[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE NRC INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON THE NRC CHAIRMAN'S UNILATERAL
DECISION TO TERMINATE NRC'S REVIEW OF THE DOE YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY
LICENSE APPLICATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 14, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-61
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-695 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MARY BONO MACK, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG WALDEN, Oregon BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina GENE GREEN, Texas
Vice Chair DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma LOIS CAPPS, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California JAY INSLEE, Washington
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JIM MATHESON, Utah
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN BARROW, Georgia
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky Islands
PETE OLSON, Texas
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
_____
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
Chairman
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
MARY BONO MACK, California JOHN BARROW, Georgia
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington LOIS CAPPS, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
CORY GARDNER, Colorado officio)
JOE BARTON, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 4
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 4
Prepared statement............................................... 6
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 8
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 8
Witnesses
Hubert T. Bell, Inspector General, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Answers to submitted questions............................... 51
Joseph McMillan, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission \1\..............................
Rossana Raspa, Senior Level Assistant for Investigative
Operations, Nuclear Regulatory Commission \1\..................
Submitted Material
``Former NRC chairman Klein at odds with Jaczko decision,''
article in December 2010 Nuclear News, submitted by Mr. Barton. 31
Subcommittee exhibit binder...................................... 55
----------
\1\ Mr. McMillan and Ms. Raspa did not submit statements for the
record.
THE NRC INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON THE NRC CHAIRMAN'S UNILATERAL
DECISION TO TERMINATE NRC'S REVIEW OF THE DOE YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY
LICENSE APPLICATION
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John
Shimkus (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Murphy,
Whitfield, Pitts, Bass, Latta, McMorris Rodgers, Harper,
Cassidy, Gardner, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Green, Barrow,
DeGette, and Waxman (ex officio).
Member attending: Representative Markey.
Staff present: Carl Anderson, Counsel, Oversight; Gary
Andres, Staff Director; Charlotte Baker, Press Secretary;
Michael Beckerman; Deputy Staff Director; Sean Bonyun, Deputy
Communications Director; Anita Bradley, Senior Policy Advisor
to Chairman Emeritus; Andy Duberstein, Special Assistant to
Chairman Upton; Todd Harrison, Chief Counsel, Oversight/
Investigations; Heidi King, Chief Economist; Dave McCarthy,
Chief Counsel, Environment/Economy; Carly McWilliams,
Legislative Clerk; Andrew Powaleny, Press Assistant; Chris
Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and Economy; Peter
Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Phil Barnett,
Minority Staff Director; Tiffany Benjamin, Minority
Investigative Counsel; Alison Cassady, Minority Senior
Professional Staff Member; Greg Dotson, Minority Energy and
Environment Staff Director; and Caitlin Haberman, Minority
Policy Analyst.
Mr. Shimkus. The hearing will come to order. The chair
recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Today, we take another step in understanding the management
breakdown at the NRC. I welcome our witness, Mr. Bell, and I
thank him for his professionalism. He started this review last
October at the request of Chairman Upton and Mr. Whitfield. His
work is both thorough and timely.
Having read the entire report, I am struck by three
problems at the NRC. First is the inefficiency. It is
unbelievable that 1 week after the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
says that the NRC must either approve or deny the license
application or formally notify Congress as to why it needs more
time, the Commission cannot even reach the question of whether
the application is even alive. One year ago, the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board ruled that DOE has no authority to withdraw
the application, and the NRC must continue to review it. Less
than 2 months later, the question was put to a vote of the full
Commission. On August 10, Commissioner Apostolakis abstained;
on August 25 and 26 Commissioners Sviniki, Jaczko, and
Ostendorf voted. Then, August 30, Chairman Jaczko retracted his
vote. Then, September 15, Commissioner Magwood voted. Then,
October 29, Chairman Jaczko voted again. But somehow 10 months
after all that, the vote is still not over. You don't need
Internal Commission Procedures to see that it has been a
horribly inefficient process, and according to Mr. Bell's
report, we have no one to blame except Chairman Jaczko.
But there are Internal Commission Procedures. Commissioners
are to vote within 10 business days; once a quorum has voted,
permission to vote late may be granted by a majority of the
Commission, and a delay in affirming the vote and promulgating
the order may only be granted by a majority of the Commission.
None of that has been followed. It is the Chairman's duty to
make certain it is followed. Parties to the action rely on the
Commission to follow its own rules and keep the trains running
on time. The Chairman's neglect of this duty alone is shocking
as it denies to the parties of interest a full, timely
determination.
But once you read further in the report, it becomes clear
that the problems are worse than just inefficiency and even
worse than neglect of duty. There is outright malfeasance. The
report is replete with instances of Chairman Jaczko
deliberately misleading both his fellow Commissioners and
senior staff at the NRC. And he knowingly withheld crucial
information from his fellow Commissioners even though the
federal statute requires that all Commissioners have access to
all information. In some instances, Chairman Jaczko manipulated
the process through outright false statements to prevent his
full Commissioners from understanding the implications of his
actions and omissions. When confronted by one Commissioner
about this, Chairman Jaczko merely insulted his colleague by
sarcastically retorting, ``You should have asked.''
I hope all members study Mr. Bell's June 6 report carefully
and take time today to seek any clarifications. This situation
warrants our attention and best judgment.
The gentleman then yields back his time. The chair
recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing today, and thank Mr. Bell for appearing before the
committee to discuss your report entitled, ``NRC Chairman's
Unilateral Decision to Terminate NRC's Review of the DOE Yucca
Mountain Repository License Application.''
There has been a lot of discussion in this committee on the
decision by the administration not to proceed with Yucca
Mountain, and I have stated several times before the U.S. alone
produced 806 billion kilowatt hours of nuclear power in 2008
making us the biggest producer of nuclear power in the world.
Now, 25 years later, $15 billion in rate-payers fees and income
taxes, we are closing our only long-term solution for nuclear
waste. The President has said he supports investments in
alternative forms of energy, and Secretary Chu has testified
before this committee that we would be unable to meet the
President's goals if we do not continue to invest in nuclear
power.
As we look forward and focus on investing more in nuclear
power, we still have nuclear waste. Even if we have better
short-term storage than we do now, we still need somewhere to
put the waste 50 or 1,000 years from now.
Today, we will be discussing the NRC's Inspector General's
Report on the NRC chair's decision to terminate the NRC's
review of Yucca Mountain. Many allegations have been made on
the legality of the NRC chair's decision to terminate the NRC's
review. This report evaluated two allegations that one, the
chairman unilaterally improperly closed the NRC review of Yucca
Mountain application while the government was still operating
under a continuing resolution in fiscal year 2011; and two, the
chairman is preventing the Commission from ruling on NRC
licensing board's decision to deny the DOE's motion to withdraw
the Yucca application.
The Inspector General's report found that Chairman Jaczko
had not been forthcoming with all the commissioners but that
ultimately he acted within his authority as NRC chair and none
of which suggests the NRC chair violated the law. The report
does not review whether or not the actual decision to close
Yucca was appropriate. The report does shed some light on the
obvious internal issues within NRC that should be evaluated and
addressed.
And just on a personal note, it is frustrating, our country
being the largest emitter of nuclear waste in the world and we
are seeing us literally eclipsed by countries who do not have
as much nuclear power as we do. And it is frustrating after all
these years.
With that, again, I want to thank Mr. Bell for appearing
before the committee. I look forward to hearing your testimony.
And again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
now recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton,
for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Developing a safe, permanent storage site for spent nuclear
fuel is indeed essential to energy security as well as our
national security, and that is not and should not be treated as
a partisan issue. So I commend and thank our witnesses for
their efforts to provide an objective look at the inner
workings of this key agency. The more we learn about NRC's
current leadership, the greater our concern about the apparent
breakdown in the Agency's operations, departure from
nonpartisan tradition, and disregard for the decades of
technical expertise and billions of dollars invested.
Justice delayed is justice denied. And it has been a year
since states and other affected parties went to court seeking a
ruling on the license application for the repository at Yucca.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled that the NRC must
consider and vote on DOE's application. Yet the Commission
still has not yet taken final action. And after a year in
limbo, it now appears that the NRC Chair Jaczko devised a
complex, calculated strategy to kill the license application
without consideration by the Commission.
Consumers have been paying into the Nuclear Waste Fund
since 1983 with a promise of something in return: a permanent
place to send the spent fuel away from the reactor sites. When
the license application was finally filed 3 years ago, we grew
more confident. The Act said that in 3 years the NRC would
grant the license or explain to Congress why they needed more
time. Instead, NRC won't even give a straight answer about
whether the application is still alive.
And it is not just nuclear power consumers who are cheated.
It is taxpayers in every State including Nevada who are paying
out judgments to plant operators because the DOE is late
accepting the waste. GAO reports that the taxpayers are on the
hook for an additional $15.4 billion--on top of the nearly $15
billion already spent on the project--and that is the liability
if DOE opens Yucca by 2020. If not, it rises another half-
billion dollars every year.
The circumstances surrounding this administration's rush to
pull the plug on Yucca are alarming as much as they are
disappointing. We have an administration that apparently wants
to erase the visionary effort launched by President Reagan,
casting aside 3 decades of scientific research, bipartisan
collaboration, and a fortune invested to start from scratch no
matter what the cost or consequences to our national security.
Despite this moment of dysfunction at the top, the NRC's
intrinsic value to the U.S. lies in the expertise and
extraordinary dedication of its highly professional staff,
including our witnesses today. To them we repeat: We will do
what we can to rescue the Agency from the ditch that some have
driven you into. And to consumers and taxpayers across America:
We will get the NRC to focus once again on its statutory
mission to serve all the people instead of, perhaps, the
chairman's political patrons.
And I yield to Mr. Whitfield.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much.
In January 2009, President Obama made this statement: ``Let
me say as simply as I can, transparency and the rule of law
will be the touchstone of this Presidency.'' And yet when you
read the Inspector General's report of Chairman Jaczko's
actions, you see words like ``misleading,'' ``withholding
information,'' ``false statements.'' That is not the type of
transparency that we need in America today.
And I would like to reiterate what Chairman Upton said.
This is more than just about Chairman Jaczko. This is about the
American people and the American taxpayer who have already
spent over $10 billion preparing Yucca Mountain who now have
been sued by utility companies and owe them an additional $15
billion. And that is increasing every year because the
government cannot meet its obligations, primarily because of
one person at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission whose personal
objective is to close this project at Yucca Mountain. And so I
think it is an abuse of his authority and I look forward to the
testimony of all the witnesses today.
I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
recognizes the chairman emeritus, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the
third hearing this subcommittee has held on the closure of the
Yucca Mountain Waste Repository. Today, we will hear from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Inspector General, who has
recently issued a report on allegations that the NRC chairman's
actions relating to the closure were improper.
The primary finding of the Inspector General's report was
that Chairman Jaczko's ambitions have been consistent with
established law, OMB guidance, and his authority as chairman.
This finding is very different from what Chairman Shimkus has
been saying for months. In the press and in this hearing room
he has repeatedly stated that Chairman Jaczko has been acting
illegally. This is, of course, the problem with prejudging and
announcing the outcome of an investigation before it has
started.
Despite the rhetoric we have heard over the past months,
today we won't be presented with evidence of law-breaking.
Instead, we will hear about internal procedures of the NRC. We
will examine the consultation requirements and functions of the
chairman of the NRC versus the functions of the other
commissioners. The IG will tell us that some commissioners felt
misled by Chairman Jaczko, did not like his interpersonal
style, and expressed concern about the NRC chairman's
unilateral actions.
Now, these are legitimate issues for our subcommittee to
examine. We should be exercising our oversight to look at the
Commission to ensure that it operates as smoothly,
professionally, and fairly as possible. The chairman of the
Commission, like the chairman of a congressional subcommittee
or committee has an obligation to conduct proceedings fairly
and impartially.
Chairman Shimkus is concerned that Chairman Jaczko withheld
information from his fellow Commissioners. That is a legitimate
concern and one we should examine today. Ironically, however,
we should look at this in the context of how our committee has
operated. Over our objections, the staff of our subcommittee
has been conducting interviews of fact witnesses without
including Democratic members or our staff. The chairman says
that the IG report ``reveals a calculating and political NRC
chairman who has abused his authority and withheld information
from fellow Commissioners.'' Well, that is how some of us feel
when we are being treated in this investigation by denying us
access to witness interviews. Let us make sure that our
committee operates as a model if we are going to criticize the
Commission for not operating as we would hope they would.
I look forward to hearing from the IG today and want to
reiterate that I support a thorough investigation into the
Yucca Mountain and the actions of the NRC, but any such
investigation should be fair and nonpartisan and I would hope
our committee will meet this standard.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
now calls for today's witness, the Honorable Hubert T. Bell,
Inspector General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He is
accompanied by Mr. Joseph McMillan, Assistant Inspector General
for Investigations at the NRC, and Ms. Rossana Raspa, Senior
Level Assistant for Investigative Operations in the Office of
Inspector General.
As you know, the testimony that you are about to give is
subject to Title XVIII, Section 1001, of the United States
Code. When holding an investigative hearing, this committee has
a practice of taking testimony under oath. Do you have any
objection to testifying under oath? And both shake their head
``no.''
The chair then advises you that under the rules of the
House and the rules of the committee, you are entitled to be
advised by counsel. Do you desire to be advised by counsel
during your testimony today? And the chair recognizes that all
shake their head, ``no.''
In that case, if you would please rise and raise your right
hand and I will swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. And now you may give your
5-minute summary of your written statement. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF HUBERT T. BELL, INSPECTOR GENERAL, NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH MCMILLAN,
ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INVESTIGATIONS, AND ROSSANA
RASPA, SENIOR LEVEL ASSISTANT FOR INVESTIGATIVE OPERATIONS
Mr. Bell. Good morning again. Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee, it is my pleasure to appear before you today.
With me are Mr. Joseph McMillan, Assistant Inspector General
for Investigations, and Ms. Rossana Raspa, Senior Level
Assistant for Investigative Operations.
The mission of the Office of Inspector General at the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to assist NRC by ensuring
integrity, efficiency, and accountability in the Agency's
programs. My office carries out this mission by independently
and objectively conducting and supervising audits and
investigations related to NRC's programs and operations;
preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse; and promoting
economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in NRC programs and
operations. Our operating budget is $10.860 million with 58
full-time employees.
Last week, my office issued a report conveying the results
of an investigation into an allegation that the NRC Chairman
unilaterally and improperly closed out NRC's review of the
Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain repository application
while the government was operating under a continuing
resolution during fiscal year 2011 and was purposely preventing
the Commission from completing its ruling on the Atomic Safety
Licensing Board's decision to deny DOE's motion to withdraw its
Yucca Mountain repository license application from NRC.
OIG also looked into concerns raised about the chairman's
management style and whether his control of information
prevents the other commissioners from effectively fulfilling
their statutory responsibility to address policy matters.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, names
Yucca Mountain as the single-candidate site for geological
high-level radioactive waste repository. Next, the Act states
that NRC will consider an application for construction of a
repository and issue a final decision within 3 years of
application's submission.
NRC accepted DOE's Yucca Mountain license application in
September 2008 and planned, at the end of the technical review,
to issue a safety evaluation report (SER) containing its
findings on the repository design. In February 2010, the Energy
Secretary noted during a Senate hearing that the Administration
would seek to suspend licensing for the Yucca Mountain
repository because it was not a workable option. In March 2010,
DOE submitted to the ASLB a motion to withdraw its Yucca
Mountain License Application, which the ASLB denied. The
Commission chose to review the ASLB decision and in August 2010
began consideration of this adjudicatory matter.
On September 30, Congress issued a continued resolution
directing federal agencies generally to spend money at 2010
levels to continue 2010 projects and activities. On October 4,
2010, NRC senior officials issued a memorandum directing staff
to continue its activities on Yucca Mountain license
application during the CR period in accordance with the
Commission's fiscal year 2011 congressional budget
justification. That document directed ``work related to the
orderly closure of the Agency's Yucca Mountain licensing
support activities.'' Soon after, the chairman directed staff
to stop working on SER and proceed to orderly closure of the
program.
OIG learned that the CR budget memorandum's language
directing staff to follow fiscal year 2011 budget guidance for
High-Level Waste Program activities was based on instruction
from the chairman's office. OIG found that the chairman used
the memorandum to initiate NRC's fiscal year 2011 plans to
close out its Yucca Mountain license application review,
although the budget had not been passed. The chairman's
decision was supported by the NRC General Counsel and
consistent with the discretion within the chairman's budget
execution authority under the Reorganization Plan Number 1 of
1980, OMB budget guidance for CR spending. The administration's
decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository project and
the chairman's interpretation of the Commission's fiscal year
2011 budget policy decisions.
OIG also found that while the chairman had the authority to
direct staff to follow the fiscal year 2011 budget guidance, he
was not forthcoming with the other commissioners about his
intent to stop work on the SER as part of implementing close-
out activities. Although he told executive director of
operations that all commissioners were informed of the support
issuance of the CR budget guidance memorandum, a majority
disagreed with the outcome of the memorandum, which was the
chairman's direction to stop work on the SER. Also, a majority
of the commissioners did not think the conditions to proceed to
closure had been met.
Although one commissioner wrote a commission action
memorandum, or COM, to the other commissioners on October 6
proposing to direct staff to continue working on SER, two
commissioners elected not to vote on the matter. Without a
majority, the Commission could not move the matter to policy
space within the Commission's purview.
OIG found that various factors are preventing NRC from
fulfilling its statutory obligation to review DOE's Yucca
Mountain Repository License Application and issue a final
decision concerning issuance of a construction authorization.
Factors include the administration's decision to terminate the
Yucca Mountain repository project, decreasing appropriations to
NRC for the High-Level Waste Program, and the chairman's
direction to stop work on an SER.
OIG found that the Commission's adjudicatory voting
procedures are not consistently enforced and they do not
provide details on the process that occurred between completion
of a notation vote on an adjudicatory matter and the conduct of
an affirmation vote. The lack of enforcement of and specificity
in the Commission's procedures--coupled with the Commission's
practice not to move to affirmation until all commissioners
agree to the affirmation notice and order--allows matters to
sit in abeyance without final Commission action.
OIG also found that the chairman controls the information
provided to the other commissioners based on his interpretation
of his statutory authority as chairman versus the authority
given to the Commission. Because the chairman manages and
controls information available to the other commissioners, they
are uncertain as to whether they are adequately informed of
policy matters that should be brought to their attention.
Ultimately, however, all commissioners have the ability to
bring any issue they perceive as a policy matter before the
Commission by writing a Commission action memorandum gaining a
majority of the Commission's support.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we would be
pleased now to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bell follows:]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much, Mr. Bell. I ask unanimous
consent that the contents of the document binder be introduced
into the record and to authorize staff to make any appropriate
redactions. Without objection, the document will be entered
into the record with any redactions that staff determines are
appropriate.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Shimkus. I now recognize myself for the first 5
minutes.
Again, Mr. Bell, thank you. Mr. Bell, how many interviews
did you conduct for this investigation?
Mr. Bell. Thirty-nine total, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. Thirty-nine total. And they were transcribed
interviews under oath, is that correct?
Mr. Bell. The majority were. I think maybe one or two were
not transcribed. They were all under oath.
Mr. Shimkus. They were all under oath?
Mr. Bell. Yes. But I think all but two were transcribed.
Mr. Shimkus. And did you review documents as well?
Mr. Bell. Yes, we did.
Mr. Shimkus. So your report is based on documentary
evidence and sworn testimony both in its narrative and its
findings, is that correct?
Mr. Bell. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. And this evaluation was conducted
independently without any direction or interference from
outside of the Office of the Inspector General?
Mr. Bell. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Bell, you investigated the chairman's
decision to close down the staff safety evaluation of the Yucca
license during a continuing resolution last October, correct?
Mr. Bell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. And you determined the senior NRC staff
expressed concerns that the whole Commission needed to be
onboard with guidance to this effect?
Mr. Bell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. And the chairman told senior staff he would
inform the Commission and later said the commissioners were in
agreement with the direction and implications of the direction.
Is that the case?
Mr. Bell. That is the case. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. But the chairman did not ensure the other
commissioners understood the implications of this guidance, did
he?
Mr. Bell. The inference that the chairman had told the
Commission was that before he issued any memorandum that all
the commissioners would be informed. And this was done to
either be himself having conversations with the commissioners
or his chief of staff talking to the Commission officers that
he had not personally spoken with or discussed it with.
Mr. Shimkus. But on your report, let me ask this again,
Chairman Jaczko did not ensure that each commissioner
understood the implications of the guidance?
Mr. Bell. No.
Mr. Shimkus. In fact, according to your investigation, the
chairman was not forthcoming with the commissioners. He did not
even talk to one of them and he did not explicitly explain his
plans to direct the shutdown of the Yucca review. Is that what
you found?
Mr. Bell. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. Is the Reorganization Plan of 1980 as amended
the statutory guidance under which the NRC operates?
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. According to the NRC statutory requirements in
this plan, the chairman ``shall be responsible for ensuring
that the Commission is fully and currently informed about
matters within its functions.'' Isn't that correct?
Mr. Bell. That is what the Reorganization Plan states, yes,
sir.
Mr. Shimkus. That is an essential responsibility of the
chairman as laid out in the law, correct?
Mr. Bell. Correct.
Mr. Shimkus. According to your investigation, the chairman
``strategically provided three of the four commissioners with
varying amounts of information about his intention to not
complete the safety evaluation report.'' That is what you
determined, correct?
Mr. Bell. That is what the investigation showed, yes, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. And that is what you determined as the author.
Now, is strategically withholding information from different
commissioners consistent with ``ensuring that the Commission is
fully and currently informed?''
Mr. Bell. It doesn't appear to be. No, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. From your investigation, it became clear that
many staff, including senior staff and the majority of the
commissioners considered the Yucca-related guidance and
directives imposed by the chairman to be a policy matter. Isn't
that correct?
Mr. Bell. A policy matter is correct.
Mr. Shimkus. At page 42 you write that ``the chairman
himself knew the Commission did not support the budget guidance
for the High-Level Waste Program and that he wanted to be
prepared for battle.'' So even the chairman recognized this
would be a policy fight, not an administrative matter, correct?
Mr. Bell. Correct.
Mr. Shimkus. Would you agree that the decisions surrounding
the Yucca Mountain application review have profound national
policy implications? Wouldn't you agree that it is a policy
matter?
Mr. Bell. It is a policy matter, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. What we see here, in fact, was a matter of
national policy which the chairman tried to manipulate into a
mere administrative matter solely within his control. Is this
consistent with the statutory obligations for how to formulate
policy?
Mr. Bell. No, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. And I would like to yield
5 minutes to the ranking member, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Your investigation evaluated two allegations that Chairman
Jaczko unilaterally and improperly closed out the NRC review of
the Yucca Mountain application while the government was
operating under a continuing resolution in fiscal year 2011,
and two, that the chair was preventing the Commission from
ruling on NRC Licensing Board decision to deny the DOE's motion
to withdraw Yucca. You found that the chairman had not been
forthcoming with all commissioners but ultimately he acted
within his authority. Did your office evaluate whether it was
appropriate to close the Yucca Mountain facility generally?
Mr. Bell. No, sir.
Mr. Green. OK. Does your report say it was wrong to close
the Yucca Mountain facility?
Mr. Bell. No, it does not. No, sir.
Mr. Green. And I didn't see it in your report but this is
the second time I have noticed an administration taking leave
under a continuing resolution. I would say did your
investigation discuss anything about an administration using, I
guess, very liberally interpreting a continuing resolution that
may not have been successful in Congress?
Mr. Bell. No. No, sir.
Mr. Green. Some of my colleagues have charged the chair
decided to close out the Yucca Mountain licensing review
process for some nefarious purpose and some have alleged this
was done directly at the behest of the President for political
purposes. In your investigation, did you find any indication
that the President reached out to the chairman and personally
asked him or contacted him to stop reviewing the Yucca Mountain
application?
Mr. Bell. No, sir.
Mr. Green. This report identified some serious
communication issues within the Commission and I think we need
to take those seriously. The report does not, however, find
illegal conduct, nor does it make any assertions more generally
about whether the administration's decision to close Yucca was
proper. I do think, Mr. Chairman, our committee needs to look
at what the NRC--and frankly, I think it is general government,
not just our committee. There has been a case--and I watched
what happened with NASA last year. Some decisions were made
based on the President's budget that did not pass the House of
Representatives or the Senate and yet they made these
administrative decisions to change programs. I think that might
be the problem we have. And I think whether it be NRC or even
other agencies, I think they need to come back to Congress
before they make these decisions, particularly after $15
billion in ratepayers' and taxpayers' money has been put into
it and after 25 years of work, all of a sudden a year ago say,
well, we are not going to accept that. So that is our problem.
I think Congress needs to take away that authority that they
are using.
Mr. Shimkus. Will the gentleman yield for one second?
Mr. Green. I would be glad to.
Mr. Shimkus. Kind of follow up on that. In this case, if
there is a policy decision that should be made, it should be
made by the commissioners collectively. Wouldn't you say that
is correct, Mr. Bell, a policy decision?
Mr. Bell. A policy decision should be the Commission.
Mr. Shimkus. And that is another way--this is a Commission,
so the Commission should all have a say when there is a change
in policy. And it is our contention, and I think the report
defends it, that the policy decisions were made by the
chairman.
Mr. Green. And I agree. It should be the Commission. But
ultimately on something this major, I think we ought to have
the opportunity as elected officials to make that decision
because, again, Appropriations for $15 billion for the last 25
years at least. And I yield back my time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank you, too, Mr. Bell for the report.
President Reagan, as we know, signed the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act back in 1982, almost 30 years ago. And in reading
again the Commercial Nuclear Waste GAO report from this last
April, I want to read to you one long paragraph. ``Prolonging
onsite storage would add to the taxpayer burden by increasing
the substantial liabilities that DOE has already incurred due
to onsite storage at commercial nuclear reactors. For DOE to
open Yucca in 2020 as it had planned, it began taking custody
of spent nuclear fuel, it would still have taken decades to
take custody of the entire inventory of spent nuclear fuel.
Assuming that 2020 opening of Yucca, the DOE estimated that the
total taxpayer liabilities for the backlog as of 2020 would be
about $15.4 billion. It would increase by half a billion for
each year of delay thereafter. It is important to recognize
that these liabilities are outside of the nearly 15 billion
already spent on developing a repository and the estimated 41
to 67 billion still to be spent if Yucca Mountain repository
were to be constructed and become operational, most of the cost
of which is borne by the Nuclear Waste Fund.'' So nearly $100
billion at the end of the day.
In reading the report this weekend, I want to read just a
couple comments on three commissioners. The first is Commission
Magwood, who, on page 17, you write, ``Magwood also told the
chairman that he would not support a precipitous termination of
the High-Level Waste Program. According to Commissioner
Magwood, the chairman assured him that this was not the
expectation.'' ``According to Commissioner Magwood, the
chairman became very agitated and said that he would never have
taken these actions had both Commissioners Apostolakis and
Magwood not agreed to support the guidance. Commissioner
Magwood said that he objected to this statement quite strongly
and that the chairman never told him his plan had been to shut
down the High-Level Waste Program and withhold publication of
SER Volume III.''
Then on Commissioner Ostendorff, you write on page 18,
``Commissioner Ostendorff stated that on October 1, 2010,
Chairman Jaczko told him that the CR budget guidance memo would
have the staff commence orderly closure of Yucca license
application review. Ostendorff told the chairman that he
disagreed with his direction. The direction was wrong and you
should not issue it.''
As it relates to the third commissioner, Commissioner
Svinicki, you write on page 19, ``On October 5, her staff
informed Chairman Jaczko's office that she objected to the CR
guidance. She stated that she did not have any direct
communication with Chairman Jaczko's review regarding the
matter before the CR budget guidance memo was issued on October
4, 2010.'' So can one come to a different conclusion than there
were at least three votes in opposition of where they
ultimately were? And it is a pretty damning report as it
relates to his control of these three commissioners who in fact
said on the record that they didn't agree. Can one come to a
different conclusion?
Mr. Bell. I will let Mr. McMillan answer.
Mr. McMillan. Clearly, each of those commissioners, sir,
thought that the budget guidance memorandum that was being
circulated would not stop the SER from progressing. While the
Commission might very well be moving towards closure of the
program itself, in each of those cases when the individuals
were interviewed, it was their impression that the SER would,
in fact, be continued.
Mr. Upton. But was it not the fact that the staff review of
the SER plan was going to be expedited and it was Chairman
Jaczko who said slow down?
Mr. McMillan. That is correct. There was a meeting in the
June time frame of 2010 when the staff went to the chairman and
indicated a desire to advance SER's related to numbers I and
III, the issues related to Volumes I and III. The chairman did
indicate to the staff that he wanted to maintain the published
schedule that was in the record at that time. That was their
understanding that they would maintain the public schedule of
timing.
Mr. Upton. What did the commissioners feel when they
learned that the SER III decision had been withheld from them,
their reaction?
Mr. McMillan. And again, staying within the context of the
report, through the interviews, clearly the commissioners that
we spoke to that had no understanding of this SER being
stopped, OK, were somewhat agitated by that fact and they did
in fact raise the issues back with the chairman regarding their
discussions that he had had and the indications that at no time
did they understand that the SER and the findings in the SER
would be stopped.
Mr. Shimkus. The chairman's time has expired. The chair now
recognizes the chairman emeritus, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bell, over the last few months, the chairman of this
subcommittee has told us that the NRC chairman acted illegally
with regard to its handling of Yucca Mountain. Mr. Bell, you
have conducted a 7-month investigation of this matter. Did you
find that the chairman of the NRC acted illegally?
Mr. Bell. No, we didn't, sir.
Mr. Waxman. OK. Your report describes concerns raised by
some Commission staff that Chairman Jaczko controls and
restricts the information provided to his fellow commissioners.
Some of this appears to be due to a change in management style.
For example, Chairman Jaczko has taken a more hands-on role in
the budget process. As your report describes, the chairman
meets with division directors to provide direction on the
Agency's priorities, and then each division formulates a budget
document and submits it to the chairman and the chairman sees
the budget as his responsibility and it says that he is
entitled to develop the budget as he sees fit. Mr. Bell,
although some staff and commissioners may not like this
approach, does it mean it was illegal?
Mr. Bell. It is not illegal and it is the prerogative of
the chairman to the direction of the budget. And this chairman
has elected to have the budget filter through him and his
office and then he disseminates it back to the Commission.
Mr. Waxman. Now, Chairman Jaczko made a decision that there
should be an orderly shutdown of Yucca Mountain because he did
not think that the NRC was going to have enough funds to pursue
the matter. Wasn't that decision vindicated by the continuing
resolution passed overwhelmingly by the House and the Senate
and signed by the President where $10 million was provided to
close out Yucca Mountain's consideration?
Mr. Bell. Well, obviously, yes, sir. And a decrease in the
budget for the High-Level Waste Program was one of the
contributing factors to moving toward a closeout because it
eventually was a zero budget for High-Level Waste.
Mr. Waxman. So the chairman made a decision about the
budget and others might not have agreed with it, but he made
that decision and it looked like it was vindicated by the
actions of the Congress.
Similarly, the chairman has taken a more active role in the
planning of the Commission's agenda. At times he has directed
staff to not develop an issue paper for the review of the whole
Commission. At other times he has determined that an issue
paper is an administrative matter, not a policy matter worthy
of consideration by the Commission. The IG report states that
the chairman wants to control the flow of policy issues to the
Commission to allow them to be more efficient. Of course, some
disagree and see this as a means to limit the information
available to other commissioners. Mr. Bell, although some staff
and commissioners may not like this chairman's approach, does
that mean it is illegal?
Mr. Bell. It is not illegal because remember I said that
any commissioner has an opportunity to write a COM and get a
majority vote on the COM and then it moves from a policy space
to Commission space. But you have to have majority Commission
agree with the COM. So he has not done anything illegal, but
each commissioner knows if they want to move an issue from the
chairman's purview to the Commission's purview, then they have
to get a majority vote by writing a COM and having the
commissioners vote on it. To date that hasn't been done.
Mr. Waxman. What is a COM?
Mr. Bell. A communication memorandum of an issue that they
want to bring forward.
Mr. Waxman. I see. So they could have acted to take this
issue away from the chairman but they did not.
Mr. Bell. They can take any issue that they get a consensus
on, a majority vote on and move it from the chairman's purview
to the Commission agenda.
Mr. Waxman. OK. It seems to me that the chairman's
interpretation of his role and responsibilities differs from
how other commissioners see his role and responsibilities. And
this seems to appear to be the root cause of the conflict. Your
report, Mr. Bell, also notes that Chairman Jaczko has a ``bad
temper'' and created what some employees describe as an
``intimidating work environment.'' And that Chairman Jaczko
admits in the report to having a short fuse, especially with
his fellow commissioners. Mr. Bell, he obviously should work on
his interpersonal skills at the office, but does this mean his
behavior is illegal?
Mr. Bell. No.
Mr. Waxman. And I could just say from my own experience, I
serve on this committee, I know my colleagues in a professional
way. I am surprised when I hear that some of them have a huge
temper and they are rude to their staffs. I am shocked when I
hear that some of the colleagues that I serve with on the
committee might Twitter things to people. I just don't have any
knowledge of it but I guess the members of this Commission and
the staff noticed his poor interpersonal skills. Not admirable,
is it? That is, I guess, a rhetorical question, Mr. Bell.
Mr. Green said that the report does not find illegal
conduct, nor does it make any assertion more generally about
whether the administration's decision to close Yucca Mountain
repository was proper. Is that an accurate statement? Should I
repeat it?
Mr. Bell. Yes, repeat it again, sir.
Mr. Waxman. He said that the report does not find illegal
conduct, nor does it make any assertion more generally about
whether the administration's decision to close Yucca Mountain
was proper.
Mr. Bell. Yes, that is accurate.
Mr. Waxman. And then Mr. Green went on to say I do think
Congress needs to address the issue. But Congress did address
the issue in the continuing resolution.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Waxman. Is that a correct statement?
Mr. Shimkus. You can answer him, Mr. Bell.
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the chairman emeritus of the full committee, Mr.
Barton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't know where these rumors come from that Members have
tempers. That must be on the minority side. We are all peace
and light and sunshine on the majority side, you know, so----
Mr. Waxman. I read a Twitter about it.
Mr. Barton. You read a Twitter about it? Well, we will
investigate those rumors, Chairman Waxman, get to the bottom of
it.
I want to put into the record, Mr. Chairman, an article
from the December 2010 periodical called ``Waste Management.''
It is part of the Nuclear News magazine and it refers to former
Chairman Dale Klein's comments. He wrote an open letter to the
Commission and to several journalists about this issue that we
are debating today or investigating today. And I will put the
entire article in the record but part of his open letter
states--this is former NRC chairman Dale Klein--that ``there
was no intention by the Commission''--by that he means the
NRC--``to approve or even contemplate a preemptive termination
of the High-Level Waste Program.'' I would ask that this be put
into the record.
Mr. Shimkus. Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Barton. OK. I have read the executive summary, Mr.
Bell, of your investigatory report and I listened as you
answered some questions from Chairman Waxman. It is my
understanding that one of your conclusions is that while
Chairman Jaczko didn't act appropriately, it is your opinion
that he did not violate any law. Is that correct?
Mr. Bell. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Barton. Now, I have a different opinion and I am not an
inspector general so my opinion is just that. I think it is an
informed opinion. But I have read the statute that applies to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and it has language that says
the chairman ``must fully inform other commissioners of all
pending actions.'' You yourself in your report say that
Chairman Jaczko I believe said misled but he certainly didn't
fully inform all the other commissioners. If that is a true
statement, how can he not have violated federal law?
Mr. McMillan. Sir, what we are attempting to convey in the
report was the fact that if the commissioner on the Commission
wanted to move his decision from budget space to policy space,
there was a mechanism by which to do that. And clearly,
Commissioner Ostendorff attempted to do that with his COM in
October shortly after the CR memorandum guidance.
Mr. Barton. How can you put the burden on a commissioner if
the chairman has the information and the chairman doesn't fully
inform the other commissioners? I mean how can you then put the
burden of proof so to speak on an uninformed unaware
commissioner?
Mr. McMillan. It was the responsibility to ensure all the
commissioners understood the purpose of the budget guidance
memorandum. That clearly was a responsibility of the chairman.
Mr. Barton. If I understand your report correctly, he
failed that responsibility. Is that not correct?
Mr. McMillan. The report reflects the fact that the
commissioners that were involved in that process went to the
chairman and indicated that had they known that the SER was
going to be stopped that they would not have even given tacit
approval towards moving that document----
Mr. Barton. So that would appear to me to factually prove
that he violated the law. I mean I don't know how you can have
it any other way. He has got an obligation under law to fully
inform the commissioners. Your own report indicates that he
didn't fully inform. The commissioners said that had they
known, they would have taken preemptive action to prevent what
he did. He violated the law. He did not uphold his
responsibility under the statute. That is clear layman common
sense. My time has expired. I have two more things I want to
state.
Before you issued this report about him not violating the
law, did you check with outside legal counsel on that issue?
Mr. Bell. No, we didn't, sir.
Mr. Barton. Did not. So this is an internal decision. What
is your opinion, Mr. Inspector General, as of right now the
licensing application for Yucca Mountain? Is it active? Has it
been terminated? Should it still be acted upon? What is the
legal standing given that the Construction Authorization Board
refused to allow the Department of Energy to withdraw that
application?
Mr. Bell. Well, the ASLB denied the appeal. So the
application is still before the Commission. And until----
Mr. Barton. So it is active? It should be acted upon. The
Commission should make a decision on it. Is that not correct?
Mr. Bell. Correct.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bell, in the beginning of your report, you provide some
historical background for the structure of the NRC and more
specifically for the chairman's authority. I think this is
important based on the last questioning. I understand that when
the Commission was established, much of the power was evenly
distributed among the commissioners, is that correct?
Mr. Bell. Under the Reorganization Act?
Ms. DeGette. Under the original structure of the
Commission, much of it was evenly distributed, right?
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. And then it was changed and it was changed
because of Three-Mile Island, is that right?
Mr. Bell. Correct.
Ms. DeGette. And after Three-Mile Island, both the
Presidential Commission and an NRC-commissioned review
identified issues with that structure I described with the
equal power, and so they completely overhauled the Commission's
structure. Is that right?
Mr. Bell. Correct.
Ms. DeGette. Now, can you talk to me for a minute about
some of the expanded duties and responsibilities of the
chairman under that Reorganization Plan in 1980?
Mr. McMillan. Specifically, ma'am----
Ms. DeGette. Mr. McMillan?
Mr. McMillan [continuing]. Under Section 2 of the
Reorganizaiton Plan, it assigns the chairman responsibility for
all functions, serving as the Commission's spokesman, serving
as the Commission's principle executive officer responsible for
developing policy planning and guidance for consideration by
the Commission. It also assigns him the responsibility of the
administrative functions of the Commission, distribution of
business among the offices of the Commission and preparation of
the budget estimates, and then proposed the distribution of
appropriated funds. The Reorg. Plan states that the chairman
determines the use in expenditure funds of the Commission in
accordance with the distribution of appropriated funds. So
clearly, he has got some unique responsibilities and duties----
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Mr. McMillan [continuing]. That are different than those of
other commissioners.
Ms. DeGette. He has got additional responsibilities and
duties?
Mr. McMillan. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. DeGette. Is that right?
Mr. McMillan. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. DeGette. And that plan was approved by Congress as I
understand it.
Mr. Bell. 1980.
Ms. DeGette. And it was approved in 1980? Thank you.
Mr. Bell. Reorganization.
Ms. DeGette. And so really to say what may or may not have
happened in this situation with Chairman Jaczko is illegal is
probably inaccurate, and I think you have answered that about
10 times. Is that correct, Mr. Bell?
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a
suggestion. And Mr. Murphy will tell you we had a very, very
informative trip last week where we looked at nuclear disposal,
studies for permanent and also reprocessing and interim
disposal. And I have been interested in this issue for many,
many years ever since I went to Yucca Mountain with Chairman
Emeritus Barton and I have been thinking, irrespective of what
you think about the issue of nuclear energy for this country as
a policy, the fact is that we have to grapple with this, and we
have to grapple with it in a way that is science-based, not in
a way that is based on politics.
And the concern I have is that in this country, much of
what we have done--and you can argue on either side of the
aisle who is more at fault--is we base our issues on how we
should dispose of the current and future nuclear waste,
politics and not on science where it will work.
And so I guess my suggestion would be, look, we are in a
situation right now where we had looked at Yucca Mountain, they
were undergoing their scientific studies. The last
administration tried to expedite the certifications even though
the studies weren't over, and now this administration has shut
it down. And we can argue back and forth whether what the
chairman did was illegal or just wrong or maybe not wrong at
all or maybe just a miscommunication. We can argue about all of
that, but the truth is we now don't have a permanent facility
that is either certified or under certification process. And it
seems to me that that would be a very fertile area for us to
look at in this committee because at some point, irrespective
of how we decide to take our nuclear energy policy in the
future, we are going to have to grapple with this.
And so that would be my suggestion. We can waste a lot of
time arguing about these details or we can move forward and say
what are we going to do now coming from where we come?
Thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady yields back her time. And I
would just say that the delay of the SER report is a delay of
science-based information for Yucca. That is part of this whole
debate is the SER report, which has been delayed. And I yield 5
minutes to the vice chairman of the committee, Mr. Murphy, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It certainly is important from my friend from Colorado that
it is important to adhere to scientific information because the
implication is not only what happens to Yucca Mountain, but
this impacts the credibility of the NRC on many issues of
licensing.
So Mr. Bell, last week, Chairman Jaczko issued a press
release claiming your office has exonerated him of any
wrongdoing. I am not certain that the report really supports
that interpretation so let me ask this: first of all, on the
matter of the continuing resolution budget guidance issued
unilaterally by the chairman, your report makes it clear that
the senior career NRC managers and other commissioners and even
the chairman himself believed it to be a policy matter. Is that
correct?
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Mr. Murphy. Now, in fact, on page 22 of your report you say
that the chairman told the executive director of operations,
``There may be commissioners who don't agree with this and will
try to make it a policy issue.'' Your report states that the
EDO had already advised the chairman that this was a policy
matter--on page 15--and therefore, it should have been brought
before the Commission, is that correct?
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Mr. Murphy. I believe the quote on page 15 is that, ``He
believed that if the commissioners decide the matter was a
policy issue, they could vote on it.'' He said, ``he expressed
his concerns''--the chairman--``that the Commission needed to
see the memorandum.'' And your report also details the efforts
of the chairman and his staff made to mislead the
commissioners, deny them the information they needed to make an
informed decision, and prevent other commissioner views on this
matter being considered. Is that correct?
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Mr. Murphy. Now, is it a crime to mislead?
Mr. Bell. It is not a crime but it certainly is not an up-
front way to do business. And also the exoneration--the
chairman's statement was the chairman's statement. We had no
input or anything into the chairman's statements just for the
record.
Mr. Murphy. And is it against the law to overturn a statute
that Congress has passed and signed into law?
Mr. Bell. No.
Mr. Murphy. It is not a crime--not illegal to do that?
Mr. Bell. I mean if Congress overturns it?
Mr. Murphy. No. If there was a statement that says that the
chairman and executive director of operations to the chairman
shall be responsible for ensuring that the Commission is fully
and currently informed about matters within its functions. And
that was signed into law and that is specifically,
categorically an order. Is that illegal?
Mr. Bell. It is wrong.
Mr. Murphy. OK. Is the chairman of the NRC statutorily
required, then, under the Reorganization Plan of 1980, as
amended, to keep its commissioners fully and currently
informed?
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Mr. Murphy. OK. So the chairman and executive director of
the NRC are required under law, as you said, to keep the
Commission fully and currently informed of Agency activities.
Do you conclude from your investigation that this is currently
happening that it is fully and currently informed? Is that your
conclusion that it is fully happening or it is not happening?
Mr. Bell. It is not being fully informed, correct.
Mr. Murphy. OK.
Mr. Bell. Now, I think the chairman has given them just
enough information to proceed in the manner that he wanted to
proceed with the----
Mr. Murphy. But that isn't the matter that the chairman
wanted to----
Mr. Bell. But that----
Mr. Murphy. From what you have said so far on a couple of
occasions now that that runs contrary to what the statute says
was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. So
how does failure to follow statutory obligations exonerate the
chairman's actions?
Ms. Raspa. I am sorry. What was the question?
Mr. Murphy. My point is, given the statements made by Mr.
Bell here in reference to this statute, my question then how
does failure to follow statutory obligations exonerate the
chairman's actions? You have to put the microphone up close,
ma'am.
Ms. Raspa. The reorganization plan was premised on keeping
the commissioners informed of matters within their purview. And
so they were aware of the chairman's actions. They didn't fully
understand the implications of that CR budget memorandum.
Mr. Murphy. But I challenge that. As Commissioner Magwood
stated, ``The chairman never told him his plan had been to shut
down the High-Level Waste Program and withhold publication of
SER Volume III. The chairman responded to him, you should have
asked.'' So is intent to mislead by withholding information to
effect behavior an actual policy matter, isn't this a violation
of the statute?
Mr. McMillan. What we attempted, again, sir, to do was to
lay out what transpired during the course of these sequence of
events and leave the interpretations whether it be regarding
legality, OK, to others.
Mr. Murphy. I understand.
Mr. McMillan. Clearly, when you have----
Mr. Murphy. I am not asking whether this is criminal or
not. I think this is a whole other legal issue. The question is
is it a violation of the statute? Is it a violation of the
statute in terms of what they actually did, what was actually
going on?
Mr. McMillan. One could draw that conclusion that it is
opposite the intent of that statute, yes.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Bell, thanks
for being with us today. We appreciate it.
I want to touch on, initially, the Department of Energy's
motion to withdraw the application, which was denied by the
Appeal Board. And then after that and the subject of a lot of
this is the fact that there has not been a final vote by the
Commission on whether or not to uphold the Appeal Board.
And Chairman Ostendorff said--and I want to know if your
investigation affirmed this--but he said that he went to
Chairman Jaczko on September the 9th, September the 14th,
October the 5th, October the 19th, October the 27th wanting to
know when they were going to vote on this. Did your
investigation affirm that?
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Mr. Whitfield. He did talk to him on those occasions? OK.
And Chairman Jaczko told him that he was delaying it because he
was concerned that a 2-2 vote would leave the Appeal Board
decision in limbo, is that correct?
Mr. Bell. That is correct.
Mr. Whitfield. And some of the Commission members felt like
a 2-2 vote would actually uphold the Appeal Board decision, is
that correct?
Mr. Bell. In most instances, a 2-2 vote does uphold.
Mr. Whitfield. So what did your investigation find out that
Jaczko was thinking about when he said it would leave the Board
in limbo--the decision in limbo?
Ms. Raspa. Regarding the adjudicatory matter, we could only
look into the process of their votes. We could not look at
their thinking and what was behind their thinking in casting
those votes.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. But a 2-2 vote upholds the Board and at
least some people are saying that Jaczko is saying well, I
didn't want to vote because I am afraid a 2-2 vote would leave
this in confusion. OK.
In addition to that, I just read through some of this
testimony and your report and it says that Chairman Jaczko
controls and restricts information available to his fellow
commissioners. Did you have people say that?
Mr. Bell. Yes, we had.
Mr. Whitfield. They view him as unprofessional and
manipulative. Did you find that?
Mr. Bell. That was things that have been said also, yes.
Mr. Whitfield. They find that he suppresses papers and
manipulates the agenda planning process because he wants to
control the sequence of papers to be presented to the
Commission.
Ms. Raspa. The chairman has also indicated that he is
trying to prioritize those matters that----
Mr. Whitfield. I am not asking what he is trying to do. I
am just asking was this told to you. It says here that you were
told that the chairman withholds information to the Commission
by either suppressing papers or manipulating the agenda.
Mr. Bell. Yes, we were told that.
Mr. Whitfield. You were told that? OK. You were also told
that the distinction between policy issues and administrative
actions is a subject of contention within the Commission, is
that correct?
Mr. McMillan. Yes.
Mr. Bell. That is correct. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. And, of course, the chairman would like if
he wants it to be administrative, then it is not a policy
matter so he would have more control over that, is that
correct?
Mr. Bell. That is correct. Anything that is not policy he
would have.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. And it says that some people have said
that he acts in an unprofessional way, that he uses
intimidation, that there is a work environment of intimidation,
he yells at people, his tactics have a negative impact on the
camaraderie in the office or in the Agency. He rules by
intimidation. His behavior creates an environment in which it
is difficult for people to work with him. He even said that
himself. And the thing that disturbs me about this here you
have a chairman of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission that has
such a dramatic impact on this country that is now resulting in
legal judgments against the Federal Government paid for by
taxpayers, and the clear impression is that we have one
chairman over there who is unprofessional, who intimidates, who
manipulates, and this has all been testified to by people that
you have interviewed. Is that correct?
Mr. Bell. That is correct.
Mr. Whitfield. And would you say that the tenure of that
would be a violation of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
if you are trying to have a collegial atmosphere and provide
transparency and information, what has been testified to by
these people, his actions would be violating that Act, wouldn't
it?
Mr. Bell. I don't think it violates the Act. I mean the
judgment and the personality and everything that goes with his
demeanor at times people consider it unprofessional.
Mr. Whitfield. All right. I see my time has expired.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bell, in your report you asked the chairman to respond
to your office on what, if any, action he intends to take in
response to your investigation. To your knowledge, does the
press release last week by Chairman Jaczko that he was
exonerated represent the views of the Commission?
Mr. Bell. No, that is the chairman's press statement. That
is his press release to the report.
Mr. Pitts. Do you consider his press release an adequate
response to your report?
Mr. Bell. That is not a response to me at all. That is just
a press release that he issues publicly. So we have not had any
correspondence with the chairman about the report yet.
Mr. Pitts. What do you intend to do if the chairman fails
to respond formally to your report?
Mr. Bell. I mean the report stands on its own and the
report will stay open until we get some response. If we don't
get a response, then the actual report itself will be closed
until we get some notice from the chairman. Then it would be an
open report.
Mr. Pitts. All right. Regarding the issuance of the CR
guidance, the executive director for operations on page 15
said, ``expressed his concerns to the chairman that the
Commission needed to see the memorandum.'' And the chairman
told him ``the memorandum would not be issued until the other
commissioners were on board with the memorandum language.'' The
EDO went on to testify that ``the Chairman told him that all
four commissioners were in agreement with the language.'' Is
that correct?
Mr. Bell. That is what we were told, yes.
Mr. Pitts. Now, you conclude that the chairman selectively
mislead three commissioners and to one commissioner he revealed
nothing at all about the CR guidance to close out the Yucca
review, is that correct?
Mr. Bell. That is correct.
Mr. Pitts. So someone's testimony appears to be false here.
Either the EDO is misstating that he received this assurance
from the chairman or the chairman did not tell the truth to the
EDO about having the agreement of the other commissioners. How
do you reconcile this testimony?
Ms. Raspa. The chairman did not recall when asked if he had
communicated to the EDO and exactly what he had communicated in
terms of giving him the green light to issue this CR
memorandum. However, the EDO, as you have indicated, does say
or did tell us that the chairman told him the memorandum could
be issued, all were on board, he had spoken to all the
commissioners. And therefore, based on that, he signed the CR
memorandum.
Mr. Pitts. Well, I think a question raised by this report
here is that somebody is not telling the truth in this process.
Your report lays out what people say, but you do not connect
the dots. What are the next steps?
Ms. Raspa. We cannot say that the chairman lied to us. He
said he did not recall what he told the EDO quite frankly. That
is in our report. There is a conflict and sometimes you can't
resolve that conflict.
Mr. Pitts. Is this investigation continuing? Are there
other facts and issues that you believe warrant investigation?
Mr. McMillan. At this juncture this is still an open
investigation. If something were to be presented to us that
necessitated us looking at a particular issue related to the
allegations themselves, then clearly we would take it under
that context, you know, to assess. But as Ms. Raspa said,
occasionally in an investigation, as you are cognizant of, you
can't always reconcile the testimonies between people. There
was no anecdotal documentary evidence to line up specifically
what the chairman recalled or did not recall in relationship to
the EDO's testimony that it was, in fact, told to him. So this
was a point that we just could not resolve regarding that
communication.
Mr. Pitts. So it appears that Chairman Jaczko has let
politics trump science here, that he has manipulated the
process. He has misled some of the fellow commissioners about
the consequences of the actions they were taking. And I think
the credibility of the NRC has been damaged. Its reputation has
been damaged. There are some real serious questions about the
Agency's independence and scientific integrity, and I thank you
for your testimony.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Bass, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to follow up
very quickly on a line of questioning that Mr. Pitts brought up
at the beginning of his time.
It is my understanding that the chairman of the NRC sent
out a press release after this report was published exonerating
himself. Is that the only response that he is required to make
to your report?
Mr. Bell. The press release is not a response to my report.
His response to my report has to be directed to me.
Mr. Bass. And he hasn't done that, right?
Mr. Bell. No, he hasn't done that. I mean we normally----
Mr. Bass. He has no obligation to either, right?
Mr. Bell. Well, no, we give him an opportunity to respond,
and normally we give 120 days.
Mr. Bass. So if nothing happens in 120 days, it is the end
as far as you are concerned?
Mr. Bell. Well, it is the end of what we looked at.
Mr. Bass. Yes. All right. Fair enough. I have a couple of
questions regarding control of Commission information.
Mr. Bell, is it your experience that under former
chairmen's staff could bring policy matters directly to the
full Commission?
Mr. Bell. Under previous chairmen?
Mr. Bass. Yes. Is it your experience that under previous
chairmen it was the standard that staff could bring policy
matters directly to the full Commission?
Mr. Bell. I don't know firsthand but it has never come to
us in a manner that was disputed like this.
Mr. Bass. All right. Fair enough. Yet your report under
Chairman Jaczko the staff was not able to bring policy matters
directly to Commission, were they?
Mr. McMillan. I can help clarify that to some degree.
Mr. Bass. Yes, certainly.
Mr. McMillan. The staff has periodic meetings, OK, with all
of the commissioners, including the chairman. And during the
course of those meetings, a variety of issues are serviced
which is coming from the staff in and of itself. It is just the
manner by which the current chairman handles the agenda if you
would is where there has been some disconnects from previous
chairmen in the Commission itself.
Mr. Bass. Well, do you think it is fair to say that the
staff were constrained from communicating policy matters to the
full commission or on matters that the chairman may have had a
disagreement with staff?
Ms. Raspa. I think that as Mr. McMillan indicated, the
staff does communicate with each of the commissioners. They
generally know what the staff may be working on. What becomes
more difficult is when the staff is looking for guidance and
wants to, for example, get a paper up to the commissioners that
that process has to go through the EDO who in turn has to go
through the chairman. And it is at that point where even though
the commissioners know, they may not know always real time as
items are coming up they have to be prioritized.
Mr. Bass. Let me reconstruct the sentence. Do you think
that the staff was constrained from communicating policy
matters to commissioners at any time?
Mr. Bell. I would say yes.
Mr. Bass. OK. Fair enough. According to your report on page
29, the executive director of operations, EDO, said the
chairman did not want any differences between his budget and
staff's budget and sought as his budget proposal. The chairman
also wanted the opportunity to review and change any of the
staff's responses to the commissioners' questions. Do you
believe unilaterally editing staff information supplied to the
Commission is an appropriate way to manage Agency information
sharing?
Mr. Bell. Well, again, this chairman has operated
differently than previous chairmen. And previous chairmen it
was a more open and collaborative discussion of the budget.
This chairman has sought to take the budget as his
responsibility and has taken full responsibility for it. I mean
if commissioner officers seek any information from any office,
then all this information has to be filtered back through the
chairman's office for a response.
Mr. Bass. So in your opinion, unilaterally editing staff
information supplied to the Commission is an appropriate way,
then, to manage Agency information?
Mr. Bell. No.
Mr. Bass. OK. Fair enough. Your report on page 37 that the
chairman's budget estimate was submitted to the Commission
without fundamental supporting documents presented by the
staff, is that correct?
Mr. Bell. Correct. But I think that has subsequently,
though the general counsel, has advised the chairman's office
that when he submits budget information to any of the offices
that there has to be supporting documentation to support the
budget or the appearance is everything is coming from the
chairman himself. So I think the chairman has recognized that
in the future any budget items that go forward has to have some
supporting documentation from the office that provided the
budget information.
Mr. Bass. Mr. Chairman, I am out of time. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
thanks very much for being here today. Sitting through these
hearings I have come to the conclusion if I was teaching
federal administrative law in law school, I would have the
perfect case study to do. And also having been a county
commissioner back in the State of Ohio where we actually had
rules and regulations that we had to follow, this is amazing.
And I know that Chairman Barton expressed that in the last
hearing, and I am just astounded what I have been hearing today
and also when I read the report because, you know, I make lots
of tabs and everything else.
But if I could, you know, the questions, you know, you said
it is the prerogative of the chair who gets the information,
but, you know, first of all, doesn't this Board sit as a quasi-
judicial board, Mr. Bell? Would it sit as a quasi-judicial
board?
Mr. Bell. Quasi-judicial board?
Mr. Latta. Right, when it is making its rulings. And it has
to hear from all the parties and it has to have the information
come before the Board?
Mr. Bell. I think the Commission as a whole has to make a
decision----
Mr. Latta. Right, but the Board makes the decision but is
it quasi-judicial as it is doing this?
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Mr. Latta. OK. And would you also say that the Commission
needs to make timely actions on their actions when they have
something come before it? Because if you don't, justice delayed
is justice denied in these cases. Would that be a fair
statement?
Mr. Bell. Well, to think that within a certain time frame
after anything has happened that you would have motions going
forward to end whatever they are in the process of doing.
Mr. Latta. Yes, and also following along, then, when the
Commission's own internal procedures say the commissioners
should vote within 10 business days and parties are waiting for
the outcome, isn't holding a vote unfair in that situation?
Mr. Bell. Well, it seems unfair but there is no--I mean the
voting processes are relaxed. It is not enforced the way it
should be.
Mr. Latta. And I did find your report very, very
interesting because on page 36 when you were talking about the
chairman told the OIG he did not recall the email from his
chief of staff advising him not to request an extension to vote
and that he did not realize an extension was required on
adjudicatory matters if a vote was not cast within 10 days. He
said that the Commission does not always act in accordance with
procedures. For example, the procedures say that the Commission
votes on matters within 10 days, but then he goes on. He said
that the Commission procedures are a guideline and not absolute
rules, which take us back to what was being said here earlier,
going back to the Reorganization Plan within Section 1, Section
2, you know, it really lays out what the Commission is supposed
to be doing. Did the Commission act the way it should have been
acting under its own rules and regulations.
Mr. Bell. No. No.
Mr. Latta. OK. Going on. On page 29, again, this report is
just fascinating. Page 29 when you were interviewing
Commissioner Ostendorff talking about what was going on July
the 11th, 2010, it says the general counsel, again, the general
counsel--the attorney--told Commissioner Ostendorff that it was
his experience that there were certain issues that the chairman
does not want to hear from him on. He goes on to say ``the
conversation left him with the impression that there was
possibly not an open environment for OGC to provide unfiltered
advice to the chairman without fear of retribution.'' Is that
the way that we have due process being carried out in one of
our administrative boards or commissions here? You know, going
back to the whole idea of due process and getting something
done, did that occur under the policy of the Commission?
Mr. Bell. That is what we were told. I mean this is what
Commissioner Ostendorff said that the general counsel told him.
Again, I mean, you know----
Mr. Latta. OK. And again, in your opening statement, again,
you know, intriguing. Page 7, again, in your opening statement,
you know, it is very interesting. The first full paragraph when
you said in the second line ``OIG also found that although the
chairman had authority to direct staff to follow the FY 2011
budget guidance, he was not forthcoming with other
commissioners about his intent to stop work on the SER as part
of the implementing of his closeout activities.'' So again, is
that proper procedure under the law and under what they have as
their rules and regulations at the NRC?
Mr. Bell. No.
Mr. Latta. OK. And just real briefly, you know, when you
are saying ``not forthcoming,'' and I think the term by one of
my fellow colleagues appears something about being misled, you
know, are we talking about a word that we should be using is a
lie, to mislead? Is it a lie to not be forthcoming or are we
just talking about what some people like to talk about back
home--they call it a lie back home but here we are talking
about a white lie?
Mr. McMillan. That is for a characterization, is a white
lie or an outright--it was clear that the commissioners that
spoke with the agents conveyed the fact that they did not have
all the information to believe that that SER was going to be
stopped as a part of that budget guidance memorandum. That is
factually what we were told by each of those commissioners that
we interviewed. Now, the characterization as to his intentions
behind it, his mens rea thoughts about it, we didn't get into
that quite frankly with regard to--what we were trying to do
was line up what occurred when and how did this document get
out without their concurrence if you would. And that is what
they told us is that they had no knowledge that the SER was
going to be stopped.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is
expired and I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
is going to ask unanimous consent that Mr. Markey be recognized
for 5 minutes. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
I find it highly ironic that we are having a hearing to
express the majority's apparent surprise that matters related
to Yucca Mountain are sometimes political. This issue has been
nothing but political from the very beginning. The Department
of Energy was supposed to select two scientifically appropriate
sites, one east of Mississippi and one west of Mississippi
River. But the Speaker of the House then said he didn't want it
in Texas. That was one of the sites. The second site was in
Washington State. The majority leader came from Washington
State. He said I don't want it in Washington State. It was out.
The third state was the salt domes in Louisiana. The chairman
of the Committee on Energy from the Senate said I don't want it
in Louisiana. The fourth site was in North Carolina. The
ranking Republican on this committee said I don't want it in
North Carolina. Mississippi itself was a potential site, but
they had a very powerful delegation at that time and they said
we don't want it in Mississippi.
And John Sununu as the Governor of New Hampshire on behalf
of George Bush running for president in '88 said we don't want
it in the granite formations of New Hampshire. And so the
nuclear queen of spades wound up--not on a scientific basis but
a political basis--political, political, political--in Nevada.
That is how it all happened. I was here. I was saying you make
a political decision you are going to wind up with big
scientific problems at the end of the day, big scientific
problems. So Congress actual--this committee barred the
Department of Energy from looking at any other site other than
Yucca Mountain. We used political science, not real science to
hand that nuclear queen of spades to Nevada. That is the legacy
this committee left.
The problem is that Yucca Mountain has two fault lines
running through it and is in an active earthquake zone. There
have been more than 600 earthquakes within 50 miles of the site
within the past 20 years. We saw just how earthquakes can
impact spent nuclear fuel in Japan just a few months ago.
Moreover, in 1997 scientists found that plutonium from nuclear
weapons tests that had been conducted just a few decades
earlier had migrated a mile through water in the rock near
Yucca Mountain, which contradicted earlier assertions that the
repository site was geologically isolated from the water table.
So basically what we had was Congress writing a law that
Yucca Mountain was a nuclear Alcatraz from which there could be
no migration of this nuclear material. But scientists said it
was more like a nuclear sieve. And we heard that from the
National Academy of Sciences back then in 1987 and '86. We
heard that from them here, but this committee and other
committees ignored that warning.
The Obama Administration bravely recognized that moving
forward with Yucca Mountain was not the scientifically
appropriate direction to take. DOE withdrew its license
application and Congress started to slash funding for the
project. Chairman Greg Jaczko then did what any permitting
office would do when a building plan is cancelled. He stopped
spending money processing the permit. Although members of this
committee have accused him of doing something illegal, the NRC
Inspector General and general counsel have both found that it
was legal and entirely within his authority to do so.
Mr. Bell, you said earlier that Chairman Jaczko's press
release on your report was his alone and you had no input, but
isn't it true that you and your deputy saw this statement
before it went out from Chairman Jaczko and you told the
chairman's chief of staff that you had no objections. Is that
true?
Mr. Bell. No, that is not true. I read the statement but I
said that was his statement. We made no changes, nothing to the
statement. I just saw the statement because he said he was
going to put it out.
Mr. Markey. Did you say you had an objection to him putting
it out?
Mr. Bell. I said I didn't oppose him to releasing the
statement.
Mr. Markey. You did not oppose him in putting out that
statement?
Mr. Bell. No. I mean----
Mr. Markey. OK. Great. So in finding, number one, you said
two of the commissioners didn't understand that when the
chairman told him that he would be using the appropriations
process to proceed with closure of the Yucca Mountain program,
this meant the documents necessary for the Yucca Mountain
license would cease being prepared. On page 23, your report
notes that when Chairman Jaczko suspected that one of the
commissioners didn't understand the discussion they had, he
directed his staff to follow up with the commissioner's staff
to be sure it was clear. Do you believe that Chairman Jaczko is
responsible for a failure by other commissioners to understand
their support for a document that said it would begin the
closure of Yucca Mountain's technical review and adjudicatory
activities when the license application was withdrawn even
after he tried to explain it to him?
Mr. McMillan. Clearly, he said Chairman Jaczko is
irresponsible.
Mr. Markey. Is it his fault they didn't understand it.
Mr. McMillan. He had a responsibility to ensure that they
understood the content of the four squares of that piece of
paper. And if they are saying--and what they related to us
during the interviews was they never came to understand that
the SER--and I think sometimes those are differences----
Mr. Markey. Can I tell you the truth? I have a hard time
when two commissioners on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
can't understand something this prosaic, this simple, when they
have to understand the most complex nature of nuclear
materials. So to say that they didn't understand something so
fundamental, OK, as to the way in which the regulatory process
works, in my opinion they did not do their job. They had a
responsibility after they were told that that was the route
that they were going to go.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Markey. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The chair now recognizes Mr. Harper for 5
minutes.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bell, when the staff reported in March of 2010 to the
Commission about their plans for completing the Yucca Safety
Evaluations and tight budget constraints, their plans were to
complete Volume I and Volume III of the SER not later than, I
believe, August and November of 2010 respectively. Is that
correct?
Mr. Bell. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Harper. Now, according to your report, the EDO and
technical staff believed that even if DOE were to withdraw the
application, it would benefit the country to have completed the
technical review. Is that correct?
Mr. Bell. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Harper. The most critical portion of the technical
review, the SER Volume III was almost complete and on track to
be completed well before November according to staff. Is that
correct?
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Mr. Harper. Completion by the end of August is consistent
with a not-later-than-November schedule reported to the
Commission in March, isn't it?
Mr. McMillan. Sir, just on that last question----
Mr. Harper. Yes?
Mr. McMillan [continuing]. With regards to the completion,
that was not necessary concurrence and approval. OK. While it
might very well have been completed by the staff to be
forwarded up, it still had to go through a concurrence process
including OGC, so I just want to make sure we clarified that
point.
Mr. Harper. Certainly. Thank you.
Mr. McMillan. Thank you.
Mr. Harper. But when the chairman learned that the report
could be ready in August before the fiscal year, is it true
that he inserted himself into the process in June and directed
staff to slow down?
Mr. McMillan. He directed the staff to maintain the current
published schedule with regards to the release of the various
products.
Mr. Harper. OK. But did he not in fact--did you have an
addition to that?
Ms. Raspa. I would just note that the August time frame was
for Volume I. It was not for Volume III. Volume III was
anticipated in November. However, the majority of the work had
been done and they believed they could get both volumes ahead
of schedule.
Mr. Harper. OK. But in fact----
Mr. Shimkus. Would the gentleman yield just for a second?
Mr. Harper. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. Which is amazing that a government agency
would be good enough to move quickly instead of being way
behind. So in that aspect I would applaud the NRC for being
prompt.
Mr. Harper. And I will go back, Mr. Bell, and ask this. In
fact, though, the chairman did direct staff to issue the SER
Volume III not earlier than November. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Raspa. His June 11 memorandum speaks to not issuing
Volume I prior to schedule. It does also speak about other
volumes but only Volume I is specifically identified as not
being released prior to August.
Mr. Harper. OK. But prior to November was Volume III.
Ms. Raspa. Volume III was due in November, correct.
Mr. Harper. Now, was the impact of his actions in the SER
Volume III would not be completed by what date? Did you say
October 1?
Ms. Raspa. November.
Mr. McMillan. November.
Mr. Harper. November, OK. Now, as your report on page 27,
when senior staff discussed the chairman's actions to slow the
completion of the SER, they indicated to the chairman that it
would be contrary to the Agency's value of openness and
transparency to slow down that work. Is that correct?
Ms. Raspa. Our report reflects that one manager told us
that, correct.
Mr. Harper. So at least one commissioner also warned the
chairman that it was not a good idea to slow the process, is
that correct?
Mr. McMillan. Yes.
Ms. Raspa. One commissioner, yes, also agreed that it
shouldn't be slowed.
Mr. Harper. Did the chairman listen to the senior staff or
other commissioners and allow the staff review to continue at
the same pace the staff themselves had set?
Ms. Raspa. No.
Mr. Harper. The staff also informed the Commission in March
30, 2010, that it planned to continue to work on any remaining
SER volumes until fiscal year 2010 funds were exhausted, is
that correct?
Mr. McMillan. Correct.
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Mr. Harper. Were those funds exhausted by November of 2010?
Ms. Raspa. No, they were not. By the end of the fiscal year
2010 there was approximately $7 million remaining.
Mr. Harper. OK. And, in fact, according to your report, the
NRC staff including the EDO assumed as late as mid-September
that the CR guidance would allow for continuing the license
review with those available funds as you said. So the draft EDO
CFO memos of mid-September bear this out. So despite the
chairman's instructions to slow down, staff planned to continue
work using those fiscal year 2010 funds. But the chairman
changed that. That is where we are, right?
Ms. Raspa. The senior staff always anticipated that they
would be able to complete certain volumes and they were relying
on fiscal year 2010 funds to do that.
Mr. Harper. So this was the chairman's strategy to slow-
walk these critical reports to October, early November, and
then use his budget authority to ensure the staff's findings
would not be made public. Is that correct?
Mr. McMillan. I think the report is reflective of the fact
that once they got into budget space, you would have to use
another mechanism by which to change the course. And since you
did have the budget guidance memorandum that everyone was
complying with, it would have taken a COM at that juncture then
to move it over into policy space.
Mr. Harper. My time is almost up. Let me ask this question.
Did your investigation examine whether the chairman's actions
were directed by or coordinated with the White House or Senator
Harry Reid?
Mr. McMillan. We had no indications or inferences by anyone
that came to us that assured us or stated to us that that
occurred.
Mr. Harper. My question was did you examine that
possibility? Did you look into that with any of the witnesses?
Mr. McMillan. There was nothing that would lead us to that
from the information of the interviews that we conducted where
anyone stated that at all so we didn't go and probe any further
in that regard. We stayed within regards to the allegation that
was proffered to us. And no one said that there was any
interference by the White House at all.
Mr. Harper. Right. But did you ask?
Mr. McMillan. I want to get back with you on that one
particular point just to ensure in our notes, but I just want
to assure you that it never came up.
Mr. Harper. OK. But my question is did you ask it through
any communications along the lines of what I just inquired?
Mr. McMillan. I would have to get back with you with regard
to that specific question.
Mr. Harper. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Cassidy, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cassidy. Thank you. Now, I appreciate Mr. Markey's
efforts to defend his former employee, but he alleged that
maybe those other commissioners were derelict in their
responsibility of learning as much as they could learn. Did you
find any evidence of dereliction of duty in learning other
issues by the other commissioners?
Mr. McMillan. Again, I think it was clear that when the
commissioners were interviewed by our office, they were very
concerned by the fact that they felt they did not have all the
information.
Mr. Cassidy. OK. Now earlier I think you, Mr. Bell,
mentioned that the senior staff felt constrained in conveying
information to the other commissioners. But just to be clear,
would they have been constrained without instructions from the
chairman as to what to communicate? Would they on their own
have said oh, we shall be constrained because whatever or would
it have been a directive from their chairman to not communicate
certain issues?
Mr. Bell. Well, I think it was pretty common knowledge that
any communications that went back to the chairman had to go
through the chairman's office.
Mr. Cassidy. So the constraint would have come from the
chairman.
Mr. Bell. It was just the way this chairman has elected to
do business, that if it is not a policy issue and his office
can control whatever it was, whatever request commissioners
made, whether it be the budget or otherwise. Before the
commissioners got an answer, it had to be vetted through the
chairman's office.
Mr. Cassidy. So ultimately, just in a word, it was the
chairman's responsibility. It was the chairman who was doing
the restraining?
Mr. Bell. Correct.
Mr. Cassidy. Correct. Now, you know, I have been here for 3
years and I look at taxpayers who just see $15 billion
frittered away and I have to ask, although you are clear that
he may have been within the letter of the law--there is a
question of fact and we can't resolve this question of fact--do
you think he was within the spirit of the law in terms of the
Reorganization Act and was he within the spirit of the law
communicating to his fellow commissioners that which they
needed to know?
Mr. Bell. Again, I think the chairman was given just enough
information for them to understand what he wanted to do.
Mr. Cassidy. Now, again, is that within the spirit of the
law as originally--I mean, I can imagine somebody writing the
law way back when. How do we account for a control freak who
decides to only define as policy issues those things which are
relatively unimportant, to define others as budget issues, and
then to be selective in presentation. That would be very hard
to write a statute to exclude what someone attempts to do. Was
he within the spirit of the law in terms of communication with
his fellow commissioners?
Mr. McMillan. That, in fact, could be called into question
as to whether or not he was within the spirit of the law as
designed for an open collaborative engagement with the other
commissioners.
Mr. Cassidy. Now, as regards this question of fact because
earlier, ma'am, you had mentioned it is a question of fact. The
EDO suggests that he was told by the chairman not to do
something but the chairman does not recall. A little bit of a
dodge, but let us give it to him. Now, I have been deposed
before and I watch law programs on TV. There is a milieu in
which people try to establish which side of the question of
fact is most likely true. Is there a pattern on one side of
duplicity, of hiding, of ignoring the spirit of the law, again,
doing whatever you can to avoid certain outcomes. Does this
person have a motivation to not recall or is there, on the
other side, such motivation? Now, it does seem as if, as I look
at this question of fact, I am much more likely to believe the
EDO and I am much more likely to think that if this were to go
to some sort of judicial proceeding that the judge would be
more likely to believe the EDO. Do you have any thoughts on
that?
Mr. Bell. I don't have any thoughts.
Mr. Cassidy. OK. Now, lastly, I see that in these
confirmation hearings before the Senate in 2005, Mr. Jaczko
said that he was going to recuse himself from all issues
regarding Yucca Mountain for a year, and at that point he was
hopeful to have demonstrated that he would absolutely be fair
and objective and that there would not longer be a need to
recuse himself. In your opinion, do the actions of the chairman
indicate that he has been fair and objective regarding the
Yucca Mountain issue?
Mr. Bell. Well, I think the time frame that he referred to
was when he was a commissioner----
Mr. Cassidy. Yes?
Mr. Bell. [continuing]. And during that time frame,
anything with Yucca Mountain he did recuse himself from.
Mr. Cassidy. But that is not my question. My question is he
said he did not need to recuse himself from consideration of
Yucca Mountain issues throughout his entire tenure on NRC
because he had proven himself to be fair and objective. I think
that is fair and objective kind of like Fox News. Has he proven
himself to be fair and objective in your opinion regarding
Yucca Mountain?
Mr. Bell. Well, not in terms of the information-sharing
aspect of it anyway.
Mr. Cassidy. OK.
Mr. McMillan. Also, sir, I wanted to clarify the questions
you asked previously about direction from the White House. We
did, in fact, ask that question and no one indicated that there
was any direction from the President or the White House to
close the program. That question was, in fact, asked.
Mr. Cassidy. Thank you. I will yield back.
Mr. Green. I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman, one, I
didn't know it was so easy to get a law license. I watch it on
TV. But I would agree that this chairman might be as fair and
objective as Fox News is.
Mr. Shimkus. We thank the ranking member for that
interrogatory there.
We do want to thank you for coming. We do appreciate the
effort that you did and the position that you hold within the
NRC is a tough position because you are checking up on
yourself. And so we know you have worked diligently and we do
appreciate it. And I want to thank you for coming and for the
members who have participated and their devotion to the hearing
today.
The committee rules provide that members have 10 days to
submit additional questions for the record to the witnesses.
And then if you then receive those, if you would reply to us,
we would appreciate that.
Again, thanking you for your attendance, the hearing stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]