U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

88–399 PDF 2014

OVERSIGHT OF NRC MANAGEMENT AND THE 

NEED FOR LEGISLATIVE REFORM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

ECONOMY 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 12, 2013 

Serial No. 113–110 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

Vice Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

Vice Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

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

Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 11 

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 12 

Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 13 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 14 

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

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 39 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 93 

WITNESSES

Allison M. Macfarlane, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................. 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 111 

Additional response to Ms. Capps ................................................................... 175 

Additional response to Mr. Scalise .................................................................. 197 

Kristine L. Svinicki, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ............... 40 

Prepared statement 1

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 201 

George Apostolakis, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................ 41 

Prepared statement 1

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 216 

William D. Magwood IV, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........ 41 

Prepared statement 1

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 229 

William C. Ostendorff, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........... 43 

Prepared statement 1

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 249 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter of November 21, 2013, from Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Shimkus to Ms. 

Macfarlane, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ............................................................. 3 

Letter of December 9, 2013, from Ms. Macfarlane to Mr. Whitfield, submitted 

by Mr. Shimkus .................................................................................................... 8 

Chart, ‘‘Average Fleet Implementation Cost Compared to NRC Estimates,’’ 

submitted by Mr. Griffith .................................................................................... 70 

Chart, ‘‘Nuclear Regulatory Timeline (Typical—4 Unit Fleet),’’ submitted by 

Mr. Scalise ............................................................................................................ 74 

Chart, ‘‘Nuclear Regulatory Initiatives and Impacts—with Fukushima,’’ submitted by Mr. Scalise ........................................................................................... 76 

Chart, ‘‘Average Fleet Implementation Cost Compared to NRC Estimates,’’ 

submitted by Mr. Scalise ..................................................................................... 78 

1Ms. Svinicki, Mr. Apostolakis, Mr. Magwood, and Mr. Ostendorff did not submit prepared 

statements. Ms. Macfarlane submitted a statement on behalf of the Commission. 

Page

VI 

Chart, ‘‘Nuclear Reactor Safety Budget and Total Licensing Actions and 

Tasks, 2005–2014,’’ submitted by Mr. Johnson ................................................. 83 

Graph, ‘‘Spending on Selected Cost Categories (Utilities),’’ Electric Utility 

Cost Group, submitted by Mr. Johnson ............................................................. 85 

H.R. 3132, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reorganization Plan Codification and Complements Act, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ................................... 94 

Report, dated June 6, 2011, ‘‘NRC Chairman’s Unilateral Decision To Terminate NRC’s Review of DOE Yucca Mountain Repository License Application,’’ Office of the Inspector General, submitted by Mr. Shimkus 2

2 Internet link to the report is available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/ 

IF/IF03/20131212/101584/HHRG-113-IF03-20131212-SD002.pdf. 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF NRC MANAGEMENT AND THE 

NEED FOR LEGISLATIVE REFORM 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY, 

JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:14 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus 

(chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy) 

presiding. 

Members present from the Subcommittee on Environment and 

the Economy: Representatives Shimkus, Gingrey, Murphy, Harper, 

Bilirakis, Johnson, and DeGette. 

Members present from the Subcommittee on Energy and Power: 

Representatives Whitfield, Scalise, Hall, Pitts, Terry, Burgess, 

Olson, McKinley, Gardner, Kinzinger, Griffith, Barton, McNerney, 

Tonko, Engel, Green, Capps, Barrow, Christensen, Castor, Dingell, 

and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Charlotte Baker, 

Press Secretary; Matt Bravo, Professional Staff Member; Allison 

Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power; Annie Caputo, Professional Staff Member; Vincent Esposito, Fellow, Nuclear Programs; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy and Power; 

David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and the Economy; 

Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff Member; Chris Sarley, Policy 

Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Jeff Baran, Democratic Senior Counsel; Alison Cassady; Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member; Greg Dotson, Democratic 

Staff Director, Energy and Environment; and Ryan Skukowski, 

Democratic Staff Assistant. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Welcome everyone. I would like to call the hearing 

to order, and I would like to welcome the Commission here again. 

And I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

We are holding this hearing today to conduct oversight of the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consider H.R. 3132, Chairman 

2 

Terry’s bill, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reorganization 

Plan Codification and Complements Act. 

[H.R. 3132 appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

The NRC’s role in protecting public health and safety, and the 

environment, is a vital one, and we take our oversight responsibility very seriously. 

Thank you, Commissioners, for making yourselves available 

today. 

Earlier this year, August 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit granted a Writ of Mandamus stating 

that, and I quote, ‘‘the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must 

promptly continue with the legally mandated licensing process’’ for 

Yucca Mountain. Yet, it wasn’t until November 18, 3 months later, 

that the Commission finally issued an order directing the staff to 

proceed and resume the license review. While I largely agree with 

the Commission’s Order, I question why it took so long, and why 

some key budget and schedule information is still missing. Given 

the Commission’s history on this topic, I wondered if the NRC was 

dragging its feet on the issue, or if is this is just the NRC’s normal 

pace of operation. As it turns out, the NRC seems to be losing its 

schedule discipline in a number of areas like new plant licensing, 

license extensions and power uprate reviews, just to name a few. 

And that seems odd given the growth of the NRC’s budget and personnel over the past 10 years, the reduced number of operating reactors and the decrease in material licensees, and with the withdrawal of many new plant licenses. So on November 21, Mr. 

Whitfield and I sent you a letter asking for information—for more 

information to help the committee understand how the growth in 

your budget and decreased workload has not fostered timelier decisionmaking. At this time, I would like to ask that it be included 

in the hearing record together with the NRC’s response. Without 

objections, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

3 


88399.001
4 


88399.002
5 


88399.003
6 


88399.004
7 


88399.005
8 


88399.006
9 


88399.007
10 


88399.008
11 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Going forward, I will work with Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield to bring greater scrutiny of 

the NRC’s abilities to manage its workload and to make decisions 

in a timely fashion. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

We are holding this hearing today to conduct oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission and to consider H.R. 3132, Chairman Terry’s bill: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reorganization Plan Codification and Complements Act. The 

NRC’s role in protecting public health and safety and the environment is a vital one 

and we take our oversight responsibility very seriously. Thank you, Commissioners, 

for making yourselves available today. 

Earlier this year, on August 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted a writ of mandamus stating that ‘‘.the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission must promptly continue with the legally mandated licensing process’’ 

for Yucca Mountain. Yet it wasn’t until November 18, three months later, that the 

commission finally issued an order directing the staff to proceed and resume the license review. While I largely agree with the commission’s order, I question why it 

took so long and why some key budget and schedule information is still missing. 

Given the commission’s history on this topic, I wondered if the NRC was dragging 

its feet on this issue or if this is just the NRC’s normal pace of operation. As it turns 

out, the NRC seems to be losing its schedule discipline in a number of areas like 

new plant licensing, license extensions, and power uprate reviews just to name a 

few. 

That seems odd given the growth in the NRC’s budget and personnel over the 

past 10 years, the reduced number of operating reactors, the decrease in materials 

licenses, and the withdrawal of many new plants licenses. 

So on November 21, Mr. Whitfield and I sent you a letter asking for more information to help the committee understand how the growth in your budget and decreased workload HAS NOT fostered timelier decision-making. At this time, I’d like 

to ask that it be included in the hearing record together with the NRC’s response. 

Going forward, I will work with Chairmen Upton and Whitfield to bring greater 

scrutiny of the NRC’s ability to manage its workload and to make decisions in a 

timely fashion. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And with that, I would like to yield the balance 

of my time to Congressman Terry from Nebraska. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The independence of the nuclear safety regulator is paramount. 

This is one of the primary reasons why the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission is comprised of five Commissioners, not a single administrator. In 1980, during consideration of how best to reorganize 

the NRC, one Congressman raised concerns about how tipping the 

balance of power too far in favor of the Chairman could have drastic consequences. 

I am going to quote Democratic Congressman Toby Moffett from 

his testimony before the Senate Government Affairs Committee: 

‘‘There will be two situations in the future, those where the Chairman is in basic agreement with the majority, then those where he 

or she is not. In those cases where the Chairman has a majority 

of Commissioners with or—with him or her, it is obvious that the 

Chairman will not need the extraordinary powers tucked away in 

his plan to work his or her will. The Chairman and the Commission can move in unison towards their chosen regulatory policy.’’ 

Continuing, ‘‘But what about the other situation where the ChairVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-11~1\113-11~1 WAYNE
12 

man is in the minority, regardless of party affiliation within the 

Commission, when the majority of the Commissioners oppose the 

Chairman? Isn’t it equally obvious that it will be at that moment 

that these special powers will be most appealing to the Chairman? 

Isn’t it clear that if these powers are ever to be needed and utilized 

at all, it is precisely by a Chairman bent on going against the majority of the Commissioners?’’ During—end quote and end of his 

statement. During the previous chairmanship, we witnessed the 

turmoil that Mr. Moffett foresaw, turmoil that was documented at 

length by the NRC’s Inspector General. While I know we are all 

glad to see the Commission functioning collegially as it is now and 

should be, it is incumbent upon us as legislators to do what we can 

to prevent this type of turmoil from recurring in the future. That 

concern is what prompted me to draft this bill, developed in large 

part from the Inspector General’s conclusions and with the advice 

and counsel of the NRC itself. And I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. Is any member on the majority side seeking the last minutes? Without that, 

then I will turn to Ranking Member Mr. Tonko for a 5-minute 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. And thank you to our participants at the witness table. It is 

great to have you before the committee. 

We have quite a full roster of potential issues during the course 

of this hearing. Among these is the bill to amend the reorganization plan that lays out the structure and authorities of the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, and defines the roles of the Chair, the 

Commissioners and the NRC staff, that being H.R. 3132, which is 

offered by—authored by our colleague, Mr. Terry. 

The nuclear power industry and the electric power sector in general are experiencing a number of significant changes, the low price 

and ready availability of natural gas is good news. Good news in 

many respects. But it is shifting the balance amongst different 

types of power generation. We have discussed the impacts on coal, 

but this is dynamic—but this dynamic has implications for nuclear 

power as well. Our nuclear fleet is aging. Several plants are to be 

decommissioned. Some are being relicensed. Construction is underway on several new plants. And as many members of this committee have noted, significant challenges with the permanent storage of nuclear waste are still with us. 

In addition, the tragic situation at the Fukushima plant in Japan 

has reawakened some public concerns about nuclear power. These 

are all very important items and each worthy of examination on 

their own. And our subcommittee has focused on some of these in 

previous hearings. 

In light of these important ongoing activities overseen by the 

Commission, I am skeptical of the need for H.R. 3132. The bill does 

not appear to address any real problems. And some of its provisions may indeed create new ones. The primary responsibility of 

the Commission is ultimately to ensure that the fleet of nuclear 

power plants is operating safely, and that nuclear materials are acVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-11~1\113-11~1 WAYNE
13 

counted for and handled safely. There is no room for error. The 

public will not tolerate mishaps or accidents. And maintaining public safety and public confidence are essential if we are to continue 

to rely on nuclear power. 

So as we proceed to consider H.R. 3132, that is the lens that we 

should use to examine the merits of this legislation. Quick, speedy 

response is often times called for. In addition to the central focus 

on safety, I would observe that reorganizations may at times be 

productive and useful exercises, but they divert time and attention 

away from the main mission of any organization undertaking this 

task. 

Again, I am skeptical—skeptical, Mr. Cole, that such a diversion 

would be beneficial given the other important matters before this 

Commission. I understand that in the recent past, the working relationship among Commissioners was not good. That is a concern. 

But there are ways short of rewriting the Commission’s operating 

rules to handle that type of problem. And, apparently, the problems 

have been resolved. 

I believe that we should concentrate our efforts on solving problems that truly require a legislative solution. I am not convinced 

that H.R. 3132 can pass that test. 

Thank you, Chairman Macfarlane and Commissioners Svinicki, 

Apostolakis, Magwood and Ostendorff for being here this morning. 

I appreciate the important work that you do. I look forward to your 

testimony and to our discussion this morning. And I would like to 

make available my remaining time. I yield to the gentleman from 

California, Mr. McNerney. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Tonko. And I thank the 

chairman for holding the hearing. 

In addition to providing oversight for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, we are here to discuss H.R. 3132, Mr. Terry’s bill, to 

modify NRC’s organizational structure and internal procedures. I 

do appreciate my colleague and friend’s efforts on this. But I do 

have some concerns. Mr. Tonko already mentioned those concerns, 

which lead to the ability of the Commission to respond in emergency situations. I am afraid that the bill would hamper that. And 

I hope to hear whether that is confirmed or not by the members 

of the Commission this morning. 

Another issue of the NRC’s purview is nuclear waste facilities include Yucca Mountain. We heard from Secretary Moniz in July 

that he believes a consent based citing process makes sense. That 

is important in terms of public support for particular project. I 

agree wholeheartedly. We need to be able to discuss and address 

safe technologies for transfer and storage of nuclear materials as 

well. All of these issues are important for any nuclear project that 

may occur in the future. And we should take every effort to make 

sure that they are addressed as we go forward. 

My time is expired. 

14 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman 

yields back. The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the Energy 

and Air Quality Committee, Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus. And I also want 

to thank you, Chairwoman Macfarlane and other members of the 

Commission, for being with us today. And we certainly appreciate 

the important work that you are involved in. 

I would like to just point out that we attempted to set up this 

hearing beginning in August. And I know everyone has very busy 

schedules. But I hope that your Chief of Staff will work with us in 

the future. Ms. Macfarlane, I know that we had set some dates 

that were not agreeable to all the Commissioners, and your staff 

got back to us, suggested a date in which we were not even in session. And as I said, I know we all have very busy schedules. But 

I hope that we can work together to facilitate these hearings. 

Also, I read recently that Senator Boxer was being very critical 

of the travel budget for the Commission. And I would say that I 

think it is vitally important that you all do adequate travel, because I think the expertise that we have in the U.S. on nuclear 

issues and nuclear safety is better than any place else in the world. 

So I think it is important that we continue to share our expertise. 

And if—I would also say that if Senator Boxer is concerned about 

the travel budget, I can’t imagine what she must be thinking about 

the fact that we spent $14 or $15 billion on Yucca Mountain and 

it is still not open. And then on top of that, the judgments against 

the Federal Government for not being able to take that waste, 

and—but, obviously, since Fukushima, you all have been very 

much focused on safety issues, as you should, because we want to 

ensure the American people that nuclear energy is safe and that 

we need nuclear energy. We must have it. But I do believe that additional regulatory costs should be justified by real safety benefits. 

Chairman Shimkus mentioned in a letter in November that we 

sent, we point out that the NRC staffing has grown 29 percent over 

the past 10 years. And the fees recovered from licensees and, 

hence, their customers, has increased 58 percent. As we examine 

this further, we also found in its annual review of the industry’s 

long term safety trends, the NRC reported it has not identified any 

statistically significant adverse trends in the industry safety performance. And that is commendable. And we are all pleased with 

that. But in spite of that, there are 58 new regulations pending. 

And then the NRC received applications for 28 new reactors. Licenses were issued to build 4, and licenses for 16 reactors have 

been withdrawn or suspended. Yet, the NRC continues to cite 

budget constraints and delay in their reviews. So I do agree with 

Chairman Shimkus that there seems to be an apparent disconnect 

between the growth of the NRC’s resources and what appears as 

a declining workload. 

Yet, we look forward to your comments today on the issues that 

you deem important. And we certainly look forward to the opportunity to ask some questions, and certainly look forward to hear— 

15 

work with you as we move forward. And so I—Mr. Barton—I yield 

the balance of my time to Mr. Barton. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

The NRC’s role in protecting public health and safety and the environment is a 

vital one: one that I strongly support and one that should be adequately funded. 

However, as I’ve pointed out to you all in the last two appearances before our subcommittees and in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident, I firmly believe 

that any additional regulatory costs should be justified by real safety benefits. I 

urge you all to remember that the costs of regulatory changes are ultimately born 

by consumers. 

Also, as Chairman Shimkus and I recently pointed out in a November letter, the 

NRC’s staffing has grown 29 percent over the past 10 years and the fees recovered 

from licensees, and hence their customers, has increased 58 percent. As we examined this further, we also found: 

• In its annual review of the industry’s long-term safety trends, the NRC reported 

it has not identified ‘‘any statistically significant adverse trends in industry safety 

performance’’. Yet there are 56 regulations pending. 

• NRC received applications for 28 new reactors. Licenses were issued to build 

four, and licenses for 16 reactors have been withdrawn or suspended. Yet, the NRC 

cites budget constraints and delays their reviews. 

So, I agree with Chairman Shimkus that there seems to be an apparent disconnect between the growth in the NRC’s resources and what appears as a declining 

workload. We believe these concerns warrant more scrutiny and I expect to delve 

deeper into these issues going forward. 

Mr. BARTON. I appreciate that. Welcome to the Commission, and 

I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So the gentleman yields back his time. The minority has asked me that when Ranking Member Waxman shows up 

that I allow him to do his opening statement, which I will allow 

him to do. I think the same courtesy will be given for Chairman 

Upton if he were to show. There are competing hearings. So we 

want to welcome the Commission. 

Part of the challenge is always getting the pronunciations of the 

names right. So with us today is Chairman Macfarlane, Commissioner Svinicki. And if I am the butcher, let me know. Commissioner Apostolakis, Commissioner Magwood—probably the easiest 

one—and Commissioner Ostendorff. So for my colleagues, we will 

try to get that right without too much challenges. 

And now, just welcome. You all will get a chance to do a 5- 

minute opening statement. Your written testimony is on file. 

We will start with Chairman Macfarlane. You are recognized for 

5 minutes. Thank you and welcome. 

16 

STATEMENTS OF ALLISON M. MACFARLANE, CHAIRMAN, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, 

COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; 

GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS, COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD IV, COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; AND WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

STATEMENT OF ALLISON MACFARLANE 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Good morning. Is this on? Yes. Good. OK. 

Morning, Chairman Whitfield, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko and distinguished members of the subcommittees. 

My colleagues and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 

you today on behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

The NRC continues to have a full plate of regulatory responsibilities from the operation and decommissioning of reactors to nuclear 

materials, waste and security. 

The Commission continues to function effectively and collegially. 

Today, I would like to share a few highlights of our accomplishments and challenges. 

The safe and secure operation of the NRC’s licensed facilities and 

materials remains our top priority. The vast majority, as Chairman 

Whitfield noted, of operating reactors in the United States are performing well, while a few warrant enhanced oversight to ensure 

their safe and secure operation. Construction of the new units at 

the Vogtle and V.C. Summer sites is well underway under rigorous 

NRC inspection. Construction also continues at Watts Bar Unit 2, 

and the staff is currently working toward an operating licensing 

decision for that plant in December 2014. We are also anticipating 

submittal of the first design certification applications for small 

modular reactors next year. 

This year, several reactors have shut down or announced their 

decision to cease operations. At these plants—as these plants transition from operation to decommissioning, the NRC will adjust its 

oversight accordingly and ensure the next steps are safely addressed while keeping the public informed. The NRC has acted expeditiously to comply with the August 13, 2013, DC Circuit Court 

of Appeals decision directing us to resume review of the Yucca 

Mountain license application. The Commission carefully reviewed 

feedback from participants to the adjudicatory proceeding, and 

budget information from the NRC’s staff. And on November 18, the 

Commission issued an order directing the staff to, among other 

things, complete the Safety Evaluation Report for the Department 

of Energy’s Yucca Mountain construction authorization application. 

The project planning and building of the technical capability at 

the NRC is now underway. I must note that on several matters related to our review of DOE’s Yucca Mountain license application, 

my colleagues and I may not be able to comment due to pending 

Motions before the Commission and indications that participants to 

the adjudication may seek further relief in Federal court. 

The NRC also continues to make progress in its waste confidence 

work. The proposed temporary storage rule and draft generic environmental impact statement are out for public comment until DeVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-11~1\113-11~1 WAYNE
17 

cember 20. We have conducted 13 public meetings in 10 States to 

get feedback and address questions. To date, the Agency has received over 30,000 public comments. 

In the interim, the NRC continues to review all affected license 

applications. But we will not make a final licensing decision dependent upon the waste confidence decision until the Court’s remand has been fully addressed. We continue to address lessons 

learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident and implement appropriate regulatory enhancements. Among other things, licensees 

have purchased and emplaced backup equipment at reactor sites, 

installed supplemental flood barriers and pumps to mitigate extensive flooding, and are developing plans to install hardened vents 

and improved spent fuel pool instrumentation. 

We are also making progress on several important rule makings. 

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

industry from the day-to-day nuclear safety priorities. The highest 

priority safety enhancements will be implemented by 2016. The 

NRC has held more than 150 public meetings to get input on our 

Fukushima work and share progress. The NRC managed the fiscal 

year 2013 sequestration cuts such that they did not adversely impact the Agency’s ability to carry out normal operations. However, 

if sequestration continues in 2014, it will negatively impact our research, new reactor work and nonemergency licensing activities, 

among other responsibilities. 

The recent government shutdown also had a detrimental impact 

on the NRC’s operations. The Agency’s safety and security mission, 

including ongoing inspection at our licensees’ facilities and emergency response capabilities, was never in jeopardy. Furthermore, 

with prudent use of carryover resources, we were able to limit the 

impact of the shutdown relative to other agencies. This said, even 

a 4-day furlough of 93 percent of our staff cost the Agency more 

than $10 million in lost productivity. 

While we have accomplished a great deal, many challenges are 

still ahead for the NRC. I am confident that we will be able to address these and other issues in the coming months. I would be 

pleased now to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Macfarlane follows:] 

18 


88399.009
19 


88399.010
20 


88399.011
21 


88399.012
22 


88399.013
23 


88399.014
24 


88399.015
25 


88399.016
26 


88399.017
27 


88399.018
28 


88399.019
29 


88399.020
30 


88399.021
31 


88399.022
32 


88399.023
33 


88399.024
34 


88399.025
35 


88399.026
36 


88399.027
37 


88399.028
38 


88399.029
39 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Chairman. Now, we would like to 

pause for a second to allow our Ranking Member Waxman to give 

his opening statement. Mr. Waxman, you are recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize 

for being late. The other subcommittee that is meeting at the same 

time started late. So I am here, and I wanted to thank you and especially, Chairman Macfarlane and her fellow Commissioners for 

being here today. 

I want to use my opening remarks to comment on a really bad 

idea. That is the bill that we will be examining today. The bill includes a laundry list of changes to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s internal procedures that dredge up old disputes that the 

Commission has already worked through. After the Three Mile Island melt down in 1979, Congress and the Carter administration 

recognized the importance of centralized emergency authority in 

the event of a domestic nuclear crisis. The Reorganization Plan of 

1980 addressed this concern and established the basic responsibilities of the Chairman and the Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

The Terry bill purports to codify the Reorganization Plan. But it 

actually rescinds the plan and ignores a key lesson learned from 

the Three Mile Island: that the United States needs a single, clear 

decision maker during a nuclear emergency. The bill takes exactly 

the opposite approach by undermining the Chairman’s authority in 

a crisis. It requires the NRC Chairman to involve other Commissioners in emergency decisions. The bill even prevents the Chairman from taking any emergency actions until she notifies the four 

Commissioners, two Congressional committees, and the general 

public that she has declared an emergency. 

I think that is a troublesome idea. If a nuclear meltdown is happening at a U.S. reactor, we don’t need a bureaucracy. We need the 

Chair to act quickly and decisively. We should not require her to 

call a host of Commissioners and members of Congress, along with 

the NRC’s Web site administrator or public affairs office, before exercising emergency authority. The impact of this bill could be truly 

disastrous in a nuclear crisis. 

And that is not the only troubling change in the bill. Not long 

ago, the Commission was struggling with a nasty, personal conflict. 

While the Commission seems to have moved past that discord 

under the leadership of Chairman Macfarlane, Mr. Terry, the committee Republicans, can’t seem to let it go. The Terry bill would 

stir the pot by reopening past disputes. We need the NRC focused 

on nuclear safety, not constantly rewriting its internal procedures. 

The effect of virtually every proposed change in the bill is to shift 

authority from the NRC Chair to the other Commissioners. It even 

would mandate that the Commissioners complain to the President 

and Congress about any perceived violations of the bill’s requirements by the Chair. That is not likely to encourage continued 

collegiality. 

40 

There is one NRC internal procedure that is not addressed by the 

Terry bill but that should be changed. The Commission recently revised its policy for how it handles a Congressional request for nonpublic documents. Previously, NRC provided documents requested 

by the Agency’s oversight committees, as well as individual members on those committees or with nuclear facilities in their districts. Under the new policy, NRC will not provide nonpublic documents to individual members, and may withhold sensitive documents from chairmen and ranking members as well. I think this 

is a misguided and dangerous policy. If Mrs. Capps wants to see 

a document related to Diablo Canyon, she should get it. If Mr. 

Terry wants information about Fort Calhoun, he should get it. This 

is not a partisan issue. It is about the institutional oversight responsibilities of this committee and its members. And I encourage 

all five Commissioners to rethink this flawed policy. And I look forward to further discussing this issue today. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy. And I have to apologize in advance, because I have to be at another subcommittee at 

the same time as this subcommittee. And cloning has not advanced 

sufficiently for me to be at both places at once. But I will be back 

and forth as much as possible. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. I am sure a 

lot of people are glad that you are not able to be cloned yet, Mr. 

Waxman. So—we will miss you, though. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So am I. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I am sure Mr. Terry appreciates your ability 

to comment on his bill. So with that, we turn back to the Commissioners. Again, welcome. Commissioner Svinicki, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Waxman, Ranking Member 

Tonko and members of the subcommittees for the opportunity to 

appear before you today at this oversight hearing on NRC management and the potential need for legislative reform. 

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 of protecting public health 

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

Nation. The circumstances in which we find ourselves carrying out 

this mission require constant adaptation of our approaches. 

This point was communicated very directly last month in a message sent from NRC’s senior career official, the Executive Director 

for Operations, Mark Satorius, to all NRC Agency employees. His 

message was as follows. ‘‘Our future is likely to be dynamic and 

unpredictable. And the Agency will need to remain highly flexible 

and agile as we respond to new events and external pressures. We 

will need to continually evaluate the work we are doing, give careful consideration as to how best to use resources, and remain focused on safety and security.’’ I agree with Mr. Satorius’s statement. 

41 

As an organization which embraces the precepts of continuous 

learning, the NRC consistently seeks to improve its internal organizational effectiveness. As a member of this Commission, I will work 

with my Commission colleagues and the NRC staff to support the 

Agency’s assessment of how we can accomplish our work efficiently 

and effectively with the circumstances and factors we face today. 

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

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

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

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

Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and look 

forward to questions. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Commissioner Apostolakis. And you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 

Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, Chairman Whitfield, 

Ranking Member Rush and distinguished members of the subcommittees. 

Today, I would like to offer a few comments on the issue of cumulative effects of regulation. The Agency is addressing concerns 

about cumulative effects of regulation in several ways. For example, the NRC staff has implemented enhancements to our rule 

making process. These enhancements include the concurrent publication of guidance with proposed and final rules, as well as a specific solicitation of public comment on cumulative effects when the 

Agency publishes proposed rules. 

Aside from the rule making enhancements, the NRC staff has 

also been receptive to industry proposals for adjustments to implementation schedules for post-Fukushima actions when justified. 

In addition, in February of this year, the Commission directed 

the NRC staff to develop options for allowing licensees to prioritize 

the implementation of regulatory actions as an integrated set and 

in a way that reflects their risk significance on a plant specific 

basis. The NRC staff and industry representatives are currently exploring, in public meetings, the idea of piloting this proposal. The 

rationale behind this initiative is, first, that nuclear power plant 

risk is very site specific and, second, that focusing on just one area 

of regulation, such as post-Fukushima safety enhancements, ignores other important safety significant work that the Agency is 

doing, such as fire protection. 

In closing, the NRC remains keenly focused on its core safety 

and security mission, and is utilizing our resources in a way that 

will have the greatest impact on improving safety. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Commissioner Magwood for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD IV 

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

Shimkus, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Tonko. It is a 

pleasure to appear before you today. We appreciate your oversight, 

42 

even when the questions are hard, because we think it is very important that we have a chance to share our thoughts about these 

important issues. 

Chairman Macfarlane’s written and oral comments capture the 

full range of the activities that we have underway, so I won’t dwell 

on that. But as you can see, it has been a very, very busy time for 

the NRC. 

We have made considerable progress in a wide range of areas in 

recent years, including dealing with low-level waste issues, updating radiation protection standards, licensing the first new nuclear 

power plant since the 1970s. However, to this day, most public 

Congressional attention has been placed in response to the disaster 

at Fukushima Daiichi. 

Since March 2011, the NRC has learned very important lessons 

from this tragedy. And it has taken clear and appropriate action 

to enhance U.S. nuclear safety. We have kept our pledge to neither 

overreact nor under-react to the events in Japan. And I think we 

have gotten it just about right. 

At the same time, U.S. nuclear energy has also absorbed the lessons of Fukushima and has responded with strategies that, once 

fully implemented, could provide safety benefits that are actually 

beyond our regulatory requirements. 

Perhaps more importantly, the mindset of our licensees have 

changed in the face of Fukushima. Two months ago, all of the Chief 

Nuclear Officers of the U.S. nuclear utilities traveled to Japan as 

a group to inspect the Fukushima site and talk with those who 

managed the disaster. The personal insights they gained on this 

trip may have benefits far beyond anything that we can regulate. 

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

post-Fukushima activities into our normal work and prioritize it 

appropriately. Doing so will require us to understand how to manage the preparation for low probability extreme events in concert 

with the enduring need to protect against much more likely accident scenarios. Commissioner Apostolakis’ comments this morning 

point to an initiative that we have undertaken that will help in 

that direction. 

But this is a big challenge. And the steps that we have taken in 

its face will have significant and far reaching implications for many 

years to come. As we strive to meet these challenges, the NRC will 

have, as always, the benefit of the very talented NRC staff, and to 

have the experienced people who lead them. Since we last appeared 

before this committee, the Commissioners appointed a new Executive Director of Operations, Mark Satorius, and a new General 

Counsel, Margie Doan. Both have already had a very strong positive impact on the Agency, and I look forward to continuing to 

work with them. 

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

this morning. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner 

Ostendorff, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

43 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Chairman 

Whitfield, Ranking Member Tonko, members of the committee, for 

the chance to be before you today. 

The NRC continues to effectively fulfill its safety oversight role 

by ensuring the proper safe operation of our nearly 100 operating 

reactors and the five reactors under construction across the country. As a learning organization, the NRC is always seeking to leverage operating experience. And as a result, we continue to evaluate 

the lessons learned from Fukushima, and as noted by the Chairman, initiate safety improvements where appropriate. I am very 

confident in the decisions the NRC has made to date in this area, 

and I believe the Commission is functioning properly as a body as 

intended by Congress and the administration. 

Others have already talked about the waste confidence remand. 

I won’t address that. I will talk very briefly about the Yucca Mountain licensing process. I think the November 18 order issued by the 

Commission reflected very careful thought and deliberation 

amongst these five Commissioners at this table. I think there is a 

very solid order that was put out here less than a month ago. I expect that we will have sufficient funds to complete the Safety Evaluation Reports, which I believe are important. And we will continue to keep this committee informed of those activities as we go 

forward on monthly reports. 

I would also note that many nuclear power plants in this country 

today are operating under challenging and different economic conditions than in the past. Potentially costly repairs and the low price 

of natural gas have led to the permanent shutdown of four nuclear 

power plants this year. And Vermont Yankee announced they will 

shutdown next year because they are no longer economically viable. 

Interest in new reactors, as a matter of fact, is also waning in the 

current economic climate. 

That said, the NRC will remain vigilant to ensure that plants 

continue to be operating safely, and will provide appropriate oversight for decommissioning activities. As others at this table have 

noted, we are also looking at the changing demands in our workload, and we have responsibility to ensure that our staff is appropriately right sized. 

I appreciate this hearing, the committee’s oversight roSle, and I 

look forward to your questions. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Commissioner. And now I would like 

to recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening set of questions. 

Because—Commissioner Apostolakis, because of your recusal, I am 

not going to ask you to respond to this series of questions, because 

they are basically all in direction to Yucca Mountain. So we will 

go with Chairman Macfarlane, and then from my left to right on 

the answering of the questions. 

Pursuant to your duties as Commissioner, will you make every 

effort to fully and faithfully comply with the law, yes or no, Chairman? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Of course, I will make every effort to comply 

with the law. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. 

44 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Absolutely. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The DC Circuit reaffirmed in its August 13 decision that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and I quote, ‘‘provides that 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’’—and on their quotation 

marks—‘‘‘shall consider’ the Department of Energy’s license application to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.’’ And again, subquotes, ‘‘‘shall issue a final decision approving or disapproving,’’’ 

closed sub-quotes, ‘‘the application.’’ Is that correct? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We are now in the process of—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, just a statement that this is the DC Court affirmed. And this is what they have affirmed that you will do. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The DC. Court affirmed that we would continue with the licensing process using the existing nuclear waste 

funds that we have. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Correct. So you agree with the statement from the 

Court? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that is—OK. Commissioner? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, I agree that the Court affirmed that. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I agree. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I agree. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. In its November 18 Order addressing the DC Circuit Court’s Writ of Mandamus, you all acknowledge that the NRC 

does not have sufficient funds to complete the license review and 

the issue of final decision, is that correct? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We do not have sufficient funds to complete 

the licensing review, that is correct. 

Ms. SVINICKI. The funds NRC has would be insufficient for making that decision. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. That is correct. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. That is correct. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. When an Agency is legally bound to implement a 

statutorily mandated action but finds it lacks sufficient resources, 

do you believe it is incumbent upon that Agency to request the 

funding necessary to comply? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Budget decisions are decisions of the Commission, and we will discuss them as a Commission. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So is that a yes or a no? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. That is budget decision, and a decision of the 

Commission, and we will—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Well, let me just ask it again, just so we understand the question. When an Agency is legally bound, as you all 

have agreed, to implement a statutorily mandated action, but finds 

that it lacks the sufficient resources, do you believe it is incumbent 

upon the Agency that is legally mandated by law that you would 

request the funding necessary to comply? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I believe we are complying with the law. We 

are complying with the Court’s decision now. And going forward, 

we will discuss any future budget decisions as a commission. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. All right. This is where I always get frustrated. So 

your response is that even though you are legally mandated to 

comply with the law, and you don’t have sufficient funds, you don’t 

45 

think it is incumbent upon you to request the needed funds to comply with the law? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think we can—we will discuss this as a commission and go forward with it—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Why don’t you just answer—it is the law. We are 

required to comply. And we need to add a request to fund that ability. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We will certainly comply with the law. And I 

will comply with the law. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Commissioner Svinicki? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, I believe that an Agency should formulate and 

request budgets that comply with the law. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thanks—Commissioner Magwood? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I think that we will formulate a budget that complies with the law. And we will consult with legal advice within the 

Agency and outside the Agency—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, it is really not a quick—I am not trying—it 

is not really a quick—trying to be tricky. It is just saying—and the 

budget may not get approved. It may not get presented forward. 

But the basic question is, if the law says you have got to comply, 

and you say we don’t have the money to comply, I don’t think it 

is a tough response to say and I will ask for the money I need to 

comply with the law. Commissioner Ostendorff? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I understand your frustration of the responses 

here, and this is a very challenging issue. As an individual Commissioner, I will have an opinion. As a member of the Commission, 

I will also work with my Commission colleagues here to my right. 

I think your question is directly with respect to the fiscal year 

2015, fiscal year 2016 budget process. Would we be requesting additional funds for the high level waste licensing? And I think that 

we have an obligation to follow the law. But I also note that this 

will be a Commission decision as to how we move forward with the 

budget request. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But the question is to you as an individual Commissioner. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. And my time is almost expired. Let me 

finish with this. As a statement, the NRC has not, as you noted, 

submitted a supplemental budget request to the Office of Management and Budget for additional nuclear waste funds based upon 

the November 21 letter that you sent to us. So my time is expired. 

I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, welcome. 

After the Three Mile Island accident, President Carter convened 

a commission to identify lessons learned in order to improve nuclear safety and ensure a more timely and effective response to nuclear emergencies. The panel concluded that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed a clear leader who accessed the Agency’s 

Chief Executive Officer. The panel also concluded that in a nuclear 

emergency, the country needs a single unified voice to take charge 

and make decisions. 

I am concerned that H.R. 3132 takes us backward and ignores 

these important lessons. The bill is at least a provision of the Reorganization Plan that consolidates emergency authority with the 

46 

Chair. Under the bill, the Chair may not exercise emergency authority unless, and until, the Chair satisfies two criteria. First, she 

must formally declare that a specific emergency exists. Second, before taking any action, she must notify the other 4 Commissioners, 

the relevant Congressional committees, and the general public. 

I can understand the benefit of a formal declaration. But if the 

Chair gets a call at 3 a.m. that a nuclear power plant is in meltdown, why would we require her first action to be calling her congressional affairs and public affairs staff, rather than calling for an 

evacuation? Chairman Macfarlane, do you think a requirement for 

you to notify this committee and the Senate before taking any 

emergency action in response to a nuclear crisis is appropriate? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think that the existing internal commission 

procedures on this issue are adequate. I believe that the Commission is operating collegially. And I think that no changes are needed at this time. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Should an action to respond directly to 

the crisis be the first item on your agenda? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No, I don’t believe so. 

Mr. TONKO. Let me ask the other Commissioners. Do any of you 

think that the Chair should have to put out a press release, or update the NRC Web site, to fulfill a public notice requirement before 

exercising emergency authority in an urgent situation when time 

is of the essence? Commissioner Svinicki? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Under our procedures, the Chairman heads an executive team that immediately begins to respond to the emergency. 

And I would just note that the NRC does not make the decision on 

evacuations. That is done by the Governor of the State in which the 

accident is occurring. 

Mr. TONKO. And, Commissioner Apostolakis? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. No. As you have pointed out, there was a very 

clear message from Three Mile Island: The Chair should be the decision maker during an accident. The last time with Fukushima, 

there were some issues that were raised regarding when the Commissioners were notified. The Chairman had assumed emergency 

powers. And, certainly, I don’t think that the Chairman should 

have to worry about notifying the other Commissioners when she 

is notified that there is an accident and action needs to be taken. 

At some point later, probably she would have to do that. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Commissioner Magwood? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I think Commissioner Apostolakis’ explanation is 

correct. I think it makes a great deal of sense to enable the Chairman to take immediate action in the face of an emergency. But I 

do also think that it is important that the Chairman, in appropriate time during the crisis, notify the Chairman’s colleagues that 

emergency powers have been declared, and the situation such as 

that exists to provide clarity. Because, quite frankly, when this was 

used previously, there was a long period of time where there was 

no clarity as to whether an emergency was actually declared or not. 

And that created a great deal of confusion within the Agency. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Commissioner Ostendorff? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I agree with Commissioner Magwood’s characterization. 

47 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Let me ask the other Commissioners. Do 

any of you think that the Chair should have to put out a press release or update the NRC Web site to fulfill a public notice requirement before exercising emergency authority in an urgent situation 

when time indeed is of the essence? Commissioner Svinicki? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I don’t believe a press release should be the highest priority item. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. No, she should not have to do that. 

Mr. TONKO. Commissioner? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. No, that should not be the first action. 

Mr. TONKO. And, Commissioner Ostendorff? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Not the first action. 

Mr. TONKO. H.R. 3132 also establishes a greater role for the 

Commissioners in an emergency. For example, the bill requires the 

Chair to consult with the full commission before taking any regulatory or policy actions during an emergency, as appropriate. And 

it elevates the involvement of all the Commissioners in making decisions that ‘‘may affect commission actions and policies beyond the 

response to a particular emergency.’’ That could be interpreted differently by different Commissioners and clouds the authority of the 

Chair. So, Chairman Macfarlane, during a nuclear emergency, 

would your time be better spent actually responding to the emergency, or engaging in discussions with your colleagues about 

whether a particular response might affect policy in the future? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Having personally practiced emergency drills 

with my NRC colleagues and staff, it is clear that time is of the 

essence and situations change rapidly. It is important to be able to 

be as responsive as quickly as possible. I would certainly, and have 

pledged before, to keep my colleagues informed to my best ability 

of all actions and the situation. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. I note my time has expired. So with that, 

I will yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, the 

chairman of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus. And thank you 

all for your opening statements and for, as I said earlier, being 

with us today. 

I am going to ask a question relating to a comment that I made 

in my opening statement, and that is about the—over the past 10 

years, the number of licensing actions and tasks have decreased by 

40 percent, and yet the nuclear safety budget has increased by 48 

percent. So you just look at those numbers, and I think a person 

could be quite critical of the Agency and say, oh, your responsibility’s going down, your budget is going up and the country has a 

debt now approaching $18 trillion. So I would just ask each of you 

individually, if you wouldn’t mind, just commenting briefly on—is 

criticism like this valid, or is there a valid reason for budgets to 

go up that much and the workload is going down? Chairman 

Macfarlane? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thank you. I would like to submit this for the 

record. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

48 

Ms. MACFARLANE. This is a chart of the budget, the NRC in actual dollars and in constant dollars from 2003 to this fiscal year 

2013. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. MACFARLANE. And I think you can see that—basically, if you 

look at the constant dollars, which is the correct comparison over 

time—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Ms. MACFARLANE [continuing]. That the budget now in 2013 is 

the lowest it has been since 2007. And in 2007, that was before we 

had Yucca Mountain, we had waste confidence and we had 

Fukushima. So I would argue we are doing now much more with 

less. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And what is the total budget for this year? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. In constant dollars, the total budget is—this 

is $671 million versus in 2007, it was $680 million. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So your—your position is then—in constant dollars, you are roughly the same or less—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Less, yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And the workload—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Is higher. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The workload is higher? 

Mr. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So even though applications and licensing actions are going down, the workload is higher—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And why is that? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The workload is higher because since 2007, at 

least, we have had the Yucca Mountain application. We have had 

waste confidence decision. And, of course, we have had the 

Fukushima accident, which has added to our workload quite significantly. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. Yes. And all of you agree with that assessment, I am assuming? Do you, Ms. Svinicki? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I would just note that there isn’t a direct correspondence between the budget amount and the number of industry generated items for review in front of us. We do have a number 

of constant activities that simply must be budgeted every year. 

Responding more generally to the criticism, you asked for a reaction to the criticism, I would say that as noted by members of the 

committee in their opening statements, this is clearly not the world 

in 2013 that NRC had the trajectory that we had been planning 

for. And so I do agree with Commissioner Ostendorff’s statement, 

it is appropriate for this Commission and for the Agency to be looking at the right sizing and the application of resources to activities. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. All right. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I think we attempt to do that on a pretty constant 

basis. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Thanks. And I am running out of time. I do 

want to ask another question. In your opening statement, Ms. 

Macfarlane, you referred to a modular reactor process, to start considering those. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Um-hum. 

49 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to ask each of you to comment just 

briefly on your view of the potential of modular reactors, and 

whether or not they can play an important role or not? Let us start 

with you, Chairman—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Sure. I think they are an interesting—very interesting innovation. And, you know, we will see—we are waiting 

for their applications. And I am very interested in seeing how this 

technology progresses. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Ms. Svinicki? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, our colleagues at the U.S. Department of Energy have the tough job of looking at the merits of the various innovations of the developers of this technology, because DOE has programs to fund some of the technology development. But we do expect, as a safety authority, to be receiving some designs for review. 

And we have worked hard to prepare the Agency to be ready to do 

those reviews. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Mr. Apostolakis? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Well, the industry is spending serious dollars 

in developing the designs of these reactors. So there must be potential there. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Mr. Magwood? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I honestly don’t know. I think I am—like many 

people, I am waiting to see. Because in the past, for small reactors, 

the challenge has never really been just technical. It has always 

been economic and financial. And until these products are on the 

market, they will be very difficult to know for sure. So I am waiting and seeing. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I will just comment, Chairman Whitfield, that 

I think we are ready as an Agency to receive the applications. We 

have probably done as—gone as far as we can, absent an actual license application in hand. We expect to get one the latter part of 

2014. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Macfarlane, I 

think you gave an answer to an earlier question that you may have 

intended another answer to give. Shouldn’t an action in response 

directly to a crisis be the first item on your agenda? Shouldn’t responding to a crisis be the first item—safety be the first item on 

your agenda? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. For—in the case—in the event of an 

emergency? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yes. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, of course. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Sorry. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Regarding nuclear waste, Ms. Macfarlane, is 

local public acceptance necessary for implementation of a nuclear 

waste disposal site? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think this is an area of discussion. The Blue 

Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future looked at this 

50 

issue. They said that consensus was an important piece of siting, 

that siting decisions weren’t just technical decisions, but they were 

also societal. I think if you look at the experience of other countries 

on this issue, ones that have been more successful recently, countries like Sweden and Finland and France, that—local consensus is 

important. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Good. Do you—does Yucca Mountain have local 

public acceptance? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It is not for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to judge that, I am afraid. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. That is fair enough. In November, Ms. 

Macfarlane, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District ruled that 

the Department of Energy can no longer collect the $750 million in 

annual waste disposal fees from nuclear operators. How is this ruling going to affect the NRC’s ability to develop nuclear waste storage sites? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. At the moment, it is not going to affect us at 

all. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. I am not sure which Commissioner to ask 

this question of, but how long would it take to get a license reviewed for a new nuclear waste—nuclear power plant design? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. For a new power plant design? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Right. Right. From scratch. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. From—a design certification? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Right. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It takes some months to a few years. But it 

depends in large part on the quality of the application. And if there 

are problems with the application, then we have a number of 

iterations with the applicant. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So when I hear horror stories—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. But maybe my colleagues would like to comment? 

VOICE. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. When I hear horror stories about how long it 

takes, 5 years or 10 years, that is likely to be due to some error— 

problems in the application? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. It does take that time, sometimes longer. But 

it is several years. Now, if there are new—really new designs like 

the small modular reactors, there will be several policy issues that 

will have to be resolved. So I really don’t know how long that will 

take. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. There is no such thing as the average case with 

these things. But on average, I would expect that a design certification is usually about a 3-year exercise. But to actually implement 

that, to build the plant, takes considerably longer. And it really depends on the situation. For example, if another applicant comes to 

build an AP1000 plant, which has already been certified and which, 

as you noted, was under construction, that would be a much shorter process than if someone came to us with a completely new design. So it depends on exactly what the application is. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Mr. Magwood, I appreciate your 

comment about the Commission’s challenge in balancing the potential for long—for low probability events versus the day-to-day 

51 

events that need constant attention. How does the Commission go 

about making those sort of decisions? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. We are working on that right now. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Mr. Apostolakis, one of the things 

you said was—and I think I am quoting it, the cumulative effects 

of regulation. That sounds like something out of Fox News. Could 

you clarify what you meant by that, please? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. We have—especially after the Fukushima accident and the regulations have started—well, started coming out of 

the Commission, there were a lot of complaints by the industry 

that we were issuing regulations without considering other regulations that they have to comply with. So each decision of the Commission is focused only on that particular regulation. And the industry wants the Commission to think about the cumulative effects. What is it that they have to do? Do they have the resources? 

Do they have the time? And is every single regulation or request 

by the NRC of equal importance? So that is where—that is the 

issue of cumulative effects of regulation, and the Commission has 

responded. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I didn’t know my colleague was a fan of Fox News. 

So the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairmans, in this joint hearing. 

I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the NRC can review a design application in a few months. You got three right now that 

have been under review for over 5 to 7 years. You might go back 

and try to whip those out before Christmas since it doesn’t take but 

a month or 2. I am going to ask Mr. Shimkus’ question a little bit 

different way. Since Yucca Mountain is back under review, and 

since all the Commission indicates that you don’t have the resources to complete the review process, anybody want to estimate 

about how much additional funding you might need? Ms. Svinicki, 

what is your guess on that? And that is not a trick question. I am 

just interested. 

Ms. SVINICKI. In order to assess and develop the order that we 

issued last month that restarted the licensing process, we did receive some input. I don’t want to say they have the full fidelity of 

a budget estimate, but we attempted to have submitted to us, both 

by the adjudicatory board and also the staff, some estimates for 

these activities. But I would not characterize to you, sir, that we 

have a complete current estimate for getting all the way to a final 

licensing decision. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. 

Ms. SVINICKI. We do know that restarting the adjudication would 

be a resource intensive activity. 

Mr. BARTON. I am not trying to be cute here. I want a general 

ballpark estimate. Are we talking about a few million, several hundred million, a billion? I mean, just some sort of order of magnitude? 

Ms. SVINICKI. For NRC’s activities alone, again this depends on 

how the Department of Energy is resourced to support our activities, because they are also a participant in this. It is very difficult 

for me to estimate the total dollars. Before activities were susVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-11~1\113-11~1 WAYNE
52 

pended, our budget requests for NRC were varying. They were approximately—in some years, they were very close to $100 million 

just for our review activities for a single year. That began to taper 

down a bit, I think closer to $50 million a year. Based on where 

it had been in previous years when the review was underway, I 

think your estimate of the hundreds of millions is probably in the 

area. That is very difficult to estimate. 

Mr. BARTON. That is good enough. Madam Chairwoman, has the 

Commission or the administration, if not the Commission, taken a 

position on Mr. Terry’s reform bill? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Has the Commission as a whole—no, it has 

not. 

Mr. BARTON. Do you have an opinion on his bill? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. My opinion is that—my personal opinion 

is that it is not necessary at this time, and it may have unintended 

consequences. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Any other Commissioner wish to give your 

opinions on his bill? You don’t have to, I am just interested. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I will comment, Congressman Barton. I think 

in July of last year, I responded to a QFR following a hearing to 

Chairman Shimkus, and just my position was that with Chairwoman Macfarlane here, the challenges we had as a Commission 

with the previous Chairman have gone away, that we are operating 

in an open collegial environment. So some of the issues and motivations behind the challenges we had have disappeared. But there 

are a couple of areas where there will be greater clarity on some 

aspects of Congressman Terry’s legislation. There are some aspects 

that I personally told Chairman Shimkus via my written response 

with clarification of the invocation of emergency powers, for instance, would benefit from greater clarity in the statute. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Good. My last question. The last time the Commission was here, I pointed out to the Chairman that you hadn’t 

given a report on the Fukushima accident. And you finally did 

issue a report last week. So that is the good news. The not-so-good 

news is there is still lots of things that the report didn’t address. 

I am just going to go through a very quick listing of what the staff 

has indicated to me was not addressed in the report. You didn’t address the fact that the U.S. has an independent regulator, yourself, 

and Japan does not. The U.S. has an institute of nuclear power operators to establish best management practices, Japan does not. 

The U.S. requires plant specific training, Japan does not. The U.S. 

requires severe accident management guidelines, Japan does not. 

The U.S. requires complex training scenarios, site specific, and 

Japan does not. The U.S. requires water level procedures for boiling water reactors, Japan does not. The U.S. requires site specific 

evaluation criteria, Japan does not. And the U.S. has a requirement for a design basic flood planning that Japan does not. Now, 

all these things that the U.S. does, we can give your Commission 

kudos for requiring that. That is a good thing. The fact that none 

of this was considered in your evaluation of the accident, my question to the Chairwoman, do you consider the report that was issued 

last week to be the final word, or do you agree with me that more 

work needs to be done? 

53 

Mr. MACFARLANE. The report that was issued last week noted 

that it wasn’t comprehensive. But it noted that there were similar 

design basis requirements between the U.S. and Japan prior to the 

accident, but that there were different approaches to beyond design 

basis events and severe accidents. At the same time, the report 

concluded that there was no evidence that a Fukushima-type accident would have been necessarily avoided in the U.S. And I go 

back to something Commissioner Ostendorff mentioned earlier, I 

think maybe in his opening statement, about the importance of operating experience. And in the nuclear industry, operating experience is essential. And from the accident, we learned that we had 

not taken into consideration a number of important issues. We had 

not, prior to that accident, considered that more than one reactor 

could melt down at the same time, for instance. There were a number of other issues that we did not consider. And I just want to 

point out that this is not something unique to the United States, 

to the NRC, that we discovered this. All other significant nuclear 

regulators around the world came to the same conclusions, and we 

are all implementing very similar changes as a result. 

Mr. BARTON. My time has expired. I would ask all the other 

Commissioners to answer that question in writing for the record, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection, all members will be allowed to 

follow-up this hearing with written questions. The Chair now recognizes our colleague from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen, for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, you know, 

thank you for holding this hearing. It is always important for the 

committee to exercise its oversight authority of this Commission as 

we did the FCC, but not to really interfere in the day-to-day decisionmaking of the Commission. 

I want to focus on the Terry bill for a moment, and it overhauls 

the respective responsibilities of the Chairman and Commissioners 

of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and essentially rewrites the 

Commission’s internal procedures. Chairwoman Macfarlane, do you 

think it is necessary or productive to have Congress rewriting the 

details of NRC’s internal Commission procedures? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think, as I said before, that the current internal Commission procedures are quite adequate and that we need 

to be careful in any kind of changes that are made to the emergency powers piece, because we don’t want any unintended consequences. We don’t want to go back to a pre-Three Mile Island 

kind of situation and structure at the NRC. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. And I note that the Commission 

spent 3 years debating and more than 1 year voting on its last revisions in internal procedures. Many of the issues raised by the 

Terry bill were worked out by the Commissioners themselves— 

yourselves in 2011. So I don’t really understand why we would 

want to reopen disputes that have really already been resolved by 

the Commission. The bill would set inflexible deadlines the Commission is to vote on atomic safety and licensing board reviews. 

The Commission’s current decisions do not set rigid deadlines and 

allow for extensions for Commissioners who need additional time to 

reach a decision. So, Chairlady Macfarlane, do you think it is—it 

54 

makes sense to have strict voting deadlines without the possibility 

of extensions? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well, the NRC is an adjudicatory body. The 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is an adjudicatory body. And 

some of the cases that they receive are quite complex, both technically and legally. And sometimes they take quite awhile to resolve. I know of no other court or adjudicatory body that has statutory time limits—that operates under statutory time limits. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. And right now, the NRC Chair develops a budget and presents it to the Commission for its review 

and approval. Under the bill, NRC staff would present the budget, 

not the Chairman. So again, Chairwoman Macfarlane, do you think 

it makes sense to strip the NRC Chairman of the responsibility to 

present an annual budget to the Commission? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think it is important for a collegial body to 

function properly that someone has to have a leadership role, and 

somebody has to, in this case, present a budget. I think it is important for oversight committees to have somebody to hold accountable. So—— 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. And I would imagine that budget is—the development of that budget takes place with staff, with the executive 

director, but it is—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It does. And I think you could ask my colleagues to confirm that the budget development that has occurred 

since I have been there has been done in a collegial and collaborative manner. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I want to try to finish up one more question. 

Back in October 2011, four NRC Commissioners sent a letter to the 

White House Chief of Staff to express concern about the thenChairman Jaczko. It was a low point in the breakdown of the relationship among Commissioners. And Mr. Terry’s bill actually requires Commissioners to send future letters to the President if they 

believe the Chairperson has not complied with NRC internal procedures. So again, Chairlady Macfarlane, do you think this mandate 

makes sense? Is it going to encourage continued collegiality among 

the Chairman and Commissioners? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. You know, I don’t want to comment on the— 

what happened before me. But I think I just will say and maintain 

that I think now the Commission is operating collegially and collaboratively, and I encourage you to check with my Commission 

colleagues on that issue. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Well—go ahead. I have about a minute for you 

to answer—for all four of you to answer that. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I agree that the Commission is currently a very 

collegial body. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I agree. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I agree as well. But let me just take a second just 

to say that after having gone through the last few years, I am extremely appreciative of what Congressman Terry has tried to do 

with this legislation. I think that it is appropriate for Congress to 

take a look at the legislative background of the Agency, given recent events. And I agree with Commissioner Ostendorff that there 

are some aspects of the reorganization plan that probably require 

some clarification. I think you, however, have pointed out some 

55 

things that could lead to unintended consequences, as Chairman 

Macfarlane said. So I think it is certainly something that is worth 

looking at. And I do think there is room for clarification. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Ostendorff? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I agree with Commissioner Magwood’s comments. And I would just add two pieces here. One, I think the 

Chairman needs to be able to be the Chairman and exercise a leadership role, and that he or she has to have appropriate authorities 

to do such. I also think that there are places where greater clarification would be helpful, and I believe that is the spirit of Congressman Terry’s efforts in several cases here. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just think that 

the Commissioners—the Commission itself has the authority and 

the wherewithal to make those clarifications. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady yields back her time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey, ranking 

member of my subcommittee, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GINGREY. Vice chair. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you 

very much. I am very pleased to hear that the Commission is a collegial body, because indeed we are too, as you all know. 

Chairwoman Macfarlane, I understand you spoke last week to a 

conference in Japan where you indicated, and I quote, ‘‘We have no 

ultimate plan for spent fuel disposition.’’ I don’t know if this statement reaches the depth of a selfie. But if there is no plan, what 

was the basis of the DC Circuit issuing a Writ of Mandamus compelling the Agency to resume its review of Yucca Mountain? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think I was referring in general to the fact 

that, globally, there is right now no high-level waste repository in 

any country. So I was speaking very broadly when I was making 

these statements at this workshop. 

Mr. GINGREY. Yes, I understand. But if there is no plan, what 

is the basis for our electricity rate payers to pay $750 million to 

the Federal Government every year? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think the Court actually has overturned that 

for the moment. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, I assume—I—well, I don’t assume. Actually, 

I assure you, Madam Chairman—I assure you that there is a plan. 

There may be a few people in this town that want to pretend that 

there is no plan. But there is. And it is enshrined in a law called 

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. And 335—and not just Republicans—335 House Members voted to fund that plan this summer. 

What I think we need to see from NRC is your plan for fully and 

faithfully complying with the law. And I would expect an Agency 

that is statutorily mandated to complete an action, in this case the 

license review, to have a plan for doing so. Failing to plan—Madam 

Chair, I know you would agree with this—failing to plan is planning to fail. Is the NRC preparing this integrated plan that will encompass all actions necessary in support of a final decision, including detail schedule and resource estimates? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We are in the process of carrying out the—the 

staff is in the process of carrying out the order that I referred to 

that we issued on November 18. I understand our staff is going to 

be providing the Commission with a plan to move forward to carry 

56 

out the Court’s decision later this month. So we will look forward 

to receiving that. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, let me ask the same question of all the Commissioners, starting from your right. Would you support preparation of such a plan? And if you would not, why not? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I do support the development of these types of estimates within the Agency to inform, as we noted in our order, our 

future budget deliberations. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I don’t—— 

Mr. GINGREY. And I understand you’re recused. Certainly. Mr. 

Magwood? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. To be perfectly honest, I think that we have been 

so focused on implementing the Court’s direction that we haven’t 

taken the next step to really think seriously about where do we go 

from here. And I think you have raised the valid question. Actually, another Commissioner and I were talking about this just yesterday in a very, very brief way. So I think it is something we will 

have to take back and give a lot of thought to. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Ostendorff? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I personally do support preparing a plan to see 

what it takes to move forward. 

Mr. GINGREY. The Commission has directed the staff to—and I 

quote here ‘‘complete the Safety Evaluation Report, SER, using the 

approach that was underway when work on the SER was suspended. That is the staff should work on the completion of all remaining volumes concurrently, but issue each SER volume upon 

completion.’’ These are the—my final two questions. Will that follow the previous schedule that was in place when the review was 

terminated, Madam Chairwoman? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The previous schedule that when it was terminated—start—— 

Mr. GINGREY. When it was terminated. Will you follow the previous schedule? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It—as I said, the staff is developing their plan 

to move forward. They are going to be giving that to us later this 

month. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, back then, Madam Chairwoman, Volume 3 

was the next one scheduled for release. Can you tell the committee 

when we can expect to see that volume, Volume 3? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We don’t have that detail right now, and I 

don’t want to say more. Because right now, this issue is subject to 

pending Motions before the Commission and may be the subject of 

legal action. So we can’t go into great detail on this issue. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a minute, because our colleague, Congressman Gingrey, I know lost his mom 

last week. It is the first time I have seen you, Phil. And I know 

all of us share your loss in your mom. And like I said, I haven’t 

had a chance to talk to you about it. But I appreciate your friendship and what we do on the committee. 

57 

With that, you know, having been on both these subcommittees 

for a number of years, I appreciate the panel, both the Chair and 

the members, because over the last few years, that has not been 

the relationship between the Chair and the members in the collegial. Now, I know where Congressman Terry is trying to go with 

his bill, because it was going to solve—trying to solve a problem 

a lot of us perceived in hearings over the last few years. And I have 

some concern about the imperial Chairman issue. And maybe we 

can look at that. But I just appreciate the partnership and the 

working relationship that the Chair you have instituted and the 

agreement that we have. I know it is an unusual way. We have an 

Agency to do that with the power being in the Chair so much. 

But, Ms. Macfarlane, over the last few years, we have seen—you 

know, we haven’t expanded our nuclear power base, although we 

hope to do that. And, frankly, I guess I want to go to some questions though about what we have done as compared to Fukushima. 

And I will go to those directly. You discussed the NRC reactor oversight process in the 5 columns of an action matrix in your testimony. Column 1 consists of the best safety and security performance. Column 2 and 3 requires excessive increases in NRC oversight and enhanced inspection. Would you agree that increased 

oversight and enhanced inspection means that there may be safety 

or security issues that require the Commission’s attention? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Certainly that require the staff’s attention, 

yes. And the Commission overall, certainly. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. You state that there are 78 reactors in Column 

1 and 14 reactors in Column 2 and 7 in Column 3. Would you agree 

that the majority of our Nation’s nuclear reactors are meeting the 

highest safety and security standards? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The majority of our nuclear reactors are operating safely, yes. 

Mr. GREEN. Recently, in the Federal Register, the NRC acknowledged that there are currently 56 rulemakings underway at the 

Commission. Do you know how many of those relate to safety or 

security? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I am not sure exactly. Fifty-six rulemaking, 

they may—they usually do relate to safety and security—— 

Mr. GREEN. Well, that is—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. They may not all be around nuclear reactors. 

They might be around nuclear materials, too. 

Mr. GREEN. If the majority of our nuclear fleet is already meeting the highest standard, what new analysis or evolving circumstances lead to these rules? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Operational experience. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Ms. Macfarlane, as you know, in 1998, the U.S. 

government breached its contractual obligations with respect to disposing of nuclear waste. Thus far, every challenge has been 

brought before the court system has agreed that the government 

must fulfill our obligation. CBO estimate that taxpayer liability related to the breach of the contract has reached approximately $12.3 

billion. Additionally, the taxpayers have spent approximately $15 

billion, give or take, on the development of Yucca Mountain. And, 

finally, Yucca Mountain is designed to handle about 70,000 tons of 

waste. At our current levels, our Nation would exceed Yucca’s caVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-11~1\113-11~1 WAYNE
58 

pacity even before it opens. In an NRC Order CLI 1308, it was 

written that the Commission would take appropriations requests 

under advisement in the course of the Agency’s budgeting process. 

With $30 billion in taxpayer funding and liability and waste that 

exceeds capacity, why would the Commission not request funding 

for a licensing process for the—Yucca Mountain? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well, we are—as I said earlier, we are moving 

forward with the Court’s order. And any further budgeting decisions will be Commission decisions. 

Mr. GREEN. The courts determined the Commission must move 

forward. The administration determined that Yucca Mountain’s not 

the answer. If that—if the answer isn’t Yucca Mountain, how do we 

meet these obligations by the Court? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. That is, you know, a policy decision that I am 

going to let you all wrestle with. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, I think the House, we can probably deal with 

it. But we do have some issues with the Senate. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Um-hum. 

Mr. GREEN. In February 2013, the Commission testified that restart of the Yucca process and completing the safety evaluations, 

that is SER, the NRC would need approximately 6 to 8 months, 

and has estimated $6.5 billion—million. In September of ’13, Commission stated that to complete the SER, it required 12 months 

and estimated $8.3 million. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Um-hum. 

Mr. GREEN. In November, it was reported the NRC staff esti- mated cost of $11.1 million. And the last time the subcommittee 

has addressed Yucca Mountain, we acknowledged that to complete 

the SER, Volumes 2 through 5, might require additional resource 

6.5. Is 8.3 the correct number? And why has the estimate increased 

over $2 million over the last 6 months? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. As we said in the Order, the staff’s estimate 

has changed as a result of the proceeding being suspended for a 

number of years. And saying any more on this topic is not appropriate, because of the Motion before the Commission. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, and I know—if we provide guidance, Mr. 

Chairman, from the House side, hopefully the Senate would recognize there is a Court decision we have to respond to. And we obviously—I know other countries—and I have been to other countries 

to see their nuclear waste facilities, and it would be nice if we actually led in that effort, even though some of our other countries are 

a little further ahead of us. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 

courtesy. Appreciate the extra time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair now recognizes the very patient Mr. Terry from Nebraska for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I think he wants to weigh in on this a little bit. 

Mr. TERRY. Maybe. First, I would like to say the issue I think 

with the NRC is the public has to have confidence in you. And 

there has been—I think we can universally agree that there was 

a breach in confidence because you couldn’t trust the NRC at one 

point in time. And I really appreciate you creating a collegial atmosphere, or reestablishing—because if you aren’t working together, I don’t think you can truly be an effective body. So I appreVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-11~1\113-11~1 WAYNE
59 

ciate you restoring some level of camaraderie and not a culture of 

distrust. On the other hand, it has been 33 years since Congress 

has really looked into the rules and procedures. And, frankly, because of the breaches that occurred prior to your arrival, Chairman, I think it is legislative malpractice to not recognize that there 

has been—well, now we know, some holes in those procedures. And 

I think probably the heart of that is the misuse of emergencies. 

And the heart of this bill is really about emergencies. 

So I want to ask a couple of questions here. 

So do you believe that there should be a declaration of an emergency? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well, first of all, Congressman, thank you for 

the—— 

Mr. TERRY. I will do a Dingell. That is pretty much a yes or no 

question. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. OK. Well, first of all, I just want to compliment you on the work that you put into this bill, and the thinking that you put into this bill. Of course, one should declare an 

emergency. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. Well, that is not in your rules and procedures. And so that is one of I think probably the most important 

part of this is just to say that the Chair does have to physically 

say there is an emergency, and not keep that from your fellow 

Commissioners. Now, the bill says—and I kind of enjoyed some of 

the questions by my colleagues, because they made it sound like 

you have to declare the emergency and then right away call the 

Commissioners. The bill actually says 24 hours. Is that not 

enough—is that too much time or too little time to notify the other 

four sitting at that desk that you have declared an emergency? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think it really would depend on the particular situation. I don’t know that we can imagine all the situations that can come forward. 

Mr. TERRY. Can you imagine—OK. And let me go—because we 

actually then define in here what an emergency is, and that is just 

simply that it is a safety threat. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Or a security threat. 

Mr. TERRY. Or a—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We also are responsible for the security at nuclear facilities. 

Mr. TERRY. Well—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. And I am a little concerned about the security 

language in the bill, which requires the NRC to wait for another 

Federal Agency to declare a security threat at a reactor before the 

NRC can act. 

Mr. TERRY. Well, I think maybe—I think you are misreading. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The NRC is responsible for security at reactors. 

Mr. TERRY. OK. Well—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We practice this with our licensees. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. Well, then I disagree with that interpretation. But if you would like to work further on that, that is fine. 

You—are you against the emergency provision? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. In this bill? 

Mr. TERRY. Yes. 

60 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, I am. 

Mr. TERRY. And you said it will have unintended consequences. 

Can you tell me what the unintended consequences would be of—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well—— 

Mr. TERRY. Will you let me finish, please? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Sure. 

Mr. TERRY. Of having to notify the four people on your right and 

left, the two on your right and two on the left that you have declared an emergency? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I have said earlier and previously before this 

body, and I pledge again to let my colleagues know in the event of 

an emergency, and certainly let you all know—the oversight committees know. 

Mr. TERRY. OK. Well, then if you have pledged it, why—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. In the event— 

Mr. TERRY. I think the next Commissioner should have the same 

responsibilities. But until we change the rules, I don’t know if the 

next person that takes over your role will be as responsible as you. 

And that is why your prior chairman has shown that we have a 

big hole in the procedures. And the next one may be as rogue or 

as I think Mr. Green was kinder by saying imperial. But that is 

why we have to change the rules. And I don’t think a 24-hour notice to your colleagues and to this committee if there is a safety 

threat is that extraordinary. I think it is pretty reasonable. And 

the other part of that is you do have the power to declare, under 

this, the emergency. It is only if it is more than 30 days where we 

want the Commissioners to actually be involved. Before then, for 

30 days, all you have to do is within 24 hours say there is an emergency, and that is—you are satisfied. And it is hard for me to get 

through my mind, turning to your assistant and say, ‘‘Make sure 

we email our Commissioners.’’ That took 5 seconds for me to say. 

But that is extraordinary for you? I am just having a hard time 

with that. Yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps, for 5 

minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you all on 

the Commission for being here today. As you know, I represent 

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, which is owned and operated 

by PG&E. 

Diablo Canyon is a major contributor to our local economy. And, 

obviously, it plays an important role in our State’s energy portfolio. 

But it also sits on two earthquake faults, the Hosgri and the Shoreline. So safety is obviously always a top priority. Now, every power 

plant must be built according to a safe shutdown earthquake SSE 

standard, as we know, which is the maximum ground shaking that 

key safety elements are designed to withstand so it can safely shutdown. 

As a condition of Diablo Canyon’s operating license, the NRC required its safety systems to be evaluated using industry standard— 

calculations and tests to ensure that it could meet the SSE levels. 

But the NRC did not require the same industry standard calculations and tests to be used to evaluate the safe shutdown standards 

for an earthquake along the Hosgri Fault. In other words, there is 

61 

a lot of new information since those standards were set, which was 

predicted to be stronger than the reactor was licensed to withstand. 

I believe that is sort of commonly understood now. 

And since then, of course, we have discovered a Shoreline Fault 

in the same reason, which is even closer to the reactor and also not 

yet fully understood. It makes a lot of my constituents very nervous. To my knowledge, the NRC has still not required safety testing using the same industry standard methodology that originally 

required in its operating license. In other words, there is some inconsistency here. And now, Dr. Michael Peck, the NRC’s former 

senior resident inspector at Diablo Canyon, even filed a noncompliant—nonconcurrence report with the NRC, saying that the reactor 

was not in compliance with its license. 

Chairwoman Macfarlane, in light of Dr. Peck’s expert opinion, 

what is the NRC doing to ensure that the reactor is in compliance 

with the seismic safety requirements of its operating license? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant is in 

compliance with—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, he has written this report that is dissenting. 

I would ask you to answer in light of that. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Right. And the NRC’s view is that the Diablo 

Canyon plant is within compliance, that there are actually three 

design basis earthquakes. The design basis—the double design 

basis, as you mentioned, and also the Hosgri earthquake one. That 

was discovered in the 1980s. The plant was reevaluated to see if 

it could withstand that, and it can. When the Shoreline Fault—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. I am sorry—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It was reevaluated—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. To see if it could withstand the Hosgri—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The Hosgri. Yes. And it can. And the Shoreline Fault was evaluated by independent analysis, and that fault 

is bounded by the design basis earthquakes. An earthquake that 

that fault could produce is bounded by the design basis earthquake. 

Mrs. CAPPS. But—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. So the plant is considered within compliance. 

Ms. CAPPS . Let—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. But let me say that we are now—we have 

asked all nuclear power plants in the country to reevaluate their 

seismic hazard. And so Diablo Canyon is in the process of reevaluating their seismic hazard. And their seismic hazard reevaluation 

is due into the Commission in March of 2015. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Will this new evaluation of Diablo Canyon that they 

are doing themselves be required to prove that the reactor can 

withstand the stronger Hosgri and Shoreline earthquakes, using— 

are you using the same industry standard methodology required in 

the operating license for the safe shutdown earthquake? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We are using the most up to date methodologies to do the seismic hazard reevaluation. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Do you believe they fully incorporate the—you do believe that? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. To the best of my knowledge. But I can certainly take this for the record and do a more—give you a more detailed answer. 

62 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, it is a complicated issue. And I—this is just 

a 5-minute question. But I wanted to make sure that you could 

provide me with a copy of Dr. Michael Peck’s differing professional 

opinion. Are you able to do that, please? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I will have—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. So that I could have a copy of it? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, I will have to check on that. But I will 

take your larger question for the record here and give you a more 

detailed answer. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. Your response is rather troubling, particularly 

in light of the recent changes in NRC’s transparency policies. I am 

curious to know whether, you know, this new policy of the fact that 

only the ranking member or the chairman are allowed to ask for 

information, does—how that affects your decision. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. You know, I want to be clear here. We haven’t 

significantly changed our policy. We are going to be as responsive 

and as transparent as we ever were. And, certainly, when you have 

concerns about a reactor within your district, we are going to respond as completely as possible. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mrs. CAPPS. I appreciate this. And I know, Mr. Chairman, I just 

want to make one final comment, because I am looking forward to 

getting these documents soon. This is of particular interest to my 

constituents. I am pleased to hear that in response—that in light 

of the recent changes in the NRC’s transparency policies that you 

are still willing to get a response to us. But I am very troubled by 

these new policies that really preclude transparencies from members of a committee with oversight to be able to ask directly for information, both as a member of the committee and as the one with 

a nuclear plant in my district. I find the policy itself to be unacceptable. And that is with no offense to my good friends, the chairman and ranking member. But I should be able to freely address 

your committee. And it sounds like you are—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. And you still are. You still are. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I appreciate that. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. But I hear your concerns. 

Mrs. CAPPS. All right. Thank you very much. Yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The Chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair and welcome the Commissioners. 

Seventy-seven point nine miles from my house is the South Texas 

Project. As you all know, there are two reactors there. Unit 1 celebrated its 25th anniversary this past August. The South Texas 

Project is in Hurricane Alley. And yet for 25 years now, they have 

provided safe, reliable power for Southeast Texas and our whole 

Gulf Coast. 

I want to follow up with some of the questions from Chairman 

Whitfield. My district also is a home to Fleur, a large construction 

company that is looking at making some small modular reactors 

using that technology. As you all know, these are smaller, more affordable reactors that could someday make new nuclear power 

available to more places. 

My first question is to you, Chairman Macfarlane. The certification of new reactor designs by the NRC is best described as delibVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-11~1\113-11~1 WAYNE
63 

erate. And that is good. But as this process goes, it is sometimes 

too deliberate. As Chairman Barton said, it takes on average 7 

years. I know DOE has a role in this. But safety is critical. Can 

you tell me what has caused these delays in designs in cases of the 

past, and what can you, the NRC, do to keep those small reactor 

designs reasonable and timely? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thanks for the question, Congressman. The 

design certification process is a two-way street. And as I mentioned 

before, we do need high quality applications. And so what has often 

delayed the design certification process is questions that we have 

about the application, because we didn’t get a high quality product 

to begin with. Now, to try to avert that in the case of small modular reactors, we have been working with the potential applicants, 

telling them what they need to provide to us and making sure that 

they clearly understand that. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Maybe my colleagues would like to comment 

as well? 

Ms. OLSON. I will just ask my question. Ms. Svinicki, is that 

close, please? Anything to add, ma’am? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I would note that some of the small modular reactor designs that we are aware of are more innovative than others. 

I think that where the design is less similar to something we have 

previously approved, it is likely that we are going to have a series 

of questions that we will want to ask to assure ourselves of safety. 

Mr. OLSON. Commissioner Apostolakis, sir? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. During the reviews, especially when the design has new aspects to it, technical issues arise that require response from the applicant and then an evaluation by the NRC 

staff. This happened with Westinghouse AP1000, and with General 

Electric’s ESBWR. And these technical issues unfortunately are of 

the nature that, you know, they are not resolved within a week or 

2 weeks or a month. So that is a cause for delay. I don’t know what 

issues could come up with the SMRs being reviewed. We will have 

to see. But I think, you know, 5 to 7 years is not an unreasonable 

time. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. I have to get—Commissioner Magwood and 

Commissioner Ostendorff, I have to get your answers for the 

record, because I have one more question I want to ask just for you. 

I want to call you Captain Ostendorff, because as a guy who spent 

his Navy career chasing submarines, it is great to welcome a submariner here. And as a fellow graduate of the University of Texas 

Law School, welcome, welcome, welcome. I know you will be looking forward to this weekend, the football game that is going to happen between your alma mater, the Naval Academy, and the Army 

at West Point. And with all due respect to the chairman here, we 

are looking for 12 straight victories. Go Navy. Before we go. 

But, actually, I am a strong supporter of nuclear power. And 

coming from a State that needs more baseline power, we need more 

nuclear power plants. I mentioned South Texas. They have been 

trying the two reactors for about a decade, stops and starts, not because of all you have done. There has been some things happen 

back home in Texas. But I am excited because we built two new 

plants there in Georgia and South Carolina. I will ask you, CapVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-11~1\113-11~1 WAYNE
64 

tain, what have you learned with these new plants, because this 

happened—it has been a long, long time since we have authorized 

new reactors. What have you learned, good and bad, going forward, 

so I can help South Texas? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Well, one thing that I will comment on, I can 

go back to my Navy experience. Thirty-three years ago, I was on 

my second submarine being built in Newport News shipyard, 

where I had responsibilities for supervising the testing of the propulsion plant in the Newport News shipyard. And this was the 

25th submarine of this class being built at this time. This was 

1980, the U.S.S. Atlanta. And for the 25th submarine being built 

with the same design, every week there were still new issues that 

came up about constructability. Where does this pipe hanger go? 

Where do you put this mount? How do you do this particular welding technique in this orientation? And for a very mature program 

for submarine construction at the time, we were continuing to 

learn lessons routinely. And so we should not be surprised if 

Vogtle, Watts Bar, and Summer construction that as we go through 

that process that we learn new lessons, because there will be some 

issues that come up that have not been anticipated. 

Mr. OLSON. I am about out of time. I want to say—close by saying go Navy, beat Army. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman is out of order. The Chair recognizes the chairman emeritus, Mr. Dingell, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I thank you for your courtesy. I commend you for the hearing. I welcome you, Chairman Macfarlane 

and members of the Commission. I want to thank you for your recent response to the letter sent by myself and a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, asking the Commission to complete work on the Safety Evaluation Report for Yucca Mountain. I 

am encouraged by the recent order to finish the SER and look forward to its completion. 

Now, Madam Chairman, as I just mentioned, on November 18 

the NRC ordered the staff to complete work on the Safety Evaluation Report for Yucca Mountain, and that such work would take 

approximately 12 months. This timeframe made a few assumptions, and I would like to ask you some questions about those assumptions. On page 11, footnote 38 of the Commission’s Order, 

first, will the Commission of the SER be given a high priority, yes 

or no? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It will be given a high priority. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Madam Chairman, approximately how long 

do you anticipate will it take to gather the necessary key technical 

reviewers? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. As I was able to say earlier, we are expecting 

a plan from the staff on moving forward on this later this month. 

Saying any more on this issue is not appropriate, because we have 

some pending Motions before the Commission on our Order. 

Mr. DINGELL. Could you submit some quick, dirty response to the 

committee on that particular point? Now, Madam Chairman, is 

your staff developing a plan on how to move towards completion of 

the SER, yes or no? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, we are. 

65 

Mr. DINGELL. When will such plan be completed, can you give us 

a rough answer on that, please? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The plan to move forward will be completed 

later this month. 

Mr. DINGELL. It is my understanding that Nye County, Nevada, 

has appealed the SER Order. Does the NRC have sufficient funds 

to complete both the SER and to respond to Nye County’s appeal? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well, certainly, all litigation matters on Yucca 

Mountain come from the nuclear waste funds. In terms of specific 

amounts of money, I—because of this Motion before us, I can’t go 

into any more detail. 

Mr. DINGELL. Well, I have my great doubt that you will be able 

to do so. And as soon as you can tell us that you don’t or you do 

or you need additional money for this, it would be appreciated if 

you would communicate that to us, because we want you to have 

the resources you need to do the job you have to do. Now, Madam 

Chairman, approximately how much is it going to cost the NRC to 

fully respond to Nye County’s appeal? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I do not know. 

Mr. DINGELL. If you get some loose time when you get back to 

the Commission, would you see what you could tell us on that for 

the record? Now, Madam Chairman, in responses to questions on 

the record from Chairman Shimkus from July—from the July 24, 

2012, hearing, Commissioners who attended that hearing expressed 

general support on the internal commission procedures implemented in 2011. It is my understandings that these procedures are 

advised every 2 years, and the Commission is currently in the process of further revising these, is that correct? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. That is correct. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, I am going to try to do—you are Polish, 

aren’t you, Commissioner? 

Ms. SVINICKI. The name is Slovak. My grandfather came to the 

upper peninsula of Michigan to work in the iron mines there from 

Slovakia. 

Mr. DINGELL. Svinicki. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, I have Americanized it to Svinicki, yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. I like the Slovak much better. But anyway, in any 

event, Commissioner, welcome. It is always good to see a University of Michigan graduate. 

In your QFR response, you stated that the Commission was gaining operational experience from the 2011 internal procedures. Now 

that they have been in place for 2 years, do you agree that the internal procedures and the review process allow the Commission to 

properly carry out its duty in a collegial and collaborative way, yes 

or no? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, and we are. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, would the other Commissioners please give 

us a yes or no answer on that, too? Sir? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Sir? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes. 

66 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, do the Commissioners believe that the current ICP are working? Would you each answer yes or no, if you 

please? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, but we do have the procedures under a biannual review process. So they can—we are always looking where 

they might be improved. 

Mr. DINGELL. Sir? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Yes and no. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Sir? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes, but I agree with Commissioner Svinicki’s 

comment that they are under review again. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, for all the Commissioners, do you believe 

that every Commissioner’s concerns and input have been considered during the current ICP process? In other words, have each of 

you had your considerations and concern considered in part—in the 

process? Yes or no, Commissioner Svinicki? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, my colleagues evaluated my modifications and 

approved or disapproved them. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Yes. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, we considered each others. 

Mr. DINGELL. Sir? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes, we all worked together on it. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, if a Commissioner had suggested a change to 

the ICP, do you each believe that such a suggestion would be considered in good faith, yes or no? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Yes. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. I hope that in no way did you feel distressed at 

those questions. But I want to see to it that the Commission gets 

the fullest support of this committee in doing its responsibilities 

and in having a harmonious process, because God knows you are 

having enough trouble doing your job down there because of outside interference of all sorts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 

courtesy. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for 

being here today. Earlier this year, a letter was sent to the NRC 

raising concerns about the staff proposal to mandate filter systems. 

As it happens, the proposal not only failed a cost benefit analysis 

in which there were serious concerns in regards to an understated 

cost estimate, but the advisory committee on reactor safeguards— 

your expert advisory body also disagreed with the proposal’s approach. 

In the response letter that was received, the NRC stated that has 

followed has followed its process for ensuring that a sufficient basis 

exists for imposing regulatory requirements. Chairman Macfarlane, 

would you agree that the current NRC practice states that a suffiVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-11~1\113-11~1 WAYNE
67 

cient basis for imposing regulatory requirements means that the 

change has been shown to be necessary for adequate protection of 

public health and safety, or as required by the Backfit Rule? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Would any other Commissioners like to comment 

on that? No? 

OK. The issue here is that the NRC staff have tried to override 

the quantitative analysis related to filtered vents in order to escape 

a challenge under the NRC’s Backfit Rule by recommending that 

the Commission vote to issue an order. Chairman Macfarlane, isn’t 

that process normally reserved for matters that are necessary for 

adequate protection of public health and safety? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I don’t believe the staff tried to override the 

Backfit Rule or the cost benefits analysis. I think they did their— 

a thorough cost benefit analysis according to the information they 

had. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Is that the opinion of all the Commissioners? 

Sir? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I want to comment, Congressman. Thank you 

for the question. I think our staff did an outstanding job of presenting a very difficult issue to the Commission for our decision. 

And I don’t think they tried to circumvent or go around any rule. 

I think there are certain matters that require judgment. They teed 

it up to the Commission who made a decision, and we are moving 

forward. I applaud our staff for their work in this effort. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Well, I would like to—I am not going to take all 

my time, actually. I would like to close by offering my support for 

Congressman Terry’s NRC reform legislation. My friend and I are 

working on language to limit the Commission’s use of orders for 

only urgent and significant safety needs. A solid line must be 

issued to ensure discipline in the Agency’s processes so that the 

regulations can provide some actual stability to the issues. With 

that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

will now recognize Ms. Castor from Florida for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, good morning, Chairman Macfarlane and 

Commission members. A decommissioning plan was recently submitted for the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant in Florida. It is 

a distressing situation all the way around because the utility attempted to repair the plant. They exacerbated problems, resulting 

in cracks in the containment walls. The repair costs soared. And 

so the utility chose to shut it down. It has gotten a lot of attention 

in Florida and especially among rate payers because they are on 

the hook because of the law in Florida that said rate payers pay 

in advance for constructing the plants, and now they are going to 

be on the hook for those costs and then costs—some of the costs 

of shutting it down, without generating 1 kilowatt hour of electricity. So this is an important lesson for States around the country 

to have safeguards if you are going to proceed to have an advance 

recovery fee. 

So they have—the utility has chosen safe storage as the decommissioning option, which will—they estimate will cost $1.2 billion. 

And this will proceed now over 60 years to 2074. Could you please 

review at this point in time, now that you have received the decomVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-11~1\113-11~1 WAYNE
68 

missioning plan, what the responsibilities are of the NRC in review 

of that plan and public comment? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Sure. It is—the NRC maintains an oversight 

role throughout the entire decommissioning of the facility. We continue to inspect the facility, especially during active decommissioning. As—after we receive a—the plan from the licensee, we will 

hold a public meeting and discuss how the licensee decides to move 

forward and accept public comment on this. We also strongly encourage our licensees to form community advisory boards for decommissioning process. And, in fact, I did meet with the licensees 

yesterday and personally encouraged them to do this. 

Ms. CASTOR. Terrific. Now, there are other plants around the 

country that are currently in safe storage. I believe Three Mile Island is. Name a few others that are—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Indian Point 1. Zion was in safe storage. They 

are now actively decommissioning. So—— 

Ms. CASTOR. And so in your experience with these plants that 

are decommissioned and in safe storage, what is the likelihood that 

the $1.2 billion cost estimate at this time will remain static, and 

what is the likelihood that the cost for decommissioning and attention to the plant over time will increase? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. You know, I am not that familiar with the 

costs over long periods of time. So let me take that for the record. 

Ms. CASTOR. OK. Do any of the other Commissioners have a comment on that, in the likelihood? OK. On another topic, the Terry 

bill proposes to legislate how official international travel by all 

Commissioners is approved. Some might argue that the provision 

falls into the category of micromanaging the Commission. But if 

the majority intends to legislate in this area, we need to have a 

better understanding of the Commissioner’s travel. According to information provided by the Commissioner’s, some of them have been 

traveling abroad quite a bit. Now, some of this is to be expected 

in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. 

Commissioner Magwood spent 52 days in 2013 on official foreign 

travel to Europe, Asia and South America. That is two months of 

international travel. That seems like quite a lot, more than 100 

days of traveling abroad on official business over the last 2 years. 

And Commissioner Svinicki traveled for 43 days this year internationally. This seems—seems to be bordering on the excessive, 

and I think we are going to need an accounting here, especially 

when the primary responsibilities of course are in the United 

States. Now, I think it is reasonable, you have got to understand 

what is happening in the field internationally. But since we are expected to markup legislation that addresses this travel, I would 

like each of the Commissioners to provide for the record an accounting of their international travel, and an explanation of why 

it is worth the hundreds of thousands of—of taxpayer dollars that 

it costs. And thank you, and I yield back the rest of my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady yields back her time. The Chair 

now recognized the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you all 

being here. And as I have said before, one of my first experiences 

was while there was a fight going on. And so I do appreciate what 

69 

all of you have done to create an atmosphere of collegiality. So I 

do appreciate that. 

In regard to Mr. Terry’s bill, I happen to agree with him that it 

doesn’t seem like it is too onerous. Perhaps the language can be 

worked out. Madam Chair, if you will work with him on the language to make it straight? But when I was a kid, there was a TV 

show, ‘‘Lost in Space,’’ and the robot would say, ‘‘Danger, Will Robinson! danger!’’ 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I remember it well. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And it seems to me there ought to be some app 

or way that you can quickly get a message out that would say, 

‘‘Danger, Will Ostendorff! Danger, Will!’’ I would ask you as well 

in regard to the Inspector General’s reports, the one on June 6, 

2011, and then also the one on June 26, 2012, have you had an opportunity now to read those? The last time, you had just gotten 

started. And so—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, I have. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. You have read those. And that I think is the impetus behind the Terry bill is that in both of those reports, it points 

out that there was some conflicts over what information could be 

given to the other members of the Commission by the Chairman, 

and that led to a lot of the angst that was going on prior to your 

arrival. So I think that while I support the bill, I am sure that Mr. 

Terry will work with you in regard to working out some of the 

glitches that are there that he is trying to do what is right, you 

are trying to do what is right. I am sure you all can get that 

worked out. 

Now, according to NRC practice, new requirements must be 

shown to be necessary for adequate protection of public health and 

safety, or be justified by cost benefit analysis as required by the 

Backfit Rule. I would like to ask the Clerk to put up the chart ‘‘Average Fleet Implementation Cost Compared to NRC Estimates.’’ Do 

you all have that? There you go. 

[The information follows:] 

70 


88399.030
71 

Mr. GRIFFITH. When I look at this chart in the context of cost 

benefit analysis, I wonder how the use of more accurate cost estimates might have impacted the analysis done in support of new requirements. Madam Chair, or any other member, do you have any 

comment on that? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I am not sure where your numbers come from. 

I would be happy to examine them more in more detail and get 

back to you on that. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. If you could do that for the record, I would appreciate it very much. Do you have any plans for undertaking any review of previous cost benefit analysis to determine—and I recognize 

you don’t know where these numbers came from. But do you have 

any plans to determine if there is more accurate cost estimates 

that might be done? Assuming these numbers to be accurate, do 

you have any plans to do that, ma’am? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. You know, in general, I think our staff does 

a good job with their cost benefit analyses. And they rely on the 

best available information. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, ma’am? 

Ms. SVINICKI. If I could supplement the Chairman’s answer by 

noting that the Commission has heard evidence of great disparities 

in the cost estimates. And so we did, as a Commission, direct the 

NRC staff to work to find case studies and instead of arguing about 

estimates before the fact, to take a case where we had estimated 

a cost and the industry has already implemented it, look at what 

were those actual costs of that particular item. There are some sensitivities on the industry side to sharing some of this business information. But we asked for volunteers to perform what we were 

calling case studies and looking at some of our regulations. So that 

way we could look at their actual cost to implement versus our 

forecast in the hope—and with the objective of maybe improving 

the accuracy of our cost estimating. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, ma’am. Thank you about that. On a separate 

topic, there have been, as you all have previously talked about, four 

nuclear power plants permanently shutdown in the past year. One 

more will shutdown next year. And reports persist that there may 

be others. As a result of the decommission process, this has garnered a lot of public interest. But I am particularly concerned 

about the monies coming in. You talked about the constant money. 

And, obviously, there is some other money. But decommissioning 

plants don’t pay as much in NRC fees as operating plants. That is 

correct, is it not? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It is correct. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And so then the question is, as these plants are 

closing down and your funds are decreasing from what they have 

been paying as operating plants, how is the NRC going to handle 

the decreases in funds? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Operating plants are required to establish a 

decommissioning fund, which they set aside for decommissioning. 

And we evaluate the amount of money that they have in that fund 

and their plans for that fund every 2 years. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. But I mean over time, after they have decommissioned, if you have fewer plants, there is going to be less money 

72 

coming in. Have you all started making plans to deal with that reduction in monies? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think we are OK right now. But let me get 

back to you on the record with more detail on this. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I appreciate that very much. And again, thank you 

for your testimony here today for all—to all of you. And I yield 

back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In my opening statement, I expressed serious concerns about NRC’s new policy 

for responding to congressional requests for nonpublic documents. 

I would like to read the previous policy: ‘‘The Commission’s general 

practice is to provide sensitive documents requested by members of 

its Congressional oversight committees. It will also provide sensitive documents to other Members of Congress when the documents address matters pertaining to his or her State or district.’’ 

I thought that was a reasonable policy. It enabled the members 

of this committee and members with reactors in their districts to 

obtain the documents necessary for them to conduct oversight. 

The new policy is very different. The NRC will only provide nonpublic documents to the chairman and ranking member of the committee, and it will provide documents only after pursuing alternatives that do not involve producing requested documents. Chairman Macfarlane, do you acknowledge this committee’s constitutional responsibility to provide oversight of the Executive Branch? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Of course. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And do you concede that in the absence of a claim 

of Executive Privilege, the NRC has no legal basis to withhold requested nonpublic documents from Congress? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Not from its oversight committees and its— 

and the chairman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The new policy also provides each Commissioner 

the opportunity to review documents before they are turned over 

to Congress and to object to producing specific documents. Chairman Macfarlane, this policy creates a potential for significant delay 

in responding to oversight requests. How much time are Commissioners given to review documents before they are produced to Congress? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think we certainly want to maintain a cognizance of what documents are going in which direction. And the 

decision to produce documents or how we will be responsive, shall 

I say, is a Commission decision. And, of course, we will operate 

with the most expediency possible in being responsive to our oversight committees. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I have serious questions about allowing individual Commissioners to object to producing specific documents to 

Congress. The NRC’s policy does not explain what a legitimate 

basis for such an objection might be. And in the absence of a claim 

of Executive Privilege, there is no legal basis for withholding the 

documents. Chairman Macfarlane, do you think individual Commissioners should have the right to prevent documents from being 

73 

provided to Congress even when there is no legal basis for withholding these documents? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think—and certainly not. And this—again, I 

just want to be clear. This is a—moving forward with any kind of 

document production is a Commission decision. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, when Congress requests documents, we 

should get those documents. For some particularly sensitive documents, we need to have discussions about how to protect certain information while meeting Congress’ oversight needs. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. Um-hum. Exactly. 

Mr. WAXMAN. But I fear this new policy is much too restrictive. 

Would you commit to thinking through the concerns that we are 

raising today with your colleagues, and to consider making changes 

to the policy to address these concerns? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Absolutely. I will consider your concerns. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. And I would like to ask the same question of the other members of the Commission. Will you commit to 

thinking through these concerns raised today, and to consider making changes to address them? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. Yes. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you. That is very helpful. And I will look 

forward to further communications with you. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. Yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the vice chairman of the Energy and Air Quality 

Subcommittee, Mr. Scalise, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate the—having 

this hearing. Appreciate all of you being back with us today. I 

know back in February when we had our last hearing on the postFukushima requirements, I had asked a few questions. I want to 

go back to those, because I haven’t gotten those back. Maybe you 

all have that information. 

If we can first pull up the slide that—on cumulative effects that 

we had talked about at the last hearing. Yes. 

[The information follows:] 

74 


88399.031
75 

Mr. SCALISE. That slide there, I had raised—just to show the 

timeline of regulatory actions for the average owner of four plants. 

And I pointed out how these are a lot of new requirements in addition to what is already needed for somebody to operate a plant at 

the highest level of security. And so as you look at the slide, and 

if you look down in the—I think go to the next slide, because we 

got—we have got another slide with even more requirements. 

[The information follows:] 

76 


88399.032
77 

Mr. SCALISE. And if you will notice, in the bottom, there is a little box in the bottom right corner that said that this slide still 

doesn’t even reflect the tier 2 and 3 Fukushima items that will be 

coming. And that is one of the things I had asked about, that is 

how many of those there are. We were hearing they were 40. There 

wasn’t a number that you all could give me then, but can you give 

me a number now at how many we are talking about? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. How many—— 

Mr. SCALISE. In addition to all of this? 

Ms. MACFARLANE [continuing]. Tier 3 requirements? 

Mr. SCALISE. Two or three. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Those are still under discussion at the Commission. We are not yet considering some of the tier 3 requirements. 

Mr. SCALISE. OK. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We will see if they will become requirements. 

We haven’t decided yet. 

Mr. SCALISE. Do you have a number yet that you can give us a 

ballpark? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No. 

Mr. SCALISE. When will that come out then? When is the plan 

for that to happen? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The number of items that we will be considering? 

Mr. SCALISE. Yes. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I can give you that number for the record. 

Mr. SCALISE. Because I asked for that in February, and you said 

you would give me that for the record. And I still haven’t received 

that from February. When then can I expect to get that? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I apologize for that. 

Mr. SCALISE. Can you—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We will give it to you with the—as soon as we 

can. 

Mr. SCALISE. Before next February, hopefully? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Before next February, yes. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SCALISE. That is good. We are making progress here. When 

we were talking about the cumulative effects, this is an issue that 

the NRC staff agrees can potentially—‘‘can potentially distract licensee or entity staff from executing other primary duties that ensure safety or security.’’ And so, you know, again, I would emphasize as you are coming up with whatever that number is going to 

be, 30, 40, 50 new requirements, when you look at that chart and 

those are things that are already being done, and I think we have 

seen our facilities have a very high level of security, we sure don’t 

want to be putting things in place that would actually take away 

from their ability to keep that high level of security when they are 

already doing a lot of things that are important and effective. 

I do want to go now to the next slide, because cost benefit analysis is something that is real important, too. 

[The information follows:] 

78 


88399.033
79 

Mr. SCALISE. When you are putting these items together that you 

are putting together with each of these, you would attach, I would 

imagine, some cost benefit analysis to show what the cost is. Because at the end of the day, it is rate payers, it is hardworking taxpayers that will pay for whatever proposals would come forward. 

And it has always been a requirement that you attach that. If you 

look here, this shows a history of the NRC’s estimates. When you 

come up with specific rules, and you can go through—there is a 

number of rules there that we have seen initially was your cost estimate at NRC. And then ultimately what the true cost was with 

the—you know, an estimate is nice until you actually find out how 

it happens in the real world. And just to use these, if you look at 

the low end, you were 347 percent off on that cost estimate. On the 

high end, you were 1,449 percent off on your estimate. And each 

time, the estimate was low-balled. It wasn’t like sometimes you are 

high, sometimes you are low. In all cases, it seemed—I don’t know 

if you all are low-balling the numbers just to make it look like it 

wasn’t going to have that much of an impact on rate payers. But 

at the end of the day when you look at the real world impacts, it 

is very dramatic how far off you all have been. And maybe if I can 

ask everybody on the panel here, what are you all doing to fix this? 

I mean, this is—when you talk about accountability, if you are off 

that much, in the same way, you are not—again, it is not—you 

know, everything kind of factors out if you are doing—maybe you 

got good modeling. Sometimes you are a little high, sometimes— 

every time you are low-balling the numbers, and in a dramatic way 

you are off. In rate payers pay—this tax payers, families that are 

struggling are paying these costs. And if you come up with a rule 

and say it is only going to cost this, and it ends up costing 1,449 

percent more, that is something that we ought to know before you 

put that cost on rate payers. So if I could ask everybody, just going 

down the line, if you can address this problem? 

Ms. SVINICKI. The Commission is aware of some of these disparities and has directed the NRC staff to solicit industry volunteers 

who would be willing to provide their business information regarding actual costs after the fact. So instead of comparing—— 

Mr. SCALISE. So in addition to all the other requirements you are 

making them do, you are going to ask them to fix this for you—— 

Ms. SVINICKI. But we could not compel the provision of this business information by the industry. So we asked the industry if they 

were interested in volunteering because of some of these disparities. We have gotten a very energetic response that they would like 

to show us some of the detailed cost estimates so that we could 

work towards the objective of improving our cost estimating ability 

by looking retrospectively at how much we were off on some of 

these and what was the cause of it. 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. The Commission has directed the staff to reevaluate and look again at the methodology that they are using for 

cost benefit calculations. And I believe when we receive the staff’s 

paper, this kind of slide would be very important to consider and 

ask questions why this is happening and see what—whether the 

staff would actually have found the reasons for this disparity. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I agree with my colleagues. 

80 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I agree with what my colleagues have said. I 

would add that the fact that we launched this effort to do these 

case studies indicates that many of us were concerned—we didn’t 

see these particular numbers, but were concerned with the cost estimating situation. It is very important to get this as close as possible. And I for one would like us—like to see us do much better. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I would just add to my Commission colleagues’ 

comments that our process in working with industry is we encourage industry to provide their own estimates to us. And our staff 

considers them. And I think in many of these cases—especially I 

am going to point to the one in the middle, the 10 C.F.R. 73 Security, because I have had discussions with industry and our staff in 

this area. I think both sides, both the NRC and industry, did not 

fully understand the complexity of some of these procurements of 

CCTV systems, motion detector, other security-type aspects. So I 

think it is a two-way street here. We are not going to pretend to 

be experts as an Agency in these cost estimate matters by ourselves, and we need industry’s help. And I think both sides have 

recognized the need to do better and work together. 

Mr. SCALISE. All right. And, obviously, we got to get that better. 

Thank you, Ms. Macfarlane. Especially, I look forward to getting 

that information by February. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for 

being here. Thank you for the job you are doing in many ways. It 

is a very thankless job, but obviously a very important one. And 

we appreciate it, even though we may have some policy differences 

from time to time. 

Chairman Macfarlane, we have discussed Indian Point in New 

York in the past. And I want to revisit it again. It is one of the 

most safety serious issues facing the New York Metropolitan region, and I want to urge continued diligence from the NRC. Indian 

Point has an operational history that has been plagued by serious 

questions, unplanned shutdowns, leaking fuel pools, inadequate 

emergency notification and response systems. All Members of Congress, and I am one, representing the county in which Indian Point 

is sited have called for its closure, as well as our Governor, as well. 

So it is not something obviously that we take lightly. 

Particularly concerning are the changes that H.R. 3132 would 

make to the NRC’s emergency authorities and response structure. 

I know others on this committee share my concerns of some of the 

inadequacies of the response structure brought forth in this legislation. You have heard it. But I would like it if you could address 

some of those concerns. Under current law, the Chairman of the 

NRC holds the authorities necessary to save lives and manage disaster. The changes in H.R. 3132, in my opinion, would have the 

NRC governing crisis by committee. And we all saw how poorly 

that worked at Fukushima. So I am told—and correct me if I am 

wrong. Before the Chairman could declare an emergency, you 

would have to notify the fellow Commissioners, the relevant congressional committees and the general public. The facility could 

81 

well be on its way to a meltdown. So I would like to hear from you 

how you foresee this legislation impacting your ability to manage 

a potential crisis, specifically in a major metropolitan area like 

New York? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think that the Commission procedures are 

adequate at the Agency. I think the Commission is operating well, 

operating collegially. And I don’t see any need to alter or change 

the existing procedures, especially with regard to emergency powers. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Anyone else care to comment? If not, I 

will move on. Chairman Macfarlane, I would also like to ask you, 

in your testimony you mentioned the efforts the NRC has been undergoing to determine what regulatory action is required to the expedited transfer spent fuel to dry cask storage. I have been particularly interested in that for years, have a bill that does it. And I understand the Commission is evaluating staff assessments and expects a proposal by early 2014. We are all aware of the risks from 

spent fuel in storage pools that can—and that it can be reduced by 

moving some of it to dry casks. So can you elaborate on how the 

NRC is prioritizing the dry cask storage of spent fuel rods, as well 

as any hurdles that might remain for the implementation of this 

safer storage system? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We are now in the process of considering 

whether to require expedited transfer of spent nuclear fuel from 

the pools at reactors to dry cask storage. And the Commission will 

be having a commission meeting on this in early January. We have 

a few papers from the staff that address this issue. And so it is an 

area of active consideration. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, I thank you for that. And, you know, as I mentioned, I have been concerned about it for awhile. And I am very 

happy that you are moving forward on it. Let me ask you my last 

question. Mr. Terry’s bill chips away at the authority of the NRC 

Chairman in a nuclear emergency, as we mentioned. The bill says 

the Chairman again can declare an emergency only in response to 

an eminent safety or security threat at a facility in the U.S., or involving nuclear materials directly related by the Commission. 

Chairman, do you think it makes sense to limit your emergency authority to events involving U.S. based facilities and materials, and 

are there scenarios in which events in other countries could trigger 

an emergency in the United States or threaten U.S. citizens? I am 

told that most of Canada’s nuclear power plants are in Ontario, 

near the U.S. border, near my State—home State of New York. 

And I am also told that last week, thieves stole a shipment of radioactive cobalt-60 in Mexico, which is an incident that could have 

had implications for the United States. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think the Chair needs flexibility to respond 

to an emergency wherever it is. In particular, in terms of foreign 

countries, as you point out, Canada has nuclear power plants that 

are relatively near our border that may pose an emergency for the 

U.S. I would also like to point out that we—the United States has 

military personnel in a number of countries that may be near nuclear facilities. If there is an emergency with one of those nuclear 

facilities, I think the U.S. government would probably want the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission to have a full understanding of the 

82 

emergency occurring. And so I think we have to make sure we have 

flexibility to respond to situations in which U.S. citizens are—may 

be at risk. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time expired. Now, I will show 

that we have multiple branches of the service. I turn to Colonel 

Johnson from the great State of Ohio. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it was only 

the Air Force. But that is OK. I am good. All of the service are important. And I want to thank the panel for being here with us this 

morning. 

I got a few comments before I get to my question, and then I will 

ask it to each of you. We have heard a lot this morning about budgets and costs. And when it comes to matters that are truly necessary for the protection of public health and safety of course, cost 

shouldn’t be necessarily the driving factor. However, I am concerned that the NRC and the industry are in a pattern of ever increasing cost chasing ever smaller increments and safety gain. If 

I could ask the clerk to put up the slide of NRC’s nuclear reactor 

safety budget versus licensing action? 

[The information follows:] 

83 


88399.034
84 

Mr. JOHNSON. This slide shows how the NRC’s nuclear safety 

budget has grown over the last decade. But I want to show you another slide, ‘‘Spending on Selected Cost Categories,’’ that shows 

how the industry’s regulatory costs have grown just since 2005. 

[The information follows:] 

85 


88399.035
86 

Mr. JOHNSON. That red line shows the percentage increase of 

regulatory capital expenditures compared to what the industry 

spent in 2005. So that distinct red peak shows that regulatory expenditures in 2012 were about 230 percent of what they were in 

2005. The spending has now leveled off at about twice what the industry spent in 2005. I am guessing as the cost of the NRC’s postFukushima requirements are incurred, this line will trend upward 

again. I understand one utility has estimated their post-Fukushima 

cost to be $400 million. That is $.4 billion. That is a lot of money. 

So the NRC incurs costs in establishing new regulatory requirements. Right now, there are 56 rulemakings listed on the regulations.gov site. The industry incurs costs to implement the requirements. And then the NRC incurs more costs approving and overseeing the industry’s implementations. This seems to be a self-reinforcing cycle of regulatory burden. Not only do I question whether 

this is sustainable over the long term, I am concerned about whether the safety gains are commensurate with these costs. 

The NRC’s Principles of Good Regulation include reliability, 

which states that—and I quote, ‘‘once established, the regulation 

should be perceived to be reliable and not unjustifiably in a state 

of transition’’ and ‘‘should be promptly, fairly, and decisively administered so as to lend stability to the nuclear operational and 

planning processes.’’ 

Nuclear energy makes a vital contribution to our energy security. 

It is a pillar in our energy profile. One utility has already cited regulatory burden is a factor in their decision to close the plant prematurely. For plants whose economic viability is threatened, this 

increasing regulatory burden is a factor that can’t be ignored when 

considering whether to keep operating. Decommissioning shouldn’t 

be the only option that provides regulatory stability.’’ I think this 

situation calls for strong leadership from the Commissioners. 

Now for the question, and I would like to go down and have each 

of you answer. What do you think the NRC should do to stabilize 

this situation and restore some stability to the regulatory environment? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, I think that the Commission’s approach to its 

post-Fukushima actions does reflect and take into account a number of the concerns that you have just expressed. For example, 

when presented with a long list of potential areas for regulatory action, the Commission itself took and prioritized those actions into 

those that would provide the greatest safety benefit. And we acted 

on those first. So the estimate of how much that red line would go 

up on your graph once the post-Fukushima actions are completed 

and all fully implemented is I think some of the costs will be loaded into the early years, because we have acted first on those things 

that have the greatest benefit to safety. And for the remainder of 

the actions, we need to strike the right balance between the probability of some of these extreme events and the need to take regulatory action on them. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sir? 

Mr. APOSTOLAKIS. I must say I was a little bit disturbed by your 

several slides that were shown today regarding costs. So I will go 

back and try to understand better what the reasons are. But as I— 

and I agree with Commissioner Svinicki’s comments. But also, in 

87 

my opening statement, I mentioned a few things that the Agency 

is doing now to deal with the so-called cumulative effects of regulations. So I believe the Commission is aware of these problems, and 

perhaps we need to do more. So I don’t know yet what else we need 

to do. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Commissioner, I am going to let you go 

last, if that is OK? So let us go to Mr. Magwood. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Thank you. I echo both Commissioner 

Apostolakis and Commissioner Svinicki. I would also add that as 

we go through the effort of looking at each one of these regulations, 

we do look at them in the context of what is necessary. I think each 

of us of course weighs that differently. And if something is not necessary, we don’t approve it. There are times—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. But the slides indicate that hasn’t worked up until 

now. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. And then there are many things that have been 

proposed that the Commission has not approved. And we have been 

pretty aggressive about that. So in my view, you know, learning 

nuclear power plants is not for the faint of heart. And you have 

to—we have to be able to meet regulatory requirements. And the 

requirements we put forward I think are appropriate. That said, I 

think—and Commissioner Apostolakis alluded to this earlier, that 

there is a very useful—very important conversation taking place 

within the Agency—and with the Agency and the industry, talking 

about prioritization of regulations. And this is something I think 

that if it is successful would enable us to look at regulations in a 

more holistic manner at each site. And that is really I think the 

path of the future. And that is how you would best address these 

issues. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I know we are considerably over 

time, but I would like each panel member to have a chance to answer. If you would indulge us. Sir? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you for the question. I would just agree 

with my colleagues’ comments, and maybe add two other thoughts. 

One of them is that we—and Commissioner Magwood mentioned 

that we have this approved staff recommended enhancements to 

regulations. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am sure you have. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But what we are talking about here are the facts 

that are in the costs and the gains. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I understand. I am just telling you—and I will 

look at our—specifically in our post-Fukushima decisionmaking. 

You know, perhaps we need to do a better job of coming by to see 

you and explain these, but we do post—and all of our written notation votes are public. We explain in great detail, every individual 

Commissioner, as to what decision we have reached and why. And 

if you go look, I will just highlight 1 decision, the external filter decision from earlier in 2013 where the Commission spent a great 

deal of time looking at the pros and cons, the cost benefit analyses 

and came to a decision that did not require installation of an external filtered vent, but gave industry more latitude to develop filtering strategies. So I think there are examples there. We perhaps 

need to communicate it better. 

88 

Mr. JOHNSON. And I agree that there are probably some things 

that you have done very well. But in all due respect, what you are 

describing are things that you have done that have—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So my colleague is causing us to be very patient. 

If you could? If you would—briefly, if you can? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I will keep it short. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I agree with my colleagues in the statements 

they have made. I do think that we are cognizant of the cost benefit analysis. But I just want to remind you that the Atomic Energy 

Act requires us to not consider costs when the NRC determines 

that a given regulatory action is required for the adequate protection of nuclear facilities. And that was the case with a number of 

the orders given post-Fukushima. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence, as 

well as the committee. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair now 

recognizes my colleague, my friend, my congressional classmate, 

the woman—the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good to see 

you in fine form today. I am happy to see all 5 Commissioners here 

today, just as everyone else said. And I just have a few questions. 

Commissioner Svinicki, you were on the Commission in 2010, is 

that correct? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. I just want to get a little recent history clear. And 

since you were there, I want to start with you. In that year, in 

2010, the DOE filed a Motion with the NRC to withdraw the Yucca 

Mountain license application, is that correct? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, I believe so. I am having to go from my memory on some of these dates. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Yes. But the NRC Licensing Board denied the 

Motion, and the Commission sustained the Licensing Board’s denial of the application, is that correct? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. But then after the denial of DOE’s Motion, the 

NRC did not continue to review the Yucca application because of 

budgetary limitations, is that correct? 

Ms. SVINICKI. The sequence of events may be a little bit different 

after the Commission sustained the Licensing Board—it may have 

been that there was some time that the staff worked to kind of 

have what we call an orderly closeout of activities. So they may not 

have happened exactly concurrently. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Chairman Macfarlane, what were the budgetary limitations that were involved with the NRC’s ceasing of reviewing the Yucca applications, do you know? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I wasn’t Chairman then, so I—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. And you don’t know? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I don’t know, but I can take that for the record 

and try to get the answer for you. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Now, since that point, the courts have ordered the NRC to continue that review. And you are now complying with those orders, is that correct? 

89 

Ms. MACFARLANE. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now, you have got about $11 million—this kind 

of goes to Mr. Dingell’s questions that he was asking. And my staff 

tells me that you have about $11 million remaining in the Yucca 

accounts. And your staff estimates that it will cost about that much 

to finish the report. Is that correct? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. To finish the Safety Evaluation Report, not 

the licensing. 

Ms. DEGETTE. The safety evaluation—that is right. And I just 

want to say, I would encourage the NRC to keep to those timelines 

set and to finish the Safety Evaluation Report, because it looks like 

we have got the money and it is ongoing. And I think it is important to have that. So I just wanted to ask one more question kind 

of following up on what Mr. Engel was talking about, which is the 

bill that we are talking about today. And as a number of folks have 

discussed, the Chairman of the Commission under this bill would 

not be able to exercise emergency authority with—without consulting with congressional committees, other Commissioners and 

the public. And like my colleagues, I am kind of worried about how 

this would work in a crisis. And one thing nobody has asked you, 

and maybe, Madam Chair, this would be a good thing for you to 

talk about is if we learned any lessons from Fukushima about what 

kind of quick response we need to have in a crisis? What lessons 

have we learned from Fukushima? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well, we have learned many lessons. But 

in—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. But in this particular context? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. In this particular context, I think it is important for there to be a person who is in leadership who is in—who 

can make decisions very quickly. I think that is one of the lessons 

taken from Fukushima. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Because in fact in Japan what happened was 

there were a lot of layers of bureaucracy that they had to go 

through, and that delayed decisionmaking, isn’t that right? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. And I think that was—these were lessons 

that the United States learned after the—well, during the Three 

Mile Island accident. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Um-hum. Yes. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. And those lessons were then codified into law, 

and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was restructured according to those lessons. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady yields back her time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Harper, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank each of you 

for being here. And it is encouraging to see a much greater level 

of cooperation among the Commissioners than perhaps in previous 

years. And so that does bring some comfort. 

And if I may start with you, Madam Chair? When we had discussions previously, I had asked you if you had read and reviewed the 

NRC Inspector General’s conclusions in the June 6, 2011, and June 

90 

26, 2012 reports. And at that point, you had not. So I am curious 

if you have had a chance to do that since? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. Yes, I have. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. And that—I know there were revised procedures after the 1 in ’11. Have there been any other revisions that 

I have missed since the June 26, 2012 report as a result of that? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. As a result—no, I don’t believe so. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. Have you taken any actions to address the IG’s 

conclusions that we need to be aware of? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No. 

Mr. HARPER. Are there any that you believe you should make 

based upon the rather comprehensive report in 2012? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. Did you agree with those conclusions that were 

in the report? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I don’t take a—— 

Mr. HARPER. I know I am putting you on the spot with—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I don’t take a view on those—— 

Mr. HARPER. OK. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. You know, I wasn’t here during that period. So 

I don’t have a view on—— 

Mr. HARPER. Yes. And I understand you weren’t here. But, obviously, we would like to make sure that some of those don’t repeat 

themselves. So I am appreciative that you have read those. And if 

I may ask, on August 1, the NRC provided its status report on 

power uprates to the Commission. And, of course, power uprate is 

the term for the process where a nuclear plant requests approval 

to increase their power output, correct? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Um-hum. 

Mr. HARPER. And to date, the NRC has approved 74 power 

uprate requests totaling over 7,000 megawatts of additional capacity, roughly the equivalent of 7 new plants. And so this is a wellestablished practice. That would be true also, wouldn’t it? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Um-hum. Yes. 

Mr. HARPER. You know, in the staff’s report, they indicate that 

a number of power uprate projects have been canceled, freeing up 

3.9 fulltime equivalent reduction of staff work. And the staff also 

notes how they continue to have challenges in meeting their performance goals, even though the goals for review timeliness were 

increased 50 percent. Of the 14 applications under review, three 

were filed in 2004 and another one in 2008. Even though the performance goal for reviewing these applications was less than 12 

months, in fact, none of the applications currently under review 

have met their performance goal. And I will briefly summarize, if 

I may? It is a well-established program with the decreasing workload, but the staff is falling far short of meeting timeliness goals 

in spite of these goals being increased 50 percent. To me, that 

sounds like a program in need of management and accountability. 

And I will give you an opportunity to respond in a moment. 

In the Commission response—what was that? It said it is no 

longer necessary to provide the Commission the periodic status report on power uprates, and if specific issues arise to inform the 

Commissioners’ assistants accordingly. Employees focus on what 

their bosses focus on. If timeliness is of no concern to the CommisVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-11~1\113-11~1 WAYNE
91 

sion, it appears it might not be for the NRC’s staff. The Commission’s lack of leadership on this issue will only further undermine 

schedule discipline at the NRC. The Commission’s efficiency principle states this, the American taxpayer, the rate paying consumer 

and licensees are all entitled to the best possible management and 

administration of regulatory activities. Regulatory decisions should 

be made without undue delay. 

And I would like to hear from each of you on how you think that 

the Commission would be best be able to restore some stability and 

predictability to this core program. And if I could ask you that, 

Madam Chair? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. To the power uprate program? 

Mr. HARPER. Yes. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. Thank you for the question. Of course, we 

are concerned with working as efficiently and as effectively as possible, always, and in terms of power uprates as well. We have been 

working under specific circumstances the past year—year or two. 

In particular, this past year, we have suffered like many agencies, 

sequestration, which has affected our ability to be responsive in a 

number of areas. And power uprates may be one of those. In addition to which, we have taken on additional work for waste confidence that has redirected staff resources for Fukushima and being 

responsive to that. That has redirected staff resources as well. And 

then we have the piece of the industry responsiveness. And, again, 

I go back to statements I have made earlier that when we receive 

applications from licensees, we need high quality applications that 

don’t generate a number of answers, and then we need efficient responses as well. 

Mr. HARPER. And I see my time has expired. And I yield back. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. And we want 

to thank you all. A few short comments. And if Mr. Tonko wants 

to add. I was invited to and attended the Yucca economic symposium put on by Nevadans in Reno a couple weeks ago. So I just 

throw that out as an interesting comment. A lot of the comments 

today by my colleagues I think were based upon I think the industry fears it is on a knife edge with nat gas pressures and this cumulative effect of regulation. And so I think that is that balance 

that you may have heard from a lot of my colleagues. And in a 

commission form of government, the Chairman is responsible for 

agendas and the staff, but you are all still one among equals on 

casting votes. And whether that is at the municipal level or whether that is at the level—and we applaud the camaraderie and moving forward and what we have been able to do. 

I do have one—two announcements. One is Vinnie Esposito’s last 

day as our nuclear fellow. He has been tremendously helpful to us 

and to me personally. And I want to wish him God speed and 

thanks for your help. I would like to finish by thanking you all for 

coming. It was a long hearing. But it was a good one. And I think 

we all learned a lot. I want to remind members that they have 10 

business days to submit additional questions for the record. And as 

promptly as you can, a response to those, we would appreciate that. 

And I would say the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

92 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

93 


88399.036
94 


88399.037
95 


88399.038
96 


88399.039
97 


88399.040
98 


88399.041
99 


88399.042
100 


88399.043
101 


88399.044
102 


88399.045
103 


88399.046
104 


88399.047
105 


88399.048
106 


88399.049
107 


88399.050
108 


88399.051
109 


88399.052
110 


88399.053
111 


88399.054
112 


88399.055
113 


88399.056
114 


88399.057
115 


88399.058
116 


88399.059
117 


88399.060
118 


88399.061
119 


88399.062
120 


88399.063
121 


88399.064
122 


88399.065
123 


88399.066
124 


88399.067
125 


88399.068
126 


88399.069
127 


88399.070
128 


88399.071
129 


88399.072
130 


88399.073
131 


88399.074
132 


88399.075
133 


88399.076
134 


88399.077
135 


88399.078
136 


88399.079
137 


88399.080
138 


88399.081
139 


88399.082
140 


88399.083
141 


88399.084
142 


88399.085
143 


88399.086
144 


88399.087
145 


88399.088
146 


88399.089
147 


88399.090
148 


88399.091
149 


88399.092
150 


88399.093
151 


88399.094
152 


88399.095
153 


88399.096
154 


88399.097
155 


88399.098
156 


88399.099
157 


88399.100
158 


88399.101
159 


88399.102
160 


88399.103
161 


88399.104
162 


88399.105
163 


88399.106
164 


88399.107
165 


88399.108
166 


88399.109
167 


88399.110
168 


88399.111
169 


88399.112
170 


88399.113
171 


88399.114
172 


88399.115
173 


88399.116
174 


88399.117
175 


88399.118
176 


88399.119
177 


88399.120
178 


88399.121
179 


88399.122
180 


88399.123
181 


88399.124
182 


88399.125
183 


88399.126
184 


88399.127
185 


88399.128
186 


88399.129
187 


88399.130
188 


88399.131
189 


88399.132
190 


88399.133
191 


88399.134
192 


88399.135
193 


88399.136
194 


88399.137
195 


88399.138
196 


88399.139
197 


88399.140
198 


88399.141
199 


88399.142
200 


88399.143
201 


88399.144
202 


88399.145
203 


88399.146
204 


88399.147
205 


88399.148
206 


88399.149
207 


88399.150
208 


88399.151
209 


88399.152
210 


88399.153
211 


88399.154
212 


88399.155
213 


88399.156
214 


88399.157
215 


88399.158
216 


88399.159
217 


88399.160
218 


88399.161
219 


88399.162
220 


88399.163
221 


88399.164
222 


88399.165
223 


88399.166
224 


88399.167
225 


88399.168
226 


88399.169
227 


88399.170
228 


88399.171
229 


88399.172
230 


88399.173
231 


88399.174
232 


88399.175
233 


88399.176
234 


88399.177
235 


88399.178
236 


88399.179
237 


88399.180
238 


88399.181
239 


88399.182
240 


88399.183
241 


88399.184
242 


88399.185
243 


88399.186
244 


88399.187
245 


88399.188
246 


88399.189
247 


88399.190
248 


88399.191
249 


88399.192
250 


88399.193
251 


88399.194
252 


88399.195
253 


88399.196
254 


88399.197
255 


88399.198
256 


88399.199
257 


88399.200
258 


88399.201
259 


88399.202
260 


88399.203
261 


88399.204
262 


88399.205
263 


88399.206
264 


88399.207
265 


88399.208
266 


88399.209
267 


88399.210
268 


88399.211
269 


88399.212
270 


88399.213
271 


88399.214
272 


88399.215
273 


88399.216
274 


88399.217
275 


88399.218
276 


88399.219
277 


88399.220
278 


88399.221
279 

Æ 


88399.222