happen. 

Senator BOXER. Well, we don't intend to hold up either of them. 

I am just trying to work with the White House and with all of you 

so that we can get this done. That's the facts. I am the kind of 

chairman that, I want to be totally open with everybody. Because 

what happens on these commissions, as you know, is that we have 

diversity on these commissions. Senator Craig made a point, that 

Kristine has worked for him and John Warner and John McCain, 

and it has made every-it says a lot about you that you can do 

that. 

Well, these commissions also have different points of view on 

them, and it is very important to Senator Reid. Senator Reid was 

once chair of this committee and gave it up to go into the leadership. He is very interested in this NRC as is Senator Ensign. 

So in any case, here is what I intend to do. After we have this 

hearing, I hope we can huddle on the floor with Senator Reid and 

figure out a way to move all this and get it done. But let me make 

my opening statement, because these two positions are so important to all of us. So let me put out a few concerns, not about the 

individuals but about the issues you will face. 

STATEMENT OF BON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Today the Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works meets to consider the nominations of Mr. Laverty 

and Ms. Svinicki to be Commissioner for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission and Mr. Laverty, Secretary of Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 

Mr. Laverty, the position to which you are nominated is so important, and I understand you are a California native. So I welcome you. As you know, California is a State rich in biodiversity 

sand stunning natural beauty. I hope, if you are confirmed for this 

position, you will always remember what is at stake for California 

and all of America's natural treasures. Because truly, Californians 

and all Americans live in a Nation blessed with spectacular public 
160 


25055.133

7 

lands and a rich array of wildlife, which I consider to be God-given, 

and it is our role to protect. 

Yet despite the richness we have been given, we have seen an 

unprecedented assault on our Nation's wildlife laws, conservation 

system and the science that underpins them. From silencing scientists to gutting our successful conservation laws to underfunding 

our public lands, I believe there have been many occasions where 

this Administration, and this is my view, I certainly don't speak for 

anybody else who is here presently, is breaching the public trust 

owed to America's natural heritage, instead of honoring its duty to 

serve as effective stewards. 

Indeed, in April of this year, the then-Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Julie McDonald, resigned following an 

investigative report of the Inspector General of the Interior Department. In that report, the Inspector General revealed, among other 

things, how that official leaked non-public information to special interests that had a stake in the outcome of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service decisions. 

The IG report also describe how this senior official, and these are 

the IG's words, "got into the face of' Fish and Wildlife Service personnel over their 5-year Endangered Species Act reviews. This kind 

of bullying of career scientists and policy experts cannot be tolerated. 

Additionally, recent news reports have documented how the Vice 

President personally intervened in the important Endangered Species matter. Reportedly, he rode roughshod over the process and 

the expert opinions of Department scientists in order to influence 

the decision on the water flows to the Klamath River, something 

I am sure you are aware of, and I am. 

As a result of this political intervention, the Department reportedly reversed course, and thousands of salmon died on the Klamath. We will never forget those pictures. This ecological disaster 

greatly affected our fragile rural economies that depend upon those 

species for commercial and recreational fishing business and related industries in the State of California and the Pacific Northwest. 

There are similar reports of White House officials editing EPA's 

scientific documents about global warming. I feel very strongly that 

the Government must honor the science and not let politics override the facts. It is fine for politicians like any one of us or the 

President or the Vice President to simply say after they see a scientific report, you know what, that may be so, but I think it will 

hurt the country if this happens, but not to try and interfere in the 

report itself. 

We must recognize, as hundreds of the world's leading scientists 

on the U.N. Governmental Panel on Climate Change recently 

found, that 40 percent of the planet's species are at risk of possible 

extinction from global warming. We had a scientist sitting right in 

your chair, and said that to us. Mr. Laverty, I was stunned when 

she said that. It is a staggering thought, and one of the most important issues, Mr. Laverty, that you will have to face if you are 

confirmed. 

In this position, you will be thrust into the middle of many crucial challenges and clashes between science and politics. All I ask 
161 


25055.134

8 

you to do is let us see the science. We will deal with the politics. 

We have to, we will. But let us see the science. We must use the 

best science to protect our rich, God-given heritage. We owe it to 

our children and our grandchildren. 

Ms. Svinicki, the NRC has so many important issues to be considered. I feel after I have heard from your two colleagues that you 

are very well prepared to face any of them. One key issue facing 

the NRC is nuclear waste disposal and plans to transport it to 

Yucca Mountain. Protecting the public health is so crucial, and in 

my view, Yucca fails the test. My State of California is one of the 

most affected by the Yucca Mountain project, which is only 17 

miles from California's border. People forget that. 

Studies have shown that the groundwater under Yucca Mountain 

flows into Death Valley, one of the hottest and driest places on 

Earth. If radiation should contaminate this groundwater, it would 

be the demise of the national park and the surrounding communities. 

The threat posed by the nuclear waste transport is also clear, 

and I would ask for another minute and would happily give it to 

Senator Inhofe. The threat posed by nuclear waste transport, over 

7.5 million people live within just a mile of a possible nuclear 

transport route. Yucca's geology remains a concern. 

So I will put the rest of my statement in the record about Yucca. 

I would say also, I would close with this one issue. The GAO recently completed a sting operation in which the NRC issued a materials license to a fake corporation in West Virginia. Once GAO received the license for their fake company, they altered it, so it appeared that the company was allowed to receive an unlimited 

quantity of radioactive sealed sources, rather than the small 

amount that had been approved by the NRC. After altering the license, GAO was able to receive commitments from suppliers of Category 3 sealed radioactive sources to provide more than 10 times 

the materials the original license would have allowed. 

I have serious concerns about the NRC's ability to ensure that 

these licenses are not going to individuals who want to attack us. 

I understand that there is a delicate balance between ensuring that 

legitimate users, like hospitals and construction companies, they 

get what they need. But certainly, we need to do a lot better. 

So I am going to ask you a couple of questions about that. But 

again, having worked for Senator Warner, whose life has been 

dedicated to national defense, I have a feeling you will be diligent 

on that. 

So thank you very much, both of you. I wish you the best of luck 

and I will turn the microphone over to Senator Inhofe, with additional time. 

STATEMENT OF BON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator lNHOFE. That is fine. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I do 

appreciate it. 

I guess I will direct this opening comment at Mr. Laverty. I too 

am one who will be looking into science all the way across. It is 

kind of interesting when those individuals who really want to believe that anthropogenic gases cause climate change, when the evi-
162 


25055.135

9 

dence now from the recent scientific community refutes that, and 

that natural variability is causing it, it is kind ·of interesting, you 

see panic on the other side. People like Claude Allegre, who was 

one of the strongest supporters of anthropogenic gases causing climate change, from France, perhaps considered by some to be the 

top scientist in France, now saying, I was wrong, he is saying that 

these are other causes and we need to reexamine. The same with 

David Bellamy from the United Kingdom, the same with Nir 

Shariv from Israel. 

So we have literally hundreds of scientists who totally refute that 

any dramatic change is due to the release of man-made gases. Also, 

I would say that while I consider the Chairman to be a very close 

personal friend, we joke around a lot with each other, I do not 

agree with her characterization of the Administration and their 

performance. 

I am pleased we are holding a nomination hearing today. This 

committee has a longstanding bipartisan tradition of considering 

nominations in a timely fashion. Nominees, I say to my good friend 

Senator Craig, have historically been given an up or down vote by 

the committee the week following the hearing. I am sure Senator 

Warner will remember that has been the tradition of this committee, and I am hoping we will be able to do that. 

The first nominee before us is Lyle Laverty, who is being considered for the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks at the 

Department of Interior. Mr. Laverty has a long, distinguished 

record of resource management, which has well prepared him for 

this position. He has actually had 35 years as a career employee 

at the U.S. Forest Service, and then more recently serving as the 

director of the Colorado State Parks. So I can't think of anyone in 

America today, anyone, who could be as qualified as Mr. Laverty. 

The second nominee today is Kristine Svinicki. I have no doubt 

that she will be an excellent commissioner at the NRC. She has 

proven herself to be knowledgeable on technical matters and also 

possesses a deep understanding of policy issues. If that is not 

enough, Senators Craig, Warner and others, she has been in a top 

notch position with them and they are happy to give support to 

her. 

Ms. Svinicki, you and I discussed my belief that our Nation 

needs new nuclear plants to help meet our growing demand for energy. Revitalizing this industry is a complicated effort and the 

NRC's role in ensuring public health and safety in protecting the 

environment is an integral part. Safety first isn't just a cliche, it 

must be the top priority. However, the NRC must also carry out 

its responsibilities in a predictable and efficient manner. Balancing 

these objectives will be quite challenging for the Commission to 

consider in the growing number of applications for new plants it 

will receive over the next few years. 

I think we have for now, I guess 12 years, my personal experience on this committee, we have talked about the fact that we can't 

really resolve the energy crisis in this country without a big nuclear part. Certainly, you have the credentials to address that. 

Madam Chair-oh, you can stay there, I just want to be sure you 

are listening to my opening statement here. They talk about the, 

Madam Chairman, the outrage over the allegations that a DOl po-
163 


25055.136

10 

litical released internal documents to industry groups, I think specifically the Farm Bureau. The fact is, I remember so well back in 

the late 1990s, just this past March, Fish and Wildlife career staff 

leaked a draft ESA regulation to the media, then circulated by the 

Center of Biological Diversity. 

In 2005, a draft of the National Park Service management policies were leaked. I didn't see or hear all the outrages about that. 

The DOl Inspector General report of 1998 and 1999 oil leases was 

released to The New York Times 2 days before the IG was to testify. The released document, the decision to propose listing the 

polar bear, appeared first in The Washington Post before officially 

released by the Department. So those leaks have been occurring 

over a period of time. By the way, I don't know what your order 

of things would be, Madam Chairman, but we have our newest 

member, Senator Barrasso, here, and I would like to have an opportunity to welcome him. Could I do that at this time? 

Senator BoXER. Absolutely. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, Senator Barrasso, there is no one, as you 

have heard so many times since you have been here, who is more 

loved than your predecessor, Craig Thomas and his tenure on the 

committee. Alan Simpson actually also served on this committee, 

and Senator Barrasso joins us after having served as Chairman of 

the Transportation, Highway and Military Affairs Committee in 

the Wyoming State Senate. I am sure your contribution to this 

committee will be most valuable. 

Under Republican Senate rules, Madam Chairman, since Senator 

Barrasso selected this committee as one of his first two choices, he 

will be seated in seniority between Senators Vitter and Craig. As 

far as subcommittee assignments, that isn't clarified yet. I will 

want a chance to visit with all of our members, our Republican 

members, which is the ones that would be concerned with this, so 

we can kind of get that resolved. But we did have a reading from 

Dave Sharp that showed that your seating here in terms of seniority is proper, and we welcome you, Senator Barrasso, to this committee. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

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

STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

I'm pleased we are holding this nominations hearing today. This committee has a long-standing, bipartisan tradition of considering nominations in a timely fashion. 

Nominees have historically been given an up or down vote by the committee the 

week following their hearing. I hope the Chairman continues this tradition and 

schedules a business meeting to consider these nominees next week. 

The first nominee before us is Lyle Laverty, who is being considered for the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks at the Department of the Interior. 

Mr. Laverty has a long and distinguished record in resource management which has 

prepared him well for this position. This experience includes 35 years as a career employee of the U.S. Forest Service and most recently serving as Director of Colorado State Parks for 6 years. 

The second nominee before today is Kristine Svinicki, and I have no doubts that 

she be an excellent commissioner at the NRC. She has proven herself to be knowledgeable on technical matters and also possesses a deep understanding of policy 

issues. If that's not enough, Senators Craig and Warner say she is top notch so I'm 

happy to give her my support. 

Ms. Svinicki, you and I discussed my belief that our Nation needs new nuclear 

plants to help meet our growing demand for energy. Revitalizing this industry is a complicated effort and the NRC's role in ensuring public health and safety, and 
164 


25055.137

11 

protecting the environment, is an integral part. "Safety First" isn't just a cliche it 

must be the top priority. However, the NRC must also carry out its responsibilities 

in a predictable and efficient manner. Balancing these objectives will be quite challenging for the Commission considering the growing number of applications for new plants it will receive over the next few years and the long-awaited receipt of a repository application next year. It is my expectation that, as a Commissioner, you will 

endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance. 

Recently, there have been lapses in the NRC's efforts to openly communicate. 

Open communication is fundamental to maintaining the public's trust and the trust 

of this committee. I encourage you to learn from these mistakes. My door is always 

open and I hope you visit often. 

The nominees testifying before us are qualified individuals and I hope they re- ceive fair consideration based on their qualifications rather than unrelated politics over which they have no control. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe, 

Madam Chairman. I am very pleased to serve on this committee. 

The issues that we deal with here are very important to the State 

of Wyoming. Wyoming is the Nation's largest coal-producing State, 

and it is a debate and role that we take very seriously. In the Wyoming legislature, as you mentioned, I was chairman of the Transportation Highways Committee with jurisdiction over the highways. I am looking forward to working with this committee on 

those issues of highway funding, infrastructure. 

Finally, not a day goes by in Wyoming when we don't talk about 

the endangered species, Endangered Species Act. The law continues to have a profound impact on the people of Wyoming. We 

are very concerned about the environment, all of the issue of public 

works. So I am looking forward to working hard with you and following up in the great tradition of Senator Craig Thomas. 

Senator WARNER. Madam Chairman? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, Senator Warner, before I call on you, I 

wanted to say something to our newest member. 

Welcome. We welcome you here. We look forward not only to getting to know you but your staff and this committee. I am trying 

to bring a feeling that this isn't about partisanship, because you 

know, the role that we play, and you pointed out just some of the 

areas, from the environment to public works. Originally when I 

came to the Senate, I thought, why do they marry those two together? It seemed so strange. But at the end of the day, I think 

they need to go together. Because in my view, you take your State, 

the beauty of your State is really the engine of your economy, the 

beauty of that State. To preserve it and do it in the right way and 

allow the job growth and the infrastructure to be built in the right 

way to accommodate that is so key. So we really want to welcome 

you. 

Senator Warner, do you want to add a word of welcome? 

Senator WARNER. I just wanted to say that this outstanding individual who stepped up to take the place of our beloved colleague 

we lost has such an engaging personality and diversity of interests. 

I make a prediction here and now he will be warmly received on 

both sides of the aisle. Extraordinary man, and we thank you for 

coming. 

Might I add a word on behalf of the nominee, Mr. Laverty? 

Senator BOXER. Certainly. 

Senator WARNER. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to sit down 

and visit with him. I thought, you know, another sort of a perfunc-
165 


25055.138

12 

tory call on a Senator. But it turns out that both of us started our 

careers in the Forest Service as young men, working on the trails 

and fighting the fires and just loving the national forests, all forests, for that matter. I am just extremely pleased to see such a distinguished nominee from the President to come up and take on this 

joh · But what perplexes me is why anyone would give up a job as 

State Director of all the parks in one of the most beautiful States 

to come down here and do this daily combat. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. Good luck to you, my friend. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BoXER. Thanks, Senator. 

OK. Just to let you know where we are going here with opening 

statements, we are now going to go to Senator Voinovich, followed 

by Senator Barrasso, if he has an opening statement today, followed by Senator Isakson. Then we will hear from our distinguished nominees. 

Senator Voinovich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

John, I welcome you to this committee also. I think the fact that 

Senator Barrasso has had experience on the State level is very, 

very important. Too often I think that this committee fails to recognize the relationship between what we do on the Federal level to 

what is happening in our States. John, we are looking forward to 

having that perspective brought to our attention as often as possible. 

I welcome our two nominees. Thank you for your willingness to 

serve. I am sure my colleagues know, I am very interested in the 

management of our Federal Government and its work force. Finding the right people with the right skills to put them to work at 

the right time and place is extremely important to the future of our 

Nation. 

The Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety has oversight responsibility for the NRC. Madam Chairman, Senator Carper and I are also very interested in the nominees to the NRC. We 

think it is important. We need Ms. Svinicki on that as soon as we 

possibly can, and maybe we can work something out with Mr. 

Jaczko. 

Senator BOXER. We are hoping so. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The industry today, the nuclear industry, is 

pursuing new power plants for the first time in decades. I think the 

best information I have, we have proposed 28 reactors from 12 companies. At the same time, the Agency is going to have to deal with 

a wave of retirements. More than 40 percent of the people who 

work there are eligible to retire. So we are going to really need 

some attention in that NRC to human capital. 

I had the opportunity to meet Ms. Svinicki last week. We had a 

frank discussion about her background and her regulatory philosophy, the fact that she has had such glowing tributes from Senator 

Warner and Senator Craig is also something that all of us should 
166 


25055.139

13 

take into consideration. I came away from that meeting with her 

that she has the breadth and depth of experience and energy in environmental policy as well as nuclear technology that will serve her 

as a good member of the NRC. 

I think the fact that you have also had extensive experience here 

in the Senate working for two distinguished individuals also is 

going to give you insight into how this place works. I think you will 

be a better member of the NRC as a result of that experience. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Voinovich. 

Senator Barrasso, do you have an opening statement? 

Senator BARRASSO. No, Madam Chairman, but I did notice that 

everyone else's name tag said Senator and mine said Mister. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Who is responsible, staff? That is an error. We 

will make sure that is corrected. 

Senator BARRASSO. If it had said Doctor, Madam Chairman, I 

would have understood. 

Senator BoXER. I understand. We will make sure we correct that. 

Senator Isakson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. I too want to welcome Dr. Barrasso, who is a very engaging, articulate individual. 

As many old men as there are around the Senate, we need another 

doctor in the house. We are glad to have you today. 

I have had the privilege of meeting both the nominees. Both of 

them paid a visit to my office, I am very grateful for that and had 

a great time talking to them. I have an acute interest, as the members of the committee know from previous testimony, in the nuclear 

issue and expansion of nuclear energy. I think with the challenges 

that we have before us vis-a-vis climate, carbon and all those 

things, the capacity of nuclear is the best and most efficient that 

you can find to deal with those issues. We need to do everything 

we can to promote it. 

I too was very impressed with Ms. Svinicki in our interview and 

I look forward to hearing the questions today and your answers. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Why don't we start with you, Kristine, and please, if you can 

summarize in 5 minutes, and we'll put the remainder of your statement in the record. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, NOMINEE FOR 

MEMBER OF U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe and committee members, it is an honor to appear before you today as the President's 

nominee to be a member of the U.S. Regulatory Commission. Even 

though Senator Warner has admonished me not to be too humble, 

I will say that I am humbled by the kind words and support of both 

Senator Warner and Senator Craig. Their support of me far exceeds, in my view, any meager service it has been my privilege to 

provide to them over the past 10 years. I am deeply grateful for 
167 


25055.140

14 

the trust they have resided in me as a member of their staff, and 

for the unique and wonderful opportunities to serve that have accompanied that trust. 

I also want to express my appreciation to the staff of this committee for their professionalism and to my many colleagues in the 

Senate. Although my family was not able to be here today, I have 

many members of my Senate family here, and I appreciate their 

support and encouragement. 

I appreciate also the time of the committee members who have 

met with me throughout this process to discuss this position and 

my nomination. Hearing the views of the members of this committee and of other Senators on nuclear policy is very instructive 

to me. If I were confirmed, I would seek to continue that communication. 

In preparing for my appearance here today, I reviewed the statements of previous Commissioners during their confirmation hearings. I was struck by a common theme in their statements. Each 

nominee stated their belief that they had been nominated to the 

Commission at an unprecedented and uniquely challenging moment in the Commission's history. I feel similarly both honored and 

challenged by my nomination. 

Over the next 2 years, in addition to its responsibility for regulating the continued safe operations of nuclear reactors and the 

many material licensees, the NRC expects to receive, as has been 

referenced by committee members, applications for new plants as 

well as applications to extend licenses and to increase power output 

of existing reactors. To meet this increasing workload, the NRC has 

embarked upon a significant effort to increase the size of its technical work force and to expand its office facilities. At the same 

time, as has also been noted, the Commission will be experiencing 

the retirement of many of its most experienced staff. 

Throughout this very dynamic and demanding period, the Commission and its staff must, in my view, not only maintain regulatory stability but also strive to meet the performance metrics the 

Commission has outlined for itself with respect to the timeliness of 

reviews of new applications, while continuing to hold itself to very 

high standards of performance. This combination of operational 

and organizational challenges is daunting by any measure. 

If confirmed, I am eager to confront these challenges and will 

commit myself fully to contributing to the continued success of the 

Commission. Madam Chairman, I have worked in Government 

service at the State and Federal level for nearly 20 years. While 

I honor the choice of those working in the private sector, I have 

made a very different and conscious choice to remain in public 

service. The work I have done in the Executive and Legislative 

branches, in technical positions at the Department of Energy, and 

subsequently as an advisor to Senators here in the Senate has provided the opportunity to participate in some of the most compelling 

energy, environmental and national security challenges confronting 

the Nation. 

I believe that my career up to this point has prepared me for the 

challenge of serving as an NRC commissioner. If the Senate acts 

favorably on my nomination, I am eager to apply my skills and experience in this new capacity. 
168 


25055.141

15 

In conclusion, I would note that the NRC is charged with protecting the public health and safety, which I believe to be a sacred 

trust between the people and their Government. Consequently, the 

accountability of an NRC commissioner is first and foremost to the 

public she serves. If confirmed by the Senate, I would approach my 

duties as commissioner with this as my core principle. That concludes my statement, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Svinicki follows:] 

STATEMENT OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, NOMINEE FOR MEMBER OF U.S. NUCLEAR 

REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe and Committee Members, it is an honor to appear before you today as the President's nominee to be a member of the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). I am humbled by the kind words and 

support of Senator Warner and Senator Craig. Their support of me far exceeds any 

meager service it has been my privilege to provide to them over the past 10 years. 

I am deeply grateful for the trust they have resided in me as a member of their 

staff and for the unique and wonderful opportunities to serve that have accom- panied that trust. 

I also want to express my appreciation to the staff of this committee for their professionalism and to my many colleagues in the Senate. Although members of my 

family are spread across the country and were not able to be here today, I appre- ciate the presence of many members of my "Senate family". Their support and 

friendships have been the foundation of any achievements I have had during my 

service as Senate staff. 

I appreciate the time of the members of the Committee who have met with me throughout this process to discuss this position and my nomination. Hearing the 

views of the members of this committee, and of other Senators, related to nuclear 

policy has been very instructive to me. If confirmed, I would seek to continue this 

communication. 

In preparing for my appearance here today, I reviewed the statements of previous 

Commissioners during their confirmation hearings. I was struck by a common theme. Each nominee stated their belief that they had been nominated to the NRC 

at an unprecedented and uniquely challenging moment in the Commission's history. 

I feel similarly-both honored and challenged. 

Over the next 2 years, in addition to its responsibility for regulating the continued 

safe operation of the existing 104 commercial nuclear reactors in this country and 

approximately 4,500 materials licensees, the NRC expects to receive numerous com- bined license applications for the construction of new nuclear power plants, as well as additional applications to extend the licenses and to increase the power output 

of existing reactors. To meet this increasing workload, the NRC has embarked upon a significant effort to increase the size of its workforce and to expand its office 

space. At the same time, the Commission will be experiencing the retirement of 

many of its most experienced staff. 

Throughout this very dynamic and demanding period, the Commission and its 

staff must not only maintain regulatory stability, but also strive to meet the performance metrics the Commission has outlined for itself with respect to the timeli- ness of review of new applications, while continuing to hold itself to very high standards of performance. This combination of operational and organizational challenges 

is daunting by any measure. If confirmed, I am eager to confront these challenges and will commit myself fully to contributing to the continued success of the Commission in fulfilling its obligations to the Nation. 

I have worked in government service, at the State and Federal level, for nearly 

20 years. While I honor the choice of those working in the private sector, I made a different and very conscious choice to remain in public service. The work I have 

done in the executive and legislative branches, in technical positions at the Department of Energy and, subsequently, as an advisor to policy makers here in the Senate, has provided the opportunity to participate in some of the most compelling en- ergy, environmental, and national security issues confronting the Nation. I believe 

that my career up to this point has prepared me for the challenge of serving as an NRC Commissioner. If the Senate acts favorably on my nomination, I am eager to 

apply my skills and experience in this new capacity. 

The NRC is charged with protecting the public health and safety, which I believe 

to be a sacred trust between the people and their government. Consequently, the 
169 


25055.142

16 

accountability of an NRC Commissioner is first and foremost to the public she serves. If confirmed by the Senate, I would approach my duties as Commissioner 

with this as my core principle. 

This concludes my statement. I look forward to your questions. 

RESPONSES BY KRISTINE L. SVINICKI TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS 

FROM SENATOR BOXER 

Question 1. What will you do as an NRC commissioner to ensure that oversight 

of materials licensing is improved? 

Response. I understand the Commission is looking at a variety of ways to 

strengthen the materials licensing process including consideration of site visits, 

web-based licensing systems, increasing the tamper-proofing of licenses, and red 

teaming/testing the licensing process. If confirmed, I would be eager to examine 

these proposals, as well as others such as examining the required procedures before a supplier ships a source to a license holder, as part of a comprehensive evaluation 

of ways to improve the materials licensing process. 

Question 2. The NRC does not require an inspection of the license applicant prior 

to issuing a license for a Category 3 radioactive sealed source. Other States, such as Maryland, have determined that pre-license inspections are necessary. Do you 

think the NRC and agreement States should have the same requirements? 

Response. I have not been briefed on the current basis for the differences in procedures between the Commission and the agreement States in processing applications 

to possess Category 3 sealed sources. If confirmed, I would examine the basis for 

these differences and scrutinize the justification, if any, in light of the results of the 

GAO investigation. Although States may have unique circumstances which are re- flected in their procedures, it would seem reasonable that best practices, as were demonstrated in Maryland's process, should be encouraged. 

Question 3. Will you support pre-license inspections for Category 3 radioactive 

sealed source materials? 

Response. I have not been briefed and consequently do not fully understand the 

basis for not requiring pre-license inspections for Category 3 radioactive sealed sources in non-agreement States. If confirmed, I pledge to acquaint myself fully with 

this issue and take part in Commission review of this requirement. 

Question 4. Will you support and encourage the NRC's efforts to create a webbased licensing system? If so, would you support including Category 3 radioactive 

sealed materials into any such system created by the NRC? 

Response. If confirmed, I will support and encourage the timely development and 

implementation of a web-based licensing system and will evaluate further the inclusion of Category 3 radioactive sealed materials into such system, as the Commission 

considers ways to strengthen controls over these radioactive materials. 

Question 5. I understand you have worked in the Department of Energy's Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management Office. As an employee in that office, please explain 

what your involvement was in transportation and waste disposal issues as they re- late to Yucca Mountain. 

Response. Between May of 1994 to December of 1996, I worked as an engineer 

in the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Office of Storage and 

Transportation. The engineering position I filled was responsible for collecting technical information related to federally-owned radioactive waste, such as high-level ra- dioactive waste produced by defense programs, waste arising from the environmental remediation of DOE cleanup sites, and spent nuclear fuel created in research 

programs at DOE national laboratories, and assuring that sufficient information on each of these waste forms existed in order to evaluate the transportation and disposal of such waste, should such waste eventually require deep, geologic disposal. 

Question 6. What is your view on whether DOE and NRC should move forward 

with the Yucca Mountain project as it is currently envisioned? 

Response. As directed by Congress, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the 

DOE to submit a license application to the NRC for the establishment of a geologic 

repository at Yucca Mountain and requires the NRC to review and act on this application within 48 months of receipt. If confirmed, I would support the NRC in fulfilling its obligations under this Jaw, which is to receive and process this application 

in an objective and timely manner, on the basis of the facts before it. 
170 


25055.143

17 

Question 7. Several applications for new nuclear facilities are expected to be re- ceived by the NRC in the coming years. What role do you see the NRC playing in 

addressing waste disposal issues that these new facilities will face? 

Response. In my view, the obligation of the NRC is to act as an impartial arbitrator; making decisions based on the safety and security of licensed activities while 

executing the roles assigned to it under law. As I understand it, the Commission 

relies upon its confidence that this country will continue to make progress on the 

development of disposal capacity as called for in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. If 

confirmed, I believe my duty would be to ensure that any waste generated by a plant could be stored safely and without significant environmental impact as the 

Nation works toward the implementation of the waste disposal policies laid out in 

current law. 

Question 8. Do you expect licenses for new facilities to be approved regardless of 

the status of Yucca Mountain? 

Response. If confirmed as a Commissioner, I would judge each application coming 

before the Commission on its merits. Based upon my experiences as Senate staff, 

I know that resolving nuclear waste disposal issues is essential to the Nation. If 

confirmed, I believe my duty would be to ensure that any waste generated by a plant could be stored safely and without significant environmental impact during such time as the Nation works toward the implementation of the waste disposal 

policies laid out in current law. 

RESPONSES BY KRISTINE L. SVINICKI TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS 

FROM SENATOR LAUTENBERG 

Question 1. The transportation of nuclear waste could pose a serious national se- curity, environmental and health risk to the communities which the waste passes through while transporting. How would you evaluate these risks when making decisions about the future of the Yucca Mountain application? 

Response. As required under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, transportation of ma- terials to a deep geologic repository must be conducted in packaging developed and 

licensed to the NRC requirements contained in 10 CFR Part 71. These standards 

require the evaluation and analysis of the transportation packaging against accident, fire, and flooding scenarios. The NRC also shares responsibility with the U.S. 

Department of Transportation for the safe carriage of these materials over the Nation's highways. If confirmed, I pledge to evaluate closely the safety and security 

aspects of the transportation of nuclear materials and to work closely with DOT to ensure that protecting the public and environment remains paramount. 

Question 2. The Oyster Creek nuclear facility in New Jersey will turn 40 years 

old in 2009, and the re-licensing decision for this facility is a very controversial 

issue. Would you give me your view on the future of Oyster Creek, specifically, as well as how you would approach re-Jicensing for older nuclear facilities? 

Response. Although I am not familiar with the details of the Oyster Creek application, in my view a similar question must be answered at Oyster Creek and in all 

other license renewal projects: can this plant be operated safely beyond its initial 

licensing period and on what basis can we be confident that this safety is assured? 

This is a decision that must be made on a case-by-case basis, impartially, under the 

Commission's regulations, and on the available scientific evidence. Safety should be 

the highest priority. If confirmed, I would pledge to evaluate such matters based on the record before the Agency. 

Question 3. The NRC has allowed radioactive waste to build up at the Shieldalloy 

Metallurgic Corporation in Newfield and now plans to allow them to leave 28 thou· 

sand cubic meters of radioactive waste at the decommissioned site. Can you assure me that, if confirmed, you will review this plan and work to have this radioactive 

waste removed? 

Response. Although I am not familiar with the specifics of this situation, if con- firmed, I commit to familiarizing myself with this plan and reviewing the adjudicatory record before the Commission. 

RESPONSE BY KRISTINE L. SVINICKI TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION 

FROM SENATOR CARDIN 

Question. We are all aware of the fact that GAO investigators posing as business- men in West Virginia were able to obtain an NRC license which, once manipulated, 

allowed for the purchase of enough radioactive material to make a dirty bomb. In-
171 


25055.144

18 

vestigators attempted to purchase similar radioactive materials in Maryland, a State which has its own licensing process. The GAO withdrew its application when 

the State informed them numerous checks including an on-site interview were needed before the license was granted. The process in Maryland was shown to be decidedly more thorough than the NRC process. How will you ensure that all 34 States 

that conduct their own licensing procedures do so in a comprehensive manner that 

is commensurate with practices which have proven successful? 

Response. If confirmed, I would pledge to review the best practices of all the 

agreement States and make sure they are communicated among the agreement 

States. I would further work to understand the differences between the procedures 

of the Commission and the agreement States, and the justification, if any, for such 

differences. In my view, Maryland should be commended for the vigilance it demonstrated in overseeing the issuance of material licenses in its State. 

RESPONSES BY KRISTINE L. SVINICKI TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS 

FROM SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Question 1. One of the things that Senator Carper and I have been stressing is 

the need for the NRC to improve and be more proactive in its public relations efforts. The recent communication problems on the part of the Agency associated with 

the GAO sting operation and the spill of highly enriched uranium at a nuclear fuel 

facility do not bode well to increase the public's trust in the Agency. I would like 

to hear your thoughts on how a regulatory agency such as NRC can improve in this area. 

Response. Through public outreach and information initiatives, I believe the NRC can strengthen its role both as a credible source of information related to regulated 

nuclear activities as well as an educator of the public more generally about regulatory processes and radiological safety. While not a technology advocate, the NRC 

should seek to increase public confidence by building greater awareness of its inspection and oversight programs and by communicating its findings in a clear and 

understandable manner to interested stakeholders and the public in general. Further, the Commission must be prompt and forthcoming, at all times, in its commu- nications to the Congress. 

Question 2. There has been a lot of talk of building new reactors in this country. 

What do you think are the major road blocks to getting these licensed and built? 

What would you do to try to help solve these problems as a Commissioner? 

Response. I believe that the principal challenges to getting new reactors licensed 

and built are access to financing and credibility of the regulatory process. The NRC 

is responsible for only one of these challenges-the regulatory process. By com- pleting its reviews in a timely and transparent manner, the NRC will increase public confidence in the regulatory process. As the NRC gains experience with the regulatory process and timelines for new reactor applications that the Commission has 

laid out for itself, I would pledge, if confirmed, to continually review and seek to 

improve the Commission's internal processes, while keeping safety and security always as the top priority. 

Question 3. You and I briefly discussed about human capital being a significant 

challenge not only with the NRC but affecting both the public and private sectors 

including the electric utilities, component manufacturers, government agencies, and 

national laboratories. I am not convinced, however, that government agencies and 

the industry are taking the problem seriously enough. I am interested in any suggestions you might have on how the government-industry-academia can work together more effectively to meet this challenge. 

Response. As outlined in the sober assessment of the National Academy of 

Sciences report, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing 

America for a Brighter Economic Future," the scientific and technological building 

blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other 

nations are gathering strength. The report makes a number of recommendations to 

increase America's talent pool by improving science and mathematics education. 

Through my current responsibilities on the Senate Armed Services Committee staff, 

I am familiar with science and technology educational programs initiated by the Department of Defense, reaching as deep as middle school science programs and ex- tending up to graduate fellowships. The Department is currently gathering data on the sustainability of the impacts of its outreach to middle school and high school 

students. I am also aware that the NRC has authorities, provided under the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005, to fund scholarships and fellowships in return for service with 

the NRC. Although I am not familiar with the extent of NRC resources for these 
172 


25055.145

19 

scholarship programs, if confirmed, I would endeavor to continue to follow the results of all of these programs, as well as others in government and industry, with 

the intent of finding approaches to address this strategic national vulnerability. 

Question 4. Going forward, NRC's relationship with other Federal agencies and 

State/local governments will be absolutely critical in accomplishing its mission. I 

would like to hear your thoughts and plans on how you intend to work at this issue. 

Response. As demonstrated by both the attacks of September 11, 2001, as well 

as natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, our Nation must improve its ability 

to marshal the entirety of our government resources in response to events such as 

these. Reviews by the Government Accountability Office and other commissions 

have found uneven progress in this regard, and not on a pace sufficient for the 

vulnerabilities we face. Although I have not been briefed on the details, I am aware 

that the NRC is a part of operational drills and government-wide exercises to test 

our preparedness and inter-agency coordination. If confirmed, I would participate in 

these efforts with the intent of strengthening this coordination and the mechanisms 

which support it. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Laverty, why don't you go ahead, take us to a whole other 

world for a moment, and then we will ask questions of both nominees as each Senator wishes. 

STATEMENT OF LYLE LAVERTY, NOMINEE FOR THE POSITION 

OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH, WILDLIFE AND 

PARKS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. LAVERTY. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Inhofe and distinguished members of the committee. It is truly an honor for me 

to appear before you today as I seek your confirmation to become 

the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 

I began my professional journey over four decades ago in the 

mountains of northern California, along the Klamath River in Orleans. It was there that I brought my new wife and we have spent 

four decades together. My wife is able to join me here this morning, 

as is my brother-in-law and my niece and nephew. My nephew, 

Ryan Struck, is scheduled to be deployed to Iraq in mid-September. 

So I am honored to have him here. 

Senator BOXER. We would ask if they could all stand. 

Mr. LAVERTY. Thank you very much. 

Senator BoXER. The young man who is going to Iraq, would you 

just raise you hand. We say thank you, Godspeed, and we will all 

do what we can to make sure that you are safe when you are there 

and get home as fast as you can. 

Mr. LAVERTY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Just a little bit of background. I completed my undergraduate degree at Humboldt State with a Bachelor in forest management and 

security, a Masters in public administration from George Mason 

University. I am a registered professional forester in California and 

a certified forester with the Society of American Foresters. 

As Senator Warner mentioned and Senator Craig, I have worked 

across the country for the past 35 years as a career employee with 

the U.S. Forest Service, and most recently, 5 years as the director 

of Colorado State Parks. Through a variety of leadership assignments, I have really come to develop a profound understanding of 

the importance of the harmony and balance between good public 

resource policy and successful management of America's natural resources. 
173 


25055.146

20 

In 1999, I led the Agency's effort to develop an integrated strategy to develop a response to the hazardous fuel conditions across 

the national forests. This strategy became then the foundation of 

the National Fire Plan, which was in fact supported by the Congress and funded after the catastrophic fires of 2000. I was subsequently asked to lead the Agency's implementation of that National 

Fire Plan and did so through 2001. 

Since the enactment of the Endangered Species Act, I have been 

involved in a variety of project design, implementation and coordination of natural resource management activities that truly integrate the protection of habitat with the goal of recovering species. 

I say the goal of recovering species, because that is a very, very 

critical part. 

As a regional forester in the Rocky Mountain region, I worked 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Division of Wildlife 

in the recovery lynx. Ten years ago, I served on the Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Committee, that we were involved in the coordination 

of the activities to support the recovery of the grizzly bear in the 

Yellowstone ecosystem. As a forest supervisor of the Mendocino National Forest in California, I worked with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service as well as the Department of Fish and Game to manage 

that complex habitat of the spotted owl, the southern portion of the 

spotted owl. 

Madam Chair, if confirmed, I am going to commit my energy to 

the stated purfoses of the Endangered Species Act, to the mission 

of the Nationa Wildlife Refuge System and those laws and regulations supporting, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I will work aggressively with other agencies, tribes and 

States, tribal land owners and other non-governmental organizations to further our country's conservation goals. 

I am aware of the many challenges and unique opportunities facing this position. I have read closely and studied the Inspector General's report on the allegations associated with Julie McDonald. 

One of the principal leadership responsibilities of this position is to 

distinguish between questions of science and questions of policy, 

and all of you have articulated that very, very clearly. I believe 

that science is the foundation of sound public policy. 

I am committed to ensuring the scientific integrity is maintained 

and scientific determinations are accurately and clearly communicated to policymakers. I believe that leadership is an active responsibility. As I worked with fire commanders in my past, it is 

very, very clear that the importance of presence is the essence of 

leadership. I believe that the presence provides that forum for communications and conversations to determine, are we doing what we 

said we would do. Doing what we said we would do is the essence 

of trust, and I am committed to earn the trust from you. 

If confirmed, I have several actions that I want to share with you 

that I will take. I will be happy to expand on these in the questions. First of all, I would invite the solicitor and the designated 

agency ethics officer to brief the entire staff of this unit, to talk 

about the rules and regulations as it relates to the protection and 

disclosure of information received by that office. 

Second, I will ensure that the staff understands the importance 

and the difference between questions of science and questions of 
174 


25055.147

21 

policy. Third, I will establish a code of conduct for employees to 

treat people with dignity and respect. It became very, very clear to 

me in that report that that is one of the fundamental roles of that 

position. 

Fourth, I will actively engage with the Agency, in conversations 

with agency leaders, both Director Bomar and Dale Hall, and agency employees, and talk about performance expectations. I will monitor performance. I believe that is the function of leadership and it 

is the essence of what this position is about. 

Finally, I want to commit to work personally and closely with all 

of you. I believe that being open and transparent in terms of conversations to hear from you and what are the concerns and also 

then be able to share with you what my concems are, I want to 

have that kind of a dialog and relationship with you. 

I am honored to be here, and I look forward to the conversations 

and being able to answer any questions you might have for me. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Laverty follows:] 

STATEMENT OF LYLE LAVERTY, NOMINEE FOR THE POSITION OF AsSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Madam Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of the Committee, I am truly honored to appear before you today as I seek your confirmation to become the 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. As a career re- source manager and public servant, the opportunity to be entrusted with the care and stewardship of the icons of America's heritage, is the ultimate experience. I 

want to thank both President Bush and Secretary Kempthorne for their confidence 

in me as shown through my nomination. 

My personal connection with America's great outdoors begins in Montana nearly 

60 years ago. Born and raised in California, I have vivid memories of our family 

adventures to Montana to visit my grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins in Mis· 

soula. I remember to this day catching my first trout in the crystal waters of Holland Lake. I remember waking up in Yellowstone as my grandmother chased bears 

out of our campsite banging on a big metal pot. 1 remember helping my dad set up our tent in the floor of Yosemite. I remember the ranger hikes. I remember watching the "firefall" during evening interpretative programs. Little did I realize how 

significant these personal connections would be in creating a lasting imprint on my being. 

I began my professional journey in public service over four decades ago in Orleans, California, a small rural mountain community. It was to this remote ranger station on the Klamath River that I brought my bride Pam, who has shared this 

wonderful journey and is with me here today. Our two children, Lori and Chad, ex· perienced lives growing up on ranger stations as we moved throughout this great 

country. 

I completed my undergraduate education with a Bachelor of Science in Forest 

Management from Humboldt State University in Arcata, California, and subse· 

quently received a Masters degree in Public Administration from George Mason 

University in Fairfax, Virginia. In 1997, I was selected to participate in the Executive Leadership Program at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. 

I have worked across the country as a 35-year career employee with the U.S. Forest Service and most recently as the Director of Colorado State Parks. I have gained a rich understanding of the values of America's natural resources and the importance of being a good steward of these resources. I have had the opportunity to par· ticipate in many assignments which have afforded my working with a broad range of stakeholders and government officials on a variety of natural resource management issues. Through a variety of line and leadership assignments, I clearly under· 

stand the importance of harmony of sound public resource policy with practical field 

operations. 

In 1999, I was asked to lead a team to respond to the GAO Report which identified the need for an integrated strategy to address the hazardous fuel conditions on National Forest lands. The strategy became the foundation for the National Fire 

Plan, funded by the Congress after the catastrophic fire season in 2000. I was subse-
175 


25055.148

22 

quently asked to lead the Agency's implementation of the National Fire Plan and 

did so through 2001. I mention my experience with the National Fire Plan, because 

it models the importance and complexity of working with various organization, 

agencies and jurisdictions to implement natural resource policy issues on a con· sensus basis. To that end, I am committed to working with each of you and the 

States to protect and promote our nation's fish and wildlife conservation heritage. 

Late in 2001, I accepted the position of Director of Colorado State Parks. The Col· 

orado State Park system is different than most State park systems in America. 

More than 85 percent of the division's operating budget comes from revenue other 

than general fund. Sustaining a quality system of parks required the application of 

sound business principles as well as consistently providing quality guest services. 

I have enjoyed a professional journey that has provided broad and extensive re· source management challenges in. Through these varied experiences, I have a com- bination of qualifications, perspectives and insights that I believe will add value to an excellent team of professional resource managers. Over the course of my career, 

I have worked with individuals, volunteers, organizations, State agencies and nu· merous Federal agencies. Living and working in both rural and urban communities across this country, I have learned that solutions to challenges facing our natural resources are developed through conversations with all interested parties. The won- derful relationships I have developed over the course the years has resulted in the 

support of my nomination by a wide variety of organizations across the country. 

My career has afforded me the opportunity to work in a variety of communities 

and ecosystems across the country, in the Douglas fir forests of northern California, 

the Cascades of Oregon and Washington, the southern portion of California's Coast· 

a! Range, the great Rocky Mountains of the intermountain west, as well as our na· tion's capital. I have found through these experiences that people care deeply about 

America's resources. For over three decades, I have been involved in the design, coordination and im· 

plementation of natural resource management activities, integrating protection of 

habitat, and working towards the recovery of species. As Regional Forester, I 

worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Division of Wildlife on the recovery of the lynx in Colorado. Last year, Bruce McCloskey, Director of 

Colorado's Division of Wildlife, proudly showed pictures of young lynx kittens, suc- cessful indicators that agencies working together can make a difference in the recov- ery of species. Ten years ago I served on the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, 

coordinating agency activities to support the recovery of the grizzly bear in the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Today, that grizzly bear population has been 

delisted, another indicator that agencies working together, seamlessly, with public 

support, can make a difference in the successful recovery of a species. 

As Forest Supervisor of the Mendocino National Forest, I worked extensively with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff and the California Department of Fish and 

Game in managing the complex southern portion of the spotted owl habitat. As Associate Deputy Chief, I coordinated policy implications of hazardous fuel treatment 

projects with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service leaders. The results, evidenced on the 

ground, demonstrate again that working together we can protect and enhance habi· 

tat and protect people and resources by reducing the risk of catastrophic wildland 

fire. Most recently, as the Director of Colorado State Parks, with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife staff and Colorado Division of Wildlife staff, we designed and implemented 

wildland fire mitigation projects in lynx habitat in the urban interface of Colorado's 

Front Range, again working together to effectively manage habitats for species re· covery, as well as satisfying multiple resource objectives. 

Madam Chair, if confirmed, I will commit my energy to achieve the stated purposes of the Endangered Species Act, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, and the laws and regulations under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. I will work aggressively with other Federal land management 

agencies, States, tribes, private land owners and other nongovernmental organizations to further our country's conservation goals. I am aware of the many challenges 

and unique opportunities associated with this position. I am committed to work 

closely with each of you to provide the oversight and stewardship of the resources entrusted to me in this position. 

Thank you again Madam Chair, Senator lnhofe, and Members of the Committee 

for considering my qualifications and for the opportunity to appear before you this 

morning. 

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 
176 


25055.149

23 

RESPONSES BY LYLE LAVERTY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS 

FROM SENATOR LAUTENBERG 

Question 1. As Assistant Secretary for the Department of Interior, which oversees the Fish and Wildlife and Parks Service, what would you do to ensure that science 

is not further suppressed or improperly edited for political reasons? 

Response. If confirmed, here are the actions I will take to ensure that science is 

not suppressed or improperly edited. 

Immediately, I will ask the Solicitor's Office and the Designated Agency Ethics 

Officer to brief the staff on the rules and regulations with regard to the protection 

of and disclosure of information received by the Office. 

I will affirm that discussion with my pledge to staff and employees of both agencies, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, reiterating 

my personal commitment to the ethical standards of conduct and behavior articulated by Secretary Kempthorne, including not sharing non-public information with 

outside parties. Second, I will ensure that my staff understands the difference between questions 

of science and questions of policy. I will explain that my policy staff is not to ask 

for or direct any change or modification in scientific findings by either agency. 

I will explain that any contacts they have with field personnel at either the Fish 

and Wildlife Service or the National Park Service regarding questions of science 

must and will be through established organizational channels, and only with my prior approval. I will actively monitor agency performance with and through both 

agency leaders. 

Third, I will establish a code of conduct for employees to treat people with dignity 

and respect. Abusive behavior toward anyone will not be tolerated. 

Fourth, I will actively engage in conversations with agency leaders, Directors 

Bomar and Hall, and agency employees to monitor performance. I will take what- ever steps are necessary to ensure that organizational performance is meeting ex- pectations. I will make it clear that: • Contact between my policy staff and agency personnel on management or regulatory actions will go through established organizational channels; • I expect bureau directors to personally ensure agency decisions are supported with credible scientific information that, as appropriate, is peer reviewed; • My policy staff is not to ask any of the agency staff to change scientific findings; • No staff, policy or career, are to act abusively toward any person, and if there 

is any indication of inappropriate behavior, it is the Director's responsibility to inform me immediately; • Bureau directors are to personally advise their management teams of my expec- tations for each of them regarding these principles; and • Any violations of these principles are to be reported immediately to me personally by the agency director for appropriate action. 

In the event of any violation of these principles, I will not hesitate to ensure that 

appropriate action is taken. 

Question 2. Will you commit to me that you will not participate in any efforts to 

alter, edit or redact the work of scientists as Assistant Secretary for the Department of the Interior? Will you commit to report to this committee any actions that you see taking place that violates the integrity of government scientists? 

Response. In my previous answer, I provided my plan to ensure that scientific integrity in our decisionmaking processes is protected. This includes ensuring that my 

staff understands the difference between questions of science and questions of pol- icy. I will explain that my policy staff is not to ask for or direct any change or modification in scientific fmdings by either agency. 

I will explain that any contacts they have with field personnel at either the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Park Service regarding questions of 

science must and will be through established organizational channels, and only with 

my prior approval. I will actively monitor agency performance with and through both agency leaders. 

RESPONSES BY LYLE LAVERTY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BOXER 

Question 1. The Fish and Wildlife Service recently removed both the bald eagle 

and the Midwest grey wolf population from the list of threatened and endangered 

species. This is one of the Endangered Species Act's great success stories. 

The Act defines an endangered species as one imperiled "throughout all or a significant portion of its range." But a recent Interior Department opinion limits this 

test to "the geographical area currently occupied by the species." 
177 


25055.150

24 

If that test had been used 35 years ago, wouldn't it have made it difficult to protect species like the bald eagle and grey wolf, whose "current range" at the time was largely limited to Canada and Alaska? 

Do you support that interpretation of the Act? 

If you do support the new test, how do you square it with the clear intent of Congress that the Endangered Species Act must protect species like the bald eagle when 

they became endangered in places like California and Maryland? 

Response. I am not familiar with the recent Departmental opinion, so I cannot 

speak to the characterization of it in your question. However, I will commit to you 

that, if confirmed, I will review that opinion and discuss its content and conclusions 

with our attorneys to ensure that it fulfills the intent of Congress in enacting the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Question 2. The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report con- cluded that 40 percent or more of all species may become extinct if global warming 

continues and we reach a 4 to 5 C average global temperature increase. 

Do you accept the IPCC's conclusion that there is a 90 percent certainty that most 

global warming over the past 50 years is human-caused, and that global warming's 

impacts on wildlife are a major concern? If confirmed, how would you address this 

issue? 

Response. I acknowledge and respect the increasing scientific knowledge regarding global climate change. The IPCC has made significant contributions to the scientific information on global climate change. If confirmed, I pledge to work with all 

of the bureaus within the Department of the Interior, particularly the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the United States Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Reclamation to increase our understanding of the impacts of global climate change on fish 

and wildlife and to work to identify ways that we can address those impacts. 

Question 3. As part of the restructuring due to funding shortages, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service is shifting staff and resources to "high priority" refuges. The Wildlife Refuge System prides itself on having at least one wildlife refuge in each of the 

50 states, and one within an hour's drive of every major U.S. city. 

How should the FWS appropriately determine which State's fishing spot is highest priority, and which local wildlife viewing site is lower priority? Doesn't this mean that some refuges are going to be unmanned? What do you plan to do about 

this? 

Response. While I have not had the opportunity to fully study the staffing situation in the National Wildlife Refuge System, I do understand the importan<;:e of the 

System to the public and to our fish and wildlife resources. If confirmed, I will com- mit to being an advocate for the system, and to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to help ensure that our national wildlife refuges are effectively managed 

to meet mission obligations and to continue to provide visitors with quality wildlifedependent recreation opportunities. 

Question 4. Records from the State Board of Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO), 

which provides State funds to the Department, raised questions about the adequacy 

of the Department's financial system. News reports in the Denver Post in February 

and March of this year and internal documents and other information indicate that, 

for example, "the accounting/finance staff of Parks at all levels was unable to articulate basic accounting principles involving the GOCO bills." I understand that an audit of the department was initiated at least in part in response to these problems. 

Please describe in detail what the accounting problems were that GOCO identified, 

what specific actions you took to address those issues both before and after GOCO 

identified them, your role in recommending or approving the audit, the specific 

issues to be reviewed in the audit, and what results if any have been reached in 

that audit. 

Response. The following deficiencies were identified and addressed as part of 

GOCO's concerns for accounting: underperforming staff were identified, GOCO's 

data needs were clearly identified, and proper quality controls were created to en- sure the long term success of this relationship. 

A number of events transpired in late 2005 and early in 2006 that significantly 

impacted the Division's GOCO accounting and reporting activities. Since none of 

these factors were reflected in the Denver Post article, it is important to provide 

the context leading to the actions that have addressed the issues. 

The Division experienced several significant changes in the Financial Services 

(FS) unit. Based on very serious performance deficiencies, the CFO began addressing performance accountability. The Controller and a lead accountant both resigned 

their positions early in 2006. The CFO had to rely on the GOCO accounting tech 

to perform the necessary GOCO billing and reconciliation tasks until more senior 
178 


25055.151

25 

accounting personnel could be hired. After a lengthy hiring process, the new Division Controller assumed his duties in June of 2006. The CFO immediately assigned 

him the tasks of evaluating and improving the GOCO billing and reconciliation 

process. Under the "Guiding Principles" that the GOCO board enacted to define the Division's policy in how to prioritize, spend and account for GOCO funding resources, 

there was a stipulation that "old" GOCO money had to be spent before "new" money 

could be spent. This triggered a massive effort on the part of State Parks in December 2005/January 2006 to reallocate expenditures at Cheyenne Mountain from newer GOCO 

grants to older grants and Lottery funds. It was imperative for the process to be 

completed to release funding so that construction on Cheyenne Mountain could pro- ceed without delay. Parks staff worked closely with GOCO on this process and 

brought it to a successful conclusion. This was a complex task with a large number 

of grant budget lines, contract awards, task orders and payments involved, where 

the process and the results would ultimately have to meet both GOCO and audit 

standards. 

The Division's CFO scheduled meetings with GOCO's CFO and accounting staff 

to solicit input from GOCO on how to improve the reporting processes, given the 

Division's personnel situation. The desired outcome was to define the reporting re- quirements-different for base and large scale projects-that would meet GOCO's 

reporting and audit needs. 

A meeting with GOCO staff in August 2006 produced a substantive agreement on this issue and the Division worked diligently to produce these work products, both 

interim and permanent. The products included a temporary set of "payment adjustment record" forms for the Cheyenne Mountain Golden Triangle contract, which was due and delivered to GOCO in September 2006. The fact that a difference existed 

between some invoices submitted by contractors and what was ultimately paid to 

the contractor caused GOCO great frustration. In the summer of 2006, this became a major issue ultimately involving the DNR Controller. 

The DNR Controller communicated in a letter to GOCO on June 20, 2006 that 

it is not uncommon in the construction industry for disagreements to arise regarding project completions. Payments are determined on the basis of the project man- ager's assessment of the quality and acceptability of materials furnished, work performed, and the rate of progress of the work, all interpretations of the plans and 

specifications, and the acceptable fulfillment of the contract. Payments are not made on the basis of the contractor's subjective assessment of these same issues as re- flected in invoices. Thus, payments are made on those items where there is agreement and, where there is no agreement, the balance deferred and subjected to further resolution and/or negotiations. The DNR Controller concluded, based on the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Division and GOCO that the MOU only requires a monthly billing statement to GOCO, identifying the total expenditures to date, along 

with copies of the Colorado Financial Reporting System (CO FRS) accounting reports 

to support the amount billed to GOCO. She also concluded that, since COFRS is the 

official financial record of the state, information contained in the accounting reports 

should be sufficient for GOCO to make the determination that a vendor has been 

paid by the Division, and that reimbursement from GOCO to the Division is due. 

In a follow-up e-mail from GOCO's CFO, she referenced additional documentation 

requirements contained in the Legacy/Large Scale grant agreements---eorrectly so-- and State Parks has responded to these additional requirements. 

State Parks agreed to develop a single format for pay sheets that would include a "payment adjustment record" and be used on all legacy/large scale funded grants 

such as Cheyenne Mountain, St. Vrain and future projects. Division staff continues 

to consult with GOCO staff in the development process of format to assure that 

GOCO accounting data needs are met. The Division Controller met with the GOCO 

CFO and accounting staff the week of November 13, 2006 to develop even closer 

communications and cooperation in defining these and other needs. 

Another work product requested by GOCO and delivered by the Division was ex- penditure by fund and year for Cheyenne Mountain since the inception of the 

project. This was requested by GOCO to review match funding for legacy/large scale 

projects. This report was generated in short order and delivered in its final form 

to GOCO on October 5, 2006, with a positive reception by GOCO's CFO. On Sep- tember 13, 2006, the Division's CFO and GOCO's CFO agreed that GOCO would 

pay the May and June bills with the understanding that the Division would be providing with the July and subsequent billings, a summary billing statement with a formula error corrected. The Division's GOCO Accounting Tech and seasonal staff 

spent considerable time (approximately three weeks) and effort, in an attempt to 
179 


25055.152

26 

isolate and correct the formula error, without success. At that time the Division's 

CFO decided that it would be better to re-develop the billing summary in an MSAccess format. This would eliminate the error and add additional reporting capabilities to adjust to possible future GOCO requests for changes in reporting detail 

and formats. 

GOCO was informed of this decision and the impact it would have on receiving 

the July and subsequent GOCO billings completed and submitted. It should be 

noted that the summary spreadsheet with the formula error was developed by Division GOCO accounting staff no longer with the Division. 

Just after this effort began, in the third week of September, the Division's GOCO 

Accounting tech had to attend to a critical family issue that demanded her full attention. She was out of the office for nearly four weeks. Although she tried to work on the report at home as time would permit, the effort was seriously delayed. Again, 

GOCO was informed of the situation and the consequential impact on the Division's 

ability to meet its time commitment on the billing summary report and associated 

July and subsequent billing submittals. The Division eventually met with GOCO to 

present the draft MSAccess report on Monday, November 13, 2006 and to discuss 

the submittal of July, August, September and October billing reports. 

The CFO has met with his FS Management team to define and pursue a strategy 

to cross train available staff and build process redundancy within the organization. 

He has also expressed his intent to add a much needed quality control and assur- ance component to the GOCO billing process. The addition of another budget/accounting FTE in fiscal year 2007-8, requested in the Division's fiscal year 2007-8 

FTE Decision Item, and recently approved by the legislature, will add much needed 

staff to implement these changes. 

After the review and a subsequent meeting on November 16, 2006, with the Division's Controller, GOCO's CFO agreed to accept the Division's July, August and September billings with the currently available backup and to manually adjust any inconsistencies as done previously. The Division would get the substantial outstanding revenue recorded in COFRS, and GOCO would get the funds transferred and off 

their books. The Division agreed to have the billings completed and submitted to 

GOCO by November 30, 2006. The Division's October GOCO billing would be submitted no later than December 14, 2006. 

The Controller worked essentially full time to resolve the GOCO impasse and develop a billing and reconciliation process, with supporting documentation and re· ports to meet GOCO's billing verification, reconciliation and audit requirements. He was assigned the primary lead on all GOCO accounting and financial interface and 

communications events and activities. The Controller has successfully resolved the 

GOCO accounting and reconciliation issues, which led to successful approval and re- lease of the fiscal year 2007-2008 spending plan. 

In summary, filling critical positions, such as the Division's Controller and Lead 

Accountant with skilled and highly qualified individuals, combined with defining re- porting needs with GOCO has successfully addressed these concerns. In a February 

meeting with the Executive Director, prior to the GOCO Board meeting, I rec- ommended that we ask the State Auditor to conduct a performance audit to ensure that the Division's internal controls were in order. This recommendation was a proactive effort to review our existing internal control systems and determine if 

there were other improvements the Division should take, such as training, staffing, 

and project management. 

I understand the audit team has met with Department of Natural Resources and 

Division personnel to define the scope of the audit. The audit team is currently as- sessing the Division's established internal controls as well as the financial management systems and processes. Since the team is in the fact finding state, I am not aware of any results, conclusions or recommendations. 

Question 5. GOCO has stated that the Department's Controller has "extensive 

personal relationships with senior management within State Parks that may cloud 

the situation and provide a perception issue from an audit perspective. To com- plicate this is that the current CFO also had a personal relationship with the Director. It has been our experience during our annual financial audits that these types 

of close personal relationships raise red flags and can impede internal control effectiveness." Please respond to this statement and please explain whether you participated in the hiring process for the Department's Chief Financial Officer or Controller, and whether you knew either of the individuals prior to interviewing or se- lecting them for these positions. 

Response. The meaning of "extensive personal relationships" as referenced in the 

GOCO statement is not clear to me. I do attend the same church as the Division's 

Controller and CFO. I see them on most Sundays before or after worship services. 
180 


25055.153

27 

From my association with both of these individuals, I believe they both demonstrate 

the highest standards of professional and personal integrity. 

I was the selecting official for the Chief Financial Officer. The State of Colorado 

has a very rigorous and structured personnel testing process. The Department's 

Human Resources division manages this entire process. Human Resources issue va- cancy announcements and screen the applicants, to determine which candidates 

meet the minimum qualifications. Following that screen and evaluation, Human Re- sources administer and score a written test. The test questions are developed by the 

Human Resources division based on the position description. 

Following the scoring and evaluation of the written test, the candidates go 

through an oral test, with a panel of Human Resources and subject matter experts 

from other divisions in the Department. From this panel, generally the top three 

candidates are then submitted to me for selection. Individuals involved in this evaluation panel included the Department's Budget Office and the Department's Controller and the Department's Director of Human Resources. This panel developed 

the recommendations and submitted three candidates for me to consider. It was at 

this point, and this point only, that I saw the selection options. I had no knowledge 

of which candidates successfully passed the written test. I had no knowledge of 

which candidates the oral testing panel interviewed. After interviewing the three 

candidates, I selected the Chief Financial Officer. I considered his qualifications, 

background, and the needs of the Division based on the position description. 

The Division's Controller followed the same process described above. After interviewing the top three candidates, the Chief Financial Officer asked the staff of the 

Financial Services Unit to make the final selection of the Division Controller. They 

did so. 

Question 6. In April 2007, the Denver Post reported that you purchased a horse 

to participate in activities sponsored by an elite social club, and that after officials 

questioned this purchase you sold the horse to your son-in-law. Please explain in 

detail the purpose of the purchase and sale, how the purchase and sale process and 

amounts paid for these articles is consistent with State purchasing, bidding and sale 

of asset rules, and what advice you received from state officials and from whom re- garding the purchase and sale. 

Response. The horse was not purchased to participate in activities sponsored by an elite social club, but by the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation to establish an equestrian program for a variety of park operations, including visitor contacts 

in our urban parks as well as backcountry patrols in our mountain parks. The primary objective of the mounted ranger patrol was to provide officer presence to the 

busiest areas of our large metro parks. Other park and law enforcement agencies 

have found that a mounted ranger provides a highly effective tool for positive visitor 

contacts. 

The value of a mounted ranger has been tested throughout the country in metropolitan communities and urban parks. Large park areas, like Chatfield and Cherry 

Creek, with large open space and extensive trail systems are settings where mounted rangers can patrol more effectively than rangers on foot or with motorized vehicles. Other park units and law enforcement agencies reinforce the effectiveness of 

visitor contact with a mounted ranger. 

In 2004 the Division conducted a series of town meetings throughout the State 

to receive public input regarding state park facilities and services. Based on input 

the Division received during the town meetings, the public ranked trails and 

trailheads for hiking and horseback riding as a very high priority. Having park 

managers ride with equestrian organizations in the field to discuss State park trails, 

trailheads and corrals is extremely effective, as we have learned from participation 

in similar activities with hikers, ATV and snowmobile organizations. 

The purchase was consistent with all State procurement regulations. I personally 

met with the Department Controller and discussed the equestrian program in the 

Division's park operations. We discussed the program benefits and advantages of a mounted patrol in our metropolitan parks. Subsequent to that discussion the purchase order was reviewed and approved by the Department of Natural Resources 

Contracting Officer. 

Following a budget briefing, a member of the budget committee expressed a com- ment regarding the horse that I felt could possibly put some of the Division's programs at risk. I discussed the comment with the Division's executive team and determined selling the horse was the appropriate action. 

The subsequent sale of the horse was consistent with state property disposal regulations. The sales contract was reviewed and approved by the Department's Contracting Officer and Controller. 
181 


25055.154

28 

Question 7. Earlier this year, we joined other colleagues in a letter to Secretary 

Kempthorne expressing concern about weakening changes to the rules for the Endangered Species Act which the Department was considering. 

It is my expectation that before any regulatory changes, including any changes 

that would amend the ESA's key/rotection, such as habitat designations, the listing 

process, scientific standards, an interagency consultation, are proposed, the subcommittee will be briefed on them and given a chance to review them well in ad- vance of any formal proposed rulemaking. Do I have your commitment to do so? 

Response. As I mentioned to your staff during our meeting last week, I am a believer in open dialogue. While I have been generally briefed on past versions of the 

draft proposal, I look forward to learning more about it. I am also not aware that a decision has been made to finalize or publish anything to date. I am aware that 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Hall has provided general briefings on this 

issue and I advised that it is the Department's practice to brief committees of juris- diction in advance of all significant actions, including key points of major rulemaking proposals. If confirmed, I will ensure that this is done for the Committee, 

should the Department decide to issue proposed revisions to these rules. 

RESPONSES BY LYLE LAVERTY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LIEBERMAN 

Question 1. Earlier this year, we joined other colleagues in a letter to Secretary 

Kemptorne expressing concern about weakening changes to the rules for the Endangered Species Act which the Department was considering. 

It is my expectation that before any regulatory changes, including any changes 

that would amend the ESA's key/rotection, such as habitat designations, the listing 

process, scientific standards, an interagency consultation, are proposed, the subcommittee will be briefed on them and given a chance to review them well in ad- vance of any formal proposed rulemaking. Do I have your commitment to do so? 

Response. As I mentioned to your staff during our meeting last week, I am a believer in open dialogue. While I have been generally briefed on past versions of the 

draft proposal, I look forward to learning more about it. I am also not aware that a decision has been made to finalize or publish anything to date. I am aware that 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Hall has provided general briefings on this 

issue and I advised that it is the Department's practice to brief committees of juris- diction in advance of all significant actions, including key points of major rulemaking proposals. If confirmed, I will ensure that this is done for the Committee, 

should the Department decide to issue proposed revisions to these rules. 

Question 2. The endangered species program is currently experiencing at least a 30 percent vacancy rate and in some areas that rate may be close to 50 percent, undermining its ability to recover species, respond to stakeholders in a timely fashion, and list species in need of protection. How will you address the backlog of can- didate species proposed for listing, but still unprotected by the Endangered Species Act? How will you address the delays in the development and implementation of 

species recovery plans? Response. I have not had the opportunity to review in detail the staffing situation 

in the FWS's Endangered Species Program. However, I believe that it is important 

to be responsive to stakeholders and work with them to undertake conservation measures that prevent the need to list species, as well as to implement conservation measures designed to recover those species that have been listed under the Endangered Species Act. If confirmed, I commit to working with the FWS to better understand and address the challenges facing the Endangered Species Program. 

Question 3. The Interior Department has recently been troubled with the interference of professional staff and the undermining of scientifically based decisions. 

You said science should drive policy and that you would set minimum performance 

and ethical standards to ensure that these sorts of actions do not continue. Can you 

specifically outline these standards and the steps you plan to take to make certain 

that the best available science is used to drive the implementation of the Endangered Species Act? 

Response. If confirmed, here are the actions I will take to ensure that science is 

not suppressed or improperly edited and that the best available science is used in our decision. 

Immediately, I will ask the Solicitor's Office and the Designated Agency Ethics 

Officer to brief the staff on the rules and regulations with regard to the protection 

of and disclosure of information received by the Office. 

I will affirm that discussion with my pledge to staff and employees of both agencies, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, reiterating 
182 


25055.155

29 

my personal commitment to the ethical standards of conduct and behavior articulated by Secretary Kempthorne, including not sharing non-public information with 

outside parties. Second, I will ensure that my staff understands the difference between questions 

of science and questions of policy. I will explain that my policy staff is not to ask 

for or direct any change or modification in scientific findings by either agency. 

I will explain that any contacts they have with field personnel at either the Fish 

and Wildlife Service or the National Park Service regarding questions of science 

must and will be through established organizational channels, and only with my 

prior approval. I will actively monitor agency performance with and through both 

agency leaders. 

Third, I will establish a code of conduct for employees to treat people with dignity 

and respect. Abusive behavior toward anyone will not be tolerated. 

Fourth, I will actively engage in conversations with agency leaders, Directors 

Bomar and Hall, and agency employees to monitor performance. I will take what- ever steps are necessary to ensure that organizational performance is meeting ex- pectations. I will make it clear that: • Contact between my policy staff and agency personnel on management or regulatory actions will go through established organizational channels; • I expect bureau directors to personally ensure agency decisions are supported 

with credible scientific information that, as appropriate, is peer reviewed; • My policy staff is not to ask any of the agency staff to change scientific findings; • No staff, policy or career, are to act abusively toward an;y person, and if there 

is any indication of inappropriate behavior, it is the Directors responsibility to inform me immediately; • Bureau directors are to personally advise their management teams of my expectations for each of them regarding these principles; and • Any violations of these principles are to be reported immediately to me personally by the agency director for appropriate action. 

In the event of any violation of these principles, I will not hesitate to ensure that 

appropriate action is taken. 

RESPONSES BY LYLE LAVERTY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CARDIN 

Question 1. During your tenure as the head of the Colorado State Parks system 

you made a concerted effort to modernize camping and cabin facilities. Many attribute the 7.6 percent percent increase in attendance at Colorado State Parks in 

part to these modernizations. In Maryland, the Patuxent Wildlife Research Refuge covers 12,900 acres between Baltimore and Washington DC. The site is in serious 

need of modernization and repair. How would you work with the Department of the 

Interior and OMB to ensure that Patuxent and sites like it obtain long-term com- mitments to facilities improvement? 

Response. As I mentioned during our meeting prior to my hearing, I am not familiar with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's facilities management plans or its capital/maintenance investment strategy to date. However, if confirmed I will work 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service to determine this project's priority within the 

Service's maintenance program. With strong supporting information, I will advocate 

for a strong investment program to support the mission and goals of the refuge system. 

Question 2. Smith Island is Maryland's only inhabited island. The northern sec- tion of the island complex includes the Martin National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge 

is critical for myriad species of waterfowl and wildlife. However, accelerating shoreline erosion is threatening the refuge as well as the island's population. We have 

secured funding to help ameliorate the immediate problem on Smith Island by con- structing an offshore segmented breakwater. However, continued attention is needed to save the Refuge and the inhabited sections of Smith Island. How would you 

approach the erosion problem in Smith Island and areas suffering similar erosion 

problems? What do you believe should be done to save wetlands and underwater 

Bay grasses such as those in the Chesapeake? 

Response. As I mentioned to you in our meeting, I have not had the opportunity 

to review the various concerns that have been raised regarding the erosion issue at 

Smith Island, so I am not in a position to comment on specific recommendations re- garding this situation. However, I do believe that the restoration of wetlands and 

related habitats is important in many areas, including the Chesapeake Bay. If con- firmed, I will work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to address the conserva- tion and protection of wetlands and other important habitat such as underwater 

Bay grasses in the Chesapeake Bay. 
183 


25055.156

30 

Question 3. Maryland is working hard to reduce excess nitrogen and phosphorus 

inputs into the coastal byways. Output from the Assateague Island National Seashore wastewater treatment plant is a significant contributor to the problem. To address this problem, Assateague Island National Seashore has been provided funds 

to make modifications to its wastewater treatment plant. However, the process has 

stalled at the Dept. of the Interior. What would you do to make sure that those bureaucratic hurdles that remain are successfully surmounted? 

Response. As Assistant Secretary, I understand that ultimate responsibility for 

ensuring that such facilities in parks or refuges comply with any applicable state 

requirements will lie with me. I look forward to taking on that responsibility. As 

I mentioned during our meeting, while I am not familiar with the details of this 

matter, if confirmed I will work with the National Park Service to determine what 

has delayed the project and to ensure that it continues to move forward. I will work 

with the National Park Service to examine all options to identify available funding or to seek new funding through appropriate National Park Service funding programs to complete the project. 

RESPONSES BY LYLE LAVERTY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR lNHOFE 

Question 1. Implementation of the Endangered Species Act is very important to 

this Committee. During your career how have you been involved in implementing 

the ESA? What do you believe the role of the Assistant Secretary in implementing 

the ESA? 

Response. Since the enactment of the Endangered Species Act, I have been involved in the design, coordination and implementation of natural resource management activities that integrate habitat protection with the goal of recovering species. 

As a Regional Forester, I worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

State Division of Wildlife on the recovery of the lynx in Colorado. For the past sev- eral years, reintroduced lynx have successfully reproduced, an indication that agencies working together can make a difference in the recovery of endangered species. 

Ten years ago I served on the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, coordinating 

agency activities to support the recovery of the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Today, that grizzly bear population has been delisted, an excellent 

example that agencies working together, seamlessly, with public support can make a difference in the successful recovery of species. 

As Forest Supervisor of the Mendocino National Forest, I worked extensively with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff and the California Department of Fish and 

Game successfully managing the complex southern portion of spotted owl habitat. 

I believe the role of the Assistant Secretary is to commit personal energy and co- ordinate agency resources to achieve the stated purposes of the Endangered Species 

Act. If confirmed, I will work aggressively with other Federal land management agencies, States, tribes, private land owners and other nongovernmental organizations to further our Nation's conservation goals. 

Question 2. Last year, the Supreme Court in its Rapanos decision correctly limited 

federal regulatory jurisdiction of waters of the U.S. The Fish and Wildlife Service oversees several programs that partner with landowners, play an important role in 

the preservation of our environment, and are critical to the President's goal of an annual wetlands gain. Do you agree that programs like Partners for Fish and Wildlife that work collaboratively can be very successful in preserving the environment 

without a confrontational, regulatory approach that often leaves landowners feeling 

that their rights have been violated? 

Response. I completely agree that programs like the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program can be extremely valuable in protecting habitat. It and other coopera- tive conservation programs promote partnerships with States, landowners, and 

other citizen stewards to, among other things, protect and enhance habitat for 

threatened and endangered species. If confirmed, I will work with U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Director Hall to continue the success of such partnership programs. 

Question 3. During the course of your professional career, how have you reconciled 

issues of science and policy? Response. As a professional resource manager, I have found that issues of science 

and policy can be reconciled through clear and open discussions at the beginning of a project. The leadership role of the line officer or project manager is to, at that 

point, bring all parties-scientists and resource specialists-together and clearly ar- ticulate project objectives and science requirements associated with the project site. 

I have found that, in my past positions, the most significant aspect of my role as 
184 


25055.157

31 

the deciding officer was ensuring that my team was complete and that questions 

of science and policy were openly discussed as the foundation of the project design. 

Question 4. Mr. Laverty, during the question and answer period, you made some comments about the Fish and Wildlife Service activities regarding a potential penguin listing. Specifically, you said "they are in the process now of gathering public 

comments on that. That also would be expanded into a 12-month status review." 

The FWS announcement that the petition to list penguin was found to be warranted was July 10. You appeared before this committee on July 17. Your response to the 

question about penguins suggests that the FWS has already made up its mind to 

propose listing of these species after only one week of official comment and well in 

advance of gathering any data to assess penguin populations, threats to their existence, regulatory mechanisms, etc. This greatly concerns me. Can you please provide detailed information as to where the FWS is in the process with the penguins and 

explain what information you received that would suggest that the FWS will indeed 

take the next step in proposing to list the penguin species. 

Response. During the question and answer period, I unintentionally misspoke 

when commenting about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's activities with respect 

to a potential penguin listing. Under the Endangered Species Act, the first step in 

considering a petition is to evaluate the information presented by a petitioner, after 

which the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to make a finding on whether the 

petition provides substantial information to indicate that listing may be warranted. 

In fact, with the Fish and Wildlife Service's July 11, 2007, publication of a 90-

day finding that listing may be warranted under the ESA for 10 of the 12 petitioned penguin species, the Fish and Wildlife Service is now only in the earliest stages of 

conducting a status review. At this time it is my understanding that the Fish and 

Wildlife Service has not determined whether any or all of these penguin species 

warrant inclusion on the list. Through a 60-day open comment period, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service is gathering information to assist in evaluating the status of each 

penguin species under review and, after reviewing public comments, will make a decision as to whether or not it should propose to list any of the penguin species based on the best available science and commercial data. 

It is my understanding that a positive 12-month finding for any of these species, 

if made, would trigger a second 12-month period for public comment and scientific 

review of a proposed listing rule before a final decision is made on whether to designate any or all of these species as threatened or endangered. 

RESPONSE BY LYLE LAVERTY TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION 

FROM SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Question. The 2006 National Park System Advisory Board report, "Charting a Future for National Heritage Areas" emphasizes how the National Park Service can benefit from welcoming the National Heritage Area approach to conserving nationally important landscapes and cultures. What approach and strategy will you utilize 

to implement the recommendations in this important report so that National Heritage Areas are included within the family of the National Park Service? 

Response. National Heritage Areas support the Department's mission to work in 

partnership with local communities to promote, protect, and interpret resources and 

tell the stories of our national heritage. I am familiar with National Heritage Areas 

in Colorado, and am generally aware of the Advisory Board's report and rec- ommendations. I understand that the Administration has previously transmitted a legislative proposal to provide this program with clear criteria and standards for 

management planning, among other things. If confirmed, I look forward to con- tinuing to work with Congress on this very important issue. 

Senator BoXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Laverty. 

We are going to start the questioning period, so people can have 

5 minutes. I am going to give any Senator that didn't make an 

opening statement 7 minutes, so they can have a little extra time. 

Mr. Laverty, your comments are music to my ears. I really think 

the spirit in which you gave them is very important to this committee on both sides. 

There was an article July 9, "U.S. Officials Looking to Protect 

Ten Penguin Species. The Bush administration is considering an 

endangered species protection for ten penguin species whose polar 
185 


25055.158

32 

habitat is shrinking due to global warming. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service said that listing 'may be warranted,' and initiated a formal 

status review which is the first step in the process of listing a species. This would put the penguins on the same path as the polar 

bear." This is the report that I have. 

Are you aware of this? Have you been briefed on this situation 

yet? 

Mr. LAVERTY. Yes, ma'am, I have. 

Senator BOXER. What do you see the timeframe for both the 

polar bear decision and the penguins decision? 

Mr. LAVERTY. Madam Chair, there are basically two different 

time lines right now. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. LAVERTY. For the polar bear, the polar was listed as a proposed listing and they have received public comments on that. The 

action by the Agency is to come up with a recommendation in December. That is on the polar bear. 

Senator BoXER. OK 

Mr. LAVERTY. The listing on the penguin as a result of a petition 

was in fact the 90-day listing. They are in the process now of gathering public comments on that. That also will probably expand into 

a 12-month status review by the Agency. 

Senator BOXER. I see. Very good. Well, thank you for that. 

I want to talk to Kristine. I noticed, and of course all of us did, 

the earthquake in Japan that involved some type of a leak from the 

nuclear power plants there. Without getting into whether it is a 

problem or not, because I certainly don't have the facts to know, 

I am only reading news reports, one of the things I noticed in California, and it is just mind-boggling, is when these great, big, giant 

projects come up, for some reason, whether they are great big dams 

or nuclear power plants, for some reason, they come up, they are 

right near earthquake faults. I just don't-I think this is something 

that we ought to be concerned about. 

So I guess my question is pretty simple. Would you commit that 

as you look over these applications, and I know that Senators Carper and Voinovich will be looking very closely, this is their jurisdiction in the subcommittee, and I greatly respect that, I wanted to 

know from you, is this something that you will carefully look at as 

these applications come forward, the geological situation, and ask 

questions from the scientists about the earthquake potentials? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, Senator, clearly seismic considerations, as 

you've mentioned, are an important consideration, not only in your 

State, but anywhere in the country that we have faults and other 

seismic conditions. That needs to be analyzed against both a realistic case and a worst case scenario. Those need to be informed decisions. 

Senator BoXER. Thank you so much. My other question is, during 

their investigation, GAO's fake company was unable to obtain 

sealed radioactive sources from the State of Maryland. They tried 

first, they went to Maryland as a sting operation. Because the 

State said a site visit would be necessary before materials could be 

issued. 

Now, the NRC does not require a pre-license inspection for a licensee to receive a Category 3 type of radioactive material. If 
186 


25055.159

33 

Maryland has determined that a pre-license inspection prior to receipt of Category 3 materials is necessary, why hasn't the NRC? Do 

you know? If you don't know, is this something that you will consider bringing up if you are confirmed? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, I was able to watch a certain amount of 

the hearing that was conducted on the GAO sting investigation. I 

was exposed to an amount of Commissioner McGaffigan's testimony. He was the NRC witness at that hearing. I know that he 

has pledged to look at this issue. 

So it would appear to me as an outsider that it will be something 

that the Commission will be evaluating, since Commissioner 

McGaffigan has made that commitment to do so. If confirmed, I 

certainly would be a part of that. 

Senator, I was reflecting, in your opening comments where you 

talked about national security aspects of nuclear materials, I certainly, if confirmed would bring a strong focus on our 

vulnerabilities to my service as Commissioner. 

Senator BoXER. Good. I am very pleased. Just think about Senator Warner sitting on your shoulder, because it is just ridiculous 

to think about our rules being weaker than the State of Maryland. 

It blows my mind. 

Last question. I understand you have worked in the Department 

of Energy's Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Office. Did 

you work on transportation and waste disposal issues related to 

Yucca Mountain? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, thank you for that question. I want to be 

as clear as I can with the committee. When I worked at the Department of Energy I was employed in what is called the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. That is the office established 

under law to administer and develop the geologic repository. My 

work was not in Las Vegas on the Yucca Mountain license application, it was in Washington, DC at the Department of Energy headquarters. 

I worked transportation packaging. As you had mentioned in 

your opening comments, the safe transportation of these materials 

is so important. Whether a geologic repository opens or not, we 

have to transport materials this week and every week very, very 

safely. I also worked on inventories of defense materials that may require deep geologic disposal. Those would be materials currently 

at Department of Energy sites. 

Senator BOXER. So you didn't work directly on Yucca? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I did not. 

Senator BoXER. OK, very good. Thank you. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Kristine, you and I briefly discussed in my office the highly enriched uranium spill at the Nuclear Fuel Services facility in Tennessee and my disappointment with the NRC's lack of communication about the event. In your current capacity as staff to the Armed 

Services Committee, you also understand the need to protect sensitive information that could aid our adversaries who might want 

to use it against us. 

If confirmed, will you ensure that the national information security needs are adequately protected and balanced with the NRC's 
187 


25055.160

34 

need to improve public communication? Maybe any other comments 

you might want to make about the Tennessee event. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Senator. I do recall that we discussed 

the Erwin, TN spill of material and I commented to you that it 

struck me just in reading reports and summaries of the event that 

it was a very serious matter. I had been taken aback with something of that seriousness, that the notifications were delayed. 

I don't know the cause of the delay in notifying on that incident. 

But I confirmed to you and I would confirm that those are the 

types of matters that I think, if there is any threat to public health 

and safety, that people need to know about. 

I also do acknowledge, as you have mentioned, that post-9/11, 

Government-wide, there has been a consideration of what is appropriate to post on Websites and the appropriate balance needs to be 

struck. These are difficult issues, to find that balance, but I would 

pledge to do that. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, thank you. We also talked about the 

fact that the NRC is going to be receiving a lot of applications 

under the new reactor licensing program. My concern is you don't 

get bogged down. We want to preserve the safety and the security, 

and we want to have applications reviewed efficiently and expediently. I just hope that you will do that. Any comments as to your 

intentions in terms of keeping things going? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, I recall that we discussed the challenges 

of this matter. I think any time that something hasn't happened 

for many, many years such as the NRC has not been confronted 

with a new license application for so many years that this will be 

challenging process as we move forward, not only to continue excellence, as they need to do in regulation of current facilities, but to 

be able to resource in terms of people and human resources that 

they will apply to the new applications they are getting. This is 

going to be a tough challenge that I referred to in my statement. 

The tempo is going to go up and they need to continue to do a good 

job. Senator INHOFE. Yes, back some 10 or 12 years ago when I 

chaired the Clean Air Subcommittee, at that time it had been 12 

years since there had been an oversight hearing of the NRC, and 

things were in need of oversight. We actually put deadlines on 

dates. This is something you can't do when you are looking at these 

applications, because no two cases are alike. But I just hope that 

you keep things moving along, because I think we all agree that 

we are going to have to get these things approved. 

Now, Lyle, it was music to my ears when you said something 

about the fact that you want to extend courtesies to these people, 

the stakeholders and other eeople. This is something that you don't 

see very often and you don t hear from people. I am glad that you 

have. 

One of the programs that you and I talked about that I just feel 

very excited about was this Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. We had hearings out in my State of Oklahoma, Mr. Hall was 

there, and I introduced legislation after that hearing. The President has signed it. This is the type of thing that Government, in 

my opinion, should be doing, working with the property owners. All 

so often, they think that someone, if you are a landowner, that you 
188 


25055.161

35 

are there trying to abuse, you are trying to pollute, you are trying 

to not take care of the wildlife. 

But I think this partnership program, that started out as a pilot 

program, is tremendously successful. I would like to hear your comments about that partnership in wildlife program. 

Mr. LAVERTY. Senator, I believe that working with landowners 

becomes the essence in how we are going to manage the wildlife 

resources of this country. A major proportion of wildlife habitat is 

not on Federal eState, but it requires and demands that kind of a 

working relationship with private landowners. 

I think we need to do all we can, and I think this is what Dale 

and his group are working on and trying to create that kind of an 

environment, that can make it a working relationship with the private landowners to further conservation causes in terms of protecting wildlife species and habitats. It becomes critically important 

to be able to have incentives that can help landowners do that. It 

should not be perceived as a penalty, if you will, for doing some 

things to protect wildlife habitat. I think this is some of the goals 

and objectives that the partnership program is all about. 

Senator INHOFE. I agree with that. Since my time is running out, 

let me just ask you, you commented that you have several actions 

that you want to take and you named four. Are there others? Is 

your list longer than four? 

Mr. LAVERTY. Yes, sir. I think first of all, is to be able to sit down 

with the staff and understand kind of the feeling of the staff. It has 

really been under intense pressure. I think you need to understand, 

what is the staff feeling about the issues that are facing the staff 

as it relates to the IG report and then look at recommendations 

and solutions that can be driven from a staff perspective. 

The protection of science is absolutely fundamental. I just can't 

say it strong enough that that is the foundation of good public policy. You need to have good science. I think Madam Chair talked 

about the importance of having good science. Then you debate the 

policy. I want to be able to help facilitate that. 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. Thank you very much. Thank you, 

Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Carper, you get 7 minutes. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

To our witnesses, welcome, congratulations on your nominations. 

If I could start with you, Ms. Svinicki. Is it true that you once 

worked for a Member of Congress? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I have had the privilege of serving three Senators; 

I currently serve Senator McCain, before that Senator Warner and 

Senator Craig, two members of this committee. 

Senator CARPER. That is pretty good. So you have a pretty good 

idea of how we work around here, or don't work, I guess. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I do, sir. 

Senator CARPER. We don't work well together sometimes. This 

committee I think maybe being an exception to that. 

I want to talk with you a little bit about communications. But 

before I do, I want to reflect back on something the Chairman just 

said regarding the ability of GAO in the scam operation to counterfeit a license that would have enabled them to acquire substantial 
189 


25055.162

36 

amounts of low-level radioactive materials that they could cobble 

together and maybe create enough oomph for a dirty bomb. 

I go back to that, I am an advocate of nuclear power, I am also 

an advocate of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I don't know 

how we reduce that dependence without a whole lot of things, more 

solar, more wind, cellulosic ethanol, biobutanol, more energy efficient appliances, more energy efficient cars, trucks or vans. I also 

believe it is impossible to move meaningfully toward energy independence without a greater reliance on nuclear energy. 

Every now and then, something comes along that gives us a 

scare. We had one of those just a week or so ago with respect to 

the GAO's scam operation. I said at the hearing, which I chaired 

in part, I said that everything I do, I know I can do better. I used 

to implore my cabinet, when I was Governor of Delaware, and my 

staff now here in the Senate, with these words, if it isn't perfect, 

make it better, if it isn't perfect, make it better. None of us are perfect. God knows I am not, and we all make mistakes. 

The latitude that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has for 

making mistakes is more narrow than that which falls on the rest 

of us. One mistake, one oversight, one slip in the work that the 

Commission does cannot just create maybe a difficult situation in 

a nuclear power plant, maybe an embarrassing situation, what it 

may do even more is undermine the confidence, which has just now 

I think resurged to support, within the population, and within the 

Congress, confidence and support for nuclear energy. So I would 

just call on you as a soon to be new member of the NRC, that you 

adopt as your own this adage of, if it isn't perfect, make it better. 

Hold the folks that you're over, looking over their shoulder, just 

hold them to the very highest standards every single day. Vigilance 

is the watch word. To the extent you can do that, and Senator 

Voinovich, in our role as co-chairs of the Clean Air and Nuclear 

Safety Subcommittee, we will be there with you. 

In fact, we are going to meet tomorrow morning, I believe, with 

the Chairman of the Commission. One of the things we are going 

to talk about, and this is my question, and I will ask you just for 

a brief answer, one of the things we are going to talk with him 

about is communication. When something goes wrong, we don't 

want to read about it in the paper, we don't want to hear about 

it in the news. We want you or the chair to be telling us what is 

going on. We haven't had the kind of communications, in all instances, that we need. I would just ask for your thoughts in that 

regard. Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, thank you for those comments and for 

that question. I think that public confidence in a regulator is absolutely essential. I think transparency and communication are a 

keystone in building that confidence. That would be a focus of mine 

if I were confirmed, to increase public confidence. 

In the process of my courtesy calls, a question was posed to me 

which was, who has the biggest stake in making sure that nuclear 

power is safe. I think it is proponents of the technology who should 

have the highest standards for safety and security of these installations. I agree with that point, and I would pledge to you, Senator, 

if confirmed, to work on continual improvement, as you said, if it 

is not perfect, make it better, of communications. 
190 


25055.163

37 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Laverty, congratulations on your nomination. Thank you for 

your willingness to serve. I received a letter from a fellow named 

Charles Saulk, as we call him, Chas, in Delaware, he is the director of the Delaware Division of State Parks and Recreation. He is 

someone we hired when I was Governor, we hired him to run our 

parks operation. He wrote to me and really denounced your nomination. I happened to be walking by his home in Delaware, it is 

a small State, I was walking by his house and he came out on his 

front porch just to tell me what an awful guy you are, and he said, 

the last person I would support would be Lyle Laverty. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. So what have you done to make him feel that 

way about you? 

Mr. LAVERTY. Senator, I appreciate the comment. I believe that 

the conversation is focused on the issues related with Ms. McDonald and the ethics in the Department. That is what I am committed 

to work on, to do all I can. 

Senator CARPER. More seriously, he actually had very positive 

things to say. 

Mr. LAVERTY. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. Maybe I have seen in the letter, and even on 

the front steps of his house, he had good things to say about you, 

about a week ago. 

Mr. LAVERTY. Chas is good. 

Senator CARPER. Chas has worked with us, along with a lot of 

people in our State, to try to make Delaware the 50th State, the 

50th and last State, to actually have a national park. We are the 

only State in America that has no national park. We are not even 

a unit of a national park. We have been working on a process 

through gathering public opinion in our State, creating a proposal 

that has been endorsed by a congressional delegation, submitting 

it to the Park Service. Mary Bomar was by and met with me from 

the National Park Service last week. 

Lynn Scarlett, Deputy Secretary of the Department, was in one 

of our wildlife refuges with us this last weekend. So we had a 

chance to chat with her. 

Mary Bomar, who is the head of the National Park Service, does 

she report to you? 

Mr. LAVERTY. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Oh, good. How do you feel about Delaware 

being the only State in America that doesn't have a national park? 

Mr. LAVERTY. I think you ought to have one. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I move the nomination--

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LAVERTY. There was no other answer, was there? 

Senator CARPER. We worked long and hard, we appreciate the 

chance to work with all you guys to finalize and fund the feasibility 

study and move it on. I think standing right behind you is Rob 

Horwath. Rob was good to help us as we were moving our feasibility legislation through the House. I acknowledge him and thank 

him for that. We look forward to working with you, too. Thanks so 

much. 
191 


25055.164

38 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would like to just followup on comments some of my other colleagues have made with this issue of communications and transparency, we are in a unique position today where because of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, we are ready to launch, well, we have 

12 applications, for sure, 28 reactors. We are getting some good 

vibes back from the environmental community that they are not as 

opposed to this as they had been in the past, because of the fact 

that they are so concerned about climate change and nuclear power 

doesn't emit these greenhouse gases. 

On the other hand, I think we have to be very careful about this 

communication issue. I was after Nils Diaz, and I have talked to 

Chairman Klein about it, and it just seems they don't get it. One 

thing I would like you to do is comment on that, and you have done 

it so far, but I think we need to really have someone hitting this 

very, very hard. Because I think it does hurt the credibility of the 

Agency and could be the reason why some people aren't going to 

be as supportive as they should be. 

The second thing, and this is something that Senator Carper and 

I are going to probably be talking to Chairman Klein about this 

week, is that we need to make clear to the public that these facilities, the 103 reactors, almost 104, in terms of earthquakes and that 

are not, that are not subject to earthquakes, in other words, they 

have been built in areas where we are not going to have a Japanese problem. 

So I would like you to just share with us once again your attitude toward this communication. We went through Davis-Besse 

here, and it took us a long time to recover from that. I would like 

your thoughts on that, because as I mentioned in my opening statement, it is wonderful that you have had the perspective from Congress. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate returning to this 

point, because it is such an important one. I would hope that with 

my background and being such a closer observer of the most recent 

policy debates on energy, environment, on the resources we will 

need to meet our future energy needs, I hope that I will bring a 

unique sensitivity to public awareness, to communication. 

I probably should not tell a story about Senator Warner, but as 

I reflect upon something in my service with him, it is a story related to North Anna, in Virginia, and the consideration of the construction of additional units at that site. The Senator came back 

from being in that part of the State and he asked me to come over 

to his office and he said, "Why is it when I go to these communities 

and I meet with members of the public, they are so unaware of 

what is potentially planned or the process that the NRC would use 

to evaluate such an application?" He expressed to me his frustration about that. 

So I would like to pledge that I would be uniquely sensitive to 

that. I appreciate your focus on it, and if confirmed, would work 

on that very heavily. 

Your second point on earthquakes I think is actually tied to the 

first. I think if the public understood more thoroughly how applica-
192 


25055.165

39 

tions are evaluated that their confidence would, for better or for 

worse, at least be an informed decision and position that they 

might take on having these facilities located nearby to their communities. So I think that the two are linked. The basis would be 

understanding. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Are you also aware of the fact that if we are 

going to launch this new effort in terms of nuclear power in the 

country that there is a challenge in regard to the issue of human 

capital? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, Senator. As you had mentioned and referred 

to earlier, that is one where I had said in my statement it was a 

daunting challenge and I felt challenged. I think the human resource issue is tough. Anyone who would come and testify to this 

committee that that is something that is easily dealt with is probably creating a false sense of confidence. That is going to be a tremendous challenge. This country does not produce the numbers of 

scientists and engineers that we need. NRC would be competing in 

that same environment for those folks. These are very tough problems, Senator. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would suggest that you again review the 

flexibilities that you have in terms of hiring these people and make 

sure that you have everything you need to get the job done. I would 

be interested in hearing from you, should you be appointed. Thank 

you. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Whitehouse, you have 7 minutes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

I wanted to ask a few questions of Mr. Laverty, if I may. In February 2005, as you probably know, the Union of Concerned Scientists surveyed scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

found pervasive political interference in science at the Agency. 

Two-thirds of the scientists who responded to the survey, 303, were 

aware of cases in which Interior Department political appointees 

interfered with scientific findings. Eighty-four scientists reported 

that they were directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from agency scientific documents. 

Now, we disagree on a lot of things up in this building, and everybody is entitled to their own opinion. But they are not to their 

own science and they are not entitled to their own facts. What will 

you do to guarantee that interior political appointees will keep out 

of improper meddling in scientific facts and determinations? 

Mr. LAVERTY. Senator, thanks for that question. I really believe 

that that has been one of the fundamental elements that I have 

wrestled with as I have read through the Inspector General's report and thought about, what would I do in that position. I believe 

it goes back to what I shared earlier with the committee in my remarks, you have to set the expectations that science is science and 

that you deal with policy issues as a separate conversation. You 

have to do everything you can to secure the culture that presents 

good science. 

I think that comes from active involvement in working with staff, 

with scientists to create that expectation that this is the way 

science will be developed, and that from the political side, we let 
193 


25055.166

40 

science come together and then you deal with the policy issues as 

a separate entity. I think you have to articulate that, but then you 

have to constantly monitor, do you feel that science is coming up 

forward. I would like then for that Union of Scientists to come back 

and say, in the Department of Interior, science is good science and 

it is not being suppressed. I think that comes from leadership and 

I am willing to jump in to do that. I am committed to doing that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. One of the reasons I ask is because 

just a few months ago, the Interior Inspector General wrote a fairly 

scathing report, chastising former Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Fish and Parks Julie McDonald, who I believe would have reported 

to you had she stayed on, she resigned, as you know, a few weeks 

after the report was released, for habitually rewriting and distorting scientific documents. Although obviously she has since resigned, that problem of political interference remains a serious concern. I urge you to try to put that behind the Department. 

One of the things that is very important to the people of this 

country is to be able to count on their departments of Government. 

We are neck deep in a huge disarray over at the Department of 

Justice. Let us not have the Department of Interior follow that 

path. We want to be able to count on you. 

Mr. LAVERTY. Yes, sir. I am committed to do that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Very good. 

Thanks, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. Senator, what I 

would like to do is, Senator Whitehouse, put into the record the 

two-page summary of the Union of Concerned Scientists survey, so 

it appears in the record with the questions. I will mention it in my 

closing statement. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much for bringing this to the 

committee. 

[The referenced material follows:] 
194 


25055.167

Union of 

Concerned 

Scientists 

41 

u.s. Fish & Wildlife Service S1lrvey Summary 

February 2005 

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Public Employees for Environmental 

Responsibility (PEER) distributed a 42-question survey to more than 1,400 USFWS biologists, 

ecologists, botanists and other science professionals working in Ecological Services ticld offices 

across the country 10 obtaln their perceptions of scientific intesrity within the USFWS, as well as 

political interferen.::e, resources and morale. Nearly 30% of the scientists returned completed 

surveys, despite lliem;y directives not to reply-~wen on personal time. 

I. Politieallnterferenee with Scie•tific Defennmatious 

Large numbers of agency scientists reported political interference ln scientific detenninations. 

• Nearly half of all respondents whose work is related to endangered species scientific 

findings (44o/o) reported that they "have been directed, for non-scientific reasons, to 

refrain from making jeopardy or other findings that arc protective of species.'' One in 

five agency scientists revealed !hey have been instructed to compromise their scientific 

integrity-reporting that !hey have been "directed to inappropriately eJtclude or alter 

technical information nom a USFWS scientific document," such as a biological opinion; 

• More than half of all respondents (56%) knew of cases where "commercial interests have 

inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions 

through political intervention;" and 

• More than two out of three staff scientists (70%) and nearly nine out of l 0 scientist 

managers (119".4) knew of cases "where U.S. Department oflnterior political appointees 

have injected themselves into Ecological Servi<:es determinations." A majority of 

respondents also cited interventions by members of Congress and local officeholders. 

n. Negative Effect oa Wildlife Protection 

While a majority of the scientists indicated that llSC!ICY "scientifte documents generally reflect 

technically rigolOUll evaluations of impacts to I isted species and associltted habitats," there is 

evidence that political intrusion has undennined the USFWS's ability to fulfill its mission of 

protecting wildlife from extinction. 

• Three out of four staff scientists and even higher proportions of scientist managers (78"/o) 

felt that the USFWS is not "acting effectively to maintain oc enhance species and their 

habitats, so as to avoid possible listings under the Endangered Species Act;" 
195 


25055.168

42 

• For those species already listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, more than 

two out of three scientists {69"Ao) did not regard the USFWS as effective in its efforts 

toward recovery of those listed species; 

• Nearly two out of three scientists (64%) did not fee: I the agency "is moving in the right 

direction;" and 

• More than two-thirds of staff scientists (71 %) and more than hatf of scientist managers 

(Sl %) did oot "trust USFWS dlll:ision mak.er$10 make decisions that will protect species 

and habitalS." 

Ill. ClliUing Eft'ed o• Scicntirlc Calldor 

Agency scientists reported being afraid to speak fhmkly about issues and felt constrained in their 

roles as scientists. 

• More than a third {42%) Jaid they could not openly express "concerns about the 

biological needs of species and habitats without fear of retaliation" in public whik nearly 

a third (30o/o) did not fc:el they c:ould do so even inside the confines of the agency; 

• Almost a third (.32%) fell they are not aDowcd 10 do their jobs as scientists; 

• A significant minority (!9%) reported having ''been directed by USFWS decision makers 

to provide incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information to the public, media or 

elected officials;'' however, 

• Scientific collaboration among USFWS scientists, academia and other federal agency 

scientists appears to be relatively untainted by this chilling effect, with a strong majority 

(83%) reporting lhey felt free to collaborate with their colleagues on species and habitat 

issues. 

JV. R-..rees and Mo111le 

There WI$ a broad perc:eption that the agency lacks the resources to accomplish its mission. Not 

surprisingly, results showed a strain on staff morale. 

• Half of all scientif~<: staff reported that morale is poor 1.<> extremely poor and only 0.5% 

rated morale as excellent; 

• More than nine out of ten (92%) did not feel that the agency "bas sufficient resources to 

adequately perfonn its environmental mission;" and 

• More than foliC out of five (85%) said that funding to implement the Endangered Species 

Aet is inadequate. 

The survey wa.. sent to I ,410 scientists, of which 414, or 29.4%, responlkd to the survey. 
196 


25055.169

43 

Senator BoXER. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. Svinicki, congratulations. There is a concern of the folks in 

Jackson Hole, WY, it has been a continuous concern and it has to 

do with the issue ofJ'otential radiation discharges from the Idaho 

National Energy an Environmental Laboratory. What role does 

the NRC play in that, in ensuring that those discharges do not 

occur, and then there is another role, I guess from the Department 

of Energy, so what role would you play? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, the Idaho National Laboratory is a Department of Energy facility and as such, under the Atomic Energy 

Act, it is not regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I 

believe that the State of Idaho would have, in terms of air emissions, would have Clean Air Act authority over that facility. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. I know that you, from your work 

in Idaho, you are certainly aware of the concerns in Jackson Hole. 

I just wanted to express those again today, so that in your, while 

not specifically in the authoritative position, you know that those 

concerns continue from the folks in Jackson Hole. Thank you. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Laverty, if I could, a couple of things. I 

know this committee doesn't have jurisdiction over the national 

parks, but you will. The people of Wyoming do have some serious 

concerns about access to the national parks, specifically Yellowstone National Park, and specifically winter access. Perhaps in another venue, I would appreciate the opportunity to sit and visit 

with you specifically about winter access to Yellowstone Park. 

Mr. LAVERTY. I would be very, very happy to do that, and share 

with you what the Park Service is doing right now in terms of that 

analysis. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

A couple of other topics. As you know, brucellosis has been eradicated from the State of Wyoming, except in the wildlife populations. We have it out in livestock, but not in wildlife. It is a problem in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park. Last weekend, 

I spent time at the National Elk Refuge visiting with the biologists 

there. 

I think that eradicating brucellosis should be a top priority for 

the Park Service. What is the Park Service going to do to help try 

to eradicate brucellosis and to ensure that the disease doesn't really spread beyond the boundaries of the Park into our livestock? 

Mr. LAVERTY. Senator, I know that the Park Service is working 

closely with the State Division of Wildlife, as well as the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, to look at that very issue. My involvement 

came as my time as a regional forester with the Rocky Mountain 

Region. I know that they are doing that, I can get you an update 

on what the status is of that. I can't tell you today what that is. 

Senator BARRASSO. Then there are other concerns that if Wyoming happens to lose its brucellosis-free status, there is clearly economic hardships. Who should bear those, the individual, the State 

or the Federal Government? Because it is from the national parks 

that that would be lost. 

Mr. LAVERTY. It is one of those wicked questions. It becomes one 

of public policy and how do you deal with that kind of an issue. 
197 


25055.170

44 

I think it comes from conversations on how do we work to correct 

the issue, rather than trying to patch up what happens after. 

I would be happy to get some more information for you on that. 

Senator BARRASSO. We can visit about that as well. 

Then the last question would have to do with the Endangered 

Species Act. It seems to me that there appears to be a bias toward 

listing species and one against delisting. The Canadian gray wolf 

is a perfect example. The gray wolf flourishing in Canada was still 

reintroduced by the Federal Government in Wyoming over a decade 

ago. In my opinion, all the recovery goals have been met a while 

back, but the species continues to be listed as endangered. This is 

a process that in my opinion has dragged on too long, and I read 

that you have significant experience with the grizzly bear. That has 

successfully been delisted. People in Wyoming are delighted with 

that, but believe that that process took too long. 

So what reforms do you suggest to the Endangered Species Act, 

specifically what can be done to streamline the delisting process? 

Mr. LAVERTY. Senator, I think you captured for me what the essence of the Endangered Species Act is all about, and that is, the 

recovery of species. We need to do all we can to bring folks together 

so that we can in fact manage, whether it is habitat or whatever 

it might be, that can help recover species. That is exactly what 

happened with the grizzly bear. 

I think with the wolf, I think it just is going to take some conversations, again, with the State and Fish and Wildlife Service to 

look at what do we have to do to get to that point of recovery of 

delisting of recovered species. We should celebrate those. We just 

delisted the eagle. I think those are significant milestones. We need 

to be working aggressively to protect species, protect habitat. 

But we also should be working on how do we move toward the 

recovery of species. It becomes even a greater challenge, as we 

talked about some of the issues that are in front of the country 

today, with growth and development and climate, all these factors 

are coming together to create an extremely complex scenario on 

how do we manage the species. I am convinced that we can do that, 

and I am happy to work with the folks in Wyoming on the wolf. 

I know that is a big issue. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, it is. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Laverty. I look forward to visiting with you. Congratulations on 

your nomination. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. LAVERTY. Thank you, and congratulations to you, sir. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Laverty, thank you for laying out the real 

serious issues that we all face together. But one of them we can 

control very directly, and that is a staffing crisis at the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. They have lost 230 staff between 2004 and 

2006 and project a further reduction of 335 positions, equaling a 20 

percent total reduction. The number of refuges able to afford nonstaff costs including viewing platform and trail repairs is in decline. 

So how will you keep the refuges open to visitors and safe while 

protecting resident wildlife in their habitats if you don't have the 

key staff? Will you help us on this? Because I just want you to 

know that this Congress passed a budget that would give you the 
198 


25055.171

45 

money to restore, but the President has said he is going to veto all 

these appropriation bills. 

So I guess, not to put you in a delicate spot, because that is not 

the purpose of my question, will you let the facts be known to those 

in the OMB and so on, so that they understand what happens 

when we don't have enough staff to run these important programs? 

Mr. LAVERTY. Madam Chair, I believe that again, one of the primary responsibilities of this position is to be the advocate for these 

programs. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

Mr. LAVERTY. I am also, I should tell you on the other side, I understand the challenges of dealing with budgets. 

Senator BOXER. Right. 

Mr. LAVERTY. Even as I dealt with the National Fire Plan, the 

huge costs of that, and then what that brings to, how do you balance that with other programs. I am willing to commit to being 

that advocate and I think the answer to your question, again, is 

one of those very wicked questions, because there is not an easy 

answer. But I think you have to look hard at, are there ways that 

you can in fact provide those services and still maintain the quality 

of what the refuge system is all about. It takes hard work to get 

down into those questions. 

I know that the agencies and the refuge system are looking hard 

at operation plans on how they can in fact manage within those 

budget levels and still provide those kinds of services. I would be 

willing to work with all of you on that issue. 

Senator BOXER. I know this is a very tough thing to ask nominees, because you are agreeing to a position and your Administration will decide their budget and the Congress our budget, and 

then at the end of the day, we have a give and take and you have 

to deal with what comes out. 

But my view has always been, regardless of whether it is a 

Democratic President or Republican President, it doesn't matter, I 

like the people who are taking these jobs to be advocates, so that 

if Kristine feels we really need to pay more attention to the way 

we give out these permits, as an example, so that we don't get really stung, not just a make-believe sting, but we get stung by some 

Al Qaeda operative here, and she feels strongly that she will tell 

the powers that be, look, I know you have other considerations, but 

if we don't have X number of positions, we can't do it. That is what 

I really hope to see, because I think that is key here. 

We are going to have some very tough debates. You know, nobody likes these arguments. It is very unpleasant. But if you are 

spending, I think it is now $10 billion a month in Iraq, and this 

has nothing to do with your hearing and I don't expect any response, there are pressures now on the rest of the budget that have 

to be recognized. 

So let me say that there are just two matters of business that 

I have to ask you, two more questions that are required. So first; 

I will ask you, Kristine, are you willing to appear at the request 

of any duly constituted committee of Congress as a witness? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, Madam Chairman, I am. 
199 


25055.172

46 

Senator BOXER. Do you know of any matters which you may or 

may not have thus far disclosed that might place you in any conflict of interest if you are confirmed in this position? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I know of no such matters. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Robert, I would ask you the same. Are you willing to appear at 

the request of any duly constituted committee of Congress as a witness? 

Mr. LAVERTY. Yes, ma'am, I am. 

Senator BoXER. Do you know of any matters which you may or 

may not have thus far disclosed that might place you in any conflict of interest if you are confirmed to this position? 

Mr. LAVERTY. No, ma'am. 

Senator BOXER. All right, well, that is very good. I would make 

one last point on the issue that Senator Whitehouse raised. He always raises, I think, gets to the heart of the matter. I don't know 

if you have seen this Union of Concerned Scientists survey. 

Mr. LAVERTY. Yes, I have seen it. 

Senator BoXER. You have. I would just point out that they talked 

to 1,410 scientists, went to 1,410 scientists. But in any case, half 

of all scientific staff reported morale as poor to extremely poor and 

only .5 percent, half a percent, half of 1 percent, rated morale as 

excellent. 

Now, getting to know you just a little bit through this hearing, 

I think you really do have the temperament and the attitude and 

the love of your work that you can change this. It is not going to 

be easy for you. There have been some problems. But I sense that 

you are bringing that spirit to this work and I am pleased to have 

had a chance to meet both of you. 

If there is nothing else to come before the committee, we stand 

adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

0 
200 

Senator BOXER. So now I want to ask you this: At NRC’s Annual 

Regulatory Information Conference in March, you read from an article that was entitled ‘‘The World Has Forgotten the Real Victims 

of Fukushima’’ that used the phrase a nuclear disaster that never 

was. That is what this article was, a nuclear disaster that never 

was. Do you really believe the meltdown of three nuclear reactors 

at Fukushima qualifies as a nuclear disaster that never was? 

Ms. SVINICKI. No, Senator. I intended, by quoting at length from 

that article, to discuss the human tragedy that had occurred to the 

people of Japan. I had felt that some of the narrative contained 

therein was very moving about watching these events unfold on television and the tremendous scale of the human tragedy that had 

occurred there. That was the focus of my repeating some of the text 

of that article. 

Senator BOXER. OK. So you believe that Fukushima was a nuclear disaster. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, definitely. 

Senator BOXER. OK. So that leads me to my next question. The 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission established a goal to implement 

the Fukushima recommendations within 5 years. However, it appears that the recent orders which begin to implement those recommendations allow nuclear power plants more than 5 years to 

comply with safety. If confirmed, will you work to ensure, and answer me, please, honestly, work to ensure that the schedule is accelerated so safety improvements are implemented within 5 years? 

Ms. SVINICKI. As I had testified in March, I believe that there are 

potential opportunities to accelerate those schedules, and if confirmed to another term, I would work very earnestly with other 

members of the Commission to find those opportunities to accelerate activities where possible. 

Senator BOXER. I am going to repeat the question. Will you work 

to ensure that the schedule is accelerated so safety improvements 

are implemented within 5 years? It took 10 years to get the safety 

improvements after 9/11. That is too long to wait. Will you work 

to see that they are implemented within 5 years? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, Senator, I will work to ensure that they are 

implemented in 5 years—— 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Ms. SVINICKI [continuing]. Knowing that there may be implementation challenges beyond my control. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that is a big loophole, but we will talk 

about it as time goes by, believe me. And I will close with this 

question: Ms. Svinicki, 94 organizations concerned with nuclear 

safety signed on to letters opposing your renomination to the NRC, 

and it is a disturbing thing for me. And they are not just using 

rhetoric; they are showing the votes, and I read some of those into 

the record. 

If reconfirmed, would you meet with a few of the safety advocates 

who have qualifications within the organizations, and we can work 

with you on that, will you sit down with them across a table, just 

you and them, and hear their concerns so that maybe we can 

bridge this divide that I fear is present in this community? 

201 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, Chairman Boxer, I make that commitment. 

And I have met, over the course of my time at NRC, with some of 

the organizations that have signed that letter. 

Senator BOXER. OK, good. Well, will we work together on that, 

then? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. I don’t think more than three or four is a good 

idea, but I think if you could meet with three or four, it would be 

great. Well, thank you very much. 

I turn to Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would like to enter something into the record. I ask unanimous 

consent that page 33 of the hearing, and I happened to be Chairman at that time of this Committee of 2007 was your confirmation 

hearing. In this, this subject was discussed in terms of her response, and it seemed to be a satisfactory response. So page 33 of 

the hearing of 2007. 

[The referenced document follows:] 

202 


25055.173

s. Hlla. 110-1102 

CONSIDER PENDING NOMINATIONS 

HEARING BEFORETHB 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

THE PENDING NOMINATIONS OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, TO BE A 

MEMBER OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND LYLE 

LAVERTY, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH, WILDLlFE AND 

PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

JULY 17, 2007 

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

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

81-B'/8>DP 

U.S. OOVBllNMENT PIIINTINO OFFICE 

WASHINOTON:aou 

Por ale b)' tile Buporllt"""'"'' oro-m.ato, U.S. Clcmonuaalt l'rUitiDJ 0111co 

""""""' boob ..... rpo.pv Plw>a: ..U Cree 1888l&la-1800; DC anal202l &la-1800 

Pu: 12021 Gla-2104 Mall: SlOp moo, W~ DC 21U02-0001 
203 


25055.174

83 

Maryland has determined that a pre-Jicense ~ction prior to receipt of Category 3 materials is necessary, why liasntt the NRC? Do 

you know? If you don't know, is this something that you will consider bringing up if you are confirmed? 

Ms. SVJN'ICKI. Senator, I was able to watch a certain amount of 

the hearing that was conducted on the GAO ~ investigation. I 

was ex~osed to an amount of Commissioner MCGaftigan's testimony. He· was the NRC witness at that hearing. I know that he 

has pledged to look at this issue. . . So it would appear to me as an outsider that it will be something 

that the Commission will be evaluating, since Commissioner 

McGaftigan has made that commitment to do so. If confirmed, I 

certainly would be a _part of that. 

Senator, I was reflecting, in your opening comments where you 

talked about national security aspects of nuclear materials, I certainly, if confirmed would bring a strong focus on our 

vulnerabilities to my service as Commissioner. 

Senator BoXER. Good. I am very pleased. Just think about Senator Warner sitting on your shoulder, because it is just ridiculous 

to thiJik about our rul68 being weaker than the State of Maryland. 

It blows my mind. · Last question. I understand }'OU have worked in the Department 

of Enerir:v's Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Oftice. Did 

y.ou wor1i on transportation and waste disposal issues related to 

Yucca Mountain? · Ms. SVINIOKI. Senator, thank you for that question. I want to be 

as clear as I can with the committee. When I worked at the Department of Energy I was eJl1ployed in what is called the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. That is the office estabJished 

.under law to administer and develop the geologie repository. My 

work was not in Las Vegas on the Yucca Mountain Jicense application, it was in W~hington, DC at the Department of Energy headqui~~ked transportation packaging. As you had mentioned in 

rour opening comments, tbe safe transportation of these materials 

lS so unportant. Whether a geologic repository o~ or not. we 

have to transport materials this week and every week very, very 

safelr. I also worked on inventories of defense materials that may 

reqwre deep geologie disposal. Those would be materials currently 

at Department of Energy sites. 

Senator BOXER. So you didn't work directly on Yucca? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I did not. 

Senator BoXER. OK, very good. Thank you. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator lNHoFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Kristine, you and I brieDy discussed in my office the highly enriched uranium spill at the Nuclear Fuel Bervices facility in Tennessee and my diSapR_Ointment with the NRC's lack of communication about the e~t. m your current capacity as staff to the Armed 

Services Committee, you also understand the need to protect sensitive information that could aid our adversaries who might want 

to use it against us. 

If conftrined, will you ensure that the national information security needs are adequately protected and balanced with the NRC's 
204 

Senator INHOFE. I would say to both of you, when a tragedy occurs such as 9/11, it changes the behavior; we do things that we 

hadn’t done before, and of course, we have air space issues and all 

that. But when Fukushima happened, the same thing happened. 

However, the NRC has imposed a number of actions on nuclear 

power plant owners post-Fukushima which have to deal with in addition to the daily activities. 

In other words, they took on more responsibilities. It seemed to 

me at the time, and I am just going from memory, Commissioner 

Svinicki, that a lot of the things that they had not done in 

Fukushima we were already doing here, and I would like to ask 

you how would you prioritize the changes that took place after 

Fukushima compared to before Fukushima. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. Although I am not 

aware of any organization that has done a comprehensive comparison of the regulatory requirements in place in Japan and the 

United States, it is apparent that the actions that the NRC mandated after the attacks of September 11th would have provided an 

opportunity at U.S. plants to mitigate against this extreme kind of 

natural event that occurred in Japan. Since Japan did not have a 

9/11 type event, their regulator had not put equivalent measures 

in place in Japan, to my knowledge. 

In prioritizing the NRC’s response to the lessons learned of 

Fukushima, we have, of course, looked at extreme natural hazards, 

and that is one of the outgrowths: to look at the readiness to mitigate and defend a nuclear power plant against extreme natural 

events. So, as I discussed, we issued three immediately effective 

emergency orders requiring that nuclear power plants in the 

United States enhance their ability to mitigate against what we 

call beyond design basis or very extreme natural events. 

We also issued an order to require hardened venting systems at 

BWR plants of a certain containment design. And then we also are 

requiring enhanced spent fuel pool instrumentation so that there 

will be greater knowledge about the status of the spent fuel pools 

should an extreme natural event occur. We also are requiring the 

reevaluation of seismic and flooding risks at plants, as I had described in my testimony. 

Those appeared to the NRC to be the most immediate actions 

that should be put forward after Fukushima. Of course, we have 

what we call Tier 2 and Tier 3 recommendations also under evaluation. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, thank you. That is a very good answer. 

Dr. Macfarlane, I am sure you are aware and have studied this 

before or since your nomination, that in 1980 we had a reorganization of the NRC, and it did prescribe specific duties of the Chairman, of the Commissioners, and of staff at certain levels, so I need 

to ask you two quick questions here. One is in that plan they stated that the Chairman ‘‘shall be responsible for ensuring that the 

Commission is fully and currently informed.’’ As Chairman, would 

you interfere or seek to influence the flow of information between 

the Commissioners and the agency staff? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No, I will not. I will ensure that the other 

Commissioners are fully informed. 

205 

Senator INHOFE. I think you covered that pretty well in your 

opening statement, but I wanted to make it in reference to this reorganization statement. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Right. 

Senator INHOFE. The second thing that was in that plan in 1980 

says the Chairman ‘‘shall be governed by the general policies of the 

Commission.’’ Would you also agree with your—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Absolutely. 

Senator INHOFE. Fine. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chair. 

Again, thank you both for your testimony today and for your willingness to serve. I want to just return to a discussion that took 

place in this room just a few days ago with several members, including Brent Scowcroft, from the Blue Ribbon Commission on 

which you served, Dr. Macfarlane. The discussion dealt with spent 

fuel is not going to end up in Yucca Mountain, and how do we go 

forward and find a place that is suitable in this country or places 

that are suitable in this country. 

Senator Alexander and I both served as Governors, and we had 

to, among other things, be concerned about where to site prisons. 

Not an easy thing to do in a small State like Delaware, and in fact, 

a number of other States. As it turns out, there are other States 

that literally competed for the right to become a repository, if you 

will, for people who violated the law in our State and were incarcerated, and we had a competition that flowed from that situation. 

And a consent-based approach, which is what the Blue Ribbon 

Commission is suggesting, really makes a lot of sense to me. Regardless what happens with Yucca Mountain, I think we have to 

learn from that experience and just be a whole lot smarter going 

forward as we prepare to take next steps. 

How might we incentivize other States, other localities to be willing to, as they are in France and some other countries, to be willing to be a site for these kinds of activities? Your ideas from both 

of you, please. What would be your counsel to us? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well, first of all, I will say that the mission 

of the NRC is protecting human health and safety, and not making 

energy policy. But speaking as a former Blue Ribbon Commission 

member in that forum, I would say that it is important to offer 

compensation, without necessarily specifying exactly what that 

compensation is, to the local community who might be interested 

in following up an opportunity to host either an interim storage facility or a repository, and work with the community in determining 

what form or shape the compensation would be. That is one way 

of offering something like that. 

Senator CARPER. Well, what seems to have worked in some other 

countries? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I don’t even think we need to look as far as 

other countries, because the United States is the only country with 

an operating deep geologic repository, and that is in the great State 

of New Mexico, just outside of Carlsbad, New Mexico. It is the 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and it has operated successfully since 

206 

1998. They have received over 10,000 shipments of transuranic 

waste from the nuclear weapons complex. It was not straightforward in terms of arriving there, it took about 20 years, but there 

was a lot of good back and forth between the State and the Federal 

Government and the local community, and the local community 

and the State now, from our experiences on the Blue Ribbon Commission with them, are very, very supportive of this, it has worked 

very well. So it can work, and it has worked within our country. 

Senator CARPER. All right, fine. 

Commissioner Svinicki, any comments you might like to add, 

please? 

Ms. SVINICKI. As noted by Dr. Macfarlane, the NRC did not take 

an active role in the Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations. I 

know that some of our technical staff presented before the Blue 

Ribbon Commission and provided information as requested by the 

Commission. 

Senator CARPER. I would just remind us all, as we are concerned 

about safety with respect to the operation of nuclear power plants, 

part of safety is the safe storage, if you will, of spent fuel rods, so 

it is something that I think we all need to be mindful of. 

One of my colleagues, I don’t know if it was Senator Sessions or 

not, but one of my colleagues, Dr. Macfarlane, mentioned that it is 

not everybody that gets the opportunity really to lead an organization of 4,000 employees. I think you mentioned that there are other 

folks who served on the Commission, who served as Chair of the 

Commission who have not run organizations of this size and complexity before. Talk to us about your approach to leadership and 

why do you think you have the skills to be able to lead an organization of this magnitude, and what might you do to further 

strengthen those skills. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Great. Thank you very much for your question. First, I should note that at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission there is already an exceptional structure in place that manages the day to day operations of the agency and oversees the dedicated employees there. 

If confirmed, I would view my role as continuing the mission of 

the NRC, continuing to be accountable to you all and to the people 

of the United States. I see that the main mission for the Chairman 

currently, especially given the current circumstances, is a leadership position and I think that some of the important attributes in 

terms of being the Chairman in this leadership position is to behave in as a collegial manner as possible. 

If confirmed, I would plan on reaching out to the Commissioners 

on a regular basis, having one on one conversations with them. 

They all have different sets of expertise, and I would certainly 

want to tap that expertise, consult them on issues that come before 

the Commission. And in the past I have worked with people from 

a variety of different viewpoints; I certainly did that on the Blue 

Ribbon Commission. We were not all of one mind at all, but we did 

work together to forge consensus. 

That final report was a consensus document. Sometimes it was 

hard fought, but it was well worth it. I don’t think anybody expects 

the five Commissioners to agree on everything. I don’t think that 

207 

was the intention. But certainly they should work collegially together. 

Senator CARPER. I would just add to that, and I have said this 

in this room before, and this is just my counsel to you, would be 

to, as the leader, if you are confirmed and become the Chair, to try 

to focus on what is the right thing to do; not the easy or expedient 

thing to do, but the right thing to do. It sounds like you are very 

much attuned to treating your colleagues and those who work at 

the NRC the way you would want to be treated. That is critically 

important. 

I have reminded the Commissioners, as Commissioner Svinicki 

will tell you, any number of times that if it isn’t perfect, make it 

better. Everything we do, I think everything we all do we can do 

better, and that certainly includes the operation of our nuclear 

power plants in this country. 

Finally, if you think you are right, you know you are right, don’t 

give up, and you sound like a person who doesn’t give up. 

The last thing I want to say, if you are confirmed, two out of the 

five Commissioners will have MIT ties. We want to express our 

thanks to MIT for preparing and sharing both you and Dr. 

Apostolakis with all of us. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. We turn to Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Dr. Macfarlane, seeing you and your family sitting there, we welcome them. It reminds me of about 20 years ago I was in the same 

spot. I had been nominated by the first President Bush to his cabinet, and Senator Metzenbaum from Ohio looked at me and said, 

Senator Alexander, or he said Governor Alexander, I have heard a 

number of disturbing things about your background, but I don’t 

think I will bring them up now. And Senator Kassenbaum looked 

over and said, Well, Howard, I think you just did. I don’t intend 

to do that to you because I haven’t heard such things, but we welcome you and welcome your family. 

And Commissioner Svinicki, we welcome you and thank you for 

a great job. 

I won’t go into the management issue; Senator Carper did. I 

share his attitude and his concern, and would expect you and your 

colleagues to address that. Let me begin with specific questions. 

Dr. Macfarlane, you served on the bipartisan commission on 

waste. I am not going to ask you, either of you, whether you are 

for or against Yucca Mountain. Let’s put that over here for a moment. I imagine you will get a question or two about that. I am 

not asking that. 

Whether one is for or against Yucca Mountain, whether one is— 

do you agree with the Commission’s suggestion that we should 

move ahead to break the stalemate on disposal of used nuclear fuel 

by, No. 1, beginning to identify consolidation sites to which to move 

fuel from the sites around the country, and two, begin to find a repository, since even if we were to open Yucca Mountain, we would 

still need a second geologic repository? Do you believe it is prudent 

to move ahead on parallel tracks with both of those activities? 

Dr. Macfarlane. 

208 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Senator Alexander, thank you very much for 

that question. Again, I remind myself that the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s mission is that of regulating human health and safety. Again, putting on my Blue Ribbon Commission hat, I wholeheartedly agree with both of those statements. I have always been 

a very strong proponent of geologic repositories. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But we could move ahead with the consolidation sites—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Absolutely. 

Senator ALEXANDER [continuing]. While we also—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Absolutely. There is ample need to do so, because we have 10 shutdown reactors in this country at 9 facilities, 

and it makes both economic and security sense to consolidate that 

material at a few locations. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Commissioner Svinicki, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would certainly have a role on the moving 

ahead on those parallel tracks, with licensing both of sites and of 

transportation. Do you agree that we should move ahead on parallel tracks? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Both previous law and initiatives on consolidated 

storage and the proposals that I have heard from congressional 

committees regarding future activities I believe would have the 

NRC license those consolidated storage sites, so, yes, NRC would 

have an involvement in that activity. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And Commissioner Svinicki, do you believe 

that the legislation with which you may be familiar, that Senator 

Feinstein and I have introduced, which would begin a pilot program on the consolidation sites, now in the Appropriations bill, and 

the steps that we are taking with Senator Bingaman and others, 

begin to take the form of a plan that would help the Commission 

on its waste confidence rule in light of recent court decisions? 

Ms. SVINICKI. The Commission has not taken a position, at this 

time, on that legislation, Senator Alexander, but the Commission 

has indicated that as long as this fuel is at the sites it is at now, 

it is our highest priority, of course, to make sure that it is stored 

safely, and the Commission also indicated that it is not a policy 

preference that the fuel remain at dispersed locations. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. Now, I have two more questions, so I will ask for short answers, if I may. 

Dr. Macfarlane, small modular nuclear reactors, the Tennessee 

Valley Authority and the Oak Ridge Laboratory, for example, have 

expressed an interest to the Department of Energy on siting one 

there; Sandia National Laboratory has expressed the same. The 

Congress has approved the beginning of a 5-year jump-start program for small reactors. If you were Chairman of the Commission, 

would you assign a priority to the Commission’s role in creating an 

environment where we could move ahead with small nuclear reactors? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. If confirmed and then designated as Chair, I 

would certainly be interested in learning more about the Commission’s role vis-a`-vis small modular reactors. I know a little bit about 

them technically from my own background and I think they are 

very interesting. I would look forward to seeing license applications 

and seeing how they go. 

209 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, do you support the idea of moving 

ahead with them? 

Ms. MACFARLANE: Excuse me? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Do you support the idea of moving ahead 

with small nuclear reactors? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Small modular reactors? Certainly. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Commissioner Svinicki. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, in my service on the NRC, I have supported activities that would prepare the NRC to receive designs for 

review of small modular reactors so that if vendors decide to proceed, the NRC would be in a state of readiness to have in place the 

requirements and framework to review those applications. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you very much. 

I will submit a question about MOX fuel in writing, but let me 

ask Dr. Macfarlane in my remaining 22 seconds. I would like to get 

an idea of your attitude about nuclear power in general, and maybe 

a good way to ask it would be this: As you look ahead, do you see 

nuclear power as a source of electricity as a significant share of the 

United States’ ability to produce reliable, clean, low cost electric 

power? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Currently, the U.S., as I think maybe yourself 

or one of the other Senators pointed out, gets 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. That number is not going to go down 

for a while, but it could go down. I certainly think it is very important for this country, for the security of the country that we have 

a diverse energy supply, and nuclear is part of that diversity, certainly. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. Before I begin, if I may say to Senator Alexander, you talked to nuclear power being low cost. To the 

best of my knowledge, in terms of the production of new electricity, 

nuclear power is the most expensive form of new generation. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Madam Chairman, I will look forward to a 

private discussion with Senator Sanders, and I would love to 

present him with the National Academy of Sciences study that 

shows just the reverse. And the windmills that you like and I don’t 

are much more expensive. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. 

But to the Commissioners, let me start off with Dr. Macfarlane. 

Doctor, I have expressed concern with the NRC voting process, 

and I think you and I discussed this when you were in my office, 

which does not include a public meeting where Commissioners 

meet to vote yes or no and explain their vote. I have no problem 

with Commissioners continuing to use the notation vote process, 

whereby each drafts an opinion and reconciles it to provide a majority opinion and orders to the staff, but I see no logical reason 

why the NRC cannot also have a public voting meeting so that the 

American people can see what the NRC is doing, is not doing, and 

how the members feel about a given issue. 

We, in fact, have been talking about this issue for a number of 

years, and I think it is time to move. And in fact, if I do not see 

210 

changes at the NRC in terms of the voting process, I am going to 

offer legislation to mandate that that happen. 

So my question to you, Dr. Macfarlane, will you commit today 

that for the next vote that the NRC conducts, if you are appointed 

Chairman, you will hold a public voting meeting where staff can 

present the issue, and each Commissioner can vote yes or no in 

public and explain his or her vote? Can I have that commitment? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thank you for your question, Senator. We did 

have a discussion about this when we met. I certainly commit to 

being as transparent as possible, as transparent as I can be at the 

Commission, if confirmed. At the moment, I am still learning about 

the voting practices and procedures at the NRC, and I would like 

to learn more about the history of voting practices at the NRC to 

better understand the options for internal Commission procedures. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, let me—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. And in an effort to maintain collegiality, before any changes are made to current voting processes, I would like 

to consult with the other Commissioners to understand their 

thoughts on this process. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, let’s consult with Commissioner Svinicki. 

Let me ask her this question. 

Commissioner, in you written testimony to this Committee you 

describe openness a key principle for good regulation, and I certainly agree with you. But as you know better than I do, the NRC 

voting process is anything but open or transparent. In fact, it is extraordinarily opaque and complicated. It makes it difficult for the 

average citizen to understand what is going on at the NRC. It begins with a staff paper offering recommended actions, then each of 

the five Commissioners votes via a detailed statement, and somehow a majority opinion is cobbled together, and then in yet another 

document orders are given to staff to carry out the result. 

Now, right here, for better or for worse, every member of the 

U.S. Senate has to raise his or her hand and vote yes; we vote no; 

very rarely people vote present. But everybody in our home State 

in America knows how we vote on an issue. So I don’t think it is 

complicated. 

My understanding, Commissioner Svinicki, is that Chairman 

Jaczko, in fact, requested that the NRC hold a public holding meeting, that he made that request to the Commission. Did you agree 

with that request? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I am trying to recollect what specific voting matter 

that might have been. It might have been—well, I would rather 

check my record; I am not remembering. I know that Chairman 

Jaczko was in favor of modifying the Commission’s voting practice. 

Senator SANDERS. Right. He had the wild and crazy idea that, in 

a democracy, maybe the people of America might know how you 

voted. So let me ask you that. I happen to agree with Jaczko on 

that. Will you—I didn’t get a clear answer from Dr. Macfarlane, 

but will you be supportive of an open and transparent public vote 

so that Members of the Senate, the American people, know how 

you vote? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, the notation, written notation voting process that you referred to, my views are appended to a vote that is 

211 

made public on the NRC’s Web site, so if I understand your proposal, it would be in addition to the release of—— 

Senator SANDERS. I am asking for the radical idea that you raise 

your hand in public, and tell the American people whether you 

voted yes or no on that issue. You don’t do that now. Can you give 

us assurance that you will support that process? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Again, my votes are made public. I think they have 

been quoted to me by members of this Committee. So I have supported the written notation process. I benefited, when I came on 

the Commission, from being able to read the written votes of prior 

Commissioners to learn the history of issues. 

Senator SANDERS. OK, you are telling me no, in fact. I mean, I 

can write a 12-page analysis of how I feel on an issue and know 

how to do it without allowing the people to know really whether 

I am voting yes or no, and that is really what goes on in the NRC. 

And I would hope that regardless of political persuasion, we would 

want our constituents back home to see a yes and no vote. We don’t 

have that now. If we don’t get it, and it sounds to me like we are 

not going to get it, I will offer legislation to mandate that, and I 

hope I can have bipartisan support for that. 

Senator BOXER. Your time has expired. 

Senator SANDERS. Oh. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Dr. Macfarlane, let me first say how much I enjoyed talking with 

you. I appreciated that opportunity yesterday. I would like an actual answer for these questions. What experience and technical expertise do you have concerning reactor safety? I know that you 

have a doctorate in geology, which can be helpful with regard to 

waste disposal or plant sitings, but the actual operation of a nuclear plant, what experience have you had or technical expertise? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. My expertise is on the back end of the nuclear 

fuel cycle, so that does deal with part of what nuclear power plants 

produce, which is spent nuclear fuel, which is at reactor sites. So 

part of my expertise has to do with that. I think that, in general, 

as well as you pointed out, seismic issues are important not just 

for plant siting, but for plant operation, as we saw in terms of what 

happened in Japan. 

Senator SESSIONS. With regard to the 4,000 employees, the 

Chairperson is given some supervisory power. What is the largest 

organization you have ever managed? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I have managed different committees within 

academia, and I have been Chair of boards, on different boards, but 

there have not been 4,000 people. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, the NRC budget exceeds $1 billion annually. What is the largest budget you have ever overseen? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It has been smaller. 

Senator SESSIONS. Have you received funding, directly or indirectly, from the Department of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, or other Federal agencies, related to Yucca Mountain? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No, I have not. 

Senator SESSIONS. Have you received funding, directly or indirectly, from any organizations opposed to the Yucca Mountain facility? 

212 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No, I have not. 

Senator SESSIONS. Six months ago, Senator Kirk and I, joined by 

seven colleagues, wrote to Chairman Jaczko urging him to ensure 

that all documents and files related to the Yucca project be preserved and kept available for future decisionmakers. Would you 

agree it would be prudent for the NRC and the Energy Department 

to maintain and preserve the work that has been done on the 

Yucca project? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Speaking as a scientist? Absolutely. There is 

a wealth of scientific knowledge there. It is important. 

Senator SESSIONS. I know you have expressed your view in a 

hearing, I believe one called by maybe Senator Reid, that there was 

a lack of political support for the Yucca site. Certainly, there have 

been objections in Nevada to that site, but are you aware that the 

Board of County Commissioners of Nye County, the third largest 

county in the United States, issued a resolution last year or wrote 

the Blue Ribbon Commission to say that ‘‘strong local community 

support for Yucca Mountain exists at the host county level’’? 

The letter also states, ‘‘that their own research convinces us that 

the science embodied in DOE’s license application for Yucca Mountain and its hundreds of supporting documents is sound.’’ They 

write that the Yucca repository has been ‘‘hijacked by the politics 

of a single powerful Senator and what some view as complicity by 

the NRC Chairman.’’ 

Of course, the then-NRC Chairman had formerly worked for perhaps that Senator, and I don’t mind saying it is my friend, Senator 

Reid, the majority leader, I am sure they were referring to. 

So do you agree that while there is opposition in Nevada, that 

at least the people in this large county, where the site would be, 

are supportive? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. As commissioner with the Blue Ribbon Commission, I had multiple opportunities to interact with the people 

from Nye County and from the other counties in Nevada who came 

to many of the meetings, so we had opportunities to talk. I was 

aware of their views. 

Senator SESSIONS. Have you provided the Committee with all the 

articles you published and writings? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I provided them with a long list of all the articles and writings that I have done. 

Senator SESSIONS. No, the question would be have you provided 

the Committee with a list of all your articles and published 

writings. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. And does that include speeches that you have 

made? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I do believe, yes, I included all the speeches 

as well. 

Senator SESSIONS. Commissioner Svinicki, congratulations on receiving the 2012 Presidential citation a few weeks ago by the 

American Nuclear Society. That is quite an honor, and you should 

be congratulated for it. I think it does reflect well on your abilities. 

My time is up. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. You have been very gracious. 

213 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Macfarlane, first, let me congratulate you on your good judgment. I know that you grew up in Connecticut, but you now live 

in Maryland, so I wanted to point that out to the Committee. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Finally figured it out. 

Senator CARDIN. Right. Congratulations on that. 

I want to follow up on Senator Alexander’s point on the storage 

issues. 

And I understand both of your positions as it relates to regional 

facilities or for depositories, and I understand that. That can take 

some time, as we all know, before they are implemented. So I want 

to get your thoughts on onsite storage as it relates to the safety 

issues as to the advisability and long-term use of onsite storage, 

and your views as to how that relates to the work of the Commission. I will let you start. 

I will ask some specific questions. There are some trade offs, obviously, the trade offs on transportation, the trade offs of risk at 

a regional or at a national depository; there are the issues of how 

safe different regions of the country have different risks. We know 

that certain areas may have more weather related concerns than 

other areas. 

How would you go about dealing with the storage issue as it relates to your responsibilities on a long-term need to do storage onsite? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Would you like me to start? 

Senator CARDIN. Either one. 

Dr. Macfarlane, you may start. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. OK. Thank you. Thank you for the question. 

I, as a safety regulator, if confirmed, my main concern would be ensuring the safety of the storage onsite at reactors. Let’s limit it to 

just onsite at reactors right now. Reactors need spent fuel pools. 

You cannot operate a light water reactor without a spent fuel pool, 

because when the fuel is discharged from the reactor, it is both 

thermally and radioactively hot; it needs that 40-foot-deep swimming pool to sit in and have the water circulated around so it remains cool. After 5 years, though, it has cooled off enough that you 

can actually put it in what we call a dry cask. There are a number 

of different designs, but they are mostly concrete and steel structures which are passively cooled. 

So you don’t need the dry casks, but you can use them, but you 

do need that spent fuel pool. And we know, in terms of safety from 

recent experience with dry casks both at the Japanese facility in 

Fukushima and the one in Virginia at North Anna, where there 

was an earthquake last summer, you guys might recall, those dry 

casks performed very well, so I think they are safe. But I think understanding how they behave over the long term is important to 

ensure their security. And also continuing to work on the safety 

and security of spent fuel pools is important as well. 

Senator CARDIN. So are you saying that from a long-term perspective the dry cask storage, is it an acceptable option, or do we 

need to move forward on regional or national depositories? 

214 

Ms. MACFARLANE. From my point of view, we absolutely need to 

move forward on national repositories. Those dry casks are fine on 

the decades time scale. If you are talking hundreds or thousands 

of years, there is no long-term guarantee; you need some kind of 

deep geologic repository. 

Senator CARDIN. Which is worth the risk of transportation and 

a centralized site, I take it? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I believe so. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator Cardin, within its regulatory authorities, 

the Commission has been focused on making certain that either the 

pool storage or the dry cask storage, if fuel remains at sites for 

some longer duration of time, can be done safely. The Commission 

has assessed that it has all the regulatory authority that it needs 

in order to put in place requirements to make sure that that continues to be the case. But as I noted earlier, the Commission, in 

offering that assurance of continued safety, indicated that it was 

not to be interpreted as a policy preference, that leaving fuel dispersed at different sites was preferable from a policy standpoint. 

Clearly, that is not the preferred policy. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I have just been notified we are going to 

have two votes at noon, so in order to give everybody a chance, we 

are just going to have to go down to 3 minutes apiece. I do deeply 

apologize. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Just a couple quick questions. Dr. Macfarlane, my home State of 

Wyoming, and I know you are taking notes, has an abundance of 

domestic uranium. Permitting of these sites has met with a lot of 

bureaucratic delay and red tape. These sites are good paying American jobs for folks in my State, other States where uranium is 

found. Do you believe that domestic uranium production is preferable to being dependent on importing foreign uranium from countries like Russia? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. First of all, I should say that I think Wyoming 

is one of the most beautiful States in the union. That aside, the job, 

again, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to assure safety 

and security, not to opine on policy positions. But given that and 

my past views on things, certainly it is important for the United 

States to have as diverse a supply of energy as possible, and to 

have as much domestic supply as possible as well. 

Senator BARRASSO. What assurances can you provide the Commission that you will not unduly delay Commission decisions or ensure that all the perspectives and opinions of your colleagues are 

dealt with in a respectful and timely manner? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I assure you wholeheartedly. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Commissioner Svinicki, you have had a number of questions 

asked to you today. I just wonder if there are comments you would 

like to make to the Committee to kind of tie together or answer 

some of the charges that may have been made by others. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I would reflect that, again, I was privileged to be 

a Senate staff person for a long time. I have tremendous respect 

215 

for the Senate’s unique role under the Constitution to review President Obama’s nomination of me, and I know that I have not 

achieved universal agreement in my actions and positions I have 

taken on the Commission. I am very respectful that there are differing views. I think, as Dr. Macfarlane has indicated, it is not an 

expectation that everyone agree with everyone. So that standard 

was probably not within my reach, but I have worked to assess 

issues based on the facts in front of me, and I have attempted to 

fulfill my duty in that way. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, and congratulations to both of you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator, so much. I really do apologize for the 3 minutes. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, Chairman. Sorry, I 

had to leave for a few minutes, but I appreciate the opportunity to 

get a couple of questions in. 

For Dr. Macfarlane, it is critical that we apply the lessons of the 

Fukushima disaster to improve nuclear safety here at home. One 

of those lessons is ensuring that containment vents work properly 

and are filtered to prevent the release of radiation. Now, would you 

support the requiring of filtration of containment vents where appropriate? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thanks for that question, Senator. I understand that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is actually looking 

into that specific issue right now, and I would, if confirmed, be very 

interested in the results of their analysis. I am somewhat familiar 

with the issue, so I would be very interested to learn more. I will 

definitely follow that issue. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And Commissioner Svinicki, you said that 

you don’t believe that U.S. power plants should be required to install filtered containment vents. These systems could prevent the 

release of radiation into the atmosphere in the event of a nuclear 

accident. Why do you oppose taking this precautionary step? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator Lautenberg, I believe I was asked about 

that, my support for that in a speech in March, and what I indicated was that I had not been provided any analysis to date that 

would support or make the case for installation of filtered vents. 

As Dr. Macfarlane indicated, the NRC staff is preparing an evaluation of that issue now, and later this summer that issue will come 

before the Commission. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. But you are, therefore, not committed to 

say no to that. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I will review with a very open mind the staff’s 

evaluation of this issue. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. In March, Dr. Macfarlane, I sent a letter 

raising concern that the NRC was not allowing public comments at 

the annual meeting for the Oyster Creek Plant in New Jersey. I 

think that local residents deserve to have their voices heard on 

these issues. If you are to be the NRC Chair, would you try to 

make sure or work to try and bring the public into the discussion 

and increase their participation? 

216 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thanks for the question, Senator. I am very 

dedicated to hearing all sides and all points of view on all of these 

topics, and my experience as a commissioner with the Blue Ribbon 

Commission was that we were most successful when everybody felt 

that they were heard. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. One more question, Dr. Macfarlane. You 

were a member of the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission. They 

made a number of proposals that would require transporting significant amounts of nuclear waste across the country. What steps 

might be taken to protect the communities that live near the railroads and the highways where nuclear waste will be transported? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Wow, that is a long answer question. There 

are many steps that could be taken, and the Blue Ribbon Commission did specifically look at the issue of transportation and re-look 

at the issue of transportation and suggested that there is actually 

a lot of work that can be done now because there are a lot of issues 

that have to do with rail—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So they can be transported safely, in your 

opinion? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. Yes, absolutely. And they are in many 

other countries. 

Senator BOXER. Can I ask if you would put something in writing 

about that for us? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Sure. 

Senator BOXER. Because I am very interested in this. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

And now the votes have started. We call on Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thank both of you for being here. We appreciate your willingness to serve, Dr. Macfarlane, and we also appreciate your service, Commissioner Svinicki, and your willingness to get back into 

this. 

Dr. Macfarlane, the question has come up about trying to get our 

safety issues resolved in 5 years, and we are all part of the bureaucracy up here. What do you see as some of the pitfalls in actually getting that done? I assume that you are committed to doing 

that in 5 years, but what is lurking out there that you see that 

might be a problem? I have road projects that have taken longer 

than that to get approval. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Certainly. Thank you for the question, Senator. I am still learning exactly all of the different aspects of what 

the NRC is planning to do and has requested of the licensees. I understand that it will take two outages to go through and fulfill the 

orders that have been issued. These outages occur every 18 to 24 

months, and that is part of this 5-year timeframe. The first outage 

to try to understand, especially with placing hardened vents, where 

they could be placed and how they would be done, and then the 

second outage with actually doing it. So that is part of it. So those 

are some of the issues. 

Senator BOOZMAN. The former Chairman used tactics like simply 

not voting or delaying votes on decisions with licensing and things 

for plants. Can you assure us that you won’t use those kind of tactics? 

217 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Certainly. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boozman follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Madam Chair, thank you for holding this hearing. President Obama has re-appointed Commissioner Svinicki to the NRC, and this is our first opportunity to visit 

with Dr. Macfarlane. I appreciate the willingness of both of these individuals to 

serve. My understanding—and this has been misreported—is that both nominees are 

simply nominated to positions on the Commission. The appointment of a Chair for 

the NRC is made exclusively by the President, and that is a decision the President 

will have to make once the current Chairman is retired. 

This nomination process is limited to whether these two nominees are appropriate 

and qualified to serve on the Commission, not whether either of them would be best 

suited to serve as Chair of the Commission. My vote will be made in that context. 

I hope the President will choose the best prepared and most qualified Commissioner 

to serve as Chair, when the time comes. The Chairman must provide administrative 

leadership to an organization with a massive budget and over 4,000 employees. Experience matters. 

Madam Chair, again thank you for this hearing. I believe we need to have five 

active and engaged Commissioners, overseeing the important work of the agency. 

I hope the Senate will do its work quickly, because we do not want vacancies to impact the work of the Commission. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Gillibrand, welcome. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

Obviously, we have had many lessons learned because of the 

Fukushima accident, and two things that I am particularly concerned of for New York that I would like your thoughts on. First, 

in the area of exemptions, license amendments, and renewals and 

waivers, given that we give licenses for up to 20 years, given that 

many waivers and exemptions have been given, and given that 

technology is improving very rapidly, have you given any consideration to re-looking at these current rules and guidelines in terms 

of timing, because I think, given what we have learned from 

Fukushima, we may want to have license renewals have shorter 

time periods; we may want to create a mechanism whereby waivers 

can be re-looked at, given what we have learned. 

Second, with New York specifically, we have Indian Point, and 

I know, Dr. Macfarlane, you have some expertise in geology. Do 

you plan to look at things like potentially active fault lines; what 

the risks are, what can be done to protect these existing sites? 

And then last, also highly relevant to the New York issue, have 

you given consideration to re-looking at issues of evacuation for 

large scale populations, making sure that there is such a plan for 

that kind of large evacuations if there is some damage or emergency situation? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thank you for the questions, Senator. In 

terms of license renewals, et cetera, I think that is very important 

to periodically review lessons learned from the process, and I believe that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has done this and 

is doing this in that case. 

In terms of Indian Point and assessing seismic risks, there has 

been a new seismic hazard analysis that the U.S. Geological Survey 

218 

has issued. I think it is important for all reactors to go and assess 

the new analysis, and I would certainly be interested in following 

that issue vis-a`-vis reactors, and specifically with Indian Point in 

mind. 

And then in terms of looking at the issues around evacuating 

people, thinking about Indian Point, I do believe that under the activities that the NRC is undertaking regarding the Fukushima accident, that they are reconsidering the emergency planning zones 

and looking at that as well, and I would definitely follow that up 

as well. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Senator, I don’t have too much to add to what Dr. 

Macfarlane said except that as a specific action post-Fukushima, 

all nuclear power plants, including Indian Point, have been ordered 

to do a seismic reevaluation. So that requirement has been imposed 

by the Commission. And again, as Dr. Macfarlane said, the evacuation and emergency planning issues are also under reevaluation 

by the NRC staff. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

So I am going to just close with a couple of points and then rush 

off. So if I don’t thank you both, I will now do that. There is something I need to do in order to make sure that these nominations 

go forward. Would you both be ready to answer these questions: Do 

you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee or designated members of this Committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress and provide information subject to appropriate 

and necessary security protection with respect to your responsibilities? Answer yes or no. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Do you agree to ensure the testimony, briefings, 

documents of electronic and other forms of communication of information are provided to this Committee and its staff and other appropriate committees in a timely manner? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Last, do you know of any matters which you may 

or may not have disclosed that might place you in any conflict of 

interest if you are confirmed? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No. 

Ms. SVINICKI. No. 

Senator BOXER. All right. The record will show those answers. 

Senators, questions are due at noon tomorrow. Nominees’ answers are due Monday at noon. We are trying to move this forward. 

So my couple of last parting questions are—I asked my staff to 

put together a list of what does this nuclear waste contain. Now, 

Chairman, you are expert at this, Chairman-to-be, and Commissioner, I know you are an expert at this, too, so I looked at some 

of the half-lifes here, and they said, well, Neptunian-237 has a 

half-life of 2.1 million years, and plutonium-237 has a half-life of 

24,100 years. Would you agree with this, and do you agree that 

when you are dealing with this waste it is very, very serious business? 

Commissioner. 

219 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, Chairman. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. All right. I have two more points. After the 

Three Mile Island accident, the NRC Chairman’s duties were really 

changed, and they were strengthened, and the Chairman became 

not only known as the Chairman, but the principal executive officer 

of the Commission who directs ‘‘the day to day operation of the 

agency and the NRC’s response to nuclear emergencies.’’ Are you 

aware of this law? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. OK. And will you respect the role of the Chairman? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, I will. 

Senator BOXER. Even when she may not agree with you? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. And when she does agree with you? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. And I would ask our hopefully future Chairman, 

if reconfirmed, do you understand this authority, and will you exercise it if necessary? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. Because I think that is key. There was such a 

confusion over that after Fukushima, and the arguments went back 

and forth. 

The last point is I am really glad Senator Inhofe put page 33 of 

Commissioner Svinicki’s answers to me about Yucca into the record 

because here it goes: 

Senator BOXER: So you didn’t work directly on Yucca? Answer: 

I did not. 

I don’t believe that is true. When I don’t vote for you, Commissioner, it is because I have reasons that go with my view of your 

candor or lack of same, and also the record in terms of safety. I 

hope and I truly pray that this Commission, with your leadership 

and yours, can get off in a different direction. We can have the 

deepest divisions of opinion. This is America; that is what we are 

known for. We don’t agree on things, but we have decent relationships with each other. 

And I just really want to underscore that. As one day we had all 

the Commissioners here and the Chairman, and I said you should 

all go out after work and have a beer, soda, something; and they 

all looked at me like what planet was I on for that to even be possible. That has to be possible. It could be tea or coffee. It could be 

anything. But you get my point. 

So, Dr. Macfarlane, you are walking into a tough situation, but 

honestly, after meeting with you and watching you here today, I 

sense in you the ability to bring people together, and I know as a 

mom myself, you have to do that a lot around the house, as well 

as in the workplace. So I think you are going to bring a different 

touch. I think it is necessary. 

And I would say, Commissioner Svinicki, I hope, as a long-time 

member of this Commission and despite my opposition, I know that 

you are going to be confirmed, I hope you will do your best to help 

our new Chairman find her way. And if there is disagreement, let’s 

not make it personal, let’s not make it some kind of vendetta, one 

220 

to the other. Let’s just bring those disagreements out to the fore 

and recognize that is how this country is. We are great because we 

allow that debate. We certainly do it here in the Senate, and we 

can go out for a cup of coffee afterwards. 

So I hope that will happen. I am very, very pleased that you are 

both here today, that we had such an important hearing, that it 

was so civil, and I am just feeling good today. And I will feel even 

better when we get the highway bill done. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ