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

21–231 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1223 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF GEORGE 

APOSTOLAKIS, WILLIAM MAGWOOD, AND WILLIAM CHARLES OSTENDORFF TO BE MEMBERS 

OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 9, 2010 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 9, 2010 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 2 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 4 

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

Webb, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia ................................... 6 

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

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 9 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 11 

WITNESSES 

Apostolakis, George, nominated to be a Commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission ....................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 18 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 20 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 23 

Magwood, William D., IV, nominated to be a Commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............................................................................. 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 29 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 33 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 35 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 38 

Ostendorff, William C., nominated to be a Commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission ....................................................................................... 40 

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

Responses to additional questions from: 

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

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

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 48 

(1) 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF GEORGE 

APOSTOLAKIS, WILLIAM MAGWOOD, AND 

WILLIAM CHARLES OSTENDORFF TO BE 

MEMBERS OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010 

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, Voinovich, Alexander, Carper, 

Cardin, Klobuchar, and Merkley. 

Also present: Senator Webb. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning, everybody. We all get the star of 

the day awards, because Senator Inhofe and I decided we are going 

to come to work, and we are going to do our job. I really want to 

thank him and his staff. It is nice to see Senator Alexander here, 

Senator Cardin, Senator Carper. And the EPW Committee moves 

forward when others fear to tread. 

So here is here we are. Senator Webb is coming to introduce Mr. 

Ostendorff. Senator Cardin has asked to introduce Mr. Magwood. 

I will introduce Dr. Apostolakis. So I think we are going to do this. 

We are going to do our little opening statements, and then we will 

get to Senator Webb and the others. So I will start it. 

We are holding a hearing on the nomination of three individuals 

to be members of the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

The NRC is an independent agency created by Congress to regulate 

commercial nuclear power plants and the use of nuclear materials 

through licensing, inspection and enforcement. By statute, the NRC 

is charged with protecting health and safety and minimizing danger to life and property. 

The Atomic Energy Commission, which was established in 1946, 

was the predecessor to the NRC. The AEC was charged with both 

encouraging the use of nuclear power and regulating its safety. 

This dual role created conflicts within the agency, and AEC’s regulation came under increasing attack for not being rigorous enough. 

As a result in 1974 Congress abolished the AEC and created the 

NRC as an independent regulator of commercial nuclear power. 
2 

The promotional work of the AEC was moved to a separate agency, 

which ultimately became the Department of Energy. The NRC was 

created to be a strong, independent regulator. 

I am going to put my whole statement in the record, but I do believe that when the President talks about transparency and accountability, it is very relevant to regulators like the NRC. And I 

urge the Commission to become even more transparent. We know 

the issues are complicated, but public involvement and support in 

the process is very important. 

I applaud the decision that the Administration made; due to the 

scientific reports, they want to look for another site other than 

Yucca. So we definitely have a lot of work on our plate. In addition 

to its work regulating nuclear waste I expect the review of combined construction and operating licenses for new nuclear power 

plants will occupy a good portion of the NRC’s time. 

Given that the nuclear industry is increasing interest in building 

new nuclear plants I expect the NRC will work very hard to ensure 

that they move forward and that the safety of the new plants and 

the designs of the new plants will never be questioned. 

So you also have the job of looking after existing facilities. We 

know some of them, many of them are aging. They need license renewals. You have to look at all of those. So I think the American 

public has a right to expect the very best public servants in your 

positions. And I really congratulate you on your nominations. I am 

excited that we can move forward on this front. 

With that, I would yield the balance of my time and turn to Senator Inhofe. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer was not received at 

time of print.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I had a 

chance to meet all three of the nominees. I am enthusiastically 

supporting all three of them. 

I was glad to hear that President Obama is now embracing nuclear energy as crucial to our energy security and economic prosperity. I couldn’t agree more. Nuclear energy is plentiful, it is 

cheap, it is safe and it is clean. 

We are all very aware of the national economy, how drastically 

it has changed since the first application for a new reactor was 

filed. That was September 2007. These changing economic circumstances forced the U.S. utilities to continually assess electricity 

demand and their options for meeting it. As with any other business they must make these decisions in real time in response to 

changing market conditions. 

The NRC is insulated from the challenges of responding to those 

dynamic conditions. Regulatory decisionmaking should not be pressured by economic conditions. The NRC’s mission to ensure safety, 

however, does not absolve the agency of responsibility to regulate 

in an efficient and predictable manner. 

The NRC now has 2 years of experience with reviewing new 

plant applications yet still they have not indicated dates when applicants can expect to receive their license. I think this is one thing 
3 

that we will all want to be asking you, is how quickly can we move. 

Things do tend to go slowly in Government. As we get new nominees in, that will be running things, I hope they will concentrate 

on getting things done rapidly. 

I can remember it was 1997 when I first became chairman of the 

subcommittee called the Clean Air Subcommittee that had jurisdiction over the then-NRC. At that time, it had been 8 years, 8 years 

since we had had an oversight hearing. So we started having oversight hearings every other month with expectations, with guidelines as to what should be expected. That is what I think we will 

do, and that is what I want to get to this morning, to see what we 

can do to speed these things along with these new applications. 

The Chairman mentioned the renewals. But we also have new applications which we want to move along rapidly. 

So the time is right. I am glad we all weathered the storm to get 

here and get you guys confirmed. 

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. All three nominees are of 

high caliber and will make outstanding contributions to the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

I was glad to hear that President Obama has finally embraced nuclear energy as 

crucial to our energy security and economic prosperity. I couldn’t agree more. Nuclear energy is a safe, clean source of energy that should play a central role in 

strengthening America’s energy security. 

We are all very aware that the national economy has changed drastically since 

the first application for a new reactor was filed in September 2007. These changing 

economic circumstances force U.S. utilities to continually assess electricity demand 

and their options for meeting it. As with any other business they must make these 

decisions in real time in response to changing market conditions. 

The NRC is insulated from the challenges of responding to those dynamic conditions. Regulatory decisionmaking should not be pressured by economic conditions. 

The NRC’s mission to ensure safety, however, does not absolve the agency of the 

responsibility to regulate in an efficient and predictable manner. 

The NRC now has 2 years of experience with reviewing new plant applications, 

yet it still has not indicated dates when applicants can expect to receive their licenses. How can you budget and allocate resources if you don’t know how long application reviews will take? How can you evaluate performance without a schedule to 

measure against? 

Granted, it’s been decades since the NRC has licensed new plants. There have 

been hiccups and will likely be more as everyone gains experience with the process. 

The agency, however, should not hide behind that excuse in order to avoid taking 

responsibility for establishing a transparent, predictable schedule and managing accordingly. 

My question is simply this: If the agency doesn’t have confidence in its own process and ability to manage it, why would stakeholders? As commissioners, each of 

you will be responsible for the leadership of this agency. I hope you will all strive 

to make this process more predictable so that the agency is viewed as an effective 

regulator, not as an obstacle to building new nuclear plants. 

I also hope each of you, should you be confirmed, will keep a safety focused 

mindset in assessing the matters that come before you. The natural inclination of 

a regulator is to regulate more. That tendency requires increased resources from 

both the industry, to comply, and from the regulator to develop regulations and 

monitor compliance. Neither the industry nor the agency has unlimited resources. 

It is the Commission’s responsibility to ensure that the agency remains safety focused and that resources are dedicated to issues of the highest impact to safety. 

Congress intended that the Commission function as a collegial body in its mission 

to protect public health, safety, and the environment. It certainly functions best 

with the full complement of five commissioners. It is my hope that the committee 

and then the full Senate will soon complete its consideration of these nominees and 
4 

fill the Commission because the Commission has plenty of work to do, and we need 

to ensure the agency has its full measure of leadership. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you. I wanted to mention our 

other nominees from TVA; they asked to continue this to after the 

new snowfall. So as I understand it, that will not be happening this 

week, on their request. They expect big snows, and they asked us 

to cancel. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, Madam Chairman, two of them are 

here. They flew up on the plane with me this morning, and their 

families are coming, too. 

Senator BOXER. I guess we could do those, too, then, if you wish. 

I am happy to do those, too. But we might want to do that today, 

because I am very fearful about what is coming tonight and tomorrow. So can you get in touch with them, Senator? 

Senator ALEXANDER. I can try. I don’t want to substitute my 

judgment for theirs or yours on this, but I just know they are here. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I was told that the nominees had asked 

that it not go forward. But if there are two here with their families, 

I think we ought to hear from them. 

Why don’t we do this. Why don’t we go through where we are, 

I will come and talk with you in the room out there, and we will 

figure out a way to get in touch with them. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. They may not ever be able to get home, if they 

don’t get home tonight. 

Senator INHOFE. Maybe this afternoon we could hear from them. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, I was thinking maybe this afternoon’s hearing. 

Senator CARPER. Madam Chair, Laura Haines, who is sitting 

right behind me, says that she believes the two nominees that may 

have flown up with Senator Alexander may be flying home as we 

speak. 

Senator BOXER. We will check this out. I live six blocks away. So 

I can get here in any blizzard. 

Senator CARPER. Maybe we could do this at the airport. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. We could do this at the airport. Right. That is 

good. 

Well, we will figure this all out. But getting back to our nominees who are here, and our wonderful Senator who has joined us 

to do an introduction, let’s move forward with Senators Cardin, 

then Alexander, then Carper, then Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Madam Chair, let me thank you very much for 

holding this hearing this morning. I want to thank all the witnesses for being here and for their willingness to serve on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was established in 1974 as 

an independent agency protecting the health and safety and minimizing danger to life or property. We have three of the nominees 

before us today. Considering it is a five-member commission, the 

three of you will have a major impact on the future decisions re-
5 

lated to nuclear power in this country. So I think this hearing is 

particularly important. We depend upon the independent oversight 

authority that you have to provide accountability that this Nation 

deserves. 

There may be different views among members of the U.S. Senate 

as to the future use of nuclear power in our energy policy. But regardless of one’s view, I think we all agree that we want a strong, 

independent oversight agency. And we very much depend upon the 

Commission to provide that. 

I am a proponent of nuclear power. I believe that we need to be 

more aggressive in the use of nuclear power in the United States 

to lessen our dependence on carbon-based electricity generation. 

The NRC has a record number of applications in front of it. The 

President has just announced his plan to increase the guaranteed 

loan for the industry to a record amount. 

So I think we stand on the cusp of a nuclear renaissance. But 

to make that promise a reality we need a Commission that is fully 

staffed and hard at work. That is why I am particularly pleased, 

Madam Chair, that we have this hearing today to deal with the 

three nominees that are before us. I look forward to their testimony 

and I look forward to working with the Commission in the best interests of the United States. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The Chair has heard me express over the last year my concern 

that the United States is pursuing what looks like a national windmill policy, which is the energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats. However, I want to congratulate President Obama for the 

last couple of weeks of leadership that he has shown on nuclear energy. The President’s view is terribly important here because the 

Government is not going to build these plants. The utilities are 

going to build them, and the ratepayers are going to pay for them. 

So it is up to the President and all of us to try and create an environment in which that can happen. 

Senator Webb and I have co-sponsored legislation to try and create an environment in which we could double nuclear power production in the United States as well as encourage other forms of 

clean energy. So the President’s statement in the State of the 

Union address about a new generation of nuclear power, his support for $54 billion of loan guarantees, the quality of the three 

Commission members who are before us, unless I really completely 

miss my bet, I think it would be difficult for the President to find 

three better nominees for this position, people who are experienced, 

who will make sure the plants are safe, but who see the value of 

them to our country. 

The quality of the appointees of the President’s Commission 

members to the new Commission on what we do with used nuclear 

fuel is excellent and should be also an encouraging sign. And of 

course Dr. Chu’s advocacy and leadership over the last year all add 

up to several steps that we are taking to getting us back into the 
6 

ball game. We have a way to go. Senator Webb and I in our bill 

make the loan guarantees technology neutral so that any clean energy can do that. I would like for our subsidies and policies and the 

renewable energy standards all to be low carbon standards so that 

we let the marketplace pick and choose among the available forms 

of energy. 

But I am very pleased to be here and to be here with these three 

nominees. I look forward to asking some questions. At a time when 

China is starting a new nuclear plant every 3 months, Japan is a 

third nuclear power, France is 80 percent, even the UAE is building nuclear power plants or making plans to. The United States, 

who invented the technology, should create an environment in 

which we take our invention and use it for our own benefit. I can 

think of nothing more important to job creation than lots of low 

cost, clean, reliable nuclear energy. I hope these three Commissioners will help create an environment where that happens, and 

I commend the President for his nominees and his other actions. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I understand that Senator Webb has to leave shortly. He is here 

to introduce Mr. Ostendorff. So if Senator Carper wouldn’t mind 

yielding to Senator Webb, and then we will get right to you. But 

I understand, Senator Carper, you had a relevant announcement to 

make. 

Senator CARPER. A question first for Senator Webb. Do you recall 

what you were doing 64 years ago today? 

Senator WEBB. Not specifically, but my mother, I think, still has 

a recollection. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I just want to thank our witnesses, and our 

nominees and everybody present for joining us for the celebration 

of the 64th anniversary of the birth of Senator Webb. Congratulations. 

[Applause.] 

Senator BOXER. Congratulations, Senator Webb. Happy birthday. 

Now that we have thoroughly embarrassed you, the honor of introducing Mr. Ostendorff falls on your shoulders. So go ahead. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM WEBB, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will see if I can 

find my place in my notes here, after that. Also, Ranking Member 

Inhofe and members of the committee, it is with a great deal of 

pleasure that I am introducing William Charles Ostendorff and 

also giving him my strongest recommendation here to become a 

Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

As Senator Alexander so aptly stated, I am one of those who believe it is critical that the United States accelerate its deployment 

of nuclear energy. And doing so will require effective leadership 

and cooperation at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I am very 

pleased to have discussed this proposition with a number of members of this committee. I believe the bill that Senator Alexander 

and I introduced at the end of last year is achievable, measurable 

and good for the country. 
7 

In that respect, Mr. Ostendorff has clearly demonstrated the 

skills and experience necessary for this position. He has had an exceptional career in the Navy, in the Department of Energy, the 

Congress and at the National Academies. I would say again, 

Madam Chair, given the fact that it is my birthday, it is merely 

a coincidence that Mr. Ostendorff and I both went to the Naval 

Academy and both went to Georgetown Law School. We probably 

didn’t go to the same Naval Academy. The disparity in the academic areas of the Naval Academy while we were there were pretty 

dramatic between the people who went into the Marine Corps and 

the people who went into the nuclear power program. We all were 

required to obtain an engineering degree. But those of us who were 

on the Marine Corps side, we used to carve into our desks, ‘‘Entropy is alive and living in Argentina.’’ But the people who were 

on Mr. Ostendorff’s side actually understood what entropy was. 

He also served on six different submarines. I could say I had a 

pretty hard infantry tour in Vietnam, but you could not have put 

a gun to my head and made me go in a submarine. Six different 

times, including command of the USS Norfolk attack submarine. 

Among other accomplishments in the Navy, he commanded 1,200 

men and women of Submarine Squadron Six based in Norfolk, Virginia. Then after retiring from the Navy, Mr. Ostendorff joined the 

Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, serving as counsel and staff director with oversight responsibilities of various Department of Energy activities. And after Senate confirmation in 2007 he became Principal Deputy Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Agency where he served 

until 2009, at which time he became Director of the Committee of 

Science, Engineering and Public Policy at the National Academies. 

The range and breadth of this experience I think make him superbly qualified to serve as Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He and his wife, Chris, who is a special education teacher, are now residents of Oakton, Virginia. She is here 

today, as are two of your three children, if they would like to stand. 

Daughter Becky is an attorney in New York City, one son, Chuck 

is an Army captain, who deployed to Iraq with the Second Stryker 

Cavalry Regiment and is now stationed at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and 

son Jeff is a student at Marymount here in Arlington, Virginia. 

With that, Madam Chair, members of the committee, I look forward to his confirmation and to working with him and others as 

we move into a new era of nuclear energy development in our country. Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you. I know that you have to 

leave us, but we do wish you a happy birthday. 

Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chair. Let me say to our witnesses, welcome. It is nice to see each of you again. Thank you not 

just for showing up today, but showing up all those years of your 

lives and preparing yourselves for this potential assignment. 

Dr. Apostolakis, Mr. Magwood, Captain Ostendorff, when you are 

introduced to speak, you may want to, if you have family members 
8 

who are here, you may want to introduce them and let us say hello 

to them as well as you begin your remarks. 

Like Senator Alexander, I am impressed by the technical breadth 

and the depth of these three nominees. Really, the complementary 

set of skills that they would each bring to the Commission if confirmed. The word synergy is oftentimes used. I think we have some 

real synergy here in terms of the potential that each of you bring 

collectively to the Commission. 

As Chairman of the Senate Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee ensuring that the nuclear power industry functions safely is a top priority of mine. I expect and the public expects that the 

NRC must be a strong, independent and effective regulator, a regulator that acts firmly, a regulator that acts decisively, a regulator 

that acts openly and transparently, a regulatory that produces results and is worthy of the public’s confidence. In sum, the NRC 

must ensure our Nation’s health, our safety and security and the 

protection of the environment. 

I am tempted to say we cannot afford any mistakes. Actually, we 

all make mistakes. I think it was Richard Nixon who used to say 

the only people who don’t make mistakes are the people who don’t 

do anything. We make mistakes in the work that we do here in the 

Senate, and I am sure mistakes are made at the NRC and at the 

nuclear power plants that they regulate. What we can’t afford are 

mistakes that will derail this renaissance in nuclear power. What 

we can’t afford are mistakes that are made and covered up at nuclear power plants. What we can’t afford are mistakes that are 

made again and again and again, because no one has reported 

them and actions haven’t been taken to correct those mistakes. 

But as you note, we have many challenges before us, including 

ensuring that our current fleet continues to operate safely while reviewing applications to build new reactors. And I might add also 

we have a bunch of nearly 40-year-old power plants that are already in the queue for being reviewed and hopefully have their 

lives extended for another 20 years, if they merit that. 

But if you all are confirmed, and I hope you will be, each of you 

will be in a role of the utmost importance, requiring the highest 

level of public trust. I want to thank you for being here, not just 

for your willingness to serve your country, but I think each of you 

have already served your country in a wide range of ways. And we 

are happy that you are willing to serve your country again. I want 

to express our thanks to your families, some of whom are here, 

some of whom are not, for their willingness to share you with the 

rest of us in this country in the years to come. 

What I hope to hear from each of you is a strong statement of 

your commitment to making the NRC, which is already a great 

place to work, best in the Federal Government, not only making 

the NRC a great place to work, but a strong and impartial regulator. 

I will close with this. Sometimes I think of your roles as, just imaging driving a car, something most of us do. We have two feet and 

a we move to a renaissance in nuclear energy, we need one foot on 

the accelerator, to make sure that we move forward expeditiously 

to realize this dream, this vision. And we need another foot tapping 

that brake when it is appropriate. There are plenty of people with 
9 

their foot on the accelerator, including some of us. We need to 

make sure we have somebody there responsibly tapping that brake 

when it needs to be tapped. Thank you very much for your willingness to play that role. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking 

Member Inhofe, for holding this hearing today. I would like to welcome the nominees today and their families. 

Madam Chair, as you know I have spent the better part of the 

last 10 years in the Senate involved in shaping nuclear energy policy for this country, mainly as Chairman and the Ranking Member 

on the Senate’s Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee. We 

focused a great deal of time and effort on the committee Chair on 

the oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make sure 

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

I take pride in the fact that this committee has transformed the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission into one of the best and most respected regulatory agencies in the world. We worked very hard 

placing the right people on the Commission, providing the Commission with the resources and tools necessary to do its job, and holding them accountable for results. We held over 20 productive hearings involving the NRC over the last 8 years. So it is no accident 

that we have seen a dramatic improvement in both the safety 

records and reliabilities of the 104 operating reactors today compared to a decade ago. 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank and recognize each 

of the existing members of the Commission, Chairman Jaczko, 

Commissioner Svinicki and soon-departing Commissioner Klein, 

and all the other Commission members that have served with great 

distinction. Being a regulator often is a thankless job, whether it 

is the NRC, FAA, FDA. It seems as though the only time people 

care about what you do is when something goes wrong, and it almost always easy to criticize what you did. 

Indeed, a regulator’s job is a complex and difficult one. NRC has 

to be vigilant at all times, keeping its regulatory threshold just 

right. It should be rigorous enough to prevent complacency from 

setting in both within the agency and the industry it regulates, and 

we have seen that several years ago, but not overly restrictive to 

a point of stifling the growth of nuclear power in this country at 

a time when we need it most. And our country does need nuclear 

power and the jobs, the energy security, and the environmental 

benefits it provides. I tell people that nuclear power is a three-fer: 

it provides base-load electricity, it is emission-less, and offers environmental benefits, jobs and reliable energy. 

With President Obama’s recent call for increased use of nuclear 

power in his State of the Union Address and the DOE’s Energy’s 

fiscal year 2011 budget request for an additional $36 billion for nuclear loan guarantees I think that the momentum is building, and 
10 

the policy environment in the United States is shifting itself for the 

long awaited growth in nuclear power. Senator Carper and I have 

been talking about the nuclear renaissance for some time, haven’t 

we, Senator? You guys are coming in at the right time. 

But I think this is important; having a fully staffed NRC Commission is paramount to maintaining our safety goals. And is not 

just our large, existing light water fleet, but the new light water 

reactors, modular reactors, and even Generation-IV reactors. Upon 

their successful confirmation these new Commissioners will become 

part of what I believe will be the busiest Commission in decades. 

They will likely oversee real movement in the U.S. nuclear renaissance. I believe these nominees are exceptional individuals, all 

leaders on nuclear technology issues, and they have the depth and 

breadth of experience necessary to successfully lead the Nation’s 

commercial nuclear industry. Their dedication and professionalism 

will be needed now more than ever. I wish you all very, very well. 

I am not going to be around after the end of this year; well, I will 

be around, but I am not going to have this job. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VOINOVICH. I will tell you that I am going to be watching 

the Commission and doing everything on the outside to promote 

the nuclear industry in this country. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, thank you for holding this hearing. I 

would like to welcome the nominees, and I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

Madam Chairwoman, as you know I have spent the better part of the last 10 

years in the Senate involved in shaping nuclear energy policy for this country, mainly as Chairman or Ranking Member on the Senate’s Clean Air and Nuclear Safety 

Subcommittee. I focused a great deal of time and effort as the committee Chair on 

oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to make sure it was doing 

its job of ensuring the safety and security of our Nation’s nuclear power plants. 

Mrs. Chairman, I take great pride in the fact that this committee has transformed 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission into one of the best and most respected regulatory agencies in the world. We have worked very hard placing the right people 

on the Commission, providing the Commission with the resources and tools necessary to do its job, and holding them accountable for results. We held more than 

20 productive hearings involving the NRC over the past 8 years. 

So it is no accident that we have seen dramatic improvements in both the safety 

records and reliability of the 104 operating reactors today compared to a decade ago. 

And I would like to take this opportunity to thank and recognize each of the existing 

members of the Commission—Chairman Jaczko, Commissioner Svinicki, and the 

soon departing Commissioner Klein—for doing a great job day in and day out. Being 

a regulator often is a thankless job whether it is the NRC, FAA, FDA, or the Federal Reserve Board. It seems as though the only time people care about what you 

do is when something goes wrong—and it almost always is to criticize what you did 

or didn’t do. 

Indeed, a regulator’s job is a complex and difficult one. NRC has to be vigilant 

at all times to keep its regulatory threshold just right—it should be rigorous enough 

to prevent complacency from setting in both within the agency and the industry it 

regulates but not overly restrictive to a point of stifling the growth of nuclear power 

in this country at a time when we need it the most. And our country does need nuclear power—and the jobs, the energy security, and the environmental benefits it 

provides. I like to tell people nuclear is a three-fer: without it we will not be able 

to provide the reliable, base-load electricity our country demands. Without it we will 

not be able to reach our goal of reducing carbon emissions. And without it we will 

not be able to strengthen our manufacturing bases and create good paying jobs. 
11 

With President Obama’s recent call for increased use of nuclear power in his State 

of the Union Address and the DOE’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for an additional $36 billion for nuclear loan guarantees I think that momentum is building 

and the policy environment in the United States is shifting itself for the long awaited growth in nuclear power. 

Which is why I think today’s nomination hearing is so important. Having a fully 

staffed NRC Commission is paramount to maintaining our safety goals—and not 

just with our large existing light water fleet but with new light water reactors, modular reactors, and even Generation-IV reactors. Upon their successful confirmation 

these three new Commissioners will become part of what I believe will be the busiest Commission in decades—as they will likely oversee real movement in the U.S. 

nuclear renaissance. I believe these nominees are exceptional individuals, all leaders 

on nuclear technology issues, and they have the depth and breadth of experience 

necessary to successfully lead the oversight of our Nation’s commercial nuclear industry. Their dedication and professionalism will be needed now more than ever. I 

wish them well and look forward to working with them in my time remaining here 

in the Senate. 

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

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Klobuchar, and then we are going to get right to our 

panel. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and 

thank you for holding this hearing. My other hearings today were 

canceled, except for Environmental Protection. My staff remarked 

it was only the Senator from California who would decide to hold 

this hearing. 

Senator BOXER. And the Senator from Oklahoma. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And the Senator from Oklahoma. I finally 

decided, I once was snowed in in Yosemite Park, so I know you are 

used to snow. And Oklahoma is used to its share of bad weather. 

So I thank you, from the State of Minnesota, for doing this, where 

things would have been working a little more easily in our State 

with this storm. But it is what it is. 

I am pleased you have convened this hearing, as my colleagues 

have said, and congratulate the three of you. You certainly, as Senator Voinovich noted, are coming in at an exciting time for nuclear 

energy. There is just so much interest all over this country. As was 

noted the President called for a tripling of the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program for nuclear energy, from $18 billion to 

$54 billion. We have Senators Gary, Graham and Lieberman working on our bipartisan energy bill, which sees nuclear as a major 

focus. We know that the rest of the world is moving to a low carbon 

economy, and nuclear energy will be a major part of that. 

This nuclear renaissance means America has an opportunity to 

lead the world in developing new technologies to deal with the 

problems at hand, which include plant safety and waste storage 

and disposal and issues regarding security in the proliferation of 

nuclear material. This last April, I was in Japan with Senator 

McCain and Senator Graham. We visited one of the nuclear facilities there. I was able to see first-hand a lot of the advancements 

that have been made in other countries. So I am looking forward 

to us doing the same, and in fact taking more of a leadership role. 
12 

I am excited about what you are doing. I am looking forward to 

hearing from you today. We know this is not an easy road. But you 

are coming in at a time where for the first time you see much more 

unity behind this idea of moving forward with nuclear. Congratulations on your nominations, and I look forward to hearing from you. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

An update on TVA. Senator Alexander and I are going to work 

together on this; Senator Inhofe has stated whatever we decide is 

good. Right now what we are going to do is, if anyone is remaining 

in Washington, our goal would be to hold a hearing around 5 

o’clock at the latest, if they are here. If they have gone home, obviously they have gone home. But if they are stuck here, we will accommodate them. 

I do not want to do it tomorrow because our understanding is it 

is going to be very difficult to get here. So it will either be 5 o’clock 

tonight, or we will put it off until the week after recess. 

I am going to introduce Dr. George Apostolakis. Then Senator 

Cardin is going to introduce Mr. Magwood, and we are going to get 

started. 

Dr. Apostolakis is a professor of nuclear science and engineering 

and a professor of engineering systems at MIT. He is also a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee 

on Reactor Safeguards, which advises the Commission on technical 

matters related to the safety of nuclear reactors. Prior to becoming 

a professor at MIT he was a professor at the University of California Los Angeles, in my home State. He received his Ph.D. in engineering science and applied mathematics from the California Institute of Technology. Dr. Apostolakis’ research and his teaching interests are focused on risk assessment and risk management in the 

nuclear industry. 

And Doctor, you are joined today, I understand, by your wife, 

Victoria. Victoria, would you like to stand? We welcome you very 

much. Thank you for making the trip. We want to welcome you, 

sir, and I look forward to a speedy confirmation of all our panel. 

We will go next to Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Madam Chair, thank you very much. It is my 

honor to introduce Bill Magwood. But first let me thank all three 

of the nominees. Each of you shares an extraordinary background 

and a commitment to public service. We thank you. We know it is 

a sacrifice not only for you but for your families. We thank your 

family members for sharing in the sacrifice of public service. We 

welcome all three of you to our committee. 

I am really honored to introduce a fellow Marylander, Bill 

Magwood. Mr. Magwood lives in Colesville, Maryland. He has lived 

there since 1989. He has been a resident of Montgomery County for 

more than 20 years, coinciding with his service to the Federal Government and several industry organizations devoted to nuclear energy policy. He was the longest serving head of the United States 

Civilian Nuclear Technology program, serving two Presidents and 

five Secretaries of Energy, from May 1998 until he stepped down 

on May 24th, 2005. Since then, he has been in the private sector. 

So he gives us both the governmental experience and the private 

sector experience in nuclear energy. 
13 

As the Director of Nuclear Energy with the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Mr. Magwood was the senior nuclear technology official in 

the U.S. Government and the senior nuclear technology policy advisor to the Secretary of Energy. From 1984 to 1994 he managed 

electric utility research and nuclear policy programs at the Edison 

Electric Institute in Washington, DC. He was a scientist at the 

Westinghouse Electric Corporation in Pittsburgh. 

Mr. Magwood holds a B.S. degree in physics and a B.A. degree 

in English from Carnegie Mellon University. He also holds an MFA 

degree from the University of Pittsburgh, my alma mater. Mr. 

Magwood has been a staunch proponent of nuclear power technology in the United States. Among other efforts he led the creation of the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, which remains the cornerstone of this Nation’s new nuclear power plant efforts. 

I think it is critical to have Mr. Magwood’s type of experience at 

the Regulatory Commission. I know that he will take that experience and use it in the best interests of the United States, providing 

the type of oversight that is needed. During today’s hearing we will 

hear from Mr. Magwood about his intents to change his role from 

that of an expert industry proponent to that of an expert industry 

overseer. 

Mr. Magwood, welcome, and we thank you very much for your 

public service. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you all, and we will start with Dr. 

Apostolakis. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS, NOMINATED TO BE A 

COMMISSIONER OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe and 

committee members, it is an honor to appear before you today as 

President Obama’s nominee for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I will first tell you a few things about myself, and then I will 

offer a few thoughts about my role as a Commissioner, if confirmed. 

Before I start, I would like to acknowledge the presence of my 

wife, Victoria. 

I came to the United States from Greece in 1969 to get my Ph.D. 

at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California. 

In 1973 I was granted the degree and joined the UCLA School of 

Engineering, where I went through the ranks of assistant, associate and full professor. I became an American citizen in 1979. In 

1995, I moved to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 

Cambridge, Massachusetts, where I am currently Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering and Professor of Engineering Systems. 

My broad research area is the development of models for risk assessment of large technology systems, primarily nuclear power 

plants. I have served on numerous peer review committees for risk 

assessment performed for the NRC, NASA and national laboratories. 

I have received several awards from the American Nuclear Society and the Society for Risk Analysis. I was elected to the National 

Academy of Engineering in 2007. 
14 

An important development in my career that is relevant to my 

nomination is my appointment to the NRC’s Advisory Committee 

on Reactor Safeguards, ACRS, in 1995. This statutory committee 

advises the Commissioners on technical matters related primarily 

to the safety of nuclear reactors. I chaired the ACRS in the period 

2001–2002. I have been chairman of the subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment continuously since 1995. 

At various times, I have also chaired the subcommittees on Human 

Factors and on Digital Instrumentation and Control. 

This experience has been very valuable to me. I have appreciated 

the dedication and professionalism of the NRC staff. I have also appreciated the value of conducting all ACRS meetings in public and 

interacting with all stakeholders. 

I have seen the diverse technical issues that the agency must 

deal with on a routine basis. I have also been afforded the opportunity to influence the staff’s technical work. I am particularly 

proud of the contributions I made to the agency’s efforts to risk inform its regulations that led to the landmark regulatory guide 

1.174 and to successfully risk inform initiatives such as the risk informed in-service inspection program. 

If confirmed I look forward to applying my academic expertise as 

well as the experience from the ACRS to regulatory and policy matters before the Commission. However, I fully realize that the Commission’s role is different from that of the ACRS. If confirmed I intend to commit myself to help the Commission fulfill its mission to 

license and regulate the Nation’s civilian use of byproduct, source 

and special nuclear materials, to ensure adequate protection of 

public health and safety, promote the common defense and security 

and protect the environment. 

I believe that the increased use of risk information serves the 

agency in several respects. It improves safety and makes the regulatory process more transparent, thus enhancing public confidence 

in the Commission. It also promotes regulatory predictability and 

stability, which are very important to all stakeholders. 

I believe that the NRC is the premiere nuclear regulatory agency 

in the world. If confirmed I will make every effort to make sure it 

remains so. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. If confirmed I look forward to working with this committee and to dealing with the challenges that the NRC will face across all areas of 

its responsibilities. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Apostolakis follows:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. Magwood. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD, IV, NOMINATED TO BE 

A COMMISSIONER OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. It is a pleasure to 

be here today to speak with you about my nomination. It is an 

honor to appear before this panel. I have worked with some of you 

and some of your staffs over the years on other matters. I look forward to working with you regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Before I begin I would like to recognize the service of Edward 

McGaffigan, whose term I have been nominated to complete. Commissioner McGaffigan was a strong, independent voice on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for more than 11 years. His commitment, passion and intellect have set a very high standard for all 

public servants, and if confirmed I will always view his example as 

one to emulate. 

I would also like to thank Senator Cardin for his introduction. 

He did such a wonderful job of talking about my background, I 

think I will give you a little bit different perspective about my 

background. Rather than talk about my academic background and 

work background, I wanted to let you know I appear you today as 

a grandson of a man who worked in the coal mines of West Virginia and the steel mills at Pittsburgh. My father worked for the 

Postal Service, and for many years he also held a night job to make 

sure he could provide for our family. My mother was what they call 

now a stay at home mom. She was the lady in the neighborhood 

other kids came to when they needed help and their own mothers 

weren’t close by. From her I learned to do the right thing even 

when the right thing wasn’t easy. And from my father I learned 

hard work and personal responsibility. 

More than anything else I say today you should know that these 

are the values I offer to the position to which I have been nominated. 

While my parents have passed away and can’t be here today I 

am very pleased that my uncle, Clarence Magwood, is here today 

with his wife, Willa Mae. I thank them for coming across the 

treacherous roads to join me today. I am also joined by my lifelong 

friend, Kevin Burrell, who is employed at the State Government of 

Pennsylvania. He drove all the way from Harrisburg to be here 

today, and I appreciate that. By the way our mothers insist that 

we first met in baby carriages. 

And last, but certainly not least, I am very pleased that my 

spousal unit is also here. I thank her for not taking a swing at me 

when I told her I was going back into Government service. 

After I stepped down from the Department of Energy in May 

2005 I looked back and was very proud of the accomplishments my 

organization had. We showed innovation, integrity and many accomplishments. We had launched and conducted advanced energy 

research in many areas. We created an enduring international 

framework for multilateral research cooperation. We established a 

new civilian nuclear technology focused national laboratory in 
26 

Idaho, and we spurred a quadrupling of the number of students 

pursuing nuclear technology disciplines in U.S. colleges and universities, including programs at historically black colleges. 

But perhaps the most important aspect of my responsibilities at 

DOE was the management and safety oversight of the expansive 

nuclear infrastructure that included two large research reactors 

and thousands of workers. I saw it as my personal responsibility 

to set a very high standard for safety. No matter the cost or impact 

on programs, I would and did order stand-downs at DOE sites 

when I was not satisfied with the level of safety. In one case safety 

considerations led me to terminate a longstanding DOE program. 

This was a very controversial, expensive and disruptive decision. 

But I felt then and I feel now that nothing is more important than 

taking clear and responsible action in the face of any question of 

worker and public safety. 

My past experience provides me with a deep understanding of 

the management and operation of nuclear power plants, nuclear 

fuel facilities, medical and educational facilities, waste treatment 

and disposal facilities and may other areas for which NRC must 

provide effective regulation. Because of my experience I firmly believe that maintaining uncompromisingly high levels of safety is 

the first and most important job of any organization that handles 

nuclear materials. I look forward to bringing these high expectations to the work of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Chairman Boxer, I believe that public service is a very great 

honor and a great responsibility. If confirmed it will be my purpose 

to work closely with my colleagues here at the table today and the 

other Commissioners to fulfill my new mission with a singular 

focus on the interest of the American people, doing business in a 

manner that earns the public’s trust, and always doing the right 

thing, even when the right thing isn’t easy. 

With that I thank you for your attention and look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Magwood follows:] 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Magwood. 

Mr. Ostendorff. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, NOMINATED TO BE 

A COMMISSIONER OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Chairman Boxer, Senator Inhofe, members of 

the committee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear 

before you today. 

I am honored to have been nominated by President Obama to 

serve on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I am also privileged 

to be in the company of my fellow NRC nominees, George 

Apostolakis and Bill Magwood, and look forward to the possibility 

of working with both if confirmed. 

I would like to thank Senator Webb for his kind introduction. 

Also I want to thank my family, especially my wife, Chris, for their 

encouragement and support over many years. 

If confirmed I look forward to working closely with members of 

this committee and their respective staffs to carry out the duties 

of a Commissioner. The Commission’s mission—to license and regulate the Nation’s civilian use of nuclear materials, ensure adequate 

protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment—is critical to 

our country. The Nation is currently fortunate to have a highly talented and dedicated staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 

carry out its strategic goals of ensuring safety and security of commercial nuclear facilities. 

I will tell the members of the committee that I am committed to 

the NRC’s principles of good regulation. Those are independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity and reliability. Furthermore I appreciate the need for regulatory predictability and stability. I am humbled by the importance of the task ahead and if confirmed commit 

to work tirelessly to professionally execute the Commission’s vitally 

important mission. 

I have been privileged to serve our country for many years as a 

career nuclear submarine officer, as a counsel on Committee Staff 

Director for the House Armed Services Committee and as Principal 

Deputy Administrator of the National Security Administration. 

While I will have much to learn I am confident this prior management and leadership experience will serve me well if I am confirmed. I will add my experience as a senior congressional staff 

member and as a senior leader at the Department of Energy has 

given me a deep appreciation for the role of congressional oversight 

and the importance of your committee. 

If confirmed I commit to communications with you founded on integrity and responsiveness. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to 

appear here today, and I look forward to your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ostendorff follows:] 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Apostolakis, you mentioned your work with the NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and you appreciated conducting all the committee’s meetings in public. Do you believe the 

NRC would benefit from conducting its meetings, deliberations and 

votes in public? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Senator, I am aware of the fact that Chairman 

Jaczko is promoting this idea. I am very pleased with the way the 

ACRS has conducted its business. I think we write letters to the 

Commission in public, we argue about individual words and commas and periods. I think that has been very, very beneficial both 

to us and the stakeholders. Now, with respect to the Commission 

itself, in principle I think it is a good idea. I would like to understand a little better what the downside might be, because I haven’t 

really studied the matter. But in principle I am for it. 

Senator BOXER. How about you, Mr. Magwood? Open and transparent meetings? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I agree with my colleague. In principle I agree 

with that direction. The one concern I would have is how it affects 

the quality of decisions that are made. The current process at NRC 

involves an iteration of documents between the various parts of the 

Commission staffs. That is an opportunity to really delve into 

issues in a great deal of detail. I would hate to lose that in the 

process of having open meetings. 

But if there is a way of getting both benefits, I would certainly 

be in favor of it. 

Senator BOXER. So let me understand that. You are saying that 

you think it might not be as productive if you were looking at an 

analysis, and it was in public? Why would that be? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. No, my point is that I think it is important to do 

the analysis, even if it takes a long time, on a textual basis. And 

if there is a way of actually arriving at decisions in public I am all 

in favor of that. I think that is a good thing to do. I want to make 

sure that we don’t lose the detail. 

Senator BOXER. Let me just make sure that everyone understands my question. I am not talking about doing the analysis in 

public. I am talking about the meetings in public and your deliberations and your votes in public, once you have gotten the analysis. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. In principle I don’t have a problem with that. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Ostendorff. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Chairman Boxer, I support the NRC’s openness and transparency. I am aware that there are some discussions 

currently underway with existing Commissioners to look at some 

changes in the voting procedures specifically. In principle, I support 

openness and those activities. I would like to have an opportunity 

once I am confirmed to more fully discuss that and better understand the exact issues. 

Senator BOXER. I appreciate that, all of you using the words, in 

principle. But to me either it is open or it is shut. So I am going 

to say to you, just from you to me and me to you, I don’t speak 

for anybody else, I am going to be watching this. Because I think 

that, yes, analysis and all the hard work have to go on between the 

folks who you rely on, and you should be able to probe that. But 
51 

once it gets to the meetings and all the information is out there I 

believe this needs to be shared with the public. I think it is important not just to agree with it in principle but in practice. So I will 

be following that myself. 

Now, I have a question here for all three of you from Senator 

Reid. You can just answer it yes or no. If confirmed, would you second guess the Department of Energy’s decision to withdraw the license application for Yucca Mountain from NRC’s review? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. No. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Anybody else? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. No. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. No. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I think he will be very pleased with 

that. 

And the last question I have is on re-processing. I went to 

France, La Hague; I don’t know how many of you have been to La 

Hauge at all. When I went there, I was very open to seeing how 

this new technology could work. When I left there I realized that 

it is far more controversial than it might appear, because—and I 

am sure, Mr. Magwood, you saw that—this material is so hot, so 

hot that even though it is contained in a small container, it needs 

this huge burial site. In La Hague they are going to have to ship 

back this waste to the countries that sent it in the first place after 

20 years. 

So I guess my question is to all of you—you can do it in writing, 

I don’t want to take a lot of time—but do you think there needs 

to be more work on perfecting this type of a technology? Or do you 

think it is just ready to roll? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Senator, I really don’t know much about the 

recycling, so I cannot give you an answer. 

Senator BOXER. That is fair. 

Mr. Magwood. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Well, the work I did at DOE was predicated on 

the idea that we did need to do a lot more research to develop better technologies and more efficient and less proliferation prone. So 

my personal thinking is that more work needs to be done. 

Senator BOXER. How about you, Mr. Ostendorff? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Chairman Boxer, I am not familiar with this 

particular technology. I would like to have a chance to look at it 

and get back to you. 

Senator BOXER. OK. At some point I think it would be interesting to visit that site. It has more armed guards than most of our 

military bases there. It is very—it is enlightening, I would say, to 

go see it. 

Let me just say to all of you how much I appreciate your service. 

Not only the service currently, but your prior service in other capacities for the Government, whether it was in the military or DOE 

or on a special commission. 

Mr. Magwood, I have a few letters here from people who don’t 

support your nomination. The reason they say that is that when 

you were over at DOE, they felt that you were pushing nuclear 

power. Well, as I read in the opening statement, there is a very big 

difference between the DOE and the NRC. In one job, if you are 
52 

working to promote a certain type of power, whether it is wind, 

which I know Senator Alexander doesn’t prefer, whether it is solar, 

whether it is nuclear, whether it is clean coal, whether it is offshore oil drilling, whatever it might be, the DOE’s job is different 

from the NRC. 

So I guess just from my own sensibility, you could state your 

sense of the difference between being at DOE and being on the 

NRC. If you could put it in your own words for me. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. The role we had at DOE was clearly to remove 

the barriers that made it very difficult to build new nuclear power 

plants in the United States. I think we accomplished a lot in that 

direction. The role of NRC is to respond to the public need for safety now that that door has been opened and others are walking 

through it. 

So I think it is an appropriate role for Government to remove the 

barriers, and I think it is an appropriate role for Government to 

make sure that once the barriers are removed that things are done 

responsibly. It is my firm opinion that the best service to the country and to the nuclear industry is to set a very, very high standard 

for safety and to do so in a way that the public has a great deal 

of confidence. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Mr. Magwood, I think you were very eloquent on that point. Thank you very much. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Captain Ostendorff, during the introduction, is that your son 

seated behind you? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I have two sons. This is my son Jeff right here. 

Senator INHOFE. Which one was at Fort Sill? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. My son Chuck. He is not here today. 

Senator INHOFE. When he deployed, he probably deployed, my 

guess is from Fort Hood with the Lava Thunders. Would you happen to know that? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. He actually deployed with the Second Stryker 

Cavalry Regiment out of Vilseck, Germany, deployed to Iraq in the 

summer of 2007. 

Senator INHOFE. Good. I think this is significant, and several 

people have said, this is the first time in 30 years that we have 

new plant applications. I think now, as I had shared originally, 

there were 18, 5 have been suspended. So you are talking about 13 

applications. Have you had time to think through how you are 

going to handle these different classes, so that you can expedite 

these? My concern, as I said in my opening statement, of course, 

we want all safety complied with and all that. We want to get 

these things done. 

Have you given any thought—any of the three of you—as to how 

you are going to handle that many and their different classes? And 

any kind of prediction as to when you might get 1 or 2 or 13 of 

them completed? 

Anybody. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I will speak for myself and ask my 

colleagues to chime in. I think we have received several briefings 

by Commission staff in preparation for this hearing and in prepara-
53 

tion for potential service in the Commission about the licensing 

process, the time schedules, the milestones and some expectations. 

I would say that I think it is important for a Commissioner to 

take a hard look at ensuring that progress is being made toward 

providing rapid but thorough response to the applications, ensuring 

the applications themselves are completely technically vetted while 

bringing some pressure on the system to move forward appropriately. 

So I think there is kind of a balance. It goes to Senator Carper’s 

statement earlier about one foot on the accelerator and one foot on 

the brake pedal, making sure that we are pushing forward to get 

the system to work but also ensuring that that does not result in 

any shortcuts that might lessen safety. 

Senator INHOFE. That’s good. Any other comments? That pretty 

much may speak for the three of you. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I have seen what the Commission has been 

doing the last several years in the area of new reactors. I think the 

process that is in place is good, design certification, early site permits, and finally the combined license. As with anything new, as 

you said, Senator, for 30 years we have not licensed a new reactor; 

there will be some glitches here and there that we will have to fix. 

But I think that the process in place is good. And I have seen 

the stuff accelerating other licensing actions, like power upgrades, 

and license extensions. So I am confident they will do their best 

also to grant to accelerate the licensing process for new reactors. 

But I agree with my colleague. 

Senator INHOFE. And the other thing I was thinking about is 

that the three of you constitute a majority of this Commission. 

That can be good or bad. You don’t come in with preconceived notions. Those three out of five are new people, all qualified. 

What I would suggest, I will be suggesting to Senator Carper, 

that he do something like I did back in 19 whatever it was, 1997, 

I guess, when I chaired this subcommittee, that is schedule some 

meetings with some goals. Decide about how far along you want to 

be at different times so that we will be brought into the loop on 

this. I am sure that you would agree that is a good idea. If not, 

I can get this in writing from them. 

So that is what you might be anticipating that we will be wanting to know as you move along, how you are coming, how many applications you are looking at, what your progress is. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. OK, I am going give you the gavel, because I 

have a meeting. 

Senator CARPER [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Let me just again welcome you and thank you for your participation today. I know a number of my colleagues have expressed reservations to me over the last year that the new Administration was 

not really serious or embracing nuclear power as one aspect of reducing our dependence on fossil fuel, reducing our dependence on 

foreign oil, cleaning up the air. I think Senator Alexander has already said this in so many words, but just in the last several weeks 

to have heard what the President said on the floor of the House 

of Representatives in the State of the Union address, the importance of nuclear energy and embracing it, what we have seen in his 
54 

budget proposal, it puts our country’s money where his mouth was 

that night. 

And to again see the strength of these nominees, it is very encouraging for those of us who believe that nuclear power is an important component of our power generation and energy generation 

in this country. But it needs to be an even more important one. So 

this is a good, very strong team here. 

I am going to ask if each of our nominees would each take a 

minute or so and just talk with us in your own words, from your 

hearts, what do you see as some of the biggest challenges that the 

NRC is facing this year and in the next several years? What are 

some of the biggest challenges that you see the NRC facing this 

year and in the next several years? How would you strengthen the 

NRC as it prepares to take on those challenges? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I believe it has been mentioned several times 

that the role of a regulator is not always pleasant. I think a challenge is to be perceived as fair by all stakeholders, the industry 

and maybe the public interest groups. And I think that is a challenge that the Commission should continually try to achieve. I believe the number of applications for new reactors will be a challenge. The numbers we hear now are on the high side, I believe. 

And if they all come together the agency will need to—will be challenged to meet its obligations. I believe those two are probably the 

two in my mind right now. 

Senator CARPER. And the second half of my question is, if confirmed, how would your membership on the Commission better prepare the Commission to meet those challenges? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I intend to be actively involved in meeting 

both of these challenges. I do believe the agency is very open and 

transparent. We may want to become more transparent by deliberating in public. I believe making sure that licensing actions are 

taken in a timely fashion is a very important function. So I will 

also try to contribute to that. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Magwood. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Senator Carper, I think that it is worth noting 

that the last U.S. nuclear power plant to get started and actually 

reach completion was started in 1973. As a result we have a situation in the United States where millions of people who have the expertise to build these plants are at or near or will pass retirement 

age. The expertise that exists in this country is spread very, very 

thin between the industry, the vendors, the Government and the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

So I think one of the big challenges we have over the next 5 to 

10 years is going to be sharing that talent with the ever expanding 

requirement and finding a way to transfer the knowledge and experience so that people who are at or near or beyond retirement age 

to these younger people who are just coming into the work force. 

One of the things I did at DOE that I am very proud of is I 

worked very hard to expand the academic opportunities for students to get into nuclear engineering. There is now a significant 

number of students coming into the work force. But now we have 

to train those people. I fully intend to spend a lot of my time working with the NRC staff to try to transfer the knowledge and experi-
55 

ence of these people to the younger people and that we are able to 

carry out our mission effectively. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Captain Ostendorff. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I would agree with the comments of 

my colleagues. I would like to focus on just maybe two challenges 

and then talk about my background. The challenges I think that 

are most critical would be to simultaneously ensure the safe operation of our existing plants, many of which have some aging issues. 

There are some buried piping concerns, some license extensions to 

go from 40 to 60 years. Our existing fleet has some technical issues 

that have to be decided upon by the Commissioners after receiving 

proper technical support from the staff. 

At the same time, looking at new plants. Balancing attention and 

making sure we have our eye on the ball for both sides of the equation, existing plants and new licenses, will be a big challenge. 

As far as my own background, what I think I might bring, I have 

had significant technical experience working with nuclear reactors 

in the submarine force. I have been around, working as a staff 

member for Congress, I think in a bipartisan fashion, to get to solutions, to get to decisionmaking. The Defense Authorization Bill 

process for a number of years. And I have had significant management experience. I am looking forward to bringing those three experiences in my background to bear. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you, Captain. 

Senator Alexander, I believe you might be next. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Senator Carper. 

Let me ask each of the three of you a question about used nuclear fuel. I am tempted to ask you if you believe nuclear reactors 

can be operated safely but I think I would insult each of you if I 

did that. Mr. Ostendorff lived on top of one for a lot of his life. I 

assume you wouldn’t be taking these positions if you didn’t think 

they could be operated safely. 

But let me ask you about used nuclear fuel, which is a concern 

that many people have. Mr. Apostolakis, how many years do you 

think that used nuclear fuel can be safely stored onsite while research determines the best way to perhaps recycle it or what its 

ultimate use could be? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Senator, the prevailing thinking, and I don’t 

have any reason to disagree with it, is that it is several decades. 

Some people are talking about even 100 years. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Magwood, what is your opinion? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. In principle certainly I think you can store spent 

fuel safely onsite for 50 or 100 years. But one thing I highlight is 

that when we first started storing spent fuel on reactor sites, no 

one was thinking it was going to be there 100 years. So I think we 

have to go back and take a look at what we have in place now and 

assure ourselves that it is able to stay in place for another 50 years 

if necessary. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Ostendorff. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, the briefings I have had from NRC 

technical staff have indicated a range of 50 to 100 years. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Two of you said that you didn’t have an 

opinion really about recycling, and I understand that, because, 
56 

well, let me—I do, and Dr. Chu does, which is that during that 

time we should accelerate research and development for recycling 

of used nuclear fuel and find a better way of reducing its mass and 

its life than now exists, for example, in France, and that we have 

ample time to do that. 

Let me ask this question. One of the elements of a decision that 

the Commission makes when it issues a license is whether it has 

confidence that the Federal Government is willing to live up to its 

responsibilities that it will take responsibility for the used nuclear 

fuel. Recently, we have all commented on the President’s call for 

a new generation of reactors, his appointment of a commission to 

take whatever steps are appropriate on used fuel, your appointment, the loan guarantees, all those things. Mr. Magwood, are you 

comfortable that the Federal Government—or do you have confidence the Federal Government will ultimately accept its responsibility for dealing with used nuclear fuel? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. The Federal Government signs contracts with 

utilities to take spent fuel eventually. It doesn’t specify where it is 

going to take the fuel or how it is going to dispose of it. It just 

makes a commitment to take the spent fuel. And I think those commitments are solid enough to proceed, yes. I do have faith in the 

Government’s commitment. 

Senator ALEXANDER. To proceed with an otherwise appropriate 

new license? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. With some appropriate disposition. And we have 

time, as you pointed out, to decide exactly what that is going to be. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Apostolakis, what is your thought about 

that? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I thought the issue of confidence was that 

eventually there will be a solution, a permanent solution. And I do 

have confidence in that. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Mr. Ostendorff. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I concur with my colleagues here. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you very much. 

Now let me ask you just an overall question. All of you have 

broad experience with the nuclear industry. Why is it that the 

United States, which has invented nuclear power plants and gets 

70 percent of its carbon-free electricity from them, at a time when 

we want lots of low cost electricity and are concerned about climate 

change, how is it, why is it that China is starting a plant every 3 

months and the UAE and India and Great Britain and everybody 

else in the world seems to do it, and we haven’t started a new 

plant in 30 years? What could you do as a Commissioner of the 

NRC appropriately to create an environment in which the United 

States could catch up with its own invention? 

Mr. Apostolakis. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I think a combination of factors contributed to 

this slowing down of the industry in the United States. First of all, 

we do have, at least in the last 30 years, alternative sources of energy. So the pressure of using nuclear power was not that great. 

I think Three Mile Island and Chernobyl did not help. Three Mile 

Island not only because of its consequences, which were really next 

to nothing, but there was a tremendous regulatory activity that fol-
57 

lowed Three Mile Island that created regulatory instability and imposed tremendous costs on the industry. 

This was a natural reaction, I think. I don’t think there are any 

bad guys here. 

And the other thing is of course that maybe our processes here 

are a bit more open than in other places, where they can make decisions much faster. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Magwood. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I think that the biggest reason was because we 

simply didn’t need to build much of anything in the last 30 years. 

We weren’t just not building nuclear plants, we weren’t building 

coal plants, we weren’t building lots of things for many years. That 

is because we had a large over-supply of electric capacity left over 

from the 1970s that really has just gone away in the last couple 

of years. 

I think that what we can do as NRC Commissioners, if we are 

confirmed, is to do our job well, to build the public confidence that 

the Government is doing its job to oversee safety, to provide a 

framework by which the industry can implement new nuclear 

power plants. That is what we can do. If we do what we are supposed to do, that is the best thing for the construction of new 

plants in this country. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. Ostendorff. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I would say that the predictability 

and stability of the regulatory process is critical. That is part of our 

jobs if we are confirmed. In order for industry to be able to make 

some sound business decisions, strategic planning decisions, so to 

speak, we need to have an understanding of what the framework 

is, not just next month, but next year, 10 years, 20 years down the 

pike. To the extent that we can advance the stability and predictability issues, as Commissioners, I think that will be a significant 

achievement. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. You are welcome. Thanks for your leadership on 

these issues. 

Senator Cardin, thanks for yours as well. 

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

Again, let me thank our three nominees. I was impressed by your 

backgrounds and your careers before you appeared here today. It 

has only been reinforced by your responses to the questions. So 

once again, thank you. 

I am going to follow up on Senator Alexander’s and I think Senator Inhofe’s point, and Mr. Ostendorff, your last point about predictability—I had a chance to question Dr. Chu when he was before 

the committee as to whether it is reasonable for us to expect that 

we can expedite the process for new nuclear power plants, that to 

have to wait 10 years to try to get a plan done is unrealistic. Investors aren’t going to invest in that. You need predictability, as Mr. 

Ostendorff said. You need a process that does not compromise public safety. We understand that. We want to make sure that all of 

the procedures are followed. 

But you need to have a process in place that leads to a conclusion. And it has been so long, there is not a confidence that that 

is in place in our country. We developed the technologies to have 
58 

safe nuclear power, and we obviously can get it done. But it requires a Nuclear Regulatory Commission that is committed for the 

process to work. 

I questioned Dr. Chu as to what is a reasonable length of time. 

He said he would like to answer that question, but the NRC is an 

independent commission. So he doesn’t have that type of authority. 

But you all will have that type of authority once you are confirmed. 

I just urge you to use that carefully so that we can move forward 

with nuclear capacity in this country and do it in a safe way. 

Mr. Magwood, the other point that you mentioned, I think it is 

important, I think the commission can play a role here, we have 

to develop the underpinnings of a nuclear industry in this country 

that we sort of lost over the last 30 years, whether it is in the development of technology on our college campuses or whether it is 

the manufacturing capacity to be able to manufacture here in 

America the component parts for a nuclear facility, or whether it 

is how we deal with waste. You are correct, the thought was that 

it was going to be a relatively temporary storage. Well, now we are 

looking at it being a little bit longer term. So we need to make sure 

that we have the technologies and productions in place to be able 

to deal with waste. 

And then last, the point that has been raised, Mr. Magwood, you 

had the most experience of any of the three, is on the re-processing 

issue. There is a lot of concern that re-processing could lead to proliferation. And we need to be able to have confidence if we are 

going to be doing re-processing that it can be done in a way consistent with what President Obama has said, and I think all of us 

agree that we want to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons 

in this world. So I really do think that you all are entering this 

public service at a critical point in our Nation’s history as to 

whether we will get it right, whether we can put in place in a realistic time period, so investors and utilities can plan and invest, and 

our Nation can have an energy policy that not only makes us selfsufficient from the point of view of producing electricity but also 

does it in an environmentally friendly way, keeping jobs here in 

America. 

So I just would urge you as you move forward in this, that your 

job is more than just looking at an application that comes down the 

road, but to develop a predictable system, where investors feel confident in, and develop a nuclear industry in America that will keep 

jobs here, keep technology here, and make sure we do it in a safe 

way, obviously first and foremost is public safety. But do it in a 

way that we can have a nuclear industry in America. 

You all nodded as I was speaking. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. I just want the record to reflect, I got a lot of 

nods. 

I do have another 47 seconds, if anyone wants to just—Mr. 

Magwood, since you are from Maryland, tell me what I want to 

hear here. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I think that there is a need, as you pointed out, 

for investors to have some confidence about how long it would take 

to deploy these plants. But I think that everyone should understand that we haven’t done this in a long time. It is not just the 
59 

Government side that needs to figure out how to get this right; it 

is also the industry side. The two sides working together are going 

to take a little bit longer in this first go-around than maybe everyone would like. But I think that we will learn a lot from doing it. 

So the next time that we get to applications, perhaps at some 

point in the future, I think it will be a lot more efficient process, 

a lot more predictable. 

Senator CARDIN. I think that is the right answer. I think the industry expects that we are sort of doing this almost for the first 

time again. But I hope that the path that we follow will provide 

the predictability that Mr. Ostendorff mentioned, the confidence in 

safety that the public will demand so that we can in fact have nuclear power as part of our energy for the future of this Nation. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Boxer, I will report that we are down 

to Senator Klobuchar over here, and the gavel is yours. Thanks. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

My first question actually is about a bill that a number of us, a 

bipartisan group of Senators, are supporting, offered by Senator 

Mark Udall, to increase support for R&D of small, modular nuclear 

reactors. They could be manufactured on assembly line and therefore could be much cheaper than the large scale reactors that we 

are used to. Any thoughts on the prospect of these types of nuclear 

reactors becoming more mainstream? 

Anyone can take it. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I understand that the small, modular 

reactors are being looked at by industry. There are several different designs being considered. I also understand that the existing 

Commission has already taken a look to ensure that its licensing 

procedures are set up and ready to receive any licenses that they 

may receive for a small reactor. And I think it is something we will 

be watching very closely over the next few years as industry comes 

forward with some ideas. Hopefully there will be some R&D efforts 

that will help advance those initiatives. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. One of the things that has happened because of the lack of new nuclear plant construction over 

the past decades is that there is also a lack of domestic nuclear engineers. That was one of the reasons that I co-sponsored the America Competes Act of 2007, which supports nuclear science programs. Anyone want to comment on what the status is of our domestic nuclear work force and what can we do to improve our work 

force expertise in this area? 

Mr. Apostolakis. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Thank you. Well, what we have seen at MIT 

the last 5, 6 years is the number of domestic applicants to the department has increased, and the quality also of the applicants has 

increased. From what I heard, the same thing is happening at 

other universities around the country. 

Now, is the number adequate? I don’t know. But it takes some 

time to reach that level. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Magwood. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. As I mentioned earlier one of the things that we 

were very proud of at DOE was helping to sort of spur the reju-
60 

venation of some of the nuclear engineering programs. When I 

came into the Office of Nuclear Energy in 1998 there were about 

480—I remember this number, because it was so startling—480 

students in the entire country taking nuclear engineering. Today, 

I understand it is about 2,200. So there is a huge upsurge. I think 

that we are actually in pretty good shape when it comes to that aspect of it. 

But the question is how do you get these people trained in practical ways to really carry out the various missions. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. When there has been this not actual construction going on, to the extent. Right. Like many nuclear power 

plants, we have two in Minnesota, actually, but one of them, Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant, is the closest plant to an Indian 

reservation in the country. It is literally right next to it, adjacent. 

And it has had to store its radioactive waste onsite in dry casks 

above the ground, potentially creating environmental and security 

risks. What do you see as the short and long term solutions to the 

problem of nuclear waste storage? 

Anyone want to take that one? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I think just recently, and Senator Alexander mentioned this in his remarks, the Administration has 

stood up a blue ribbon commission. It was announced, I believe, the 

week before last, as far as its membership, that will be looking at 

alternatives for high level waste storage on a permanent basis. So 

it looks like there will be an effort to look at alternatives to prior 

plans. I think we are optimistic that there are technical solutions 

here. I don’t think any one of us believes that there is a technical 

problem for which there is no solution. But I think we are optimistic that this commission will highlight potential options in a 

very constructive way and hopefully in a short time period. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. One last question. As part of NRC’s efforts 

to streamline nuclear power plant construction, one change has 

been to certify standard plant designs, which will be effective for 

15 years, and will be acceptable, independent of the specific site. 

Is there any concern that certain designs would not be effective in 

various regions? To me this sounds like a smart idea of how to expedite things. But just any comments that you have about this. Because as you know, the majority of new designs approved by the 

NRC have never been built or operated. 

Mr. Magwood. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Well, I think what I would say is that even 

though there is a truly, I think, important effort to standardize the 

designs there are still lots of designs. So utilities have a pretty 

wide choice of different designs to choose from. I know that some 

have chosen plants because of the size and the impact on the thermal output that they would have on local lakes. There are different 

characteristics of all the plants. I think there is enough of a variety 

out there for the utilities to choose technologies that best suit their 

circumstances. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you very much, all of you. 

Senator BOXER [presiding]. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. If this 

question has been asked then please let me know, and I will simply 

refer to the record and gain that information. We have in Oregon 
61 

a plant that was retired a few years ago. But it still has a tremendous amount of fuel rods stored onsite in dry casks. As my colleague from Minnesota was noting, these storage locations are 

across the country. What kind of security risks do they pose, and 

to what degree is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a body that 

can help address that challenge? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Senator, I know that the safety and security 

of these pools has been a matter of intense attention both by the 

Commission and various stakeholders. I have seen various studies 

that show that the pools are safe; other studies that dispute those. 

I don’t know the details of all these to tell you to what degree these 

things are safe. But as long as the Commission allows them to be 

there the presumption is that they are safe. 

Senator MERKLEY. Let me just comment that this shouldn’t be an 

issue of presumption. It should be an issue of intense analysis and 

changing the policy if these comprise a risk to our Nation to have 

these dry casks spread around the country with very diverse security measures protecting them and the possibility of explosions, 

conventional explosions spreading nuclear materials through the 

Nation. I am very disturbed by a notion that we should just presume that they are safe. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. No, no, no, that’s not what I meant. All these 

analyses are being done, and I am sure they will continue to be 

done. My only point is that an outsider, I would say that if they 

are allowed to be there, the Commission has approved them. So as 

a citizen, I have to presume they are safe. 

Now, as a Commissioner, if confirmed, I may not take that attitude. I may look more carefully at the various studies, maybe ask 

for more studies, until I convince myself that they are indeed safe 

enough and secure enough. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Magwood, you have been a proponent of nuclear power. Do 

these storage sites pose a significant risk, and what can the Commission do to address the challenge? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. The challenge of the spent fuel storage? 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I think that I mentioned a few minutes ago, I 

think that with the Administration’s move toward a new decisionmaking progress regarding the disposition of spent fuel it is quite 

possible that some of the spent fuel storage facilities may have to 

be around for decades. As I mentioned a few minutes ago the 

United States wasn’t thinking that spent fuel would stay on utility 

sites for 50 or 100 years. Now that that may be the case we have 

to go back and look and make sure that everything that is in place 

today is satisfactory for long term storage, and if it is not to take 

corrective actions as soon as possible. 

Senator MERKLEY. Let me turn to another question. A few years 

ago, in 2002, a hole was discovered in a reactor head at the DavisBesse Plant in Ohio. It surprised a lot of folks that that was able 

to happen. Does that provide any insights on the type of oversight 

that is needed in terms of reactor operations? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, my understanding is you are referring 

to the reactor vessel head corrosion problem, the leaks. 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes. 
62 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. It was my understanding, and I have not been 

involved in the commercial nuclear industry, but that was a big 

wake-up call that indicated that there had been a sense of complacency with respect to investigating and taking care of action to stop 

leaks that the source. That is a very serious material issue, but it 

also has broader safety implications. I think there has been a lot 

of lessons learned and actions taken subsequent to the Davis-Besse 

incident that have been positive. At the same time the nature of 

these operations for existing plants is such that you can never take 

your eye off the ball. You have to every day continue to enforce 

that safety culture and have high expectations for technical competence and accountability. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you all very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Now, everyone has had one round. I understand Senator Carper 

would like to ask a couple more questions. Senator Alexander, do 

you have any more questions? 

Senator ALEXANDER. I think I will just listen. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Apostolakis, here is a question for you. Let’s 

go way back in time, Three Mile Island and think of the lessons 

learned that flowed from Three Mile Island that were relevant then 

but are still relevant today. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I think that was a major milestone in nuclear 

power development in history. It showed that some of the hypothetical accidents that analysts were talking about in fact could 

happen to some extent. The core could be damaged. The containment system, though, worked very well. It contained the amounts 

of radioactivity that were released from the core. The psychological 

impact of the accident on the public and the professionals in nuclear engineering was tremendous. 

I believe both the industry and the Commission learned a lot 

from the accident there. A lot of new regulations were established. 

And I believe we learned from it, and the industry is safer as a result of it. 

Senator CARPER. Any other nominees want to respond to that? 

Lessons that are still relevant today. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I would just make a brief comment. One of the 

major lessons learned, not just from Three Mile Island, but through 

a lot of the problems and operations utilities had during the 1970s 

and early 1980s was that—the lesson learned was that management counts. Excellence in management at utility sites makes up 

for any—I should say, makes it possible to operate nuclear power 

plants. Whereas if you simply rely on technology you will find that 

mistakes will always be made. 

I think the most important thing we learned over the last several 

decades is good management, good people, well trained people. It 

always comes back to people. I guess I would rather have an excellent staff of great managers operating a so-so technology as opposed to a great technology operated by people that didn’t know 

what they were doing. That is, I think, one of the big lessons we 

learned. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 
63 

Captain Ostendorff. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, one specific component I would mention is that of operator training. I think one of the lessons learned 

out of Three Mile Island is that the operators at the plant did not 

really understand what really was the root cause of the phenomenon they were observing, what were the indications, what 

caused those physical conditions. As a result, at least I saw it in 

the naval nuclear propulsion program, in the 5-year period after 

that accident, I saw an increased emphasis on operator understanding of the physical principles of heat transfer, fluid flow, reactor kinetics, to ensure that everybody really understood what was 

the theoretical basis and engineering basis behind the procedures. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

Let’s talk a little bit about tritium. From time to time we have 

reports of leakage, and tritium being found in the water that surrounds some of our nuclear power plants. Most recently we have 

heard some reports out of Vermont Yankee that have raised some 

concerns there. Would you take a moment, I don’t care who answers this, but take a moment to talk to us about tritium, what 

kind of threat does it pose to us as human beings? If it is in our 

groundwater, should it be in our groundwater? As I understand it 

trace elements are already in groundwater in a number of places. 

Just talk to us about the kind of threats it poses to human health 

in low quantities or high quantities. What should the NRC be 

thinking and doing with respect to these leakages? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I think the NRC should make sure that the 

buried pipes from which the tritium was leaking remain intact, 

that there should be programs of some sort or something in the 

regulations that will make sure that these pipes do not leak. I don’t 

think that any leaks are acceptable. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Magwood. Captain Ostendorff. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. One example I draw from my past experience 

when I think about this issue is a case in New York. We had a reactor in New York at the Department of Energy called Brookhaven 

National Laboratory that developed a tritium leak. All the analysis 

from all the scientists said the tritium leak posed no threat to 

human health, no threat to anything offsite. But what I learned 

from that experience was that that wasn’t really the point. The 

point was that the public lost confidence in the ability of the Department of Energy to operate the facility safely. And as a result 

the facility was shut down, a very, very valuable piece of research 

equipment was lost to the country. 

When I think about these other cases we hear about around the 

country I think that people need to understand that the public 

views these kinds of problems as an indication of a deeper management problem at the plants. So one of the things that I will certainly do if I am confirmed is to make that point very clearly to 

people operating nuclear power plants that it isn’t the point that 

it is not hurting anyone. The point is showing that you don’t have 

your act together. That is the most important thing. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Captain. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I would agree with my colleagues’ 

comments and just add that the radiation hazard here is not exter-
64 

nal radiation to the body. It is an issue from a health perspective 

if tritium is ingested. So it is a real concern if it is present in the 

drinking water. But if tritium were just in my glass on the desk 

and I never drank that it would not be a radiation health hazard 

to me. 

That said, I completely agree with Bill Magwood about his comments on the public confidence and the public education aspects of 

ensuring that this is dealt with in a serious, concerted manner to 

resolve the issue. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you all. 

Senator BOXER. Any other Senators? Well, I have just one, a couple of questions I have to ask you, for all nominees. And I will ask 

you each to say yes or no. 

Do you agree, if confirmed by the Senate, 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? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Yes, I do. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, 

documents, and electronic and other forms of communication are 

provided to this committee and its staff and other appropriate committees in a timely fashion? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I do. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. 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? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I do not. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. No. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. No. 

Senator BOXER. OK. And I understand Senator Merkley has one 

more question. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I wanted to ask about the exploration of different designs that 

might inherently increase the safety of nuclear power and therefore 

also might reduce its cost. There is a group of engineers in Oregon 

working under the title New Scale Power. It is a complete redesign 

of a nuclear reactor, it creates essentially a silo in the ground. The 

reactor core is hung in a manner that reduces its vulnerability to 

earthquakes. It is all gravity-fed water systems, so there is no 

pump failure. It has the ability to remove the copper tubing design, 

if you will, a major issue that shut down Trojan, and replace it as 

a complete tubing replacement, almost like an element that is 

pulled out and inserted. Because it is below ground it may provide 

greater ability to provide protection from terrorist threats. 

Such designs, I am sure there are other groups around the country that have been looking at significantly different approaches. 

But to what degree does the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in 

each of your visions should they be promoting or exploring designs 
65 

that may differ substantially from commercial reactors of today but 

might hold promise for far greater security in the future? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I think this type of work is very important. As 

a matter of fact, New Scale began as part of a research program 

that I started back when I was at DOE. It is the type of research 

that really can set the stage for the longer term future. Today, 

there is a lot of work to do. But 10 years from now, 20 years from 

now, who knows. That may become the standard for nuclear power 

in the future. I think we have to encourage this, and I look forward 

to seeing these types of activities move into the commercial sphere. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I believe the Commission and its staff should 

be informed at all times on the activities that you mentioned, in 

Oregon and other places, and be prepared, make sure that the 

Commission and the staff are prepared to do a good review of an 

application when it comes to the Commission for a design certification or for maybe a combined license application. 

So as a Commissioner, if confirmed I will make sure that this 

happens. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I am no familiar with the New Scale 

design. But I will look into that if I am confirmed. I certainly think 

it is the Commission’s job, writ large, to make sure that they are 

up to speed on the current thinking of industry and design engineers as to what might be in the realm of the possible and to be 

actively engaged in understanding technically what is being 

worked on so they are prepared to deal with a licensing application. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, do we have time for one more question? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Mr. Magwood, I thought it would be useful to 

follow up on the Chair’s statement on conflict of interest. Just for 

the record, has your consulting work with Secure Energy North 

America Corporation or Advanced Energy Strategies, any of those 

companies that you have worked for, are they in any, is there any 

possible projects underway that would come before the NRC that 

would pose any form of conflict of interest? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. No. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Gentlemen, you have been very forthcoming. We 

are very appreciative. You have until next Tuesday, February 16th, 

to submit the answers to our written questions. There may not be 

any; I may have one or two. As soon as we get those back it is my 

intention to work with colleagues to move your appointments very 

quickly. Again, we really want to thank you. I am sorry, we have 

until the 16th, you have until the 23rd. Thank you for the correction, Laura. 

And I want to just revisit a couple of things with colleagues here. 

Just a reminder, we do have a hearing this afternoon on two appointees. One is the Inspector General, EPA, and the other is the 

Appalachian Regional Commission and Northern Border Regional 

Commission. If Senator Alexander ascertains that the TVA nominees are in town, he had now asked if we could do the hearing at 

4. So stand by for that. 
66 

I also wanted to inform colleagues, and this is very good news 

for us, that AASHTO, which is the group that represents the State 

highway and transportation folks that we work with so closely at 

home, they have released a new report today, Senators. They are 

basically saying that the stimulus bill was very successful, that it 

created hundreds of thousands of jobs. They have it actually summarized here. And all the various projects, they say that they are 

asking for another jobs bill, and they are making the point that the 

infrastructure, although it was only about 6 percent of our bill, created about 25 percent of the jobs. That is what they are saying. 

So it is a very good report. I won’t put it in this record because 

this is a different subject. But anybody who wants to see this report, it is called Projects and Paychecks: a One Year Report on 

State Transportation Successes under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act. I feel, since there has been so much controversy 

about whether we have—I don’t understand how people could say 

you don’t create jobs when you rebuild your infrastructure. It is 

counter-intuitive, and it turns out it is absolutely wrong to say 

that. They are looking at over 10,000 projects that were completed, 

they are looking at who the people are that got the jobs. I have this 

study here if you want to get your hands on it. 

I think that concludes everything. Remember, we are not going 

to have our hearings that we originally were going to have on 

Thursday and Wednesday. So we are going to do everything today 

and put off the others until we get back. 

Does anybody else have any questions, comments? If not, thank 

you so much. We stand adjourned. And to our friends at the table, 

thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene later the same day.] 

Æ