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

82–625 PDF 2013

NRC POLICY AND GOVERNANCE OVERSIGHT 

JOINT 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 TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 24, 2012 

Serial No. 112–169 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

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 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

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 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

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 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

Ranking Member 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

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 ................................................................................................ 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

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

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

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

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 13 

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

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 16 

WITNESSES

Allison M. Macfarlane, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................. 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 76 

Kristine L. Svinicki, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ............... 30 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 93 

William D. Magwood IV, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........ 31 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 100 

William C. Ostendorff, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........... 32 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 110 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Report, undated, of the Office of the Inspector General, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, ‘‘Possible Violations of the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980 

and NRC’s Internet Commission Procedures by NRC Chairman,’’ submitted 

by Mr. Shimkus 1

1 Internet link to the report is available on page 75. 

(1) 

NRC POLICY AND GOVERNANCE OVERSIGHT 

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012 

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 10:01 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus 

(chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy) 

presiding. 

Present from the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy: Representatives Shimkus, Murphy, Pitts, Bass, Latta, 

McMorris Rodgers, Cassidy, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Green, 

Butterfield, Barrow, Matsui, DeGette, Capps, Dingell, and Waxman 

(ex officio). 

Present from the Subcommittee on Energy and Power: Representatives Whitfield, Walden, Terry, Burgess, Bilbray, Scalise, 

Olson, McKinley, Gardner, Pompeo, Griffith, Rush, Castor, Markey, 

and Engel. 

Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Carl Anderson, 

Counsel, Oversight; Gary Andres, Staff Director; Charlotte Baker, 

Press Secretary; Mike Bloomquist, General Counsel; Sean Bonyun, 

Communications Director; Anita Bradley, Senior Policy Advisor to 

Chairman Emeritus; Maryam Brown, Chief Counsel, Energy and 

Power; Allison Busbee, Legislative Clerk; Annie Caputo, Professional Staff Member; Cory Hicks, Policy Coordinator, Energy and 

Power; Heidi King, Chief Economist; David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and the Economy; Andrew Powaleny, Deputy 

Press Secretary; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment 

and the Economy; Brett Scott, Staff Assistant; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Lyn Walker, Coordinator, 

Admin/Human Resources; Jeff Baran, Democratic Senior Counsel; 

Phil Barnett, Democratic Staff Director; Alison Cassady, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member; and Caitlin Haberman, 

Democratic Policy Analyst. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The joint subcommittee hearing will now come to 

order. 

First of all, I want to welcome our friends from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And let me start by again welcoming you in 

particular. Well, let me just recognize myself for 5 minutes for an 

opening statement. 

2 

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

Again, welcome. And Chairman Macfarlane, congratulations. And 

it is good to meet with you for a few minutes before this session. 

Commissioner Apostolakis will be unable to be here today since he 

is visiting his mother in Greece. We wish him safe travel and pray 

that she feels better soon. 

A lot has happened since the Commission last testified before 

this committee. Early this year, the NRC issued the first license for 

new plants in 34 years. In March, the Commission issued orders 

to implement post-Fukushima improvements. Only 2 weeks ago, we 

saw a ‘‘changing-of-the-guard’’ as Chairman Jaczko exited the Commission and Chairman Macfarlane was sworn in. Under Chairman 

Jaczko, the last 3 years have been turbulent for the NRC, to say 

the least, and the change in leadership was long overdue. 

With the new chairman, today’s hearing provides an excellent opportunity to review policy and governance of the Commission. We 

can gather important perspective from the commissioners, and importantly, Chairman Macfarlane, about the future of the Commission and its work. This is an opportunity, not to dwell on the past, 

but to look to the future through some of the important lessons of 

recent commission events and actions. It is critical for our oversight 

that we examine weaknesses in the NRC governance identified 

during the past chairman’s tenure and to assess the many policy 

challenges facing the agency. 

One broad area of policy interest concerns regulatory priorities. 

In its other work, this committee has focused significant attention 

on the combined effect many substantial EPA regulations has had 

on our Nation’s coal plants. It should be of no surprise I am similarly concerned about the potential impact of numerous postFukushima and other regulatory changes on our Nation’s nuclear 

plants. 

Without a doubt, the industry must ensure safe operation and 

regulatory compliance. None of us would tolerate anything less. 

However, I believe it is incumbent on the Commission to consider 

the cumulative effect regulatory changes have on safety. In a 

March 2011 information paper to the Commission, the NRC staff 

cautioned that the cumulative Effects of Regulation ‘‘can potentially distract licensee or entity staff from executing other primary 

duties that ensure safety or security.’’ I believe this cumulative effect risk is valid. 

The NRC and the industry had a full workload of safety improvements under development before the Fukushima accident occurred. 

The Commission must be diligent about ensuring its licensees can 

focus on completing changes with greatest safety significance rather than being diverted onto other, less important changes simply 

to meet artificial timelines. 

Adequate protection is about risk reduction but should not be 

confused with ‘‘risk elimination.’’ Risk is inherent to all sources of 

energy, yet energy is necessary to our health and well being—to 

heat our homes, grow our food, and power our economy. With the 

Atomic Energy Act, Congress endeavored to balance the benefits 

nuclear energy brings to the general welfare with protection of pubVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:38 Sep 09, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\11E15B~1\112-16~1 WAYNE
3 

lic health and safety. Our goal as legislators and yours as regulators should be to preserve that balance. 

I want to thank all of the commissioners for coming here today 

to update the committee on the NRC activities, and I look forward 

to their testimony and willingness to answer our questions. 

And I would like to yield the balance of my time to my friend, 

Mr. Terry, from Nebraska. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

4 


82625.001

Opening Statement Chairman John Shimkus 

"NRC Policy and Governance Oversight" 

July 24, 2012 

The joint subcommittee hearing will now come to order. 

Let me start by welcoming the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and, in 

particular, the new Chairman, Allison Macfarlane. Commissioner Apostolakis 

was unable to be here today since he is visiting his mother in Greece. We wish 

him safe travel and pray that she feels better soon. 

A lot has happened since the Commission last testified before this 

Committee. Early this year, the NRC issued the first license for new nuclear 

plants in 34 years. In March, the Commission issued orders to implement postFukushima improvements. Only two weeks ago, we saw a "changing-of-theguard" as Chairman Jaczko exited the Commission and Chairman Macfarlane 

was sworn in. Under Chairman Jaczko, the last three years have been turbulent 

for the NRC, to say the least, and the change in leadership was long overdue. 

With the new Chairman, today's hearing provides an excellent 

opportunity to review policy and governance of the Commission. We can 

gather important perspective from the Commissioners, and importantly, 

Chairman Macfarlane about the future of the Commission and its work. This is 

an opportunity, NOT to dwell on the past, but to look to the future through 

some of the important lessons of recent Commission events and actions. It is 

critical for our oversight that we examine weaknesses in the NRC's governance 

identified during the past Chairman's tenure and to assess the many policy 

challenges facing the agency. 

One broad area of policy interest concerns regulatory priorities. In its 

other work, this Committee has focused significant attention on the combined 

effect many substantial EPA regulations has had on our nation's coal plants. 
5 


82625.002

It should be no surprise I am similarly concerned about the potential 

impact of numerous post-Fukushima and other regulatory changes on our 

nation's nuclear plants. 

Without a doubt, the industry must ensure safe operation AND regulatory 

compliance. None of us would tolerate anything less. However, I believe it is 

incumbent on the Commission to consider the cumulative effect regulatory 

changes have on safety. In a March 2011 information paper to the 

Commission, the NRC staff cautioned that the Cumulative Effects of 

Regulation H ••• can potentially distract licensee or entity staff from executing 

other primary duties that ensure safety or security." I believe this cumulative 

effect risk is valid. 

The NRC and the industry had a full workload of safety improvements 

under development before the Fukushima accident occurred. The Commission 

must be diligent about ensuring its licensees can focus on completing changes 

with greatest safety significance rather than being diverted onto other, less 

important changes simply to meet artificial timelines. 

Adequate protection is about risk reduction, but should not be confused 

with "risk elimination." Risk is inherent to all sources of energy, yet energy is 

necessary to our health and well-being: to heat our homes, grow our food, and 

power our economy. With the Atomic Energy Act, Congress endeavored to 

balance the benefits nuclear energy brings to the general welfare with 

protection of public health and safety. Our goal as legislators and yours as 

regulators should be to preserve that balance. 

r want to thank all of the commissioners for coming here today to update 

the committee on NRC activities, I look forward to their testimony and 

willingness to answer our questions. With that I yield the balance of my time 

to Mr. Barton for the purposes of an opening statement. 
6 

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

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this very important hearing. As you may be aware, I introduced 

legislation in December of last year in response to many of the concerns that were being raised at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the IG reports confirmed those concerns. 

I want to welcome the new chair of the Commission and relay 

that it is my sincere hope that we can work together. I wanted to 

also stress that the NRC has been known throughout the world as 

a premier regulatory agency that has been known to work together. 

I hope we can restore the confidence that people once held with the 

NRC. 

Now, during my questions, I want to discuss aspects of my bill 

to get your feedback, particularly on the previous abuse of emergency powers and maybe setting those down in a more certain way. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

Does Mr. Barton want the remaining time? 

Then, the chair yields back his time now. And the chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

And I want to welcome our commissioners back to our committee. 

Chairman Macfarlane, congratulations on your recent appointment. We are aware of the situations you inherited and I applaud 

your enthusiasm and willingness to address the governance issues 

head-on. I know some of my colleagues continue to have concerns 

about some of the actions initiated under the former Chairman 

Jaczko. I do hope that we can allow the new chair the opportunity 

to tackle some of these governance issues before making the assumptions on the NRC’s work going forward. In the meantime, we 

should focus our committee oversight on ensuring safety and viability of our nuclear fleet. 

I am a long-term supporter of nuclear energy because it is a 

cleaner energy alternative. The President has said he supports investments in alternative forms of energy, and Secretary Chu has 

testified before this committee that we would be unable to meet the 

President’s goals if we do not continue to invest in nuclear energy. 

With that, there is no doubt, though, that the issue of long-term 

and interim nuclear storage facility disposal needs to be dealt with 

and I do hope the Commission will seriously look at this issue in 

the near future. 

Again, thank each of you for being here. My hope is that today 

starts a new chapter in our committees’ relationship with the NRC 

and I wish you all the luck in turning over a new leaf. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the balance of my 

time to our ranking member of our full committee, Mr. Waxman. 

7 

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much for yielding to me. 

I also want to begin by welcoming Dr. Allison Macfarlane and 

the other members of the Commission. I look forward to your testimony on the safety and security of America’s nuclear power plants. 

The mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to license 

and regulate the Nation’s civilian use of nuclear materials to ‘‘ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the 

common defense and security, and protect the environment.’’ 

This is a vital mission, but for the last year and a half, the Commission has been distracted from its responsibilities by politicians 

who second-guessed its decisions and sowed internal dissention. 

Regrettably, this committee helped fan the flames of discord within 

the Commission by looking for any opportunity to cast aspersions 

on the former chairman. 

It is time to move on with the four commissioners here today and 

the new chairman. We should focus on examining important nuclear safety issues, not rehashing old grudges. 

There is no shortage of issues to discuss, from the ongoing shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California 

due to safety concerns, to the status of NRC’s post-Fukushima review of nuclear power plant safety in the United States. 

It has been more than a year since the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. Japan’s independent commission investigating the 

events leading up to the disaster recently concluded that the power 

plant operator and Japan’s nuclear regulators failed to implement 

basic safety measures despite known risks posed by earthquakes, 

tsunamis, and other events that can cause long-term blackouts at 

reactors. This is a cautionary tale for the United States, one that 

NRC should heed when implementing lessons learned from the 

Fukushima disaster. 

I look forward to the hearing. I thank the gentleman for yielding 

to me and I yield back the time to Mr. Green should he wish to 

use it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:] 

8 


82625.003

FRED UPTON. MICH1GAN 

CHA!HI'vli\N 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, CAUFORNIA 

RANKING MEMBER 

C/l:ongtess of tbe 1tnitel:J $tates 

ji)Otl£iC of i'\epn£icntatibc£i 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HouSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

M,lj()r!ly (102l225--29?J 

M'"(lriry (202)225·3641 

Opening Statement of Rep. Henry A. Waxman 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Hearing on "NRC Policy and Governance Oversight" 

Subcommittee 011 Environment and the Economy and Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

July 24, 2012 

I want to begin by welcoming Dr. Allison Macfarlane, the new chairman of the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. I look forward to hearing your testimony and perspectives on how to 

refocus the Commission's energy on the safety and security of America's nuclear power plants. 

The mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to license and regulate the nation's 

civilian use of nuclear materials to "ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, to 

promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment." 

This is a vital mission, but for the last year and half, the Commission has been distracted 

from its responsibi lities by politicians who second-guessed its decisions and sowed internal 

dissension. Regrettably, this Committee helped fan the flames of discord within the Commission 

by looking for any opportunity to cast aspersions on the former Chairman. It is time to move on. 

We have tour commissioners here today, including the new chairman. We should focus 

on examining important nuclear safety issues, not rehashing old grudges. 

There's no shortage of issues to discuss, from the ongoing shut-down oflhe San Onofre 

Nuclear Generating Station in California due to safety concerns to the status of NRC's postFukushima review of nuclear power plant safety in the United States. 

It's been more than a year since the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. Japan's 

independent commission investigating the events leading up to the disaster recently concluded 

that the power plant operator and Japan's nuclear regulators failed to implement basic safety 

measures despite known risks posed by earthquakes, tsunamis, and other events that can cause 

long-term blackouts at reactors. This is a cautionary tale lor the United States, one that NRC 

should heed when implementing lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster. 

llook forward to hearing testimony from the witnesses, and I thank them for their time. 
9 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, unless another member on our side 

wants the remainder of the minute—no one? 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back time. 

The chair recognizes the chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, 

Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes. 

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

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

welcome the commissioners from the NRC today and tell all of you 

how much we appreciate the important work that you do. We are 

all optimistic and hopeful that Chairwoman Macfarlane will make 

great improvements and restore the collegiality at the Commission. 

And we know that she has an impressive background in this area 

and look forward to working with her. 

All of us watched closely the events that surrounded the 

Fukushima situation, and when the Japanese Diet’s Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission reported that if 

Fukushima had been required to implement, for example, the 

‘‘B.5.b’’ order issued by the NRC following the 9/11 terrorist attacks 

on the U.S., ‘‘that accident may have been preventable.’’ 

That same report also observed that Japanese plants were not 

required to consider a possible station blackout scenario, something 

that the NRC instituted in the 1980s. And last year, the NRC’s 

Taskforce concluded that ‘‘events like the Fukushima accident are 

unlikely to occur in the United States’’ and that ‘‘continued operation and licensing activities do not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety.’’ 

We all were encouraged by that and I know that on March 9 of 

this year, the NRC issued a series of orders without a rigorous 

cost-benefit analysis. I understand it was the Commission’s collective judgment to proceed in that fashion due to the urgency of 

those high-priority issues and I don’t think any of us disagree with 

that. But moving forward with the complicated and complex issues 

that you deal with, we do know that you will be striving and we 

hope that you will strive for a solid technical basis and rigorous 

cost-benefit analysis on any decision that is made. 

But once again, we look forward to your testimony and look forward to the opportunity to ask questions, and thank you for joining 

us. 

And I would yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the 

full committee, Mr. Upton. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

10 


82625.004

Chairman Whitfield's Opening Statement 

NRC Policy and Governance Oversight Hearing 

July 24, 2012 

I am pleased that we were able to hold this hearing with the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission and I welcome Chairwoman Macfarlane to the Commission. You 

have a big challenge ahead of you at the Commission and we all have high hopes 

that you'H be able to restore the work environment at the NRC. 

I would like to focus my comments today on the Fukushima nuclear accident and 

make some observations on NRC's many actions. 

We all watched closely as the Fukushima situation played out and we're all 

committed to making sure that an accident like the one in Japan doesn't happen in 

the United States, which is why in America we already had safeguards in place to 

prevent such a disaster. However, if there are improvements that need to be to our 

system, I think we should address them to the extent practicable and necessary. 

What I mean by addressing any issues to the extent necessary is recently the 

Japanese Diet's Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation 
11 


82625.005

Commission reported that if Fukushima Daiichi had been required to implement 

the "B.S.b" order issued by the NRC following the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the 

U.S., "the accident may have been preventable." 

That same report also observed that Japanese plants were not required to consider a 

possible station blackout scenario, something the NRC instituted in the 1980's. 

Last year, the NRC's Task Force concluded that " ... events like the Fukushima 

accident are unlikely to occur in the United States ... " and that " ... continued 

operation and licensing activities do not pose an imminent risk to public health and 

safety." 

Reflecting on the NRC's lessons learned following the Three Mile Island accident, 

the Task Force cautioned " ... some of the actions taken by the NRC after Three 

Mile Island were not subjected to a structured review and were subsequently not 

found to be of substantial safety benefit and were removed." 

On March 9 of this year, the NRC issued a series of orders without a rigorous costbenefit analysis. I understand it was the Commission's collective judgment to 

proceed in that fashion due to the urgency of those high priority issues and I don't 
12 


82625.006

disagree. 

However, it is my expectation that any regulatory actions going forward will return 

to the agency's practice of having a solid technical basis and rigorous cost-benefit 

analysis. 

I urge the Commission to remember that the costs of these changes are ultimately 

born by consumers. For those struggling to fill their gas tanks and pay their bills, 

we need to ensure that any additional costs are justified by real safety benefits. 

Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time. 
13 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. And I thank both of you for holding this 

important and very timely hearing. I am pleased for the opportunity to personally relay the concerns that folks in southwest 

Michigan have regarding recent news reports of degraded performance of the Palisades nuclear plant in my district. I share those 

concerns and have raised them with Entergy officials. I understand 

they have made many management changes and have very detailed 

plans about how to restore their facility to the high level of safety 

that we, every one of us, expect. And while I am encouraged by 

their commitment to resolve the situation, I will continue monitoring this situation closely, working directly with the company, as 

well as the NRC, and I look forward to asking questions of the 

Commission on that issue. 

With regard to governance, Congress recognized in 1974 that one 

person should not be able to dictate what constitutes nuclear safety. They gave that responsibility to a commission of five people to 

consider complex issues collegially and in a manner that maximizes 

the benefit of nuclear technology while protecting the public. 

Collegiality is not just a buzzword; it is a critical safeguard against 

ill-considered policymaking by any single commission member. 

Following the Three Mile Island accident, Congress passed the 

Reorganization Plan of 1980 to address organizational weaknesses 

and clarify lines of authority. The Reorganization Plan shifted a 

certain amount of authority from the Commission to the chairman, 

and while that approach served the Nation well for nearly 30 

years, we have now witnessed how one person, intent on expanding 

the limits of his authority, can undermine the Commission’s effectiveness. I am relieved the Jaczko era is officially behind us, but 

flaws have been exposed at the Commission that still need to be 

addressed. 

As we have learned through our investigations and two IG reports, just a few of the former chairman’s actions include: repeated 

attempts to influence or withhold agency staff information from the 

Commission; intimidation and bullying of commissioners and agency professionals creating a chilled work environment; and use of 

the Public Affairs Office to denigrate his colleagues and politicize 

and pressure commission policy positions. 

In all my years on this committee, I have never witnessed a situation like that during the past 3 years at the NRC. Last year, four 

commissioners took the unprecedented step of privately alerting 

the White House Chief of Staff to the untenable situation. Sadly, 

the President’s response was to turn a blind eye while the four eminently qualified commissioners, whom he nominated, were all 

vilified by Chairman Jaczko’s allies when their concerns became 

public. We must ensure history never repeats itself. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

14 


82625.007

Chairman Upton's Opening Statement 

"NRC Policy and Governance Oversight" 

10:00 AM, July 24, 2012 

Thank you, Chairmen Shimkus and Whitfield for holding this important and 

timely hearing. I'm pleased for this opportunity to personally relay the concerns 

that folks in Southwest Michigan have regarding recent news reports of degraded 

performance ofthe Palisades nuclear plant. I share those concerns and have raised 

them with Entergy officials. I understand they have made many management 

changes and have very detailed plans about how to restore Palisades to the high 

level of safety that we all expect. While I'm encouraged by Entergy's commitment 

to resolve the situation, I will continue monitoring this issue closely, working 

directly with the company, as well as the NRC. I look forward to asking questions 

of the Commission on this issue. 

With regard to NRC governance, Congress recognized in 1974 that one 

person should not be able to dictate what constitutes nuclear safety. They gave that 

responsibility to a commission of five people to consider complex issues 

colJegiallyand in a manner that maximizes the benefit of nuclear technology while 

protecting the pUblic. Collegiality is not just a buzzword, it is a critical safeguard 

against ill-considered policymaking by any single Commission member. 

Following the Three Mile Island accident, Congress passed the 

Reorganization Plan of 1980 to address organizational weaknesses and clarifY lines 

of authority. The Reorganization Plan shifted a certain amount of authority from 

the Commission to the Chairman. While this approach served the nation well for 

nearly three decades, we have now witnessed how one person, intent on expanding 
15 


82625.008

the limits of his authority, can undermine the Commission's effectiveness. I am 

relieved the Jaczko era is officially behind us, but flaws have been exposed at the 

Commission that will need to be addressed. 

As we've learned through our investigations and two Inspector General's 

reports, just a few of the former Chairman's actions include: 

• Repeated attempts to influence or withhold agency staff information 

from the Commission; 

• Intimidation and bullying of Commissioners and agency professionals 

creating a chilled work environment; and 

• Use of the Office of Public Affairs to denigrate his colleagues and 

politicize and pressure commission policy positions. 

In all my years on this Committee, I have never witnessed a situation like the 

past three years at the NRC. Last fall, four commissioners took the unprecedented 

step of privately alerting the White House Chief of Staff to the untenable situation. 

Sadly, the president's response was to tum a blind eye while the four eminently 

qualified commissioners, whom he nominated, were all vilified by Chairman 

Jaczko's allies when their concerns became public. We must ensure history never 

repeats itself. 

My hope is that Chairman Macfarlane recognizes that the NRC is no place 

for politics and that she will work collegially with her colleagues to mend the 

agency's credibility. I do welcome some of her recent public comments on this 

matter and look forward to today's testimony. Thank you. 
16 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

And again, I would like to welcome the commission members. 

And it is my understanding that the chairman will offer the opening statement for—oh, I am sorry. 

Without objection, I would like to recognize the ranking member 

of the Energy Subcommittee—I didn’t know there were any other 

subcommittees other than mine, Bobby—for 5 minutes for your 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

thank again all of the NRC commissioners for your attendance here 

today. You certainly deserve all the accolades that we can give to 

you because of the hard work that you do and have continued to 

do, even under the former chairman. 

Dr. Macfarlane, I really want to thank you for being here and I 

want to welcome you. We look forward to your insightful and rigorous leadership, and we know that the genius is yet to appear, but 

it is here present with us and so I am so delighted that you are 

here before this committee and that you are the chairman of the 

NRC. So welcome. 

I look forward to hearing from you and I look forward to hearing 

your vision for the agency moving forward. And I look forward to 

hearing how you plan to work in concert with your fellow commissioners to ensure that the agency is conducting its work smoothly 

and without interruption. 

Mr. Chairman, for Illinois, our State, housing more nuclear reactors than any other State in the country, my constituents and 

yours want to be assured that the NRC has in place commonsense 

protocols for both mitigating risks of a nuclear disaster, as well as 

procedures to safeguard the public in the event that a disaster occurs. Specifically, I look forward to hearing more about the steps 

that the Commission has put in place to improve safety based on 

a huge amount of information we have learned following the events 

at Fukushima. 

It has now been over 16 months since the horrific disaster of last 

March, and in the past 12 months, there have been seven major 

reports on Fukushima, as well as numerous international IAEA 

and other international studies on the events that took place at 

Fukushima. The 30 plus NRC actions that were initially approved 

by the agency were based on a report that was drafted within 3 

months of the Fukushima events and before any root cause or detailed timeline of events had been made public. And I am curious 

to know if the agency has assessed the list of NRC actions against 

the vast array of information to ensure that the NRC staff, and 

more importantly, the industry, are focused on the issues that were 

the cause and that are safety-significant. 

Mr. Chairman, while I believe nuclear power must be a vital part 

of our country’s overall energy portfolio, we must ensure that we 

have the best systems and practices in place to safeguard against 

an unforeseen nuclear accident to prevent widespread disaster like 

what we witnessed last March in Japan. My constituents in the 1st 

District and in Illinois, as well as the larger American public exVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:38 Sep 09, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\11E15B~1\112-16~1 WAYNE
17 

pect us to address these pressing issues, so I look forward to hearing from the commissioners today. 

One other matter, Mr. Chairman, on another significant note, I 

also look forward to hearing more about the NRC’s work in supporting the engineering departments of HBCUs, historically black 

colleges and universities, as reported in the magazine ‘‘U.S. Black 

Engineer and Information Technology.’’ Supporting STEM education is a top priority for me, and the NRC was recognized as one 

of the government agencies considered most supportive of the engineering departments of HBCUs, and I would like to hear more 

about your work in that particular area. 

So I look forward to hearing more about this work, more in depth 

about all your activities. 

And Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back 9 seconds. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The chair welcomes the ranking member for those 

9 seconds. 

And now, I would like to recognize Chairman Macfarlane. Your 

full statement is in the record for the Commission, and then you 

are recognized for 5 minutes, and we will be very generous, so don’t 

feel rushed. And then I think it is our understanding that we will 

give the other members of the Commission an opportunity for 5 

minutes for an opening statement. 

With that, the chair recognizes the chairman of the NRC, Honorable Macfarlane. 

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

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

STATEMENT OF ALLISON M. MACFARLANE 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thank you very much. 

Chairmen Whitfield and Shimkus, Ranking Members Rush and 

Green, and members of the subcommittees, I am honored to be 

here before you today in my first congressional appearance as 

chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

I am pleased to join my fellow commissioners to discuss the critical policy issues facing our agency. I have had the opportunity and 

privilege to begin working with Commissioners Svinicki, 

Apostolakis, Magwood, and Ostendorff. They are all talented professionals with a rich and diverse set of experiences. I am looking 

forward to collaborating with them and forming a collegial relationship and service to the country and the mission of the agency. 

I would like to take a moment to address my leadership style 

and the approach I will take as chairman. I have already begun to 

reach out to my fellow commissioners to lay the groundwork for a 

strong working relationship, and I look forward to seeking and receiving their advice on consequential matters facing the agency. I 

am committed to maintaining open lines of communication and a 

respect for their views and best judgment. I believe that by working together collegially, the product of our efforts as a commission 

will be stronger and more protective of the public interest. 

18 

To execute their responsibilities effectively, my colleagues must 

have access to unfettered and timely information, and I will ensure 

that they are fully and currently informed. 

One of my responsibilities is to ensure that the Commission’s policy direction is being carried out in the most effective and efficient 

manner to support the mission. While the commitment and capability of the executive director of operations and his senior management team is impressive, the chairman must be in the position to 

monitor staff performance and verify that mission responsibilities 

are being met effectively. I look forward to working with the EDO 

to find the right balance between our respective roles. 

Finally, I embrace the NRC’s organizational values that are intended to guide every action taken by agency personnel. These values are integrity, service, openness, commitment, cooperation, excellence, and respect. I support the commitment to an open, collaborative work environment that encourages all employees and 

contractors to promptly speak up and share concerns and differing 

views without fear of negative consequences. I believe these values 

are worthy of highlighting as we reinforce our agency’s focus on its 

critical mission of safeguarding the public’s health, safety, and security and protecting the environment. 

This is especially valuable at a time when the agency is dealing 

with a wide array of critical safety matters. We continue to focus 

on implementing the important lessons learned from the 

Fukushima Dai-ichi accident. The NRC continues to believe that 

our Nation’s nuclear fleet is safe and not facing imminent risk from 

a similar accident. However, the Fukushima disaster clearly offers 

lessons to be learned. 

I look forward in this context to working with my colleagues to 

establish safety measures derived from the recommendations by 

the NRC Near-Term Task Force. The staff has prioritized these 

recommendations into three tiers. In March, the Commission approved the first tier of actions for the staff to issue as immediately 

enforceable orders. We also issued requests for information to our 

licensees to help inform the staff as we proceed in developing the 

Tiers 2 and 3 measures. This is a substantial amount of progress 

in a short time, and the Commission looks forward to continuing 

to work with the staff to address remaining Fukushima-related lessons. 

In addition, the NRC has made significant strides in several 

other areas this year. We issued the first two new reactor licenses 

in over 30 years—the Vogtle site in Georgia and the Summer site 

in South Carolina. We also authorized a new design certification 

for the AP–1000 reactor, four new uranium recovery licenses, and 

a license for the AREVA Eagle Rock centrifuge enrichment facility. 

We anticipate more applications and decisions being made in the 

next few years in all these areas. 

With all these new developments, the NRC continues its responsibility for making the safety and security of our current operating 

nuclear fleet by performing thousands of hours of inspections at 

plants and material sites. On the whole, our Nation’s nuclear 

power plants have performed well, and where issues have arisen, 

the agency has moved expeditiously to resolve any problems. 

19 

We are always working to bring transparency to our operations 

and maintain strong relationships with our stakeholders and the 

public. It is these accomplishments that demonstrate time and 

again the level of professionalism among the NRC staff. I am proud 

to be a part of this agency and I look forward to working with my 

fellow commissioners and the staff in the coming months. 

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

happy to answer any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Macfarlane follows:] 

20 


82625.009

WRITTEN STATEMENT 

BY ALLISON M. MACFARLANE, CHAIRMAN 

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

TO THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEES ON ENERGY AND POWER, ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY 

JULY 24, 2012 

Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member 

Green, and Members of the Subcommittees, my colleagues and I are honored to appear before 

you today on behalf of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Thank you for 

providing the first hearing opportunity with me as Chairman. Commissioner Apostolakis has 

asked me to convey his regrets that he was not able to attend today. I believe I speak for all of 

us on the Commission when I say that I hope that this is the start of a positive working 

relationship. As we do on the Commission, those of you on this Committee take your oversight 

role seriously. We respect and welcome that. 

Since this is my first time appearing before you, I would like to briefly describe my 

management style to give you a sense of how I am approaching my new role. My approach to 

management and to accomplishing work is to operate in a collaborative and collegial manner, 

always reaching out to others for input and ideas. In the past, I have worked with people with 

diverse backgrounds and views, most recently as a Commissioner on the Blue Ribbon 

Commission on America's Nuclear Future. I worked there to forge consensus on the issues we 

tackled. Toward that end, at the NRC, I have already begun to meet regularly with my 

Commissioner colleagues, to seek their thoughts on major issues facing the agency, and to 

benefit from their expertise. 
21 


82625.010

I am honored to be working with Commissioners Svinicki, Apostolakis, Magwood and 

Ostendorff. I appreciate the warm welcome they have offered me, and I look forward to 

continuing to forge a collegial relationship with them. Since my nomination, confirmation and 

subsequent swearing in, I have also had the opportunity to meet a number of the dedicated staff 

at the NRC, who have begun to provide me with briefings on some of the important issues 

before the Agency. While I was aware of the staff's stellar reputation, these briefings have 

reinforced my observations about both the quality of the NRC staff and their strong commitment 

to the Agency's mission. 

I make this commitment to you today: I will devote all my energies to serving on the 

NRC with the attributes that I consider important to good governance - openness, efficiency and 

transparency. I will make a strong commitment to collegiality at all levels. An agency endowed 

with the public trust such as the NRC requires a respectful working environment to assure its 

integrity. 

Today I would like to start with an update on the NRC's implementation of safety 

enhancements based on our review of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident, and then move 

into an overview of the NRC - some recent accomplishments, and the challenges that lie ahead 

of us. 

With everything that we have assessed to date, the Commission continues to believe 

that there is no imminent risk from continued operation of existing U.S. nuclear power plants. At 

the same time, the NRC's assessment of insights from the events at Fukushima Dai-ichi leads 

us to conclude that additional requirements should be imposed on licensees to increase the 

capability of nuclear power plants to mitigate beyond-design-basis extreme natural phenomena. 

The Commission has approved the staff's prioritization of the recommendations of the 

Near-Term Task Force ("Task Force") into three categories, or tiers. Tier 1 consists of actions to 

be taken without delay, and these actions are underway. Tier 2 is the next set of actions that 

can be initiated as soon as critical skill sets become available and pertinent information is 

2 
22 


82625.011

gathered and analyzed. Tier 3 recommendations require that the staff conduct further study or 

undertake shorter-term actions first. 

On March 9, the Commission authorized the NRC staff to issue three immediately 

effective Orders to U.S. commercial nuclear reactors. These Orders address what the NRC 

determined to be the recommendations from the agency's Japan Near-Term Task Force Report 

issued in July 2011 that could be implemented without delay. The orders, issued by the staff on 

March 12, require several things: 

1) Licensees must develop, implement, and maintain guidance and strategies to 

maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and spent fuel pool cooling 

capabilities following a beyond-design-basis extreme natural event. 

2) Licensees with BWR Mark I and Mark II containments must have a reliable 

hardened vent to remove decay heat and maintain control of containment 

pressure within acceptable limits following events that result in the loss of active 

containment heat removal capability or prolonged station blackout. 

3) All operating reactors must have a reliable indication of the water level in spent 

fuel storage pools. 

For all three of these Orders, licensees are required to submit their plans for 

implementing these requirements to the NRC by February 28,2013, and complete full 

implementation no later than two refueling cycles after submittal of a licensee's plan or 

December 31, 2016, whichever comes first Additionally, licensees are required to provide 

periodic status reports so that the staff can monitor their progress in implementing the orders 

and take prompt and appropriate regulatory action, if necessary. 

In addition to the three Orders issued on March 12, licensees were also issued a 

"request for information" that includes the following: 

1) Licensees were asked to perform and provide the results of a reevaluation of the 

seismic and flooding hazards at their sites using current NRC requirements and 

3 
23 


82625.012

guidance, and identify actions that are planned to address vulnerabilities. The 

results will determine whether additional regulatory actions are necessary (e.g., 

ordering plant modifications). 

2) Licensees were requested to develop a methodology and acceptance criteria and 

perform seismic and flooding walkdowns. We expect any performance 

deficiencies that are identified would be addressed by the site's corrective action 

program. Licensees were asked to confirm that they will be using the walkdown 

procedures jointly developed by the NRC and industry or provide alternative, 

plant-specific procedures. 

3) Licensees were requested to assess the ability of their current communications 

to perform under conditions of onsite and offsite damage and prolonged loss of 

alternating current (AC) electrical power. Licensees also were requested to 

assess the plant staffing levels needed to respond to a large-scale natural event 

and to implement strategies contained in the emergency plan. 

The remaining near-term recommendations comprise two rulemakings addressing 

station blackout and integration of emergency procedures. The Commission directed the use of 

an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the station blackout rule making to allow for 

early stakeholder involvement and formal comments. The Commission also designated the 

station blackout rulemaking as a high-priority activity with a goal of completion within 24-30 

months from October 2011. The emergency procedures integration rulemaking also used an 

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to solicit early stakeholder input. These notices were 

issued in March and April respectively. 

Going forward, we will continue stakeholder interaction to support any necessary 

guidance development activity. Beyond that, we will continue our ongoing efforts on the highest 

priority, near-term rulemakings. 

4 
24 


82625.013

Regarding Tier 2 recommendations, we anticipate beginning that work once we collect 

information from Tier 1 activities that is required in order to address Tier 2 recommendations, 

and we are able to reallocate critical staff resources previously devoted to Tier 1 activities. For 

example, the review of other external hazards will begin when resources currently being applied 

to the flood hazards assessments become available. 

We are making good progress. My colleagues on the Commission and I look forward to 

continuing to hear from the NRC staff as we all tackle the remaining work related to lessonslearned from Japan. 

The NRC staff has done an outstanding job of not only making good progress on work 

related to lessons-learned from Japan but also on continuing to ensure the safe and secure 

operation of all our existing licensed facilities. The Commission never loses sight of the fact that 

our effectiveness as a safety and security regulator depends first and foremost on the staffs 

hard work and dedication. 

The NRC once again scored among the top tier of Federal agencies in the 2011 Best 

Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings, in a survey conducted by the Partnership 

for Public Service. While ranking number two overall, the NRC scored number one in all four 

major indices, including leadership and knowledge management, results-oriented performance 

culture, talent management, and job satisfaction. These rankings were determined through an 

analysis of the 2011 Federal Employment Viewpoint Survey conducted by the Office of 

Personnel Management. As Chairman, one of my priorities will be to assure that NRC remains 

a top-ranked Federal agency. 

At the agency, we knew that the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear emergency in Japan would 

raise substantial new challenges. During the past year, however -- in addition to the emergency 

in Japan -- a number of natural disasters in the United States, including flooding in the Midwest 

in June, the August 23'" earthquake in Virginia, as well as hurricanes and tornadoes, created 

additional pressures. These natural disasters required close coordination with states, federal 

5 
25 


82625.014

agencies and licensees, as well as significant public outreach and involved the efforts and 

expertise of numerous staff at the NRC's headquarters and regional offices. 

During the past year, the NRC staff has performed thousands of hours of inspections at 

nuclear power plants and materials sites. The agency has taken hundreds of enforcement 

actions, reviewed more than a thousand licensing actions and tasks, and issued a number of 

proposed and final rules. A final Safety Culture Policy Statement was issued, establishing for 

the first time the Commission's expectations for individuals and organizations involved in NRCregulated activities to establish and maintain a positive safety culture proportionate to the safety 

and security significance of their activities. 

While many plants performed very well during the past year, there is currently one plant 

in a shutdown condition due to significant performance concerns, and one plant in Column Four, 

on a five-column scale, of the Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix after experiencing 

issues that the NRC views as safety significant. There are three plants in Column Three, which 

indicates declining performance, 12 plants in Column Two, and the remaining 87 plants are in 

Column One. The NRC conducted 21 special inspections during 2011-a greater number than 

at any point in recent memory. 

There are currently two units in extended shutdowns -- Fort Calhoun and Crystal River. 

Two units at the North Anna plant were in extended shutdown last year due to the August 23'" 

earthquake in Virginia. They are now successfully in operation again. In addition, the two units 

at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station have been shut down since the beginning of the 

year due to problems with tube wear in their new steam generators. On March 27th, the NRC 

issued a Confirmatory Action Letter documenting actions that Southern California Edison 

officials have agreed to take related to unusual wear on steam generator tubes prior to 

restarting both units. While, in its current assessment of industry trends, the NRC staff has not 

identified any statistically significant adverse trends, we continue to closely monitor these 

trends. 

6 
26 


82625.015

On the licensing front, the NRC staff completed the safety and environmental reviews of 

the first two new reactor combined license applications for the VogUe site in Georgia and the 

Summer site in South Carolina. The Commission held mandatory hearings on both 

applications. Subsequently, the NRC staff issued the first new Combined Licenses for two units 

at the Vogtle site on February 10, and issued Combined Licenses for two units at the Summer 

site on March 30, 2012. The staff also issued the Design Certification for the AP1000. Among 

the existing reactor fleet, the NRC staff issued seven reactor license renewals. They also 

successfully completed the review and approval of two pilot applications for voluntarily 

transitioning to National Fire Protection Association 805 -- a risk-informed, performance-based 

standard for fire protection at nuclear power plants -- and worked with stakeholders to establish 

a submittal and review schedule for 29 anticipated transition applications. 

The NRC staff issued three new uranium recovery licenses and authorized the restart of 

one such facility. The NRC staff is currently reviewing two applications for expansions of 

current facilities and two applications for new facilities, while continuing to receive and review 

license renewal applications for existing uranium recovery facilities. We are expecting a total of 

27 applications for new uranium recovery facilities, expansions, and restarts through 2013. 

The NRC staff issued a license for the AREVA Eagle Rock centrifuge enrichment facility 

to be built in Idaho, the first such license approval issued in almost 5 years. In late February 

2012, we issued the Safety Evaluation Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment license application to construct a laser-based enrichment 

facility in Wilmington, NC, and our Atomic Safety and Licensing Board held a hearing on the 

application earlier this month. 

In line with our responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of nuclear materials, we 

continued implementation of the License Tracking System and the National Source Tracking 

System. We also issued a final policy on the protection of sealed radiation sources containing 

7 
27 


82625.016

radioactive cesium chloride, which are used in blood irradiation, bio-medical and industrial 

research, and calibration of instrumentation and radiation measuring instruments. 

We continued to focus on resolving long-standing safety issues such as Generic Safety 

Issue -191, concerning the potential for the blockage of pressurized water reactors' containment 

sump screens, due to debris accumulation. In addition, we recently issued (with our partners at 

the Electric Power Research Institute and the Department of Energy) a new seismic model that 

will be used by nuclear power plants in the central and eastern United States for seismic reevaluations. 

Cybersecurity is a serious concern for all agencies across the Federal government. In 

2011, we approved cybersecurity plans for all nuclear power plants and established an 

implementation plan to have all plants at a high level of cyber protection by the end of 2012. A 

cybersecurity inspection effort at reactor facilities will commence in 2013. 

Approximately 30 NUREGs - reports or brochures on regulatory decisions, research, 

investigations and other technical and administrative information - were published on a wide 

variety of topics, such as groundwater contamination and the effect of neutron irradiation on the 

internal parts of reactor cores. 

In October 2010, the NRC hosted the first Integrated Regulatory Review Service mission 

to the United States to assess our regulatory infrastructure against international safety 

standards and good practices. The mission was coordinated by the International Atomic Energy 

Agency and concluded that the NRC has a well-established national policy and strategy for 

nuclear safety. Earlier this month, the NRC requested that the International Atomic Energy 

Agency conduct a follow-up mission in the United States in 2014 that would focus on the NRC's 

actions in response to the recommendations and suggestions contained in the October 2010 

mission report and on the NRC's actions in response to the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi 

nuclear power plant site. 

8 
28 


82625.017

Transparency and openness are part of our formal NRC organizational values, and they 

are integral guiding principles in everything we do, both internally and externally. After the 

challenges we have faced over the past year, and the bright spotlight that has been shined on 

nuclear regulation, nuclear safety, and nuclear power plants by the Congress, the media, and 

the public, the NRC continues to be accessible and open, to make sure that all of our 

stakeholders understand what we are doing and why we are doing it. 

The NRC has held more than one thousand public meetings across the country 

throughout the past year, addressing a full range of NRC issues. The agency's public website 

has been redesigned to improve navigation, content, and accessibility. We have also 

substantially improved our web-based document management system to enable the public to 

more easily and quickly access all public documents. In addition, the agency has successfully 

begun to utilize social media tools - including a public blog, Twitter, and YouTube accounts - to 

enhance our outreach efforts. 

As we have worked to fulfill our responsibilities for our safety and security mission, we 

have also been working to increase our effectiveness and efficiency as an agency. 

Construction of our new third headquarters building, Three White Flint North, is on schedule and 

we expect to begin occupying the building in late 2012. One of the valuable lessons learned 

after Three Mile Island was the importance of being co-located. The new building wilt allow 

headquarters staff to once again work in one central location to better support the agency's 

critical health and safety miSSion. None of the agency's many achievements during the past 

year could have happened without support from the entire NRC team - those working on 

budget, finance and legal issues, personnel and administrative support, and technical issues. 

By no means does my testimony cover the full breadth of the agency's wide-ranging 

activities. I am still learning from my colleagues and the NRC staff of the many 

accomplishments this year. But these accomplishments are indicative of an agency with a 

9 
29 


82625.018

strong focus on our mission, and the staff's strong commitment, day-in and day-out, to maintain 

nuclear safety and security. 

As we look forward, the agency expects to meet new and unanticipated challenges. We 

are confident that the NRC will continue to ensure the safe and secure operation of the existing 

licensed facilities and materials, while also ensuring the safe and secure construction and 

operation of new nuclear power plants, possibly including small modular reactors and other 

nuclear facilities. 

We have many important issues on our plate right now - both internally to strengthen our 

organization and externally to continue ensuring the safety and security of our nation's nuclear 

facilities and materials. We are committed to prudently managing the resources entrusted to us 

by the American people, taking full advantage of all the talents and expertise that our diverse 

team brings to the table, and keeping our focus - first and foremost - on public health, safety, 

and security. 

Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member 

Green, and Members of the Subcommittees, this concludes my formal testimony today. Thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you. My colleagues and I would be pleased to respond 

to any questions you may have. 

10 
30 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Chairman. Right on the button on 5 

minutes, so you were well prepared. So that is a good first start. 

The chair now recognizes Commissioner Svinicki. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI 

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

Green, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, and members 

of the subcommittees for the opportunity to appear before you 

today at this oversight hearing to examine NRC policy and governance. 

I would like to begin by recognizing the early commitment of the 

Commission’s new chairman, Dr. Allison Macfarlane, to forge a collegial relationship with each member of the Commission, which 

began even prior to her swearing in earlier this month and has 

continued since that time. I am appreciative of her reaching out to 

me, our fellow commissioners, and members of the NRC Senior Executive Service and staff. The tone she is setting is constructive 

and is a most welcomed opportunity to move forward in a positive 

manner. 

Having joined the Commission in March of 2008, I arrived at an 

agency whose regulatory program is regarded as among the most 

informed and disciplined in the world. I am grateful to President 

Obama for having nominated me this year to serve a second term 

on the Commission. Having been confirmed just last month, I continue to pledge my efforts to advance the NRC’s important work 

during this new term of service. 

The tragic events in Japan in 2011 cast the NRC’s work into 

even sharper relief for the American public. Nuclear technology is 

unique and its use demands an unwavering commitment to safety 

principles. This past March, the NRC issued a series of orders to 

nuclear power plant licensees requiring features to mitigate beyond 

design-basis extreme natural events, the installation of hardened 

venting systems at some plants, and enhanced spent fuel pool instrumentation. The NRC is also requiring nuclear power plant licensees to undertake substantial reevaluations of seismic and 

flooding hazards at their sites. 

The NRC continues to develop and communicate the specific 

guidance for implementing these actions with input from nuclear 

operators, nuclear safety, and environmental interest groups, and 

other members of the public. This work is carried out through the 

committed efforts of the women and men of the NRC in advancing 

the NRC’s mission of ensuring adequate protection of public health 

and safety and promoting the common defense and security. 

I would like to convey publicly my gratitude to the NRC staff for 

the work they do and for assisting my efforts to advance our shared 

goals. 

Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, Chairman 

Shimkus, Ranking Member Green, and members of the subcommittees, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and look forward 

to your questions. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Commissioner Magwood, sir, for 5 minutes. 

31 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD IV 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Thank you. Chairmen Whitfield and Shimkus, 

Ranking Members Rush and Green, members of the subcommittees, it is a pleasure to be before you today to discuss the work of 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

During the 2 1⁄2 years I have served on this commission, we have 

been faced with historic challenges and significant change. We 

have authorized electric utilities to begin construction on the first 

new nuclear power plants since the 1970s. We have also licensed 

the construction and operation of the first uranium enrichment facilities in this country not constructed by the government. At the 

same time, we have also seen troubling errors in the application of 

radioactive sources for medical treatment at the Philadelphia Veterans’ Affairs Medical Center, and in the last year, we responded 

as nuclear power plants were rocked by earthquakes, threatened by 

floodwaters, buffeted by hurricanes and tornadoes. 

In a very real sense, the key attribute of a safety regulator is the 

ability to process experience into learning and learning into action. 

All these events and many others provide us lessons that must be 

learned and applied to make us a better regulator. Fortunately, in 

my experience, the NRC has proven to be extraordinary in its ability to learn from experience and find practical ways of assuring 

safety. 

For this current Commission, the greatest challenges we face 

arise from the urgent need to continue to learn from the lessons 

of the tragedy in Japan at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant. The Commission has already unanimously approved a set of high-priority 

initiatives that are designed to enhance the defense in depth at 

U.S. plants and enable operators to respond more effective to beyond design-basis events. 

We still have much work to do but the steps taken thus far represent a very significant increase in safety based on the Fukushima 

experience. While the technical and regulatory lessons are important, it is my observation that the greatest lesson Fukushima holds 

for any safety regulator is the fleeting nature of credibility. A regulator who loses credibility and public trust is a regulator that has 

failed its mission. If a regulator is not seen as truthful, credible, 

and reliable with a clear focus on the health and safety of the public, it cannot function nor can the nuclear facilities under its oversight. Those who question this need only observe the tens of thousands of Japanese citizens who marched in Tokyo this past weekend. 

It is in that respect that I welcome Chairman Macfarlane to this 

commission. I look forward to working with her to assure that the 

NRC continues its long tradition of technical excellence, veracity, 

and credibility. In the very short time she has been with us, I believe she is off to an excellent start. 

This commission and the agency as a whole will face many difficult impactful decisions in the coming weeks and months. It does 

not overstate the matter to tell you that these decisions could determine the future shape of nuclear regulation in this country for 

many years to come. I look forward to working with my colleagues 

on the Commission, our many stakeholders, and with your subcommittees as we address the challenges ahead. 

32 

I look forward to today’s discussion and look forward to your 

questions. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Now, I would like to recognize Commissioner Ostendorff. And before that, it is important for me to use the bully pulpit to make 

sure that I put on record, beat Navy. We have priorities here in 

this country, and that Army-Navy rivalry is one of the biggest. 

So before you start, beat Navy. And you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Chairman, I must call to your attention the 

record of the past decade. But I have a son who served as an Army 

officer, did two combat tours in Iraq and was there in a very busy 

time period, so I have a very soft spot in my heart for the Army. 

Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Green, Chairman 

Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, members of the committee, I appreciate the chance to be here before you today. It has been a little 

bit over a year since I had the opportunity to appear before this 

committee. 

Last July, the NRC Fukushima Task Force concluded that a sequence of events in the United States similar to that experienced 

in Japan is unlikely. The task force also significantly concluded 

that there is no imminent risk from continued operation of U.S. nuclear power plants. I firmly believe those conclusions offered in 

July of last year remain true and solid today. Nevertheless, I continue to support the NRC in its efforts to strengthen our regulatory 

framework where appropriate in response to Fukushima. 

Along with my colleagues at this table, I commend the NRC’s 

dedicated staff of professionals. I also appreciate the work of my 

colleagues at this table. 

Earlier this year, along with my other colleagues, I voted to approve the issuance of three orders associated with Fukushima actions. Orders related to acts of mitigation strategies, containment 

vent systems, and spent fuel pool instrumentation based on lessons 

learned from Fukushima. I continue to support the informationgathering and analysis necessary to take additional actions as appropriate to enhance safety. We need to continue to pursue these 

efforts in a prioritized, thoughtful manner. 

But even as we dedicate resources to implementing the recommendations and lessons learned from Fukushima, the Commission and our staff continue to be successful in performing our other 

vital work. Effective safety oversight of reactor materials licensees 

remains our preeminent goal. 

And as mentioned by colleagues to my right, earlier this year in 

February and March, we issued the first new reactor licenses for 

construction and operation at the Vogtle and Summer plants. I 

note that the additional Fukushima-related requirements that 

came from the Commission were imposed in these new construction 

reactors. I had the chance to witness the construction of these two 

sites just 2 weeks ago, and I am encouraged by the progress that 

I saw. 

Finally, I join my colleagues in warmly welcoming Dr. 

Macfarlane to the Commission. I fully expect that the collegiality 

33 

and effectiveness of the Commission will benefit from her new leadership. And I state with great confidence today that she is off to 

a very strong start as chairman. 

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

your questions. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Now, I recognize myself for 5 minutes for the first opening round 

of questions. 

This is to the Commission as a whole. My district is home to 

Honeywell’s uranium conversion plant. It is the only one of its kind 

in the U.S. This past May, the NRC reconfirmed as part of a performance review that the plant is operating safely. Two months 

later, Honeywell is in the process of laying off 228 employees due 

to a prolonged shutdown to address recently discovered seismic 

issues. I am concerned for both the safety of the nearby residents 

but also for the livelihoods of those employees. What I am struggling to understand is this: was the NRC correct in May when they 

indicated the plant is safe? If so, then shouldn’t there be a way to 

make safety improvements while minimizing the disruption to the 

plant’s operation and the lives of the employees? Chairman? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thank you for that question, Chairman. 

You will have to bear with me. I have been on the job 2 weeks 

and I am struggling to understand all of the different issues that 

are before us. But I am familiar with the Honeywell issue and I 

am familiar with the fact that the order, the confirmatory action 

letter that was issued to the Honeywell plant came out of 

Fukushima-related inspections. And that is my current understanding of the situation. So it was perhaps separate from what 

you are talking about. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Commissioner Svinicki? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Chairman, as Chairman Macfarlane indicated, the 

NRC did order some additional in-depth inspections at facilities, including fuel-cycle facilities at Honeywell after the events in 

Fukushima. As a result of that, there were indications that the 

amount of material that could hypothetically be released in a seismic event had been underestimated previously, and that is under 

further analysis by both Honeywell as the operator and the NRC 

staff at this time. There is the potential for facility modifications 

to be needed and my understanding is that the issue of what measures might be needed is under very active analysis right now. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So just a brief follow-up. So you are saying that 

the May analysis may not have been correct and you are not attributing that to Fukushima changes? 

Ms. SVINICKI. My understanding is that the situation that the facility is in right now is an outgrowth of the more in-depth 

Fukushima-related inspection but it is against the current design 

basis of the facility. 

The question of whether or not this could have been discovered 

previously is a very complex one, Congressman, and I think we owe 

you, as we complete our analysis, a further answer on that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. And more to the 228 employees who no longer 

have employment right now. 

Commissioner Magwood? 

34 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes, I think both of my colleagues have given you 

a very good summary of the situation. The only thing I would add 

is that a portion of the difficulty we face with the Honeywell facility is that it is a very old facility that actually predates some of 

our regulatory structure. And while we have a lot of certainty that 

it is being operated safely, some of the criteria that one might 

apply today were not available when this plant was first built. So, 

for example, there are no criteria guiding whether the buildings 

housing the process facilities should have any earthquake resistance, for example. We don’t have that requirement in place for this 

facility. But what we do have in place is a requirement that in the 

event of a credible accident that the public be protected. 

And as Commission Svinicki pointed out, in the analysis to decide whether the public is protected, you have to make an assumption as to how much material could possibly be released, and that 

appears to have been an error made in the process to determine 

how much could have been released. We now believe much more 

could be released than had been previously assumed, and that is 

why this change has been—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, let me reclaim my time because I have got 3 

and I am only going to get one question in. 

So let me to go a quote by you, Commissioner Magwood, that 

said, ‘‘it does not, as a general matter, advance the cause of safety 

to inundate licensee staff with multiple actions when a more 

thoughtful process might achieve the agency’s safety goals without 

straining licensee resources.’’ And this is the issue about the additional work, time, effort, energy that might take people off the 

prize of the real concerns on safety. What are your comments to 

that? That is your comment, Commissioner Magwood. Why don’t 

you follow up on that? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Well, just very briefly and give others a chance 

to comment. My belief is that it is very important whenever we 

take a regulatory action that it be done in a prioritized fashion. Obviously, every facility is very different, and we should have an approach that recognizes that what may be a threat to one facility 

may be a much lesser threat to a second facility. And then as we 

are approaching our regulatory implementation, we ought to take 

that into consideration. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Does everyone generally agree with that analysis? 

And I see everyone shaking their head yes, and we appreciate that. 

With that, my time is expired. Chair recognizes the ranking 

member, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On June the 8th, the U.S. Court of Appeals in DC Circuit Court 

called NRC’s evaluation of the risk of spent nuclear fuel deficient, 

noting the Commission did not examine the environmental impact, 

the impacts of failing to license a permanent repository, or environmental risk. The court instructed the NRC to perform a detailed 

evaluation and possible risk posed by the extent of storage pools in 

reactor sites such as leaks and fires or explain why such an evaluation is not needed. 

When do you plan to start this evaluation? And what do you expect it to look like? 

35 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We are in the process of considering various 

options of what to do with waste confidence decisions right now, 

and these options are being vetted. And I can’t say more because 

the issue is an active adjudicatory matter. 

Mr. GREEN. Do you have any idea on a time frame? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. We are going to be working part of this right 

now, immediately. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. On June the 18th, the NRC received a petition 

to suspend final decisions on all pending reactor licensing proceedings pending revisions to be remanded about the Waste Confidence Rule. In its response, NRC stated, ‘‘the commission staff 

agrees that no final decision to grant a combined license, operating 

license, or renewed operating license is to be made until the NRC 

has appropriately disposed of the issues remanded by court.’’ Is it 

true that you will not make any final decision on a license until 

you have addressed the problems with the Waste Confidence Rule? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Again, I believe this is an adjudicatory matter 

and we can’t say more until we have taken a vote. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. In the 16 months since the nuclear accidents in 

Japan, there has been a vast amount of information published 

about the event, the causes, the action taken by the global nuclear 

energy industry. With the benefit of this information, have your 

initial conclusions on the cause of accidents or the priority of the 

regulatory actions associated with Fukushima changed? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Congressman Green, the NRC staff remains very 

cognizant of those international reports as they are issued and they 

do have the potential to further inform our response in the United 

States to Fukushima. So I would characterize to you that we stay 

very engaged in reviewing those results and want to have the most 

risk-informed process that we can to respond to Fukushima going 

forward. 

Mr. GREEN. You know, our concern is we want to make sure— 

it was a terrible tragedy in Japan. We just want to make sure we 

don’t reinvent the wheel, that we see what the problem was there. 

You issued three orders and a request for information on flooding, seismic and emergency preparedness in March. Based on the 

information that is available in the past 12 months, are there any 

other areas where orders may be necessary? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I believe this is to be decided. We are working 

through the different tier activities, and as we get to Tier 2 and 

Tier 3 activities, we may decide on new orders. 

I invite my colleagues to comment. 

Ms. SVINICKI. I would just add that the orders that you described 

were considered by the Commission and the NRC staff to be those 

that provided the greatest potential for risk reduction, so they were 

the highest priority items. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I wanted to add, Congressman, to echo Commissioner Svinicki’s comments that not all of these recommendations from the task force are of equal safety significance. There are 

some that are more urgent, some less urgent, and some that still 

need to be studied. And I will just tell you from where we sit, a 

year and 4 months after Fukushima, I think the thoughtful 

prioritized approach that the agency has taken as a result of the 

staff’s recommendations has been very supportive of safety. 

36 

Mr. GREEN. So there are other orders being looked at, just not 

the higher priority that these three orders, is that correct? If you 

will say yes so the mike can pick it up. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Well, I would say that we are still reviewing. 

As Chairman Macfarlane mentioned, there is a Tier 1 set of issues, 

the highest priority. We are still evaluating recommendations on 

Tier 2 and Tier 3. 

Mr. GREEN. There are a number of recent reports and articles 

critical of the Japanese nuclear industry and government emergency preparedness plans and activities. Are there differences between our regulatory requirements and those of Japan with respect 

to emergency preparedness than those of Japan? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes, actually, there are very significant differences in our approaches. For example, in the United States, each 

nuclear plant is required to perform a full-scale emergency planning exercise once every 2 years. That requirement doesn’t exist in 

Japan. And so we practice emergency planning very rigorously. It 

is a very important part of our defense-in-depth. And I think this 

is something that in Japan they are giving a lot of careful thought 

to today. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I know I am almost out of time. A 

number support expansion of nuclear power. There is lots of things 

in the market—low-price natural gas, lots of other issues—but if 

we are going to deal with long-term, we need to have some transparency, which the chair talked about, but also some guidelines so 

the industry can have some certainty to make sure they go forward. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And the gentleman yields back his time. 

The chair now recognizes the chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for your testimony. 

As you know, the U.S. is still struggling to rebuild its economy 

and to lower unemployment, and energy is always a key component 

in our ability to compete in the global marketplace. And of course, 

cost is a factor that we always look at, the cost of producing energy. 

Regulations certainly affect cost. And I talked about in my opening 

statement how the Japanese Diet’s investigation really was quite 

complimentary of the U.S. regulatory system because we had put 

in place certain safety safeguards that certainly Japan did not 

have. And as Mr. Ostendorff mentioned, you all adopted three 

emergency orders last summer. And it is my understanding that it 

is not required that you do a cost-benefit analysis and it is not required that you do some sort of a technical basis, rationalization 

for the decision. And I am assuming that in those three orders 

there was not a cost-benefit analysis or a technical analysis. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. That is correct. Two of them were deemed adequate protection issues and one was given an exemption. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Two were—I am sorry? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Deemed adequate protection issues. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I will let my colleagues expand on that. 

37 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, then, Chairman Macfarlane and each of 

the commissioners, let me ask this question. I know you are looking at different tiers now, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4, or there may be 

additional orders for post-Fukushima safety improvements. Do you 

believe that any future post-Fukushima actions—it would be beneficial to have a rigorous technical basis and a cost-benefit analysis? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I believe we have to consider all potential actions on their own merits as they come through, and we will decide 

at that time whether they are an adequate protection issue or not. 

And, you know, it depends. There is a lot of information we need 

to gather and examine about each of these different issues in the 

different tiers. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Ms. Svinicki, do you—— 

Ms. SVINICKI. Chairman Whitfield, I don’t disagree with Chairman Macfarlane that each regulatory action will be assessed based 

on the circumstances, but as a general matter, in a number of my 

votes on the NRC’s post-Fukushima actions, I have indicated that 

after the highest priority potential risk reductions are taken such 

as the three orders we just issued, that it is my personal view that 

we need to begin to return to the disciplined cost-benefit analysis 

because the subsequent and follow-on actions will likely not have 

the potential to achieve as significant of a risk reduction. Therefore, I believe moving back into our back-fit rule and our cost-benefit evaluation is appropriate for that reason. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Magwood? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. To some degree I agree with both of my colleagues on this because I do think that most of the actions that 

may follow should undergo a more rigorous analysis. But I also 

think that there may be some actions that are in the Tier 2 and 

Tier 3 category that are adequate protection issues and ought not 

to go through that evaluation. So I agree with Chairman 

Macfarlane’s statement that we should look at each on one an individual basis and make a judgment as we go. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Ostendorff? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Chairman Whitfield, I would just add that I 

think the commission members here at this table that have been 

voting in these matters, my two colleagues to the right and Commissioner Apostolakis, who is not here, have very clearly stated in 

our voting record on Fukushima issues that we need a technical 

analysis to underpin any recommendations for taking action. And 

I think our staff has done that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Well, thank you very much. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The chair now recognizes my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Rush, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, back in May, my office was notified 

that the NRC was recently honored by U.S. Black Engineering Information Technology Magazine as one of the government agencies 

considered most supportive of the engineering departments of historically black colleges and universities. The survey was a result of 

a poll among deans of accredited HBCU engineering programs and 

corporate-academic alliance Advancing Minority Interests in Engineering, which is its name, the Alliance’s name. Supporting STEM 

38 

education and especially for minorities and women is one of my top 

educational priorities. 

I would like to hear more about some of these programs that the 

NRC has been involved in in this particular area. So I would ask 

if any of you could discuss some of the agency’s work in supporting 

the HBCUs’ engineering program. And can my office be of assistance? And how can we be of assistance especially in areas of recruiting in STEM areas? We know that future scientists and engineers of tomorrow, a lot of them could and should come from 

HBCUs. So just take a moment. I am aware of the time and I do 

have some other questions. So please be as brief as you possibly 

can. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Let me just say that in fiscal year 2011, the 

Minority Servicing Institutions Grants Program issued 26 grants, 

of which 15 were awarded to historically black colleges and universities and totaled over $1 million. And the program funded approximately $737,000 in stipends through the Research Participation 

Program. And as you noted, the NRC has been recognized as a top 

supporter based on a survey of deans from engineering schools for 

4 consecutive years. 

Mr. RUSH. Would you send myself, my office, and anyone else on 

the subcommittees the information in writing on that? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Absolutely, happy to. 

[The information follows:] 

39 


82625.019

No. 11-185 

NRC NEWS 

lJ.S. NlJCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

omce o[Public Affairs Telephone: 3011415-8200 

Washington. D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.goy 

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway gOY 

October 3, 2011 

NRC COMPLETES FY11 EDUCATION GRANT AWARDS 

With the issuance this week of S2.8 million in grants to Minority Serving Institutions (MSI). 

the NRC has completed the awarding of approximately S 12.4 million in grants to 9 I higher 

education institutions for the 20 II fiscal year. 

"This program has introduced thousands of students to the nuclear field and helps to 

prepare a workforce for the future." said Bill Borchardt, the NRC's Executive Director for 

Operations. "As a safety reglliator, encouraging the next generation to lea111 nuclear issues is an 

important cornerstone in ensuring the availahility of expertise to effectively carry ont safety and 

security tuission in coming years, H 

The MSI grants were awarded for projects and activities that include nuclear, science, 

technology and mathematic disciplines, research and development projects, human capital 

development, leadership and mentoring activities. education training programs and varions types of 

assistance to 26 programs at 53 different institutions. MSls inelude the Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities. Hispanic Serving Institutions and the Tribal Colleges and Universities located in 

24 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, 

Previously, an additional $9,6 million was awarded for faculty ($5.0M) and curriculum 

development ($4.6M) assisting another 44 programs at 38 different institutions, located 1n28 states 

and the District of Columbia. These grants were awarded for nuclear education, curricula and 

faculty development. 

Curriculum development grants programs covered the following disciplines: nllclear 

engineering, radiochemistry and radiobiology, health physics, materials and mechanical 

engincering. reliability and risk analysis, electrical cngmccring, safeguards and security, human 

factors, human reliability and fire protection cngineering. 

Grant proposals were reviewed against specific criteria by a panel comprised of NRC staff 

and qualified outside reviewers. The panel composition was diverse with most reviewers having 

both experience reviewing proposals for government agencies and advanced credentials in one of 

the fIve discipline areas idcntified in the solicitation. Each panelist had to certify that they did not 

have any conflicts of interest for the proposals they evaillated. 
40 


82625.020

The contacts for more information on these grants are as follows: administrative questions 

contact: Sheila Bumpass, 301-492-3484 or Michael Mills 301-492-3621, Division of Contracts; 

technical questions contact Nancy Hebron-Israel 301-492-2231, or Tanya Parwani-Jaimcs, 301-492-

2308, Office of Human Resources; and Tuwanda Smith, Esq., 301-415-7394, Office of Small 

Business and Civil Rights. 

The complete list of grants is posted on the NRC's website along with more information 

about grant opportunities. In addition, a copy of the NRC Grant Award documents is available 

publicly in the NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). Help in 

using ADAMS is available from the NRC Public Document Room at 301- 4154737 or 

800- 397-4209. 

### 

News releases are available through a free h,/serv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES link 

on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). Ewmail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to 

NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.coruINRCgoy. 
41 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. 

In the 16 months since the nuclear accidents in Japan, there has 

been a vast amount of information published about the event, the 

causes and actions taken by the local nuclear industry. With the 

benefit of this information, have your initial conclusions on the 

cause of the accidents or on the priority of the regulatory actions 

associated with Fukushima changed? What are the top five most 

important actions being taken by the NRC staff and industry to improve safety based on the huge amount of information surrounding 

Fukushima? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well, we have issued three orders and as well 

as some requests for information from our licensees. Those are the 

first actions that the NRC has done and now we are working 

through Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities. 

Mr. RUSH. The 30 plus NRC actions that were approved by the 

NRC were based on a report that was drafted within 3 months of 

the accident and before any root cause or detailed timeline of 

events had been made public. Have you assessed the list of NRC 

actions against this vast array of information to ensure that the 

NRC staff and the industry are focused on issues that were the 

cause and that are safety-significant? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The staff is working very hard to understand 

the full suite of information available out there. They are keeping 

abreast of it and keeping up with their colleagues in other countries. 

And I invite my other colleagues to comment as well. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I would add, Ranking Member Rush, that I am 

going to simplify this a little bit. I think there are two main categories of Tier 1 actions that our staff has been working diligently 

to look at. One is the protection against external events such as a 

seismic event or flooding. And the second is, what are the mitigation strategies if you have an accident, for instance, if you have a 

loss of all power onsite? So those two high-level mitigation strategies and the protection against external events I think are the top 

two categories of all the myriad recommendations that came out of 

the task force. Those are the ones that are getting the highest priority. 

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

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 

Upton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to just reiterate to Chairman Macfarlane I do welcome some of your comments on your new role and I look forward 

to sitting down with you and getting to know you certainly a lot 

better in the weeks and months ahead and ensuring that we have 

a solid relationship. You have a very important job and we want 

to make sure that you have the resources to do your job and you 

do it in a very efficient way. And we are all pulling for you. 

Commissioner Ostendorff, as you know the Palisades plant in my 

district is in Column 3 of the NRC’s Reactor Oversight Program. 

Would you briefly describe for us what that means and what actions the NRC generally takes for plants in that column? 

42 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes, sir. We have a reactor oversight process 

that goes from Column 1, which is the best operating plant, all the 

way down to Column 5, which is the worst operating plant status. 

And as a plant has more problems, there is increased oversight 

that occurs by the NRC staff at that plant. Currently, Palisades is 

in Column 3, which is basically the result of a substantial safety 

significance finding dealing with inadequate work instructions associated with DC power supplies that led to reactor scram and reactor trip. That was also accompanied by what is called a ‘‘White’’ 

finding of low to moderate safety significance that was associated 

with a service water pump coupling failure. As a result of those 

two items, Palisades is in this Column 3. It is the degraded cornerstone column. There is increased oversight. We expect our NRC 

team to be looking with the licensee at their corrective action program and the licensee’s assessment of where their problems are. 

And we expect the next NRC close look at this to be coming sometime probably in September of this year. 

Mr. UPTON. So is it your understanding and belief that Entergy 

and the owners, the operators of this facility, that they are taking 

all the right actions at this point? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I think the final determination of that, Congressman, remains to be seen. I think so far Entergy has been communicating well with the NRC staff about what they are doing. 

Entergy on their own commissioned an external group to come in 

and do a safety culture assessment earlier this year. That has been 

reviewed by the NRC staff. Following inspection in September we 

will look at those details of the safety culture assessment. 

Mr. UPTON. So in September you will review all this information 

and at that point would it be possible to make a determination to 

move them back to Column 2 or not? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. We go through an annual assessment process 

led by our executive director for operations, Bill Borchardt, and Bill 

is in the back row behind us here. And that is on an annual cycle 

that goes through—I am not sure exactly what the cycle is but 

typically those determinations are made in the spring, early summertime period. So I can’t tell you exactly when a determination 

might be made as to whether or not that plant should or should 

not remain in Column 3. 

Mr. UPTON. And you will literally have that information—you 

will be able to make that determination come September? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Well, there would be a certain aspect that will 

be looked at September. This is the safety culture aspects that are 

believed to be part of the root cause, some of the concerns of that 

plant. 

Mr. UPTON. And you will be sharing that with us I am sure. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes, sir. 

Mr. UPTON. And last question, is that early September? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I don’t have a specific date for that. We can get 

back to you if we have some more information about it. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

The chair now recognizes the chairman emeritus, Mr. Dingell, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. 

43 

These questions to Chairman Macfarlane. Madam Chairman, I 

have heard concerns related to the Part 52 licensing process for 

new facilities. It is my understanding that this process is intended 

to provide both a construction and an operating license through the 

same review and to streamline the previous Part 50 process. When 

the first round of Part 52 license applications came into the NRC 

in 2007 and 8, the stated goal by NRC was to complete these reviews in 36 months. Since that time, the time has been raised to 

42 to 48 months. And now it seems that many are headed for 60- 

month review. This is occurring even as there are less applications 

in the review pipeline. My question to you, Madam Chairman, is 

the NRC committed to completing these reviews in an expedited 

manner? Yes or no? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The NRC is committed to completing these reviews as efficiently as possible. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. 

Now, there has been frustration on the slowness of the relicensing process. Is the NRC committed to complete these relicensing reviews in an expedited manner? Please answer yes or no. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The NRC is committed to completing these relicensing reviews as efficiently as possible. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. Now, Madam Chairman, you were a 

member of the Blue Ribbon Commission that recommended working with the communities who might volunteer for a single waste 

storage site. How long would such a process take to finalize? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It is totally uncertain. It could take a few 

years or it could take decades. It entirely depends on the situation. 

Mr. DINGELL. I am very little comforted but I think that is a fair 

answer. 

Madam Chairman, can you tell us what would be the cost of this 

exercise? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The costs of working with the community? 

Mr. DINGELL. Yes. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It entirely depends. 

Mr. DINGELL. To finalize the process. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Again, it entirely depends, and it depends also 

in part on how much compensation is decided for the community 

and in what form that compensation would be. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Now, under current law, how many sites are authorized to be 

evaluated and licensed as a single storage site? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. One. 

Mr. DINGELL. One. Now, does the NRC currently have the funding to move forward to evaluate and license the Yucca Mountain 

facility? Yes or no? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. My understanding is that there is some funding available—— 

Mr. DINGELL. I am sorry? 

Ms. MACFARLANE [continuing]. To complete the license—my understanding is there is some funding available to complete the license review. 

Mr. DINGELL. Some. Enough to complete the action? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. That I am not completely certain, and I would 

invite my colleagues to—— 

44 

Mr. DINGELL. Could you give us an answer for the record later 

or is—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, certainly. Absolutely. 

[The information follows:] 

45 


82625.021

Congress did not appropriate any funding from the Nuclear Waste Fund for NRC in fiscal year 

2012. NRC currently has $10.4 million available in unobligated carryover funds appropriated in 

prior years. This amount is insufficient to complete both the technical review and the 

proceeding, both of which are necessary to reach a final licensing decision. 
46 

Mr. DINGELL. All right, if you please. 

Now, in the audience today, I have constituents of mine who are 

studying nuclear science at the University of Michigan, which is an 

institution I have the honor of representing. In its fiscal year 2013 

budget request, NRC stated that it is not requesting funding for 

the Integrated University Program, which historically has been the 

sole provider of critical funding for both student and faculty development in the field of nuclear science. NRC states that this reflects 

the confidence that the nuclear industry will create incentives for 

students to enter nuclear-related programs. 

Now, I have constantly watched the development of our technical, scientific, and engineering people. And I have always found 

that we are lagging a lot of other people around the world. I had 

two boys who were metallurgical engineers. We found that we are 

developing approximately 11 metallurgical engineers. The Chinese 

are developing about 11,000. Do you believe that there is a need 

to train nuclear engineers in this country and do you support the 

NRC’s role in the IUP? Yes or no? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Excuse me, the—— 

Mr. DINGELL. In the IUP. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Right. Certainly as a scientist myself, I support education in science and engineering and I think that the 

NRC Commission also supports that strongly. 

Mr. DINGELL. If you withdraw from this, however, I must assume 

that there will be no Federal money for this kind of exercise and 

that we will not be training the scientists, engineers, et cetera, that 

we will need in this area. Are we going to produce the scientists, 

engineers, and technicians that we need if we withdraw and if the 

NRC withdraws or are we not? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I would leave some of the funding of science 

and engineering education to you all. 

Mr. DINGELL. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have 

got my serious doubts that we will be doing so. 

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

The chair now recognizes another chairman emeritus, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, and there is only really one and that is Mr. 

Dingell. I am glad to be in the same sentence with him. 

We are glad to have our new chairman of the NRC. 

Mr. DINGELL. You know, this business of being chairman emeritus sounds mighty good but it really ain’t much. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman would yield to my colleagues who 

are in the lower levels waiting to ask questions, I still think it is 

very valuable. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, I tend to echo Mr. Dingell. Take that and 50 

cents, and in Texas, you get a Dr. Pepper. But it is good to be on 

the committee regardless of what the titles are. 

Chairman Macfarlane, we are certainly glad to have you and I 

noticed that the previous questioners have all been unbelievably 

polite, which is somewhat unusual for this committee but not 

unique. 

I would like to go into waters that are a little bit murkier. Your 

predecessor was not known for his collegiality with his fellow commissioners. In fact, there were some fairly rigorous attempts on his 

47 

behalf to withhold information and to manipulate the decisionmaking process. Would you care to give us your view on how you 

plan to manage the decision-making process and the information 

gathering and dissemination at the Commission? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Surely. I am committed to being as collegial 

as possible. I regard my fellow commissioners as my peer equals. 

And as such, I think they should have access to all the information 

I have access to. I am committed to sharing with them written information from my office, and I have directed my staff as well to 

be as open with their staffs. 

Mr. BARTON. So you don’t intend to use your position as chairman to withhold and in some ways shape the outcome of decisions? 

You plan to use the position to gather but to share on an equal 

basis whatever information comes to you as chairman? Is that a 

fair assessment? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. That is a fair assessment. I believe that the 

intention of the Commission with five Commissioners is to act together. We certainly will not agree on every issue but that is not 

the intention of the Commission. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Now, some of the members may have asked a 

storage question, but there is an obvious—I don’t want to say elephant in the room because that has political overtones, but there 

is a big issue that is not being addressed and that is permanent 

high-level waste storage. I would say a majority of our committee 

feels that it would be appropriate to move forward at Yucca Mountain. There are members of the Energy Committee that would prefer that we not. Do you have a view that you want to express about 

how to assess what to do at Yucca Mountain? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. About how to assess what to do at Yucca 

Mountain? No, at this point I do not. I will wait to see what issues 

are presented to us as a commission. 

Mr. BARTON. That is fair enough for the first time you are here. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

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. 

There are two nuclear power plants in California. One is Diablo 

Canyon in Mrs. Capps’s district; the other is the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station near San Diego. And I would like to ask 

some questions about the San Onofre plant. 

In February 2011, new steam generators were placed in service 

at that plant, which was a major capital expense. The project cost 

California ratepayers $670 million. This expense was large, but the 

new equipment was supposed to last 40 years. But on January 31 

of this year, less than a year after generators were put in place, 

a tube in one of the unit’s steam generators started leaking radioactive steam into the atmosphere. An alarm sounded; the reactor 

was shut down. The other unit was not operating at the time because it was being refueled. Six months later, both reactors remain 

shut down. Fortunately, NRC has determined that the actual release of radiation into the environment was minimal in this case. 

Is that right, Dr. Macfarlane? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I believe that is correct. 

48 

Mr. WAXMAN. After the January shutdown, NRC sent in an inspection team who issued their report last week, and according to 

NRC’s inspection team after just a single year of operation, a large 

percentage of tubes in the steam generators had been worn down 

because excessive vibration was causing them to rub against each 

other. Last week’s report found that this problem was probably 

caused by faulty computer modeling in the design of the steam generators and by manufacturing issues. The report stated, ‘‘the loss 

of steam generator tube integrity is a serious safety issue that 

must be resolved prior to further power operation.’’ 

Do all of you agree that this is a serious safety issue? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Certainly. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I see the witnesses all shaking their heads in the 

affirmative. Does anybody disagree? If not, I will assume that all 

of you agree. 

Dr. Macfarlane, can you explain why these significant design and 

manufacturing flaws were not detected earlier? What NRC oversight process was in place to ensure that the new steam generators 

would be safe and why didn’t that process identify the flaws before 

the steam generators were turned on? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thanks for your question, Congressman Waxman. 

I am still learning about all the issues and the technical details 

of the issues at the San Onofre plant. And I understand that this 

past March the NRC issued a confirmatory action letter to require 

evaluation and repair of the steam generators prior to restart. And 

so the NRC will certainly ensure that the plant is safe before it 

does restart. 

As to why this was not detected prior, I will defer to my colleagues for much of that question, but my understanding is that 

the NRC did evaluate the plans for the new steam generators, but 

certainly I think we will be evaluating the lessons learned from 

this entire experience. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Anybody else want to answer anything? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Yes, sir, to add to Chairman Macfarlane’s answer. 

I am in agreement with her answer. I would note that the Augmented Inspection Team Report that you referred to that was 

issued last week also identified 10 unresolved items that will be 

the subject of additional follow-up. I would just mention relevant 

to your question that there are, of these 10 items, some related to 

design issues, control of original design dimensions, and adequacy 

of Mitsubishi’s thermo-hydraulic model that mentioned. So at least 

3 of the 10 I think have direct relevance to the question you asked. 

Mr. WAXMAN. But why didn’t the process identify these flaws before the generators were turned on? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Well, I didn’t mention another of the 10, which is 

the methodology itself for the review is another unresolved item for 

additional follow-up. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes, I believe, Congressman, you are asking the 

right questions, a question I have asked the staff myself because 

I believe that if you look at what the licensee did in going forward 

with the replacement, they followed our process the way they 

should have. Everyone did what they were supposed to do under 

the process. So when you have an outcome that is not satisfactory, 

49 

you have to take a look at the process. And I think we should take 

a look at the process and see if there is something that we can improve. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I hope that all of you will look to see how 

we can prevent something like this from happening again at a nuclear reactor. It is a relief that the shutdown of this reactor went 

smoothly, the defects in the equipment were discovered before 

there was a major release of radiation into the atmosphere, but it 

should not take a release of any amount of radiation into the environment before problems like this one are detected. If ratepayers 

are going to foot the $670 million bill for new equipment at a nuclear reactor, that equipment needs to be safe and last a lot longer 

than 1 year. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Waxman, would you mind if we allow Mr. 

Ostendorff to answer your last question, too? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Oh, yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus. Thank you, 

Congressman Waxman. 

I was just at San Onofre just 2 days ago—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Good. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF [continuing]. And spent 3 hours there Sunday 

afternoon this past weekend and had members of Congressman 

Issa’s staff, Senator Boxer’s and Senator Feinstein’s staff with me 

to receive a briefing from the licensee about this exact issue. And 

I agree with everything my colleagues have said. I will also add 

that I believe there is a very comprehensive, rigorous technical 

evaluation that still is underway to look at these problems, and I 

assure you that everyone shares your concerns on the safety aspects of this issue. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I appreciate that. We want to be sure that 

it operates safely and we don’t want to have to find out that it 

wasn’t operating safely after the fact. We want to prevent problems. Thank you. 

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

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And certainly it has been unanimously noted here that the previous chairman certainly was a brilliant manipulator of rules and 

therefore exposed some weaknesses in the rules and processes 

within the NRC, which we would like your feedback on how to 

properly repair. If there is a bill that comes through our committee 

on reforms of NRC rules, I would ask each of you if you could within the next 30 days individually provide us your views on legislative changes that you feel would be useful in this process. It is nice 

that we can actually now ask you for that type of help when before 

we felt like that would be, well, not appropriate. So it is great that 

there is now a new atmosphere that allows us to have open discussions about reforms within the NRC rules. 

One of the reforms that I think is necessary, and that is in declaration of an emergency. Again, I think that was highlighted by 

the last chairman that that is uncertain and I would like, Mr. 

50 

Ostendorff, because of your unique background and view, your 

opinion on the lack of clarity in the management and leadership in 

the NRC during times of emergencies and how it could be improved. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Congressman Terry, thank you for your question. Let me make an overall comment first and then I will get to 

the specific issue on perhaps emergency powers—— 

Mr. TERRY. OK. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. —if that is acceptable. 

Mr. TERRY. Sure. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I would say that we have certainly under the 

Energy Reorganization Act, as well as the Commission’s own Internal Commission Procedures, we have in place a structure that 

guides how the Commission does business. And I think everybody 

here in this committee has experience in leadership roles, management roles, and so often how those roles are executed is a function 

of the personality and the character of the person who has the key 

positions. And so I can say at one level that there are no changes 

required to any of our procedures just by virtue of the fact we have 

a different chairman in place right now. At the same time I can 

say that while it should not be situation- or personality- or individual-specific, and therefore, there might be some changes that 

would be appropriate. So I commit to you to providing this feedback 

within 30 days on legislative remedies. 

With respect to emergency powers, as I previously testified before 

Congress, we had and other colleagues I think the same situation 

with Chairman Jaczko at the time grave concerns on his lack of notification as to whether we actually were in a situation where he 

had taken emergency authority in the events of Fukushima. And 

there was a clear lack of clarity as to whether or not he had taken 

those powers, and I think certainly trying to have a more bright 

line as to whether or not those powers are being invoked would be 

appropriate. 

Mr. TERRY. All right, I appreciate that. 

And Chairman Macfarlane, do you think in times of emergency 

it is important or not important to have the input of your other colleagues, the commissioners? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I understand that the chairman has the authority in an emergency and as chairman I would always follow the 

law and commission procedures I would like to—— 

Mr. TERRY. Is that a no, then? 

Ms. MACFARLANE [continuing]. Commit to that now. No, certainly 

it is the opposite. If time allowed before emergency powers were declared, I would absolutely consult with the other commissioners to 

get their views and hear their concerns. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. I appreciate the answer, then. And I have 

one more question regarding the voting process. One of the things 

that we have learned is that there appears to be a lack of transparency and commissioners, some have suggested that it needs to 

be more transparent to the point of all discussions should be live 

on camera and on the record. That is certainly how we do it in the 

House but I kind of learned that it is more of a collegial, almost 

like the Supreme Court discussions. So yes or no, Ms. Macfarlane, 

51 

do you believe that there needs to be changes in how the voting 

process is done, you know, in 7 seconds. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think I need to learn more about the history 

of voting practices at the NRC to better understand the options for 

the internal voting procedures. And certainly, in an effort to maintain collegiality, before any changes were made to the voting process, I would consult again with my fellow commissioners to understand their thoughts on this issue. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. I would just jump in and 

just say there is also an issue of time when a vote is called and 

how long people can vote and there was a problem identified with 

that. So I appreciate that. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Members of the Commission, the biggest thing going on in my 

State right now is the construction of the two nuclear cells at Plant 

Vogtle in my district. And I wonder who is in a position to give me 

an update on the status of the progress being made there? Yes, sir? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Congressman, I was down there 2 weeks ago 

and visited the site, both Summer and Vogtle, and there is a lot 

of activity down there. There is probably close to 2,000 workers on 

the site at Vogtle and they are working on both units three and 

four. There had been a delay over some what is called rebar issues 

on the framing that goes down for the base mat concrete. I believe 

that there is a clear path forward for the licensee, Southern Nuclear Company, to move forward with that. Our NRC resident team 

is onsite with at least three inspectors full-time plus other people 

from Atlanta, the Region 2 office, to inspect the status of construction and I think things are moving along well. 

Mr. BARROW. What impresses me about a project this large is the 

relationship you got to have between the owners, the contractors, 

and the regulators. How would you describe the relationship between the three groups of actors who are responsible for bringing 

this off? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. My other colleagues, I would ask them to add 

in here, Congressman, but I think there is great openness in communications between Southern, and they are part of a consortium 

with Westinghouse and with Shaw, which run the contracting 

group for the construction operation. I think those three entities on 

the consortium are communicating well with NRC and I think, as 

with any project, there are lessons learned, some improvements 

that could be made, but I think as far as where things are from 

where I sit, I think it is in pretty reasonable condition. 

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Magwood, do you have anything to add? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I agree with Commission Ostendorff’s comments. 

I visited the site myself some months ago and have talked recently 

with leadership associated with the project. And I think one answer I give to your question is that it is a learning process. This 

is the first time a nuclear power plant has been built using the 10 

CFR Part 52 process. 

Mr. BARROW. First one we have done in this country in 30 years. 

52 

Mr. MAGWOOD. It is the first one in 30 years but this is the first 

plant in history ever to use this particular process. And I think we 

have all learned a lot as we have gone forward in the last several 

months that clearly the relationship between the owners and the 

contractors is evolving as we speak. The relationship between NRC 

and the project is evolving because of the types of information that 

every side needs to have during the construction process. It is 

something we are all learning and it has actually been a very educational process I think for everybody. 

Mr. BARROW. Commissioner Svinicki, do you have anything to 

add? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Congressman, I would only add that I share your 

observation about the importance of this communication three 

ways, the constructor, the licensee, and the regulator, and I have 

heard that acknowledgement articulated from Southern, from 

Shaw as well. And I think there is also a commitment, although 

they realize that communications need to get to a very high fidelity. Also accountability of who has the authority to do what is 

something I think that they had been working through some issues 

there, who approves what kind of changes. But I think also there 

is a commitment that they want to map these things out and learn 

these lessons one time, learn them early, and have the process go 

smoothly moving forward. 

Mr. BARROW. Chairman Macfarlane, what is your impression of 

the progress being made? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Of the—sorry? 

Mr. BARROW. Of the progress being made on this project. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. As far as I understand, it is going well. The 

process is working as it should and the communication between the 

regulator, the NRC, and the licensee. And I have not had an opportunity yet in my 2 weeks to visit the Vogtle plant, but I do look 

forward to visiting. 

Mr. BARROW. I look forward to your visit as well. 

One last question to all of you all collectively. Are there any concerns on the horizon that you are aware of that we need to address 

that would help us to know about? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. At this point, no. 

Mr. BARROW. Does that go for the rest of you? Thank you so 

much. 

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

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

recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the time and 

also for you all coming in again to testify. I tell you, it is a little 

bit different from the past testimonies we have had when you have 

all assembled, quite refreshing. 

If I could start with this question, during the hearing process for 

a license renewal application, the Atomic Safety and Licensing 

Board and the Commission must adjudicate various contention petitions and appeals. Historically, such decisions were reached in little over 100 days on average. Beginning in 2009—I guess we got 

the chart right here, as you can see—the average time frame doubled and remains at 185 days or higher. Our research shows that 

several matters were pending before the Commission for over a 

53 

year. The NRC’s reliability principle states that, ‘‘regulatory action 

should always be fully consistent with written regulations, should 

be promptly, fairly, and decisively administered so as to lend stability to the nuclear operational and planning processes.’’ And here 

is the question. What steps are the Commission taking to address 

this situation and promptly, fairly, and decisively administer these 

matters? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Let me take a first stab at this. I will take the 

30,000 foot view. My understanding is that the NRC staff are working very efficiently, as efficiently as possible, but we all must recall 

that these license renewals and licensing issues are adjudicatory 

matters and they take time before the Commission, especially when 

they are contested. And we at the Commission have no control over 

whether these licensing issues are contested. 

I will let my colleagues answer, too. 

Ms. SVINICKI. In viewing your chart, Congressman, I think I 

would share two observations. One is that when the time period 

began to be protracted, I believe overlaps with periods where the 

Commission only had three serving members—and although I can’t 

definitely attribute the prolonged durations to that period—I would 

say that the Commission functions best when it is at its full complement of five. When there are only three members, if two vote, 

a quorum is not established and the third has, in essence, a pocket 

veto. And so the Commission, in my view, does not function as efficiently when it is down to three members. 

So although I can’t prove that that is part of the attribution of 

the prolonged durations, the other observation that I would make 

is though I have only been on the Commission for a little over 4 

years, I have noticed that participants and interveners in the Commission’s proceedings have really observed the evolution of license 

renewal issues over time. They have become extremely skilled and 

informed in their participation and intervention in these proceedings. Therefore, the numbers of appeals and petitions to the 

Commission has increased. 

I think in response to your question of what can we do, I would 

make a personal pledge to look at agency resourcing for our Office 

of Commission Appellate Adjudication, which is a group that, as a 

first instance, receives and reviews briefs on these appeals and develops draft opinions and orders for the Commission. I think that 

we could look at whether that office is adequately resourced. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. Commissioner Magwood? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Your chart actually raises some questions in my 

own mind, so I would like to discuss with the staff to see if there 

are some trends that we should be aware of, and if there are some 

trends, find ways to correct them. 

But as a general matter, let me say that it has always been my 

view that regulatory actions take as long as they take. I don’t think 

the regulators should ever really apologize for taking more time if 

more time is necessary to assure safety. But at the same time, I 

do think it is our responsibility to be efficient and to dispatch 

issues quickly and fairly. But if, because of the contested process, 

we have a longer-than-normal situation develop with a particular 

renewal, that is a process we simply have to work our way through. 

54 

And we have had, in recent years, some plants that have had more 

difficult renewals. 

Mr. LATTA. Commissioner Ostendorff? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you, Congressman. I agree with my colleagues. I will add maybe just one statement that is while these 

issues with the extended license renewal process have typically almost always been in contested cases, I would say I think the commissioners at this table and Commissioner Apostolakis that have 

voted in a very timely matter on the actions when those have been 

presented to the Commission, not everything comes to us directly. 

There are certain activities before the licensing boards that we 

don’t get involved in. And our voting record, I believe, has been 

very responsible as far as acting in a timely manner once it gets 

to us. Oftentimes, that is delayed because of contentions. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. 

And Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Your time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Mrs. 

Capps, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Chairman Macfarlane, congratulations on your new position. 

I wish you every success. The fact that you are 2 weeks on the job 

and you are making an appearance here shows a lot of courage on 

your part, and I appreciate your willingness to do so. 

Before I get to my questions, as my colleague, Mr. Waxman, 

mentioned, I do represent—I have Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power 

Plant in California and the surrounding communities. Right now, 

some of the best eyes and minds in our country and looking at the 

seismic issues at this plant. And I have worked with the NRC and 

the utility there, which is PG&E, to pause the relicensing process 

until advanced seismic studies are finished and reviewed. And I do 

give a lot of credit to PG&E, as well as State and Federal regulators, for working to update their seismic analyses. As a geologist, 

you surely recognize why this type of analysis is very important. 

This is first and foremost about safety. 

But the seismic concern also impacts affordability and reliable 

generation as well. My constituents living in the communities 

around Diablo feel the same way. And I just want your commitment to work with us and make sure these studies are completed 

in a timely manner. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Absolutely. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I am absolutely committed to that. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And now, I want to turn to the Fukushima disaster 

and the spent fuel pools. Fukushima clearly illustrates how spent 

fuel pools can become unstable when a nuclear power plant loses 

the power needed to cool them. The spent fuel rods in Fukushima 

continue to pose serious problems and many concerns as Japan attempts to stabilize and clean up the site. My understanding is that 

many spent fuel pools in the United States are even more densely 

packed with spent fuel rods. Chairman Macfarlane, what are the 

safety concerns associated with densely packed spent fuel pools? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. This is an issue in one of the Fukushima activities, the Tier 3 Fukushima activities that the NRC will be lookVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:38 Sep 09, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\11E15B~1\112-16~1 WAYNE
55 

ing at. So I assure you, this issue will get attention. And it is, I 

believe, also getting attention from a National Academy of Sciences 

study as well. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Exactly. The alternative to pool storage, of course, 

is dry cask storage—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Um-hum. 

Mrs. CAPPS [continuing]. And in 2006 the National Academy of 

Science issued a report showing that moving spent fuel from pools 

to dry above-ground casks reduces both the likelihood and potential 

impact of a radioactive release from spent fuel. This is my question: Do you believe dry casks do rely on external power sources to 

cool the stored fuel? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No, they are passively cooled. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. As we all know, the reactors in Fukushima lost 

all power after the earthquake and the tsunami. So the question 

is, how did the dry cask on Fukushima site withstand the earthquake, the tsunami, and subsequent station blackout? I am sure 

this is a question you have been addressing. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. My understanding is that the spent fuel casks, 

the dry casks at Fukushima withstood both the earthquake and 

tsunami very well. And we have additional information from this 

country because there were dry casks at the North Anna facility in 

Virginia during last summer’s Mineral, Virginia, earthquake, and 

those dry casks also performed very well. 

I invite my colleagues to add anything if they would like. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I would just add one comment and that is that 

while there certainly has been a lot of concern and discussion about 

the spent fuel pools at the Fukushima site, the fact is that the 

spent fuel pools at Fukushima actually survived the event reasonably well. And today, we believe from all the information we received from our Japanese colleagues are safe right now. And while 

we encourage them to move that spent fuel out of those pools as 

quickly as possible, it does demonstrate how rigorous these buildings and structures are, and the ability of the facility at the 

Fukushima site to survive an earthquake and tsunami does give 

some confidence that these pools are safe and don’t present a 

threat to the public. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And of course this is a topic that is going to take 

a lot of continued study, long-term study, and I don’t have to ask— 

I hope I can assume—that there is a tremendous interest on your 

part in doing that given the benefits of dry casks it would seem. 

And I ask for a confirmation from you or some comments that accelerating transfer of spent fuel from pools to casks lowers the risk 

posed by densely packed spent fuel pools. And then to sum up in 

the few seconds your thoughts on this particular area, which I wish 

to explore with you further. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Sure. And I would be happy to explore this in 

the future with you at greater length, but as I said, certainly the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission is looking at this specific issue and 

will gather more information about this specific issue. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

The chair will now recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, 

Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

56 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To the committee as a whole, I think earlier there was some discussion about the—or Congressman Barton bringing up the subject 

of the Yucca Mountain. There was some discussion about it. I am 

curious. I have been reading about Yucca Mountain since the ’80s. 

I am just one of two engineers in Congress who practice engineering. ’82 is when the Act was put into effect. In ’87 is when Yucca 

Mountain was designated to be the repository. Twenty-five years 

we are still talking about it. Is that what I am hearing from the 

panel? We are not sure what we are going to do with that? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It is not the NRC’s job to make policy. We are 

a regulator. But given that and given my past experience as a commissioner on the Blue Ribbon Commission, I will say, yes, there is 

still discussion about Yucca Mountain. And let me just say as a scientist—you are an engineer and maybe engineers, you work faster 

than scientists—but science often works very slowly. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But I think we work faster than 25 years. I am 

just curious how much money has been spent on Yucca Mountain 

in terms of infrastructure, bricks-and-mortar? What have we invested in that over these 25 years? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. This again is an issue that is not under the 

control or purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but I believe if you are looking just at what has been spent on Yucca 

Mountain itself and not on the entire waste disposal program, you 

are looking at a figure between 7 and $8 billion 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I am sorry? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Between 7 and 8 billion dollars. I don’t have 

the exact number. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Seven and eight billion dollars? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman would yield, I think you can 

make some claims for 15 billion. And the other thing, just to put 

this in perspective, what the NRC needs to do is finish the scientific study. A lot of Yucca Mountain issue is DOE and money 

spent in that venue. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. We have the permit. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The NRC is tasked, we hope, eventually to finish 

the scientific study, and then that would then be the final aspect 

of proving the viability for Yucca. They won’t manage the site. 

There are not going to be empowered to do that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I am just trying to get a better handle of it up 

close. This glacial pace that we move around here is pretty incredible to think that 25 years later we still don’t have a place to deposit. So my question would from you all, your perspective, given 

there are probably two courses of action dealing with spent fuel 

rods, they are either going to go into a geological formation below 

the ground someplace or we are going to recycle them as they do 

in France with AREVA La Hague. So can you tell me which is the 

more likely direction you see nuclear fuel rods going in in this 

country? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well, again, the NRC doesn’t set that policy 

for the U.S. The NRC regulates the reactors and materials. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I understand you don’t, but in your opinion, you 

are the regulatory group on nuclear power. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Um-hum. 

57 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Where do you think we are going as a nation 

after 25 years we can’t decide it is going to be Yucca Mountain in 

Washington—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. Are we going to go to recycling? 

Which direction do you think we should go as a nation? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No matter whether you go in direct disposal 

of spent fuel or you recycle as France does, you will need a final 

repository. And France itself is working now on its final site selection for a deep geologic repository. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. As a nation, do you see us in recycling ever? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think it is largely an economic and policy 

question. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. I don’t think it comes under your purview 

but I believe under the Act in ’82 that they set up that the consumers using nuclear power would be assessed charges for the disposal of—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, the Nuclear Waste Fund, yes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Right. Where is that money going? If we don’t 

have—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. You manage it. Congress manages the money, 

the Nuclear Waste Fund and you appropriate it. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I am trying to understand here. So we can have 

that turned back over to the consumer or is it being collected and 

just saved? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It has been collected and saved into the Nuclear Waste Fund and the consumers—sorry, it is the ratepayers 

who pay into this fund at 1 mil per kilowatt hour. 

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

Mr. MCKINLEY. My time is expired, I am sorry. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Before I go to the gentlelady from Florida, I would 

ask unanimous consent for my colleague, Mr. Green, for 1 minute. 

Mr. GREEN. This is for my colleague. I think we need to look at 

both long-term storage, which Yucca Mountain was the solution 

from the ’80s, but we also need to look at recycling. But we have 

to have interim storage. And the success in these other countries— 

France, for example—they have interim storage but recycling—but 

again France doesn’t have a long-term storage solution either 

whereas Sweden—and I know Mr. Murphy and I were there a 

while back and they at least have a potential for long-term storage 

in Sweden. 

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

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all very much for being here this morning. 

Dr. Macfarlane, in your testimony you reference that there are 

currently two units in extended shutdowns, and one of those is the 

Crystal River Unit 3 in Florida. Crystal River remains in extended 

shutdown while its owner evaluates repair options for a separation 

in the concrete wall of the containment building. In 2009, you all 

are aware they were conducting some repairs there, and during 

that time, they discovered and unexpected crack, separation in the 

concrete wall. And I guess the technical term is delamination. You 

58 

all know more about that than I do. They informed the NRC. NRC 

sent an inspection team. You all followed up with a special inspection team. You have had public meetings. You have issued a special 

inspection report, came down for another public meeting. In June 

of last year, Progress Energy, the owner then, stated their intent 

that they intended to repair Crystal River and they were proceeding with necessary engineering and construction plans, dealing 

with insurance issues, and had stated an intent to return the plant 

to service in 2014. 

Since that time, just hear earlier in the month, Progress Energy 

merged with Duke Energy, and reports following that merger appear to make the future of the Crystal River Unit 3 plant a little 

more uncertain. It appears that the NRC’s position has been that 

Crystal River can be repaired safely. Is that correct in your opinions? And have any of you traveled to the site? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well, as you might suspect, I haven’t had the 

opportunity to travel to Crystal River yet but I intend to learn 

more about the situation at Crystal River. And I will ask my colleagues to comment. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I had the opportunity to visit Crystal River. I 

think it has probably been about 2 months ago. And I did inspect 

the repair work that is underway. The NRC staff has been watching this very closely. The repair work that is underway is very complex in many ways. Some of it is actually quite unique, but from 

everything that I was able to learn during my visit and subsequent 

conversations, it is clearly repairable. It is clearly something that 

the licensee knows how to complete. I think that the kinds of discussions that you are referring to are business decisions really. 

How long are they willing to wait and how much will it cost them? 

But from a regulatory standpoint, from a technical standpoint it 

seems quite repairable. But whether it is a decision they plan to 

make or not, we will wait and see. 

Ms. CASTOR. Any other comment? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I visited Crystal River maybe 2 years ago. My 

understanding is not as up-to-date as Commissioner Magwood, but 

I believe it is consistent with what I have heard generally. 

Ms. CASTOR. OK. Is it the NRC’s role to examine the costs, do 

a cost-benefit analysis of moving forward or not? 

Ms. SVINICKI. No, that would not be an appropriate role for us. 

Ms. CASTOR. OK. If the nuclear reactor is repaired, is it subject 

to all of the updated NRC safety requirements? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Including ones—is that the same as if it were going 

for a new license? The license for this plant expires in 2016. Is that 

the same analysis and the same requirements? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Same requirements for? 

Ms. CASTOR. A repair. Would NRC be asking for the same updated safety requirements when they go for a license renewal? The 

license expires there in 2016. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. My understanding is no, not necessarily. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I think as a general matter that all of our plants 

operate under the same safety standards. So we don’t differentiate 

between a plant that is operating under its original license versus 

a plant that is operating under its renewed license or a plant that 

59 

has been repaired. They are all expected to meet the same standards. 

Ms. CASTOR. Are you aware that the Duke Energy Board of Directors conducted an independent analysis of the Crystal River 

plant? And has anyone received any report or the details of that 

independent analysis conducted here over the last few months? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I am not aware of that and I am not aware that 

the agency has received any such report. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

I do appreciate my colleagues really getting their questions done 

and we have got a lot of Members that are still obviously here to 

ask questions. And everybody has been doing it in a timely manner. I appreciate that. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. 

Gardner, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

witnesses for your time today. And welcome, Ms. Macfarlane, to the 

committee. 

In a previous question, there was a question about emergency 

powers that were taken up by the previous chairman of the NRC. 

Any of those powers left, residual powers? They have all been business as usual has been restored, returned? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It is my understanding. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you. 

And a couple questions about the Office of Public Affairs I think 

are very important to some of the interactions that we have had 

as this committee with the NRC. If you take a look at the Reorganization Plan of 1980 that provided the Office of Public Affairs reports directly to the chairman to assist the chairman as the principle spokesman for the agency, when this committee began its investigation into governance of the NRC, we identified some key 

questions about the role of the Office of Public Affairs. And I wanted to just talk and read a little bit about some of the work that 

we have seen coming out of the Office of Public Affairs. 

And this is from a July 2011 rollout plan for the Fukushima 

Task Force recommendations, as prepared by the director of the Office of Public Affairs. ‘‘In this speech, the chairman can lay out his 

thought for how to proceed, what he sees as his priorities, the need 

to move with dispatch, et cetera. This will be a subtle nudge to others to get on board or appear to be foot-dragging. The speech needs 

to be a) newsworthy, and b) collegial but firm with perhaps a notional timetable to set expectations which, if not met, he can point 

to as evidence of fill-in-the-blank criticism.’’ That statement then 

was made. And of course, in December to the Washington Post editorial page, there was another statement from the Office of Public 

Affairs. ‘‘As you may have noticed, our chairman is in a shooting 

match with his four colleagues on the Commission, a very public 

and bitter dispute.’’ 

The office director drafted a statement that read, ‘‘I was not the 

choice of the nuclear industry to sit on the Commission, let alone 

be chairman. Time after time on critical safety questions, my vote 

has been the lone tally cast in the interest of stronger safety requirements and accountability. Others have sought a different level 

of safety. Some have sought to delay and dilute safety decisions.’’ 

60 

And I guess I would ask to you, Madam Chairman and to the other 

commissioners, do you believe it is appropriate for the Public Affairs Office to devise press strategies to influence commissioners’ 

votes or to impugn commissioners’ dedication to public safety? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thanks for your question. As you said, my understanding is that the Office of Public Affairs at the NRC assists 

the chairman in carrying out his or her responsibilities as principle 

spokesperson for the NRC. Therefore, the director of Public Affairs 

and the Office of Public Affairs work at the direction of the chairman. And all I can point out is now, there is a new chairman. And 

in my 2 weeks there, I have been comfortable working with the Office of Public Affairs. 

Mr. GARDNER. And so the question of do you believe it is appropriate for Public Affairs to devise press strategies to influence commissioners’ votes, you would disagree with that strategy? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. As far as I understand your question, yes. 

Mr. GARDNER. So you would not be using the Office of Public Affairs—Public Affairs would not be used to try to influence other 

commissioners? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I have absolutely no intention of doing that. 

Mr. GARDNER. Or to impugn dedication to public safety? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I have no intention of that. 

Mr. GARDNER. Other commissioners care to comment? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I would note, Congressman, that a member of the 

committee this morning asked for any recommendations where 

statutory language could be perhaps clarified about the appropriate 

uses of perhaps an office such as Public Affairs. And so I would 

note that the legislative history of this matter indicates that although the chairman is the principle spokesman, he or she is to be 

bound in those communications by the overall policy and guidance 

of the Commission as a whole. So I didn’t respond earlier to the 

question about proposing changes to the Reorganization Act or 

plan, but I do feel that my experiences of the last 4 years have exposed areas where there was disagreements amongst members of 

the Commission about what these statutory provisions meant. 

And so in my commitment to provide any proposals, I think they 

wouldn’t be to change anything the Congress did after Three Mile 

Island because I think it was appropriate to strengthen the chairman’s role, but I do think that we have disputed each other over 

what some of the words mean. And to the extent that the Congress 

were willing to clarify or emphasize some of these points, I think 

it could further the collegial functioning of the Commission in the 

future. 

Mr. GARDNER. And that is exactly right. And so going back—I am 

running short on time here—just to make sure that we are clear 

on what this Office of Public Affairs can and shouldn’t be used for, 

to the chairman, is it appropriate for the chairman to use the Public Affairs Office to promote personal views as a commissioner? I 

direct that to you. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. To promote personal views? 

Mr. GARDNER. Yes, to promote—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. No, the—— 

Mr. GARDNER [continuing]. Their personal policy views, excuse 

me. 

61 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Sorry. The chairman is representing the organization, so personal views should not be part of this. 

Mr. GARDNER. OK. And you made the comments on the collegial 

structure. And I guess I would just ask for your commitment, 

Madam Chairman. Will you commit to refrain from these tactics 

that have been used in the past? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. As far as I understand them, yes, I commit. 

Mr. GARDNER. As far as you understand them? So you will not 

use—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. As far as I understand what happened in the 

past. I was not part of the Commission in the past and I am trying 

to understand what has happened with the Office of—— 

Mr. GARDNER. So you won’t be using the Public Affairs—I am out 

of time. 

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

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, everybody. Dr. Macfarlane, congratulations. I want to 

talk to you about Indian Point in New York City suburbs. It is one 

of the most serious issues facing New York. Indian Point is located 

obviously by our Nation’s largest metropolitan area. It has an operational history that has been plagued by irresponsible acts, unplanned shutdowns, lacking spent fuel pools, and inadequate emergency notification and response systems. 

One of the planes hijacked on September 11 flew over Indian 

Point on its way to the World Trade Center. We have learned that 

the plant is located near two seismic faults that together raise the 

possibility of an earthquake far larger than any anticipated when 

it was built. And there simply aren’t enough roads to allow for a 

real evacuation in the event of an accident or attack. Neither of the 

county executives in both Westchester County, which I represent, 

and Rockland County, which I also represent, both county executives—one Republican, one Democratic—have refused to certify the 

evacuation plans for Indian Point because they know they are ridiculous. 

Indian Point’s two active reactors are set to retire in 2013 and 

2015 unless their application for license renewal are approved, and 

there has always been a cozy relationship, unfortunately, between 

the NRC and the industry which in my opinion has precluded a serious and realistic evaluation of the safety of Indian Point. I have 

toured it. I have been there with your predecessor, Dr. Macfarlane, 

and I am interested in meeting with you to discuss Indian Point 

in greater detail and perhaps tour with me and Congresswoman 

Lowey. Would you be willing to arrange a time to meet with me 

and talk? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Would I be willing to do that in the future? 

Absolutely. I would be willing to talk with you about it and visit 

it together with you. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. And let me say at the outset I am not 

opposed to nuclear power. I never issued a peep about Indian Point 

until September 11 when it became clear to many of us that this 

was a safety hazard. So thank you. 

62 

I want to talk about decommissioning. It is an expensive process. 

The New York Times reported in March of this year that the operators of 20 of the Nation’s aging nuclear reactors, including some 

whose licenses expire soon, have not saved nearly enough money 

for prompt and proper dismantling. And Entergy, which owns the 

Indian Point plant, again, just 24 miles north of New York City 

and is at least $500 million short of the $1.5 billion estimated cost 

of dismantling Indian Point Reactors 2 and 3. Entergy insists that 

the shortfall won’t be a problem because they expect Indian Point 

to be relicensed for another 20 years, and over that period of time, 

they expect interest to accrue to sufficient levels in the reactor’s retirement accounts. But the fact is that 12 reactors across the country have been retired in the last 3 decades all on short notice because of a design or safety flaw that the economics did not justify 

fixing. The shortfall in these retirement accounts raises the possibility that New York could be sitting on sleeping reactors for decades. 

So Dr. Macfarlane, I would like to ask you, what do you envision 

happening if one of the Nation’s 20 underfunded reactors needed 

to be decommissioned? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well, I will note that the U.S. has decommissioned a number of reactors and they have been decommissioned 

successfully. So it can happen. There can be a positive outcome. 

As far as how to handle the scenario that you describe, I think 

we will probably have to visit it if it happens. 

Mr. ENGEL. OK. I want to finally talk about relicense criteria because I have long been concerned that the relicensing of aging 

power plants is not subject to the same stringent criteria used in 

an application for new power plants for initial construction. So let 

me ask you this, Doctor. Would you support using the same criteria 

for relicensing an existing plant as we used to license new plants? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The brand new plants, my understanding that 

we have a well established license renewal program. Of course, 

that doesn’t substitute for day-to-day regulatory oversight that is 

required of the operating plants. There is a lengthy public hearing 

process that engages a variety of stakeholders in relicensing. And 

so all of this information is publicly available. And I commit to ensuring that these reactors operate safely. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. If I may just take about 5 more seconds, 

Mr. Chairman. I just want to say that information that wasn’t 

available when the plant was originally licensed, in my estimation, 

should that not be considered in relicensing? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think it depends on the particular situation. 

Mr. ENGEL. OK, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman for the recognition. 

And I thank our witnesses for staying with us through this 

lengthy hearing today but it is important. And we hear a lot—you 

all mentioned that in your opening statements about the 

collegiality and the importance of that. And of course the average 

63 

American doesn’t know what the NRC is and probably would not 

be able to name the commissioners, but for the average American, 

why should they care about collegiality on the Board? Aren’t you 

just supposed to do your jobs anyway? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Certainly, we are supposed to do our jobs anyway. I think we do them better and we do gain the trust of the 

American people when they do realize that there is an NRC out 

there. We gain a stronger sense of trust when we do operate collegially. I think it is very important that we operate collegially just 

to make the process and all the decisions that we make work efficiently. 

Mr. BURGESS. I don’t disagree with that, but in fact, should not 

people be able to depend on your commission even in the absence 

of collegiality? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, absolutely. And I think that the Commission did operate and handle all the issues that came before it no 

matter what the situation. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, it did seem that at times there were whispers, there were rumors that, you know, legitimate differences in 

policy were interpreted as some of the commissioners being characterized as anti-safety. For the three commissioners who set the historical precedence, did that ever come up with your discussions 

amongst yourselves? 

Ms. SVINICKI. Congressman, I disagree with the characterization 

that some of the recent issues on the Commission had to do with 

disagreeing votes on policy matters. I believe over the course of my 

tenure I have served with a number of members of the Commission 

who are no longer on the Commission. I think at one time or another I have probably disagreed with everybody. I think that the 

dysfunction on the Commission was much more substantive than 

a simple policy disagreement. 

Mr. BURGESS. Was—— 

Ms. SVINICKI. It was more substantive. It had to do with impeding the flow of information and other very fundamental issues that 

I felt obstructed the ability for this commission to operate the way 

Congress intended. 

Mr. BURGESS. So legitimate policy differences really should not 

be interpreted as anti-safety, but you are saying there was an actual impediment of information flow that kept you from doing your 

job. Whether there was a policy difference or not, you were not able 

to do your job as far as public health and safety was concerned? 

Ms. SVINICKI. That is correct. 

Mr. BURGESS. And I guess I am getting the impression this 

morning that that situation has resolved? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I think we are off to a very, very productive beginning. 

Mr. BURGESS. So the American public to the extent that they are 

watching this hearing this morning can take some comfort in the 

fact that whereas public health and safety may not have been at 

the forefront in the past, it will be going forward? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I think all of us kept public health and safety forefront, and as Chairman Macfarlane indicated, there was an impressive amount of agency work that was conducted. However, I would 

64 

hope that some would view there is a great unanimity here and 

there is an optimism about moving forward. 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Ostendorff, let me ask you a question because 

you brought up your observation that the series of events in Japan 

of March 2011 would be unlikely to occur in this country. I suspect 

that the month before the earthquake, that same statement could 

have been made about Japan, could it not? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Congressman, I think the way I would respond 

to that is that there are significant regulatory differences and some 

cultural differences between the United States and Japan as it affects the nuclear industry. As other members of the committee 

have noted, the Japanese Diet report that came out just last week 

highlighted two substantive differences between the United States’ 

regulatory framework and that in Japan, one dealing with the actions we took in this country after the attacks of 9/11 to require 

additional mitigating strategies called B.5.b under our rules to deal 

with fires, explosions, and flooding; and second, to deal with the 

station blackouts and loss of all AC power. And I think those are 

two substantive differences between our two regulatory frameworks 

that are significant factors from the comparison of the two countries. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me just ask you—and I may have to submit 

this for the record because of time—but the month before the Japanese earthquake, Chairman Shimkus took several of us out to 

Yucca Mountain. And after the Japanese earthquake, one of the big 

problems that was encountered was the loss of the spent fuel rods 

that were in the cooling pools and the loss of electricity. It seemed 

to me that just underscored the importance of getting whatever the 

long-term storage solution is—and I believe Yucca Mountain is still 

viable—but getting that done and getting those spent fuel rods out 

of those pools. Do you have any thoughts on that? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Well, I think as others at this table have mentioned earlier in today’s testimony, the Office of Research at the 

NRC is working on a study—it is almost finished—on the spent 

fuel pool risk associated with keeping fuel in the pool as contrasted 

to taking them out of the pool and putting them into dry cask 

where they are air-cooled. There are a lot of other factors associated with, you know, an accelerated campaign of taking those out 

in an expedited manner, and I think overall, our staff’s assessment 

to date has been those risks are very, very low. But it is still something we are looking at as part of our Fukushima actions. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

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

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. 

Scalise, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you having 

this hearing. I appreciate the commissioners for coming before us. 

We have had almost a year-and-a-half now since Fukushima to 

receive vast amounts of data. A lot has been published about the 

causes, the actions being taken by the global industry. With the 

benefit of the information that we have, have any of your initial 

conclusions—for those of you—we got a little construction going on 

here. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Would the gentleman suspend for a second? 

65 

Mr. SCALISE. Sure. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Committee staff, someone needs to find out who is 

doing work and get them to stop. 

Gentleman may proceed. 

Mr. SCALISE. Not sure if that is a shovel-ready project. I guess 

I will proceed and we will just have to bear with it. 

But based on the data that we have, have any of you maybe have 

different reactions today than what the initial assessment were 

back a year and a half ago or, you know, less than a year and a 

half ago about the cause and the priority of the regulatory actions 

associated with Fukushima? If we could just start with Mr. 

Ostendorff and go down. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you, Congressman. 

I think, you know, right after the Fukushima event, the Commission made a decision that we did not need to shut down nuclear 

power plants in this country. We felt that there was no imminent 

risk. I believe that finding is still relevant today and appropriate 

today. I think that at a big-picture level, the intervening months 

have indicated that we were on a good track and are on a good 

track to take an integrated, prioritized approach to what actions we 

need to take. And I think the emphasis on Tier 1 activities to date, 

mitigating strategies, station blackout, looking at external hazards 

has been appropriate. And I think that is echoed and been reinforced over the last 16, 17 months. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thanks. Mr. Magwood? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I think that over the last year, we have had 

ample opportunity to talk to our international colleagues about 

their response to the Fukushima events. And as I have talked with 

regulators around the world, I have discovered a great deal of commonality between what we are doing and the thoughts that they 

are having. We actually are more advanced in many of our efforts 

than they are, so that gives us some reassurance. And I think that 

the more we know about how things actually unfolded in Japan 

over the last several years, we see that the Japanese have much 

more to learn from Fukushima than we did and that they are trying to absorb those lessons themselves. And a lot of them are cultural issues that are very difficult to change. 

So as the last year and a half has gone by, I actually have grown 

in confidence that our steps we have taken are the appropriate 

steps. 

Mr. SCALISE. Ms. Svinicki? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I agree with my colleagues. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thanks. I don’t know if you have got maybe a top 

five or just some top safety changes that you think both the NRC 

and the industry have taken. What are some of the top things to 

improve safety that you have seen or that you think should be done 

that haven’t been done based on the information we know now? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Let me take the first crack at that. First, let me 

say I do think that the infrastructure that we had and the approaches we had before Fukushima were very strong. I don’t think 

that they were lacking. But one thing I would point to is a greater 

acceptance of the need to be able to respond to beyond-design-basis 

events. And that is not one specific change; it is more of a philosophical change I think that we are all dealing with. The idea that 

66 

you prepare to go beyond the worst-case scenario, you provide 

equipment, you provide training, you do whatever you can to be 

ready to respond in case there is a large earthquake or a large 

flood or a large storm. And that is a philosophical change that the 

agency is adopting. 

Mr. SCALISE. All right. Thanks. 

If you look at situations where the NRC comes out with new requirements to hinder implementation of other recent NRC requirements, when you look at the NRC efficiency principle, which states, 

‘‘regulatory activity should be consistent with the degree of risk reduction they achieve,’’ I think, Commissioner Magwood, you had 

written, ‘‘it does not as a general matter advance the cause of safety to inundate licensee staffs with multiple actions when a more 

thoughtful process might achieve the agency’s safety goals without 

straining licensee resources.’’ Do you have a view on whether staff 

industry concerns on potential cumulative effects on multiple new 

requirements have merit? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I think there is some merit, but I think it is very 

important to understand why there is merit. And I think the reason it is important is to make sure that—and I think you and a 

previous Member put it very well—that you are not distracted by 

issues of low safety significance, and in dealing with those, miss 

something that is much more important. It is always most important to focus on priority safety effects but make sure you deal with 

those early. And I do think that we ought to look for more ways 

of addressing that in our process to make sure that we aren’t focusing too much on the small things and missing the big things. 

Mr. SCALISE. All right. I see I am out of time. I appreciate the 

answers. I yield back. 

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

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, 

Mr. Markey, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to welcome you, Chairman Macfarlane, and congratulate you on your recent confirmation. 

After the Fukushima meltdown, then-Chairman Jaczko created a 

task force to recommend safety upgrades for American nuclear reactors. That task force was made up of NRC officials who, together, 

had more than 135 years of nuclear regulatory expertise. Its report 

was released more than a year ago and included 12 recommendations, which ranged from requirements to upgrade seismic and 

flood protections against the long power outages that were the ultimate cause of the Japanese meltdown. They also concluded that 

each and every one of the recommendations were necessary for the 

adequate protection of nuclear power plants and that they should 

be mandatory for each nuclear reactor—mandatory. Chairman 

Jaczko immediately announced his support for all of the NRC 

staff’s recommendation. Regrettably, some of his fellow NRC commissioners did not do likewise and initially insisted that other NRC 

staff review the task force report before the Commission voted on 

any of the recommendations. 

But this second staff review reached the same conclusions as the 

first one. They concluded that all recommendations should be made 

mandatory. Despite this, the Commission has not voted to endorse 

67 

its top staff reviews, and thus, it is possible that some of the 

Fukushima safety upgrades will never be made mandatory for all 

nuclear power plants. 

Chairman Macfarlane, do you support the conclusion of the 

NRC’s top safety experts that all of the post-Fukushima safety recommendations are necessary for the adequate protection of nuclear 

power plants? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Thanks for that question. As chairman, I am 

strongly committed to protecting the public health and safety and 

I am strongly committed to shepherding the Fukushima Task Force 

recommendations through. And I—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Do you believe that they should be mandatory? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think that I need to understand more about, 

especially the Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities, especially the Tier 3 activities. 

Mr. MARKEY. Would it be a good idea or outcome if it turned out 

that the nuclear industry argued its way out of adopting some of 

the recommendations that top experts recommended on the 

grounds that it would be too expensive or inconvenient? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Certainly, that would not be a good outcome. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, when the NRC staff reviewed the task force 

report, it identified several safety measures that could be implemented quickly and I am pleased that the Commission has moved 

forward on these. The staff stated that the fact that they had identified some recommendations that could be adopted early ‘‘should 

not be interpreted as a lack of support for the other task force recommendations.’’ But recently, the Nuclear Energy Institute started 

to discourage the NRC from moving forward on the rest of the recommendations saying that the recommendations that were adopted 

would accomplish ‘‘as much as 90 percent of the safety benefit from 

all recommendations’’ and that ‘‘at this time, the safety benefits derived from the rest of the recommendations are unclear.’’ 

So I would like you to respond to this, Chairman Macfarlane. Do 

you agree with the Nuclear Energy Institute that the Commission 

should delay or stop the consideration of the rest of the safety recommendations that the NRC’s Fukushima Task Force made? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Absolutely not. 

Mr. MARKEY. Absolutely not. And I agree with you. And I know 

that there are other commissioners who disagree with that point of 

view and I would just like to say that you have a very difficult job 

ahead of you, Madam Chair, and you need to keep in mind that 

your duty is not to win a popularity contest at the NRC with commissioners who disagree with this safety agenda but you must lead 

it in an absolutely critical time when it is faced with a daunting 

task of responding to the lessons of the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns in a way that ensures that such a thing never happens in 

the United States. You are charged with the task of ensuring the 

safety of our fleet of existing nuclear plants, of licensing any new 

ones, and of responding to what future course our nation takes 

with respect to the seemingly intractable issues of how to dispose 

of all of the toxic high level nuclear waste. 

And while I would hope that all would be sweetness and light 

over at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I seriously doubt that 

that will be the case. So don’t be afraid to stick to your guns and 

68 

do what is right for the American people, even if that puts you on 

the losing side of a vote. For in the end, Madam Chair, your term 

as chairman will be judged on whether you have successfully completed the task of fully implementing the NRC Task Force recommendation on Fukushima, on ensuring that there is safety in 

the disposal of nuclear waste. And that will be your legacy, notwithstanding the fact that there are going to be other members of 

the Commission who disagree with that agenda. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the chairman and I welcome the new chairwoman to the Commission. We appreciate you and your colleagues 

and the important role that you play in providing safety and security to our nation’s nuclear power facilities. As my colleagues I 

think up and down the aisle and across the aisle, we all believe 

that that is an essential part of your job both moving forward with 

nuclear energy development but making sure we are safe along the 

way. 

I would like to ask the other commissioner since you weren’t 

given a chance to respond to my colleague’s question regarding the 

task force recommendations, your views on those recommendations, 

and whether you believe they should be just automatically adopted 

or not or why they are not. And maybe we could just go from left 

to right since the chairwoman had a chance to respond. 

Ms. SVINICKI. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

Upon receipt of those recommendations from the task force I 

voted, as did a commission majority, to take that output of that 

small group, albeit very experienced as Congressman Markey mentioned, they were just a small group of individuals. And I voted to 

subject those recommendations to the opportunity for public outreach, for comment, for a wide diversity of stakeholders to have an 

opportunity to comment on that and then for the NRC staff to synthesize all of that input and prioritize and propose to the Commission a plan for moving forward on those recommendations. Sitting 

here today, I continue to believe that that was a fulsome and appropriate way to proceed. 

Mr. WALDEN. So there had not been a transparent or public process prior to that? 

Ms. SVINICKI. There had not been an opportunity to ventilate or 

to have public comment on those recommendations. 

Mr. WALDEN. Is that a normal process at an independent agency? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I think that it is not inappropriate for commissioners to have, as a starting point, a small experienced group provide some advice. And it was comprised solely of NRC staff. But 

I do think that it was important to take that very timely and I 

think informed output and subject it to a much broader kind of opportunity for public comment. 

Mr. WALDEN. Appreciate that. 

Mr. Magwood, would you care to comment? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes, I think Commissioner Svinicki said it very 

well. In addition, we also insisted that the Advisory Committee on 

Reactor Safeguards, our expert, outside independent advisory 

69 

group, give us input as to their thoughts about these recommendations. And we also, because we were learning as we went during 

that process, we individual commissioners actually did make additions, not subtractions but additions to what the task force recommended. 

Mr. WALDEN. Is that right? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Absolutely. There were several instances where 

our colleague, Commissioner Apostolakis put in new items. I put in 

new items. Others did as well. So we—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Additional safeguard items? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Additional items for study that I believe will 

eventually be adopted. And I think these are very important. And 

Commissioner Ostendorff, for example, made the addressing the 

station blackout a very high priority, higher than I think the staff 

had originally anticipated. So the Commission took a very active 

role in this and I think a very positive, very beneficial role, and I 

am very proud of what we did. 

Mr. WALDEN. Commissioner Ostendorff, so explain to me this 

station blackout role and why that was an important addition from 

your perspective. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes, sir. The station blackout rule evaluation 

really refers to when you have a loss of all alternating current AC 

power onsite—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Um-hum. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF [continuing]. And AC power—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Much like what happened at Fukushima. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Yes. And AC power is needed to drive centrifugal pumps—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF [continuing]. That provide cooling to remove 

decay heat from a core. And so the ability of a plant to have robust 

redundant power sources, including emergency diesel generators, 

portable generators, DC batteries, the ability to—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF [continuing]. Recharge those batteries, all those 

things are part of the calculus of how we can have a more robust 

opportunity to provide this required decay heat removal capability. 

Mr. WALDEN. And was it your view that the task force recommendations didn’t go far enough along those lines? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Well, I think the task force did a tremendous 

job given the fact they had 90 days or less to do what they did. 

Mr. WALDEN. Um-hum. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. But I will note that the task force recommendations themselves were not accompanied by a regulatory 

technical analysis. And before we go out as a regulator and issue 

orders or require things to be changed, it is incumbent upon us to 

have a regulatory technical analysis. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. And so that is part of the things that Commissioner Svinicki, Commissioner Magwood, Commissioner 

Apostolakis, and I have been very adamant about over the last 16 

months is to ensure we have that technical analysis. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

70 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I would tell you that, as Commissioner 

Magwood said, that there are areas that have been added in. Commissioner Magwood added in issues on spent fuel pool instrumentation, as well as an ultimate heat sink, so the mix before the Commission today is broader than that that was presented in July of 

2011. 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, I appreciate that and I know I am just out 

of time here, but I appreciate the fact you are doing a public, transparent process so that more than just a handful of inside staffers 

decide what is going to be mandatory across the country. It is 

something I have drive as chairman of the Communications and 

Technology Subcommittee at the FCC. I don’t think they do enough 

of the appropriate sort of public, transparent process where everybody has a chance to weigh in. After all, it is the public’s business, 

in your case the public safety, and I think it is important to get 

it right. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. The chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Virginia for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing. 

I have to tell you all, those of us who were here the last time that 

you all were before us know that I was very concerned that the 

process was completely dysfunctional. I feel much better today. 

That being said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the time remaining to you for whichever questions you would like to ask. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I thank my friend and colleague. 

Chairman Macfarlane, when nominated to become a commissioner, Chairman Jaczko recused himself for 1 year on matters relating to Yucca Mountain. In 2009, when asked by a writer for the 

MIT Technological Review, ‘‘is it (Yucca Mountain) really unsuitable? And you answered yes. In your role as NRC chairman you 

must be fair and objective in adjudicating issues that come before 

the Commission. Your public criticism at Yucca Mountain leads us 

to question your objectivity on the matter.’’ Will you recuse yourself 

on matters relating to Yucca Mountain just as Chairman Jaczko 

did? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Like any commissioner, I would examine each 

and every matter before me on the legal specifics at the time and 

take appropriate action, which could include possible recusal. But 

at this point, I believe it is inappropriate to commit to a general 

recusal on this matter without a specific commission action in front 

of me to evaluate with counsel input. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You have been well prepared. Thank you. 

The DC Circuit Court is considering whether the NRC is bound 

to finish its review of the Yucca Mountain license application. In 

March, Secretary Chu committed to honor that court’s decision. 

Will you also commit to honor the court’s decision? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Absolutely. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. What do you see as the Federal Government’s 

proper role in encouraging the use of alternative fuels in vehicles? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Alternative fuels in vehicles? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I have no idea why this is on there. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Because the NRC doesn’t do that. 

71 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, when we talk about electric vehicles, there 

could be some debate on electricity generation. 

To each of the serving commissioners, you know, as a hearing, 

this has been a very good hearing. Now, that is Mr. Markey going 

up there to stop me in my final—see, I called him out. So I think 

the hearing has been very, very good and we have got one more 

colleague back to ask questions. 

But there is some issues that have been raised that I want to 

give Commissioner Svinicki, Commissioner Magwood, and Commissioner Ostendorff an opportunity to—because some of your votes 

have been questioned by people who say that you don’t support 

safety. So can each one of you give an example of a vote that has 

been misconstrued and explain why your vote was protective of 

public safety? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Commissioner Svinicki? 

Ms. SVINICKI. I would begin with the matter we were just discussing, which is the Commission’s very important actions on the 

Fukushima Task Force recommendations. I will use the same word 

as Commissioner Magwood. I am very proud of what the commission majority put in place. I think that we have shown a real commitment to safety, to moving forward in a way that has technical 

discipline and rigor but at the same time is moving forward very 

seriously with these recommendations. And I think that the entire 

handling of the task force report has been extremely misconstrued. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Commissioner Magwood? 

Mr. MAGWOOD. Yes, I think I am forced to point to the same example. There has been this debate about the regulatory basis for 

our decision as to whether they should be entered what we call 

adequate protection or an administrative exemption. And in some 

cases one of us or the other have advocated administrative exemption. And in my case it wasn’t because I thought that these issues 

weren’t important. It was simply, as Commissioner Ostendorff 

pointed out earlier, that I thought we needed to have a much more 

rigorous technical basis to evaluate these issues. But I wanted 

them to go forward but still preserve the opportunity to do the 

analysis so they could provide a very strong framework for us to 

go forward. So operationally they mean the same thing, but from 

a regulatory standpoint, it gives you a stronger basis to go forward 

and that is what I was looking for. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Commissioner Ostendorff? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. Thank you for the question. I think my two colleagues have just provided very cogent examples which I agree 

with. I will just state one overall comment that I think the actions 

that the current commissioners have taken who have been here 

through the Fukushima issues have been very responsible, that I 

think in large part what gets left out of a lot of the public press 

commentary is that we are by and large following the recommendations of our close to 4,000-person staff. Bill Borchardt here who is 

in the row behind us, he and his team under the Steering Committee have been integrating and prioritizing these recommendations, and I think we have been very thoughtful in considering the 

recommendations. Also realize that not all these issues are of the 

72 

same safety significance, and therefore, some deserve more urgency 

than others. And I think today we have acted in that way. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I thank you. And I know a lot of this was 

post-Fukushima but I think there is also examples of other issues 

that you could probably defend your vote on on public safety. So 

with that, I appreciate it. 

The chair now recognizes the vice chairman of the committee, 

Mr. Murphy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Don’t you want to say I am in the Navy? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I said beat Navy. You were here there, weren’t 

you? Or that is why you are so late and didn’t ask questions because you didn’t get here on time? 

Mr. MURPHY. Admiral, I want to start out by asking you. You 

have been involved with issues with the Navy nuclear for a while. 

You are aware of that. Have we ever had any major problems with 

nuclear energy systems in the Navy in its history? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I would say as far as major problems, no, sir. 

Mr. MURPHY. That is an important record. How many years has 

it been? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I served 26 years active duty. 

Mr. MURPHY. But the Navy has been around—— 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. The Nuclear Navy has been around since USS 

Nautilus back in 1954, I believe, they had nuclear power submarines and carriers. 

Mr. MURPHY. Good track record. Thank you. 

And then, Chairman, thank you for coming aboard. I appreciate 

your comments about collegiality. And if it hasn’t been said before, 

I will say it now, and if it has, I will repeat it. It is valuable. Not 

only collegiality among members of the NRC, which up to this 

point—well, up to a point a few months ago—has had a highly respected position and I believe that collegiality is extremely important not just among members of the Commission but with Congress 

and with the American people. So I appreciate your motivation to 

turn this in a different direction. 

I just want to get a couple things on record. Have you been to 

a nuclear power plant? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Have I been to a nuclear power plant? Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY. OK. And have you been to a fuel manufacturing facility where they make nuclear fuel and assemble it and assembly 

rods, et cetera? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, I have, actually. 

Mr. MURPHY. OK. Where was that? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It was in Europe. 

Mr. MURPHY. Where? I am just curious. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think it was Belgium. 

Mr. MURPHY. OK. Thank you, ma’am. And when you were over 

in Europe, did you have a chance to see what they do in France 

with reprocessing nuclear fuel? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, I have. I have been to La Hague. 

Mr. MURPHY. The AREVA place? Have you been over to Sweden 

where they have nuclear storage there—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, I have. 

Mr. MURPHY [continuing]. Underground in that massive cave? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, to the Clab facility, yes, um-hum. 

73 

Mr. MURPHY. Pretty incredible facility over there. Safe? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY. I imagine you are particularly interested as a geologist noting the entire country of Sweden is in one big block of 

granite and fairly—— 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Well, it is a little more complicated than that. 

Mr. MURPHY. I understand, different types of granite but it is an 

impressive facility. Have you been to Yucca Mountain? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Yes, many times. 

Mr. MURPHY. OK, you have been there. And with regard to that, 

one of the concerns on record that you have stated before you took 

on this position with the committee that you are not in favor of 

Yucca Mountain and I believe you are not in favor of reprocessing. 

Do I have those positions correct or am I wrong on those? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I think you are wrong on them. On the Yucca 

Mountain position, I have never said that I am not in favor of 

Yucca Mountain. In fact, I can read to you—— 

Mr. MURPHY. I would love to hear that, thank you. 

Ms. MACFARLANE [continuing]. From the book that I co-edited, 

‘‘Uncertainty Underground,’’ and a direct quote is ‘‘this book is not 

a judgment on the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a repository’’—— 

Mr. MURPHY. I am sorry. What was the title of the book, ‘‘Uncertainty?’’ 

Ms. MACFARLANE. ‘‘Uncertainty Underground.’’ 

Mr. MURPHY. Sounds like a comment to me. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. It is a comment, yes—— 

Mr. MURPHY. All right. 

Ms. MACFARLANE [continuing]. It is a comment about uncertainty 

that exists. But it is a technical uncertainty. Anyway, the quote is 

‘‘this book is not a judgment on the suitability of Yucca Mountain 

as a repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste. 

We leave that judgment to the reader.’’ 

Mr. MURPHY. I understand, but with a title like that, I am serious, I am looking forward to reading your book. 

And now your predecessor, Chairman Jaczko, held a fairly negative view I think of the nuclear industry and nuclear energy. In a 

speech earlier this year he indicated that 20 years from now, the 

nuclear industry is just as likely to ‘‘be dominated by a process of 

continuous decommissioning’’ instead of a process of continuous 

construction of nuclear reactors. What is your view on that? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. On the future of the nuclear industry? I think 

it depends on many, many factors. The economics, certainly the 

economy right now. 

Mr. MURPHY. And policy? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. Policy, absolutely. 

Mr. MURPHY. Policy at the NRC? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. The policy at NRC to a smaller degree I would 

imagine. 

Mr. MURPHY. All right. Please share your opinion regarding the 

benefits and transparency of the notation voting process of the 

members. 

Ms. MACFARLANE. As far as I understand the notation voting 

process, I think it has the potential to operate fine. Were there to 

74 

be any changes to the voting process, I would discuss those with 

my colleagues before proceeding. 

Mr. MURPHY. How about the other commissioners? Ms. Svinicki, 

do you have a comment on that? 

Ms. SVINICKI. On the notation voting—— 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, um-hum. 

Ms. SVINICKI [continuing]. Process? I am supportive of the notation voting process. When I was newly on the Commission, I benefited greatly from the rich written record of prior votes of Commissioners. Often we were dealing with the same issue in a different 

form a few years later. The ability to tap into the tremendous expertise of those who served before me was very beneficial. 

Mr. MAGWOOD. I think about a week ago I saw a vote that Commissioner Svinicki had written that raised issues that we in my office had missed. So we investigated Commissioner Svinicki’s comments and her vote, took a few days to do that, but after investigating it, I withdrew my original vote and re-voted. That is an example of the kind of dynamic you get from a notation voting process that you would completely lose—— 

Mr. MURPHY. Um-hum. 

Mr. MAGWOOD [continuing]. If you go to an oral, at-the-table 

process because you don’t have time to go back and do research and 

you don’t have time to confer with staff. And so I think a notation 

voting process works extremely well and I wouldn’t really change 

much of anything. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

Commissioner Ostendorff? 

Mr. OSTENDORFF. I would just add I agree with my colleagues. 

I pulled out a vote I cast July 27 of last year. It is a 5-page vote 

on Fukushima issues. These are not yes-or-no issues. These are not 

up or down. These are very complex, here is my vote. Other colleagues have similar lengthy votes where I think we have a very 

rich opportunity to learn from and explain our viewpoints in a way 

that we would not have if this process went away. 

Mr. MURPHY. I appreciate the complexity of those. 

Mr. Chairman, can I just beg for one more since I don’t see anybody else? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thirty seconds. And then, Chair, in 2009 when you 

were asked by a writer for the MIT Technology Review, the question ‘‘is Yucca really unsuitable?’’ You answered yes at that time. 

Are you saying your opinion has changed? And I put this in the 

context of what the other commissioner said, the value of having 

a more lengthy and detailed answer to things because maybe these 

things cannot be reduced to a yes/no answer. Has your position 

changed? Is it yes? Is it no? Is it we have more work to do? 

Ms. MACFARLANE. I am not sure the context of that quote, so I 

can’t speak directly to that quote, but what I can tell you—and 

maybe in a sense of reassuring—is that I have spent much time researching Yucca Mountain. I believe all the analyses that I have 

done are technically defensible. As a scientist, I would not try to 

publish anything that wasn’t technically defensible; it wouldn’t be 

publishable. Most of the analyses that I did of Yucca Mountain for 

the book, which was published in 2006, were done in the early 2000 

75 

time frame. That was before the license application was submitted. 

I have not read the license application. I have not read yet the 

NRC’s technical analyses. Of course, with time, knowledge, 

changes, more evidence comes to light, and I intend to keep an 

open mind. 

Mr. MURPHY. I appreciate your candor and your scientific integrity. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

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

We were talking about votes. We took a vote this spring on finishing the NRC study; 326 Members voted to do that so I think it 

is by far the majority bipartisan consensus that we move forward 

at least finishing the study. 

With that, I would like to ask unanimous consent that June 26, 

2012, NRC Office of Inspector General report concerning possible 

violations of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980, NRC’s internal 

commission procedures be introduced into the record. Without objection, the document will be entered into the record. 

[The information is available at http://www.hsdl.org/ 

?view&did=719161.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. In conclusion, I would like to thank you, all you 

witnesses, and my colleagues, you could see it was very well attended, a lot of good questions participating today in the hearing. 

I want to remind members that they have 10 business days to 

submit questions for the record, and I ask the chairman and the 

commissioners their willingness to agree to respond should you receive any questions from members of the two subcommittees. 

With that, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

76 


82625.022

UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, P,C, 20555·0001 

September 7,2012 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Shimkus: 

The U,S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission appeared before the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy and Subcommittee on Energy 

and Power, on July 24,2012, at a hearing entitled, NRC Policy and Governance Oversight. 

From that hearing, you forwarded questions for the hearing record, The responses to those 

questions are enclosed, The questions posed to Chairman Macfarlane, on behalf ofthe 

Commission, will be responded to on September 14, 2012, If I can be of further assistance, 

please do not hesitate to contact me, 

Sincerely, 

//' ~v1() iv- !/\,~~ \' .-J!\.p~ 'r' 

Rebecca L Schmidt, Director 

Office of Congressional Affairs 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: The Honorable Gene Green, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy 
77 


82625.023

House Energy and Commerce Committee Hearing 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

and the 

Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy 

July 24, 2012 

Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

QUESTION 1. The NRC has repeatedly Indicated that U.S. nuclear plants are safe 

and do not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety and 

has issued orders on the matters with the highest safety benefit. 

With that assurance and those actions in mind, please respond to 

the following: 

a. Do you anticipate supporting any additional orders for postFukushima regulatory changes without requiring cost-benefit 

analysis? 

b. Please list any reasons you believe might warrant sidestepping 

the NRC's usual processes for developing a technical basis and 

cost benefit analysis when considering additional post 

Fukushima regulatory changes. 

ANSWER. 

a. The Commission intends to follow its established processes with regard to any potential 

additional orders related to post-Fukushima lessons learned. In accordance with these 

processes, cost-benefit analyses would be conducted where applicable and required. 

The agency's "backfitting" rule requires that an analysis be performed to determine if 
78 


82625.024

proposed regulatory actions that constitute backfits under this rule are cost-justified, 

except in three cases: 1) if the action is necessary to bring a facility into compliance with 

a license or rules of the Commission; 2) if the action is necessary to ensure adequate 

protection of the health and safety of tlie public; or 3) if the action defines or redefines 

what level of protection sliould be regarded as adequate. Should one of tliese 

exceptions be invoked, then a documented evaluation must be completed. Furtliermore, 

the Atomic Energy Act provides tlie Commission autliority to issue requirements that it 

determines represent a Significant enhancement to public health and safety. it is within 

this existing context of the NRC's established rules, processes, and statutory authority 

that tlie Commission would justify any future decisions regarding additional postFukushima regulatory requirements. 

b. As discussed in tlie response to Question 1a, the NRC's established processes for 

promulgating regulatory changes include tlie development of an analysis tliat weighs tlie 

costs and benefits of a proposed regulatory action that constitutes a backfit under the 

NRC's backfitting rule, unless one ofthree exceptions apply. These tliree exceptions 

are included within the NRC's established processes, and require a documented 

evaluation when invoked. Tlie Commission also has authority to establish implementing 

requirements that significantly enhance public health and safety. The Commission is 

committed to conSidering ali required and appropriate analyses, evaluations, and 

authorities available to it wlien deciding on any proposed regulatory action. In this 

decision-making process, the Commission remains focused on the healtli and safety of 

the American people. 

2 
79 


82625.025

QUESTION 2. In March of 2011, the NRC staff developed a proposal to address 

situations where new NRC requirements might hinder the 

implementation of other recent NRC requirements. Regulatory 

changes should be prioritized based on safety benefit, and 

recognize timing, staffing, financial, and other constraints. This 

would certainly be in line with the NRC's Efficiency Principle which 

states: "Regulatory activities should be consistent with the degree 

of risk reduction they achieve." In the hearing, Commissioner 

Magwood was quoted as saying: "it does not, as a general matter, 

advance the cause of safety to inundate licensee staff with multiple 

actions when a more thoughtful process might achieve the agency's 

safety goals without straining licensee resources." 

a. What are your views on whether staff and industry concerns on 

potential cumulative effects of multiple new requirements have 

merit? 

b. Will you work with your colleagues and staff to ensure this 

matter receives serious Commission attention? 

c. Given the scope of Tier 2 and Tier 3 post.Fukushima actions and 

other regulatory changes under development, what actions are 

being taken to resolve this concern concurrently? 

3 
80 


82625.026

ANSWER. 

a. As discussed in the NRC paper "Consideration of the Cumulative Effects of Regulation 

in the Rulemaking Process," the staff and industry concerns on potential cumulative 

effects of multiple new requirements do have merit. 1 The NRC has developed the 

following working definition for the cumulative effects of regulation: 

Cumulative Effects of Regulation describes the challenges that licensees, or 

other impacted entities such as State partners, face while implementing new 

regulatory positions, programs, or requirements (e.g., rules, generic letters, 

backfits, inspections), Cumulative Effects of Regulation is an organizational 

effectiveness challenge that results from a licensee or impacted entity 

implementing a number of complex regulatory positions, programs, or 

requirements within a limited implementation period and with available resources 

(which may include limited available expertise to address a specific issue). 

Cumulative Effects of Regulation can potentially distract licensee or entity staff 

from executing other primary duties that ensure safety or security. 

The NRC has implemented a number of regulatory process enhancements to 

address Cumulative-Effect-of-Regulation issues. However, since safety and 

security must remain paramount in all regulatory decision-making, process 

enhancements focus more on scheduling implementation deadlines for the 

execution of requirements, and less on reducing or scaling back requirements. 

These process enhancements align with both the Executive Branch's Open 

Government initiative and the January 18, 2011, Executive Order, "Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review." The NRC staff will provide a paper in 

1 SECY-11-0032, March 2, 2011; ADAMS Accession No. ML 110190027 

4 
81 


82625.027

October 2012 that builds upon SECY-11-0032 and also incorporates direction 

received from the Commission. 

b. The Commission has given considerable attention to this matter. With an expected staff 

paper due in October, we will continue to do so. 

c. SECY-11-0032 referenced in the answer to Question 2(a), notes that the NRC staff is 

considering the cumulative effects of regulation (CER) in the rulemaking process. If the 

Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities result in rulemaking, the CER process enhancements 

described in SECY-11-0032 will be directly applied. 

For those Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities that are other regulatory actions (i.e., other than 

rulemakings), the CER will be considered indirectly. In other words, those regulatory 

actions will be considered to the extent they impact the implementation of ongoing 

rulemakings. For example, proposed rules will contain specific requests for comment on 

items related to CER. One such request will seek feedback from external stakeholders 

on whether any other regulatory actions (e.g., generic letters, orders, etc.) would 

influence the implementation of the proposed rule's requirements. The NRC staff will 

use that feedback to inform the implementation dates of the final rule requirements. 

In addition, in many cases the staff will conduct a public meeting on implementation 

during the final rulemaking stage. During this meeting, external stakeholders will have 

another opportunity to inform the NRC of ongoing regulatory actions, and challenges 

those actions may create for the implementation of the subject final rule. Again, the 

NRC notes that safety and security concerns remain the most important decision factors. 

5 
82 


82625.028

Although CER does not directly apply to non-rulemaking activities, the NRC notes that 

many of the good regulatory principles emphasized in the CER process enhancements, 

especially extensive stakeholder interaction, are currently being applied in postFukushima activities. 

QUESTION 3. 

ANSWER. 

The Reorganization Plan of 1980 states that the NRC chairman "shall 

be governed by the general policies of the Commission." As 

Chairman, will you respect and adhere to the general policies of the 

Commission, as embodied by the Internal Commission Procedures? 

I will adhere to Internal Commission Procedures, as has been the practice since the beginning 

of my Chairmanship. 

QUESTION 4. Please describe any changes to Internal Commission Procedures 

that you believe would be helpful: 

a. In preserving Commission collegiality; 

b. in ensuring the timely and unfiltered flow of information to the 

Commission; 

c. To provide clarity regarding leadership and management during 

an emergency particularly with regard to the Chairman's use of 

emergency powers under Section 3 of the Reorganization Pian of 

1980. 

6 
83 


82625.029

ANSWER 

a. I am satisfied that the Internal Commission Procedures provide an effective framework 

for the Commission to govern as a collegial body. 

b. I am satisfied that the Internal Commission Procedures provide an effective framework 

for ensuring the timely and unfiltered flow of information to the Commission. 

c. I am satisfied that the Internal Commission Procedures provide sufficient clarity 

regarding leadership and management during an emergency, particularly with regard to 

the Chairman's use of emergency powers under Section 3 of the Reorganization Plan of 

1980. 

qUESTIONS. The previous chairman repeatedly attempted to withhold or modify 

information provided to the Commission by the staff, even 

attempting to fire the Executive Director for having provided 

recommendations to the Commission. Please respond to the 

following questions: 

a. Will you refrain from using your authority for agenda planning to 

preclude or delay issues from coming before the Commission? 

b. Will you refrain from altering information provided by the staff to 

the Commission? 

c. Will you refrain from substituting your views for the staff's 

recommendations in information provided to the Commission? 

d. Will you communicate to NRC staff your commitment to support 

their ability to communicate with the Commission and provide their 

best professional advice? 

7 
84 


82625.030

ANSWER. 

Much of my July 24,2012 testimony before the Committee was directed at addressing these 

matters. My approach to management and to working with my Commission colleagues is to 

operate in a collaborative and collegial manner, always reaching out to others for input and 

ideas. Toward this end, I am meeting regularly with my Commissioner colleagues to seek their 

thoughts on major issues facing the agency and to benefit from their expertise. I look forward to 

continuing to forge a collegial relationship with them. I have also had the opportunity to work 

closely with the Executive Director and his direct staff. I have met with, been briefed by, and 

engaged a wide variety of the dedicated staff at the NRC through walk-arounds, meetings with 

various offices, and in written communications. 

In this overall context, let me reiterate the commitment I made to you at our July hearing: I will 

devote my energies to serving the NRC with the attributes that I consider important to good 

governance - openness, efficiency, and transparency. I will practice collegiality at all levels. An 

agency endowed with the public trust to be protective of its safety and security, such as the 

NRC, requires a respectful working environment to assure its integrity. As Chairman, I am 

committed to ensuring that the Commission operates in an environment of collegiality, where 

information is fully and currently shared, and the work of the Commission and its agenda is 

collaboratively established and executed. 

QUESTION 6. There have been an extraordinary number of delays in the 

time it has taken to bring certain matters before the 

Commission to a vote and to closure, and Commissioners 

have not always abided by voting procedures. The Office of 

the Secretary has a critical role in coordinating the 

8 
85 


82625.031

ANSWER. 

Commission's voting in accordance with Commission 

procedures. 

a. Will you adhere to voting procedures in the Internal 

Commission Procedures or work collegially to address 

needed changes? 

b. Will you refrain from interfering in the Secretary's 

execution of her responsibilities to the Commission? 

I will devote my energies to serving the NRC with the attributes that I consider important to good 

governance - openness, efficiency, and transparency. I will practice collegiality at all levels, 

including with the Executive Director and Secretary. An agency endowed with the public trust to 

be protective of its safety and security, such as the NRC, requires a respectful working 

environment to assure its integrity. As Chairman, I am obligated and committed to do all within 

my authorities to ensure that the Commission operates in an environment of collegiality, where 

information is fully and currently shared, and the work of the Commission and its agenda is 

collaboratively established and executed. As the principle executive officer, serving on behalf of 

the Commission, I will assure that the Commission's staff, including the Secretary, and the 

Executive Director and NRC staff are treated with the respect due them and their important 

responsibilities. 

QUESTION 7. Following the Fukushima disaster, there was significant 

confusion regarding former Chairman Jaczko's use of 

emergency authority. Please respond to the following 

questions: 

9 
86 


82625.032

ANSWER. 

a. As Chairman, will you commit to immediately and publicly 

announce your exercise of emergency authority under 

Section 3 ofthe Reorganization Plan of 1980, should you 

decide to exercise it? 

b. As Chairman, how would you expect to utilize the expertise 

of your fellow commissioners in an emergency situation? 

c. As Chairman, will you commit to file a timely and fulsome 

report, as required in Section 3 ofthe 1980 Reorganization 

Plan, describing any unilateral actions taken during your 

exercise of that such authority? 

The Chairman's emergency powers are specified under Section 3 of the Reorganization Plan of 

1980 and are captured in the following sections: 

Section 3(a) of Reorganization Plan No.1 of 1980 (Reorganization Plan) reserves to the 

Chairman the function of "declaring" an emergency. Such a declaration causes the 

transfer to the Chairman all functions vested in the Commission that pertain to an 

emergency concerning a particular facility or materials licensed or regulated by the 

Commission, including the functions of declaring, responding, issuing orders, 

determining specific policies, advising civil authorities, and the public, directing, and 

coordinating actions relative to such emergency incident. 

Section 3(b) provides that the Chairman can delegate the authority to perform 

emergency functions, in whole or in part, to any members of the Commission, or in 

whole or in part to the staff of the Commission. 

10 
87 


82625.033

Section 3(c) provides that the Chairman or anyone acting under delegated authority 

under section (b) shall conform to the policy guidelines of the Commission. This section 

also provides that to the maximum extent possible under the emergency conditions, the 

Chairman or other member of the Commission delegated authority under section (b) 

shall inform the Commission of the actions taken relative to the emergency. 

As I understand these matters, the only time the exercise of emergency authority is needed is if 

the situation demands that I eclipse a function that is ordinarily reserved to the Commission. 

For example, if I am exercising my authority to serve as the Agency spokesman, or performing 

executive functions involving supervision of the staff, or deciding matters that don't involve 

policy formation, I would not invoke emergency authorities. If the need arises, however, to carry 

out emergency functions, I will do so in accordance with both the letter and spirit of the 

Commission's established internal procedures. As Chairman, I am obligated and committed to 

do all within my authorities to ensure that the Commission operates in an environment of 

collegiality, where information is fully and currently shared, and the expertise and good 

judgment of colleagues is sought to the greatest extent the exigencies of the emergency 

permits. 

QUESTION 8. Do you believe that the mission of the Office of Public 

Affairs (OPA) is solely to serve the Chairman'S needs 

as spokesperson for the agency or do you believe 

OPA should more broadly serve the agency and reflect 

the Commission's position? How do you envision 

managing OPA in executing their mission? 

11 
88 


82625.034

ANSWER. 

As specified in the Internal Commission Procedures, "the Chairman is the official spokesman for 

the Commission and appoints, supervises, and removes, without further action by the 

Commission, the Directors and staff of the Office of Public Affairs .... " As the official spokesman 

for the Commission, I am committed to ensuring that I accurately convey the duly established 

policy positions of the Commission and that the Office of Public Affairs does the same. 

Furthermore, the Office of Public Affairs under my direction is not only serving my needs as the 

official spokesman, but the needs of the Commission as a whole. Certainly, the Office of Public 

Affairs will in all respects serve the important mission of our agency and will not -- in any respect 

-- be directed to serve my individual purposes. 

QUESTION 9. 

ANSWER. 

Please share your opinion regarding the benefits and 

transparency of the notation voting process. 

The notation voting process facilitates thorough Commission consideration of complex and 

technical regulatory issues. The process ensures that Commissioners have sufficient 

opportunity to consult with their personal staff, or other NRC staff, before the Commission 

reaches a final decision. The process preserves written records of the Commission's 

deliberations, and, in many cases, yields published Commission voting records, which provide 

each Commissioner's reasoning behind his or her vote. This approach under the Government in 

the Sunshine Act is at least as valuable for promoting transparency and insight into decision 

making as would a meeting-centered approach. With that said, meetings, including public 

Commission meetings, have played and will continue to play an important role in the 

Commission's operations as a collegial body. 

12 
89 


82625.035

QUESTION 10. 

ANSWER. 

For the last three years, the Commission and the agency have 

struggled with turmoil resulting from failed leadership. 

Please provide your personal suggestions for legislation to 

reform its governance structure and strengthen the 

Commission's function as a collegial body. 

Taking the long view, and accounting for the full history of the Commission's work, I am satisfied 

that existing legislation, in combination with Internal Commission Procedures, provides an 

effective framework for the Commission to govern as a collegial body. 

13 
90 


82625.036

The Honorable Bill Cassidy 

QUESTION 1. 

ANSWER: 

Chairman Macfarlane, in the past you have stated opposition 

to the development and use of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear 

waste repository. Do you still stand by those comments and 

oppose the use of Yucca Mountain, as per your previous 

statements? 

As an academic and scientist I have published papers, articles, and an edited book that 

addressed the scope and findings of research completed on the geology of the Yucca Mountain 

site. My focus at the time was in highlighting the complexities and sources of uncertainty in the 

federal government's scientific analysis. Much of my research and analyses, particularly for my 

contribution for the book Uncertainty Underground, was done in the pre-2004 time frame. In this 

context, I wrote in the closing chapter of the book that "I am not trying to suggest abandoning 

Yucca Mountain and going back to the drawing board. Instead, I would like to put forth some 

ideas for improving the current situation based on this analysis .... Hence, there is considerable 

time to reconsider whether Yucca Mountain is a reasonable site for the long-term storage of 

nuclear waste. There is little to be gained, and much to be lost, from rushing a decision of such 

magnitude." (pp. 406-408, Macfarlane, 2006) 

I have not undertaken additional research on this matter since the publication of my book. The 

Department of Energy's license application seeking authorization to build a geologic repository 

at Yucca Mountain was not submitted until June, 2008. I have read neither the Department of 

Energy's license application, nor the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's technical analysis of that 

application. I would need to read both, as well as any additional relevant scientific literature, to 

14 
91 


82625.037

update my understanding of the suitability of Yucca Mountain for high-level nuclear waste 

disposal and before taking any action in my role as Chairman of the NRC, 

The Commission is waiting for necessary direction and clarification from the U,S, Congress or 

the U,S, judiciary on these matters, In the eventuality that such direction is received, I will fulfill 

my responsibilities as Chairman and Commissioner and follow the Commission's established 

internal procedures for addressing these matters. 

QUESTION 2. 

ANSWER: 

If you oppose the development of Yucca Mountain, do you 

also oppose the expansion of nuclear energy in general? 

I have not taken a position regarding the development of Yucca Mountain. I do not oppose the 

expansion of nuclear energy, 

QUESTION 3. 

ANSWER. 

Do you commit to allowing normal Commission process to be 

followed in making the final determinations on the Yucca 

Mountain issue; as opposed to what former Chairman Jaczko 

did, essentially subverting this process as he pursued his 

own agenda? 

As in all my efforts as Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I will conduct my work 

with professional integrity, transparency of motive and judgment, and in conformance with both 

the letter and spirit of the Commission's internal procedures. 

15 
92 


82625.038

QUESTION 4. 

ANSWER. 

If you continue to oppose the use of Yucca Mountain for 

scientific or other reasons, can you please detail your 

reasons so that I may better understand your opposition? 

Please see my response to Question 1. 

16 
93 


82625.039

UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D,C, 20555·0001 

COMMISSIONER 

The Honorable Ed Whitfield 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy 

and Power 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D,C, 20515 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment 

and the Economy 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D,C, 20515 

September 6,2012 

Dear Chairman Whitfield and Chairman Shimkus: 

I appeared before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power and the Subcommittee on 

Environment and the Economy on July 24, 2012, along with my colleagues on the Commission, 

In response to your letter of August 23, 2012, enclosed please find my response to questions for 

the record from that hearing, If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact 

me. 

Enclosure: As stated 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L Rush 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

The Honorable Gene Green 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Environment 

and the Economy 

~ 

Sincerely, 

Kristine L Svinicki 
94 


82625.040

Questions from the Honorable John Shimkus 

1. The NRC has repeatedly indicated that U.S. nuclear plants are safe and do not pose 

an imminent risk to public health and safety and has issued orders on the matters 

with the highest safety benefit. With that assurance and those actions in mind, 

please respond to the following: 

a. Do you anticipate supporting any additional orders for post-Fukushima 

regulatory changes without requiring cost-benefit analysis? 

As noted by Chairman Mcfarlane in her response on behalf of the Commission, the 

Commission intends to follow its established processes with regard to any potential 

additional orders related to post·Fukushima lessons learned. In accordance with these 

processes, cost·benefit analyses would be conducted where applicable and required. 

More specifically to your question, however, as I stated in my vote on SECY-12-0025, 

"Proposed Orders and Request for Information in Response to Lessons Learned from 

Japan's March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami," I believe NRC has 

"been well·served by our disciplined approach to regulatory analysis" and "the 

Commission's actions regarding the consideration of cumulative effects of regulation and 

President Obama's Executive Orders on regulatory reform remind us that we should not 

... lose sight of the relative benefits and burdens of our regulatory actions .... I 

encourage the staff in future evaluation phases of the Fukushima lessons-learned effort 

to maintain a rigorous regulatory analysis process." 

b. Please list any reasons you believe might warrant Sidestepping the NRC's 

usual processes for developing a technical basis and cost benefit analysis 

when considering additional post-Fukushima regulatory changes. 

The agency's "backfitting" rule requires that an analysis be performed to weigh the costs 

and benefits of proposed regulatory actions that constitute backfits under the NRC's 

backfitting rule except in three cases: 1) if the action is necessary to bring a facility into 

compliance with a license or rules of the Commission; 2) if the action is necessary to 

ensure adequate protection of the health and safety of the public; or 3) if the action 

defines or redefines what level of protection should be regarded as adequate. Should 

one of these exceptions be invoked, then a documented evaluation must be completed. 

Furthermore, the Atomic Energy Act provides the Commission authority to issue 

requirements that it determines represent a significant enhancement to public health and 

safety. It is within this existing context of the NRC's established rules, processes, and 

statutory authority that the Commission would justify any future decisions regarding 

additional post-Fukushima regulatory requirements. 

Page 1 of6 
95 


82625.041

2. In March of 2011, the NRC staff developed a proposal to address the cumulative 

impacts of regulatory changes. Such regulatory changes should be prioritized 

based on safety significance, and recognize timing, staffing, financial, and other 

constraints. This would certainly be in line with the NRC's Efficiency Principle 

which states: "Regulatory activities should be consistent with the degree of risk 

reduction they achieve." In the hearing, I quoted you [Commissioner Magwood] as 

saying: "it does not, as a general matter, advance the cause of safety to inundate 

licensee staff with multiple actions when a more thoughtful process might achieve 

the agency's safety goals without straining licensee resources." 

a. Will you work with your colleagues and staff to ensure this matter receives 

serious Commission attention? 

I will. 

b. Given the scope of Tier 2 and Tier 3 post-Fukushima actions and other 

regulatory changes under development, what actions are being taken to 

resolve this concern concurrently? 

In response to voting paper SECY-11-0032, "Consideration of the Cumulative Effects of 

Regulation in the Rulemaking Process: the Commission directed the NRC staff to 

prepare a strategy to implement proposed process changes related to consideration of 

the cumulative effects of regulation and to submit this strategy for the Commission's 

review and approval in the last quarter of 2012. The strategy will include the NRC's 

proposed approaches for soliciting and considering stakeholder feedback on the 

cumulative effects of proposed regulations and for structuring proposed rule 

requirements and compliance timeframes appropriately, based on this feedback. 

If the Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities result in rulemaking, the process enhancements related 

to the cumulative effects of regulation will be directly applied. For those Tier 2 and Tier 3 

activities that are other regulatory actions (I.e., other than rulemakings), cumulative 

effects of regulation will be considered indirectly. 

3. Please share your opinion regarding the benefits and transparency of the notation 

voting process. 

Throughout my service on the Commission, I have benefited from the rich, written record 

of prior votes by individual Commissioners, which exist as a result of the historical 

practice of written, notation voting at the NRC. Individual Commissioner's notation vote 

sheets, which in part serve to influence the thinking of fellow Commissioners, often 

provide extensive commentary on the issues for decision and the Commissioner's 

rationale for supporting or opposing a proposed action, in whole or in part. The written 

articulation of my colleague's thinking can prove particularly invaluable where the issues 

Page 20f6 
96 


82625.042

are complex, the relative weight of factors affecting policy is not clear, and the choices 

are numerous. Often, voting matters before the Commission are an evolution of a 

previous voting matter. Access to the historical record of previous Commission 

deliberation can also provide diverse insights, as well as enhance continuity and stability 

in the consideration of regulatory issues. 

4. There have been an extraordinary number of delays in the time it has taken to bring 

certain matters before the Commission to a vote and to closure, and 

Commissioners have not always abided by voting procedures. Going forward, will 

you adhere to voting procedures in the Internal Commission Procedures or work 

collegially to address needed changes? 

I believe I have, and pledge to continue to, adhere to the voting procedures in the 

Internal Commission Procedures and to work collegially to address any needed 

changes. 

5. Please describe any changes to Internal Commission Procedures that you believe 

would be helpful: 

a. In preserving Commission collegiality; 

b. In ensuring the timely and unfiltered flow of information to the Commission; 

c. To provide clarity regarding leadership and management during an emergency 

particularly with regard to the Chairman's use of emergency powers under 

Section 3 of the Reorganization Plan of 1980. 

The substantial revision of the Internal Commission Procedures, undertaken by the 

Commission in 2010, was intended to clarify and resolve ambiguities in the procedures 

as they existed before that time, with the aim of improving the flow of information and the 

Commission's overall collegial functioning. The Commission is still gaining operational 

experience in the use of the revised procedures under Chairman Mcfarlane's 

chairmanship and, I believe, would benefit from additional time prior to proposing further 

adjustment or modification to the procedures. The Secretary of the Commission is 

scheduled to propose any changes to the procedures, as part of a routine biennial 

review assigned to her office, in the summer of 2013. 

i. For the last three years, the Commission and the agency have struggled with 

turmoil resulting from failed leadership. Please provide your personal suggestions 

for legislation to reform its governance structure and strengthen the Commission's 

function as a collegial body, 

Although the current statutory framework is workable and not, in my view, in need of 

fundamental rework or revision, clarification to the definition and Congressional intent in 

Page 30f6 
97 


82625.043

certain, narrow areas may promote the collegial functioning of the Commission. Areas 

which come to mind for further consideration include: 1) the supervisory relationship 

between the Chairman and the Executive Director for Operations; 2) the Chairman's 

authority to temporarily reassign officials serving in appointments approved by the 

Commission as a whole; 3) the Chairman's authority to appoint and rate the 

performance of the Chief Financial Officer; 4) the Commission's right to full and 

unfettered access to information already in existence within the agency; 5) the 

respective roles of the Chairman and the Commission in formulating and overseeing the 

execution of the agency's budget; 6) the role of the Chairman in formulating and 

proposing policy matters for the Commission's consideration; 7) the authority of the 

Chairman and Commission in determining the form in which a voting matter is taken up 

by the Commission; and 8) the authority of the Chairman in reviewing and determining 

the content of NRC staff proposals and recommendations to the Commission. 

In the spring of 2013, the Commission will formally submit its biennial package of 

legislative proposals to NRC's authorizing committees in the Congress. I look forward to 

engaging with the other members of the Commission in developing and submitting 

proposals, in these or other areas we might mutually identify, next year. 

Page 40f6 
98 


82625.044

Question from the Honorable John D. Dingell 

In the audience during the hearing were constituents of mine who are studying nuclear 

science at the University of Michigan which I have the honor of representing. In its FY 

2013 budget request, the NRC stated that it is not requesting funding for the Integrated 

University Program, which historically has been the sole provider of critical funding for 

both student and faculty development in the field of nuclear science. The NRC states that 

"this reflects the confidence that the nuclear industry ... will create incentives for 

students to enter nuclear-related programs." 

(1) Do you believe there is a need to train nuclear engineers in this country and do 

you support the NRC's role in the IUP? 

I believe government agencies should support the public good derived from a robust 

educational infrastructure, as well as supporting the development of the next generation of 

government employees. which in NRC's case, includes nuclear engineers. For these 

reasons, and others, I support NRC's involvement in the Integrated University Program. 

Page 50f6 
99 


82625.045

Question from the Honorable G.K Butterfield 

After 9/11, the Commission was quick to identify ways to strengthen security at 

nuclear plants, but it took many years for those plants to implement the new standards. 

Other safety issues, such as fire safety and debris accumulation inside cooling systems, 

lingered in some state of NRC review or implementation for decades. 

(1) Can you assure this Committee that NRC won't delay implementation of orders 

and rules designed to address lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster? 

In response to the tragic attacks of 9/11, the NRC took rapid action to impose enhanced 

security measures at nuclear facilities through the issuance of immediately effective orders. 

Requirements imposed through these orders were subsequently codified in agency 

regulations, via the rulemaking process. In a similar vein, NRC has taken actions to 

implement lessons-learned from the Fukushima accident, in a risk-prioritized fashion, 

through the issuance of orders and requests for information in March of this year. NRC's 

actions include both near-term and longer term actions, which support the timely 

implementation of our regulatory response to lessons-learned from the Fukushima accident. 

The NRC will continue to balance the use of available resources to address lessons-learned 

from the Fukushima event with its day-to-day activities necessary to ensure continued safe 

operation of U.S. nuclear power plants and the completion of other important safety 

enhancements not related to lessons-learned from Fukushima. 

Page 6 of6 
100 


82625.046

HEGU~;. 

o UNITED STATES 

"'\. 

~ 

o 

~ 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565 

f v;.."V.r,'I ~of:J 

****.J: 

COMMISSIONER 

September 6,2012 

The Honorable Ed Whitfield 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy 

and Power 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment 

and the Economy 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United Stales House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Whitfield and Chairman Shimkus: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power and the 

Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy at the July 24, 2012 hearing entitled "NRC 

Policy and Governance Oversight." By letter dated August 23, 2012, you provided additional 

questions for the record related to this hearing; my responses to these questions are enclosed. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you or the members of your subcommittees have 

any additional questions. 

Enclosures: As stated 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

The Honorable Gene Green, 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Environment 

and the Economy 

Sinrrely, {d ;j;/'iiL-~-;2- William D. k,/gwo¥V 
101 


82625.047

Questions from the Honorable John Shimkus 

1. The NRC has repeatedly indicated that U.S. nuclear power plants are safe and do 

not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety and has issued orders on 

the matters with the highest safety benefit. With that assurance and those actions 

in mind, please respond to the following: 

a. 00 you anticipate supporting any additional orders for post-Fukushima 

regulatory changes without requiring cost-benefit analysis? 

We intend to follow our established processes with regard to any potential additional 

orders related to post-Fukushima lessons learned. As a general matter, these 

processes would require that cost-benefit analyses be conducted where applicable. 

Nevertheless the NRC's Backfit Rule allows for exceptions in three cases: 1) if the 

action is necessary to bring a facility into compliance with a license or rules of the 

Commission; 2) if the action is necessary to ensure adequate protection of the health 

and safety of the public; or 3) if the action defines or redefines what level of 

protection should be regarded as adequate. Should one of these exceptions be 

invoked, then a documented evaluation must be completed. Furthermore, the 

Atomic Energy Act provides the Commission authority to issue requirements that it 

determines represent a significant enhancement to public health and safety without a 

cost-benefit analysis. Based on the NRC's longstanding regulatory procesSes, it is 

my expectation that we will generally require cost-benefit analyses when considering 

new actions, but cannot preclude the exemption of critical actions if they are 

necessary for adequate protection of the public. 

b. Please list any reasons you believe might warrant sidestepping the NRC's 

usual processes for developing a technical basis and cost benefit analysis 

when considering additional post-Fukushima regulatory changes. 

As discussed in the response to your first question, the NRC's established processes 

for promulgating regulatory changes include the development of an analysis that 

weighs the costs and benefits of a proposed regulatory action that constitutes a 

backfit under the NRC's Backfit Rule, unless one of three exceptions apply. These 

three exceptions are included within the NRC's established processes, and require a 

documented evaluation when invoked. The Commission also has authority with 

regard to implementing requirements that Significantly enhance public health and 

safety. My colleagues and I remain focused on the health and safety of the 

American people and are committed to ensuring that our regulatory decisions are 

based on full consideration of all of the analyses and evaluations available. 
102 


82625.048

2. In March of 2011, the NRC staff developed a proposal to address the cumulative 

impacts of regulatory changes. Such regulatory changes should be prioritized 

based on safety significance, and recognize timing, staffing, financial and other 

constraints. This would certainly be in line with the NRC's Efficiency Principle 

which states: "Regulatory activities should be consistent with the degree of risk 

reduction they achieve." In the hearing, I quoted you as saying, "it does not, as a 

general matter, advance the cause of safety to inundate licensee staff with 

multiple actions when a more thoughtful process might achieve the agency's 

safety goals without straining licensee resources." 

a. Will you work with your colleagues and staff to ensure this matter receives 

serious Commission attention? 

As you noted during the hearing, I have advocated for the agency to focus on a more 

strategic and risk-informed approach for the implementation of regulatory actions. 

This effort is important from both the perspective of safety-as it helps the agency 

assure that licensees are focusing their resources on higher priority regulatory 

actions-and the perspective of regulatory fairness. I remain committed to working 

with my colleagues and the NRC staff to ensure that this issue remains a high 

priority. 

b. Given the scope of Tier 2 and Tier 3 post-Fukushima actions and other 

regulatory changes under development, what actions are being taken to 

resolve this concern concurrently? 

As described in SECY -11-0032, "Consideration of the Cumulative Effects of 

Regulation in the Rulemaking Process," dated March 2, 2011 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML 110190027), the NRC staff is considering the cumulative effects of regulation 

(CER) in the rulemaking process. If the Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities result in 

rulemaking, the CER process enhancements described in SECY-11-0032 will be 

directly applied. For those Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities that are implemented using 

regulatory actions other than rulemakings, the CER will be considered indirectly. In 

other words, those regulatory actions will be considered to the extent they impact the 

implementation of ongoing rulemakings. For example, proposed rules will contain 

specific requests for comment on items related to CER. One such request will seek 

feedback from external stakeholders on whether any other regulatory actions (e.g., 

generic letters or orders) influence the implementation of the proposed rule's 

requirements. The NRC staff will use that feedback to inform the implementation 

dates of the proposed rule. In addition, in many cases the staff will conduct a public 

meeting on implementation during the final rulemaking stage. During this meeting, 

external stakeholders will have another opportunity to inform the NRC of ongoing 

regulatory actions and challenges those actions may create for the implementation of 

the subject final rule. Again, the NRC notes that safety and security concerns remain 

the most important decision factors. 
103 


82625.049

Although CER does not directly apply to non-rulemaking activities, the NRC notes 

that many of the good regulatory principles emphasized in the CER process 

enhancements, especially extensive stakeholder interaction, are currently being 

applied in post-Fukushima activities, 

3. Please share your opinion regarding the benefits and transparency of the notation 

voting process. 

In my experience, there are a number of benefits derived from the notalion voting 

process, The issues on which the Commission votes are complex and highly technical. 

As 1 develop my personal vote on a matter before the Commission, I examine the full 

public record on the matter, including any staff papers before the Commission, 

information gleaned from public Commission meetings, and, at times, the written 

notation votes of previous members of the Commission, I am also greatly informed by 

conversations with the NRC's technical staff, where appropriate; my personal staff; and 

my individual colleagues, All of this information is considered in my written vote, which 

is intended to offer an explanation of the reasoning behind my vote, as well as offer any 

additional comments or questions I believe should be addressed now or in the future, to 

my colleagues, the NRC staff, and the public, As I explained during the hearing, while I 

do try to discuss voting matters as much as possible with my colleagues before voting, 

often, a Commissioner's written vote will raise an issue that has been previously 

overlooked or offer a detail or nuance that changes my thinking on a matter, and, as a 

result, my staff and I will explore whether a change in position is warranted, I believe 

that if the notation voting process were abandoned in favor of an oral voting process, the 

Commission would lose the benefits of this give-and-take dynamic and deprive itself, the 

staff, the public, and future Commissions of a full exploration of every aspect of the 

issues before the agency, 

4, There have been an extraordinary number of delays in the time it has taken to 

bring certain matters before the Commission to a vote and to closure, and 

Commissioners have not always abided by voting procedures. Going forward, will 

you adhere to voting procedures in the Internal Commission Procedure or work 

collegially to address needed changes? 

I agree that the Commission should strive to make timely decisions in a manner that 

supports regulatory efficiency, clarity, and fairness, For this reason, I strive, along with 

my colleagues, to abide by the Commission's established voting procedures and commit 

to continue to do so, However, I believe it is important to note that some of the issues 

the Commission faces are complex, highly technical, and oftentimes controversial. It is 

vital that we give each issue before us full consideration to ensure that we make 

decisions that will ensure the health and safety of the public, and sometimes this will 

mean that we will have to take extra time to arrive at the best decision possible, 
104 


82625.050

5. Please describe any changes to Internal Commission Procedures that you believe 

would be helpful: 

a. In preserving Commission collegiality; 

Approximately one year ago, we completed a significant revision of the Internal 

Commission Procedures (ICPs). I believe that these revised procedures, if applied 

appropriately, provide for Commission collegiality. Nevertheless, I commit to working 

with my colleagues to institute further revisions if they become necessary in the 

future. 

b. In ensuring the timely and unfiltered flow of information to the 

Commission; 

As I discussed previously, the 2011 ICP revisions were designed to ensure that the 

Commission functions efficiently and coUegially. The revisions included 

improvements to the flow of information to the CommisSion, including ensuring that 

the staff can submit information to the Commission for its review and ensuring that 

the Chairman keeps the Commission fully informed of agency activities. While I 

believe these revised procedures are serving their intended purpose, I remain open 

to future revisions if warranted. 

c. To provide clarity regarding leadership and management during an 

emergency particularly with regard to the Chairman'S use of emergency 

powers under Section 3 of the Reorganization Plan of 1980. 

One change not included in the 2011 revisions that I believe may be warranted is to 

require the Chairman to notify his or her colleagues as soon as practicable that the 

agency has entered an emergency and that the Chairman is exercising his or her 

emergency powers. Similarly, I believe it is important to clarify the timing, scope, and 

formality of the reports currently required under Section 3(c) and (d) of 

Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980. 

6. For the last three years, the Commission and the agency have struggled with 

turmoil resulting from failed leadership. Please provide your personal 

suggestions for legislation to reform its governance structure and strengthen the 

Commission's function as a collegial body. 

First, I would like to emphasize that, overall, I believe that the current legislative 

framework for the NRC allows it to function very well. However, there are some areas 

that I think could be improved, primarily by clarifying and reinforcing already-established 

interpretations of the current legislation. It would be best if my colleagues on the 

Commission and I work jointly to conSider a unified proposal for Congressional 
105 


82625.051

consideration. I hope to pursue this idea in the coming weeks and months, In the 

interim, I will respond to your question by providing a few initial thoughts of my own, 

Because a free exchange of information is vital to the Commission's ability to function as 

a collegial body and establish well-considered policy positions, it would be helpful to 

reinforce the principle that the Commission has the authority to receive all information 

related to the operation of the agency, Specifically, Congress could consider a revision 

to Sec, 2(c) of the Reorganization Plan of 1980 to allow the agency's Executive Director 

for Operations (EDO) to directly provide information to the Commission, rather than 

through the Chairman. This could ensure that the Commission is fully aware of all staff 

positions, concerns, and recommendations when exercising its authority under the 

Atomic Energy Act and the Reorganization Plan, 

In addition to specifying that the EDO may, and in many cases should, provide 

information directly to the Commission, Congress could consider revisions to the 

Reorganization Plan that would clarify the reporting relationship of the various 

Commission-level offices (including the General Counsel and Secretary of the 

Commission as well as newer offices such as the Office of International Programs and 

the Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication that are not specifically mentioned in 

the Reorganization Plan) to reinforce that these offices should in all cases provide 

information that is intended for the entire Commission to the Commission directly, 

I also believe there would be value in clarifying the reporting relationship and duties of 

the Office of Public Affairs and the Office of Congressional Affairs, By statute, both 

offices presently report directly to the Chairman of the agency. This reporting 

relationship is in most instances appropriate, particularly because both offices serve 

chiefly as liaisons - OPA between the NRC and the public, and OCA between the NRC 

and the Congress. By virtue of his or her role as official agency spokesman and as 

supervisor of OPA and OCA, the Chairman in most circumstances is the "NRC" in the 

OPA and DCA liaison equations, 

However, even though the Chairman has primary call on OPA's and ~CA's services, the 

agency as a whole benefits when OPA and OCA also provide assistance to the other 

Commissioners and to the agency as a whole, First, OCA and OPA often provide 

services to the agency's Commission-level and program offices-for instance, 

coordinating press outreach for a public meeting or coordinating briefings for members 

of Congress or their staffs. In addition, OCA already performs the function of assisting 

individual Commissioners when, pursuant to 10 C.FR § 1.27(a), it advises the 

Chairman, the Commission, and the staff, on the agency's relations with Congress and 

on the Congress's views on the NRC's policies, plans, and activities. This support is 

important and appreCiated. Additionally, even though Commissioners speak for 

themselves and not as official spokesmen for the agency, there is value to the agency in 

conveying a consistent message whenever possible, OCA and OPA should be available 

to provide the same advice on matters to Commissioners that they provide to the 
106 


82625.052

Chairman - for example, papers and documents provided by OCA or OPA to the 

Chairman for briefing purposes might be shared with other Commissioners for the 

overall benefit of the agency. 

However. all of these additional functions currently performed by OPA and OCA are 

performed on an ad hoc basis, and therefore, the appropriate boundary of the activities 

to be performed by these offices is murky at best. One approach to address this might 

be to consider a reorganization which would place both of these offices under the 

oversight of the EDO-supporting the Chairman's role as chief spokesperson of the 

agency, but clarifying that both offices serve the agency as a whole-including, where 

appropriate, individual Commissioners. 

Related to the scope of actions for OCA and OPA, there have recently been concerns 

regarding the appropriate scope of the Chairman's role as chief spokesperson for the 

agency. The revisions to the Plan discussed above could also clarify that the 

Chairman's role as chief spokesperson for the agency is intended to reflect policy 

positions that are consistent with those adopted by the Commission as a whole. 

Finally, legislative changes to clarify the responsibility of the Executive Director of 

Operations, the Chief Financial Officer, and the General Counsel independent of the 

Commission could assist with some of the issues noted in the answers above. 

Congress might also consider an enhanced model for the NRC Office of the General 

Counsel to further enhance the independence of that organization in assuring the 

continued legal quality of the agency's work and in providing independent expert advice 

to the Commission and staff. 

Question from the Honorable John D. Dingell 

In the audience during the hearing were constituents of mine who are studying 

nuclear science at the University of Michigan which I have the honor of representing. In 

its FY 2013 budget request, the NRC stated that it is not requesting funding for the 

Integrated University Programs, which historically has been the sole provider of critical 

funding for both student and faculty development in the field of nuclear science. The 

NRC states that "this reflects the confidence that the nuclear industry ... will create 

incentives for students to enter nuclear-related programs." 

1. Do you believe there is a need to train nuclear engineers in this country and do 

you support the NRC's role in the IUP? 

Dating back to my service at the Department of Energy, one of my areas of particular 

focus has been reviving nuclear engineering programs at colleges and universities in the 

United States. When I took over as the head of DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, many 

people thought nuclear energy to be a dying field. At that time, only about 500 students 
107 


82625.053

were enrolled in undergraduate nuclear engineering programs at U.S. schools. Now, the 

situation has improved considerably. Today, with a lot of effort by many, targeted funding 

from the government, and revived interest in commercial nuclear energy, there are 

nearly 5000 nuclear engineering students at U.S. schools, with many more students 

receiving some course work in nuclear technology. The NRC's IUP has been a major 

factor in this revival, and I believe it is vital that support for nuclear engineering programs 

and other efforts to increase educational opportunities in science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics continue. 

According to industry estimates, 39 percent of the U.S. commercial nuclear sector's 

workforce will be eligible for retirement by 2016, resulting in roughly 25,000 jobs that will 

need to be filled within the next four years to maintain the current workforce. In addition, 

the Federal government (including national laboratories), academia, and the medical 

radiological healthcare field will place additional demands on this limited workforce. 

Educating the next generation of engineers and scientists is essential to meet the 

Nation's present and future national security needs and for assuring the safe 

construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Addressing these workforce 

shortages will require partnerships between the Federal government, the nuclear 

industry, and colleges and universities to sustain educational programs in nuclear 

science and engineering, and to continue to attract students to the nuclear energy field. 

The IUP represents NRC's role in this partnership by providing scholarships and 

fellowships to enter nuclear-related fields that will support the educational demands of 

the nuclear sector including engineering, health physics, radiochemistry, and other 

related fields where demand for skilled individuals outpaces supply. The IUP also 

provides faculty development grants to attract and retain highly-qualified individuals in 

academic teaching careers. In addition, NRC funding is often leveraged with nonFederal funding, thus providing a multiplier effect of the NRC's contributions. Without 

programs such as the IUP, past history has shown that the non-Federal funding will 

diminish substantially along with student enrollments in nuclear educational programs, 

You have my commitment that I will continue to vigorously advocate for the continuance 

of the NRC's role in the IUP. 
108 


82625.054

Question from the Honorable G.K. Butterfield 

After 9/11, the Commission was quick to identify ways to strengthen security at 

nuclear plants, but it took many years for those plants to implement the new standards. 

Other safety issues, such as fire safety and debris accumulation inside cooling systems, 

lingered in some state of NRC review or implementation for decades. 

1. Can you assure this Committee that NRC won't delay implementation of orders 

and rules designed to address lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster? 

Following the events of 9111, the Commission quickly instituted necessary safety and 

security changes via orders to affected licensees. These orders, with some 

modifications developed through the agency's normal regulatory process, were later 

formalized through rulemaking. Similarly, the Commission is committed to implementing 

regulatory actions to address lessons learned from the Fukushima accident in an 

expeditious manner that will include both immediate short-term actions and longer-term 

development of regulations and has already made significant progress along both lines. 

The Commission and the NRC staff must, however, continue to balance the use of 

available resources to address lessons learned from the Fukushima event with day-today activities necessary to ensure continued safe operation of U.S. nuclear power plants 

and the completion of other important safety enhancements not related to lessons 

learned from Fukushima. While balancing these competing needs may be a challenge, I 

believe that the NRC staff is more than up to the task. I believe that the schedule set by 

the Commission for implementation of post-Fukushima actions is ambitious yet 

appropriate given the importance of the actions and is ultimately achievable. I will 

continue to support the staff's efforts to meet this schedule. 

On December 15, 2011, the Commission approved the staffs recommended three-tiered 

prioritization of the actions identified to address lessons learned from Fukushima. The 

Tier 1 recommendations are those actions that should be implemented without 

unnecessary delay. The Tier 2 recommendations are those actions that need further 

technical assessment or critical skill sets to implement. The Tier 3 recommendations are 

longer-term actions that depend on the completion of a shorter-term action or need 

additional study to support a regulatory action. 

On March 9, 2012, the Commission approved the staff's recommended actions for 

addressing the Tier 1 items, and staff has taken action to begin implementation of all of 

these items. As a result, the agency issued three orders on March 12, 2012, that 

contained requirements for reliable hardened containment vents, installation of 

enhanced spent fuel pool (SFP) instrumentation, and the development of strategies to 

maintain or restore core cooling, containment and SFP COOling capabilities following a 

natural event beyond what plants were designed to endure. Each licensee is required to 

achieve full compliance with these orders within two refueling cycles following submittal 
109 


82625.055

of their site-specific implementation plans (which are due February 2013), or by 

December 31, 2016, whichever comes first. 

Also related to Tier 1 recommendations, the NRC issued letiers on March 12, 2012, 

directing each nuclear power plant licensee to reevaluate the seismic and flooding 

hazards at their site using present-day methods and information, conduct walkdowns of 

their facilities to ensure protection against the hazards in theif current design basis, and 

reevaluate their emergency communications systems and staffing levels. The NRC 

anticipates that most nuclear power plant licensees will complete the walkdowns and 

emergency communications and staffing assessments within the next year, except for 

the portions of the emergency staffing assessment that are tied to implementation of the 

order to develop mitigating strategies (i.e., the strategy must be developed before the 

staff needed to implement it can be assessed). The majority of nuclear power plant 

licensees, including those plants with the greatest potential seismic and flooding risks, 

are expected to complete the seismic and flooding hazard reevaluations within five 

years. The NRC will assess the licensees' responses. 

The remaining Tier 1 recommendations consist of rulemakings addressing station 

blackout (SSO) and the integration of emergency procedures at nuclear power plants. 

On March 20, 2012, the NRC issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPR) to solicit public input on the SBO rulemaking. This step moves the NRC closer 

to issuing a final rule within the 24-to-30-month schedule directed by the Commission. 

The public comment period for the ANPR closed May 4, 2012, and the NRC is currently 

reviewing the public input it received. Another ANPR on the integration of emergency 

procedures at nuclear power plants was issued April 18, 2012, and the public comment 

period closed June 18, 2012. The NRC is currently reviewing these comments as well. 

We anticipate beginning work on the Tier 2 recommendations after collecting information 

from the Tier 1 activities, and as soon as resources currently devoted to those activities 

become available. On July 13, 2012, the NRC staff provided the Commission with its 

plans for addressing the remaining, longer-term Tier 3 activities. The plan and schedule 

for each Tier 3 item is unique, but many of the Tier 3 plans will use information gathered 

from the Tier 1 activities to inform further action. 

The NRC is moving quickly and systematically to implement measures to address the 

lessons-learned from the Fukushima disaster. I remain committed to working with my 

colleagues to ensure that these measures are implemented fully, quickly, and effectively. 
110 


82625.056

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittees on Energy and Power & Environment and Economy Hearing 

July 24, 2012 

Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission 

Questions for Commissioner Ostendorff 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

1. The NRC has repeatedly indicated that U.S. nuclear plants are safe and do not pose an 

imminent risk to public health and safety and has issued orders on the matters with the highest 

safety benefit. With that assurance and those actions in mind, please respond to the following: 

a. Do you anticipate supporting any additional orders for post-Fukushima regulatory 

changes without requiring cost-benefit analysis? 

b. Please list any reasons you believe might warrant sidestepping the NRC's usual 

processes for developing a technical basis and cost benefit analysis when considering 

additional post-Fukushima regulatory changes. 

a. The Commission intends to follow its established processes with regard to any potential 

additional orders related to post-Fukushima lessons learned. In accordance with these 

processes, cost-benefit analyses would be conducted where applicable and required. 

The agency's "backfitting" rule requires that an analysis be performed to weigh the costs 

and benefits of proposed regulatory actions that constitute backfits under the NRC's 

backfitting rule except in three cases: 1) if the action is necessary to bring a facility into 

compliance with a license or rules of the Commission; 2) if the action is necessary to 

ensure adequate protection of the health and safety of the public; or 3) if the action 

defines or redefines what level of protection should be regarded as adequate. Should 

one of these exceptions be invoked, then a documented evaluation must be completed. 

Furthermore, the Atomic Energy Act provides the Commission authority to issue 

requirements that it determines represent a significant enhancement to public health and 

safety. It is within this existing context of the NRC's established rules, processes, and 

statutory authority that the Commission would justify any future decisions regarding 

additional post-Fukushima regulatory requirements. 

b. As discussed in the response to Question 1 a above, the NRC's established processes 

for promulgating regulatory changes include the development of an analysis that weighs 

the costs and benefits of a proposed regulatory action that constitutes a backfit under 

the NRC's backfitting rule, unless one of three exceptions apply. These three 

exceptions are included within the NRC's established processes, and require a 

documented evaluation when invoked. The Commission also has authority with regard 

to implementing requirements that significantly enhance public health and safety. The 

Commission is committed to considering all required and appropriate analyses, 

evaluations, and authorities available to it when deciding on any proposed regulatory 

action. 

Enclosure 

Page 1 of 10 
111 


82625.057

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittees on Energy and Power & Environment and Economy Hearing 

July 24, 2012 

Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission 

Questions for Commissioner Ostendorff 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

2. In March of 2011, the NRC staff developed a proposal to address the cumulative impacts of 

regulatory changes. Such regulatory changes should be prioritized based on safety significance, 

and recognize timing, staffing, financial, and other constraints. This would certainly be in line 

with the NRC's Efficiency Principle which states: "Regulatory activities should be consistent with 

the degree of risk reduction they achieve." In the hearing, I quoted you as saying: "it does not, 

as a general matter, advance the cause of safety to inundate licensee staff with multiple actions 

when a more thoughtful process might achieve the agency's safety goals without straining 

licensee resources." 

a. Will you work with your colleagues and staff to ensure this matter receives serious 

Commission attention? 

b. Given the scope of Tier 2 and Tier 3 post-Fukushima actions and other regulatory 

changes under development, what actions are being taken to resolve this concern 

concurrently? 

a. I share your concern with the cumulative effects of regulation (CER) and commit to work 

with my colleagues and staff to ensure this matter receives serious Commission 

attention. CER can potentially distract those we regulate from executing other primary 

duties that ensure safety or security. In my vote on the Japan Task Force report in 

SECY-11-0093, I supported an integrated, prioritized assessment of the Task Force 

recommendations. In that same vein, I also supported the effort for a "Revised Common 

Prioritization of Rulemaking Process, that seeks to prioritize rulemaking activities on a 

common basis agency wide, rather than just within a given office, in my approval of the 

staff's proposed rulemaking process enhancements to reduce CER in SECY-11-0032, 

"Consideration of the Cumulative Effects of Regulation in the Rulemaking Process," 

dated March 2, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 110190027). These enhancements 

included increased interaction with external stakeholders through the rulemaking 

process (including a public meeting during the final rule stage to discuss implementation 

issues), issuing guidance with rules, and requesting stakeholder feedback as part of the 

rulemaking process so that CER can be addressed. The Commission approved these 

enhancements and gave additional direction in its associated staff requirements 

memorandum. 

b. As described in SECY-11-0032, "Consideration of the Cumulative Effects of Regulation 

in the Rulemaking Process," dated March 2, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML 110190027), the NRC staff is primarily considering the cumulative effects of 

regulation (CER) in the rulemaking process. If the Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities result in 

fulemaking, the CER process enhancements described in SECY-11-0032 will be directly 

applied. For those Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities that are other regulatory actions (Le., 

other than rulemakings), the CER will be considered indirectly. In other words, those 

regulatory actions will be considered to the extent they impact the implementation of 

Enclosure 

Page 2 of 10 
112 


82625.058

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittees on Energy and Power & Environment and Economy Hearing 

July 24, 2012 

Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission 

ongoing rulemakings. For example, proposed rules will contain specific requests for 

comment on items related to CER. One such request will seek feedback from external 

stakeholders on whether any other regulatory actions (e.g., generic letters, orders, etc.) 

influence the implementation of the proposed rule's requirements. The NRC staff will 

use that feedback to inform the implementation dates of the proposed rule. In addition, 

in many cases the staff will conduct a public meeting on implementation during the final 

rulemaking stage. During this meeting, external stakeholders will have another 

opportunity to inform the NRC of ongoing regulatory actions, and challenges those 

actions may create for the implementation of the subject final rule. Again, the NRC 

notes that safety and security concerns remain the most important decision factors. 

Although CER does not directly apply to non-rulemaking activities, the NRC notes that 

many of the good regulatory principles emphasized in the CER process enhancements, 

especially extensive stakeholder interaction, are currently being applied in postFukushima activities. Finally, I would note that the Commission chartered a steering 

committee which is responsible for assessing and prioritizing post-Fukushima actions 

Enclosure 

Page 3 of 10 
113 


82625.059

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittees on Energy and Power & Environment and Economy Hearing 

July 24,2012 

Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission 

Questions for Commissioner Ostendorff 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

3, Please share your opinion regarding the benefits and transparency of the notation voting 

process, 

The Commission's current procedures allow for the Commission's decision-making process to 

be thoroughly documented through a written voting record called the notation voting process, 

The written voting record is typically made publicly available, This process has served the 

Commission well over the years, and provides two major advantages, First, it gives each 

Commissioner an opportunity to document their careful and thorough analysis of the highlytechnical issues that are typically before the Commission, as well as the opportunity to explain 

his or her rationale behind each vote, Second, the notation voting process records the decisionmaking for historical reference, which is an invaluable tool in maintaining regulatory stability, 

Enclosure 

Page 4 of 10 
114 


82625.060

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittees on Energy and Power & Environment and Economy Hearing 

July 24,2012 

Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission 

Questions for Commissioner Ostendorff 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

4. There have been an extraordinary number of delays in the time it has taken to bring certain 

matters before the Commission to a vote and to closure, and Commissioners have not always 

abided by voting procedures. Going forward, will you adhere to voting procedures in the Internal 

Commission Procedures or work collegially to address needed changes. 

I work hard to adhere to the Internal Commission Procedures (I CPs) in the way I conduct my 

business as a Commissioner. My goal as a Commission has always been, and will always be, to 

address all voting matters, both for policy and adjudicatory items, within the time frames in the 

ICPs. In my over two years as a Commissioner, I found that the ICPs provide a comprehensive 

and systematic structure that, when followed, allows the Commission to function effectively. At 

this time, I do nol believe that any changes need to be made to the Internal Commission 

Procedures to address voting processes, but I commit to work collegially with my colleagues 

should such changes be needed. 

Enclosure 

Page 5 of 10 
115 


82625.061

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittees on Energy and Power & Environment and Economy Hearing 

July 24, 2012 

Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission 

Questions for Commissioner Ostendorff 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

5. Please describe any changes to Internal Commission Procedures that you believe would be 

helpful: 

a. In preserving Commission collegiality; 

b. In ensuring the timely and unfiltered flow of information to the Commission; 

c. To provide clarity regarding leadership and management during an emergency 

particularly with regard to the Chairman's use of emergency powens under Section 3 of 

the Reorganization Plan of 1980. 

a. I believe that most of the concerns regarding the preservation of Commission collegiality 

were not a fault of the Internal Commission Procedures (ICPs). While I do not believe 

that any changes are needed to specifically address this area, I believe that the 

clarifications proposed below and in response to Question 6 will, in combination, help to 

ensure collegiality. 

b. To ensure the timely and unfiltered flow of information to the Commission, two small 

changes could be made to the ICPs that would clarify that interference with the flow and 

content of information from the Executive Director for Operations is not acceptable. 

Those changes would add the qualifier "including the considered judgments of the staff, 

as represented by the Executive Director for Operations" to two provisions outlining the 

types of information to which the Commissioners all have access. 

c. Greater clarity may be beneficial regarding leadership and management during an 

emergency. Along with changes to the Reorganization Plan No, 1 of 1980, the ICPs 

could be changed to require (1) a formal declaration of the use of emergency powers 

and (2) a formal declaration of the conclusion of the emergency and use of emergency 

power. 

Enclosure 

Page 6 of 10 
116 


82625.062

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittees on Energy and Power & Environment and Economy Hearing 

July 24, 2012 

Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission 

Questions for Commissioner Ostendorff 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

6. For the last three years, the Commission and the agency have struggled with turmoil resulting 

from failed leadership. Please provide your personal suggestions for legislation to reform its 

governance structure and strengthen the Commission's function as a collegial body. 

If no changes are made, the current legislative framework provides a viable structure. However, 

there are changes that could be made to legislation that would strengthen the Commission's 

function as a collegial body. Changes could be made to amend the Chairman's responsibility for 

"developing policy planning and guidance" to "developing plans and guidance on established 

Commission policy." A broad interpretation of the current "policy planning and guidance" 

language can create instances where a Chairman is able to develop or shape policy prior to the 

Commission's determining that policy, as opposed to using the planning and guidance authority 

as it relates to already existing policy. 

Other changes could be made with respect to clarifying the Chairman's use of emergency 

powers. Specifically, requiring a formal declaration when invoking the use of emergency powers 

and also requiring a formal declaration upon the conclusion of the emergency and use of 

emergency powers. This could be clarified in modifications to the Reorganization Plan. 

Finally, the reporting structure of the Offices of Congressional Affairs and Public Affairs has in 

the past created concern regarding the Commission's interactions with Congress and the public. 

Incorporating those offices into the general Chairman appointment with Commission approval 

and Commission reporting structure as other offices like the General Counsel, Secretary of the 

Commission, etc. may help to rectify those problems. 

Enclosure 

Page 7 of 10 
117 


82625.063

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittees on Energy and Power & Environment and Economy Hearing 

July 24, 2012 

Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission 

Questions for Commissioner Ostendorff 

The Honorable John D. Dingell 

In the audience during the hearing were constituents of mine who are studying nuclear science 

at the University of Michigan which I have the honor of representing. In its FY 2013 budget 

request, the NRC stated that it is not requesting funding for the Integrated University Program, 

which historically has been the sole provider of critical funding for both student and faculty 

development in the field of nuclear science. The NRC states that "this reflects the confidence 

that the nuclear industry ... will create incentives for students to enter nuclear-related 

programs." 

1. Do you believe there is a need to train nuclear engineers in this country and do you support 

the NRC's role in the IUP? 

Yes, I believe there is a need to train nuclear engineers, scientists, and technicians in this 

country, and I support NRC's involvement in the Integrated University Program (I UP). 

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, 39 percent of the U.S. commercial nuclear sector's 

workforce will be eligible for retirement by 2016, resulting in roughly 25,000 jobs that will need to 

be filled within the next four years to maintain the current workforce. In addition, the Federal 

government (including national laboratories), academia, and the medical radiological healthcare 

field will place additional demands on this limited workforce. Educating the next generation of 

engineers and scientists is essential to meet the Nation's present and future national security 

needs and for building, operating, and maintaining nuclear power plants. Partnerships between 

the Federal government, the nuclear industry, and colleges and universities to sustain 

educational programs in nuclear science and engineering and to continue to attract students to 

the nuclear energy field are useful in addressing these workforce shortages. 

The IUP represents NRC's role in this partnership by providing scholarships and fellowships to 

enter nuclear-related fields that will support the educational demands of the nuclear sector 

including engineering, health physics, radiochemistry and other related fields where demand for 

skilled individuals outpaces supply. The IUP also provides faculty development grants to attract 

and retain highly-qualified individuals in academic teaching careers. 

Enclosure 

Page 8 of 10 
118 


82625.064

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittees on Energy and Power & Environment and Economy Hearing 

July 24, 2012 

Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission 

Questions for Commissioner Ostendorff 

The Honorable GK Butterfield 

After 9/11, the Commission was quick to identify ways to strengthen security at nuclear plants 

but it took many years for those plants to implement the new standards. Other safety issues, 

such as fire safety and debris accumulation inside cooling systems, lingered in some state of 

NRC review or implementation for decades. 

1. Can you assure this Committee that NRC won't delay implementation of orders and rules 

designed to address lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster? 

In SRM-SECY-11-0124, dated October 18,2011, the Commission directed the NRC staffto 

"strive to complete and implement the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident within five 

years - by 2016." The Commission remains committed to implementing regulatory actions to 

address lessons learned from the Fukushima accident in an expeditious manner and has 

already made significant progress. The Commission and the NRC staff must, however, 

continue to balance the use of available resources to address lessons learned from the 

Fukushima event with day-to-day activities necessary to ensure continued safe operation of 

U.S. nuclear power plants and the completion of other important safety enhancements not 

related to lessons learned from Fukushima. 

On December 15, 2011, the Commission approved the staff's recommended three-tiered 

prioritization of the Near-Term Task Force recommendations, which address lessons learned 

from Fukushima. The Tier 1 recommendations are those actions that should be implemented 

without unnecessary delay. The Tier 2 recommendations are those actions that need further 

technical assessment or critical skill sets to implement. The Tier 3 recommendations are 

longer-term actions that depend on the completion of a shorter-term action or need additional 

study to support a regulatory action. 

On March g, 2012, the Commission approved the staff's recommended actions for addreSSing 

the Tier 1 items and staff has taken action to begin implementation of all of these items. As a 

result, the agency issued three orders on March 12, 2012, that contained reqUirements for 

reliable hardened containment vents, installation of enhanced spent fuel pool (SFP) 

instrumentation, and the development of strategies to maintain or restore core cooling, 

containment and SFP cooling capabilities following a natural event beyond what plants were 

designed to endure. Each licensee is required to achieve full compliance with these orders 

within two refueling cycles following submittal of their site-specific implementation plans (which 

are due February 2013), or by December 31,2016, whichever comes first. 

Also related to Tier 1 recommendations, the NRC issued Request for Information letters on 

March 12, 2012, directing each nuclear power plant licensee to reevaluate the seismic and 

flooding hazards at their site using present-day methods and information, conduct inspections of 

their facilities to ensure protection against the hazards in their current design basis, and 

reevaluate their emergency communications systems and staffing levels. The NRC anticipates 

that most nuclear power plant licensees will complete the inspections and emergency 

Enclosure 

Page 9 of 10 
119 

Æ 


82625.065

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittees on Energy and Power & Environment and Economy Hearing 

July 24,2012 

Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission 

communications and staffing assessments within the next year, except for the portions of the 

emergency staffing assessment that are tied to implementation of the order to develop 

mitigating strategies (i.e" the strategy must be developed before the staff needed to implement 

it can be assessed), The majority of nuclear power plant licensees, including those plants with 

the greatest potential seismic and flooding risks, are expected to complete the seismic and 

flooding hazard reevaluations within five years, The NRC will assess the licensees' responses, 

The remaining Tier 1 recommendations consist of rulemakings addressing station blackout 

(SBO) and the integration of emergency procedures at nuclear power plants, On March 20, 

2012, the NRC issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit public input 

on the SBO rulemaking, This step moves the NRC closer to issuing a final rule within the 24-to30-month schedule directed by the Commission, The public comment period for the ANPR 

closed May 4,2012, and the NRC is currently reviewing the public input it received, Another 

ANPR on the integration of emergency procedures at nuclear power plants was issued April 18, 

2012, and the public comment period closed June 18, 2012, The NRC is currently reviewing 

these comments as well, 

We anticipate beginning work on the Tier 2 recommendations after collecting information from 

the Tier 1 activities, and as soon as resources currently devoted to those activities become 

available, On July 13, 2012, the NRC staff provided the Commission with its plans for 

addressing the remaining, longer-term Tier 3 activities, The plan and schedule for each Tier 3 

item is unique, but many of the Tier 3 plans will use information gathered from the Tier 1 

activities to inform further action, 

Enclosure 

Page 10 of 10