[Senate Hearing 111-1223]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1223
HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS, WILLIAM MAGWOOD, AND
WILLIAM CHARLES OSTENDORFF TO BE MEMBERS OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 9, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
21-231 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Bettina Poirier, Staff Director
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
FEBRUARY 9, 2010
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 2
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 4
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee.. 5
Webb, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia.......... 6
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 7
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 9
Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.... 11
WITNESSES
Apostolakis, George, nominated to be a Commissioner of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.................................. 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 18
Senator Inhofe........................................... 20
Senator Vitter........................................... 23
Magwood, William D., IV, nominated to be a Commissioner of the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................. 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 29
Senator Carper........................................... 33
Senator Inhofe........................................... 35
Senator Vitter........................................... 38
Ostendorff, William C., nominated to be a Commissioner of the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................. 40
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 43
Senator Inhofe........................................... 45
Senator Vitter........................................... 48
HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS, WILLIAM MAGWOOD, AND
WILLIAM CHARLES OSTENDORFF TO BE MEMBERS OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Voinovich, Alexander,
Carper, Cardin, Klobuchar, and Merkley.
Also present: Senator Webb.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Good morning, everybody. We all get the star
of the day awards, because Senator Inhofe and I decided we are
going to come to work, and we are going to do our job. I really
want to thank him and his staff. It is nice to see Senator
Alexander here, Senator Cardin, Senator Carper. And the EPW
Committee moves forward when others fear to tread.
So here is here we are. Senator Webb is coming to introduce
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator Cardin has asked to introduce Mr.
Magwood. I will introduce Dr. Apostolakis. So I think we are
going to do this. We are going to do our little opening
statements, and then we will get to Senator Webb and the
others. So I will start it.
We are holding a hearing on the nomination of three
individuals to be members of the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. The NRC is an independent agency created by
Congress to regulate commercial nuclear power plants and the
use of nuclear materials through licensing, inspection and
enforcement. By statute, the NRC is charged with protecting
health and safety and minimizing danger to life and property.
The Atomic Energy Commission, which was established in
1946, was the predecessor to the NRC. The AEC was charged with
both encouraging the use of nuclear power and regulating its
safety. This dual role created conflicts within the agency, and
AEC's regulation came under increasing attack for not being
rigorous enough.
As a result in 1974 Congress abolished the AEC and created
the NRC as an independent regulator of commercial nuclear
power. The promotional work of the AEC was moved to a separate
agency, which ultimately became the Department of Energy. The
NRC was created to be a strong, independent regulator.
I am going to put my whole statement in the record, but I
do believe that when the President talks about transparency and
accountability, it is very relevant to regulators like the NRC.
And I urge the Commission to become even more transparent. We
know the issues are complicated, but public involvement and
support in the process is very important.
I applaud the decision that the Administration made; due to
the scientific reports, they want to look for another site
other than Yucca. So we definitely have a lot of work on our
plate. In addition to its work regulating nuclear waste I
expect the review of combined construction and operating
licenses for new nuclear power plants will occupy a good
portion of the NRC's time.
Given that the nuclear industry is increasing interest in
building new nuclear plants I expect the NRC will work very
hard to ensure that they move forward and that the safety of
the new plants and the designs of the new plants will never be
questioned.
So you also have the job of looking after existing
facilities. We know some of them, many of them are aging. They
need license renewals. You have to look at all of those. So I
think the American public has a right to expect the very best
public servants in your positions. And I really congratulate
you on your nominations. I am excited that we can move forward
on this front.
With that, I would yield the balance of my time and turn to
Senator Inhofe.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer was not received
at time of print.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I had a
chance to meet all three of the nominees. I am enthusiastically
supporting all three of them.
I was glad to hear that President Obama is now embracing
nuclear energy as crucial to our energy security and economic
prosperity. I couldn't agree more. Nuclear energy is plentiful,
it is cheap, it is safe and it is clean.
We are all very aware of the national economy, how
drastically it has changed since the first application for a
new reactor was filed. That was September 2007. These changing
economic circumstances forced the U.S. utilities to continually
assess electricity demand and their options for meeting it. As
with any other business they must make these decisions in real
time in response to changing market conditions.
The NRC is insulated from the challenges of responding to
those dynamic conditions. Regulatory decisionmaking should not
be pressured by economic conditions. The NRC's mission to
ensure safety, however, does not absolve the agency of
responsibility to regulate in an efficient and predictable
manner.
The NRC now has 2 years of experience with reviewing new
plant applications yet still they have not indicated dates when
applicants can expect to receive their license. I think this is
one thing that we will all want to be asking you, is how
quickly can we move. Things do tend to go slowly in Government.
As we get new nominees in, that will be running things, I hope
they will concentrate on getting things done rapidly.
I can remember it was 1997 when I first became chairman of
the subcommittee called the Clean Air Subcommittee that had
jurisdiction over the then-NRC. At that time, it had been 8
years, 8 years since we had had an oversight hearing. So we
started having oversight hearings every other month with
expectations, with guidelines as to what should be expected.
That is what I think we will do, and that is what I want to get
to this morning, to see what we can do to speed these things
along with these new applications. The Chairman mentioned the
renewals. But we also have new applications which we want to
move along rapidly.
So the time is right. I am glad we all weathered the storm
to get here and get you guys confirmed.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for holding this hearing. All
three nominees are of high caliber and will make outstanding
contributions to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I was glad to hear that President Obama has finally
embraced nuclear energy as crucial to our energy security and
economic prosperity. I couldn't agree more. Nuclear energy is a
safe, clean source of energy that should play a central role in
strengthening America's energy security.
We are all very aware that the national economy has changed
drastically since the first application for a new reactor was
filed in September 2007. These changing economic circumstances
force U.S. utilities to continually assess electricity demand
and their options for meeting it. As with any other business
they must make these decisions in real time in response to
changing market conditions.
The NRC is insulated from the challenges of responding to
those dynamic conditions. Regulatory decisionmaking should not
be pressured by economic conditions. The NRC's mission to
ensure safety, however, does not absolve the agency of the
responsibility to regulate in an efficient and predictable
manner.
The NRC now has 2 years of experience with reviewing new
plant applications, yet it still has not indicated dates when
applicants can expect to receive their licenses. How can you
budget and allocate resources if you don't know how long
application reviews will take? How can you evaluate performance
without a schedule to measure against?
Granted, it's been decades since the NRC has licensed new
plants. There have been hiccups and will likely be more as
everyone gains experience with the process. The agency,
however, should not hide behind that excuse in order to avoid
taking responsibility for establishing a transparent,
predictable schedule and managing accordingly.
My question is simply this: If the agency doesn't have
confidence in its own process and ability to manage it, why
would stakeholders? As commissioners, each of you will be
responsible for the leadership of this agency. I hope you will
all strive to make this process more predictable so that the
agency is viewed as an effective regulator, not as an obstacle
to building new nuclear plants.
I also hope each of you, should you be confirmed, will keep
a safety focused mindset in assessing the matters that come
before you. The natural inclination of a regulator is to
regulate more. That tendency requires increased resources from
both the industry, to comply, and from the regulator to develop
regulations and monitor compliance. Neither the industry nor
the agency has unlimited resources. It is the Commission's
responsibility to ensure that the agency remains safety focused
and that resources are dedicated to issues of the highest
impact to safety.
Congress intended that the Commission function as a
collegial body in its mission to protect public health, safety,
and the environment. It certainly functions best with the full
complement of five commissioners. It is my hope that the
committee and then the full Senate will soon complete its
consideration of these nominees and fill the Commission because
the Commission has plenty of work to do, and we need to ensure
the agency has its full measure of leadership.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you. I wanted to mention our
other nominees from TVA; they asked to continue this to after
the new snowfall. So as I understand it, that will not be
happening this week, on their request. They expect big snows,
and they asked us to cancel.
Senator Alexander. Well, Madam Chairman, two of them are
here. They flew up on the plane with me this morning, and their
families are coming, too.
Senator Boxer. I guess we could do those, too, then, if you
wish. I am happy to do those, too. But we might want to do that
today, because I am very fearful about what is coming tonight
and tomorrow. So can you get in touch with them, Senator?
Senator Alexander. I can try. I don't want to substitute my
judgment for theirs or yours on this, but I just know they are
here.
Senator Boxer. Well, I was told that the nominees had asked
that it not go forward. But if there are two here with their
families, I think we ought to hear from them.
Why don't we do this. Why don't we go through where we are,
I will come and talk with you in the room out there, and we
will figure out a way to get in touch with them.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. They may not ever be able to get home, if
they don't get home tonight.
Senator Inhofe. Maybe this afternoon we could hear from
them.
Senator Boxer. Yes, I was thinking maybe this afternoon's
hearing.
Senator Carper. Madam Chair, Laura Haines, who is sitting
right behind me, says that she believes the two nominees that
may have flown up with Senator Alexander may be flying home as
we speak.
Senator Boxer. We will check this out. I live six blocks
away. So I can get here in any blizzard.
Senator Carper. Maybe we could do this at the airport.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. We could do this at the airport. Right. That
is good.
Well, we will figure this all out. But getting back to our
nominees who are here, and our wonderful Senator who has joined
us to do an introduction, let's move forward with Senators
Cardin, then Alexander, then Carper, then Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Madam Chair, let me thank you very much for
holding this hearing this morning. I want to thank all the
witnesses for being here and for their willingness to serve on
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was established in 1974
as an independent agency protecting the health and safety and
minimizing danger to life or property. We have three of the
nominees before us today. Considering it is a five-member
commission, the three of you will have a major impact on the
future decisions related to nuclear power in this country. So I
think this hearing is particularly important. We depend upon
the independent oversight authority that you have to provide
accountability that this Nation deserves.
There may be different views among members of the U.S.
Senate as to the future use of nuclear power in our energy
policy. But regardless of one's view, I think we all agree that
we want a strong, independent oversight agency. And we very
much depend upon the Commission to provide that.
I am a proponent of nuclear power. I believe that we need
to be more aggressive in the use of nuclear power in the United
States to lessen our dependence on carbon-based electricity
generation. The NRC has a record number of applications in
front of it. The President has just announced his plan to
increase the guaranteed loan for the industry to a record
amount.
So I think we stand on the cusp of a nuclear renaissance.
But to make that promise a reality we need a Commission that is
fully staffed and hard at work. That is why I am particularly
pleased, Madam Chair, that we have this hearing today to deal
with the three nominees that are before us. I look forward to
their testimony and I look forward to working with the
Commission in the best interests of the United States.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Alexander.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair has heard me express over the last year my
concern that the United States is pursuing what looks like a
national windmill policy, which is the energy equivalent of
going to war in sailboats. However, I want to congratulate
President Obama for the last couple of weeks of leadership that
he has shown on nuclear energy. The President's view is
terribly important here because the Government is not going to
build these plants. The utilities are going to build them, and
the ratepayers are going to pay for them. So it is up to the
President and all of us to try and create an environment in
which that can happen.
Senator Webb and I have co-sponsored legislation to try and
create an environment in which we could double nuclear power
production in the United States as well as encourage other
forms of clean energy. So the President's statement in the
State of the Union address about a new generation of nuclear
power, his support for $54 billion of loan guarantees, the
quality of the three Commission members who are before us,
unless I really completely miss my bet, I think it would be
difficult for the President to find three better nominees for
this position, people who are experienced, who will make sure
the plants are safe, but who see the value of them to our
country.
The quality of the appointees of the President's Commission
members to the new Commission on what we do with used nuclear
fuel is excellent and should be also an encouraging sign. And
of course Dr. Chu's advocacy and leadership over the last year
all add up to several steps that we are taking to getting us
back into the ball game. We have a way to go. Senator Webb and
I in our bill make the loan guarantees technology neutral so
that any clean energy can do that. I would like for our
subsidies and policies and the renewable energy standards all
to be low carbon standards so that we let the marketplace pick
and choose among the available forms of energy.
But I am very pleased to be here and to be here with these
three nominees. I look forward to asking some questions. At a
time when China is starting a new nuclear plant every 3 months,
Japan is a third nuclear power, France is 80 percent, even the
UAE is building nuclear power plants or making plans to. The
United States, who invented the technology, should create an
environment in which we take our invention and use it for our
own benefit. I can think of nothing more important to job
creation than lots of low cost, clean, reliable nuclear energy.
I hope these three Commissioners will help create an
environment where that happens, and I commend the President for
his nominees and his other actions.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
I understand that Senator Webb has to leave shortly. He is
here to introduce Mr. Ostendorff. So if Senator Carper wouldn't
mind yielding to Senator Webb, and then we will get right to
you. But I understand, Senator Carper, you had a relevant
announcement to make.
Senator Carper. A question first for Senator Webb. Do you
recall what you were doing 64 years ago today?
Senator Webb. Not specifically, but my mother, I think,
still has a recollection.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I just want to thank our witnesses, and our
nominees and everybody present for joining us for the
celebration of the 64th anniversary of the birth of Senator
Webb. Congratulations.
[Applause.]
Senator Boxer. Congratulations, Senator Webb. Happy
birthday.
Now that we have thoroughly embarrassed you, the honor of
introducing Mr. Ostendorff falls on your shoulders. So go
ahead.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM WEBB,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Senator Webb. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will see if I
can find my place in my notes here, after that. Also, Ranking
Member Inhofe and members of the committee, it is with a great
deal of pleasure that I am introducing William Charles
Ostendorff and also giving him my strongest recommendation here
to become a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
As Senator Alexander so aptly stated, I am one of those who
believe it is critical that the United States accelerate its
deployment of nuclear energy. And doing so will require
effective leadership and cooperation at the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. I am very pleased to have discussed this
proposition with a number of members of this committee. I
believe the bill that Senator Alexander and I introduced at the
end of last year is achievable, measurable and good for the
country.
In that respect, Mr. Ostendorff has clearly demonstrated
the skills and experience necessary for this position. He has
had an exceptional career in the Navy, in the Department of
Energy, the Congress and at the National Academies. I would say
again, Madam Chair, given the fact that it is my birthday, it
is merely a coincidence that Mr. Ostendorff and I both went to
the Naval Academy and both went to Georgetown Law School. We
probably didn't go to the same Naval Academy. The disparity in
the academic areas of the Naval Academy while we were there
were pretty dramatic between the people who went into the
Marine Corps and the people who went into the nuclear power
program. We all were required to obtain an engineering degree.
But those of us who were on the Marine Corps side, we used to
carve into our desks, ``Entropy is alive and living in
Argentina.'' But the people who were on Mr. Ostendorff's side
actually understood what entropy was.
He also served on six different submarines. I could say I
had a pretty hard infantry tour in Vietnam, but you could not
have put a gun to my head and made me go in a submarine. Six
different times, including command of the USS Norfolk attack
submarine. Among other accomplishments in the Navy, he
commanded 1,200 men and women of Submarine Squadron Six based
in Norfolk, Virginia. Then after retiring from the Navy, Mr.
Ostendorff joined the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the
House Armed Services Committee, serving as counsel and staff
director with oversight responsibilities of various Department
of Energy activities. And after Senate confirmation in 2007 he
became Principal Deputy Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Agency where he served until 2009, at which time he
became Director of the Committee of Science, Engineering and
Public Policy at the National Academies.
The range and breadth of this experience I think make him
superbly qualified to serve as Commissioner of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. He and his wife, Chris, who is a special
education teacher, are now residents of Oakton, Virginia. She
is here today, as are two of your three children, if they would
like to stand. Daughter Becky is an attorney in New York City,
one son, Chuck is an Army captain, who deployed to Iraq with
the Second Stryker Cavalry Regiment and is now stationed at
Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and son Jeff is a student at Marymount
here in Arlington, Virginia.
With that, Madam Chair, members of the committee, I look
forward to his confirmation and to working with him and others
as we move into a new era of nuclear energy development in our
country. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you. I know that you have to
leave us, but we do wish you a happy birthday.
Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks, Madam Chair. Let me say to our
witnesses, welcome. It is nice to see each of you again. Thank
you not just for showing up today, but showing up all those
years of your lives and preparing yourselves for this potential
assignment.
Dr. Apostolakis, Mr. Magwood, Captain Ostendorff, when you
are introduced to speak, you may want to, if you have family
members who are here, you may want to introduce them and let us
say hello to them as well as you begin your remarks.
Like Senator Alexander, I am impressed by the technical
breadth and the depth of these three nominees. Really, the
complementary set of skills that they would each bring to the
Commission if confirmed. The word synergy is oftentimes used. I
think we have some real synergy here in terms of the potential
that each of you bring collectively to the Commission.
As Chairman of the Senate Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Subcommittee ensuring that the nuclear power industry functions
safely is a top priority of mine. I expect and the public
expects that the NRC must be a strong, independent and
effective regulator, a regulator that acts firmly, a regulator
that acts decisively, a regulator that acts openly and
transparently, a regulatory that produces results and is worthy
of the public's confidence. In sum, the NRC must ensure our
Nation's health, our safety and security and the protection of
the environment.
I am tempted to say we cannot afford any mistakes.
Actually, we all make mistakes. I think it was Richard Nixon
who used to say the only people who don't make mistakes are the
people who don't do anything. We make mistakes in the work that
we do here in the Senate, and I am sure mistakes are made at
the NRC and at the nuclear power plants that they regulate.
What we can't afford are mistakes that will derail this
renaissance in nuclear power. What we can't afford are mistakes
that are made and covered up at nuclear power plants. What we
can't afford are mistakes that are made again and again and
again, because no one has reported them and actions haven't
been taken to correct those mistakes.
But as you note, we have many challenges before us,
including ensuring that our current fleet continues to operate
safely while reviewing applications to build new reactors. And
I might add also we have a bunch of nearly 40-year-old power
plants that are already in the queue for being reviewed and
hopefully have their lives extended for another 20 years, if
they merit that.
But if you all are confirmed, and I hope you will be, each
of you will be in a role of the utmost importance, requiring
the highest level of public trust. I want to thank you for
being here, not just for your willingness to serve your
country, but I think each of you have already served your
country in a wide range of ways. And we are happy that you are
willing to serve your country again. I want to express our
thanks to your families, some of whom are here, some of whom
are not, for their willingness to share you with the rest of us
in this country in the years to come.
What I hope to hear from each of you is a strong statement
of your commitment to making the NRC, which is already a great
place to work, best in the Federal Government, not only making
the NRC a great place to work, but a strong and impartial
regulator.
I will close with this. Sometimes I think of your roles as,
just imaging driving a car, something most of us do. We have
two feet and a we move to a renaissance in nuclear energy, we
need one foot on the accelerator, to make sure that we move
forward expeditiously to realize this dream, this vision. And
we need another foot tapping that brake when it is appropriate.
There are plenty of people with their foot on the accelerator,
including some of us. We need to make sure we have somebody
there responsibly tapping that brake when it needs to be
tapped. Thank you very much for your willingness to play that
role.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking
Member Inhofe, for holding this hearing today. I would like to
welcome the nominees today and their families.
Madam Chair, as you know I have spent the better part of
the last 10 years in the Senate involved in shaping nuclear
energy policy for this country, mainly as Chairman and the
Ranking Member on the Senate's Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Subcommittee. We focused a great deal of time and effort on the
committee Chair on the oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to make sure it was doing its job of ensuring the
safety and security of our Nation's nuclear power plants.
I take pride in the fact that this committee has
transformed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission into one of the
best and most respected regulatory agencies in the world. We
worked very hard placing the right people on the Commission,
providing the Commission with the resources and tools necessary
to do its job, and holding them accountable for results. We
held over 20 productive hearings involving the NRC over the
last 8 years. So it is no accident that we have seen a dramatic
improvement in both the safety records and reliabilities of the
104 operating reactors today compared to a decade ago.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank and
recognize each of the existing members of the Commission,
Chairman Jaczko, Commissioner Svinicki and soon-departing
Commissioner Klein, and all the other Commission members that
have served with great distinction. Being a regulator often is
a thankless job, whether it is the NRC, FAA, FDA. It seems as
though the only time people care about what you do is when
something goes wrong, and it almost always easy to criticize
what you did.
Indeed, a regulator's job is a complex and difficult one.
NRC has to be vigilant at all times, keeping its regulatory
threshold just right. It should be rigorous enough to prevent
complacency from setting in both within the agency and the
industry it regulates, and we have seen that several years ago,
but not overly restrictive to a point of stifling the growth of
nuclear power in this country at a time when we need it most.
And our country does need nuclear power and the jobs, the
energy security, and the environmental benefits it provides. I
tell people that nuclear power is a three-fer: it provides
base-load electricity, it is emission-less, and offers
environmental benefits, jobs and reliable energy.
With President Obama's recent call for increased use of
nuclear power in his State of the Union Address and the DOE's
Energy's fiscal year 2011 budget request for an additional $36
billion for nuclear loan guarantees I think that the momentum
is building, and the policy environment in the United States is
shifting itself for the long awaited growth in nuclear power.
Senator Carper and I have been talking about the nuclear
renaissance for some time, haven't we, Senator? You guys are
coming in at the right time.
But I think this is important; having a fully staffed NRC
Commission is paramount to maintaining our safety goals. And is
not just our large, existing light water fleet, but the new
light water reactors, modular reactors, and even Generation-IV
reactors. Upon their successful confirmation these new
Commissioners will become part of what I believe will be the
busiest Commission in decades. They will likely oversee real
movement in the U.S. nuclear renaissance. I believe these
nominees are exceptional individuals, all leaders on nuclear
technology issues, and they have the depth and breadth of
experience necessary to successfully lead the Nation's
commercial nuclear industry. Their dedication and
professionalism will be needed now more than ever. I wish you
all very, very well. I am not going to be around after the end
of this year; well, I will be around, but I am not going to
have this job.
[Laughter.]
Senator Voinovich. I will tell you that I am going to be
watching the Commission and doing everything on the outside to
promote the nuclear industry in this country.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich,
U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, thank you for
holding this hearing. I would like to welcome the nominees, and
I look forward to hearing their testimony.
Madam Chairwoman, as you know I have spent the better part
of the last 10 years in the Senate involved in shaping nuclear
energy policy for this country, mainly as Chairman or Ranking
Member on the Senate's Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Subcommittee. I focused a great deal of time and effort as the
committee Chair on oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) to make sure it was doing its job of ensuring
the safety and security of our Nation's nuclear power plants.
Mrs. Chairman, I take great pride in the fact that this
committee has transformed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
into one of the best and most respected regulatory agencies in
the world. We have worked very hard placing the right people on
the Commission, providing the Commission with the resources and
tools necessary to do its job, and holding them accountable for
results. We held more than 20 productive hearings involving the
NRC over the past 8 years.
So it is no accident that we have seen dramatic
improvements in both the safety records and reliability of the
104 operating reactors today compared to a decade ago. And I
would like to take this opportunity to thank and recognize each
of the existing members of the Commission--Chairman Jaczko,
Commissioner Svinicki, and the soon departing Commissioner
Klein--for doing a great job day in and day out. Being a
regulator often is a thankless job whether it is the NRC, FAA,
FDA, or the Federal Reserve Board. It seems as though the only
time people care about what you do is when something goes
wrong--and it almost always is to criticize what you did or
didn't do.
Indeed, a regulator's job is a complex and difficult one.
NRC has to be vigilant at all times to keep its regulatory
threshold just right--it should be rigorous enough to prevent
complacency from setting in both within the agency and the
industry it regulates but not overly restrictive to a point of
stifling the growth of nuclear power in this country at a time
when we need it the most. And our country does need nuclear
power--and the jobs, the energy security, and the environmental
benefits it provides. I like to tell people nuclear is a three-
fer: without it we will not be able to provide the reliable,
base-load electricity our country demands. Without it we will
not be able to reach our goal of reducing carbon emissions. And
without it we will not be able to strengthen our manufacturing
bases and create good paying jobs.
With President Obama's recent call for increased use of
nuclear power in his State of the Union Address and the DOE's
fiscal year 2011 budget request for an additional $36 billion
for nuclear loan guarantees I think that momentum is building
and the policy environment in the United States is shifting
itself for the long awaited growth in nuclear power.
Which is why I think today's nomination hearing is so
important. Having a fully staffed NRC Commission is paramount
to maintaining our safety goals--and not just with our large
existing light water fleet but with new light water reactors,
modular reactors, and even Generation-IV reactors. Upon their
successful confirmation these three new Commissioners will
become part of what I believe will be the busiest Commission in
decades--as they will likely oversee real movement in the U.S.
nuclear renaissance. I believe these nominees are exceptional
individuals, all leaders on nuclear technology issues, and they
have the depth and breadth of experience necessary to
successfully lead the oversight of our Nation's commercial
nuclear industry. Their dedication and professionalism will be
needed now more than ever. I wish them well and look forward to
working with them in my time remaining here in the Senate.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I look forward to hearing
from our distinguished nominees.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Senator Klobuchar, and then we are going to get right to
our panel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
thank you for holding this hearing. My other hearings today
were canceled, except for Environmental Protection. My staff
remarked it was only the Senator from California who would
decide to hold this hearing.
Senator Boxer. And the Senator from Oklahoma.
Senator Klobuchar. And the Senator from Oklahoma. I finally
decided, I once was snowed in in Yosemite Park, so I know you
are used to snow. And Oklahoma is used to its share of bad
weather. So I thank you, from the State of Minnesota, for doing
this, where things would have been working a little more easily
in our State with this storm. But it is what it is.
I am pleased you have convened this hearing, as my
colleagues have said, and congratulate the three of you. You
certainly, as Senator Voinovich noted, are coming in at an
exciting time for nuclear energy. There is just so much
interest all over this country. As was noted the President
called for a tripling of the Department of Energy's loan
guarantee program for nuclear energy, from $18 billion to $54
billion. We have Senators Gary, Graham and Lieberman working on
our bipartisan energy bill, which sees nuclear as a major
focus. We know that the rest of the world is moving to a low
carbon economy, and nuclear energy will be a major part of
that.
This nuclear renaissance means America has an opportunity
to lead the world in developing new technologies to deal with
the problems at hand, which include plant safety and waste
storage and disposal and issues regarding security in the
proliferation of nuclear material. This last April, I was in
Japan with Senator McCain and Senator Graham. We visited one of
the nuclear facilities there. I was able to see first-hand a
lot of the advancements that have been made in other countries.
So I am looking forward to us doing the same, and in fact
taking more of a leadership role.
I am excited about what you are doing. I am looking forward
to hearing from you today. We know this is not an easy road.
But you are coming in at a time where for the first time you
see much more unity behind this idea of moving forward with
nuclear. Congratulations on your nominations, and I look
forward to hearing from you. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
An update on TVA. Senator Alexander and I are going to work
together on this; Senator Inhofe has stated whatever we decide
is good. Right now what we are going to do is, if anyone is
remaining in Washington, our goal would be to hold a hearing
around 5 o'clock at the latest, if they are here. If they have
gone home, obviously they have gone home. But if they are stuck
here, we will accommodate them.
I do not want to do it tomorrow because our understanding
is it is going to be very difficult to get here. So it will
either be 5 o'clock tonight, or we will put it off until the
week after recess.
I am going to introduce Dr. George Apostolakis. Then
Senator Cardin is going to introduce Mr. Magwood, and we are
going to get started.
Dr. Apostolakis is a professor of nuclear science and
engineering and a professor of engineering systems at MIT. He
is also a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, which advises the
Commission on technical matters related to the safety of
nuclear reactors. Prior to becoming a professor at MIT he was a
professor at the University of California Los Angeles, in my
home State. He received his Ph.D. in engineering science and
applied mathematics from the California Institute of
Technology. Dr. Apostolakis' research and his teaching
interests are focused on risk assessment and risk management in
the nuclear industry.
And Doctor, you are joined today, I understand, by your
wife, Victoria. Victoria, would you like to stand? We welcome
you very much. Thank you for making the trip. We want to
welcome you, sir, and I look forward to a speedy confirmation
of all our panel.
We will go next to Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Madam Chair, thank you very much. It is my
honor to introduce Bill Magwood. But first let me thank all
three of the nominees. Each of you shares an extraordinary
background and a commitment to public service. We thank you. We
know it is a sacrifice not only for you but for your families.
We thank your family members for sharing in the sacrifice of
public service. We welcome all three of you to our committee.
I am really honored to introduce a fellow Marylander, Bill
Magwood. Mr. Magwood lives in Colesville, Maryland. He has
lived there since 1989. He has been a resident of Montgomery
County for more than 20 years, coinciding with his service to
the Federal Government and several industry organizations
devoted to nuclear energy policy. He was the longest serving
head of the United States Civilian Nuclear Technology program,
serving two Presidents and five Secretaries of Energy, from May
1998 until he stepped down on May 24th, 2005. Since then, he
has been in the private sector. So he gives us both the
governmental experience and the private sector experience in
nuclear energy.
As the Director of Nuclear Energy with the U.S. Department
of Energy, Mr. Magwood was the senior nuclear technology
official in the U.S. Government and the senior nuclear
technology policy advisor to the Secretary of Energy. From 1984
to 1994 he managed electric utility research and nuclear policy
programs at the Edison Electric Institute in Washington, DC. He
was a scientist at the Westinghouse Electric Corporation in
Pittsburgh.
Mr. Magwood holds a B.S. degree in physics and a B.A.
degree in English from Carnegie Mellon University. He also
holds an MFA degree from the University of Pittsburgh, my alma
mater. Mr. Magwood has been a staunch proponent of nuclear
power technology in the United States. Among other efforts he
led the creation of the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, which
remains the cornerstone of this Nation's new nuclear power
plant efforts.
I think it is critical to have Mr. Magwood's type of
experience at the Regulatory Commission. I know that he will
take that experience and use it in the best interests of the
United States, providing the type of oversight that is needed.
During today's hearing we will hear from Mr. Magwood about his
intents to change his role from that of an expert industry
proponent to that of an expert industry overseer.
Mr. Magwood, welcome, and we thank you very much for your
public service.
Senator Boxer. Thank you all, and we will start with Dr.
Apostolakis.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS, NOMINATED TO BE A COMMISSIONER
OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Apostolakis. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe and
committee members, it is an honor to appear before you today as
President Obama's nominee for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. I will first tell you a few things about myself,
and then I will offer a few thoughts about my role as a
Commissioner, if confirmed.
Before I start, I would like to acknowledge the presence of
my wife, Victoria.
I came to the United States from Greece in 1969 to get my
Ph.D. at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena,
California. In 1973 I was granted the degree and joined the
UCLA School of Engineering, where I went through the ranks of
assistant, associate and full professor. I became an American
citizen in 1979. In 1995, I moved to the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where I am
currently Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering and
Professor of Engineering Systems.
My broad research area is the development of models for
risk assessment of large technology systems, primarily nuclear
power plants. I have served on numerous peer review committees
for risk assessment performed for the NRC, NASA and national
laboratories.
I have received several awards from the American Nuclear
Society and the Society for Risk Analysis. I was elected to the
National Academy of Engineering in 2007.
An important development in my career that is relevant to
my nomination is my appointment to the NRC's Advisory Committee
on Reactor Safeguards, ACRS, in 1995. This statutory committee
advises the Commissioners on technical matters related
primarily to the safety of nuclear reactors. I chaired the ACRS
in the period 2001-2002. I have been chairman of the
subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment
continuously since 1995. At various times, I have also chaired
the subcommittees on Human Factors and on Digital
Instrumentation and Control.
This experience has been very valuable to me. I have
appreciated the dedication and professionalism of the NRC
staff. I have also appreciated the value of conducting all ACRS
meetings in public and interacting with all stakeholders.
I have seen the diverse technical issues that the agency
must deal with on a routine basis. I have also been afforded
the opportunity to influence the staff's technical work. I am
particularly proud of the contributions I made to the agency's
efforts to risk inform its regulations that led to the landmark
regulatory guide 1.174 and to successfully risk inform
initiatives such as the risk informed in-service inspection
program.
If confirmed I look forward to applying my academic
expertise as well as the experience from the ACRS to regulatory
and policy matters before the Commission. However, I fully
realize that the Commission's role is different from that of
the ACRS. If confirmed I intend to commit myself to help the
Commission fulfill its mission to license and regulate the
Nation's civilian use of byproduct, source and special nuclear
materials, to ensure adequate protection of public health and
safety, promote the common defense and security and protect the
environment.
I believe that the increased use of risk information serves
the agency in several respects. It improves safety and makes
the regulatory process more transparent, thus enhancing public
confidence in the Commission. It also promotes regulatory
predictability and stability, which are very important to all
stakeholders.
I believe that the NRC is the premiere nuclear regulatory
agency in the world. If confirmed I will make every effort to
make sure it remains so.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
If confirmed I look forward to working with this committee and
to dealing with the challenges that the NRC will face across
all areas of its responsibilities.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Apostolakis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Magwood.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD, IV, NOMINATED TO BE A
COMMISSIONER OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Magwood. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. It is a pleasure to
be here today to speak with you about my nomination. It is an
honor to appear before this panel. I have worked with some of
you and some of your staffs over the years on other matters. I
look forward to working with you regarding the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Before I begin I would like to recognize the service of
Edward McGaffigan, whose term I have been nominated to
complete. Commissioner McGaffigan was a strong, independent
voice on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for more than 11
years. His commitment, passion and intellect have set a very
high standard for all public servants, and if confirmed I will
always view his example as one to emulate.
I would also like to thank Senator Cardin for his
introduction. He did such a wonderful job of talking about my
background, I think I will give you a little bit different
perspective about my background. Rather than talk about my
academic background and work background, I wanted to let you
know I appear you today as a grandson of a man who worked in
the coal mines of West Virginia and the steel mills at
Pittsburgh. My father worked for the Postal Service, and for
many years he also held a night job to make sure he could
provide for our family. My mother was what they call now a stay
at home mom. She was the lady in the neighborhood other kids
came to when they needed help and their own mothers weren't
close by. From her I learned to do the right thing even when
the right thing wasn't easy. And from my father I learned hard
work and personal responsibility.
More than anything else I say today you should know that
these are the values I offer to the position to which I have
been nominated.
While my parents have passed away and can't be here today I
am very pleased that my uncle, Clarence Magwood, is here today
with his wife, Willa Mae. I thank them for coming across the
treacherous roads to join me today. I am also joined by my
lifelong friend, Kevin Burrell, who is employed at the State
Government of Pennsylvania. He drove all the way from
Harrisburg to be here today, and I appreciate that. By the way
our mothers insist that we first met in baby carriages.
And last, but certainly not least, I am very pleased that
my spousal unit is also here. I thank her for not taking a
swing at me when I told her I was going back into Government
service.
After I stepped down from the Department of Energy in May
2005 I looked back and was very proud of the accomplishments my
organization had. We showed innovation, integrity and many
accomplishments. We had launched and conducted advanced energy
research in many areas. We created an enduring international
framework for multilateral research cooperation. We established
a new civilian nuclear technology focused national laboratory
in Idaho, and we spurred a quadrupling of the number of
students pursuing nuclear technology disciplines in U.S.
colleges and universities, including programs at historically
black colleges.
But perhaps the most important aspect of my
responsibilities at DOE was the management and safety oversight
of the expansive nuclear infrastructure that included two large
research reactors and thousands of workers. I saw it as my
personal responsibility to set a very high standard for safety.
No matter the cost or impact on programs, I would and did order
stand-downs at DOE sites when I was not satisfied with the
level of safety. In one case safety considerations led me to
terminate a longstanding DOE program. This was a very
controversial, expensive and disruptive decision. But I felt
then and I feel now that nothing is more important than taking
clear and responsible action in the face of any question of
worker and public safety.
My past experience provides me with a deep understanding of
the management and operation of nuclear power plants, nuclear
fuel facilities, medical and educational facilities, waste
treatment and disposal facilities and may other areas for which
NRC must provide effective regulation. Because of my experience
I firmly believe that maintaining uncompromisingly high levels
of safety is the first and most important job of any
organization that handles nuclear materials. I look forward to
bringing these high expectations to the work of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Chairman Boxer, I believe that public service is a very
great honor and a great responsibility. If confirmed it will be
my purpose to work closely with my colleagues here at the table
today and the other Commissioners to fulfill my new mission
with a singular focus on the interest of the American people,
doing business in a manner that earns the public's trust, and
always doing the right thing, even when the right thing isn't
easy.
With that I thank you for your attention and look forward
to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Magwood follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Magwood.
Mr. Ostendorff.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, NOMINATED TO BE A
COMMISSIONER OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Ostendorff. Chairman Boxer, Senator Inhofe, members of
the committee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to
appear before you today.
I am honored to have been nominated by President Obama to
serve on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I am also
privileged to be in the company of my fellow NRC nominees,
George Apostolakis and Bill Magwood, and look forward to the
possibility of working with both if confirmed.
I would like to thank Senator Webb for his kind
introduction. Also I want to thank my family, especially my
wife, Chris, for their encouragement and support over many
years.
If confirmed I look forward to working closely with members
of this committee and their respective staffs to carry out the
duties of a Commissioner. The Commission's mission--to license
and regulate the Nation's civilian use of nuclear materials,
ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, to
promote the common defense and security, and to protect the
environment--is critical to our country. The Nation is
currently fortunate to have a highly talented and dedicated
staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to carry out its
strategic goals of ensuring safety and security of commercial
nuclear facilities.
I will tell the members of the committee that I am
committed to the NRC's principles of good regulation. Those are
independence, openness, efficiency, clarity and reliability.
Furthermore I appreciate the need for regulatory predictability
and stability. I am humbled by the importance of the task ahead
and if confirmed commit to work tirelessly to professionally
execute the Commission's vitally important mission.
I have been privileged to serve our country for many years
as a career nuclear submarine officer, as a counsel on
Committee Staff Director for the House Armed Services Committee
and as Principal Deputy Administrator of the National Security
Administration. While I will have much to learn I am confident
this prior management and leadership experience will serve me
well if I am confirmed. I will add my experience as a senior
congressional staff member and as a senior leader at the
Department of Energy has given me a deep appreciation for the
role of congressional oversight and the importance of your
committee.
If confirmed I commit to communications with you founded on
integrity and responsiveness. Again, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear here today, and I look forward to your
questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ostendorff follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Dr. Apostolakis, you mentioned your work with the NRC's
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and you appreciated
conducting all the committee's meetings in public. Do you
believe the NRC would benefit from conducting its meetings,
deliberations and votes in public?
Mr. Apostolakis. Senator, I am aware of the fact that
Chairman Jaczko is promoting this idea. I am very pleased with
the way the ACRS has conducted its business. I think we write
letters to the Commission in public, we argue about individual
words and commas and periods. I think that has been very, very
beneficial both to us and the stakeholders. Now, with respect
to the Commission itself, in principle I think it is a good
idea. I would like to understand a little better what the
downside might be, because I haven't really studied the matter.
But in principle I am for it.
Senator Boxer. How about you, Mr. Magwood? Open and
transparent meetings?
Mr. Magwood. I agree with my colleague. In principle I
agree with that direction. The one concern I would have is how
it affects the quality of decisions that are made. The current
process at NRC involves an iteration of documents between the
various parts of the Commission staffs. That is an opportunity
to really delve into issues in a great deal of detail. I would
hate to lose that in the process of having open meetings.
But if there is a way of getting both benefits, I would
certainly be in favor of it.
Senator Boxer. So let me understand that. You are saying
that you think it might not be as productive if you were
looking at an analysis, and it was in public? Why would that
be?
Mr. Magwood. No, my point is that I think it is important
to do the analysis, even if it takes a long time, on a textual
basis. And if there is a way of actually arriving at decisions
in public I am all in favor of that. I think that is a good
thing to do. I want to make sure that we don't lose the detail.
Senator Boxer. Let me just make sure that everyone
understands my question. I am not talking about doing the
analysis in public. I am talking about the meetings in public
and your deliberations and your votes in public, once you have
gotten the analysis.
Mr. Magwood. In principle I don't have a problem with that.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Ostendorff.
Mr. Ostendorff. Chairman Boxer, I support the NRC's
openness and transparency. I am aware that there are some
discussions currently underway with existing Commissioners to
look at some changes in the voting procedures specifically. In
principle, I support openness and those activities. I would
like to have an opportunity once I am confirmed to more fully
discuss that and better understand the exact issues.
Senator Boxer. I appreciate that, all of you using the
words, in principle. But to me either it is open or it is shut.
So I am going to say to you, just from you to me and me to you,
I don't speak for anybody else, I am going to be watching this.
Because I think that, yes, analysis and all the hard work have
to go on between the folks who you rely on, and you should be
able to probe that. But once it gets to the meetings and all
the information is out there I believe this needs to be shared
with the public. I think it is important not just to agree with
it in principle but in practice. So I will be following that
myself.
Now, I have a question here for all three of you from
Senator Reid. You can just answer it yes or no. If confirmed,
would you second guess the Department of Energy's decision to
withdraw the license application for Yucca Mountain from NRC's
review?
Mr. Magwood. No.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Anybody else?
Mr. Apostolakis. No.
Mr. Ostendorff. No.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. I think he will be very pleased
with that.
And the last question I have is on re-processing. I went to
France, La Hague; I don't know how many of you have been to La
Hauge at all. When I went there, I was very open to seeing how
this new technology could work. When I left there I realized
that it is far more controversial than it might appear,
because--and I am sure, Mr. Magwood, you saw that--this
material is so hot, so hot that even though it is contained in
a small container, it needs this huge burial site. In La Hague
they are going to have to ship back this waste to the countries
that sent it in the first place after 20 years.
So I guess my question is to all of you--you can do it in
writing, I don't want to take a lot of time--but do you think
there needs to be more work on perfecting this type of a
technology? Or do you think it is just ready to roll?
Mr. Apostolakis. Senator, I really don't know much about
the recycling, so I cannot give you an answer.
Senator Boxer. That is fair.
Mr. Magwood.
Mr. Magwood. Well, the work I did at DOE was predicated on
the idea that we did need to do a lot more research to develop
better technologies and more efficient and less proliferation
prone. So my personal thinking is that more work needs to be
done.
Senator Boxer. How about you, Mr. Ostendorff?
Mr. Ostendorff. Chairman Boxer, I am not familiar with this
particular technology. I would like to have a chance to look at
it and get back to you.
Senator Boxer. OK. At some point I think it would be
interesting to visit that site. It has more armed guards than
most of our military bases there. It is very--it is
enlightening, I would say, to go see it.
Let me just say to all of you how much I appreciate your
service. Not only the service currently, but your prior service
in other capacities for the Government, whether it was in the
military or DOE or on a special commission.
Mr. Magwood, I have a few letters here from people who
don't support your nomination. The reason they say that is that
when you were over at DOE, they felt that you were pushing
nuclear power. Well, as I read in the opening statement, there
is a very big difference between the DOE and the NRC. In one
job, if you are working to promote a certain type of power,
whether it is wind, which I know Senator Alexander doesn't
prefer, whether it is solar, whether it is nuclear, whether it
is clean coal, whether it is offshore oil drilling, whatever it
might be, the DOE's job is different from the NRC.
So I guess just from my own sensibility, you could state
your sense of the difference between being at DOE and being on
the NRC. If you could put it in your own words for me.
Mr. Magwood. The role we had at DOE was clearly to remove
the barriers that made it very difficult to build new nuclear
power plants in the United States. I think we accomplished a
lot in that direction. The role of NRC is to respond to the
public need for safety now that that door has been opened and
others are walking through it.
So I think it is an appropriate role for Government to
remove the barriers, and I think it is an appropriate role for
Government to make sure that once the barriers are removed that
things are done responsibly. It is my firm opinion that the
best service to the country and to the nuclear industry is to
set a very, very high standard for safety and to do so in a way
that the public has a great deal of confidence.
Senator Boxer. Well, Mr. Magwood, I think you were very
eloquent on that point. Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Captain Ostendorff, during the introduction, is that your
son seated behind you?
Mr. Ostendorff. I have two sons. This is my son Jeff right
here.
Senator Inhofe. Which one was at Fort Sill?
Mr. Ostendorff. My son Chuck. He is not here today.
Senator Inhofe. When he deployed, he probably deployed, my
guess is from Fort Hood with the Lava Thunders. Would you
happen to know that?
Mr. Ostendorff. He actually deployed with the Second
Stryker Cavalry Regiment out of Vilseck, Germany, deployed to
Iraq in the summer of 2007.
Senator Inhofe. Good. I think this is significant, and
several people have said, this is the first time in 30 years
that we have new plant applications. I think now, as I had
shared originally, there were 18, 5 have been suspended. So you
are talking about 13 applications. Have you had time to think
through how you are going to handle these different classes, so
that you can expedite these? My concern, as I said in my
opening statement, of course, we want all safety complied with
and all that. We want to get these things done.
Have you given any thought--any of the three of you--as to
how you are going to handle that many and their different
classes? And any kind of prediction as to when you might get 1
or 2 or 13 of them completed?
Anybody.
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, I will speak for myself and ask my
colleagues to chime in. I think we have received several
briefings by Commission staff in preparation for this hearing
and in preparation for potential service in the Commission
about the licensing process, the time schedules, the milestones
and some expectations.
I would say that I think it is important for a Commissioner
to take a hard look at ensuring that progress is being made
toward providing rapid but thorough response to the
applications, ensuring the applications themselves are
completely technically vetted while bringing some pressure on
the system to move forward appropriately.
So I think there is kind of a balance. It goes to Senator
Carper's statement earlier about one foot on the accelerator
and one foot on the brake pedal, making sure that we are
pushing forward to get the system to work but also ensuring
that that does not result in any shortcuts that might lessen
safety.
Senator Inhofe. That's good. Any other comments? That
pretty much may speak for the three of you.
Mr. Apostolakis. I have seen what the Commission has been
doing the last several years in the area of new reactors. I
think the process that is in place is good, design
certification, early site permits, and finally the combined
license. As with anything new, as you said, Senator, for 30
years we have not licensed a new reactor; there will be some
glitches here and there that we will have to fix.
But I think that the process in place is good. And I have
seen the stuff accelerating other licensing actions, like power
upgrades, and license extensions. So I am confident they will
do their best also to grant to accelerate the licensing process
for new reactors. But I agree with my colleague.
Senator Inhofe. And the other thing I was thinking about is
that the three of you constitute a majority of this Commission.
That can be good or bad. You don't come in with preconceived
notions. Those three out of five are new people, all qualified.
What I would suggest, I will be suggesting to Senator
Carper, that he do something like I did back in 19 whatever it
was, 1997, I guess, when I chaired this subcommittee, that is
schedule some meetings with some goals. Decide about how far
along you want to be at different times so that we will be
brought into the loop on this. I am sure that you would agree
that is a good idea. If not, I can get this in writing from
them.
So that is what you might be anticipating that we will be
wanting to know as you move along, how you are coming, how many
applications you are looking at, what your progress is.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. OK, I am going give you the gavel, because I
have a meeting.
Senator Carper [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me just again welcome you and thank you for your
participation today. I know a number of my colleagues have
expressed reservations to me over the last year that the new
Administration was not really serious or embracing nuclear
power as one aspect of reducing our dependence on fossil fuel,
reducing our dependence on foreign oil, cleaning up the air. I
think Senator Alexander has already said this in so many words,
but just in the last several weeks to have heard what the
President said on the floor of the House of Representatives in
the State of the Union address, the importance of nuclear
energy and embracing it, what we have seen in his budget
proposal, it puts our country's money where his mouth was that
night.
And to again see the strength of these nominees, it is very
encouraging for those of us who believe that nuclear power is
an important component of our power generation and energy
generation in this country. But it needs to be an even more
important one. So this is a good, very strong team here.
I am going to ask if each of our nominees would each take a
minute or so and just talk with us in your own words, from your
hearts, what do you see as some of the biggest challenges that
the NRC is facing this year and in the next several years? What
are some of the biggest challenges that you see the NRC facing
this year and in the next several years? How would you
strengthen the NRC as it prepares to take on those challenges?
Mr. Apostolakis. I believe it has been mentioned several
times that the role of a regulator is not always pleasant. I
think a challenge is to be perceived as fair by all
stakeholders, the industry and maybe the public interest
groups. And I think that is a challenge that the Commission
should continually try to achieve. I believe the number of
applications for new reactors will be a challenge. The numbers
we hear now are on the high side, I believe. And if they all
come together the agency will need to--will be challenged to
meet its obligations. I believe those two are probably the two
in my mind right now.
Senator Carper. And the second half of my question is, if
confirmed, how would your membership on the Commission better
prepare the Commission to meet those challenges?
Mr. Apostolakis. I intend to be actively involved in
meeting both of these challenges. I do believe the agency is
very open and transparent. We may want to become more
transparent by deliberating in public. I believe making sure
that licensing actions are taken in a timely fashion is a very
important function. So I will also try to contribute to that.
Senator Carper. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Magwood.
Mr. Magwood. Senator Carper, I think that it is worth
noting that the last U.S. nuclear power plant to get started
and actually reach completion was started in 1973. As a result
we have a situation in the United States where millions of
people who have the expertise to build these plants are at or
near or will pass retirement age. The expertise that exists in
this country is spread very, very thin between the industry,
the vendors, the Government and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
So I think one of the big challenges we have over the next
5 to 10 years is going to be sharing that talent with the ever
expanding requirement and finding a way to transfer the
knowledge and experience so that people who are at or near or
beyond retirement age to these younger people who are just
coming into the work force.
One of the things I did at DOE that I am very proud of is I
worked very hard to expand the academic opportunities for
students to get into nuclear engineering. There is now a
significant number of students coming into the work force. But
now we have to train those people. I fully intend to spend a
lot of my time working with the NRC staff to try to transfer
the knowledge and experience of these people to the younger
people and that we are able to carry out our mission
effectively.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Captain Ostendorff.
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, I would agree with the comments of
my colleagues. I would like to focus on just maybe two
challenges and then talk about my background. The challenges I
think that are most critical would be to simultaneously ensure
the safe operation of our existing plants, many of which have
some aging issues. There are some buried piping concerns, some
license extensions to go from 40 to 60 years. Our existing
fleet has some technical issues that have to be decided upon by
the Commissioners after receiving proper technical support from
the staff.
At the same time, looking at new plants. Balancing
attention and making sure we have our eye on the ball for both
sides of the equation, existing plants and new licenses, will
be a big challenge.
As far as my own background, what I think I might bring, I
have had significant technical experience working with nuclear
reactors in the submarine force. I have been around, working as
a staff member for Congress, I think in a bipartisan fashion,
to get to solutions, to get to decisionmaking. The Defense
Authorization Bill process for a number of years. And I have
had significant management experience. I am looking forward to
bringing those three experiences in my background to bear.
Senator Carper. Good. Thank you, Captain.
Senator Alexander, I believe you might be next.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Carper.
Let me ask each of the three of you a question about used
nuclear fuel. I am tempted to ask you if you believe nuclear
reactors can be operated safely but I think I would insult each
of you if I did that. Mr. Ostendorff lived on top of one for a
lot of his life. I assume you wouldn't be taking these
positions if you didn't think they could be operated safely.
But let me ask you about used nuclear fuel, which is a
concern that many people have. Mr. Apostolakis, how many years
do you think that used nuclear fuel can be safely stored onsite
while research determines the best way to perhaps recycle it or
what its ultimate use could be?
Mr. Apostolakis. Senator, the prevailing thinking, and I
don't have any reason to disagree with it, is that it is
several decades. Some people are talking about even 100 years.
Senator Alexander. Mr. Magwood, what is your opinion?
Mr. Magwood. In principle certainly I think you can store
spent fuel safely onsite for 50 or 100 years. But one thing I
highlight is that when we first started storing spent fuel on
reactor sites, no one was thinking it was going to be there 100
years. So I think we have to go back and take a look at what we
have in place now and assure ourselves that it is able to stay
in place for another 50 years if necessary.
Senator Alexander. Mr. Ostendorff.
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, the briefings I have had from NRC
technical staff have indicated a range of 50 to 100 years.
Senator Alexander. Two of you said that you didn't have an
opinion really about recycling, and I understand that, because,
well, let me--I do, and Dr. Chu does, which is that during that
time we should accelerate research and development for
recycling of used nuclear fuel and find a better way of
reducing its mass and its life than now exists, for example, in
France, and that we have ample time to do that.
Let me ask this question. One of the elements of a decision
that the Commission makes when it issues a license is whether
it has confidence that the Federal Government is willing to
live up to its responsibilities that it will take
responsibility for the used nuclear fuel. Recently, we have all
commented on the President's call for a new generation of
reactors, his appointment of a commission to take whatever
steps are appropriate on used fuel, your appointment, the loan
guarantees, all those things. Mr. Magwood, are you comfortable
that the Federal Government--or do you have confidence the
Federal Government will ultimately accept its responsibility
for dealing with used nuclear fuel?
Mr. Magwood. The Federal Government signs contracts with
utilities to take spent fuel eventually. It doesn't specify
where it is going to take the fuel or how it is going to
dispose of it. It just makes a commitment to take the spent
fuel. And I think those commitments are solid enough to
proceed, yes. I do have faith in the Government's commitment.
Senator Alexander. To proceed with an otherwise appropriate
new license?
Mr. Magwood. With some appropriate disposition. And we have
time, as you pointed out, to decide exactly what that is going
to be.
Senator Alexander. Mr. Apostolakis, what is your thought
about that?
Mr. Apostolakis. I thought the issue of confidence was that
eventually there will be a solution, a permanent solution. And
I do have confidence in that.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Mr. Ostendorff.
Mr. Ostendorff. I concur with my colleagues here.
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much.
Now let me ask you just an overall question. All of you
have broad experience with the nuclear industry. Why is it that
the United States, which has invented nuclear power plants and
gets 70 percent of its carbon-free electricity from them, at a
time when we want lots of low cost electricity and are
concerned about climate change, how is it, why is it that China
is starting a plant every 3 months and the UAE and India and
Great Britain and everybody else in the world seems to do it,
and we haven't started a new plant in 30 years? What could you
do as a Commissioner of the NRC appropriately to create an
environment in which the United States could catch up with its
own invention?
Mr. Apostolakis.
Mr. Apostolakis. I think a combination of factors
contributed to this slowing down of the industry in the United
States. First of all, we do have, at least in the last 30
years, alternative sources of energy. So the pressure of using
nuclear power was not that great. I think Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl did not help. Three Mile Island not only because of
its consequences, which were really next to nothing, but there
was a tremendous regulatory activity that followed Three Mile
Island that created regulatory instability and imposed
tremendous costs on the industry.
This was a natural reaction, I think. I don't think there
are any bad guys here.
And the other thing is of course that maybe our processes
here are a bit more open than in other places, where they can
make decisions much faster.
Senator Alexander. Mr. Magwood.
Mr. Magwood. I think that the biggest reason was because we
simply didn't need to build much of anything in the last 30
years. We weren't just not building nuclear plants, we weren't
building coal plants, we weren't building lots of things for
many years. That is because we had a large over-supply of
electric capacity left over from the 1970s that really has just
gone away in the last couple of years.
I think that what we can do as NRC Commissioners, if we are
confirmed, is to do our job well, to build the public
confidence that the Government is doing its job to oversee
safety, to provide a framework by which the industry can
implement new nuclear power plants. That is what we can do. If
we do what we are supposed to do, that is the best thing for
the construction of new plants in this country.
Senator Alexander. Mr. Ostendorff.
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, I would say that the
predictability and stability of the regulatory process is
critical. That is part of our jobs if we are confirmed. In
order for industry to be able to make some sound business
decisions, strategic planning decisions, so to speak, we need
to have an understanding of what the framework is, not just
next month, but next year, 10 years, 20 years down the pike. To
the extent that we can advance the stability and predictability
issues, as Commissioners, I think that will be a significant
achievement.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. You are welcome. Thanks for your leadership
on these issues.
Senator Cardin, thanks for yours as well.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Again, let me thank our three nominees. I was impressed by
your backgrounds and your careers before you appeared here
today. It has only been reinforced by your responses to the
questions. So once again, thank you.
I am going to follow up on Senator Alexander's and I think
Senator Inhofe's point, and Mr. Ostendorff, your last point
about predictability--I had a chance to question Dr. Chu when
he was before the committee as to whether it is reasonable for
us to expect that we can expedite the process for new nuclear
power plants, that to have to wait 10 years to try to get a
plan done is unrealistic. Investors aren't going to invest in
that. You need predictability, as Mr. Ostendorff said. You need
a process that does not compromise public safety. We understand
that. We want to make sure that all of the procedures are
followed.
But you need to have a process in place that leads to a
conclusion. And it has been so long, there is not a confidence
that that is in place in our country. We developed the
technologies to have safe nuclear power, and we obviously can
get it done. But it requires a Nuclear Regulatory Commission
that is committed for the process to work.
I questioned Dr. Chu as to what is a reasonable length of
time. He said he would like to answer that question, but the
NRC is an independent commission. So he doesn't have that type
of authority. But you all will have that type of authority once
you are confirmed. I just urge you to use that carefully so
that we can move forward with nuclear capacity in this country
and do it in a safe way.
Mr. Magwood, the other point that you mentioned, I think it
is important, I think the commission can play a role here, we
have to develop the underpinnings of a nuclear industry in this
country that we sort of lost over the last 30 years, whether it
is in the development of technology on our college campuses or
whether it is the manufacturing capacity to be able to
manufacture here in America the component parts for a nuclear
facility, or whether it is how we deal with waste. You are
correct, the thought was that it was going to be a relatively
temporary storage. Well, now we are looking at it being a
little bit longer term. So we need to make sure that we have
the technologies and productions in place to be able to deal
with waste.
And then last, the point that has been raised, Mr. Magwood,
you had the most experience of any of the three, is on the re-
processing issue. There is a lot of concern that re-processing
could lead to proliferation. And we need to be able to have
confidence if we are going to be doing re-processing that it
can be done in a way consistent with what President Obama has
said, and I think all of us agree that we want to prevent the
proliferation of nuclear weapons in this world. So I really do
think that you all are entering this public service at a
critical point in our Nation's history as to whether we will
get it right, whether we can put in place in a realistic time
period, so investors and utilities can plan and invest, and our
Nation can have an energy policy that not only makes us self-
sufficient from the point of view of producing electricity but
also does it in an environmentally friendly way, keeping jobs
here in America.
So I just would urge you as you move forward in this, that
your job is more than just looking at an application that comes
down the road, but to develop a predictable system, where
investors feel confident in, and develop a nuclear industry in
America that will keep jobs here, keep technology here, and
make sure we do it in a safe way, obviously first and foremost
is public safety. But do it in a way that we can have a nuclear
industry in America.
You all nodded as I was speaking.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cardin. I just want the record to reflect, I got a
lot of nods.
I do have another 47 seconds, if anyone wants to just--Mr.
Magwood, since you are from Maryland, tell me what I want to
hear here.
Mr. Magwood. I think that there is a need, as you pointed
out, for investors to have some confidence about how long it
would take to deploy these plants. But I think that everyone
should understand that we haven't done this in a long time. It
is not just the Government side that needs to figure out how to
get this right; it is also the industry side. The two sides
working together are going to take a little bit longer in this
first go-around than maybe everyone would like. But I think
that we will learn a lot from doing it.
So the next time that we get to applications, perhaps at
some point in the future, I think it will be a lot more
efficient process, a lot more predictable.
Senator Cardin. I think that is the right answer. I think
the industry expects that we are sort of doing this almost for
the first time again. But I hope that the path that we follow
will provide the predictability that Mr. Ostendorff mentioned,
the confidence in safety that the public will demand so that we
can in fact have nuclear power as part of our energy for the
future of this Nation.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Senator Boxer, I will report that we are
down to Senator Klobuchar over here, and the gavel is yours.
Thanks.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
My first question actually is about a bill that a number of
us, a bipartisan group of Senators, are supporting, offered by
Senator Mark Udall, to increase support for R&D of small,
modular nuclear reactors. They could be manufactured on
assembly line and therefore could be much cheaper than the
large scale reactors that we are used to. Any thoughts on the
prospect of these types of nuclear reactors becoming more
mainstream?
Anyone can take it.
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, I understand that the small,
modular reactors are being looked at by industry. There are
several different designs being considered. I also understand
that the existing Commission has already taken a look to ensure
that its licensing procedures are set up and ready to receive
any licenses that they may receive for a small reactor. And I
think it is something we will be watching very closely over the
next few years as industry comes forward with some ideas.
Hopefully there will be some R&D efforts that will help advance
those initiatives.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. One of the things that has
happened because of the lack of new nuclear plant construction
over the past decades is that there is also a lack of domestic
nuclear engineers. That was one of the reasons that I co-
sponsored the America Competes Act of 2007, which supports
nuclear science programs. Anyone want to comment on what the
status is of our domestic nuclear work force and what can we do
to improve our work force expertise in this area?
Mr. Apostolakis.
Mr. Apostolakis. Thank you. Well, what we have seen at MIT
the last 5, 6 years is the number of domestic applicants to the
department has increased, and the quality also of the
applicants has increased. From what I heard, the same thing is
happening at other universities around the country.
Now, is the number adequate? I don't know. But it takes
some time to reach that level.
Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Magwood.
Mr. Magwood. As I mentioned earlier one of the things that
we were very proud of at DOE was helping to sort of spur the
rejuvenation of some of the nuclear engineering programs. When
I came into the Office of Nuclear Energy in 1998 there were
about 480--I remember this number, because it was so
startling--480 students in the entire country taking nuclear
engineering. Today, I understand it is about 2,200. So there is
a huge upsurge. I think that we are actually in pretty good
shape when it comes to that aspect of it.
But the question is how do you get these people trained in
practical ways to really carry out the various missions.
Senator Klobuchar. When there has been this not actual
construction going on, to the extent. Right. Like many nuclear
power plants, we have two in Minnesota, actually, but one of
them, Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant, is the closest plant
to an Indian reservation in the country. It is literally right
next to it, adjacent. And it has had to store its radioactive
waste onsite in dry casks above the ground, potentially
creating environmental and security risks. What do you see as
the short and long term solutions to the problem of nuclear
waste storage?
Anyone want to take that one?
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, I think just recently, and Senator
Alexander mentioned this in his remarks, the Administration has
stood up a blue ribbon commission. It was announced, I believe,
the week before last, as far as its membership, that will be
looking at alternatives for high level waste storage on a
permanent basis. So it looks like there will be an effort to
look at alternatives to prior plans. I think we are optimistic
that there are technical solutions here. I don't think any one
of us believes that there is a technical problem for which
there is no solution. But I think we are optimistic that this
commission will highlight potential options in a very
constructive way and hopefully in a short time period.
Senator Klobuchar. One last question. As part of NRC's
efforts to streamline nuclear power plant construction, one
change has been to certify standard plant designs, which will
be effective for 15 years, and will be acceptable, independent
of the specific site. Is there any concern that certain designs
would not be effective in various regions? To me this sounds
like a smart idea of how to expedite things. But just any
comments that you have about this. Because as you know, the
majority of new designs approved by the NRC have never been
built or operated.
Mr. Magwood.
Mr. Magwood. Well, I think what I would say is that even
though there is a truly, I think, important effort to
standardize the designs there are still lots of designs. So
utilities have a pretty wide choice of different designs to
choose from. I know that some have chosen plants because of the
size and the impact on the thermal output that they would have
on local lakes. There are different characteristics of all the
plants. I think there is enough of a variety out there for the
utilities to choose technologies that best suit their
circumstances.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you very much, all of you.
Senator Boxer [presiding]. Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. If this
question has been asked then please let me know, and I will
simply refer to the record and gain that information. We have
in Oregon a plant that was retired a few years ago. But it
still has a tremendous amount of fuel rods stored onsite in dry
casks. As my colleague from Minnesota was noting, these storage
locations are across the country. What kind of security risks
do they pose, and to what degree is the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission a body that can help address that challenge?
Mr. Apostolakis. Senator, I know that the safety and
security of these pools has been a matter of intense attention
both by the Commission and various stakeholders. I have seen
various studies that show that the pools are safe; other
studies that dispute those. I don't know the details of all
these to tell you to what degree these things are safe. But as
long as the Commission allows them to be there the presumption
is that they are safe.
Senator Merkley. Let me just comment that this shouldn't be
an issue of presumption. It should be an issue of intense
analysis and changing the policy if these comprise a risk to
our Nation to have these dry casks spread around the country
with very diverse security measures protecting them and the
possibility of explosions, conventional explosions spreading
nuclear materials through the Nation. I am very disturbed by a
notion that we should just presume that they are safe.
Mr. Apostolakis. No, no, no, that's not what I meant. All
these analyses are being done, and I am sure they will continue
to be done. My only point is that an outsider, I would say that
if they are allowed to be there, the Commission has approved
them. So as a citizen, I have to presume they are safe.
Now, as a Commissioner, if confirmed, I may not take that
attitude. I may look more carefully at the various studies,
maybe ask for more studies, until I convince myself that they
are indeed safe enough and secure enough.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Mr. Magwood, you have been a proponent of nuclear power. Do
these storage sites pose a significant risk, and what can the
Commission do to address the challenge?
Mr. Magwood. The challenge of the spent fuel storage?
Senator Merkley. Yes.
Mr. Magwood. I think that I mentioned a few minutes ago, I
think that with the Administration's move toward a new
decisionmaking progress regarding the disposition of spent fuel
it is quite possible that some of the spent fuel storage
facilities may have to be around for decades. As I mentioned a
few minutes ago the United States wasn't thinking that spent
fuel would stay on utility sites for 50 or 100 years. Now that
that may be the case we have to go back and look and make sure
that everything that is in place today is satisfactory for long
term storage, and if it is not to take corrective actions as
soon as possible.
Senator Merkley. Let me turn to another question. A few
years ago, in 2002, a hole was discovered in a reactor head at
the Davis-Besse Plant in Ohio. It surprised a lot of folks that
that was able to happen. Does that provide any insights on the
type of oversight that is needed in terms of reactor
operations?
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, my understanding is you are
referring to the reactor vessel head corrosion problem, the
leaks.
Senator Merkley. Yes.
Mr. Ostendorff. It was my understanding, and I have not
been involved in the commercial nuclear industry, but that was
a big wake-up call that indicated that there had been a sense
of complacency with respect to investigating and taking care of
action to stop leaks that the source. That is a very serious
material issue, but it also has broader safety implications. I
think there has been a lot of lessons learned and actions taken
subsequent to the Davis-Besse incident that have been positive.
At the same time the nature of these operations for existing
plants is such that you can never take your eye off the ball.
You have to every day continue to enforce that safety culture
and have high expectations for technical competence and
accountability.
Senator Merkley. Thank you all very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Now, everyone has had one round. I understand Senator
Carper would like to ask a couple more questions. Senator
Alexander, do you have any more questions?
Senator Alexander. I think I will just listen. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Dr. Apostolakis, here is a question for
you. Let's go way back in time, Three Mile Island and think of
the lessons learned that flowed from Three Mile Island that
were relevant then but are still relevant today.
Mr. Apostolakis. I think that was a major milestone in
nuclear power development in history. It showed that some of
the hypothetical accidents that analysts were talking about in
fact could happen to some extent. The core could be damaged.
The containment system, though, worked very well. It contained
the amounts of radioactivity that were released from the core.
The psychological impact of the accident on the public and the
professionals in nuclear engineering was tremendous.
I believe both the industry and the Commission learned a
lot from the accident there. A lot of new regulations were
established. And I believe we learned from it, and the industry
is safer as a result of it.
Senator Carper. Any other nominees want to respond to that?
Lessons that are still relevant today.
Mr. Magwood. I would just make a brief comment. One of the
major lessons learned, not just from Three Mile Island, but
through a lot of the problems and operations utilities had
during the 1970s and early 1980s was that--the lesson learned
was that management counts. Excellence in management at utility
sites makes up for any--I should say, makes it possible to
operate nuclear power plants. Whereas if you simply rely on
technology you will find that mistakes will always be made.
I think the most important thing we learned over the last
several decades is good management, good people, well trained
people. It always comes back to people. I guess I would rather
have an excellent staff of great managers operating a so-so
technology as opposed to a great technology operated by people
that didn't know what they were doing. That is, I think, one of
the big lessons we learned.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Captain Ostendorff.
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, one specific component I would
mention is that of operator training. I think one of the
lessons learned out of Three Mile Island is that the operators
at the plant did not really understand what really was the root
cause of the phenomenon they were observing, what were the
indications, what caused those physical conditions. As a
result, at least I saw it in the naval nuclear propulsion
program, in the 5-year period after that accident, I saw an
increased emphasis on operator understanding of the physical
principles of heat transfer, fluid flow, reactor kinetics, to
ensure that everybody really understood what was the
theoretical basis and engineering basis behind the procedures.
Senator Carper. All right, thanks.
Let's talk a little bit about tritium. From time to time we
have reports of leakage, and tritium being found in the water
that surrounds some of our nuclear power plants. Most recently
we have heard some reports out of Vermont Yankee that have
raised some concerns there. Would you take a moment, I don't
care who answers this, but take a moment to talk to us about
tritium, what kind of threat does it pose to us as human
beings? If it is in our groundwater, should it be in our
groundwater? As I understand it trace elements are already in
groundwater in a number of places. Just talk to us about the
kind of threats it poses to human health in low quantities or
high quantities. What should the NRC be thinking and doing with
respect to these leakages?
Mr. Apostolakis. I think the NRC should make sure that the
buried pipes from which the tritium was leaking remain intact,
that there should be programs of some sort or something in the
regulations that will make sure that these pipes do not leak. I
don't think that any leaks are acceptable.
Senator Carper. Mr. Magwood. Captain Ostendorff.
Mr. Magwood. One example I draw from my past experience
when I think about this issue is a case in New York. We had a
reactor in New York at the Department of Energy called
Brookhaven National Laboratory that developed a tritium leak.
All the analysis from all the scientists said the tritium leak
posed no threat to human health, no threat to anything offsite.
But what I learned from that experience was that that wasn't
really the point. The point was that the public lost confidence
in the ability of the Department of Energy to operate the
facility safely. And as a result the facility was shut down, a
very, very valuable piece of research equipment was lost to the
country.
When I think about these other cases we hear about around
the country I think that people need to understand that the
public views these kinds of problems as an indication of a
deeper management problem at the plants. So one of the things
that I will certainly do if I am confirmed is to make that
point very clearly to people operating nuclear power plants
that it isn't the point that it is not hurting anyone. The
point is showing that you don't have your act together. That is
the most important thing.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Captain.
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, I would agree with my colleagues'
comments and just add that the radiation hazard here is not
external radiation to the body. It is an issue from a health
perspective if tritium is ingested. So it is a real concern if
it is present in the drinking water. But if tritium were just
in my glass on the desk and I never drank that it would not be
a radiation health hazard to me.
That said, I completely agree with Bill Magwood about his
comments on the public confidence and the public education
aspects of ensuring that this is dealt with in a serious,
concerted manner to resolve the issue.
Senator Carper. Thank you all.
Senator Boxer. Any other Senators? Well, I have just one, a
couple of questions I have to ask you, for all nominees. And I
will ask you each to say yes or no.
Do you agree, if confirmed by the Senate, to appear before
this committee or designated members of this committee and
other appropriate committees of the Congress, and provide
information subject to appropriate and necessary security
protection with respect to your responsibilities?
Mr. Apostolakis. Yes, I do.
Mr. Magwood. Yes.
Mr. Ostendorff. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Do you agree to ensure that testimony,
briefings, documents, and electronic and other forms of
communication are provided to this committee and its staff and
other appropriate committees in a timely fashion?
Mr. Apostolakis. I do.
Mr. Magwood. Yes.
Mr. Ostendorff. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Do you know of any matters which you may or
may not have disclosed that might place you in any conflict of
interest if you are confirmed?
Mr. Apostolakis. I do not.
Mr. Magwood. No.
Mr. Ostendorff. No.
Senator Boxer. OK. And I understand Senator Merkley has one
more question.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I wanted to ask about the exploration of different designs
that might inherently increase the safety of nuclear power and
therefore also might reduce its cost. There is a group of
engineers in Oregon working under the title New Scale Power. It
is a complete redesign of a nuclear reactor, it creates
essentially a silo in the ground. The reactor core is hung in a
manner that reduces its vulnerability to earthquakes. It is all
gravity-fed water systems, so there is no pump failure. It has
the ability to remove the copper tubing design, if you will, a
major issue that shut down Trojan, and replace it as a complete
tubing replacement, almost like an element that is pulled out
and inserted. Because it is below ground it may provide greater
ability to provide protection from terrorist threats.
Such designs, I am sure there are other groups around the
country that have been looking at significantly different
approaches. But to what degree does the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, in each of your visions should they be promoting or
exploring designs that may differ substantially from commercial
reactors of today but might hold promise for far greater
security in the future?
Mr. Magwood. I think this type of work is very important.
As a matter of fact, New Scale began as part of a research
program that I started back when I was at DOE. It is the type
of research that really can set the stage for the longer term
future. Today, there is a lot of work to do. But 10 years from
now, 20 years from now, who knows. That may become the standard
for nuclear power in the future. I think we have to encourage
this, and I look forward to seeing these types of activities
move into the commercial sphere.
Mr. Apostolakis. I believe the Commission and its staff
should be informed at all times on the activities that you
mentioned, in Oregon and other places, and be prepared, make
sure that the Commission and the staff are prepared to do a
good review of an application when it comes to the Commission
for a design certification or for maybe a combined license
application.
So as a Commissioner, if confirmed I will make sure that
this happens.
Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, I am no familiar with the New
Scale design. But I will look into that if I am confirmed. I
certainly think it is the Commission's job, writ large, to make
sure that they are up to speed on the current thinking of
industry and design engineers as to what might be in the realm
of the possible and to be actively engaged in understanding
technically what is being worked on so they are prepared to
deal with a licensing application.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Madam Chair, do we have time for one more question?
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Merkley. Mr. Magwood, I thought it would be useful
to follow up on the Chair's statement on conflict of interest.
Just for the record, has your consulting work with Secure
Energy North America Corporation or Advanced Energy Strategies,
any of those companies that you have worked for, are they in
any, is there any possible projects underway that would come
before the NRC that would pose any form of conflict of
interest?
Mr. Magwood. No.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Gentlemen, you have been very forthcoming.
We are very appreciative. You have until next Tuesday, February
16th, to submit the answers to our written questions. There may
not be any; I may have one or two. As soon as we get those back
it is my intention to work with colleagues to move your
appointments very quickly. Again, we really want to thank you.
I am sorry, we have until the 16th, you have until the 23rd.
Thank you for the correction, Laura.
And I want to just revisit a couple of things with
colleagues here. Just a reminder, we do have a hearing this
afternoon on two appointees. One is the Inspector General, EPA,
and the other is the Appalachian Regional Commission and
Northern Border Regional Commission. If Senator Alexander
ascertains that the TVA nominees are in town, he had now asked
if we could do the hearing at 4. So stand by for that.
I also wanted to inform colleagues, and this is very good
news for us, that AASHTO, which is the group that represents
the State highway and transportation folks that we work with so
closely at home, they have released a new report today,
Senators. They are basically saying that the stimulus bill was
very successful, that it created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
They have it actually summarized here. And all the various
projects, they say that they are asking for another jobs bill,
and they are making the point that the infrastructure, although
it was only about 6 percent of our bill, created about 25
percent of the jobs. That is what they are saying.
So it is a very good report. I won't put it in this record
because this is a different subject. But anybody who wants to
see this report, it is called Projects and Paychecks: a One
Year Report on State Transportation Successes under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I feel, since there has
been so much controversy about whether we have--I don't
understand how people could say you don't create jobs when you
rebuild your infrastructure. It is counter-intuitive, and it
turns out it is absolutely wrong to say that. They are looking
at over 10,000 projects that were completed, they are looking
at who the people are that got the jobs. I have this study here
if you want to get your hands on it.
I think that concludes everything. Remember, we are not
going to have our hearings that we originally were going to
have on Thursday and Wednesday. So we are going to do
everything today and put off the others until we get back.
Does anybody else have any questions, comments? If not,
thank you so much. We stand adjourned. And to our friends at
the table, thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee was recessed, to
reconvene later the same day.]