    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      NRC POLICY AND GOVERNANCE OVERSIGHT

    =======================================================================

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

                                    AND THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 24, 2012

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-169

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                ______________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    82-625 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2013
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Foe sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government 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 Chairman                      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         TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire       MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
    PHIL GINGREY, Georgia                JIM MATHESON, Utah
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            Islands
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    PETE OLSON, Texas
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia

                                      (ii)
                  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 (ex
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana                  officio)
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
    JOE BARTON, Texas                        officio)
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
                                     ------

                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power

                             ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                     Chairman
    JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma              BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California         ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             GENE GREEN, Texas
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   LOIS CAPPS, California
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                      officio)
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
    JOE BARTON, Texas
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Illinois, opening statement....................................     2
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Nebraska, opening statement....................................     6
    Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Texas, opening statement.......................................     6
    Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................    16

                                   Witnesses

    Allison M. Macfarlane, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission...    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    20
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    76
    Kristine L. Svinicki, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission    30
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    93
    William D. Magwood IV, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory
      Commission.....................................................    31
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   100
    William C. Ostendorff, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory
      Commission.....................................................    32
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   110

                               Submitted Material

    Report, undated, of the Office of the Inspector General, Nuclear
      Regulatory Commission, ``Possible Violations of the
      Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980 and NRC's Internet Commission
      Procedures by NRC Chairman,'' submitted by Mr. Shimkus \1\

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

                      NRC POLICY AND GOVERNANCE OVERSIGHT

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012

                      House of Representatives,
            Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy
                                 joint with the
                      Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
    room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John
    Shimkus (chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the
    Economy) presiding.
        Present from the Subcommittee on Environment and the
    Economy: Representatives Shimkus, Murphy, Pitts, Bass, Latta,
    McMorris Rodgers, Cassidy, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Green,
    Butterfield, Barrow, Matsui, DeGette, Capps, Dingell, and
    Waxman (ex officio).
        Present from the Subcommittee on Energy and Power:
    Representatives Whitfield, Walden, Terry, Burgess, Bilbray,
    Scalise, Olson, McKinley, Gardner, Pompeo, Griffith, Rush,
    Castor, Markey, and Engel.
        Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Carl
    Anderson, Counsel, Oversight; Gary Andres, Staff Director;
    Charlotte Baker, Press Secretary; Mike Bloomquist, General
    Counsel; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Anita Bradley,
    Senior Policy Advisor to Chairman Emeritus; Maryam Brown, Chief
    Counsel, Energy and Power; Allison Busbee, Legislative Clerk;
    Annie Caputo, Professional Staff Member; Cory Hicks, Policy
    Coordinator, Energy and Power; Heidi King, Chief Economist;
    David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and the Economy;
    Andrew Powaleny, Deputy Press Secretary; Chris Sarley, Policy
    Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Brett Scott, Staff
    Assistant; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight;
    Lyn Walker, Coordinator, Admin/Human Resources; Jeff Baran,
    Democratic Senior Counsel; Phil Barnett, Democratic Staff
    Director; Alison Cassady, Democratic Senior Professional Staff
    Member; and Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Policy Analyst.
        Mr. Shimkus. The joint subcommittee hearing will now come
    to order.
        First of all, I want to welcome our friends from the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And let me start by again
    welcoming you in particular. Well, let me just recognize myself
    for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

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

        Again, welcome. And Chairman Macfarlane, congratulations.
    And it is good to meet with you for a few minutes before this
    session. Commissioner Apostolakis will be unable to be here
    today since he is visiting his mother in Greece. We wish him
    safe travel and pray that she feels better soon.
        A lot has happened since the Commission last testified
    before this committee. Early this year, the NRC issued the
    first license for new plants in 34 years. In March, the
    Commission issued orders to implement post-Fukushima
    improvements. Only 2 weeks ago, we saw a ``changing-of-the-
    guard'' as Chairman Jaczko exited the Commission and Chairman
    Macfarlane was sworn in. Under Chairman Jaczko, the last 3
    years have been turbulent for the NRC, to say the least, and
    the change in leadership was long overdue.
        With the new chairman, today's hearing provides an
    excellent opportunity to review policy and governance of the
    Commission. We can gather important perspective from the
    commissioners, and importantly, Chairman Macfarlane, about the
    future of the Commission and its work. This is an opportunity,
    not to dwell on the past, but to look to the future through
    some of the important lessons of recent commission events and
    actions. It is critical for our oversight that we examine
    weaknesses in the NRC governance identified during the past
    chairman's tenure and to assess the many policy challenges
    facing the agency.
        One broad area of policy interest concerns regulatory
    priorities. In its other work, this committee has focused
    significant attention on the combined effect many substantial
    EPA regulations has had on our Nation's coal plants. It should
    be of no surprise I am similarly concerned about the potential
    impact of numerous post-Fukushima and other regulatory changes
    on our Nation's nuclear plants.
        Without a doubt, the industry must ensure safe operation
    and regulatory compliance. None of us would tolerate anything
    less. However, I believe it is incumbent on the Commission to
    consider the cumulative effect regulatory changes have on
    safety. In a March 2011 information paper to the Commission,
    the NRC staff cautioned that the cumulative Effects of
    Regulation ``can potentially distract licensee or entity staff
    from executing other primary duties that ensure safety or
    security.'' I believe this cumulative effect risk is valid.
        The NRC and the industry had a full workload of safety
    improvements under development before the Fukushima accident
    occurred. The Commission must be diligent about ensuring its
    licensees can focus on completing changes with greatest safety
    significance rather than being diverted onto other, less
    important changes simply to meet artificial timelines.
        Adequate protection is about risk reduction but should not
    be confused with ``risk elimination.'' Risk is inherent to all
    sources of energy, yet energy is necessary to our health and
    well being--to heat our homes, grow our food, and power our
    economy. With the Atomic Energy Act, Congress endeavored to
    balance the benefits nuclear energy brings to the general
    welfare with protection of public health and safety. Our goal
    as legislators and yours as regulators should be to preserve
    that balance.
        I want to thank all of the commissioners for coming here
    today to update the committee on the NRC activities, and I look
    forward to their testimony and willingness to answer our
    questions.
        And I would like to yield the balance of my time to my
    friend, Mr. Terry, from Nebraska.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.002

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

        Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
    this very important hearing. As you may be aware, I introduced
    legislation in December of last year in response to many of the
    concerns that were being raised at the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission, and the IG reports confirmed those concerns.
        I want to welcome the new chair of the Commission and relay
    that it is my sincere hope that we can work together. I wanted
    to also stress that the NRC has been known throughout the world
    as a premier regulatory agency that has been known to work
    together. I hope we can restore the confidence that people once
    held with the NRC.
        Now, during my questions, I want to discuss aspects of my
    bill to get your feedback, particularly on the previous abuse
    of emergency powers and maybe setting those down in a more
    certain way.
        I yield back my time.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
        Does Mr. Barton want the remaining time?
        Then, the chair yields back his time now. And the chair
    recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing. And I want to welcome our commissioners back to our
    committee.
        Chairman Macfarlane, congratulations on your recent
    appointment. We are aware of the situations you inherited and I
    applaud your enthusiasm and willingness to address the
    governance issues head-on. I know some of my colleagues
    continue to have concerns about some of the actions initiated
    under the former Chairman Jaczko. I do hope that we can allow
    the new chair the opportunity to tackle some of these
    governance issues before making the assumptions on the NRC's
    work going forward. In the meantime, we should focus our
    committee oversight on ensuring safety and viability of our
    nuclear fleet.
        I am a long-term supporter of nuclear energy because it is
    a cleaner energy alternative. The President has said he
    supports investments in alternative forms of energy, and
    Secretary Chu has testified before this committee that we would
    be unable to meet the President's goals if we do not continue
    to invest in nuclear energy.
        With that, there is no doubt, though, that the issue of
    long-term and interim nuclear storage facility disposal needs
    to be dealt with and I do hope the Commission will seriously
    look at this issue in the near future.
        Again, thank each of you for being here. My hope is that
    today starts a new chapter in our committees' relationship with
    the NRC and I wish you all the luck in turning over a new leaf.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the balance
    of my time to our ranking member of our full committee, Mr.
    Waxman.

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

        Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much for yielding to me.
        I also want to begin by welcoming Dr. Allison Macfarlane
    and the other members of the Commission. I look forward to your
    testimony on the safety and security of America's nuclear power
    plants.
        The mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to
    license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of nuclear
    materials to ``ensure adequate protection of public health and
    safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect
    the environment.''
        This is a vital mission, but for the last year and a half,
    the Commission has been distracted from its responsibilities by
    politicians who second-guessed its decisions and sowed internal
    dissention. Regrettably, this committee helped fan the flames
    of discord within the Commission by looking for any opportunity
    to cast aspersions on the former chairman.
        It is time to move on with the four commissioners here
    today and the new chairman. We should focus on examining
    important nuclear safety issues, not rehashing old grudges.
        There is no shortage of issues to discuss, from the ongoing
    shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in
    California due to safety concerns, to the status of NRC's post-
    Fukushima review of nuclear power plant safety in the United
    States.
        It has been more than a year since the Fukushima nuclear
    accident in Japan. Japan's independent commission investigating
    the events leading up to the disaster recently concluded that
    the power plant operator and Japan's nuclear regulators failed
    to implement basic safety measures despite known risks posed by
    earthquakes, tsunamis, and other events that can cause long-
    term blackouts at reactors. This is a cautionary tale for the
    United States, one that NRC should heed when implementing
    lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster.
        I look forward to the hearing. I thank the gentleman for
    yielding to me and I yield back the time to Mr. Green should he
    wish to use it.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.003

        Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, unless another member on our side
    wants the remainder of the minute--no one?
        I yield back my time.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back time.
        The chair recognizes the chairman of the Energy
    Subcommittee, Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes.

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

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to
    welcome the commissioners from the NRC today and tell all of
    you how much we appreciate the important work that you do. We
    are all optimistic and hopeful that Chairwoman Macfarlane will
    make great improvements and restore the collegiality at the
    Commission. And we know that she has an impressive background
    in this area and look forward to working with her.
        All of us watched closely the events that surrounded the
    Fukushima situation, and when the Japanese Diet's Nuclear
    Accident Independent Investigation Commission reported that if
    Fukushima had been required to implement, for example, the
    ``B.5.b'' order issued by the NRC following the 9/11 terrorist
    attacks on the U.S., ``that accident may have been
    preventable.''
        That same report also observed that Japanese plants were
    not required to consider a possible station blackout scenario,
    something that the NRC instituted in the 1980s. And last year,
    the NRC's Taskforce concluded that ``events like the Fukushima
    accident are unlikely to occur in the United States'' and that
    ``continued operation and licensing activities do not pose an
    imminent risk to public health and safety.''
        We all were encouraged by that and I know that on March 9
    of this year, the NRC issued a series of orders without a
    rigorous cost-benefit analysis. I understand it was the
    Commission's collective judgment to proceed in that fashion due
    to the urgency of those high-priority issues and I don't think
    any of us disagree with that. But moving forward with the
    complicated and complex issues that you deal with, we do know
    that you will be striving and we hope that you will strive for
    a solid technical basis and rigorous cost-benefit analysis on
    any decision that is made.
        But once again, we look forward to your testimony and look
    forward to the opportunity to ask questions, and thank you for
    joining us.
        And I would yield the balance of my time to the chairman of
    the full committee, Mr. Upton.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.006

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

        Mr. Upton. Thank you. And I thank both of you for holding
    this important and very timely hearing. I am pleased for the
    opportunity to personally relay the concerns that folks in
    southwest Michigan have regarding recent news reports of
    degraded performance of the Palisades nuclear plant in my
    district. I share those concerns and have raised them with
    Entergy officials. I understand they have made many management
    changes and have very detailed plans about how to restore their
    facility to the high level of safety that we, every one of us,
    expect. And while I am encouraged by their commitment to
    resolve the situation, I will continue monitoring this
    situation closely, working directly with the company, as well
    as the NRC, and I look forward to asking questions of the
    Commission on that issue.
        With regard to governance, Congress recognized in 1974 that
    one person should not be able to dictate what constitutes
    nuclear safety. They gave that responsibility to a commission
    of five people to consider complex issues collegially and in a
    manner that maximizes the benefit of nuclear technology while
    protecting the public. Collegiality is not just a buzzword; it
    is a critical safeguard against ill-considered policymaking by
    any single commission member.
        Following the Three Mile Island accident, Congress passed
    the Reorganization Plan of 1980 to address organizational
    weaknesses and clarify lines of authority. The Reorganization
    Plan shifted a certain amount of authority from the Commission
    to the chairman, and while that approach served the Nation well
    for nearly 30 years, we have now witnessed how one person,
    intent on expanding the limits of his authority, can undermine
    the Commission's effectiveness. I am relieved the Jaczko era is
    officially behind us, but flaws have been exposed at the
    Commission that still need to be addressed.
        As we have learned through our investigations and two IG
    reports, just a few of the former chairman's actions include:
    repeated attempts to influence or withhold agency staff
    information from the Commission; intimidation and bullying of
    commissioners and agency professionals creating a chilled work
    environment; and use of the Public Affairs Office to denigrate
    his colleagues and politicize and pressure commission policy
    positions.
        In all my years on this committee, I have never witnessed a
    situation like that during the past 3 years at the NRC. Last
    year, four commissioners took the unprecedented step of
    privately alerting the White House Chief of Staff to the
    untenable situation. Sadly, the President's response was to
    turn a blind eye while the four eminently qualified
    commissioners, whom he nominated, were all vilified by Chairman
    Jaczko's allies when their concerns became public. We must
    ensure history never repeats itself.
        I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.008

        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
        And again, I would like to welcome the commission members.
    And it is my understanding that the chairman will offer the
    opening statement for--oh, I am sorry.
        Without objection, I would like to recognize the ranking
    member of the Energy Subcommittee--I didn't know there were any
    other subcommittees other than mine, Bobby--for 5 minutes for
    your opening statement.

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

        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
    thank again all of the NRC commissioners for your attendance
    here today. You certainly deserve all the accolades that we can
    give to you because of the hard work that you do and have
    continued to do, even under the former chairman.
        Dr. Macfarlane, I really want to thank you for being here
    and I want to welcome you. We look forward to your insightful
    and rigorous leadership, and we know that the genius is yet to
    appear, but it is here present with us and so I am so delighted
    that you are here before this committee and that you are the
    chairman of the NRC. So welcome.
        I look forward to hearing from you and I look forward to
    hearing your vision for the agency moving forward. And I look
    forward to hearing how you plan to work in concert with your
    fellow commissioners to ensure that the agency is conducting
    its work smoothly and without interruption.
        Mr. Chairman, for Illinois, our State, housing more nuclear
    reactors than any other State in the country, my constituents
    and yours want to be assured that the NRC has in place
    commonsense protocols for both mitigating risks of a nuclear
    disaster, as well as procedures to safeguard the public in the
    event that a disaster occurs. Specifically, I look forward to
    hearing more about the steps that the Commission has put in
    place to improve safety based on a huge amount of information
    we have learned following the events at Fukushima.
        It has now been over 16 months since the horrific disaster
    of last March, and in the past 12 months, there have been seven
    major reports on Fukushima, as well as numerous international
    IAEA and other international studies on the events that took
    place at Fukushima. The 30 plus NRC actions that were initially
    approved by the agency were based on a report that was drafted
    within 3 months of the Fukushima events and before any root
    cause or detailed timeline of events had been made public. And
    I am curious to know if the agency has assessed the list of NRC
    actions against the vast array of information to ensure that
    the NRC staff, and more importantly, the industry, are focused
    on the issues that were the cause and that are safety-
    significant.
        Mr. Chairman, while I believe nuclear power must be a vital
    part of our country's overall energy portfolio, we must ensure
    that we have the best systems and practices in place to
    safeguard against an unforeseen nuclear accident to prevent
    widespread disaster like what we witnessed last March in Japan.
    My constituents in the 1st District and in Illinois, as well as
    the larger American public expect us to address these pressing
    issues, so I look forward to hearing from the commissioners
    today.
        One other matter, Mr. Chairman, on another significant
    note, I also look forward to hearing more about the NRC's work
    in supporting the engineering departments of HBCUs,
    historically black colleges and universities, as reported in
    the magazine ``U.S. Black Engineer and Information
    Technology.'' Supporting STEM education is a top priority for
    me, and the NRC was recognized as one of the government
    agencies considered most supportive of the engineering
    departments of HBCUs, and I would like to hear more about your
    work in that particular area.
        So I look forward to hearing more about this work, more in
    depth about all your activities.
        And Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back 9 seconds.
        Mr. Shimkus. The chair welcomes the ranking member for
    those 9 seconds.
        And now, I would like to recognize Chairman Macfarlane.
    Your full statement is in the record for the Commission, and
    then you are recognized for 5 minutes, and we will be very
    generous, so don't feel rushed. And then I think it is our
    understanding that we will give the other members of the
    Commission an opportunity for 5 minutes for an opening
    statement.
        With that, the chair recognizes the chairman of the NRC,
    Honorable Macfarlane.

        STATEMENTS OF ALLISON M. MACFARLANE, CHAIRMAN, NUCLEAR
      REGULATORY COMMISSION; KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER,
         NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD IV,
      COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; AND WILLIAM C.
        OSTENDORFF, COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                   STATEMENT OF ALLISON M. MACFARLANE

        Ms. Macfarlane. Thank you very much.
        Chairmen Whitfield and Shimkus, Ranking Members Rush and
    Green, and members of the subcommittees, I am honored to be
    here before you today in my first congressional appearance as
    chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
        I am pleased to join my fellow commissioners to discuss the
    critical policy issues facing our agency. I have had the
    opportunity and privilege to begin working with Commissioners
    Svinicki, Apostolakis, Magwood, and Ostendorff. They are all
    talented professionals with a rich and diverse set of
    experiences. I am looking forward to collaborating with them
    and forming a collegial relationship and service to the country
    and the mission of the agency.
        I would like to take a moment to address my leadership
    style and the approach I will take as chairman. I have already
    begun to reach out to my fellow commissioners to lay the
    groundwork for a strong working relationship, and I look
    forward to seeking and receiving their advice on consequential
    matters facing the agency. I am committed to maintaining open
    lines of communication and a respect for their views and best
    judgment. I believe that by working together collegially, the
    product of our efforts as a commission will be stronger and
    more protective of the public interest.
        To execute their responsibilities effectively, my
    colleagues must have access to unfettered and timely
    information, and I will ensure that they are fully and
    currently informed.
        One of my responsibilities is to ensure that the
    Commission's policy direction is being carried out in the most
    effective and efficient manner to support the mission. While
    the commitment and capability of the executive director of
    operations and his senior management team is impressive, the
    chairman must be in the position to monitor staff performance
    and verify that mission responsibilities are being met
    effectively. I look forward to working with the EDO to find the
    right balance between our respective roles.
        Finally, I embrace the NRC's organizational values that are
    intended to guide every action taken by agency personnel. These
    values are integrity, service, openness, commitment,
    cooperation, excellence, and respect. I support the commitment
    to an open, collaborative work environment that encourages all
    employees and contractors to promptly speak up and share
    concerns and differing views without fear of negative
    consequences. I believe these values are worthy of highlighting
    as we reinforce our agency's focus on its critical mission of
    safeguarding the public's health, safety, and security and
    protecting the environment.
        This is especially valuable at a time when the agency is
    dealing with a wide array of critical safety matters. We
    continue to focus on implementing the important lessons learned
    from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident. The NRC continues to
    believe that our Nation's nuclear fleet is safe and not facing
    imminent risk from a similar accident. However, the Fukushima
    disaster clearly offers lessons to be learned.
        I look forward in this context to working with my
    colleagues to establish safety measures derived from the
    recommendations by the NRC Near-Term Task Force. The staff has
    prioritized these recommendations into three tiers. In March,
    the Commission approved the first tier of actions for the staff
    to issue as immediately enforceable orders. We also issued
    requests for information to our licensees to help inform the
    staff as we proceed in developing the Tiers 2 and 3 measures.
    This is a substantial amount of progress in a short time, and
    the Commission looks forward to continuing to work with the
    staff to address remaining Fukushima-related lessons.
        In addition, the NRC has made significant strides in
    several other areas this year. We issued the first two new
    reactor licenses in over 30 years--the Vogtle site in Georgia
    and the Summer site in South Carolina. We also authorized a new
    design certification for the AP-1000 reactor, four new uranium
    recovery licenses, and a license for the AREVA Eagle Rock
    centrifuge enrichment facility. We anticipate more applications
    and decisions being made in the next few years in all these
    areas.
        With all these new developments, the NRC continues its
    responsibility for making the safety and security of our
    current operating nuclear fleet by performing thousands of
    hours of inspections at plants and material sites. On the
    whole, our Nation's nuclear power plants have performed well,
    and where issues have arisen, the agency has moved
    expeditiously to resolve any problems.
        We are always working to bring transparency to our
    operations and maintain strong relationships with our
    stakeholders and the public. It is these accomplishments that
    demonstrate time and again the level of professionalism among
    the NRC staff. I am proud to be a part of this agency and I
    look forward to working with my fellow commissioners and the
    staff in the coming months.
        Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today.
    I am happy to answer any of your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Macfarlane follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.018

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Chairman. Right on the button on 5
    minutes, so you were well prepared. So that is a good first
    start.
        The chair now recognizes Commissioner Svinicki. You are
    recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI

        Ms. Svinicki. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member
    Green, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, and members of
    the subcommittees for the opportunity to appear before you
    today at this oversight hearing to examine NRC policy and
    governance.
        I would like to begin by recognizing the early commitment
    of the Commission's new chairman, Dr. Allison Macfarlane, to
    forge a collegial relationship with each member of the
    Commission, which began even prior to her swearing in earlier
    this month and has continued since that time. I am appreciative
    of her reaching out to me, our fellow commissioners, and
    members of the NRC Senior Executive Service and staff. The tone
    she is setting is constructive and is a most welcomed
    opportunity to move forward in a positive manner.
        Having joined the Commission in March of 2008, I arrived at
    an agency whose regulatory program is regarded as among the
    most informed and disciplined in the world. I am grateful to
    President Obama for having nominated me this year to serve a
    second term on the Commission. Having been confirmed just last
    month, I continue to pledge my efforts to advance the NRC's
    important work during this new term of service.
        The tragic events in Japan in 2011 cast the NRC's work into
    even sharper relief for the American public. Nuclear technology
    is unique and its use demands an unwavering commitment to
    safety principles. This past March, the NRC issued a series of
    orders to nuclear power plant licensees requiring features to
    mitigate beyond design-basis extreme natural events, the
    installation of hardened venting systems at some plants, and
    enhanced spent fuel pool instrumentation. The NRC is also
    requiring nuclear power plant licensees to undertake
    substantial reevaluations of seismic and flooding hazards at
    their sites.
        The NRC continues to develop and communicate the specific
    guidance for implementing these actions with input from nuclear
    operators, nuclear safety, and environmental interest groups,
    and other members of the public. This work is carried out
    through the committed efforts of the women and men of the NRC
    in advancing the NRC's mission of ensuring adequate protection
    of public health and safety and promoting the common defense
    and security.
        I would like to convey publicly my gratitude to the NRC
    staff for the work they do and for assisting my efforts to
    advance our shared goals.
        Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, Chairman Shimkus,
    Ranking Member Green, and members of the subcommittees, I
    appreciate the opportunity to appear today and look forward to
    your questions. Thank you.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. The chair now recognizes
    Commissioner Magwood, sir, for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD IV

        Mr. Magwood. Thank you. Chairmen Whitfield and Shimkus,
    Ranking Members Rush and Green, members of the subcommittees,
    it is a pleasure to be before you today to discuss the work of
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
        During the 2 \1/2\ years I have served on this commission,
    we have been faced with historic challenges and significant
    change. We have authorized electric utilities to begin
    construction on the first new nuclear power plants since the
    1970s. We have also licensed the construction and operation of
    the first uranium enrichment facilities in this country not
    constructed by the government. At the same time, we have also
    seen troubling errors in the application of radioactive sources
    for medical treatment at the Philadelphia Veterans' Affairs
    Medical Center, and in the last year, we responded as nuclear
    power plants were rocked by earthquakes, threatened by
    floodwaters, buffeted by hurricanes and tornadoes.
        In a very real sense, the key attribute of a safety
    regulator is the ability to process experience into learning
    and learning into action. All these events and many others
    provide us lessons that must be learned and applied to make us
    a better regulator. Fortunately, in my experience, the NRC has
    proven to be extraordinary in its ability to learn from
    experience and find practical ways of assuring safety.
        For this current Commission, the greatest challenges we
    face arise from the urgent need to continue to learn from the
    lessons of the tragedy in Japan at the Fukushima Dai-ichi
    plant. The Commission has already unanimously approved a set of
    high-priority initiatives that are designed to enhance the
    defense in depth at U.S. plants and enable operators to respond
    more effective to beyond design-basis events.
        We still have much work to do but the steps taken thus far
    represent a very significant increase in safety based on the
    Fukushima experience. While the technical and regulatory
    lessons are important, it is my observation that the greatest
    lesson Fukushima holds for any safety regulator is the fleeting
    nature of credibility. A regulator who loses credibility and
    public trust is a regulator that has failed its mission. If a
    regulator is not seen as truthful, credible, and reliable with
    a clear focus on the health and safety of the public, it cannot
    function nor can the nuclear facilities under its oversight.
    Those who question this need only observe the tens of thousands
    of Japanese citizens who marched in Tokyo this past weekend.
        It is in that respect that I welcome Chairman Macfarlane to
    this commission. I look forward to working with her to assure
    that the NRC continues its long tradition of technical
    excellence, veracity, and credibility. In the very short time
    she has been with us, I believe she is off to an excellent
    start.
        This commission and the agency as a whole will face many
    difficult impactful decisions in the coming weeks and months.
    It does not overstate the matter to tell you that these
    decisions could determine the future shape of nuclear
    regulation in this country for many years to come. I look
    forward to working with my colleagues on the Commission, our
    many stakeholders, and with your subcommittees as we address
    the challenges ahead.
        I look forward to today's discussion and look forward to
    your questions. Thank you.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
        Now, I would like to recognize Commissioner Ostendorff. And
    before that, it is important for me to use the bully pulpit to
    make sure that I put on record, beat Navy. We have priorities
    here in this country, and that Army-Navy rivalry is one of the
    biggest.
        So before you start, beat Navy. And you are recognized for
    5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF

        Mr. Ostendorff. Chairman, I must call to your attention the
    record of the past decade. But I have a son who served as an
    Army officer, did two combat tours in Iraq and was there in a
    very busy time period, so I have a very soft spot in my heart
    for the Army.
        Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Green, Chairman Whitfield,
    Ranking Member Rush, members of the committee, I appreciate the
    chance to be here before you today. It has been a little bit
    over a year since I had the opportunity to appear before this
    committee.
        Last July, the NRC Fukushima Task Force concluded that a
    sequence of events in the United States similar to that
    experienced in Japan is unlikely. The task force also
    significantly concluded that there is no imminent risk from
    continued operation of U.S. nuclear power plants. I firmly
    believe those conclusions offered in July of last year remain
    true and solid today. Nevertheless, I continue to support the
    NRC in its efforts to strengthen our regulatory framework where
    appropriate in response to Fukushima.
        Along with my colleagues at this table, I commend the NRC's
    dedicated staff of professionals. I also appreciate the work of
    my colleagues at this table.
        Earlier this year, along with my other colleagues, I voted
    to approve the issuance of three orders associated with
    Fukushima actions. Orders related to acts of mitigation
    strategies, containment vent systems, and spent fuel pool
    instrumentation based on lessons learned from Fukushima. I
    continue to support the information-gathering and analysis
    necessary to take additional actions as appropriate to enhance
    safety. We need to continue to pursue these efforts in a
    prioritized, thoughtful manner.
        But even as we dedicate resources to implementing the
    recommendations and lessons learned from Fukushima, the
    Commission and our staff continue to be successful in
    performing our other vital work. Effective safety oversight of
    reactor materials licensees remains our preeminent goal.
        And as mentioned by colleagues to my right, earlier this
    year in February and March, we issued the first new reactor
    licenses for construction and operation at the Vogtle and
    Summer plants. I note that the additional Fukushima-related
    requirements that came from the Commission were imposed in
    these new construction reactors. I had the chance to witness
    the construction of these two sites just 2 weeks ago, and I am
    encouraged by the progress that I saw.
        Finally, I join my colleagues in warmly welcoming Dr.
    Macfarlane to the Commission. I fully expect that the
    collegiality and effectiveness of the Commission will benefit
    from her new leadership. And I state with great confidence
    today that she is off to a very strong start as chairman.
        I appreciate this committee's oversight role and I look
    forward to your questions. Thank you.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
        Now, I recognize myself for 5 minutes for the first opening
    round of questions.
        This is to the Commission as a whole. My district is home
    to Honeywell's uranium conversion plant. It is the only one of
    its kind in the U.S. This past May, the NRC reconfirmed as part
    of a performance review that the plant is operating safely. Two
    months later, Honeywell is in the process of laying off 228
    employees due to a prolonged shutdown to address recently
    discovered seismic issues. I am concerned for both the safety
    of the nearby residents but also for the livelihoods of those
    employees. What I am struggling to understand is this: was the
    NRC correct in May when they indicated the plant is safe? If
    so, then shouldn't there be a way to make safety improvements
    while minimizing the disruption to the plant's operation and
    the lives of the employees? Chairman?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Thank you for that question, Chairman.
        You will have to bear with me. I have been on the job 2
    weeks and I am struggling to understand all of the different
    issues that are before us. But I am familiar with the Honeywell
    issue and I am familiar with the fact that the order, the
    confirmatory action letter that was issued to the Honeywell
    plant came out of Fukushima-related inspections. And that is my
    current understanding of the situation. So it was perhaps
    separate from what you are talking about.
        Mr. Shimkus. Commissioner Svinicki?
        Ms. Svinicki. Chairman, as Chairman Macfarlane indicated,
    the NRC did order some additional in-depth inspections at
    facilities, including fuel-cycle facilities at Honeywell after
    the events in Fukushima. As a result of that, there were
    indications that the amount of material that could
    hypothetically be released in a seismic event had been
    underestimated previously, and that is under further analysis
    by both Honeywell as the operator and the NRC staff at this
    time. There is the potential for facility modifications to be
    needed and my understanding is that the issue of what measures
    might be needed is under very active analysis right now.
        Mr. Shimkus. So just a brief follow-up. So you are saying
    that the May analysis may not have been correct and you are not
    attributing that to Fukushima changes?
        Ms. Svinicki. My understanding is that the situation that
    the facility is in right now is an outgrowth of the more in-
    depth Fukushima-related inspection but it is against the
    current design basis of the facility.
        The question of whether or not this could have been
    discovered previously is a very complex one, Congressman, and I
    think we owe you, as we complete our analysis, a further answer
    on that.
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes. And more to the 228 employees who no
    longer have employment right now.
        Commissioner Magwood?
        Mr. Magwood. Yes, I think both of my colleagues have given
    you a very good summary of the situation. The only thing I
    would add is that a portion of the difficulty we face with the
    Honeywell facility is that it is a very old facility that
    actually predates some of our regulatory structure. And while
    we have a lot of certainty that it is being operated safely,
    some of the criteria that one might apply today were not
    available when this plant was first built. So, for example,
    there are no criteria guiding whether the buildings housing the
    process facilities should have any earthquake resistance, for
    example. We don't have that requirement in place for this
    facility. But what we do have in place is a requirement that in
    the event of a credible accident that the public be protected.
        And as Commission Svinicki pointed out, in the analysis to
    decide whether the public is protected, you have to make an
    assumption as to how much material could possibly be released,
    and that appears to have been an error made in the process to
    determine how much could have been released. We now believe
    much more could be released than had been previously assumed,
    and that is why this change has been----
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes, let me reclaim my time because I have got
    3 and I am only going to get one question in.
        So let me to go a quote by you, Commissioner Magwood, that
    said, ``it does not, as a general matter, advance the cause of
    safety to inundate licensee staff with multiple actions when a
    more thoughtful process might achieve the agency's safety goals
    without straining licensee resources.'' And this is the issue
    about the additional work, time, effort, energy that might take
    people off the prize of the real concerns on safety. What are
    your comments to that? That is your comment, Commissioner
    Magwood. Why don't you follow up on that?
        Mr. Magwood. Well, just very briefly and give others a
    chance to comment. My belief is that it is very important
    whenever we take a regulatory action that it be done in a
    prioritized fashion. Obviously, every facility is very
    different, and we should have an approach that recognizes that
    what may be a threat to one facility may be a much lesser
    threat to a second facility. And then as we are approaching our
    regulatory implementation, we ought to take that into
    consideration.
        Mr. Shimkus. Does everyone generally agree with that
    analysis? And I see everyone shaking their head yes, and we
    appreciate that.
        With that, my time is expired. Chair recognizes the ranking
    member, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        On June the 8th, the U.S. Court of Appeals in DC Circuit
    Court called NRC's evaluation of the risk of spent nuclear fuel
    deficient, noting the Commission did not examine the
    environmental impact, the impacts of failing to license a
    permanent repository, or environmental risk. The court
    instructed the NRC to perform a detailed evaluation and
    possible risk posed by the extent of storage pools in reactor
    sites such as leaks and fires or explain why such an evaluation
    is not needed.
        When do you plan to start this evaluation? And what do you
    expect it to look like?
        Ms. Macfarlane. We are in the process of considering
    various options of what to do with waste confidence decisions
    right now, and these options are being vetted. And I can't say
    more because the issue is an active adjudicatory matter.
        Mr. Green. Do you have any idea on a time frame?
        Ms. Macfarlane. We are going to be working part of this
    right now, immediately.
        Mr. Green. OK. On June the 18th, the NRC received a
    petition to suspend final decisions on all pending reactor
    licensing proceedings pending revisions to be remanded about
    the Waste Confidence Rule. In its response, NRC stated, ``the
    commission staff agrees that no final decision to grant a
    combined license, operating license, or renewed operating
    license is to be made until the NRC has appropriately disposed
    of the issues remanded by court.'' Is it true that you will not
    make any final decision on a license until you have addressed
    the problems with the Waste Confidence Rule?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Again, I believe this is an adjudicatory
    matter and we can't say more until we have taken a vote.
        Mr. Green. OK. In the 16 months since the nuclear accidents
    in Japan, there has been a vast amount of information published
    about the event, the causes, the action taken by the global
    nuclear energy industry. With the benefit of this information,
    have your initial conclusions on the cause of accidents or the
    priority of the regulatory actions associated with Fukushima
    changed?
        Ms. Svinicki. Congressman Green, the NRC staff remains very
    cognizant of those international reports as they are issued and
    they do have the potential to further inform our response in
    the United States to Fukushima. So I would characterize to you
    that we stay very engaged in reviewing those results and want
    to have the most risk-informed process that we can to respond
    to Fukushima going forward.
        Mr. Green. You know, our concern is we want to make sure--
    it was a terrible tragedy in Japan. We just want to make sure
    we don't reinvent the wheel, that we see what the problem was
    there.
        You issued three orders and a request for information on
    flooding, seismic and emergency preparedness in March. Based on
    the information that is available in the past 12 months, are
    there any other areas where orders may be necessary?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I believe this is to be decided. We are
    working through the different tier activities, and as we get to
    Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities, we may decide on new orders.
        I invite my colleagues to comment.
        Ms. Svinicki. I would just add that the orders that you
    described were considered by the Commission and the NRC staff
    to be those that provided the greatest potential for risk
    reduction, so they were the highest priority items.
        Mr. Ostendorff. I wanted to add, Congressman, to echo
    Commissioner Svinicki's comments that not all of these
    recommendations from the task force are of equal safety
    significance. There are some that are more urgent, some less
    urgent, and some that still need to be studied. And I will just
    tell you from where we sit, a year and 4 months after
    Fukushima, I think the thoughtful prioritized approach that the
    agency has taken as a result of the staff's recommendations has
    been very supportive of safety.
        Mr. Green. So there are other orders being looked at, just
    not the higher priority that these three orders, is that
    correct? If you will say yes so the mike can pick it up.
        Mr. Ostendorff. Well, I would say that we are still
    reviewing. As Chairman Macfarlane mentioned, there is a Tier 1
    set of issues, the highest priority. We are still evaluating
    recommendations on Tier 2 and Tier 3.
        Mr. Green. There are a number of recent reports and
    articles critical of the Japanese nuclear industry and
    government emergency preparedness plans and activities. Are
    there differences between our regulatory requirements and those
    of Japan with respect to emergency preparedness than those of
    Japan?
        Mr. Magwood. Yes, actually, there are very significant
    differences in our approaches. For example, in the United
    States, each nuclear plant is required to perform a full-scale
    emergency planning exercise once every 2 years. That
    requirement doesn't exist in Japan. And so we practice
    emergency planning very rigorously. It is a very important part
    of our defense-in-depth. And I think this is something that in
    Japan they are giving a lot of careful thought to today.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I know I am almost out of time. A
    number support expansion of nuclear power. There is lots of
    things in the market--low-price natural gas, lots of other
    issues--but if we are going to deal with long-term, we need to
    have some transparency, which the chair talked about, but also
    some guidelines so the industry can have some certainty to make
    sure they go forward.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you for my time.
        Mr. Shimkus. And the gentleman yields back his time.
        The chair now recognizes the chairman of the Energy
    Subcommittee, Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you all for your testimony.
        As you know, the U.S. is still struggling to rebuild its
    economy and to lower unemployment, and energy is always a key
    component in our ability to compete in the global marketplace.
    And of course, cost is a factor that we always look at, the
    cost of producing energy. Regulations certainly affect cost.
    And I talked about in my opening statement how the Japanese
    Diet's investigation really was quite complimentary of the U.S.
    regulatory system because we had put in place certain safety
    safeguards that certainly Japan did not have. And as Mr.
    Ostendorff mentioned, you all adopted three emergency orders
    last summer. And it is my understanding that it is not required
    that you do a cost-benefit analysis and it is not required that
    you do some sort of a technical basis, rationalization for the
    decision. And I am assuming that in those three orders there
    was not a cost-benefit analysis or a technical analysis. Is
    that correct?
        Ms. Macfarlane. That is correct. Two of them were deemed
    adequate protection issues and one was given an exemption.
        Mr. Whitfield. Two were--I am sorry?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Deemed adequate protection issues.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK.
        Ms. Macfarlane. I will let my colleagues expand on that.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, then, Chairman Macfarlane and each of
    the commissioners, let me ask this question. I know you are
    looking at different tiers now, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4, or
    there may be additional orders for post-Fukushima safety
    improvements. Do you believe that any future post-Fukushima
    actions--it would be beneficial to have a rigorous technical
    basis and a cost-benefit analysis?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I believe we have to consider all potential
    actions on their own merits as they come through, and we will
    decide at that time whether they are an adequate protection
    issue or not. And, you know, it depends. There is a lot of
    information we need to gather and examine about each of these
    different issues in the different tiers.
        Mr. Whitfield. Ms. Svinicki, do you----
        Ms. Svinicki. Chairman Whitfield, I don't disagree with
    Chairman Macfarlane that each regulatory action will be
    assessed based on the circumstances, but as a general matter,
    in a number of my votes on the NRC's post-Fukushima actions, I
    have indicated that after the highest priority potential risk
    reductions are taken such as the three orders we just issued,
    that it is my personal view that we need to begin to return to
    the disciplined cost-benefit analysis because the subsequent
    and follow-on actions will likely not have the potential to
    achieve as significant of a risk reduction. Therefore, I
    believe moving back into our back-fit rule and our cost-benefit
    evaluation is appropriate for that reason.
        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Magwood?
        Mr. Magwood. To some degree I agree with both of my
    colleagues on this because I do think that most of the actions
    that may follow should undergo a more rigorous analysis. But I
    also think that there may be some actions that are in the Tier
    2 and Tier 3 category that are adequate protection issues and
    ought not to go through that evaluation. So I agree with
    Chairman Macfarlane's statement that we should look at each on
    one an individual basis and make a judgment as we go.
        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Ostendorff?
        Mr. Ostendorff. Chairman Whitfield, I would just add that I
    think the commission members here at this table that have been
    voting in these matters, my two colleagues to the right and
    Commissioner Apostolakis, who is not here, have very clearly
    stated in our voting record on Fukushima issues that we need a
    technical analysis to underpin any recommendations for taking
    action. And I think our staff has done that.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. Well, thank you very much.
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
        The chair now recognizes my colleague from Illinois, Mr.
    Rush, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, back in May, my office was notified
    that the NRC was recently honored by U.S. Black Engineering
    Information Technology Magazine as one of the government
    agencies considered most supportive of the engineering
    departments of historically black colleges and universities.
    The survey was a result of a poll among deans of accredited
    HBCU engineering programs and corporate-academic alliance
    Advancing Minority Interests in Engineering, which is its name,
    the Alliance's name. Supporting STEM education and especially
    for minorities and women is one of my top educational
    priorities.
        I would like to hear more about some of these programs that
    the NRC has been involved in in this particular area. So I
    would ask if any of you could discuss some of the agency's work
    in supporting the HBCUs' engineering program. And can my office
    be of assistance? And how can we be of assistance especially in
    areas of recruiting in STEM areas? We know that future
    scientists and engineers of tomorrow, a lot of them could and
    should come from HBCUs. So just take a moment. I am aware of
    the time and I do have some other questions. So please be as
    brief as you possibly can.
        Ms. Macfarlane. Let me just say that in fiscal year 2011,
    the Minority Servicing Institutions Grants Program issued 26
    grants, of which 15 were awarded to historically black colleges
    and universities and totaled over $1 million. And the program
    funded approximately $737,000 in stipends through the Research
    Participation Program. And as you noted, the NRC has been
    recognized as a top supporter based on a survey of deans from
    engineering schools for 4 consecutive years.
        Mr. Rush. Would you send myself, my office, and anyone else
    on the subcommittees the information in writing on that?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Absolutely, happy to.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.020

        Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
        In the 16 months since the nuclear accidents in Japan,
    there has been a vast amount of information published about the
    event, the causes and actions taken by the local nuclear
    industry. With the benefit of this information, have your
    initial conclusions on the cause of the accidents or on the
    priority of the regulatory actions associated with Fukushima
    changed? What are the top five most important actions being
    taken by the NRC staff and industry to improve safety based on
    the huge amount of information surrounding Fukushima?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Well, we have issued three orders and as
    well as some requests for information from our licensees. Those
    are the first actions that the NRC has done and now we are
    working through Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities.
        Mr. Rush. The 30 plus NRC actions that were approved by the
    NRC were based on a report that was drafted within 3 months of
    the accident and before any root cause or detailed timeline of
    events had been made public. Have you assessed the list of NRC
    actions against this vast array of information to ensure that
    the NRC staff and the industry are focused on issues that were
    the cause and that are safety-significant?
        Ms. Macfarlane. The staff is working very hard to
    understand the full suite of information available out there.
    They are keeping abreast of it and keeping up with their
    colleagues in other countries.
        And I invite my other colleagues to comment as well.
        Mr. Ostendorff. I would add, Ranking Member Rush, that I am
    going to simplify this a little bit. I think there are two main
    categories of Tier 1 actions that our staff has been working
    diligently to look at. One is the protection against external
    events such as a seismic event or flooding. And the second is,
    what are the mitigation strategies if you have an accident, for
    instance, if you have a loss of all power onsite? So those two
    high-level mitigation strategies and the protection against
    external events I think are the top two categories of all the
    myriad recommendations that came out of the task force. Those
    are the ones that are getting the highest priority.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shimkus. I recognize the chairman of the full
    committee, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to just reiterate to Chairman Macfarlane I do
    welcome some of your comments on your new role and I look
    forward to sitting down with you and getting to know you
    certainly a lot better in the weeks and months ahead and
    ensuring that we have a solid relationship. You have a very
    important job and we want to make sure that you have the
    resources to do your job and you do it in a very efficient way.
    And we are all pulling for you.
        Commissioner Ostendorff, as you know the Palisades plant in
    my district is in Column 3 of the NRC's Reactor Oversight
    Program. Would you briefly describe for us what that means and
    what actions the NRC generally takes for plants in that column?
        Mr. Ostendorff. Yes, sir. We have a reactor oversight
    process that goes from Column 1, which is the best operating
    plant, all the way down to Column 5, which is the worst
    operating plant status. And as a plant has more problems, there
    is increased oversight that occurs by the NRC staff at that
    plant. Currently, Palisades is in Column 3, which is basically
    the result of a substantial safety significance finding dealing
    with inadequate work instructions associated with DC power
    supplies that led to reactor scram and reactor trip. That was
    also accompanied by what is called a ``White'' finding of low
    to moderate safety significance that was associated with a
    service water pump coupling failure. As a result of those two
    items, Palisades is in this Column 3. It is the degraded
    cornerstone column. There is increased oversight. We expect our
    NRC team to be looking with the licensee at their corrective
    action program and the licensee's assessment of where their
    problems are. And we expect the next NRC close look at this to
    be coming sometime probably in September of this year.
        Mr. Upton. So is it your understanding and belief that
    Entergy and the owners, the operators of this facility, that
    they are taking all the right actions at this point?
        Mr. Ostendorff. I think the final determination of that,
    Congressman, remains to be seen. I think so far Entergy has
    been communicating well with the NRC staff about what they are
    doing. Entergy on their own commissioned an external group to
    come in and do a safety culture assessment earlier this year.
    That has been reviewed by the NRC staff. Following inspection
    in September we will look at those details of the safety
    culture assessment.
        Mr. Upton. So in September you will review all this
    information and at that point would it be possible to make a
    determination to move them back to Column 2 or not?
        Mr. Ostendorff. We go through an annual assessment process
    led by our executive director for operations, Bill Borchardt,
    and Bill is in the back row behind us here. And that is on an
    annual cycle that goes through--I am not sure exactly what the
    cycle is but typically those determinations are made in the
    spring, early summertime period. So I can't tell you exactly
    when a determination might be made as to whether or not that
    plant should or should not remain in Column 3.
        Mr. Upton. And you will literally have that information--
    you will be able to make that determination come September?
        Mr. Ostendorff. Well, there would be a certain aspect that
    will be looked at September. This is the safety culture aspects
    that are believed to be part of the root cause, some of the
    concerns of that plant.
        Mr. Upton. And you will be sharing that with us I am sure.
        Mr. Ostendorff. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Upton. And last question, is that early September?
        Mr. Ostendorff. I don't have a specific date for that. We
    can get back to you if we have some more information about it.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
        The chair now recognizes the chairman emeritus, Mr.
    Dingell, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy.
        These questions to Chairman Macfarlane. Madam Chairman, I
    have heard concerns related to the Part 52 licensing process
    for new facilities. It is my understanding that this process is
    intended to provide both a construction and an operating
    license through the same review and to streamline the previous
    Part 50 process. When the first round of Part 52 license
    applications came into the NRC in 2007 and 8, the stated goal
    by NRC was to complete these reviews in 36 months. Since that
    time, the time has been raised to 42 to 48 months. And now it
    seems that many are headed for 60-month review. This is
    occurring even as there are less applications in the review
    pipeline. My question to you, Madam Chairman, is the NRC
    committed to completing these reviews in an expedited manner?
    Yes or no?
        Ms. Macfarlane. The NRC is committed to completing these
    reviews as efficiently as possible.
        Mr. Dingell. Thank you.
        Now, there has been frustration on the slowness of the
    relicensing process. Is the NRC committed to complete these
    relicensing reviews in an expedited manner? Please answer yes
    or no.
        Ms. Macfarlane. The NRC is committed to completing these
    relicensing reviews as efficiently as possible.
        Mr. Dingell. Thank you. Now, Madam Chairman, you were a
    member of the Blue Ribbon Commission that recommended working
    with the communities who might volunteer for a single waste
    storage site. How long would such a process take to finalize?
        Ms. Macfarlane. It is totally uncertain. It could take a
    few years or it could take decades. It entirely depends on the
    situation.
        Mr. Dingell. I am very little comforted but I think that is
    a fair answer.
        Madam Chairman, can you tell us what would be the cost of
    this exercise?
        Ms. Macfarlane. The costs of working with the community?
        Mr. Dingell. Yes.
        Ms. Macfarlane. It entirely depends.
        Mr. Dingell. To finalize the process.
        Ms. Macfarlane. Again, it entirely depends, and it depends
    also in part on how much compensation is decided for the
    community and in what form that compensation would be.
        Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Now, under current law, how many sites are authorized to be
    evaluated and licensed as a single storage site?
        Ms. Macfarlane. One.
        Mr. Dingell. One. Now, does the NRC currently have the
    funding to move forward to evaluate and license the Yucca
    Mountain facility? Yes or no?
        Ms. Macfarlane. My understanding is that there is some
    funding available----
        Mr. Dingell. I am sorry?
        Ms. Macfarlane [continuing]. To complete the license--my
    understanding is there is some funding available to complete
    the license review.
        Mr. Dingell. Some. Enough to complete the action?
        Ms. Macfarlane. That I am not completely certain, and I
    would invite my colleagues to----
        Mr. Dingell. Could you give us an answer for the record
    later or is----
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, certainly. Absolutely.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.021

        Mr. Dingell. All right, if you please.
        Now, in the audience today, I have constituents of mine who
    are studying nuclear science at the University of Michigan,
    which is an institution I have the honor of representing. In
    its fiscal year 2013 budget request, NRC stated that it is not
    requesting funding for the Integrated University Program, which
    historically has been the sole provider of critical funding for
    both student and faculty development in the field of nuclear
    science. NRC states that this reflects the confidence that the
    nuclear industry will create incentives for students to enter
    nuclear-related programs.
        Now, I have constantly watched the development of our
    technical, scientific, and engineering people. And I have
    always found that we are lagging a lot of other people around
    the world. I had two boys who were metallurgical engineers. We
    found that we are developing approximately 11 metallurgical
    engineers. The Chinese are developing about 11,000. Do you
    believe that there is a need to train nuclear engineers in this
    country and do you support the NRC's role in the IUP? Yes or
    no?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Excuse me, the----
        Mr. Dingell. In the IUP.
        Ms. Macfarlane. Right. Certainly as a scientist myself, I
    support education in science and engineering and I think that
    the NRC Commission also supports that strongly.
        Mr. Dingell. If you withdraw from this, however, I must
    assume that there will be no Federal money for this kind of
    exercise and that we will not be training the scientists,
    engineers, et cetera, that we will need in this area. Are we
    going to produce the scientists, engineers, and technicians
    that we need if we withdraw and if the NRC withdraws or are we
    not?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I would leave some of the funding of
    science and engineering education to you all.
        Mr. Dingell. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have
    got my serious doubts that we will be doing so.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair now recognizes another chairman emeritus, Mr.
    Barton, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Barton. Well, and there is only really one and that is
    Mr. Dingell. I am glad to be in the same sentence with him.
        We are glad to have our new chairman of the NRC.
        Mr. Dingell. You know, this business of being chairman
    emeritus sounds mighty good but it really ain't much.
        Mr. Shimkus. If the gentleman would yield to my colleagues
    who are in the lower levels waiting to ask questions, I still
    think it is very valuable.
        Mr. Barton. Well, I tend to echo Mr. Dingell. Take that and
    50 cents, and in Texas, you get a Dr. Pepper. But it is good to
    be on the committee regardless of what the titles are.
        Chairman Macfarlane, we are certainly glad to have you and
    I noticed that the previous questioners have all been
    unbelievably polite, which is somewhat unusual for this
    committee but not unique.
        I would like to go into waters that are a little bit
    murkier. Your predecessor was not known for his collegiality
    with his fellow commissioners. In fact, there were some fairly
    rigorous attempts on his behalf to withhold information and to
    manipulate the decision-making process. Would you care to give
    us your view on how you plan to manage the decision-making
    process and the information gathering and dissemination at the
    Commission?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Surely. I am committed to being as
    collegial as possible. I regard my fellow commissioners as my
    peer equals. And as such, I think they should have access to
    all the information I have access to. I am committed to sharing
    with them written information from my office, and I have
    directed my staff as well to be as open with their staffs.
        Mr. Barton. So you don't intend to use your position as
    chairman to withhold and in some ways shape the outcome of
    decisions? You plan to use the position to gather but to share
    on an equal basis whatever information comes to you as
    chairman? Is that a fair assessment?
        Ms. Macfarlane. That is a fair assessment. I believe that
    the intention of the Commission with five Commissioners is to
    act together. We certainly will not agree on every issue but
    that is not the intention of the Commission.
        Mr. Barton. OK. Now, some of the members may have asked a
    storage question, but there is an obvious--I don't want to say
    elephant in the room because that has political overtones, but
    there is a big issue that is not being addressed and that is
    permanent high-level waste storage. I would say a majority of
    our committee feels that it would be appropriate to move
    forward at Yucca Mountain. There are members of the Energy
    Committee that would prefer that we not. Do you have a view
    that you want to express about how to assess what to do at
    Yucca Mountain?
        Ms. Macfarlane. About how to assess what to do at Yucca
    Mountain? No, at this point I do not. I will wait to see what
    issues are presented to us as a commission.
        Mr. Barton. That is fair enough for the first time you are
    here.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
        The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
    committee, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        There are two nuclear power plants in California. One is
    Diablo Canyon in Mrs. Capps's district; the other is the San
    Onofre Nuclear Generating Station near San Diego. And I would
    like to ask some questions about the San Onofre plant.
        In February 2011, new steam generators were placed in
    service at that plant, which was a major capital expense. The
    project cost California ratepayers $670 million. This expense
    was large, but the new equipment was supposed to last 40 years.
    But on January 31 of this year, less than a year after
    generators were put in place, a tube in one of the unit's steam
    generators started leaking radioactive steam into the
    atmosphere. An alarm sounded; the reactor was shut down. The
    other unit was not operating at the time because it was being
    refueled. Six months later, both reactors remain shut down.
    Fortunately, NRC has determined that the actual release of
    radiation into the environment was minimal in this case. Is
    that right, Dr. Macfarlane?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I believe that is correct.
        Mr. Waxman. After the January shutdown, NRC sent in an
    inspection team who issued their report last week, and
    according to NRC's inspection team after just a single year of
    operation, a large percentage of tubes in the steam generators
    had been worn down because excessive vibration was causing them
    to rub against each other. Last week's report found that this
    problem was probably caused by faulty computer modeling in the
    design of the steam generators and by manufacturing issues. The
    report stated, ``the loss of steam generator tube integrity is
    a serious safety issue that must be resolved prior to further
    power operation.''
        Do all of you agree that this is a serious safety issue?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Certainly.
        Mr. Waxman. I see the witnesses all shaking their heads in
    the affirmative. Does anybody disagree? If not, I will assume
    that all of you agree.
        Dr. Macfarlane, can you explain why these significant
    design and manufacturing flaws were not detected earlier? What
    NRC oversight process was in place to ensure that the new steam
    generators would be safe and why didn't that process identify
    the flaws before the steam generators were turned on?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Thanks for your question, Congressman
    Waxman.
        I am still learning about all the issues and the technical
    details of the issues at the San Onofre plant. And I understand
    that this past March the NRC issued a confirmatory action
    letter to require evaluation and repair of the steam generators
    prior to restart. And so the NRC will certainly ensure that the
    plant is safe before it does restart.
        As to why this was not detected prior, I will defer to my
    colleagues for much of that question, but my understanding is
    that the NRC did evaluate the plans for the new steam
    generators, but certainly I think we will be evaluating the
    lessons learned from this entire experience.
        Mr. Waxman. Anybody else want to answer anything?
        Ms. Svinicki. Yes, sir, to add to Chairman Macfarlane's
    answer. I am in agreement with her answer. I would note that
    the Augmented Inspection Team Report that you referred to that
    was issued last week also identified 10 unresolved items that
    will be the subject of additional follow-up. I would just
    mention relevant to your question that there are, of these 10
    items, some related to design issues, control of original
    design dimensions, and adequacy of Mitsubishi's thermo-
    hydraulic model that mentioned. So at least 3 of the 10 I think
    have direct relevance to the question you asked.
        Mr. Waxman. But why didn't the process identify these flaws
    before the generators were turned on?
        Ms. Svinicki. Well, I didn't mention another of the 10,
    which is the methodology itself for the review is another
    unresolved item for additional follow-up.
        Mr. Magwood. Yes, I believe, Congressman, you are asking
    the right questions, a question I have asked the staff myself
    because I believe that if you look at what the licensee did in
    going forward with the replacement, they followed our process
    the way they should have. Everyone did what they were supposed
    to do under the process. So when you have an outcome that is
    not satisfactory, you have to take a look at the process. And I
    think we should take a look at the process and see if there is
    something that we can improve.
        Mr. Waxman. Well, I hope that all of you will look to see
    how we can prevent something like this from happening again at
    a nuclear reactor. It is a relief that the shutdown of this
    reactor went smoothly, the defects in the equipment were
    discovered before there was a major release of radiation into
    the atmosphere, but it should not take a release of any amount
    of radiation into the environment before problems like this one
    are detected. If ratepayers are going to foot the $670 million
    bill for new equipment at a nuclear reactor, that equipment
    needs to be safe and last a lot longer than 1 year.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Waxman, would you mind if we allow Mr.
    Ostendorff to answer your last question, too?
        Mr. Waxman. Oh, yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. Without objection.
        Mr. Ostendorff. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus. Thank you,
    Congressman Waxman.
        I was just at San Onofre just 2 days ago----
        Mr. Waxman. Good.
        Mr. Ostendorff [continuing]. And spent 3 hours there Sunday
    afternoon this past weekend and had members of Congressman
    Issa's staff, Senator Boxer's and Senator Feinstein's staff
    with me to receive a briefing from the licensee about this
    exact issue. And I agree with everything my colleagues have
    said. I will also add that I believe there is a very
    comprehensive, rigorous technical evaluation that still is
    underway to look at these problems, and I assure you that
    everyone shares your concerns on the safety aspects of this
    issue.
        Mr. Waxman. Well, I appreciate that. We want to be sure
    that it operates safely and we don't want to have to find out
    that it wasn't operating safely after the fact. We want to
    prevent problems. Thank you.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
        Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And certainly it has been unanimously noted here that the
    previous chairman certainly was a brilliant manipulator of
    rules and therefore exposed some weaknesses in the rules and
    processes within the NRC, which we would like your feedback on
    how to properly repair. If there is a bill that comes through
    our committee on reforms of NRC rules, I would ask each of you
    if you could within the next 30 days individually provide us
    your views on legislative changes that you feel would be useful
    in this process. It is nice that we can actually now ask you
    for that type of help when before we felt like that would be,
    well, not appropriate. So it is great that there is now a new
    atmosphere that allows us to have open discussions about
    reforms within the NRC rules.
        One of the reforms that I think is necessary, and that is
    in declaration of an emergency. Again, I think that was
    highlighted by the last chairman that that is uncertain and I
    would like, Mr. Ostendorff, because of your unique background
    and view, your opinion on the lack of clarity in the management
    and leadership in the NRC during times of emergencies and how
    it could be improved.
        Mr. Ostendorff. Congressman Terry, thank you for your
    question. Let me make an overall comment first and then I will
    get to the specific issue on perhaps emergency powers----
        Mr. Terry. OK.
        Mr. Ostendorff. --if that is acceptable.
        Mr. Terry. Sure.
        Mr. Ostendorff. I would say that we have certainly under
    the Energy Reorganization Act, as well as the Commission's own
    Internal Commission Procedures, we have in place a structure
    that guides how the Commission does business. And I think
    everybody here in this committee has experience in leadership
    roles, management roles, and so often how those roles are
    executed is a function of the personality and the character of
    the person who has the key positions. And so I can say at one
    level that there are no changes required to any of our
    procedures just by virtue of the fact we have a different
    chairman in place right now. At the same time I can say that
    while it should not be situation- or personality- or
    individual-specific, and therefore, there might be some changes
    that would be appropriate. So I commit to you to providing this
    feedback within 30 days on legislative remedies.
        With respect to emergency powers, as I previously testified
    before Congress, we had and other colleagues I think the same
    situation with Chairman Jaczko at the time grave concerns on
    his lack of notification as to whether we actually were in a
    situation where he had taken emergency authority in the events
    of Fukushima. And there was a clear lack of clarity as to
    whether or not he had taken those powers, and I think certainly
    trying to have a more bright line as to whether or not those
    powers are being invoked would be appropriate.
        Mr. Terry. All right, I appreciate that.
        And Chairman Macfarlane, do you think in times of emergency
    it is important or not important to have the input of your
    other colleagues, the commissioners?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I understand that the chairman has the
    authority in an emergency and as chairman I would always follow
    the law and commission procedures I would like to----
        Mr. Terry. Is that a no, then?
        Ms. Macfarlane [continuing]. Commit to that now. No,
    certainly it is the opposite. If time allowed before emergency
    powers were declared, I would absolutely consult with the other
    commissioners to get their views and hear their concerns.
        Mr. Terry. All right. I appreciate the answer, then. And I
    have one more question regarding the voting process. One of the
    things that we have learned is that there appears to be a lack
    of transparency and commissioners, some have suggested that it
    needs to be more transparent to the point of all discussions
    should be live on camera and on the record. That is certainly
    how we do it in the House but I kind of learned that it is more
    of a collegial, almost like the Supreme Court discussions. So
    yes or no, Ms. Macfarlane, do you believe that there needs to
    be changes in how the voting process is done, you know, in 7
    seconds.
        Ms. Macfarlane. I think I need to learn more about the
    history of voting practices at the NRC to better understand the
    options for the internal voting procedures. And certainly, in
    an effort to maintain collegiality, before any changes were
    made to the voting process, I would consult again with my
    fellow commissioners to understand their thoughts on this
    issue.
        Mr. Terry. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shimkus. I thank my colleague. I would just jump in and
    just say there is also an issue of time when a vote is called
    and how long people can vote and there was a problem identified
    with that. So I appreciate that.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
    Barrow, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Members of the Commission, the biggest thing going on in my
    State right now is the construction of the two nuclear cells at
    Plant Vogtle in my district. And I wonder who is in a position
    to give me an update on the status of the progress being made
    there? Yes, sir?
        Mr. Ostendorff. Congressman, I was down there 2 weeks ago
    and visited the site, both Summer and Vogtle, and there is a
    lot of activity down there. There is probably close to 2,000
    workers on the site at Vogtle and they are working on both
    units three and four. There had been a delay over some what is
    called rebar issues on the framing that goes down for the base
    mat concrete. I believe that there is a clear path forward for
    the licensee, Southern Nuclear Company, to move forward with
    that. Our NRC resident team is onsite with at least three
    inspectors full-time plus other people from Atlanta, the Region
    2 office, to inspect the status of construction and I think
    things are moving along well.
        Mr. Barrow. What impresses me about a project this large is
    the relationship you got to have between the owners, the
    contractors, and the regulators. How would you describe the
    relationship between the three groups of actors who are
    responsible for bringing this off?
        Mr. Ostendorff. My other colleagues, I would ask them to
    add in here, Congressman, but I think there is great openness
    in communications between Southern, and they are part of a
    consortium with Westinghouse and with Shaw, which run the
    contracting group for the construction operation. I think those
    three entities on the consortium are communicating well with
    NRC and I think, as with any project, there are lessons
    learned, some improvements that could be made, but I think as
    far as where things are from where I sit, I think it is in
    pretty reasonable condition.
        Mr. Barrow. Mr. Magwood, do you have anything to add?
        Mr. Magwood. I agree with Commission Ostendorff's comments.
    I visited the site myself some months ago and have talked
    recently with leadership associated with the project. And I
    think one answer I give to your question is that it is a
    learning process. This is the first time a nuclear power plant
    has been built using the 10 CFR Part 52 process.
        Mr. Barrow. First one we have done in this country in 30
    years.
        Mr. Magwood. It is the first one in 30 years but this is
    the first plant in history ever to use this particular process.
    And I think we have all learned a lot as we have gone forward
    in the last several months that clearly the relationship
    between the owners and the contractors is evolving as we speak.
    The relationship between NRC and the project is evolving
    because of the types of information that every side needs to
    have during the construction process. It is something we are
    all learning and it has actually been a very educational
    process I think for everybody.
        Mr. Barrow. Commissioner Svinicki, do you have anything to
    add?
        Ms. Svinicki. Congressman, I would only add that I share
    your observation about the importance of this communication
    three ways, the constructor, the licensee, and the regulator,
    and I have heard that acknowledgement articulated from
    Southern, from Shaw as well. And I think there is also a
    commitment, although they realize that communications need to
    get to a very high fidelity. Also accountability of who has the
    authority to do what is something I think that they had been
    working through some issues there, who approves what kind of
    changes. But I think also there is a commitment that they want
    to map these things out and learn these lessons one time, learn
    them early, and have the process go smoothly moving forward.
        Mr. Barrow. Chairman Macfarlane, what is your impression of
    the progress being made?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Of the--sorry?
        Mr. Barrow. Of the progress being made on this project.
        Ms. Macfarlane. As far as I understand, it is going well.
    The process is working as it should and the communication
    between the regulator, the NRC, and the licensee. And I have
    not had an opportunity yet in my 2 weeks to visit the Vogtle
    plant, but I do look forward to visiting.
        Mr. Barrow. I look forward to your visit as well.
        One last question to all of you all collectively. Are there
    any concerns on the horizon that you are aware of that we need
    to address that would help us to know about?
        Ms. Macfarlane. At this point, no.
        Mr. Barrow. Does that go for the rest of you? Thank you so
    much.
        I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the time and
    also for you all coming in again to testify. I tell you, it is
    a little bit different from the past testimonies we have had
    when you have all assembled, quite refreshing.
        If I could start with this question, during the hearing
    process for a license renewal application, the Atomic Safety
    and Licensing Board and the Commission must adjudicate various
    contention petitions and appeals. Historically, such decisions
    were reached in little over 100 days on average. Beginning in
    2009--I guess we got the chart right here, as you can see--the
    average time frame doubled and remains at 185 days or higher.
    Our research shows that several matters were pending before the
    Commission for over a year. The NRC's reliability principle
    states that, ``regulatory action should always be fully
    consistent with written regulations, should be promptly,
    fairly, and decisively administered so as to lend stability to
    the nuclear operational and planning processes.'' And here is
    the question. What steps are the Commission taking to address
    this situation and promptly, fairly, and decisively administer
    these matters?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Let me take a first stab at this. I will
    take the 30,000 foot view. My understanding is that the NRC
    staff are working very efficiently, as efficiently as possible,
    but we all must recall that these license renewals and
    licensing issues are adjudicatory matters and they take time
    before the Commission, especially when they are contested. And
    we at the Commission have no control over whether these
    licensing issues are contested.
        I will let my colleagues answer, too.
        Ms. Svinicki. In viewing your chart, Congressman, I think I
    would share two observations. One is that when the time period
    began to be protracted, I believe overlaps with periods where
    the Commission only had three serving members--and although I
    can't definitely attribute the prolonged durations to that
    period--I would say that the Commission functions best when it
    is at its full complement of five. When there are only three
    members, if two vote, a quorum is not established and the third
    has, in essence, a pocket veto. And so the Commission, in my
    view, does not function as efficiently when it is down to three
    members.
        So although I can't prove that that is part of the
    attribution of the prolonged durations, the other observation
    that I would make is though I have only been on the Commission
    for a little over 4 years, I have noticed that participants and
    interveners in the Commission's proceedings have really
    observed the evolution of license renewal issues over time.
    They have become extremely skilled and informed in their
    participation and intervention in these proceedings. Therefore,
    the numbers of appeals and petitions to the Commission has
    increased.
        I think in response to your question of what can we do, I
    would make a personal pledge to look at agency resourcing for
    our Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication, which is a
    group that, as a first instance, receives and reviews briefs on
    these appeals and develops draft opinions and orders for the
    Commission. I think that we could look at whether that office
    is adequately resourced.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. Commissioner Magwood?
        Mr. Magwood. Your chart actually raises some questions in
    my own mind, so I would like to discuss with the staff to see
    if there are some trends that we should be aware of, and if
    there are some trends, find ways to correct them.
        But as a general matter, let me say that it has always been
    my view that regulatory actions take as long as they take. I
    don't think the regulators should ever really apologize for
    taking more time if more time is necessary to assure safety.
    But at the same time, I do think it is our responsibility to be
    efficient and to dispatch issues quickly and fairly. But if,
    because of the contested process, we have a longer-than-normal
    situation develop with a particular renewal, that is a process
    we simply have to work our way through. And we have had, in
    recent years, some plants that have had more difficult
    renewals.
        Mr. Latta. Commissioner Ostendorff?
        Mr. Ostendorff. Thank you, Congressman. I agree with my
    colleagues. I will add maybe just one statement that is while
    these issues with the extended license renewal process have
    typically almost always been in contested cases, I would say I
    think the commissioners at this table and Commissioner
    Apostolakis that have voted in a very timely matter on the
    actions when those have been presented to the Commission, not
    everything comes to us directly. There are certain activities
    before the licensing boards that we don't get involved in. And
    our voting record, I believe, has been very responsible as far
    as acting in a timely manner once it gets to us. Oftentimes,
    that is delayed because of contentions.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        And Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired.
        Mr. Shimkus. Your time has expired.
        The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California,
    Mrs. Capps, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And Chairman Macfarlane, congratulations on your new
    position. I wish you every success. The fact that you are 2
    weeks on the job and you are making an appearance here shows a
    lot of courage on your part, and I appreciate your willingness
    to do so.
        Before I get to my questions, as my colleague, Mr. Waxman,
    mentioned, I do represent--I have Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
    Plant in California and the surrounding communities. Right now,
    some of the best eyes and minds in our country and looking at
    the seismic issues at this plant. And I have worked with the
    NRC and the utility there, which is PG&E, to pause the
    relicensing process until advanced seismic studies are finished
    and reviewed. And I do give a lot of credit to PG&E, as well as
    State and Federal regulators, for working to update their
    seismic analyses. As a geologist, you surely recognize why this
    type of analysis is very important. This is first and foremost
    about safety.
        But the seismic concern also impacts affordability and
    reliable generation as well. My constituents living in the
    communities around Diablo feel the same way. And I just want
    your commitment to work with us and make sure these studies are
    completed in a timely manner.
        Ms. Macfarlane. Absolutely.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
        Ms. Macfarlane. I am absolutely committed to that.
        Mrs. Capps. And now, I want to turn to the Fukushima
    disaster and the spent fuel pools. Fukushima clearly
    illustrates how spent fuel pools can become unstable when a
    nuclear power plant loses the power needed to cool them. The
    spent fuel rods in Fukushima continue to pose serious problems
    and many concerns as Japan attempts to stabilize and clean up
    the site. My understanding is that many spent fuel pools in the
    United States are even more densely packed with spent fuel
    rods. Chairman Macfarlane, what are the safety concerns
    associated with densely packed spent fuel pools?
        Ms. Macfarlane. This is an issue in one of the Fukushima
    activities, the Tier 3 Fukushima activities that the NRC will
    be looking at. So I assure you, this issue will get attention.
    And it is, I believe, also getting attention from a National
    Academy of Sciences study as well.
        Mrs. Capps. Exactly. The alternative to pool storage, of
    course, is dry cask storage----
        Ms. Macfarlane. Um-hum.
        Mrs. Capps [continuing]. And in 2006 the National Academy
    of Science issued a report showing that moving spent fuel from
    pools to dry above-ground casks reduces both the likelihood and
    potential impact of a radioactive release from spent fuel. This
    is my question: Do you believe dry casks do rely on external
    power sources to cool the stored fuel?
        Ms. Macfarlane. No, they are passively cooled.
        Mrs. Capps. OK. As we all know, the reactors in Fukushima
    lost all power after the earthquake and the tsunami. So the
    question is, how did the dry cask on Fukushima site withstand
    the earthquake, the tsunami, and subsequent station blackout? I
    am sure this is a question you have been addressing.
        Ms. Macfarlane. My understanding is that the spent fuel
    casks, the dry casks at Fukushima withstood both the earthquake
    and tsunami very well. And we have additional information from
    this country because there were dry casks at the North Anna
    facility in Virginia during last summer's Mineral, Virginia,
    earthquake, and those dry casks also performed very well.
        I invite my colleagues to add anything if they would like.
        Mr. Magwood. I would just add one comment and that is that
    while there certainly has been a lot of concern and discussion
    about the spent fuel pools at the Fukushima site, the fact is
    that the spent fuel pools at Fukushima actually survived the
    event reasonably well. And today, we believe from all the
    information we received from our Japanese colleagues are safe
    right now. And while we encourage them to move that spent fuel
    out of those pools as quickly as possible, it does demonstrate
    how rigorous these buildings and structures are, and the
    ability of the facility at the Fukushima site to survive an
    earthquake and tsunami does give some confidence that these
    pools are safe and don't present a threat to the public.
        Mrs. Capps. And of course this is a topic that is going to
    take a lot of continued study, long-term study, and I don't
    have to ask--I hope I can assume--that there is a tremendous
    interest on your part in doing that given the benefits of dry
    casks it would seem. And I ask for a confirmation from you or
    some comments that accelerating transfer of spent fuel from
    pools to casks lowers the risk posed by densely packed spent
    fuel pools. And then to sum up in the few seconds your thoughts
    on this particular area, which I wish to explore with you
    further.
        Ms. Macfarlane. Sure. And I would be happy to explore this
    in the future with you at greater length, but as I said,
    certainly the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is looking at this
    specific issue and will gather more information about this
    specific issue.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time is expired.
        The chair will now recognize the gentleman from West
    Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        To the committee as a whole, I think earlier there was some
    discussion about the--or Congressman Barton bringing up the
    subject of the Yucca Mountain. There was some discussion about
    it. I am curious. I have been reading about Yucca Mountain
    since the '80s. I am just one of two engineers in Congress who
    practice engineering. '82 is when the Act was put into effect.
    In '87 is when Yucca Mountain was designated to be the
    repository. Twenty-five years we are still talking about it. Is
    that what I am hearing from the panel? We are not sure what we
    are going to do with that?
        Ms. Macfarlane. It is not the NRC's job to make policy. We
    are a regulator. But given that and given my past experience as
    a commissioner on the Blue Ribbon Commission, I will say, yes,
    there is still discussion about Yucca Mountain. And let me just
    say as a scientist--you are an engineer and maybe engineers,
    you work faster than scientists--but science often works very
    slowly.
        Mr. McKinley. But I think we work faster than 25 years. I
    am just curious how much money has been spent on Yucca Mountain
    in terms of infrastructure, bricks-and-mortar? What have we
    invested in that over these 25 years?
        Ms. Macfarlane. This again is an issue that is not under
    the control or purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
    but I believe if you are looking just at what has been spent on
    Yucca Mountain itself and not on the entire waste disposal
    program, you are looking at a figure between 7 and $8 billion
        Mr. McKinley. I am sorry?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Between 7 and 8 billion dollars. I don't
    have the exact number.
        Mr. McKinley. Seven and eight billion dollars?
        Mr. Shimkus. If the gentleman would yield, I think you can
    make some claims for 15 billion. And the other thing, just to
    put this in perspective, what the NRC needs to do is finish the
    scientific study. A lot of Yucca Mountain issue is DOE and
    money spent in that venue.
        Mr. McKinley. We have the permit.
        Mr. Shimkus. The NRC is tasked, we hope, eventually to
    finish the scientific study, and then that would then be the
    final aspect of proving the viability for Yucca. They won't
    manage the site. There are not going to be empowered to do
    that.
        Mr. McKinley. I am just trying to get a better handle of it
    up close. This glacial pace that we move around here is pretty
    incredible to think that 25 years later we still don't have a
    place to deposit. So my question would from you all, your
    perspective, given there are probably two courses of action
    dealing with spent fuel rods, they are either going to go into
    a geological formation below the ground someplace or we are
    going to recycle them as they do in France with AREVA La Hague.
    So can you tell me which is the more likely direction you see
    nuclear fuel rods going in in this country?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Well, again, the NRC doesn't set that
    policy for the U.S. The NRC regulates the reactors and
    materials.
        Mr. McKinley. I understand you don't, but in your opinion,
    you are the regulatory group on nuclear power.
        Ms. Macfarlane. Um-hum.
        Mr. McKinley. Where do you think we are going as a nation
    after 25 years we can't decide it is going to be Yucca Mountain
    in Washington----
        Ms. Macfarlane. Well----
        Mr. McKinley [continuing]. Are we going to go to recycling?
    Which direction do you think we should go as a nation?
        Ms. Macfarlane. No matter whether you go in direct disposal
    of spent fuel or you recycle as France does, you will need a
    final repository. And France itself is working now on its final
    site selection for a deep geologic repository.
        Mr. McKinley. As a nation, do you see us in recycling ever?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I think it is largely an economic and
    policy question.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. I don't think it comes under your purview
    but I believe under the Act in '82 that they set up that the
    consumers using nuclear power would be assessed charges for the
    disposal of----
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, the Nuclear Waste Fund, yes.
        Mr. McKinley. Right. Where is that money going? If we don't
    have----
        Ms. Macfarlane. You manage it. Congress manages the money,
    the Nuclear Waste Fund and you appropriate it.
        Mr. McKinley. I am trying to understand here. So we can
    have that turned back over to the consumer or is it being
    collected and just saved?
        Ms. Macfarlane. It has been collected and saved into the
    Nuclear Waste Fund and the consumers--sorry, it is the
    ratepayers who pay into this fund at 1 mil per kilowatt hour.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
        Mr. McKinley. My time is expired, I am sorry. Thank you.
        Mr. Shimkus. Before I go to the gentlelady from Florida, I
    would ask unanimous consent for my colleague, Mr. Green, for 1
    minute.
        Mr. Green. This is for my colleague. I think we need to
    look at both long-term storage, which Yucca Mountain was the
    solution from the '80s, but we also need to look at recycling.
    But we have to have interim storage. And the success in these
    other countries--France, for example--they have interim storage
    but recycling--but again France doesn't have a long-term
    storage solution either whereas Sweden--and I know Mr. Murphy
    and I were there a while back and they at least have a
    potential for long-term storage in Sweden.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
    Castor, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all very much for being here this morning.
        Dr. Macfarlane, in your testimony you reference that there
    are currently two units in extended shutdowns, and one of those
    is the Crystal River Unit 3 in Florida. Crystal River remains
    in extended shutdown while its owner evaluates repair options
    for a separation in the concrete wall of the containment
    building. In 2009, you all are aware they were conducting some
    repairs there, and during that time, they discovered and
    unexpected crack, separation in the concrete wall. And I guess
    the technical term is delamination. You all know more about
    that than I do. They informed the NRC. NRC sent an inspection
    team. You all followed up with a special inspection team. You
    have had public meetings. You have issued a special inspection
    report, came down for another public meeting. In June of last
    year, Progress Energy, the owner then, stated their intent that
    they intended to repair Crystal River and they were proceeding
    with necessary engineering and construction plans, dealing with
    insurance issues, and had stated an intent to return the plant
    to service in 2014.
        Since that time, just hear earlier in the month, Progress
    Energy merged with Duke Energy, and reports following that
    merger appear to make the future of the Crystal River Unit 3
    plant a little more uncertain. It appears that the NRC's
    position has been that Crystal River can be repaired safely. Is
    that correct in your opinions? And have any of you traveled to
    the site?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Well, as you might suspect, I haven't had
    the opportunity to travel to Crystal River yet but I intend to
    learn more about the situation at Crystal River. And I will ask
    my colleagues to comment.
        Mr. Magwood. I had the opportunity to visit Crystal River.
    I think it has probably been about 2 months ago. And I did
    inspect the repair work that is underway. The NRC staff has
    been watching this very closely. The repair work that is
    underway is very complex in many ways. Some of it is actually
    quite unique, but from everything that I was able to learn
    during my visit and subsequent conversations, it is clearly
    repairable. It is clearly something that the licensee knows how
    to complete. I think that the kinds of discussions that you are
    referring to are business decisions really. How long are they
    willing to wait and how much will it cost them? But from a
    regulatory standpoint, from a technical standpoint it seems
    quite repairable. But whether it is a decision they plan to
    make or not, we will wait and see.
        Ms. Castor. Any other comment?
        Mr. Ostendorff. I visited Crystal River maybe 2 years ago.
    My understanding is not as up-to-date as Commissioner Magwood,
    but I believe it is consistent with what I have heard
    generally.
        Ms. Castor. OK. Is it the NRC's role to examine the costs,
    do a cost-benefit analysis of moving forward or not?
        Ms. Svinicki. No, that would not be an appropriate role for
    us.
        Ms. Castor. OK. If the nuclear reactor is repaired, is it
    subject to all of the updated NRC safety requirements?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes.
        Ms. Castor. Including ones--is that the same as if it were
    going for a new license? The license for this plant expires in
    2016. Is that the same analysis and the same requirements?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Same requirements for?
        Ms. Castor. A repair. Would NRC be asking for the same
    updated safety requirements when they go for a license renewal?
    The license expires there in 2016.
        Ms. Macfarlane. My understanding is no, not necessarily.
        Mr. Magwood. I think as a general matter that all of our
    plants operate under the same safety standards. So we don't
    differentiate between a plant that is operating under its
    original license versus a plant that is operating under its
    renewed license or a plant that has been repaired. They are all
    expected to meet the same standards.
        Ms. Castor. Are you aware that the Duke Energy Board of
    Directors conducted an independent analysis of the Crystal
    River plant? And has anyone received any report or the details
    of that independent analysis conducted here over the last few
    months?
        Ms. Svinicki. I am not aware of that and I am not aware
    that the agency has received any such report.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time is expired.
        I do appreciate my colleagues really getting their
    questions done and we have got a lot of Members that are still
    obviously here to ask questions. And everybody has been doing
    it in a timely manner. I appreciate that.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
    Gardner, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
    witnesses for your time today. And welcome, Ms. Macfarlane, to
    the committee.
        In a previous question, there was a question about
    emergency powers that were taken up by the previous chairman of
    the NRC. Any of those powers left, residual powers? They have
    all been business as usual has been restored, returned?
        Ms. Macfarlane. It is my understanding.
        Mr. Gardner. Thank you.
        And a couple questions about the Office of Public Affairs I
    think are very important to some of the interactions that we
    have had as this committee with the NRC. If you take a look at
    the Reorganization Plan of 1980 that provided the Office of
    Public Affairs reports directly to the chairman to assist the
    chairman as the principle spokesman for the agency, when this
    committee began its investigation into governance of the NRC,
    we identified some key questions about the role of the Office
    of Public Affairs. And I wanted to just talk and read a little
    bit about some of the work that we have seen coming out of the
    Office of Public Affairs.
        And this is from a July 2011 rollout plan for the Fukushima
    Task Force recommendations, as prepared by the director of the
    Office of Public Affairs. ``In this speech, the chairman can
    lay out his thought for how to proceed, what he sees as his
    priorities, the need to move with dispatch, et cetera. This
    will be a subtle nudge to others to get on board or appear to
    be foot-dragging. The speech needs to be a) newsworthy, and b)
    collegial but firm with perhaps a notional timetable to set
    expectations which, if not met, he can point to as evidence of
    fill-in-the-blank criticism.'' That statement then was made.
    And of course, in December to the Washington Post editorial
    page, there was another statement from the Office of Public
    Affairs. ``As you may have noticed, our chairman is in a
    shooting match with his four colleagues on the Commission, a
    very public and bitter dispute.''
        The office director drafted a statement that read, ``I was
    not the choice of the nuclear industry to sit on the
    Commission, let alone be chairman. Time after time on critical
    safety questions, my vote has been the lone tally cast in the
    interest of stronger safety requirements and accountability.
    Others have sought a different level of safety. Some have
    sought to delay and dilute safety decisions.'' And I guess I
    would ask to you, Madam Chairman and to the other
    commissioners, do you believe it is appropriate for the Public
    Affairs Office to devise press strategies to influence
    commissioners' votes or to impugn commissioners' dedication to
    public safety?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Thanks for your question. As you said, my
    understanding is that the Office of Public Affairs at the NRC
    assists the chairman in carrying out his or her
    responsibilities as principle spokesperson for the NRC.
    Therefore, the director of Public Affairs and the Office of
    Public Affairs work at the direction of the chairman. And all I
    can point out is now, there is a new chairman. And in my 2
    weeks there, I have been comfortable working with the Office of
    Public Affairs.
        Mr. Gardner. And so the question of do you believe it is
    appropriate for Public Affairs to devise press strategies to
    influence commissioners' votes, you would disagree with that
    strategy?
        Ms. Macfarlane. As far as I understand your question, yes.
        Mr. Gardner. So you would not be using the Office of Public
    Affairs--Public Affairs would not be used to try to influence
    other commissioners?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I have absolutely no intention of doing
    that.
        Mr. Gardner. Or to impugn dedication to public safety?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I have no intention of that.
        Mr. Gardner. Other commissioners care to comment?
        Ms. Svinicki. I would note, Congressman, that a member of
    the committee this morning asked for any recommendations where
    statutory language could be perhaps clarified about the
    appropriate uses of perhaps an office such as Public Affairs.
    And so I would note that the legislative history of this matter
    indicates that although the chairman is the principle
    spokesman, he or she is to be bound in those communications by
    the overall policy and guidance of the Commission as a whole.
    So I didn't respond earlier to the question about proposing
    changes to the Reorganization Act or plan, but I do feel that
    my experiences of the last 4 years have exposed areas where
    there was disagreements amongst members of the Commission about
    what these statutory provisions meant.
        And so in my commitment to provide any proposals, I think
    they wouldn't be to change anything the Congress did after
    Three Mile Island because I think it was appropriate to
    strengthen the chairman's role, but I do think that we have
    disputed each other over what some of the words mean. And to
    the extent that the Congress were willing to clarify or
    emphasize some of these points, I think it could further the
    collegial functioning of the Commission in the future.
        Mr. Gardner. And that is exactly right. And so going back--
    I am running short on time here--just to make sure that we are
    clear on what this Office of Public Affairs can and shouldn't
    be used for, to the chairman, is it appropriate for the
    chairman to use the Public Affairs Office to promote personal
    views as a commissioner? I direct that to you.
        Ms. Macfarlane. To promote personal views?
        Mr. Gardner. Yes, to promote----
        Ms. Macfarlane. No, the----
        Mr. Gardner [continuing]. Their personal policy views,
    excuse me.
        Ms. Macfarlane. Sorry. The chairman is representing the
    organization, so personal views should not be part of this.
        Mr. Gardner. OK. And you made the comments on the collegial
    structure. And I guess I would just ask for your commitment,
    Madam Chairman. Will you commit to refrain from these tactics
    that have been used in the past?
        Ms. Macfarlane. As far as I understand them, yes, I commit.
        Mr. Gardner. As far as you understand them? So you will not
    use----
        Ms. Macfarlane. As far as I understand what happened in the
    past. I was not part of the Commission in the past and I am
    trying to understand what has happened with the Office of----
        Mr. Gardner. So you won't be using the Public Affairs--I am
    out of time.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
        Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr.
    Engel, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, everybody. Dr. Macfarlane, congratulations. I want
    to talk to you about Indian Point in New York City suburbs. It
    is one of the most serious issues facing New York. Indian Point
    is located obviously by our Nation's largest metropolitan area.
    It has an operational history that has been plagued by
    irresponsible acts, unplanned shutdowns, lacking spent fuel
    pools, and inadequate emergency notification and response
    systems.
        One of the planes hijacked on September 11 flew over Indian
    Point on its way to the World Trade Center. We have learned
    that the plant is located near two seismic faults that together
    raise the possibility of an earthquake far larger than any
    anticipated when it was built. And there simply aren't enough
    roads to allow for a real evacuation in the event of an
    accident or attack. Neither of the county executives in both
    Westchester County, which I represent, and Rockland County,
    which I also represent, both county executives--one Republican,
    one Democratic--have refused to certify the evacuation plans
    for Indian Point because they know they are ridiculous.
        Indian Point's two active reactors are set to retire in
    2013 and 2015 unless their application for license renewal are
    approved, and there has always been a cozy relationship,
    unfortunately, between the NRC and the industry which in my
    opinion has precluded a serious and realistic evaluation of the
    safety of Indian Point. I have toured it. I have been there
    with your predecessor, Dr. Macfarlane, and I am interested in
    meeting with you to discuss Indian Point in greater detail and
    perhaps tour with me and Congresswoman Lowey. Would you be
    willing to arrange a time to meet with me and talk?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Would I be willing to do that in the
    future? Absolutely. I would be willing to talk with you about
    it and visit it together with you.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you. And let me say at the outset I am not
    opposed to nuclear power. I never issued a peep about Indian
    Point until September 11 when it became clear to many of us
    that this was a safety hazard. So thank you.
        I want to talk about decommissioning. It is an expensive
    process. The New York Times reported in March of this year that
    the operators of 20 of the Nation's aging nuclear reactors,
    including some whose licenses expire soon, have not saved
    nearly enough money for prompt and proper dismantling. And
    Entergy, which owns the Indian Point plant, again, just 24
    miles north of New York City and is at least $500 million short
    of the $1.5 billion estimated cost of dismantling Indian Point
    Reactors 2 and 3. Entergy insists that the shortfall won't be a
    problem because they expect Indian Point to be relicensed for
    another 20 years, and over that period of time, they expect
    interest to accrue to sufficient levels in the reactor's
    retirement accounts. But the fact is that 12 reactors across
    the country have been retired in the last 3 decades all on
    short notice because of a design or safety flaw that the
    economics did not justify fixing. The shortfall in these
    retirement accounts raises the possibility that New York could
    be sitting on sleeping reactors for decades.
        So Dr. Macfarlane, I would like to ask you, what do you
    envision happening if one of the Nation's 20 underfunded
    reactors needed to be decommissioned?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Well, I will note that the U.S. has
    decommissioned a number of reactors and they have been
    decommissioned successfully. So it can happen. There can be a
    positive outcome.
        As far as how to handle the scenario that you describe, I
    think we will probably have to visit it if it happens.
        Mr. Engel. OK. I want to finally talk about relicense
    criteria because I have long been concerned that the
    relicensing of aging power plants is not subject to the same
    stringent criteria used in an application for new power plants
    for initial construction. So let me ask you this, Doctor. Would
    you support using the same criteria for relicensing an existing
    plant as we used to license new plants?
        Ms. Macfarlane. The brand new plants, my understanding that
    we have a well established license renewal program. Of course,
    that doesn't substitute for day-to-day regulatory oversight
    that is required of the operating plants. There is a lengthy
    public hearing process that engages a variety of stakeholders
    in relicensing. And so all of this information is publicly
    available. And I commit to ensuring that these reactors operate
    safely.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you. If I may just take about 5 more
    seconds, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say that information that
    wasn't available when the plant was originally licensed, in my
    estimation, should that not be considered in relicensing?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I think it depends on the particular
    situation.
        Mr. Engel. OK, thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shimkus. I thank my colleague. The gentleman's time is
    expired.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Burgess, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Burgess. I thank the chairman for the recognition.
        And I thank our witnesses for staying with us through this
    lengthy hearing today but it is important. And we hear a lot--
    you all mentioned that in your opening statements about the
    collegiality and the importance of that. And of course the
    average American doesn't know what the NRC is and probably
    would not be able to name the commissioners, but for the
    average American, why should they care about collegiality on
    the Board? Aren't you just supposed to do your jobs anyway?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Certainly, we are supposed to do our jobs
    anyway. I think we do them better and we do gain the trust of
    the American people when they do realize that there is an NRC
    out there. We gain a stronger sense of trust when we do operate
    collegially. I think it is very important that we operate
    collegially just to make the process and all the decisions that
    we make work efficiently.
        Mr. Burgess. I don't disagree with that, but in fact,
    should not people be able to depend on your commission even in
    the absence of collegiality?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, absolutely. And I think that the
    Commission did operate and handle all the issues that came
    before it no matter what the situation.
        Mr. Burgess. Well, it did seem that at times there were
    whispers, there were rumors that, you know, legitimate
    differences in policy were interpreted as some of the
    commissioners being characterized as anti-safety. For the three
    commissioners who set the historical precedence, did that ever
    come up with your discussions amongst yourselves?
        Ms. Svinicki. Congressman, I disagree with the
    characterization that some of the recent issues on the
    Commission had to do with disagreeing votes on policy matters.
    I believe over the course of my tenure I have served with a
    number of members of the Commission who are no longer on the
    Commission. I think at one time or another I have probably
    disagreed with everybody. I think that the dysfunction on the
    Commission was much more substantive than a simple policy
    disagreement.
        Mr. Burgess. Was----
        Ms. Svinicki. It was more substantive. It had to do with
    impeding the flow of information and other very fundamental
    issues that I felt obstructed the ability for this commission
    to operate the way Congress intended.
        Mr. Burgess. So legitimate policy differences really should
    not be interpreted as anti-safety, but you are saying there was
    an actual impediment of information flow that kept you from
    doing your job. Whether there was a policy difference or not,
    you were not able to do your job as far as public health and
    safety was concerned?
        Ms. Svinicki. That is correct.
        Mr. Burgess. And I guess I am getting the impression this
    morning that that situation has resolved?
        Ms. Svinicki. I think we are off to a very, very productive
    beginning.
        Mr. Burgess. So the American public to the extent that they
    are watching this hearing this morning can take some comfort in
    the fact that whereas public health and safety may not have
    been at the forefront in the past, it will be going forward?
        Ms. Svinicki. I think all of us kept public health and
    safety forefront, and as Chairman Macfarlane indicated, there
    was an impressive amount of agency work that was conducted.
    However, I would hope that some would view there is a great
    unanimity here and there is an optimism about moving forward.
        Mr. Burgess. Mr. Ostendorff, let me ask you a question
    because you brought up your observation that the series of
    events in Japan of March 2011 would be unlikely to occur in
    this country. I suspect that the month before the earthquake,
    that same statement could have been made about Japan, could it
    not?
        Mr. Ostendorff. Congressman, I think the way I would
    respond to that is that there are significant regulatory
    differences and some cultural differences between the United
    States and Japan as it affects the nuclear industry. As other
    members of the committee have noted, the Japanese Diet report
    that came out just last week highlighted two substantive
    differences between the United States' regulatory framework and
    that in Japan, one dealing with the actions we took in this
    country after the attacks of 9/11 to require additional
    mitigating strategies called B.5.b under our rules to deal with
    fires, explosions, and flooding; and second, to deal with the
    station blackouts and loss of all AC power. And I think those
    are two substantive differences between our two regulatory
    frameworks that are significant factors from the comparison of
    the two countries.
        Mr. Burgess. Let me just ask you--and I may have to submit
    this for the record because of time--but the month before the
    Japanese earthquake, Chairman Shimkus took several of us out to
    Yucca Mountain. And after the Japanese earthquake, one of the
    big problems that was encountered was the loss of the spent
    fuel rods that were in the cooling pools and the loss of
    electricity. It seemed to me that just underscored the
    importance of getting whatever the long-term storage solution
    is--and I believe Yucca Mountain is still viable--but getting
    that done and getting those spent fuel rods out of those pools.
    Do you have any thoughts on that?
        Mr. Ostendorff. Well, I think as others at this table have
    mentioned earlier in today's testimony, the Office of Research
    at the NRC is working on a study--it is almost finished--on the
    spent fuel pool risk associated with keeping fuel in the pool
    as contrasted to taking them out of the pool and putting them
    into dry cask where they are air-cooled. There are a lot of
    other factors associated with, you know, an accelerated
    campaign of taking those out in an expedited manner, and I
    think overall, our staff's assessment to date has been those
    risks are very, very low. But it is still something we are
    looking at as part of our Fukushima actions.
        Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
    Scalise, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
    having this hearing. I appreciate the commissioners for coming
    before us.
        We have had almost a year-and-a-half now since Fukushima to
    receive vast amounts of data. A lot has been published about
    the causes, the actions being taken by the global industry.
    With the benefit of the information that we have, have any of
    your initial conclusions--for those of you--we got a little
    construction going on here.
        Mr. Shimkus. Would the gentleman suspend for a second?
        Mr. Scalise. Sure.
        Mr. Shimkus. Committee staff, someone needs to find out who
    is doing work and get them to stop.
        Gentleman may proceed.
        Mr. Scalise. Not sure if that is a shovel-ready project. I
    guess I will proceed and we will just have to bear with it.
        But based on the data that we have, have any of you maybe
    have different reactions today than what the initial assessment
    were back a year and a half ago or, you know, less than a year
    and a half ago about the cause and the priority of the
    regulatory actions associated with Fukushima? If we could just
    start with Mr. Ostendorff and go down.
        Mr. Ostendorff. Thank you, Congressman.
        I think, you know, right after the Fukushima event, the
    Commission made a decision that we did not need to shut down
    nuclear power plants in this country. We felt that there was no
    imminent risk. I believe that finding is still relevant today
    and appropriate today. I think that at a big-picture level, the
    intervening months have indicated that we were on a good track
    and are on a good track to take an integrated, prioritized
    approach to what actions we need to take. And I think the
    emphasis on Tier 1 activities to date, mitigating strategies,
    station blackout, looking at external hazards has been
    appropriate. And I think that is echoed and been reinforced
    over the last 16, 17 months.
        Mr. Scalise. Thanks. Mr. Magwood?
        Mr. Magwood. I think that over the last year, we have had
    ample opportunity to talk to our international colleagues about
    their response to the Fukushima events. And as I have talked
    with regulators around the world, I have discovered a great
    deal of commonality between what we are doing and the thoughts
    that they are having. We actually are more advanced in many of
    our efforts than they are, so that gives us some reassurance.
    And I think that the more we know about how things actually
    unfolded in Japan over the last several years, we see that the
    Japanese have much more to learn from Fukushima than we did and
    that they are trying to absorb those lessons themselves. And a
    lot of them are cultural issues that are very difficult to
    change.
        So as the last year and a half has gone by, I actually have
    grown in confidence that our steps we have taken are the
    appropriate steps.
        Mr. Scalise. Ms. Svinicki?
        Ms. Svinicki. I agree with my colleagues.
        Mr. Scalise. Thanks. I don't know if you have got maybe a
    top five or just some top safety changes that you think both
    the NRC and the industry have taken. What are some of the top
    things to improve safety that you have seen or that you think
    should be done that haven't been done based on the information
    we know now?
        Mr. Magwood. Let me take the first crack at that. First,
    let me say I do think that the infrastructure that we had and
    the approaches we had before Fukushima were very strong. I
    don't think that they were lacking. But one thing I would point
    to is a greater acceptance of the need to be able to respond to
    beyond-design-basis events. And that is not one specific
    change; it is more of a philosophical change I think that we
    are all dealing with. The idea that you prepare to go beyond
    the worst-case scenario, you provide equipment, you provide
    training, you do whatever you can to be ready to respond in
    case there is a large earthquake or a large flood or a large
    storm. And that is a philosophical change that the agency is
    adopting.
        Mr. Scalise. All right. Thanks.
        If you look at situations where the NRC comes out with new
    requirements to hinder implementation of other recent NRC
    requirements, when you look at the NRC efficiency principle,
    which states, ``regulatory activity should be consistent with
    the degree of risk reduction they achieve,'' I think,
    Commissioner Magwood, you had written, ``it does not as a
    general matter advance the cause of safety to inundate licensee
    staffs with multiple actions when a more thoughtful process
    might achieve the agency's safety goals without straining
    licensee resources.'' Do you have a view on whether staff
    industry concerns on potential cumulative effects on multiple
    new requirements have merit?
        Mr. Magwood. I think there is some merit, but I think it is
    very important to understand why there is merit. And I think
    the reason it is important is to make sure that--and I think
    you and a previous Member put it very well--that you are not
    distracted by issues of low safety significance, and in dealing
    with those, miss something that is much more important. It is
    always most important to focus on priority safety effects but
    make sure you deal with those early. And I do think that we
    ought to look for more ways of addressing that in our process
    to make sure that we aren't focusing too much on the small
    things and missing the big things.
        Mr. Scalise. All right. I see I am out of time. I
    appreciate the answers. I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts,
    Mr. Markey, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to welcome you, Chairman Macfarlane, and
    congratulate you on your recent confirmation.
        After the Fukushima meltdown, then-Chairman Jaczko created
    a task force to recommend safety upgrades for American nuclear
    reactors. That task force was made up of NRC officials who,
    together, had more than 135 years of nuclear regulatory
    expertise. Its report was released more than a year ago and
    included 12 recommendations, which ranged from requirements to
    upgrade seismic and flood protections against the long power
    outages that were the ultimate cause of the Japanese meltdown.
    They also concluded that each and every one of the
    recommendations were necessary for the adequate protection of
    nuclear power plants and that they should be mandatory for each
    nuclear reactor--mandatory. Chairman Jaczko immediately
    announced his support for all of the NRC staff's
    recommendation. Regrettably, some of his fellow NRC
    commissioners did not do likewise and initially insisted that
    other NRC staff review the task force report before the
    Commission voted on any of the recommendations.
        But this second staff review reached the same conclusions
    as the first one. They concluded that all recommendations
    should be made mandatory. Despite this, the Commission has not
    voted to endorse its top staff reviews, and thus, it is
    possible that some of the Fukushima safety upgrades will never
    be made mandatory for all nuclear power plants.
        Chairman Macfarlane, do you support the conclusion of the
    NRC's top safety experts that all of the post-Fukushima safety
    recommendations are necessary for the adequate protection of
    nuclear power plants?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Thanks for that question. As chairman, I am
    strongly committed to protecting the public health and safety
    and I am strongly committed to shepherding the Fukushima Task
    Force recommendations through. And I----
        Mr. Markey. Do you believe that they should be mandatory?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I think that I need to understand more
    about, especially the Tier 2 and Tier 3 activities, especially
    the Tier 3 activities.
        Mr. Markey. Would it be a good idea or outcome if it turned
    out that the nuclear industry argued its way out of adopting
    some of the recommendations that top experts recommended on the
    grounds that it would be too expensive or inconvenient?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Certainly, that would not be a good
    outcome.
        Mr. Markey. Well, when the NRC staff reviewed the task
    force report, it identified several safety measures that could
    be implemented quickly and I am pleased that the Commission has
    moved forward on these. The staff stated that the fact that
    they had identified some recommendations that could be adopted
    early ``should not be interpreted as a lack of support for the
    other task force recommendations.'' But recently, the Nuclear
    Energy Institute started to discourage the NRC from moving
    forward on the rest of the recommendations saying that the
    recommendations that were adopted would accomplish ``as much as
    90 percent of the safety benefit from all recommendations'' and
    that ``at this time, the safety benefits derived from the rest
    of the recommendations are unclear.''
        So I would like you to respond to this, Chairman
    Macfarlane. Do you agree with the Nuclear Energy Institute that
    the Commission should delay or stop the consideration of the
    rest of the safety recommendations that the NRC's Fukushima
    Task Force made?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Markey. Absolutely not. And I agree with you. And I
    know that there are other commissioners who disagree with that
    point of view and I would just like to say that you have a very
    difficult job ahead of you, Madam Chair, and you need to keep
    in mind that your duty is not to win a popularity contest at
    the NRC with commissioners who disagree with this safety agenda
    but you must lead it in an absolutely critical time when it is
    faced with a daunting task of responding to the lessons of the
    Fukushima nuclear meltdowns in a way that ensures that such a
    thing never happens in the United States. You are charged with
    the task of ensuring the safety of our fleet of existing
    nuclear plants, of licensing any new ones, and of responding to
    what future course our nation takes with respect to the
    seemingly intractable issues of how to dispose of all of the
    toxic high level nuclear waste.
        And while I would hope that all would be sweetness and
    light over at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I seriously
    doubt that that will be the case. So don't be afraid to stick
    to your guns and do what is right for the American people, even
    if that puts you on the losing side of a vote. For in the end,
    Madam Chair, your term as chairman will be judged on whether
    you have successfully completed the task of fully implementing
    the NRC Task Force recommendation on Fukushima, on ensuring
    that there is safety in the disposal of nuclear waste. And that
    will be your legacy, notwithstanding the fact that there are
    going to be other members of the Commission who disagree with
    that agenda.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
    Walden, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walden. I thank the chairman and I welcome the new
    chairwoman to the Commission. We appreciate you and your
    colleagues and the important role that you play in providing
    safety and security to our nation's nuclear power facilities.
    As my colleagues I think up and down the aisle and across the
    aisle, we all believe that that is an essential part of your
    job both moving forward with nuclear energy development but
    making sure we are safe along the way.
        I would like to ask the other commissioner since you
    weren't given a chance to respond to my colleague's question
    regarding the task force recommendations, your views on those
    recommendations, and whether you believe they should be just
    automatically adopted or not or why they are not. And maybe we
    could just go from left to right since the chairwoman had a
    chance to respond.
        Ms. Svinicki. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        Upon receipt of those recommendations from the task force I
    voted, as did a commission majority, to take that output of
    that small group, albeit very experienced as Congressman Markey
    mentioned, they were just a small group of individuals. And I
    voted to subject those recommendations to the opportunity for
    public outreach, for comment, for a wide diversity of
    stakeholders to have an opportunity to comment on that and then
    for the NRC staff to synthesize all of that input and
    prioritize and propose to the Commission a plan for moving
    forward on those recommendations. Sitting here today, I
    continue to believe that that was a fulsome and appropriate way
    to proceed.
        Mr. Walden. So there had not been a transparent or public
    process prior to that?
        Ms. Svinicki. There had not been an opportunity to
    ventilate or to have public comment on those recommendations.
        Mr. Walden. Is that a normal process at an independent
    agency?
        Ms. Svinicki. I think that it is not inappropriate for
    commissioners to have, as a starting point, a small experienced
    group provide some advice. And it was comprised solely of NRC
    staff. But I do think that it was important to take that very
    timely and I think informed output and subject it to a much
    broader kind of opportunity for public comment.
        Mr. Walden. Appreciate that.
        Mr. Magwood, would you care to comment?
        Mr. Magwood. Yes, I think Commissioner Svinicki said it
    very well. In addition, we also insisted that the Advisory
    Committee on Reactor Safeguards, our expert, outside
    independent advisory group, give us input as to their thoughts
    about these recommendations. And we also, because we were
    learning as we went during that process, we individual
    commissioners actually did make additions, not subtractions but
    additions to what the task force recommended.
        Mr. Walden. Is that right?
        Mr. Magwood. Absolutely. There were several instances where
    our colleague, Commissioner Apostolakis put in new items. I put
    in new items. Others did as well. So we----
        Mr. Walden. Additional safeguard items?
        Mr. Magwood. Additional items for study that I believe will
    eventually be adopted. And I think these are very important.
    And Commissioner Ostendorff, for example, made the addressing
    the station blackout a very high priority, higher than I think
    the staff had originally anticipated. So the Commission took a
    very active role in this and I think a very positive, very
    beneficial role, and I am very proud of what we did.
        Mr. Walden. Commissioner Ostendorff, so explain to me this
    station blackout role and why that was an important addition
    from your perspective.
        Mr. Ostendorff. Yes, sir. The station blackout rule
    evaluation really refers to when you have a loss of all
    alternating current AC power onsite----
        Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
        Mr. Ostendorff [continuing]. And AC power----
        Mr. Walden. Much like what happened at Fukushima.
        Mr. Ostendorff. Yes. And AC power is needed to drive
    centrifugal pumps----
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. Ostendorff [continuing]. That provide cooling to remove
    decay heat from a core. And so the ability of a plant to have
    robust redundant power sources, including emergency diesel
    generators, portable generators, DC batteries, the ability to--
    --
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. Ostendorff [continuing]. Recharge those batteries, all
    those things are part of the calculus of how we can have a more
    robust opportunity to provide this required decay heat removal
    capability.
        Mr. Walden. And was it your view that the task force
    recommendations didn't go far enough along those lines?
        Mr. Ostendorff. Well, I think the task force did a
    tremendous job given the fact they had 90 days or less to do
    what they did.
        Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
        Mr. Ostendorff. But I will note that the task force
    recommendations themselves were not accompanied by a regulatory
    technical analysis. And before we go out as a regulator and
    issue orders or require things to be changed, it is incumbent
    upon us to have a regulatory technical analysis.
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. Ostendorff. And so that is part of the things that
    Commissioner Svinicki, Commissioner Magwood, Commissioner
    Apostolakis, and I have been very adamant about over the last
    16 months is to ensure we have that technical analysis.
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. Ostendorff. I would tell you that, as Commissioner
    Magwood said, that there are areas that have been added in.
    Commissioner Magwood added in issues on spent fuel pool
    instrumentation, as well as an ultimate heat sink, so the mix
    before the Commission today is broader than that that was
    presented in July of 2011.
        Mr. Walden. Well, I appreciate that and I know I am just
    out of time here, but I appreciate the fact you are doing a
    public, transparent process so that more than just a handful of
    inside staffers decide what is going to be mandatory across the
    country. It is something I have drive as chairman of the
    Communications and Technology Subcommittee at the FCC. I don't
    think they do enough of the appropriate sort of public,
    transparent process where everybody has a chance to weigh in.
    After all, it is the public's business, in your case the public
    safety, and I think it is important to get it right.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
        Mr. Shimkus. I thank my colleague. The chair recognizes the
    gentleman from Virginia for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this
    hearing. I have to tell you all, those of us who were here the
    last time that you all were before us know that I was very
    concerned that the process was completely dysfunctional. I feel
    much better today.
        That being said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the
    time remaining to you for whichever questions you would like to
    ask.
        Mr. Shimkus. And I thank my friend and colleague.
        Chairman Macfarlane, when nominated to become a
    commissioner, Chairman Jaczko recused himself for 1 year on
    matters relating to Yucca Mountain. In 2009, when asked by a
    writer for the MIT Technological Review, ``is it (Yucca
    Mountain) really unsuitable? And you answered yes. In your role
    as NRC chairman you must be fair and objective in adjudicating
    issues that come before the Commission. Your public criticism
    at Yucca Mountain leads us to question your objectivity on the
    matter.'' Will you recuse yourself on matters relating to Yucca
    Mountain just as Chairman Jaczko did?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Like any commissioner, I would examine each
    and every matter before me on the legal specifics at the time
    and take appropriate action, which could include possible
    recusal. But at this point, I believe it is inappropriate to
    commit to a general recusal on this matter without a specific
    commission action in front of me to evaluate with counsel
    input.
        Mr. Shimkus. You have been well prepared. Thank you.
        The DC Circuit Court is considering whether the NRC is
    bound to finish its review of the Yucca Mountain license
    application. In March, Secretary Chu committed to honor that
    court's decision. Will you also commit to honor the court's
    decision?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Absolutely.
        Mr. Shimkus. What do you see as the Federal Government's
    proper role in encouraging the use of alternative fuels in
    vehicles?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Alternative fuels in vehicles?
        Mr. Shimkus. I have no idea why this is on there.
        Ms. Macfarlane. Because the NRC doesn't do that.
        Mr. Shimkus. Well, when we talk about electric vehicles,
    there could be some debate on electricity generation.
        To each of the serving commissioners, you know, as a
    hearing, this has been a very good hearing. Now, that is Mr.
    Markey going up there to stop me in my final--see, I called him
    out. So I think the hearing has been very, very good and we
    have got one more colleague back to ask questions.
        But there is some issues that have been raised that I want
    to give Commissioner Svinicki, Commissioner Magwood, and
    Commissioner Ostendorff an opportunity to--because some of your
    votes have been questioned by people who say that you don't
    support safety. So can each one of you give an example of a
    vote that has been misconstrued and explain why your vote was
    protective of public safety?
        Mr. Shimkus. Commissioner Svinicki?
        Ms. Svinicki. I would begin with the matter we were just
    discussing, which is the Commission's very important actions on
    the Fukushima Task Force recommendations. I will use the same
    word as Commissioner Magwood. I am very proud of what the
    commission majority put in place. I think that we have shown a
    real commitment to safety, to moving forward in a way that has
    technical discipline and rigor but at the same time is moving
    forward very seriously with these recommendations. And I think
    that the entire handling of the task force report has been
    extremely misconstrued.
        Mr. Shimkus. Commissioner Magwood?
        Mr. Magwood. Yes, I think I am forced to point to the same
    example. There has been this debate about the regulatory basis
    for our decision as to whether they should be entered what we
    call adequate protection or an administrative exemption. And in
    some cases one of us or the other have advocated administrative
    exemption. And in my case it wasn't because I thought that
    these issues weren't important. It was simply, as Commissioner
    Ostendorff pointed out earlier, that I thought we needed to
    have a much more rigorous technical basis to evaluate these
    issues. But I wanted them to go forward but still preserve the
    opportunity to do the analysis so they could provide a very
    strong framework for us to go forward. So operationally they
    mean the same thing, but from a regulatory standpoint, it gives
    you a stronger basis to go forward and that is what I was
    looking for.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
        Commissioner Ostendorff?
        Mr. Ostendorff. Thank you for the question. I think my two
    colleagues have just provided very cogent examples which I
    agree with. I will just state one overall comment that I think
    the actions that the current commissioners have taken who have
    been here through the Fukushima issues have been very
    responsible, that I think in large part what gets left out of a
    lot of the public press commentary is that we are by and large
    following the recommendations of our close to 4,000-person
    staff. Bill Borchardt here who is in the row behind us, he and
    his team under the Steering Committee have been integrating and
    prioritizing these recommendations, and I think we have been
    very thoughtful in considering the recommendations. Also
    realize that not all these issues are of the same safety
    significance, and therefore, some deserve more urgency than
    others. And I think today we have acted in that way.
        Mr. Shimkus. And I thank you. And I know a lot of this was
    post-Fukushima but I think there is also examples of other
    issues that you could probably defend your vote on on public
    safety. So with that, I appreciate it.
        The chair now recognizes the vice chairman of the
    committee, Mr. Murphy, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Murphy. Don't you want to say I am in the Navy?
        Mr. Shimkus. I said beat Navy. You were here there, weren't
    you? Or that is why you are so late and didn't ask questions
    because you didn't get here on time?
        Mr. Murphy. Admiral, I want to start out by asking you. You
    have been involved with issues with the Navy nuclear for a
    while. You are aware of that. Have we ever had any major
    problems with nuclear energy systems in the Navy in its
    history?
        Mr. Ostendorff. I would say as far as major problems, no,
    sir.
        Mr. Murphy. That is an important record. How many years has
    it been?
        Mr. Ostendorff. I served 26 years active duty.
        Mr. Murphy. But the Navy has been around----
        Mr. Ostendorff. The Nuclear Navy has been around since USS
    Nautilus back in 1954, I believe, they had nuclear power
    submarines and carriers.
        Mr. Murphy. Good track record. Thank you.
        And then, Chairman, thank you for coming aboard. I
    appreciate your comments about collegiality. And if it hasn't
    been said before, I will say it now, and if it has, I will
    repeat it. It is valuable. Not only collegiality among members
    of the NRC, which up to this point--well, up to a point a few
    months ago--has had a highly respected position and I believe
    that collegiality is extremely important not just among members
    of the Commission but with Congress and with the American
    people. So I appreciate your motivation to turn this in a
    different direction.
        I just want to get a couple things on record. Have you been
    to a nuclear power plant?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Have I been to a nuclear power plant? Yes.
        Mr. Murphy. OK. And have you been to a fuel manufacturing
    facility where they make nuclear fuel and assemble it and
    assembly rods, et cetera?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, I have, actually.
        Mr. Murphy. OK. Where was that?
        Ms. Macfarlane. It was in Europe.
        Mr. Murphy. Where? I am just curious.
        Ms. Macfarlane. I think it was Belgium.
        Mr. Murphy. OK. Thank you, ma'am. And when you were over in
    Europe, did you have a chance to see what they do in France
    with reprocessing nuclear fuel?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, I have. I have been to La Hague.
        Mr. Murphy. The AREVA place? Have you been over to Sweden
    where they have nuclear storage there----
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, I have.
        Mr. Murphy [continuing]. Underground in that massive cave?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, to the Clab facility, yes, um-hum.
        Mr. Murphy. Pretty incredible facility over there. Safe?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes.
        Mr. Murphy. I imagine you are particularly interested as a
    geologist noting the entire country of Sweden is in one big
    block of granite and fairly----
        Ms. Macfarlane. Well, it is a little more complicated than
    that.
        Mr. Murphy. I understand, different types of granite but it
    is an impressive facility. Have you been to Yucca Mountain?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, many times.
        Mr. Murphy. OK, you have been there. And with regard to
    that, one of the concerns on record that you have stated before
    you took on this position with the committee that you are not
    in favor of Yucca Mountain and I believe you are not in favor
    of reprocessing. Do I have those positions correct or am I
    wrong on those?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I think you are wrong on them. On the Yucca
    Mountain position, I have never said that I am not in favor of
    Yucca Mountain. In fact, I can read to you----
        Mr. Murphy. I would love to hear that, thank you.
        Ms. Macfarlane [continuing]. From the book that I co-
    edited, ``Uncertainty Underground,'' and a direct quote is
    ``this book is not a judgment on the suitability of Yucca
    Mountain as a repository''----
        Mr. Murphy. I am sorry. What was the title of the book,
    ``Uncertainty?''
        Ms. Macfarlane. ``Uncertainty Underground.''
        Mr. Murphy. Sounds like a comment to me.
        Ms. Macfarlane. It is a comment, yes----
        Mr. Murphy. All right.
        Ms. Macfarlane [continuing]. It is a comment about
    uncertainty that exists. But it is a technical uncertainty.
    Anyway, the quote is ``this book is not a judgment on the
    suitability of Yucca Mountain as a repository for spent nuclear
    fuel and high-level nuclear waste. We leave that judgment to
    the reader.''
        Mr. Murphy. I understand, but with a title like that, I am
    serious, I am looking forward to reading your book.
        And now your predecessor, Chairman Jaczko, held a fairly
    negative view I think of the nuclear industry and nuclear
    energy. In a speech earlier this year he indicated that 20
    years from now, the nuclear industry is just as likely to ``be
    dominated by a process of continuous decommissioning'' instead
    of a process of continuous construction of nuclear reactors.
    What is your view on that?
        Ms. Macfarlane. On the future of the nuclear industry? I
    think it depends on many, many factors. The economics,
    certainly the economy right now.
        Mr. Murphy. And policy?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Policy, absolutely.
        Mr. Murphy. Policy at the NRC?
        Ms. Macfarlane. The policy at NRC to a smaller degree I
    would imagine.
        Mr. Murphy. All right. Please share your opinion regarding
    the benefits and transparency of the notation voting process of
    the members.
        Ms. Macfarlane. As far as I understand the notation voting
    process, I think it has the potential to operate fine. Were
    there to be any changes to the voting process, I would discuss
    those with my colleagues before proceeding.
        Mr. Murphy. How about the other commissioners? Ms.
    Svinicki, do you have a comment on that?
        Ms. Svinicki. On the notation voting----
        Mr. Murphy. Yes, um-hum.
        Ms. Svinicki [continuing]. Process? I am supportive of the
    notation voting process. When I was newly on the Commission, I
    benefited greatly from the rich written record of prior votes
    of Commissioners. Often we were dealing with the same issue in
    a different form a few years later. The ability to tap into the
    tremendous expertise of those who served before me was very
    beneficial.
        Mr. Magwood. I think about a week ago I saw a vote that
    Commissioner Svinicki had written that raised issues that we in
    my office had missed. So we investigated Commissioner
    Svinicki's comments and her vote, took a few days to do that,
    but after investigating it, I withdrew my original vote and re-
    voted. That is an example of the kind of dynamic you get from a
    notation voting process that you would completely lose----
        Mr. Murphy. Um-hum.
        Mr. Magwood [continuing]. If you go to an oral, at-the-
    table process because you don't have time to go back and do
    research and you don't have time to confer with staff. And so I
    think a notation voting process works extremely well and I
    wouldn't really change much of anything.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
        Commissioner Ostendorff?
        Mr. Ostendorff. I would just add I agree with my
    colleagues. I pulled out a vote I cast July 27 of last year. It
    is a 5-page vote on Fukushima issues. These are not yes-or-no
    issues. These are not up or down. These are very complex, here
    is my vote. Other colleagues have similar lengthy votes where I
    think we have a very rich opportunity to learn from and explain
    our viewpoints in a way that we would not have if this process
    went away.
        Mr. Murphy. I appreciate the complexity of those.
        Mr. Chairman, can I just beg for one more since I don't see
    anybody else?
        Mr. Shimkus. Without objection.
        Mr. Murphy. Thirty seconds. And then, Chair, in 2009 when
    you were asked by a writer for the MIT Technology Review, the
    question ``is Yucca really unsuitable?'' You answered yes at
    that time. Are you saying your opinion has changed? And I put
    this in the context of what the other commissioner said, the
    value of having a more lengthy and detailed answer to things
    because maybe these things cannot be reduced to a yes/no
    answer. Has your position changed? Is it yes? Is it no? Is it
    we have more work to do?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I am not sure the context of that quote, so
    I can't speak directly to that quote, but what I can tell you--
    and maybe in a sense of reassuring--is that I have spent much
    time researching Yucca Mountain. I believe all the analyses
    that I have done are technically defensible. As a scientist, I
    would not try to publish anything that wasn't technically
    defensible; it wouldn't be publishable. Most of the analyses
    that I did of Yucca Mountain for the book, which was published
    in 2006, were done in the early 2000 time frame. That was
    before the license application was submitted. I have not read
    the license application. I have not read yet the NRC's
    technical analyses. Of course, with time, knowledge, changes,
    more evidence comes to light, and I intend to keep an open
    mind.
        Mr. Murphy. I appreciate your candor and your scientific
    integrity. Thank you very much.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
        We were talking about votes. We took a vote this spring on
    finishing the NRC study; 326 Members voted to do that so I
    think it is by far the majority bipartisan consensus that we
    move forward at least finishing the study.
        With that, I would like to ask unanimous consent that June
    26, 2012, NRC Office of Inspector General report concerning
    possible violations of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980, NRC's
    internal commission procedures be introduced into the record.
    Without objection, the document will be entered into the
    record.
        [The information is available at http://www.hsdl.org/
    ?view&did=719161.]
        Mr. Shimkus. In conclusion, I would like to thank you, all
    you witnesses, and my colleagues, you could see it was very
    well attended, a lot of good questions participating today in
    the hearing.
        I want to remind members that they have 10 business days to
    submit questions for the record, and I ask the chairman and the
    commissioners their willingness to agree to respond should you
    receive any questions from members of the two subcommittees.
        With that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the subcommittees were
    adjourned.]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2625.065