U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

97–804 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–769 

NRC’S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FUKUSHIMA 

NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS 

AND OTHER ACTIONS TO ENHANCE AND MAINTAIN NUCLEAR SAFETY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 4, 2014 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 4, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

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

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

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

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 7 

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

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 10 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 280 

WITNESSES 

Macfarlane, Allison M., Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................ 11 

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

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 33 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 84 

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

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Vitter ................................................................................................... 86 

Senator Inhofe .................................................................................................. 124 

Senator Sessions ............................................................................................... 134 

Svinicki, Kristine L., Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............. 142 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 143 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 149 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Vitter ................................................................................................... 150 

Senator Sessions ............................................................................................... 175 

Apostolakis, George, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ............... 178 

Magwood, William D., IV, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ...... 178 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 181 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 192 

Senator Vitter ................................................................................................... 193 

Senator Sessions ............................................................................................... 227 

Ostendorff, William C., Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission .......... 231 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 233 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter ................................ 234 

(1) 

NRC’S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FUKUSHIMA 

NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AND OTHER ACTIONS TO ENHANCE 

AND MAINTAIN NUCLEAR SAFETY 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m. in room 406, 

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

committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Cardin, Whitehouse, Markey, Vitter, 

Inhofe, Barrasso, and Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The committee will come to order. 

Today, the EPW Committee is holding its ninth oversight hearing with the NRC since the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown in Japan. 

It has been more than 3 years since the Fukushima disaster and 

Japan is still struggling to clean up the site. The massive underground ice wall intended to prevent radioactive water from flowing 

into the sea will take a year to finish and cost more than $300 million. 

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

necessary steps to ensure the safety of nuclear facilities in the 

United States. Today, I am going to continue to focus on whether 

the NRC has done that. 

It is vitally important that the NRC remain committed to its mission which is ‘‘to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials for 

beneficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the environment.’’ 

Based on a review of the progress made since the Fukushima disaster and on whether additional steps need to be taken by NRC to 

ensure the safety of the people and the environment, which is your 

charge, I am afraid that you may have lost sight of your mission. 

The Fukushima Near Term Task Force made up of NRC senior 

staff recommended 12 measures to upgrade safety in the wake of 

the Fukushima meltdowns. In August 2011, the former NRC chairman testified before our committee that the NRC should be able to 

act on those recommendations within 90 days and that they could 

be implemented within 5 years. 

2 

As of today, I think I have a chart here, the NRC has failed to 

require reactor operators to complete implementation of a single 

one of the post-Fukushima safety measures. This is scandalous. 

Some reactor operators are still not in compliance with the safety 

requirements that were in place before Fukushima. The NRC has 

completed its own action on only four of the 12 task force recommendations. 

Your team, that you praise all the time, told you that you have 

to do this. This is unacceptable, this delay, and it puts the safety 

of the American people at risk. I am sure you know what these are 

but we have these for you. 

I also have serious concerns about the safety of spent nuclear 

fuel. NRC’s own study showed that the consequences of a fire at 

a spent nuclear fuel pool can be as serious as a severe accident at 

an operating reactor. 

Not only does NRC allow that fuel to be stored in spent fuel 

pools indefinitely, NRC is considering requests from decommissioning reactor operators for exemptions from emergency response 

measures designed to protect nearby communities. 

While the Nuclear Energy Institute, in a letter sent to me yesterday claimed that these exemptions are granted only when ‘‘special 

circumstances’’ exist at a facility, the truth is that never has the 

NRC denied even one waiver request. It rubber stamps them every 

single time a reactor shuts down. 

I have introduced three bills with Senators Markey and Sanders 

to increase the safety of spent nuclear fuel and improve the decommissioning process. These are not theoretical concerns. 

On the same day that this committee held a hearing on this topic 

last month, an out of control wildfire was burning a half a mile 

away from the San Onofre plant. Those are the people of California, millions and millions of them. This plant is asking for a 

waiver so they don’t have to deal with any type of emergency response. 

My concern that NRC’s commitment to identify and remedy safety problems is also highlighted by my investigation into the installation of defective equipment at San Onofre. For example, I learned 

that the NRC staff was preparing to allow the restart of one of the 

reactors before it had received a single answer to any of the technical safety questions it asked Southern California Edison to submit, a continuing of the pattern of doing everything that we are 

asked to do by the industry. 

This oversight investigation I am conducting is important, not 

only to get to the bottom of the problems at San Onofre, but to 

avoid disastrous problems like this in the future. That is a concern 

that whistleblowers at NRC feel they have no recourse but to contact Congress to report safety problems and that is what they are 

doing, ladies and gentlemen, because NRC’s internal procedures for 

addressing these concerns are broken. 

Remarkably, NRC is continuing to obstruct my investigation by 

withholding documents that the committee has a right to receive. 

Let me be clear. The NRC has no legal right whatsoever to refuse 

to provide the committee with these documents. Today, I will make 

available a comprehensive analysis of this conclusion. 

3 

In order for the nuclear industry to maintain the confidence of 

people, we have a lot of people here who are very strong supporters 

of the nuclear industry, I believe it is critical that you step up to 

the plate on safety. 

NRC’s recent track record does not inspire confidence and that 

does not bode well because at the end of the day, the American people don’t want to have a reactor near them because of these problems and the industry is just not going to be there in the future. 

There are a lot of people on this committee who want to see the 

industry in the future. 

I do look forward to asking you some more questions. With that, 

I call on Senator Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for convening today’s hearing and I want to thank our NRC commissioners for your 

work, your dedication and for being here to testify. 

Lately, various members on this committee have been very active 

in fundamentally attempting how the NRC manages itself and our 

Nation’s nuclear power electricity generating facilities. In recent 

months, we have seen legislation, letters and statements from some 

of my colleagues in favor of new, costly and, in my view, usually 

unnecessary regulations. 

Today, I want to urge our commissioners to be precise and direct 

with your thoughts on these initiatives. You and your staff are the 

experts, we are not. We depend on your expertise, so I urge you to 

recommit to using the best available science and facts to ensure 

that any new rules and regulations are necessary and appropriate 

for our fleet which happens to have a long track record of safety. 

There exists a baseline standard that the Commission should 

meet when considering new regulations. I want to commend the 

Commission for basing their recent vote to eliminate further generic assessments to expedite the transfer of spent fuel from pools 

to dry storage on facts and sound science. 

While some of my colleagues may disagree with the Commission 

and myself on this issue, it is important to note that the NRC staff, 

who recommended elimination of these generic assessments, had 

extensively studied the issue and compiled all available data to 

make the best possible recommendation. 

As most of you are aware, this past Monday, EPA Administrator 

Gina McCarthy and President Obama released new regulations for 

carbon emissions from existing power plants as part of the President’s Climate Action Plan. 

While the President’s efforts to kill coal fire generation are obvious and already underway, I am really concerned about another 

and somewhat more subversive and under cover effort which is ongoing to really cripple the nuclear industry. 

When he first announced the Climate Action Plan, the President 

notoriously stated that he supports an all of the above approach. 

I think the disingenuous nature of this claim really requires only 

a cursory review of recent actions by the Administration, including 

the nuclear side. 

4 

For the nuclear sector, the work being done to undermine the 

Waste Confidence Rule and to kill the Yucca Mountain project is 

a clear example of a long term strategy to shut down most or all 

of our Nation’s nuclear power. 

Another example is the recent 316(b) rule for cooling water intake systems. Although EPA’s rule this time around may not look 

like it will at the critical impact many in the environmental community had hoped, it will certainly be litigated and whatever deal 

the EPA cuts behind closed doors in that process will assuredly be 

worse. 

I firmly believe that the nuclear factor should play a role in 

meeting our domestic energy needs safely and with the confidence 

of the American people. However, I am concerned that some Senate 

Democrats are using these hearings to provide cover for efforts, 

quite frankly, to kill nuclear generation which has only served to 

decrease the output in capacity of our Nation’s reliable nuclear 

fleet. 

Ironically, these shutdowns will increase greenhouse gas emissions as States struggle to find other baseload power. 

Finally, I want to State my concern on the lack of communication 

from NRC and the Administration about the re-nomination of Commissioner Apostolakis whose term is up at the end of this month, 

as well as a replacement for Commissioner Magwood when he vacates his seat later this year. 

Keeping these positions filled by qualified individuals must remain a priority to ensure the safety of our constituents and for our 

Nation’s economy. I urge the Administration to act on this quickly 

so that the Commission can continue this important work without 

interruption or distractions. 

Again, thanks very much for being here. Thanks for your work. 

I look forward to your expert testimony. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CARDIN. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Madam Chair, thank you very much for conducting this hearing. Let me thank all the Commissioners for being 

here. I thank you very much for your public service. 

To follow up on Senator Vitter’s point, I do think we can have 

less pollution in our air and reduce carbon. We can do it in a way 

that would help public health, in a way that will create more jobs, 

and we can do it with nuclear energy in a safe way. I think all of 

the above are very important. 

This hearing is a timely hearing for many reasons. As the Chairman pointed out, we have a responsibility with regard to public 

safety to make sure the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is operating with top priorities to protect the public safety and people in 

our community. 

It is also timely because of the Administration’s announcements 

on their power plant rules about our commitment to reduce our 

carbon emissions. Nuclear energy is an important part of that. I 

think all of that comes together in today’s hearing and I very much 

appreciate this opportunity. 

5 

Nuclear energy is an extremely important part of our energy supply in this Country. Twenty percent of our electricity is from nuclear power; 60 percent of our carbon free electricity is produced 

through nuclear energy. It is a critical part of our energy sufficiency in this Country and therefore, we need to do this in a way 

that is mindful of the safety of the people of our Country. 

We have about 100 reactors today. Two units are at Calvert 

Cliffs in Maryland and obviously of major concern to me. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is homed in my State of Maryland 

and we are very proud of the people who work there. It is consistently ranked as one of the best places to work which I think reflects the management at the Commission and we are very proud 

of that. 

As we conduct this oversight hearing, let me point out a couple 

of trends. First, we have gone through a very difficult time of sequestration, government shutdown, pay freezes and that has had 

an impact on your work force. We expect the very best to be in this 

field. 

I am concerned about the impact of the recent government policies on the budget has had on your capacity to retain the very best 

people so that we can carry out the mission of public safety and 

nuclear power in this Country. 

I welcome your candid views as to where we are in regard to 

your ability to attract and retain the very best in order to ensure 

the safety of the people of this Country and to be at the forefront 

of nuclear technology and, as Senator Vitter said, using the best 

science and information to make sure we are doing what is right. 

On the other side of that equation, there has been a change in 

your mission over the period of the last couple of decades. The 

number of reactors is not what we predicted them to be. That affects your overall mission and how you have adjusted to the realities of the number of reactors we have in our Country. 

The handling of nuclear spent materials, waste, has changed dramatically over the last couple decades. What has been your adjustment to your mission in order to make sure you have adequate resources to carry out those missions? 

I welcome this hearing so that we can carry out our responsibility of oversight to make sure you have the tools necessary to not 

only provide the best for our Country, we know we are the leaders 

in the world and what we are doing with nuclear regulation and 

second, whether because of the change in mission, we should be 

looking at a different way of making sure you have the adequate 

tools to carry out your responsibilities. 

I look forward to your testimony and I thank you all for being 

here. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much, Chairman Boxer and 

Ranking Member Vitter. 

Madam Chairman, I know you are concerned about safety and 

that is an important issue. You will be challenged to meet those 

6 

standards that we expect of the board but the nuclear industry, I 

have to say, represents a vital part of our energy mix. 

It produces no carbon emissions. In a week when the President 

has unveiled regulations demanding a 30 percent reduction from 

2005 levels of CO2 by 2030, we surely should be discussing the role 

that nuclear power can play in reaching those goals. 

In fact, we have an excellent safety record. I do believe it should 

never be forgotten that despite all the dangers and lives lost in 

other energy sources, we have never had an individual lost or 

killed as a result of a nuclear power generating accident, zero, and 

one have been made sick, to my knowledge. 

This is a tremendous safety record and a tremendous environmental record. The risks involved in the safe management of nuclear power have been reduced. This Commission has been responsible for that. You have been watching this carefully. You are professionals and you are experienced. 

You have a right and a duty to hold these industries and businesses accountable but you also have a duty and a responsibility 

to listen to them. If they provide good information that helps you 

make the plant safer at less cost, you should be able to listen and 

respond to that. 

According to the Energy Information Agency, the industry produces 20 percent of all our electricity and 60 percent of all carbon 

free electricity. The continued work of the NRC to follow the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s order in Aiken County regarding the licensing of 

Yucca Mountain is of vital importance. 

As the Court stated, ‘‘Because Congress did not enact new legislation and because Congress sets the policy, not the Commission, 

regarding the storage of nuclear waste, it is clear the Commission 

must promptly continue with the legally mandated licensing process for disposal of waste.’’ 

I hope you will continue to move forward with that. Already the United States has spent $15 billion on Yucca Mountain, according 

to the GAO, $15 billion, and we have not been able to utilize that 

effectively. 

The United States has had to pay $2 billion so far, an amount 

that could grow to $50 billion according to the congressional Research Service, for claims from the government’s failure to deal 

with the nuclear waste issue. This is an unbelievable series of 

events. 

I know the Majority leader opposes this but the local people in 

Nevada have supported it in the area of Yucca and the Congress 

has voted for it. It is time to move forward. The United States 

needs a robust nuclear generating fleet. 

I am really concerned that Kewaunee Power Station in Wisconsin, closed; Vermont Yankee, closed; Crystal River Unit 3 in 

Florida, closed; SONGS Units 2 and 3 in California, closed; and 

Oyster Creek in New Jersey, to close by 2019. We only have Vogtle 

in Georgia and Summer in South Carolina being developed. This 

is a serious concern. 

Safety is a priority but clean, responsible, baseload nuclear 

power at a reasonable rate is so important for America. 

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the hearing. I know this Commission and its staff need to be held accountable but they have 

7 

been doing a good job. We had a problem with the prior leader. He 

is gone now and Ms. Macfarlane is leading collegially and I think 

effectively. The board is effectively working together. I am proud of 

what they are doing and I believe we need to be asking ourselves 

what can we do reasonably and safely to deal with what appears 

to be not a growth in nuclear power but a decline. I think that 

would be a real tragedy for the people of the Country. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you and the 

Ranking Member for holding this important hearing on maintaining the safety of our nuclear facilities. 

A primary function of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to 

ensure that active and retired reactors are safe and secure. 

Safety concerns have been raised about onsite storage of nuclear 

material at decommissioned and operating plants alike. The 2011 

meltdown of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was 

a stark reminder of the hazard of large scale nuclear disaster. 

That episode prompted the NRC to establish a Near Term Task 

Force which outlined 12 safety recommendations to reduce 

vulnerabilities for American nuclear plants. In 2012, the NRC ordered nuclear plants to carry out the first set of recommendations 

which included updates to maintain cooling during external events, 

upgrades to reactor containment venting and better monitoring of 

spent fuel pools during accidents. 

The ability of our existing temporary nuclear waste storage to 

withstand natural disasters or other emergencies is of particular 

importance in Rhode Island. Although we do not have any nuclear 

power plants within our borders, we are within the 50 mile congestion exposure pathway of Connecticut’s Millstone Power Station 

and Massachusetts’ Pilgrim Power Station. 

Both facilities sit on the Atlantic Coast and face heightened risk 

from extreme weather events, coastal flooding and sea level rise. 

Given Rhode Island’s exposure, I joined several of my Senate colleagues in asking the Government Accountability Office to investigate the NRC’s oversight of emergency preparedness at and near 

our Nation’s nuclear power plants. 

The latest Fukushima safety reports also remind us that the 

technology at the world’s nuclear facilities has remained largely 

stagnant over the past 60 years despite the availability of a number of significant advances. 

Boosting nuclear plant security will require taking advantage of 

innovative approaches. There is at least one advanced reactor concept, for example, that doesn’t require water for cooling, so it can 

be built away from the shore line and the coastal elements. 

Our current nuclear fleet is aging. As you have heard from my 

colleagues, many reactors are going offline. Last year, four nuclear 

reactors closed in the U.S. and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 

Station will be decommissioned by the end of this year. When the 

8 

energy produced by these reactors disappears from the grid, other 

sources have to fill the gap. 

To achieve the greenhouse reductions outlined in the President’s 

Climate Action Plan, we need to explore all potential options and 

technologies for zero carbon base load power. Investing more in advanced nuclear technologies, things like small modular reactors 

and traveling wave reactors, may be a way to produce more greenhouse free energy while generating less waste. 

As we work to address both the safety of our existing fleet and 

provide reliable, base load power at a cost effective rate, we should 

apply the lessons of disasters like Fukushima in researching and 

developing advanced nuclear technologies. 

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear 

Safety, I appreciate the opportunity to hear from all of the NRC 

Commissioners on this critical issue and I once again thank the 

Chairman and the Ranking Member for holding this important 

hearing. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

We are so happy to see you, Senator Inhofe. Welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. It is nice to be here. 

When I first became chairman, you will remember this well, of 

the Air and Nuclear Subcommittee in 1997, it is kind of interesting 

that we had not had an oversight hearing with the NRC in 10 

years. We started having them and now we are having two in a 

matter of weeks about the same topic, decommissioning. 

Since 1997, we have increased our oversight hearings successfully. I am not worried about that. Oversight is a good thing but 

the aim seems to be to put the industry out of business rather than 

ensure that the NRC is conducting appropriate oversight. 

The NRC rightly looked into the issue of expediting spent fuel 

pools to dry cask following the Fukushima disaster. The staff ultimately determined that the United States’ risk of radiological release from the compromise of spent fuel pools ‘‘is very low, about 

one time in ten million years or lower.’’ The study predicted no 

early fatalities attributable to radiation exposure. That was the report of the staff and I think the majority of the Commissioners. 

According to researchers at NASF, that means it is less than the 

likelihood the earth will be struck by a civilization threatening meteor which has a risk of occurring only once every four million 

years. Appropriately, the NRC concluded ‘‘expediting movement of 

spent fuel from the pool does not provide a substantial safety enhancement.’’ 

When you consider that mandating this would cost the industry 

an additional $4 billion, it is right for the Commissioners to vote 

in favor of the staff’s position. I am disappointed, however, that the 

NRC is going to spend even more time and resources studying this 

topic. It will only serve to waste additional taxpayer dollars. 

Nevertheless, I have full confidence in the ability of the NRC to 

handle the decommissioning process. I find concerning the majority’s intent to undermine the public’s confidence on this topic. Just 

this week, the President released his global warming regulations 

9 

for existing power plants. The costs would be enormous, $51 billion 

in lost economic activity per year which translates to about 224,000 

jobs. 

While the President’s plan treats nuclear plants more favorably 

than others, I am not naive enough to believe that he and his environmental friends actually like the nuclear industry. As we all 

know, the President’s model country for his green dream is Germany. Environmentalists there successfully used the disaster at 

Fukushima to enact a ban on nuclear power plants. 

Many environmentalists and members on the other side of the 

aisle are similarly positioned, pursuing every regulatory impulse to 

enact an unbearable cumulative cost of compliance while prohibiting the final construction of Yucca Mountain, leaving room for 

folks like the NRDC and others to challenge the issuance of additional licensing due to the waste confidence issue. 

Let’s keep in mind that in Germany what happened as a result 

of all of this in that relatively short period of time, the cost per kilowatt hour has doubled in Germany from 18 to 36. Germany currently has three times the cost per kilowatt hour as we do in this 

Country. We have a lot of people we represent who are very interested in that and it should be a major consideration. 

The nuclear power industry provides 20 percent of our total electricity generation here in America. If the environmental left is successful in shutting down this safe and inexpensive domestic source 

of energy, the American people will be the ones to suffer. 

The problem is the Administration is internally inconsistent in 

its energy policy. As Gina McCarthy touts greater reliance on nuclear generation to offset the phase out of coal in her ESPS rule, 

NRC is pushing the industry down the compliance rabbit holes of 

new regulation. I am talking about 316(b), the flood and seismic 

and several others, that would actually have the effect of putting 

nuclear out of business. 

Sometimes I just wish that FERC, EPA, NRC and the Democrats 

would just sit down in a room and talk with each other about how 

we should power this machine called America if they are successful 

in these endeavors. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

When I first became chairman of the Air and Nuclear subcommittee, it had been 

10 years since we had an oversight hearing on the NRC. Now, we’re having two in 

a matter of weeks about the same topic: decommissioning. Normally I wouldn’t 

worry about that—oversight is a good thing—but the aim of this Committee seems 

to be to put the industry out of business rather than ensure that the NRC is conducting appropriate oversight. The NRC rightly looked into the issue of expediting 

spent fuel from pools to dry casks following the Fukushima Disaster, and the staff 

ultimately determined that the U.S. fleet’s risk ‘‘of a radiological release’’ from the 

compromise of a spent fuel pool ‘‘[is] very low (about 1 time in 10 million years or 

lower) . . . [and] the study predicted no early fatalities attributable to radiation exposure.’’ 

According to researchers at NASA, that’s less than the likelihood the earth will 

be struck by a civilization-threatening meteor, which has a risk of occurring only 

‘‘once every few million years.’’ Appropriately, the NRC staff concluded that ‘‘expediting movement of spent fuel from the pool does not provide a substantial safety 

enhancement.’’ And when you consider that mandating this would cost the industry 

an additional $4 billion, it was right for the Commissioners to vote in favor of the 

10 

staff’s position. I am disappointed, however, that the NRC is going to spend even 

more time and resources studying this topic. It will only serve to waste additional 

taxpayer dollars. 

Nevertheless, I have full confidence in the ability of the NRC to handle the decommissioning process, and I find it concerning that the majority is intent to undermine 

the public’s confidence on this topic. Just this week the President released his global 

warming regulations for existing power plants, and their cost is going to be enormous: $51 billion in lost economic activity per year, which translates into about 

224,000 lost jobs. And while the President’s plan treats nuclear plants more favorably than others, I’m not naive enough to believe that he and his environmental 

friends actually like the nuclear industry. 

I’ve long said that the President’s model country for his green dream is Germany, 

and environmentalists there successfully used the disaster at Fukushima to enact 

a ban on nuclear power plants. Many environmentalists and members on the other 

side of the aisle are similarly positioned. . . pursuing every regulatory impulse to 

enact an unbearable cumulative cost of compliance while prohibiting the final construction of Yucca Mountain, leaving room for folks like the Natural Resources Defense Council to challenge the issuance of additional licenses due to the Waste Confidence issue. 

We should be very wary of setting our sights on becoming Germany. As they’ve 

aggressively pursued the same Green Dream as the President, the cost of electricity 

has more than doubled, and prices there are now 300 percent higher than they are 

here in the United States. The nuclear power industry provides 20 percent of our 

total electricity generation, and if the environmental left is successful at shutting 

down this safe, inexpensive, domestic source of energy, then the American people 

will suffer for it. The problem is that the Administration is internally inconsistent 

in its energy policy—as Gina McCarthy touts greater reliance on Nuclear generation 

to offset a phaseout of coal in her ESPS rule Monday, NRC is pushing the industry 

down compliance rabbit holes of new regulations, 316(b), Flood and Seismic just to 

name a few, that threaten to put Nuclear out of business. Sometimes I just wish 

that FERC, NERC, EPA, NRC, and the Democrats would sit in a room and talk to 

each other about how we should power this machine called America. We should not 

be looking for ways to regulate the industry out of business. 

Senator BOXER. We are pleased to see you. I am sorry I missed 

you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I appreciate your scheduling the hearing today. Welcome to the 

Commissioners. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vital to ensuring nuclear 

safety. It is important for this committee to make sure their mission is carried out effectively. Although there are some who may 

question policy decisions made by the Commission, I believe we 

have come a long way from where the Commission was just a few 

years ago. 

The Commissioners recently made the decision to recognize that 

nuclear power plants need flexibility in when they can move spent 

fuel from wet pools to dry cask storage. I believe storing nuclear 

waste in wet pools is safe. 

As we all know, however, storing fuel in wet pools is not a long 

term solution for storing nuclear waste. Eventually, this fuel must 

be put into the dry cask so that it can be shipped to Yucca Mountain or whatever facility is chosen to store the nuclear waste. 

The Commission is currently working on the safety assessment 

for Yucca Mountain. Unfortunately, the Commission has not requested supplemental funds for Yucca Mountain related activities. 

There is a concern from those of us on the committee who believe 

11 

that Yucca Mountain is a viable option for the long term storage 

of nuclear waste. 

I am also concerned, Madam Chairman, that the progress the 

NRC has made could be undone if we do not have qualified individuals in all Commissioner slots on the Commission. For example, 

Commissioner Apostolakis’ term ends this month, yet the Administration has failed to re-nominate him for this position. I don’t understand the rationale. The Commissioner is a vital member of the 

Commission with years of experience. 

I would suggest that the President re-nominate him as soon as 

possible so that we can maintain a full commission that continues 

to protect our community by ensuring nuclear safety. This is best 

achieved by having experienced commissioners who work well together. 

If the President had a different nominee in mind, the committee 

must be given the time to vet and consider that nominee before the 

end of a commissioner’s term. The delay in making a decision on 

this matter shows a lack of respect for the role this committee 

plays in vetting nominees for the Commission. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is an important aspect to 

oversee nuclear power and must be comprised of competent individuals. The Commission can ensure that nuclear energy continues to 

be an important part of America’s energy mix. It is safe. Baseload 

power runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Nuclear energy also can 

make America energy independent. 

In my home State of Wyoming, uranium is in abundance. If we 

continue to develop this resource, we can have a steady supply of 

domestic fuel stock to power American homes and businesses for 

many years to come. 

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

we must continue to build new nuclear power plants. This is essential to the future of nuclear power in America. We cannot hamper 

nuclear power by over regulating the plants that we have. We must 

strike a balance to ensure the safety of our communities while continuing to ensure the viability of nuclear power. 

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

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you. 

I don’t see any other Senators, so we will turn to the Chairman. 

She has 5 minutes and the other Commissioners also. Then we will 

ask our questions. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ALLISON M. MACFARLANE, CHAIRMAN, 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Chairman MACFARLANE. Good morning, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter and distinguished members of the committee. 

My colleagues and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 

you this morning on behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Today, I would like to discuss the NRC’s accomplishments and 

challenges and the efforts the agency is making to assure we are 

performing as effectively and efficiently as possible. 

The NRC continues to make significant progress in addressing 

lessons learned from the Fukushima accident. The majority of the 

12 

Tier 1 activities are on track to be completed before the end of 2016 

and we are addressing the Tiers 2 and 3 issues as well. 

We are seeing reactors with upcoming outages making modifications to safety systems to provide additional supplies of electrical 

power and multiple ways to inject cooling water into the reactors 

and spent fuel pools. They are also installing additional portable 

equipment. 

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona and one of the industry’s two 

regional response centers. These centers contain additional portable safety radiation protection and other emergency response 

equipment that can be delivered to an affected plant within 24 

hours. 

These visits gave me the opportunity to see firsthand how the industry is complying with the NRC requirements to enhance the 

plant’s ability to withstand a beyond design basis accident. 

While maintaining our focus on the operating fleet, the NRC is 

also overseeing new construction at the Watts Bar Unit 2 plant, 

the Vogtle plant and BC Summer to ensure that plants are being 

constructed in accordance with their approved design and issues 

our inspectors identify are corrected. 

With four reactors recently ceasing operation and Vermont Yankee permanently shutting down by the end of 2014, as a number 

of you mentioned, the NRC has sharpened its focus on the transition from operating to decommissioning plants. 

It is important to emphasize that when a reactor ceases operations, the NRC’s work to ensure safety and security continues. 

After full fuel is removed from the reactor core, the NRC continues 

to ensure operational safety controls, security and emergency preparedness remain appropriate to protect the public. 

The NRC must review the licensee’s planned decommissioning 

activities, schedules and cost estimates and hold public meetings 

near the plant before major decommissioning activities can begin. 

The NRC oversees facility transition to ensure decommissioning 

is carried out safely. We encourage licensees to inform and engage 

members of the public and State and local officials throughout the 

decommissioning process. 

The NRC believes the safety and security requirements we mandate will be most effective if they are prioritized appropriately so 

licensees can maintain focus on safe operations. We are carefully 

working to understand and manage the cumulative effects of our 

regulations, including timelines for new or revised requirements 

based on the priorities associated with each action and the availability of NRC and industry resources. 

We have enhanced public participation in our rulemakings and 

have engaged the industry to perform case studies to develop more 

accurate regulatory cost and schedule estimates. 

The Commission has directed the staff to continue its work to 

understand cumulative impacts and to assess the effectiveness of 

the NRC’s process enhancements. The NRC faces a different future 

from what we anticipated just a few years ago when a significant 

increase in new reactor licensing and construction was projected. 

We recognize the need to approach this future in an agile and efficient manner. We are working now to project the agency’s exVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:52 Feb 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\97804.TXT VERN
13 

pected workload and critical skill needs through 2020. While there 

are fewer operating plants and new large light water reactor license applications, the NRC’s workload has increased in other 

areas. 

In addition to the work areas I have just discussed, we are continuing to address the court’s decisions on waste confidence in 

Yucca Mountain and preparing for small, modular reactor design 

reviews, among other things. 

As we meet these challenges, I am confident in the NRC’s ability 

to continue to develop and execute the strategies needed to achieve 

our safety and security mission. 

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

pleased to answer any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Macfarlane follows:] 

14 


97804.004
15 


97804.005
16 


97804.006
17 


97804.007
18 


97804.008
19 


97804.009
20 


97804.010
21 


97804.011
22 


97804.012
23 


97804.013
24 


97804.014
25 


97804.015
26 


97804.016
27 


97804.017
28 


97804.018
29 


97804.019
30 


97804.020
31 


97804.021
32 


97804.022
33 


97804.023
34 


97804.024
35 


97804.025
36 


97804.026
37 


97804.027
38 


97804.028
39 


97804.029
40 


97804.030
41 


97804.031
42 


97804.032
43 


97804.033
44 


97804.034
45 


97804.035
46 


97804.036
47 


97804.037
48 


97804.038
49 


97804.039
50 


97804.040
51 


97804.041
52 


97804.042
53 


97804.043
54 


97804.044
55 


97804.045
56 


97804.046
57 


97804.047
58 


97804.048
59 


97804.049
60 


97804.050
61 


97804.051
62 


97804.052
63 


97804.053
64 


97804.054
65 


97804.055
66 


97804.056
67 


97804.057
68 


97804.058
69 


97804.059
70 


97804.060
71 


97804.061
72 


97804.062
73 


97804.063
74 


97804.064
75 


97804.065
76 


97804.066
77 


97804.067
78 


97804.068
79 


97804.069
80 


97804.070
81 


97804.071
82 


97804.072
83 


97804.073
84 


97804.074
85 


97804.075
86 


97804.076
87 


97804.077
88 


97804.078
89 


97804.079
90 


97804.080
91 


97804.081
92 


97804.082
93 


97804.083
94 


97804.084
95 


97804.085
96 


97804.086
97 


97804.087
98 


97804.088
99 


97804.089
100 


97804.090
101 


97804.091
102 


97804.092
103 


97804.093
104 


97804.094
105 


97804.095
106 


97804.096
107 


97804.097
108 


97804.098
109 


97804.099
110 


97804.100
111 


97804.101
112 


97804.102
113 


97804.103
114 


97804.104
115 


97804.105
116 


97804.106
117 


97804.107
118 


97804.108
119 


97804.109
120 


97804.110
121 


97804.111
122 


97804.112
123 


97804.113
124 


97804.114
125 


97804.115
126 


97804.116
127 


97804.117
128 


97804.118
129 


97804.119
130 


97804.120
131 


97804.121
132 


97804.122
133 


97804.123
134 


97804.124
135 


97804.125
136 


97804.126
137 


97804.127
138 


97804.128
139 


97804.129
140 


97804.130
141 


97804.131
142 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

The Honorable Kristine L. Svinicki. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER, 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

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

Vitter and members of the committee for the opportunity to appear 

before you today at this oversight hearing on NRC’s implementation of actions to enhance and maintain nuclear safety. 

The Commission’s Chairman, Dr. Allison Macfarlane, in her 

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

carrying out NRC’s important mission. 

The NRC continues to implement safety significant lessons 

learned from the Fukushima accident in accordance with established agency processes and procedures while also maintaining our 

focus on ensuring the safe operation of nuclear facilities and the 

safe use of nuclear materials across the Country. 

The next period of implementation of Fukushima-related Tier 1 

regulatory actions lasting several years will require discipline and 

focus from the NRC staff experts as they review and oversee a 

large body of complex, interrelated work. 

I am confident that the NRC’s dedicated professional staff members are up to the task of meeting these challenges. I thank them 

once again for their sustained commitment to the agency and to its 

work. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and look forward to 

your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The responses by Kristine Svinicki to additional questions follows.] 

143 


97804.132
144 


97804.133
145 


97804.134
146 


97804.135
147 


97804.136
148 


97804.137
149 


97804.138
150 


97804.139
151 


97804.140
152 


97804.141
153 


97804.142
154 


97804.143
155 


97804.144
156 


97804.145
157 


97804.146
158 


97804.147
159 


97804.148
160 


97804.149
161 


97804.150
162 


97804.151
163 


97804.152
164 


97804.153
165 


97804.154
166 


97804.155
167 


97804.156
168 


97804.157
169 


97804.158
170 


97804.159
171 


97804.160
172 


97804.161
173 


97804.162
174 


97804.163
175 


97804.165
176 


97804.164
177 


97804.166
178 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

The Honorable George Apostolakis. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS, COMMISSIONER, 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Good morning, Chairman Boxer and members 

of the committee. 

The Chairman has outlined many of our recent accomplishments, 

current challenges and future plans. I concur with the Chairman’s 

statement that we understand the need to be proactive about our 

future, address challenges as they arise and maintain a focus on 

our mission. 

I would emphasize that there are a number of important technical and policy currently facing the agency. These include: the assessment of seismic and flooding hazard re-evaluations and review 

of the associated risks and integrated assessments; the proposed 

station black out mitigation strategies rulemaking, the renewal of 

operating licenses for currently operating reactors beyond 60 years, 

referred to as subsequent license renewal; waste confidence; and 

the risk management regulatory framework which proposes a long 

term vision for a more risk informed and performance based regulatory framework. 

I cannot recall a more significant group of actions by the agency 

in such a short period of time. The Commission’s oversight and direction regarding these issues will shape the regulatory framework 

for a long time to come. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Next is Hon. William D. Magwood, IV. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD, IV, COMMISSIONER, 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

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

you and former Chairman Inhofe. 

It is a pleasure to meet with you today to talk about the progress 

we have made toward learning the lessons of Fukushima. The 

Chairman’s statement has already highlighted much of our 

progress. I will add a few additional comments. 

First, I note in the 3-years since the Fukushima accident in 

Japan took place, I have seen nothing that would make question 

the safety of U.S. nuclear power plants. Since March 2011, we have 

analyzed a vast array of technical issues, debated numerous complex regulatory policies and engaged in an open, public discussion 

about the lessons learned from the accident. 

After all that, the essential conclusion reached by the Near-Term 

Task Force in the months after the accident remains valid. U.S. 

nuclear power plants are safe. 

At the same time, I think it is important to emphasis the reason 

our plants are safe is that we in the United States, both regulators 

and the licensee community, place very high value in responding 

to operating experience. 

U.S. plants are safe because we have learned from six decades 

of light water reactor operations and because we learned from 

179 

Three Mile Island and 9/11. We can do no less in the case of the 

Fukushima experience. 

The NRC has taken clear and specific actions based on lessons 

learned. I believe the changes we have made thus far are appropriate and balanced. I believe the steps we and the licensees have 

taken thus far have made U.S. plants more resilient than they 

were before Fukushima. 

For example, 2 weeks ago, I visited California’s Diablo Canyon 

Plant which has obtained advanced new equipment and is building 

a new, robust facility to house it. Many other plants are doing the 

same thing. 

There is still much work to be completed but I am confident that 

what we have done so far has been both necessary for public protection and balanced according to the threat. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

[The responses by William Magwood to additional questions follows.] 

180 


97804.202
181 


97804.203
182 


97804.204
183 


97804.205
184 


97804.206
185 


97804.207
186 


97804.208
187 


97804.209
188 


97804.210
189 


97804.211
190 


97804.212
191 


97804.213
192 


97804.214
193 


97804.215
194 


97804.216
195 


97804.217
196 


97804.218
197 


97804.219
198 


97804.220
199 


97804.221
200 


97804.222
201 


97804.223
202 


97804.224
203 


97804.225
204 


97804.226
205 


97804.227
206 


97804.228
207 


97804.229
208 


97804.230
209 


97804.231
210 


97804.232
211 


97804.233
212 


97804.234
213 


97804.235
214 


97804.236
215 


97804.237
216 


97804.238
217 


97804.239
218 


97804.240
219 


97804.241
220 


97804.242
221 


97804.243
222 


97804.244
223 


97804.245
224 


97804.246
225 


97804.247
226 


97804.248
227 


97804.249
228 


97804.250
229 


97804.251
230 


97804.252
231 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Last but certainly not least, Hon. William Ostendorff. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, COMMISSIONER, 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Senator 

Inhofe, for the chance to be here today. 

Regarding Fukushima, great strides have been made in those activities we determined should be initiated without unnecessary 

delay, the most safety significant items in Tier 1. Such activity has 

led licensees to reevaluate seismic hazards using present day methodologies. 

I note that licensees submitted these evaluations in March of this 

year to the NRC. Our staff has completed its initial evaluation of 

these submissions and confirmed that plants continue to operate 

while the NRC and industry conduct further more detailed evaluations at certain plants. 

As noted by Chairman Macfarlane, the industry has just opened 

a regional response center in Phoenix which has equipment for 

generators to be provided to the nuclear power plant within 24 

hours to supplement onsite equipment as necessary. 

As a Commissioner, I have great confidence in the NRC’s decision making on Fukushima actions. Throughout, the Commission 

and our staff have relied upon solid principles of science, engineering and risk management. 

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

your questions. 

[The responses by William Ostendorff to additional questions follows.] 

232 


97804.253
233 


97804.254
234 


97804.255
235 


97804.256
236 


97804.257
237 


97804.258
238 


97804.259
239 


97804.260
240 


97804.261
241 


97804.262
242 


97804.263
243 

Senator BOXER. I want to thank you all for your testimony. 

Chairman Macfarlane, the NRC is still withholding two categories of documents from this committed related to the San 

Onofre investigation. You have repeatedly told me that the reason 

the NRC is withholding these documents is because of ‘‘constitutional separation of powers concerns.’’ 

After working feverishly with your legal staff and my legal team, 

I couldn’t get the information. I asked a reknowned constitutional 

scholar, Morton Rosenberg, who worked for CRS in the American 

Law Division for 35 years, and whom you have cited often in your 

correspondence with us. 

This is what he says. He says, your letters to me demonstrate 

‘‘a profound misunderstanding of Congress’ investigatory powers 

and that they misState court decisions, they ignore overwhelmingly 

contrary case law that supports the committee’s right to receive the 

materials and show a lack of awareness of over 90 years of congressional investigations in which agencies have had to give Congress 

what it asks for.’’ 

I am going to ask unanimous consent that his paper is placed in 

the record at this time. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

244 


97804.264
245 


97804.265
246 


97804.266
247 


97804.267
248 


97804.268
249 


97804.269
250 


97804.270
251 


97804.271
252 


97804.272
253 


97804.273
254 


97804.274
255 


97804.275
256 


97804.276
257 


97804.277
258 


97804.278
259 


97804.279
260 


97804.280
261 

Senator BOXER. Chairman Macfarlane, you are clearly relying on 

misguided and deeply flawed legal advice. It is time for you to decide for yourself will the NRC follow the law and give the committee what it has asked for or not. 

Chairman MACFARLANE. Chairman Boxer, I would like to be 

clear that the Commission has not come to its position lightly. We 

have spent much time and effort studying the situation, seeking 

views on the situation so that we feel we have been able to provide 

you with as much information as we believe we can. 

There are two categories of documents that we feel we need to 

protect but we trust that the many, many documents that we have 

already provided to you for your investigations have been helpful. 

Senator BOXER. Let me just say, obviously the answer to my 

question is you are going to stick with the legal advice you have 

been given which I am told by a scholar is totally wrong. I didn’t 

say you came to the decision lightly; I said you came to it wrongly. 

If you still take that position, this committee is going to do its 

work; we are going to get these documents. 

When you read this analysis, we will send it to your team, we 

hope that you will change your mind because it is very, very serious, what is being withheld. We need to see it. By the way, we will 

get it one way or the other but we need to have it. 

Many of you have said you are very pleased with the progress 

you are making post-Fukushima. Can we put up those 12 recommendations? You used words that exclaim all the progress from 

the Chairman on down. I would like to ask you, as far as you know, 

have any of these 12 been implemented? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. Some of them have been. 

Senator BOXER. Which ones have been implemented? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. What we did at the Commission after 

the Near Term Task Force presented us with those 12 recommendations was prioritize those recommendations into three 

categories. 

Senator BOXER. No, no. I am asking you, these 12 recommendations that were made by your top staff, and all of you lauded them, 

I want to know, I have the answer, I just want to get you to confirm it. I have the answer, not one of these has been implemented 

by industry on the ground. Do you disagree with that? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. Chairman, those are recommendations. 

Based on those recommendations, we issued a number of orders, a 

number of requests for information and we have entered into a 

number of rulemakings. 

Senator BOXER. I am asking you a question. Has industry implemented any of these 12? They haven’t. You can sit there and say 

you are proud and everything else. The fact is not one of these has 

been implemented on the ground. It is 3 years and counting. 

Senator VITTER. Madam Chairman, I would like to hear from the 

commissioner. 

Senator BOXER. I am running out of time so you can ask on your 

time. 

This last question is very important because it deals with a decision you made which is to keep the spent fuels where they are and 

not move them to dry casks. In that decision, you assumed emergency planning at these plants would be in place. 

262 

I am asking each of you a very important question. You saw the 

photo, would you show the photo one more time, of how close that 

fire came to San Onofre where 8 million of our people live within 

50 miles. When I saw that, my heart stopped and I assume your 

hearts stopped too. 

That plant is shut down and if these fuel rods are hot, you have 

decided not to move them. I am asking each of you if you are asked 

to waive the requirement that this plant have an evacuation plan 

in place, if you are asked to waive that, will you deny that request? 

You are making a face like you didn’t understand, so I will say it 

again. 

You have been asked, as I understand, by the operator to waive 

the requirement that there be emergency evacuation planning at 

that site. They don’t want to do it anymore. They don’t want to 

have the sirens. They don’t want to have the plan and a fire came 

within a half a mile of 8 million people. Will you deny that request? 

I am asking yes or no. 

Chairman MACFARLANE. Exemptions are not waivers. The plant 

may have applied for an exemption. That is not a waiver. 

Senator BOXER. Will you deny the exemption? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. Emergency preparedness at decommissioning plants may, in some cases, be reduced in scope but it will 

not be eliminated. I want to be clear on that. Exemptions for decommissioning plants are done on a site specific basis. They are 

carefully considered. 

Senator BOXER. I am asking you, will you deny the exemption 

from safety for this plant when it is presented to you, yes or no or 

you don’t know? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. We will ensure that the plant will be 

safe. 

Senator BOXER. That is not the answer to my question. Say yes 

or no or I don’t know or I can’t answer it. Will you deny a request 

for an exemption from emergency plans. 

Chairman MACFARLANE. We will ensure that the plant will be 

safe. 

Senator VITTER. Madam Chair, will you let our witnesses answer 

your question? The way it normally works is you get to ask the 

question but they do get to answer. 

Senator BOXER. Will you answer yes or no or I don’t know? I 

don’t need a lengthy explanation because my question is quite simple. Will you vote to deny an exemption from safety rules from the 

operator at San Onofre, yes, no, or I don’t know yet? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. As I said, exemptions are done on a site 

specific basis and they are based on established—— 

Senator BOXER. The more you talk, the more you ignore my question. I have given you three choices that are fair, yes, no, I don’t 

know. 

Senator VITTER. Madam Chair, we don’t normally have hearings 

requiring the witnesses to fill in—— 

Senator BOXER. When you have this gavel, you make the rules. 

Yes, no or I don’t know, would you please answer? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. At this point in time, I have not been 

presented with enough information to make a decision. 

Senator BOXER. Then you don’t know. 

263 

Ms. Svinicki. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Respectfully, Chairman, I won’t prejudge the action, so I don’t know. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I don’t know either. 

Senator BOXER. Yes? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I haven’t seen the exemption request yet. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I agree with my colleagues. 

Senator BOXER. Let me just say, for the record, never has the 

NRC ever denied a request for an exemption from safety. I have 

to tell you this is in my mind, it is in my heart and the people in 

my State expect you to protect them. 

The fact that you cannot commit today to uphold the safety planning for this plant given that the number of fuel rods in there are 

far greater than planned for the plant, which you allowed, not you 

but the Commission allowed. It is outrageous and you wonder why 

people are losing confidence. 

Senator. 

Senator VITTER. I want to go directly to the so-called exemption 

issue too because I think it is a lot of semantics being used, quite 

frankly, to confuse and scare the public. 

Commissioner Svinicki, is it correct that we are talking about 

some changes that are made with your permission if an exemption 

is granted when a site goes from being an operating nuclear facility 

to a facility that is shut down? We are talking about changes made 

presumably to reflect the fact that those are two very different animals. Is that what we are talking about generally? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, Senator Vitter. As Chairman Macfarlane 

noted, in our regulations in some instances there is not a provision 

for whether the reactor is operating or in the process of decommissioning, so the NRC historically had a heavy reliance on the use 

of exemptions to reflect the changes in the facility as it is decommissioned and the changes in risk. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

I am not suggesting, and I know you aren’t either, that a plant 

that has been shut down, you can just walk away from that site 

and not worry about it. I am not suggesting that, but it does seem 

reasonable that there is a significant difference between a nuclear 

plant that is operating and a nuclear plant that is shut down. 

I think a lot of this debate is being revved up over these semantics but presumably these exemptions are about reflecting that 

change, is that fair to say? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, Senator. 

Senator VITTER. As reactors are shut down, are there a number 

of requirements that were necessary for reactor operations when a 

reactor was up and running that are no longer applicable when a 

reactor is shut down? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, Senator, but I would note that any request for 

exemption is extremely case specific. They are accompanied by a 

safety evaluation done by the proposer, the licensee, and that is, 

as Chairman Macfarlane indicated, very thoroughly reviewed by 

NRC. That is the process but it is specific to each exemption request. 

Senator VITTER. In these cases of decommissioning, has there 

ever been an exemption granted from all safety requirements simVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:52 Feb 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\97804.TXT VERN
264 

ply because a plant has moved from operational to being shut 

down? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I am not aware of any approval that was that 

sweeping. Again, as I have indicated, they are very specific to the 

request itself, the scope is specific. 

Senator VITTER. Commissioner Ostendorff, I wanted to ask you 

about the expedited transfer vote. The staff submitted their recommendations in this area on November 12, 2013. The Commission 

didn’t take action on it until May 23, 2014. 

I am concerned that taking so long to move on in that area really 

clutters your table and doesn’t allow you to properly focus on the 

Tier 1 recommendations, the high priority recommendations. 

Do you think the length of time the Commission took to approve 

such a steep, clear staff recommendation was appropriate? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I supported the staff’s recommendation with 

my vote and I also supported the views of the Advisory Committee 

on reactor safeguards. I am a member of a five member commission. We all take different periods of time to review and do our due 

diligence. I respect my colleagues and the time period they took to 

resolve these. I think it was perhaps a bit longer than it needed 

to be. 

I understand your concern. That is part of the dynamic of being 

a part of an independent regulatory commission. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

Chairman Macfarlane, a final question on Yucca Mountain. I am 

very concerned that various folks are dragging their feet, obstructing on Yucca Mountain basically in an effort to shut down nuclear 

period. I think that would really be unfortunate. 

I have asked you in previous hearings and I want to ask again, 

in your order directing the staff to complete the SER, you noted 

that the Commission doesn’t have adequate resources to fully complete the Yucca review and issue a decision as the court told you 

to do. 

In light of that, have you proposed a supplemental budget request to OMB? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. We have not. 

Senator VITTER. The obvious question is, why not? The courts 

said get on with this, it is a requirement under the law. You have 

said, we don’t have the resources, so why aren’t you taking the 

steps to at least request what you need to do, what is mandated 

under law and by the courts? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. Senator, the courts required us to begin 

the licensing process again using the funds that we had and we 

have done so. We are complying with the law. Any further decision 

to ask for additional money will be a Commission decision. 

Senator VITTER. I would urge the Commission to face that because you have already said we don’t have the resources to do this. 

That already seems crystal clear to you, so I think it is simply 

going to increase the foot dragging and the delay never to even 

make a request to the Administration to get you what you need. 

Chairman MACFARLANE. In my view, when the applicant, in this 

case the Department of Energy, shows that it has the resources 

and is seeking to complete the work, that is the point in time when 

we should move forward to seek additional funds. 

265 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

On that, you might remember the last hearing we had, I posed 

a question that the workload, from the way I see it, has decreased 

substantially because of all these things that are happening. This 

is not one of the questions I was going to ask but as an observation, it would seem to me that the lack of resources and personnel 

should not be a real strong point as it could have been in the past. 

That is just an opinion. 

Commissioner Ostendorff, despite the NRC staff and the majority 

of the commissioners concluding that the spent fuel pools would be 

safe even in the event of a massive earthquake, why would the 

NRC now expend additional agency, industry and industrial resources on additional site specific studies? Do you have any short 

answer to that? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I think your question is dealing with 

spent fuel transfer or does it deal with seismic studies? I want to 

make sure I understand. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, on the studies. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. The Commission decision has been to not require further work to require any look at expedited transfer. We 

have closed that issue. 

Senator INHOFE. In 2012, the District Court remanded NRC’s 

waste confidence rule. When will the revised rule become final? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. There is a draft rule that is supposed to come 

to the Commission this summer. We expect completion of that 

waste confidence rulemaking in the fall of this year. 

Senator INHOFE. Given that spent fuel pool integrity was an 

issue raised by the D.C. Circuit in their remand of your waste confidence rule, how do you plan to satisfy the court if the seismic 

safety or the spent fuel pool remains an open question under the 

review? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I understand the question. I would 

just comment that since this involves an adjudication by the D.C. 

Circuit, there are certain things we can’t address but I would just 

tell you that I personally believe the Commission decision on expedited transfer of spent fuel from the pools has been very clear and 

that we have confidence in the existing spent fuel integrity. 

Senator INHOFE. That is fine. 

Chairman Macfarlane, I am a little concerned about your vote on 

the expedited transfer of spent fuel. The other four commissioners 

as well as the staff agreed with their assessment that the risk of 

the public is so low that a $3 billion cost of expediting transfer 

would not be warranted. 

However, you didn’t agree and cited a paper you wrote in 2003 

with Ed Lehman and Bob Alvarez that held a position contrary to 

the NRC staff. Do you agree now that the spent fuel pools at 

Fukushima survived a massive earthquake, a 45 foot tsunami and 

hydrogen explosives, is that correct? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. Apparently they have. I think we are 

still collecting information but apparently. 

Senator VITTER. It is also my understanding that staff has studied the safety of the pools ten times now and has consistently conVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:52 Feb 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00269 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\97804.TXT VERN
266 

cluded that the fuel pools are safe. Can you tell me how much 

money and how many full time employees have been working on 

this issue? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. At this moment, I can’t. 

Senator VITTER. If you can provide that for the record, it would 

be very interesting to me to see what kind of resources are used 

because I know it is quite a bit. 

Should your vote against the NRC cause me to question your 

open mindedness about things like Yucca Mountain? I know you 

had positions in the past, statements were made in the past and 

we had the paper we just referred to. Are you open minded? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. Absolutely. In fact, my vote, if you 

would have a close look at it, is based entirely on the two reports 

provided by the staff. 

Senator VITTER. You weren’t able to completely answer the question the Chairman was asking when she asked for a specific answer. Is there anything you would like to add to elaborate on that 

question? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. The question of exemptions? 

Senator VITTER. Yes. 

Chairman MACFARLANE. For decommissioning reactors, thanks 

for the opportunity. 

I would just say that when we do consider exemptions, they are 

certainly done on a site specific basis; we don’t grant the same kind 

of exemption for every plant. They follow an established process 

that is based on a detailed technical analysis. 

There is no exemption from safety. The plants themselves have 

to show that safety is maintained. We take our safety mission very, 

very seriously at the NRC. The staff takes that mission very seriously as well. 

Senator VITTER. I know the staff has and the Commission has for 

the past several years. I mentioned my first experience was back 

in 1997. I know it is a very thoughtful commission and we are very 

pleased we have this commission. 

Let me reinforce the remarks made by others that we want to 

make sure that we encourage the Administration to keep it at full 

staff so we can continue. When I mentioned the odds, 1 in 4 million 

years, just think about that a bit when you are making these considerations. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you for bringing up the evacuation issue because that is what I will now talk about again. 

It is my understanding that the Commission has never in its history turned down a request for an exemption from having to have 

evacuation plans. Do any of you think I am wrong on that? If so, 

which one did you turn down? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. I’ll have to take that for the record, 

Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Just know that we have exhausted the record 

and there isn’t any but you go ahead and let us know if I am 

wrong. 

Let’s be clear about this, folks. This commission has a very easy 

record to access on that question and there has never been a time 

267 

when an operator was told they had to keep an evacuation plan in 

place. 

Let me tell you again, your job is to ensure safety. Let me say 

this. To the Chairman, is this not your quote? When asked whether 

or not a shut down plant could be dangerous, this is what you said, 

‘‘The fire could well spread to older spent fuel. The long term land 

contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly 

worse than those from Chernobyl.’’ Do you remember saying or 

writing that? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. That’s from the 2003 paper? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Chairman MACFARLANE. It was a collaborative effort, that paper. 

Senator BOXER. Did you sign that statement? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. I am one of the authors, that is correct. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Is it not true that the NRC said in 2001, spent fuel fires could 

have health effects comparable to those of a severe reactor accident? Does anyone think that is a misstatement by myself? OK. 

Let’s be clear anyone who says it is not serious because you are 

shut down, if there is a fire, doesn’t know what they are talking 

about, let’s just be clear. 

Senator Vitter interrupted me several times, doesn’t know that 

my operator for San Onofre submitted these many pages of exemption requests. Let me tell you what they are asking for. 

The proposed exemption would allow the operator to discontinue 

offsite emergency planning activities—Senator Markey, would you 

join me up here. I know you were presiding and we appreciate you 

being here. 

Let me say again, this is what they are asking for. The operator 

is asking to discontinue offsite emergency planning activities and 

reduce the scope of onsite emergency planning. Examples of requirements subject to proposed exemption that are related to discontinuing offsite emergency planning activities include, but are 

not limited to, requirements for offsite agency emergency plans, 

emergency planning zones and ingestion pathway zones, the emergency operations facility, evacuation time estimates, offsite notification timeliness, offsite dose projections, protected action recommendations, and examples of requirements, subject to the proposed exemption, that are related to reducing the scope of onsite 

emergency planning activities. 

They are basically asking to be let off the hook and if you grant 

this exemption, and you have never turned down one before, and 

you won’t answer my question, none of you will, I am going to show 

again the picture—I want Senator Markey to see this—of how close 

the fire in California came to that decommissioned plant. 

Do any of you know how many hot spent fuel rods are in that 

plant? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. I do not have an exact number. I can 

take that for the record. 

Senator BOXER. Does anyone else know how many? Just for the 

record, 2,600. Do you know what it was designed for? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. The original design or after the reracking had been done? If it was the original design and the open frame 

racks, probably about a quarter of that amount. 

268 

Senator BOXER. Thirteen hundred. This doesn’t go into other decommissioned plants. 

Anyone who says that a shut down plant is not as dangerous has 

to just read what the Chairman said. Read what the NRC said, the 

consequences of an event could be significantly worse than those in 

Chernobyl. 

I represent those people just like Senator Vitter represents his 

people and he worries night and day about their safety from hurricanes and the rest, I worry about my people. I am not going to stop 

because I can’t get any one of you to commit to me that you will 

turn down this request for everything that they want to waive. You 

have never turned it down before and you won’t answer the question. Yes, would you like to answer? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Just for clarification, this commission has not 

received any document or request for Commission decision making 

on this topic. 

Senator BOXER. You don’t know your work. This was sent to you 

on March 31, so what happened to your record keeping? Your people didn’t give you this information? Madam Chairman, why 

doesn’t the Commissioner know about this? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. It has been sent to the staff; it has not 

been brought up to the commission. 

Senator BOXER. How long does the staff sit on it before they let 

you know about it? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. As I said before, we have an established 

process and the staff does detailed technical analysis. We do not 

take these decisions lightly; we take them very seriously. 

Senator BOXER. When are you going to have the staff report? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. I do not know but I can get that for you. 

Senator BOXER. You do not know. Let me tell you, you’d better 

know because I have 8 million people living within 50 miles of that 

site. I had a fire that came within half a mile of that site and the 

operator had to evacuate the people inside. Now they don’t want 

to have an evacuation plan. This is a no-brainer. 

I am sorry. You can sit there and say we take it seriously. Really? Let me just tell you that this facility sits on an earthquake zone 

and a tsunami zone. You know it happens. You yourself wrote in 

collaboration with others that an accident here could be worse than 

Chernobyl. 

All I am saying is March 31, I got this. I think it would be nice 

if the commissioners got this. As a matter of fact, I am going to 

make sure that before the staff goes through it, the commissioners 

get this. Yes, sir? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I think we have all been aware that our staff 

has received the document you are referring to but as the Chairman noted, it is in a staff process. I will tell you I had a discussion 

for the last week with Mike Johnson, who I think is here, who 

briefed me on the status of this and he’s working in his discussions 

with FEMA on these issues. 

I want to assure you that this is working through our process 

and we owe you a response as to when a decision can be expected. 

Senator BOXER. I will await that response but I want to say 

again, to me, there is an urgency and to you, there should be. This 

isn’t just any power plant. This is a nuclear power plant that has 

269 

many of these spent fuel rods in an earthquake zone, a tsunami 

zone and a fire came within a half a mile. 

I hope the staff will work overtime just like my staff does when 

there is an emergency because that is what I consider it. 

Chairman MACFARLANE. Chairman, I just want to be clear that 

emergency preparedness will not be eliminated at the site. I want 

to be clear about that. We will not eliminate emergency preparedness. 

Senator BOXER. So you are agreeing that you will not allow them 

this exemption they are asking for all of this? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. We will not eliminate emergency preparedness. Sometimes it is reduced in scope after we consider the 

request. 

Senator BOXER. Let me ask you then, you will not waive the requirement for offsite evacuation plans? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. I do not know the details of this. 

Senator BOXER. You will not waive their request to be exempted 

from having warning sirens? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. I do not know the details of this request. They have to prove to us that they can maintain the safe 

level of operation under decommissioning. 

Senator BOXER. You don’t know right now if you will eliminate 

offsite evacuation plans, warning sirens, what about relocation centers? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. We will ensure that the site will be safe. 

We will ensure there are adequate measures in place to respond to 

any kind of radiological emergency. That is our mission. 

Senator BOXER. Fair enough. Let me ask you this. Do you think 

offsite evacuation plans are a necessary part of that facility being 

safe? Do you personally believe? You can’t answer for anyone else. 

Do you believe that having offsite evacuation plans are a necessary 

part of having that facility safe? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. An operating facility, of course, always 

requires evacuation plans. 

Senator BOXER. You will not waive that requirement? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. I will have to consider it, consider the 

site specific requirements. 

Senator BOXER. You have never said no to exemptions of all offsite emergency plans. That is why I am drilling down on this because the NRC, who cares a lot about safety, that is your job, has 

never ever turned down such plans. 

Let me just tell you this. I am deeply troubled that commissioners haven’t seen this. Maybe they knew about the fire. If I were 

one of you, I certainly would have said what’s happening. This 

could have been—I don’t even want to say the type of disaster. All 

I have to do is quote the Chairman in her 2003 paper in which she 

said, ‘‘The fire could well spread to older spent fuel. The long term 

land contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly worse than those from Chernobyl.’’ 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. I have a couple of things on this topic for the 

record. 

First of all, I want to reState what I said. The Chairman was 

sort of suggesting that I was saying that a decommissioned site, a 

270 

run of the mill industrial site doesn’t need concern, doesn’t need a 

lot of careful regulation. 

As I explicitly said, I think nothing could be further from the 

truth. Clearly, an operating nuclear facility is a pretty different 

animal than a decommissioned site. I was simply making the point 

that under your rules, the only way to account for that are the socalled exemptions. 

Maybe people would feel better if we had a different rule rather 

than talk about exemptions. That is semantics, not substance. That 

is my first point. 

My second point is I find it ironic and confusing that the Chair 

is now disappointed that your staff is actually reading this stack 

of paper very carefully and taking it very seriously. If you all are 

a rubber stamp, as she has been suggesting, for any suggested exemptions, then the staff could whip through it in a week, give it 

to you and you all would have voted by now. 

That is not happening I assume because you and your staff actually take this seriously, actually read it line by line and go through 

a thorough process. It shouldn’t drag on forever. We deserve to 

know what a reasonable timetable is. Commissioner Ostendorff has 

said you will get back to us with that, but I don’t think we should 

be complaining about a careful, thorough process. 

I just wanted to make those few points. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you. 

What I did say was in light of this near disaster, I am very disappointed that the commissioners haven’t gotten more involved at 

this point. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for calling this very important hearing today. 

Fukushima reminded us of the devastating effects of a nuclear 

reactor meltdown. Radiation from the accident was detected over 

1,000 miles away. Land contamination continues to keep tens of 

thousands of people from returning to their homes and cleanup cost 

estimates continue to rise. Industry admitted it will cost well over 

$100 billion. 

Meanwhile, in the United States, we have packed so much radioactive waste into spent fuel pools that even NRC studies conclude 

that spent fuel fires could spread as much contamination as a meltdown of an operating reactor. 

Throughout the United States, many pools, including the one at 

the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, are dangerously overcrowded. 

The solution to this is simple. Take the waste out of pools and put 

it into safer, dry cask storage. 

That is why I recently introduced the Dry Cask Storage Act 

which gives plants 7 years to remove all the waste that can be removed from the pool and put it into safer, dry cask storage, provides funding to help offset the cost and increases the size of emergency planning zones around plants that choose not to remove the 

waste from their pools. 

Madam Chair, is it true that removing waste from the pool and 

putting it into dry cask storage reduces the amount of radioactivity 

that could potentially be released if a spent fuel fire were to occur? 

271 

Chairman MACFARLANE. Operating reactors need pools because 

when they discharge their fuel, it is very hot and it needs the 

water circulation to keep it cool, so you need the spent fuel pool. 

When the spent fuel has aged at least 5 years, right now in the 

United States, it can be then transferred to a dry cask. Those dry 

casks are safe, they are passive systems. The spent fuel pools are 

active systems and require active circulation of water. 

Senator MARKEY. Didn’t the NRC studies show that even at decommissioned reactors, it was never possible to rule out the possibility of a spent fuel fire? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. I think there are a variety of studies out 

there. I can take that for the record because I myself would like 

to see more analysis of the number of these issues. 

Senator MARKEY. Are any of you familiar with any NRC studies 

that show that there could, in fact, be a fire? Are any of you familiar with that at all? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Yes, Senator. There could be a fire. The question is, how likely is it. The NRC studies have shown that it is extremely unlikely. That is what the studies say. 

Senator MARKEY. The Commission recently voted to allow plants 

to continue to overfill these pools for as long as they wished to do 

so. Each of you is saying it is highly unlikely that there will be a 

fire and therefore, there is no need to move toward dry cask storage, is that correct? Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. There were four main inputs I considered in 

my vote: the detailed staff analysis which argued that way; the Advisory Committee of Reactor Safeguards’ independent experts 

agreed with the staff; and the historical record that showed the 

spent fuel pools withstood earthquakes beyond design basis. There 

was a statement by Dr. Thompson who raised a lot of issues and 

questions and there was a distinguished member of the Advisory 

Committee that rebutted all the issues he raised. 

All the evidence pointed to the extremely low likelihood of a fire 

there. 

Senator MARKEY. Let me read to you from the NRC’s statements. 

It says, ‘‘An SFP fire could have health effects comparable to those 

of a severe reactor accident, large seismic events that fail the SFP 

are the dominant contributor to causing an SFP fire.’’ 

Where there are earthquake zones, southern California is an example but they are all over the Country, how do you deal with that 

in terms of your own agency’s conclusion with regard to the danger 

of a fire that could become a catastrophe? Madam Chair? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. The Commission has voted on this issue 

and the Commission decided that this issue needed no further 

study. 

Senator MARKEY. I appreciate that but again, we just had 

Fukushima. We know that many of the nuclear power plants in our 

Country are built on or near earthquake faults and we have the 

Commission’s actual conclusion. 

I understand the industry does not want to spend the money. I 

understand that the industry doesn’t want to have to absorb this 

kind of cost but again, I am dealing here with your own agency’s 

conclusion about the danger that exists. 

272 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Senator, the seismic re-evaluation project will 

also look at the spent fuel pools again. 

Senator MARKEY. What is the timeline for that? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. It is in progress. 

Chairman MACFARLANE. For the top priority group of plants, 

their seismic probabilistic risk assessments will be completed by 

2017. 

Senator MARKEY. The whole concept of probabilistic risk assessment is one that is very long and obviously goes back to the late 

1970’s and early 1980’s with assessments made even then with regard to the probability of an accident and the need to build in proper protection. 

PRA is the longstanding standard. It just seems to me almost irresponsible that we are going to wait until 2017 to complete that 

kind of a study knowing the danger that exists, the longer that decommissioned plants sit there with these spent fuel rods in place. 

Have you implemented any permanent seismic safety measures? 

Are you planning to do that before 2017? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. Yes. There has been a seismic hazard 

re-analysis that we ordered as a result of lessons learned from 

Fukushima. Actually, it was already in progress before the 

Fukushima accident but we moved it up. We are trying to be 

proactive. 

Senator MARKEY. You have done the analysis. Have you put anything in place in order to ensure there are safeguards there? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. Yes, certainly. The plants are built with 

a significant amount of margin. The analysis has analyzed the hazard. We are now trying to understand, with the probabilistic risk 

assessments, is the capacity of the plants to withstand that re-analyzed hazard. 

Senator MARKEY. You haven’t put any new standards in place on 

a permanent basis since Fukushima, none? For me, that is still unforgivable. We know what can happen. We know what the consequences are. 

We saw what happened in Three Mile Island, the potential consequences of a reactor meltdown years before Chernobyl and 

Fukushima. Now, experts have given us clear warnings that a 

spent fuel pool fire could actually be worse than a reactor meltdown. 

With that much at stake, I think the Commission’s vote not to 

heed these warnings was simply irresponsible. 

Chairman MACFARLANE. Senator, may I clarify a point. In 2012, 

we requested the plants to do seismic and flooding hazard walk 

downs. The plant operators had to go through the plants, make 

sure that all the bolts were tightened. I think they completed that. 

Senator MARKEY. That’s a study. 

Chairman MACFARLANE. It wasn’t a study. They actually walked 

through the plants and made sure that everything was as it was 

supposed to be, that they met their licensing basis for their seismic 

hazard. 

In some cases, they found small problems. They have corrected 

them or they are in the process of correcting them. 

Senator MARKEY. But those are pre-Fukushima standards and 

you have not promulgated any post-Fukushima standards thus far. 

273 

They are still, in many instances, not in compliance with preFukushima. 

Chairman Macfarlane, the Department of Justice recently indicted five members of the Chinese military on charges of hacking 

into U.S. company systems. According to the indictment, the Chinese efforts included the theft of nuclear reactor trade secrets from 

Westinghouse. These steps started in May 2010 and lasted until at 

least January 2011. 

At the very same time that those steps occurred, Westinghouse 

was hosting a job shadow program that placed dozens of Chinese 

personnel at U.S. nuclear reactors for months during the identical 

timeframe in which the alleged thefts occurred. 

This job shadow program was approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I recently wrote a letter asking you for more 

information on this program. I look forward to your response. 

Chairman Macfarlane, did any of the Chinese nationals who 

were stationed at American nuclear reactors have unescorted access to the facilities? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. This job shadow program was a private 

sector activity. It was not under the control of the NRC. The NRC 

insured that its security regulations were followed during this time 

and I respectfully ask you to refer all other questions on this topic 

to the Justice Department. 

Senator MARKEY. Let me ask you this. Would NRC rules and regulations allow unescorted Chinese nationals to go through private 

nuclear complexes? Do regulations allow that to occur, that the 

Chinese would be unescorted and walking through a domestic nuclear complex? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. I can tell you that our security regulations were followed. 

Senator MARKEY. I am asking, do those regulations allow for Chinese nationals to walk through our nuclear power plants 

unescorted? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. No, Senator, they are not allowed to do that. 

Senator MARKEY. They are not allowed. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. No. 

Senator MARKEY. Then how could it have happened then that 

they were walking through our power plants, especially post-9/11? 

Chairman MACFARLANE. Senator, we are in the process of responding to your letter. I do request that you direct your further 

questions to the Department of Justice. 

Senator MARKEY. I appreciate that. I am just trying to get at the 

heart of what you allow and then what happened. I am getting a 

bit of, I think, a mixed message. Mr. Apostolakis, you are saying 

that they would not be permitted under your regulations? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. That is my understanding, Senator, yes. 

Senator MARKEY. So how could they possibly gain access, 

unescorted Chinese nationals, into nuclear power plants, especially 

post-9/11, with these additional security provisions, many of them 

things that I am the author of with regard to access to our nuclear 

power plants? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I don’t know, Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. You do not know. 

274 

Chairman MACFARLANE. We are in the process of responding to 

your letter. Again, I ask that you refer all further questions to the 

Department of Justice on this topic. 

Senator MARKEY. I will just say this in conclusion. The NRC 

claims to foster a safety conscious work environment where ‘‘personnel feel free to raise safety concerns without fear of retaliation, 

intimidation, harassment or discrimination.’’ 

In the past year, my office has heard from an increasing number 

of whistleblowers from many different offices at NRC. These people 

are all serious, dedicated individuals who are calling my staff because they feel they are not being heard by their own managers 

and colleagues. They feel that when they step forward to report 

safety, security or other problems, they are systematically retaliated against. 

I have raised this concern many times with you. I am holding a 

report written by the NRC but not yet publicly released that actually surveyed those who have attempted to use NRC’s formal processes for resolving policy disagreements. 

A staggering 75 percent of those who used them said they received a poor performance appraisal after they raised their whistleblowers concerns. Almost two-thirds of them said they were excluded from work activities by their management; 25 percent were 

passed over for promotions; 25 percent were even verbally abused 

by their colleagues and their supervisors. 

Those results are shameful. I ask that portions of this report be 

entered into the record and request your formal written response 

on what you plan to do to fix these problems. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

Senator MARKEY. I thank you. I will just say that I began 

chairing a committee overseeing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1981. I had a hearing onsite at San Onofre in 1983. This 

just continues, this whole pattern just continues at the agency and 

it is one that troubling, especially post-Fukushima. 

It is very important for this culture to change. I am just afraid 

that it has not. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I appreciate both of your interest, Senators, and study of this 

over the years. I do have a different view. 

I think the good news is that in our nuclear power industry, unlike our coal, natural gas and other industries, we have not had a 

single individual be killed in the entire process of that industry, 

nor have we had a person, to my knowledge, made sick as a result 

of a nuclear accident. I would say today we have had a pretty good 

record. 

Commissioner Ostendorff, Senators Sanders, Boxer and Markey 

introduced a Nuclear Plant Decommissioning Act which grants a 

large role to States and communities in the development and decommissioning of nuclear plants. 

275 

Based on your experience, would you share with us any thoughts 

you have as to whether that would make it more or less likely that 

a new nuclear plant would be built in America? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, I believe the predictability and stability of a regulatory process is very important. We are an independent regulatory agency. We base our decision making on solid 

principles of science, engineering and risk management. We think 

then Nation benefits from that from the public health and safety 

perspective. 

I could foresee some potential problems in that predictability 

being lessened if there were confusion or blurring of lines as to the 

role between the Federal agency, us, and the States. 

Senator SESSIONS. I just think that is transparent. Now we are 

going to have a nearby city extort the power company for whatever 

ideas they may have that may not be in the public interest and result in much less likelihood, in my view, that we could have new, 

safe, clean nuclear plants built. 

I really think, colleagues, that creating a situation in which 

States, cities and counties can now impose regulations on building 

of a nuclear power plant or the decommissioning of it in retrospect 

is bad policy. I strongly oppose that. I just don’t think that’s good. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Senator, can I add something to that? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I came to this agency after I had been an official at the Department of Energy, following many years in the military. I would tell you that the transparency and openness of the 

NRC whereby we engage the entire American public. Last year we 

had 1,000 public meetings with States, local, communities, and 

anti-nuclear groups. 

There is a significant process by which they are able to bring 

their voices to bear and share their concerns. I think that isn’t reflected upon often enough when these kinds of issues arise. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

With regard to the pool storage, just because the rods are kept 

in a pool storage doesn’t mean it is going to blow up or cause a fire, 

does it? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. That is correct, if I can make two technical 

points. Studies of the pools at Fukushima, as the Chairman mentioned earlier in responding to a question, to date we are not aware 

of any damage to the pools at Fukushima Daiichi as far as structural integrity. 

The spent fuel pool study on which we based our decision had 

some significant conservatisms and we could certainly provide 

those for the record. The significant conservatisms showed that we 

were taking almost worse case analyses to look at the integrity. 

I would also add that the current initiatives being taken by the 

U.S. nuclear industry with respect to the flex program, mitigating 

strategies to add additional pumps, hoses, sources of water, as well 

as the spent fuel pool level instrumentation requirements that we 

have levied, those are other steps from a mitigation standpoint that 

have not been discussed today. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. With regard to this whole process, 

the professional staff took insights and guidance, did they not, 

Madam Chairman, before they made a recommendation? 

276 

Chairman MACFARLANE. They did. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Ostendorff, they recommended the process 

you have adopted for pool storage, a majority of the Commission of 

four to one voted to adopt that process. 

Ms. Svinicki, do you think that the staff considered the concerns 

Senator Markey and others have raised? Did the Commission consider those concerns before you made a decision? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, Senator, I agree with the observations and 

technical points made by Commissioner Ostendorff. Earlier Commissioner Apostolakis talked about the record that was available to 

us in this decision. I also had reliance on the same input as Commissioner Apostolakis previously testified to. 

Senator SESSIONS. If the staff or outside people had expressed 

concerns that were validated and you felt created a risk, would you 

have voted differently? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, Senator, again, as my colleagues have acknowledged, it was a very complex, large record. It was voluminous 

and I think each of us spent a considerable amount of time in evaluating that. 

The NRC staff indicated that they did a 30 year survey of other 

studies and research. It was a fulsome record, it was maybe a lot 

of material to go through but I think those of us who supported the 

staff’s recommendations did so based on a thorough review of the 

matter before us. 

Senator SESSIONS. Would you say that the Commission is working better under Chairman Macfarlane than some of the difficulties 

you had previously? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I do appreciate the acknowledgement from some of 

the members of the committee of Chairman Macfarlane’s leadership. As the longest serving member of the Commission, I really 

commend her. She and I don’t agree all the time, but her leadership has been tremendous and the collegial tone she set for our 

work I think has been such a wonderful thing. 

Senator SESSIONS. I note other members are nodding their heads 

in agreement with that. Congratulations, Chairman Macfarlane, 

you took over a difficult challenge. I am not sure you and I agree 

on all nuclear issues, but it was important that we get the Commission more collegial, more open and I believe you are achieving 

that. 

You have created and protected the Country here for a number 

of decades now without any serious accidents and you haven’t hesitated to crack down on plants that have even small errors in safety. 

I know you hammered one in Alabama and I think you were 

probably right. Thank you for what you do and I know they improved immediately the errors noted by your team. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. I want to thank the Commission. You’ll be glad 

to know I just have a few more questions. 

I am glad there is a spirit of collegiality among all of you. That 

is fine. You ought to have it at the workplace so that whistleblowers don’t get attacked and shut out. I want to thank Senator 

Markey for pointing that out. 

277 

It is easy for five grownups to be collegial. I am very collegial 

with all my colleagues. We go at it, we certainly don’t agree, but 

I really like them personally, so good for you for that. You need to 

take that spirit and infuse it so that whistleblowers aren’t fearful. 

We look forward to your response. 

Mr. Magwood, you said you had no concerns with safety at any 

of our plants in this testimony today, is that correct? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I said I don’t have concerns about safety at U.S. 

nuclear power plants. 

Senator BOXER. That’s what I just said. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes. I am certainly not saying there are not 

issues that need to be looked into at specific plants. 

Senator BOXER. But you said I don’t have any concerns postFukushima. Let me ask you this question. Why did San Onofre 

shut down, why did Crystal River shut down, why did Vermont 

Yankee shut down, why did Kewaunee shut down, why is Oyster 

Creek going to close at the end of 2019 if they are all so honky 

dory? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I think you would find that for each of those 

plants there is a different reason. I could go through each one if 

you like but some were for financial reasons, others were for—— 

Senator BOXER. Why don’t you tell us about the ones that have 

safety problems because you said you had no concerns, so which 

one of those had safety problems? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I don’t think any of those plants were shut down 

because they were not being operated safely. I think some of those 

plants were shut down because they had equipment issues—— 

Senator BOXER. That’s safety, isn’t it? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. No, it was never a safety issue. 

Senator BOXER. There wasn’t a safety issue at San Onofre? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. San Onofre’s steam generators were flawed. 

Senator BOXER. They were leaking. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. The plant was not—the plant was shut down 

after the leak was discovered. 

Senator BOXER. My point. When a commissioner says in the 

opening statement, I have no concerns, let’s be clear, there are concerns. When Senator Sessions says, which we all hope is true, that 

everything is safe, we’ve never had a problem—we did have a couple, but this is what we all want, so we all want it to be true. 

Let me assure everyone here before Fukushima, the Japanese 

were saying the same things, Senator Sessions. The Japanese were 

saying we have safety in our nuclear industry and then 

Fukushima. 

If we do our jobs and you do yours, we can avoid something like 

that. When you tell us that you haven’t done one of the 12 recommendations of your own staff, not one has been implemented, 

that is disastrous. I think any one of the American people would 

say, wait, it’s been 3 years. 

I am going to turn to another issue of travel. In our last hearing, 

you all committed to making your travel and meeting calendars 

available. You have all made some effort in response and I thank 

you but it is not really enough. Only Chairman Macfarlane’s meeting calendar contains any detail about what each meeting was 

about. 

278 

Until just a couple of days ago, Chairman Macfarlane and Commissioner Svinicki’s calendars hadn’t been updated since March. 

Not a single one of you provided advance public notice of any of 

your meetings. 

By contrast, the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s meeting 

policy requires advance public disclosure of all meetings including 

travel. I am sure you know why this is the case. The American people need to know who you are meeting with because your decisions 

are very important. 

If an agency that regulates toys and other consumer products can 

do that disclosure, so can an agency that regulates nuclear reactors. We have bipartisan support for this. 

Going forward, will each of you commit to providing advance notice of your meetings and your travel and providing information 

about the topics intended to be discussed at each meeting? Let’s 

start with the Chairman. 

Chairman MACFARLANE. I commit to providing to the degree that 

I can because my schedule changes on a daily, sometimes hourly 

basis, as I am sure does yours. 

Senator BOXER. Sure. 

Chairman MACFARLANE. Certainly advance notice of my travel 

and other meetings to the degree that I can. 

Senator BOXER. Commissioner Svinicki. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Chairman Boxer, I would request the opportunity 

to respond for the record. 

Senator BOXER. Sure. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Commissioner Apostolakis. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I will not have any problem doing that. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Commissioner Magwood. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. At my confirmation hearing, I promised to make 

my calendar available. I have done that from the moment I have 

been on the Commission. I have published my calendar continuously. 

I have not made a practice of putting a lot of detail in the calendar. I will look at doing that. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you because it is important that we know 

who you are meeting with. 

Commissioner Ostendorff. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Chairman Boxer, my calendar, as far as meetings with groups, is on my website. I have an open door policy. I 

understand your concern. 

Senator BOXER. Excellent. 

Commissioner Magwood, this is delicate but travel records you 

provided to this committee indicate you have spent 127 days on 

international travel since 2010. They also indicate that before you 

leave the Commission this summer, you will be spending more 

than 3 weeks visiting the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Japan 

and Brazil. 

Do you think it best serves the NRC safety mission to have you 

traveling the world just before you resign your seat? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I do think my travel is appropriate. First, let me 

indicate that I am not going to Brazil. That was an invitation I was 

279 

considering and have ultimately decided not to take that trip. The 

other visits I think are very important. 

Despite the fact that I am stepping down from the Commission 

later this summer, the presence of an NRC commissioner in many 

of these countries is important whether it is me or Commissioners 

Ostendorff or Apostolakis. It doesn’t really matter which of us it is. 

The fact that the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

goes to these countries and represents the causes of regulatory 

independence is very important to these people, so I think my travels are important. 

Senator BOXER. I am seriously interested. In the United Arab 

Emirates, do they have nuclear power there? What is the issue 

there you will be addressing in that country? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I hesitate to get into a lot of detail in an open 

session. Let me say that we are watching very closely as a new regulator is assembled. They have a lot of challenges. Some of them 

are cultural challenges. It is a good time for someone from the NRC 

to visit again to reinforce some of the messages about regulatory 

independence as they both assemble a new regulator and assemble 

nuclear power plants which are under construction. 

Senator BOXER. Independence from? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. From other policy issues. 

Senator BOXER. I don’t understand that but that is OK. Malaysia, what is happening over there? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. The same sort of thing. Malaysia is considering 

new nuclear power plants. They have a regulator that is in the 

process of being restructured. Our staff thinks it is a good time for 

an NRC commissioner to go and talk about issues such as regulatory independence. I was happy to try to do that. 

Senator BOXER. Japan, I think is good. Are you going to go and 

get a briefing on Fukushima? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I am actually planning to visit Fukushima again. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

Let me say this. I think that makes a lot of sense. Everybody 

makes a decision but I want to speak as someone who cares a lot 

about the safety at the San Onofre plant. You haven’t even seen 

the documents I gave to Mr. Ostendorff. There is so much to be 

done. 

Not one of the 12 recommendations has gone into place. The operator at San Onofre is asking for exemptions from all kinds of 

emergency planning when a fire was half a mile away. I need your 

leadership here. 

Maybe your leadership is more important in the United Arab 

Emirates but from my point of view, I am being honest here, you 

have a backlog. The Chairman couldn’t answer a lot of questions 

because she has to get back to me. I just hope you will consider 

this. 

In any event, I want to thank you all. I know these hearings are 

very difficult because you have made decisions, as the Chairman 

said, and you are done with looking at spent fuel, you voted. No, 

you are not done because we have oversight over you and it is uncomfortable. 

We are going to keep on doing it. I think this is our ninth since 

Fukushima and we are going to keep it up. 

280 

I want to thank all colleagues and we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS CARPER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

EPW Hearing: NRC’s Implementation of the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force 

Recommendations and other Actions to Enhance & Maintain Nuclear Safety. Thank 

you Chairman Boxer for holding this very important hearing. I want to welcome our 

witnesses and also congratulate Senator Whitehouse for taking the helm of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety. 

Just like Chairmen Boxer and Whitehouse, I am a firm believer that climate 

change is occurring and humans are the primary drivers of it because of our carbon 

pollution. But you don’t have to take our word for it. The leading scientists of our 

time agree. Last month, a team of more than 300 climate scientists issued the third 

National Climate Assessment Report. It is the most comprehensive study on the impact of climate change on the United States. The report finds clear correlation between human influence, predominantly the burning of fossil fuel, and increasing 

U.S. temperatures. 

The devastating consequences of climate change are too great for any of us to sit 

on the sidelines. It is with this potential future in mind that I applaud the EPA’s 

new Clean Power Plan to cut carbon emissions from the nation’s existing power 

plants by 30 percent by 2030. This proposal moves our nation a step toward protecting our environment and our economy. But in order to meet the president’s carbon emission reduction goals, nuclear energy must be part of our energy mix. Without nuclear energy those goals will be nearly impossible to achieve. 

In recent years, we have seen the closure of several plants and face the potential 

retirement of up to 6 percent of our nuclear generation in the foreseeable future. 

According to the EPA, 6 percent of nuclear capacity is equal to avoiding releasing 

200 to 300 million metric tons of CO2 over a 10-year period. This is equivalent to 

the CO2 2 emissions of 25 million average family households. So, it is critical that 

we work together to ensure a safe and economically viable nuclear fleet. With nuclear power as part of our ‘‘all of the above’’ energy policy, we benefit from passing 

on cleaner air and a more hospitable climate to future generations. But to have nuclear energy in this country we must continue to have a safe nuclear fleet and have 

a strong, independent agency overseeing the industry. 

I welcome back the NRC Commissioners to this committee and look forward to 

hearing an update on recent safety concerns and actions. I look forward to working 

with all of you to ensure we continue to have a safe and efficient regulatory regime 

to keep this important industry alive as we move toward a cleaner energy future. 

Æ