[Senate Hearing 113-709]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-709
HEARING ON THE RE-NOMINATION OF ALLISON MACFARLANE TO BE A MEMBER OF
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 23, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-394 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Zak Baig, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MAY 23, 2013
OPENING STATEMENTS
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 2
Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana..... 3
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 4
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 5
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 7
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama...... 7
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.... 8
Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska....... 10
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 10
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey, prepared statement..................................... 103
Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New
York, prepared statement....................................... 103
WITNESS
Macfarlane, Hon. Allison, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission..................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Responses to additional questions from Senator Lautenberg.... 20
Response to an additional question from Senator Cardin....... 23
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Sanders.......................................... 25
Senator Vitter........................................... 28
Senator Inhofe........................................... 65
Senator Barrasso......................................... 67
Senator Barrasso with Senator Fischer.................... 68
Senator Sessions......................................... 71
Response to an additional question from:
Senator Crapo............................................ 88
Senator Wicker........................................... 89
Responses to additional questions from Senator Fischer....... 90
HEARING ON THE RE-NOMINATION OF
ALLISON MACFARLANE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the full committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Vitter, Carper, Cardin, Sanders,
Gillibrand, Inhofe, Sessions, Fischer, Barrasso, and Boozman.
Senator Boxer. Good morning. There is a vote at 10:30 and
we want to make sure everyone gets their questions.
Before we start this, I wanted to respond publicly to the
bill that has been agreed to by Senators Lautenberg and Vitter
dealing with TSCA. I intend to handle it the same way I handle
all of our other big bills which is everyone is going to have a
chance to look at it, see how it impacts their State, see how
it impacts their folks. But it is wonderful the two colleagues
came together.
So, we will get all of the copies of their legislation to
every member of this Committee for your advice and then we will
do a Chairman's mark based on everybody's input. I really want
to say thank you. And I know is means so much to Senator
Lautenberg to have a chance to have this. Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for a fair
and open process. That is all we ask for. We of course want
this bill with a lot of bipartisan co-sponsors to be the base
but we invite discussion, amendment discussion. We will go from
there. And I think it is really, really exciting that so many
folks from both sides have come together. This Committee often
comes together on infrastructure issues.
Senator Boxer. That is right.
Senator Vitter. Here, we are coming together on an EPA-
related issue and doing something that is very important for
health and safety and to make sure we continue to lead the
world in innovation, a big part of our economy. So, we are very
excited about it. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Well, that is excellent. I look forward to
reading it. I have not. I have read remarks pro and con. But I
am excited that you have gotten it to this point, Senator, and
we will do what we do on every big bill. We will all work
together because this Committee has to vote this up or down. So
I want to make sure we get it out of this Committee. So, we
will work together.
With that, I want to call on Senator Cardin who is going to
introduce our witness, make his statement, then he has a
hearing to go to. So, I will call on him first.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Madam Chair, thank you for the courtesy. I
wanted to have the opportunity to reintroduce Dr. Macfarlane to
our Committee.
I believe when you were here last time Senator Blumenthal
introduced you because your roots are in Connecticut. But you
have shown the good sense to become a resident of Maryland, so
I wanted to take this opportunity to welcome you back to the
Committee and thank you very much for your public service. And
we know this is a family commitment, your husband is here, and
we thank your family for their understanding and your continued
service to our Country.
At your last hearing, there was a lot of discussion about
the collegiality or lack of collegiality in regards to the
Commission. Thank you for the leadership you have shown in
restoring the type of collegiality that is critically important
for the Commission.
That is not just my view. The Nuclear Energy Institute CEO,
Marvin Fertel, said ``Chairman Macfarlane has achieved notable
progress in returning a climate of collegiality within the
Commission.'' We certainly are pleased to see that type of
progress.
Dr. Macfarlane is an expert on nuclear waste issues, a
critical issue since the industry lacks a permanent waste
storage site. She holds a Doctorate in Geology from MIT and a
Bachelor of Science Degree in Geology from the University of
Rochester.
Before Dr. Macfarlane became the Commission's 15th Chair,
she was an Associate Professor in Environmental Science and
Policy at George Mason University. From 2010 to 2012, she
served on the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear
Future which President Obama established to make
recommendations about a national strategy for dealing with the
Nation's high level nuclear waste. Her research is focused on
environmental policy and international security issues
associated with nuclear energy, especially the back end of
nuclear fuel cycle.
During her academic career she held Fellowships at
Radcliffe College, MIT and Stanford and Harvard Universities,
and from 2003 to 2004 she was on the faculty of Georgia Tech on
Earth Science and International Affairs. From 1998 to 2000, she
was a Social Science Research Fellow and MacArthur Foundation
Fellow in International Peace and Security. She also served on
the National Academy of Science Panel on Nuclear Energy and
Nuclear Weapons Issues.
So, Madam Chair, as you can see, she brings to this
position a wealth of experience, a wealth of academic
background and is eminently qualified to serve as Chairman as
she has.
Madam Chair, I regret, as you pointed out, I will not be
able to stay for the rest of the hearing, but I appreciate the
opportunity of reintroducing Dr. Macfarlane and to commend her
to the Committee. I believe she has both the requisite
technical knowledge and management skills needed to lead the
NRC.
I thank the Chair for the courtesy to introduce her.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Vitter, we will have you go next and I will follow
you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very
excited to have this hearing. It was originally planned for 4
weeks ago but the Chair had questions that needed to be
answered and I would be the last person who would object to
that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Let us just say I had four questions, not
1,000.
Senator Vitter. Four questions, 4 weeks, but they have been
answered apparently.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Actually, they have not been answered at
all.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. And we are still doing it. Mark my words.
Senator Vitter. Well, if you want to delay a set of things,
we can discuss that possibility.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. No, my questions have not been answered. We
are having the hearing. So, let that be a sign.
[Laughter.]
Senator Vitter. The NRC plays an important role in
promoting and maintaining the safety standards of nuclear
reactors across the U.S. which makes the U.S. fleet the safest
in the world. And Chairman, as Chair of the NRC you are
entrusted with providing responsible stewardship of those
nuclear reactor assets. That responsible stewardship not only
includes promulgating and enforcing stringent safety standards
but also ensuring that such regulations do not unnecessarily
burden industry and consumer interests.
So, our duty as members of this Committee is to confirm
that any nominated leader is qualified and competent in this
specific field and to ensure that the NRC pursues its goals in
a responsible and efficient way.
Nuclear energy has become an indispensable contributor to
our base load electricity needs and will continue to be for
years to come. Safety, of course, is the priority for members
of this Committee as it is for members of your body.
Since Fukushima, NRC has devoted significant amounts of
resources into implementing its lessons learned and nobody
would argue against those safety precautions. While the NRC has
traditionally accomplished this through an objective approach,
concerns have been brought to my attention in regards to
possible or threatened departures from this method. And the
departure is prevalent in the Commission's consideration of
requiring filtered vents at some nuclear facilities.
While I appreciate the Commission's decision to take a
further look at the need for this requirement, I worry that in
the light of Fukushima some new culture of hasty regulatory
implementation may overtake the NRC's tradition of impartial
regulation.
After Three Mile Island many regulations were imposed that
created heavy burdens at great cost which, after enforcement,
were found to have no substantial impact on safety. This
parallel was included as a cautionary comment in the NRC's own
near-term task force report and it was noted by Commissioner
Svinicki in her March 19 vote. This should especially be kept
in mind as you continue to deal with issues surrounding SONGS.
Any decision made on the issue should be based only on sound
science and objective facts.
And again, while safety is of the utmost importance, we
must keep in mind the impact of unnecessary or burdensome
regulations that have no safety impact.
Again, thank you very much for being here today, Dr.
Macfarlane, and I look forward to hearing from you on these
important issues.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Dr. Macfarlane, today the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee meets to reconsider your nomination
as Chairman of the NRC. I look forward to discussing your views
on the role of the NRC and further ensuring the safety of
nuclear reactors across the Country. That is the job of the
NRC.
I am very pleased to see in your testimony that you
fostered a productive working relationship with other
Commissioners during your time as Chairman, and I do believe
the Commission is focused on its important safety and security
mission.
The most important work for the Commission is to meet its
mission, to regulate the use of radioactive materials to
protect public health and safety, promote the common defense
and security, and protect the environment. That is your
official role. That is spelled out in the NRC's Mission
Statement. So, people might have a different view of the NRC,
it is to promote nuclear power, not at all what the function
and the role is as designed in the legislation that set up the
NRC. It is all about safety, promoting the common defense and
security, and protecting the environment. That is what it is.
Your solemn responsibility is to ensure safety at the
Nation's 104 commercial nuclear reactors and at the thousands
of facilities that use radioactive materials. And I want to
point out that if people have confidence in the safety, nuclear
power will continue to move forward. If they lose confidence,
that is the end. Because I know you can talk to the folks in
Japan about how they reacted to what occurred there.
The NRC's progress in implementing the post-Fukushima
safety enhancements is a key indicator for the Commission's
ability to successfully accomplish its mission. You have made
some progress. But much work remains to be done to apply the
lessons of this nuclear disaster. The Commission must not waver
in its commitment to promptly implement all the needed safety
improvements and I will call hearings to look at your progress.
As I think about the importance of fully addressing the
post-Fukushima recommendations, the safety of the 8 million
people who live within 50 miles of the San Onofre Nuclear Power
Station in California is constantly in the forefront of my
mind.
I am deeply concerned by the problems that plague this
damaged facility. This nuclear plant is located in a seismic
zone and, as if that was not enough, in a tsunami zone. And we
all know that if there was no nuclear power plant there and
someone came in and said I want a license for this, to put the
nuclear plant right here, right in a seismic and tsunami zone,
we all know every single Commissioner would say, don't think
you could find a better place for it?
Now, in January 2012, a leak of radioactive material led to
discovery of unexpected deterioration of the tubes in the
plant's new steam generators. The plant has been shut down ever
since. The NRC's investigation into the cause of this serious
damage must be thorough and it must involve the public.
Eight million people live there, within 50 miles. The
thought of families in the U.S. facing an accident such as the
type of accident the people of Japan faced or in Fukushima
makes me have sleepless nights and should make us all much more
vigilant.
So, the American people have a right to expect the best of
the people serving in these critical positions. And I know that
you come to us with great credentials, you have a good working
relationship, which is very important as far as the Commission
is concerned.
But for me, what I want to see and what I want to hear is
that this dedication to safety is something you hold near and
dear.
Thank you very much. And we will call on Senator Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Let me make one comment about the disaster in Oklahoma that
was brought up by Dr. Macfarlane and you as well as Ben Cardin
and others. It is an indescribable thing unless you have been
there and have seen it.
The irony is, in this case, 14 years ago at the same time I
was there when the same tornado tracked the same area and hit
the same ground, the same. And you look and you see that some
of that was not even totally rebuilt after 14 long years. So, I
heard someone say, over there, that the problem 3 days ago when
I was there, 2 days ago, was to try to match the missing
parents with the missing kids.
And I appreciate all of the comments that we have gotten.
Chairwoman Macfarlane, I appreciate your appearing before
us today. First, I want to thank you for restoring the
congeniality. This is something I felt very strongly about. I
know it gets a little bit controversial but your predecessor
did not do as good a job as you are doing, in my opinion, in
terms of dealing with your people. And having the congeniality
is necessary in any bureaucracy.
One of the most exciting developments over the past few
years has been the tremendous expansion of oil and gas
drilling. Where many believed that we would become a major
natural gas exporter at the time, all that is said and it looks
like we are going to be able to become, or rather an importer,
gas exporters. So, that is very important. And it is important
to look at the overall energy as we approach the, becoming
independent in this Nation.
When I talk about energy independence, I am not just
talking about oil and gas production. Nuclear energy is,
without question, one of the most important assets. And if the
United States pursues a lackluster nuclear policy, then it may
be impossible for us to achieve this important bipartisan goal.
Unfortunately, the future of American nuclear energy is
facing many of the same hurdles as the oil and gas industry and
one of the key threats is overregulation by the Government. As
with oil and gas producers, we are facing major regulatory
hurdles to mine uranium and other feed stocks. Many Federal
lands have been ruled off limits by the current Administration
despite a long-proven track record of extracting the minerals
in an environmentally safe way.
And as we are all well aware, there have also been major
hurdles to establish a long-term depository for nuclear waste.
Some of the threats to the industry also come from the
Commission. And this has occurred most recently in the
aftermath of the Fukushima event. While several emergency
orders were awarded and justifiable, such as addressing issues
like extreme natural events and the measuring of seismic risks,
others were not.
My main concern stems from the attempt to use the emergency
orders to impose a costly filtered vents requirement without
adequate consideration of the cost benefits, appropriate risks
or differences in the United States and the Japanese regulatory
practices which are quite different.
These actions and several of the statements that you made
to justify your decisions make me wonder whether you are
approaching the job with a bias that the industry is unsafe and
that regular accidents are inevitable despite the industry's
remarkable track record over the past 40 years.
The NRC has many important responsibilities that, if
handled correctly, will actually accelerate our ability to
achieve and maintain energy independence. The NRC has a
tremendous historical record of working well with industry and
balancing the needs of public safety and a workable regulatory
environment. If you are confirmed, it is my hope that you will
continue to ensure the nuclear energy industry remains vibrant
in the United States for many generations.
Again, thank you for being here today. I would like to ask
you some questions about your vote on filtered vents, the issue
of being based on the prospective of Greenpeace and whether you
will respect the court's final decision on Yucca Mountain. But
I may have to leave early because, as is always the case with
this Committee, we have that conflict on every hearing.
So, what I would like to do is ask those two questions for
the record in the event I am not here when we ask questions to
you.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. OK. Senator Carper. Oh, wait, did Senator
Sanders come before? I cannot remember.
Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman
from Vermont.
Thanks so much for holding this hearing, Madam Chairman. I
know you have concerns that you have expressed before and
today. I just urge the Chair of the NRC to be as responsive as
you can be to those concerns. I know you will be.
I will just be brief, really brief.
We went through a tough patch on the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. You provide new leadership and by all accounts you
provide very, very good leadership, restoring collegiality, a
sense of cohesion and respect, respect not just from your
colleagues but from the employees at the NRC and from the many
stakeholders.
You do not have an easy job. It is a challenging job. It is
hard to please everybody all the time. And I think if you will
just continue to do what you think is right, work hard, provide
the kind of leadership that you are doing, the NRC will be fine
and we will be as a Country.
We are counting on you. We are counting on your colleagues.
The work that you do is important for our Nation in many
respects for providing energy and for helping to clean our air.
And for that, we thank you.
Senator Boxer. Are you finished?
Senator Carper. Yes.
Senator Boxer. OK. Senator Sessions followed by Senators
Sanders, Fischer, and Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Congratulations, Ms. Macfarlane. The
President has again found confidence in you and nominated you
and his nomination deserves respect. There is no doubt you
entered into the office in a tumultuous period and I believe
you have done a good job of bringing that group together.
I hear good reports and we have not seen the kind of
unhealthy internal disputes that we saw before. I guess maybe
Senator Carper's always good advice is the rule of do unto
others and he is a big fan of yours. But I think you have done
that.
At your confirmation hearing last year, it was unique. I
noted your background is not the kind of background I would
normally look for in a chairman. And that could cause a
situation in which decisions get made more on a political basis
rather than a technical basis. I hope you will guard against
that.
I have looked at your record. I would note that your vote
on filtered vents suggests that you are willing to impose
costly new mandates without allowing the public the liberty of
the rulemaking process. The other Commissioners disagreed with
your view on that, all of them did. Public notice and comment
is a critical component of good governance at any agency, but
especially the NRC, which has to deal with such highly complex
and technical issues.
Even the NRC's principles of good regulation are designed
to ``focus the NRC on ensuring safety and security while
appropriately balancing the interests of the NRC stakeholders
including public licensees.'' That is why openness is an
important issue and principle. The anti-nuclear people believe
in openness, they are entitled to it, and those who are for
nuclear power need to have that, too.
So, it would be a concern to me that if you were too
willing to reach firm conclusions without a full and open
process, as Commissioner Apostolakis wrote in this vote:
``Vibrant debate continues to take place on this filtered vent
issue and there remain technical questions to be resolved.
Pursuing such requirements through the rulemaking process will
give all stakeholders the opportunity to discuss these
issues.'' The issuance of orders without rulemaking constrains
the extent of stakeholder interaction.
Second, you indicate a willingness to use more subjective
qualitative factors when the history of the agency and its
practice is to be more focused on objective quantitative
factors. In other words, you seem willing to approve new
mandates like filtered vents even when that option is not
supported by robust numbers-driven cost benefit analysis as the
rulemaking process requires.
Commissioner Magwood correctly described, I believe, your
use of qualitative factors as an ``extraordinary step'' that he
notes ``goes well beyond previous guidance.'' So, I think that
is a dangerous process and it allows more emotional and
political influences if you do not do it on the record on a
fact basis.
NRC guidance on cost benefit analysis in fact states that
qualitative analysis, the kind of analysis that you relied on
in this instance, should only be used as a ``last resort.'' As
Commissioner Magwood explained in his vote, your approach could
be used to ``justify essentially any regulatory change.'' So
this would undermine the regulatory certainty that I think we
need.
And finally, you have done a good job in leading the
Commission. I appreciate that. But we will be, I think it is
important as you go into your second term, full term I guess,
that you adhere to these fundamental principles and that is
important to me.
Madam Chairman, I have a couple of questions that I would
just mention and I may not be able to return. I would note that
I will be asking you about the principles of independence and
your willingness to resist groups and pressures from Congress
and other places to reach an independent decision as I believe
you are sworn to do and as you have testified. And, that you
would be, understand that your vote, absent a real emergency,
we had a problem with Mr. Jaczko on this, your vote is equal to
only the others. Your power, other than administrative power,
leadership power, has no more impact than the others, and the
entire board needs to be engaged in these issues.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. And I am going to piggyback on that and ask
not only should you be independent from all of these groups,
but from the nuclear industry. So, I will ask my question, so
you will have a chance to answer his and mine.
We are going to go to Senator Sanders.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Macfarlane, it is no secret that for decades the NRC
was kind of perceived by the public as a tool, if you like, of
the industry, a very, very powerful industry. And I happen to
think that Mr. Jaczko did a good job. I suspect that his major
problem was that he was independent of the industry and some
other Members did not like him.
So, in terms of the independence that Senator Sessions
raised, I hope, also, that you will be independent but
independent of one of the most powerful industries in this
Country. And, as the Chairwoman mentioned a moment ago, your
job is an enormously important one. But it is not the promotion
of nuclear power, which many people now believe is a very
expensive way to generate new electricity, but the safety of
the American people.
I want to simply add that when we discuss nuclear power and
energy in general, many of my friends talk about the Government
not picking winners and losers. And I hope everybody here
understands that without the Federal Government's heavy
support, heavy subsidization of the nuclear power industry,
there would be no nuclear power.
So, when some of us argue that we have to move in order to
deal with global warming away from fossil fuels to sustainable
energy and to energy efficiency, we need Government support
because, oh no, we do not want Government support, understand
that the nuclear power industry would be dead tomorrow without
legislation like Price-Anderson.
Very few people understand that if, God forbid, there is a
major nuclear disaster in this Country, you know who picks up
the bill? It will be the taxpayers of this Country. And when
you say well, why don't you go to Wall Street to get the help,
it is because Wall Street thinks it is too risky an investment.
But, my question for you, and I also am going to have to
leave and I will put it in writing and would very much
appreciate hearing from you, and we did discuss this on several
occasions, in Vermont, this is our concern. We have an aging
nuclear reactor called Vermont Yankee that has had a number of
problems over the years. Our legislature has voted not to renew
its license, wants to shut it down. They are in court right now
arguing about this.
There is good reason to believe that either for political
reasons Vermont would prevail and shut it down or for economic
reasons, an old plant is not worth Entergy maintaining, the
plant will be shut down.
What the people of Vermont are concerned about is that
Entergy, which owns the plant, has suggested that they may want
to go into a SAFSTOR process which means you are going to have
a plant there for 30, 40 or 50 years, a rotting hulk in the
southern part of the State of Vermont, rather than
decommissioning, moving quickly in a few years, putting people
to work tearing apart that plant in a safe way.
So, what I will ask you in writing and very much want to
hear from you as definitively as we can is, my understanding is
that all over the world and in this Country when nuclear plants
are shut down, they are decommissioned, in a few years they are
gone and the waste is safely disposed of, or as safely as it
might be.
So, I would like to ask your help in making sure that
plants in the Country, it is Vermont Yankee now but there are
other plants a few years down the line who are going to be in
exactly the same position, that when a nuclear plant is shut
down, communities do not have to keep a rotting hulk there for
30, 40 or 50 years.
So, that would be my question, and I thank you very much
for being here.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Fischer followed by Senator Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you,
Ranking Member Vitter, for holding today's hearing.
Welcome Dr. Macfarlane. I appreciate your willingness to
continue to serve the people of this Country.
Nebraska is unique and we are very proud of the way we do
things. Nebraska has the distinction of being the only State in
the Country where every single home and every single business
receives electric service from publicly owned power, publicly
owned utilities.
Our public power system exists to serve customers, to
deliver affordable and reliable electricity. In Nebraska,
electricity costs are well below the national average, thanks
in part to our nuclear energy. Nebraska normally receives more
than 25 percent of its electricity from its two nuclear power
plants. Our citizens appreciate access to this clean and
affordable energy source.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission plays an important role
in ensuring the safety and the security of our nuclear power
and inspiring public trust and confidence that we have in our
system. As the NRC does its work, it is critical that the
Commission adheres to its principles of good regulation,
independence, openness, efficiency, clarity and reliability.
Now more than ever, we need an agency that will put these
principles into practice. From the implementation of new safety
enhancements to the review and approval to licensing requests,
there is much at stake for the nuclear industry here in the
United States.
Dr. Macfarlane, I look forward to continuing our discussion
on these important issues and again, I offer my thanks for your
service.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Welcome back to the Committee. I am happy to see you.
Since I came to the Senate, I have worked closely with my
colleagues to ensure that nuclear energy can continue to be a
vital part of America's energy mix. Nuclear energy is essential
if we are going to make American energy as clean as we can, as
fast as we can, without raising costs for families and
businesses.
Over the last 4 years, we have witnessed a competing vision
of American energy, a vision that says Washington will pick
costly and unreliable energy alternatives because, of course,
Washington believes it knows best. The Washington vision is a
vision that says nuclear energy must take a back seat to other
forms of energy, despite the industry's proven track record of
reliability and affordability.
Over the last 4 years, Congress and the executive branch
have debated the lessons of Fukushima, the storage of nuclear
management and the management of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Fukushima was a major event. And it is not just for
its impact on Japan, but also for implications here in the
United States. As with any major event involving nuclear power,
there are immediate calls for new regulations, especially from
those who have long campaigned again nuclear energy.
As we consider this nomination, I believe we need a nominee
who would proceed cautiously on these proposals. On February
4th of this year I, along with other Republican members of this
Committee, sent a letter to the nominee. In that letter, we
asked that she take a prudent and thoughtful approach to
evaluating the lessons of Fukushima and, where necessary,
conduct a cost benefit analysis.
We also expressed concerns that the NRC is moving forward
with implementation of costly post-Fukushima recommendations
beyond those identified as Tier 1 without fully analyzing the
differences between the regulatory and safety cultures of Japan
and the United States.
There are significant differences between the regulatory
and safety cultures in Japan and the United States. The nuclear
industry and the regulatory agencies in the U.S. have an
excellent track record of safety. I am concerned with the
amount of resources being dedicated to addressing new
regulations related to Fukushima, that there is a possibility
that the NRC will fail to address potential safety issues that
exist at our plants today. We cannot allow that happen.
We need a nominee who will take a thoughtful approach to
addressing these issues and we need a nominee that will
recognize that the regulations beyond Tier 1 can be costly to
the industry and yield in terms of actual safety benefits.
I will say to the nominee that your tenure has brought
significant change to the NRC. I believe that collegiality has
returned to the NRC under your leadership and I want to thank
you for that. I hope that collegiality will be applied to
addressing other issues such as the storage of nuclear waste.
The nominee served on the Blue Ribbon Commission that made
a series of recommendations for the storage of nuclear waste.
Now, I have long been a supporter of Yucca Mountain and I
continue to believe that the project should move forward. There
are some who have doubted that long-term or interim storage can
work. I disagree with them. The recommendations by the Blue
Ribbon Commission to transport waste to interim sites could
give the industry the opportunity to demonstrate that working
with DOE and the NRC it can build and supply and safely supply
a long-term storage site in the future.
We need a nominee that recognizes that those who oppose the
use of nuclear energy would like nothing more than to have the
industry choke on its own waste, get weighed down by regulatory
burdens or bow to political pressures to the point that the
industry is no longer viable.
I realize that the role of the NRC Chairman is not to be a
cheerleader for the industry. I also believe any nominee should
not have an agenda either to drive this reliable, affordable
energy source out of our Country's energy portfolio.
With that, I look forward to the questions and raising
these and other important issues to my State with the nominee
today.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Well, you know, this issue, it is great that you are
collegial. But I just want to stress that we are very
collegial, we do not agree on every single thing. It is OK. So,
there is a difference between being collegial and being rubber-
stamping, everybody looking the same way and walking out in the
same, the same thing.
We need people on the Commission right, left, center, pro-
nuclear or nervous about it, looking at it however they look at
it, to say what they think, or we are not served well.
I want to make a point. I want to put into the record,
without objection, do not start the questioning now, we have to
do this, a letter than I sent to you along with Senator Wyden
about Fukushima and I felt that, and not only that, we had a
whole slew of people who signed on to this letter, making the
point, and Senator Barrasso, I think this is critical, 31 of
our nuclear plants are identical to the one that had problems
in Fukushima.
So, of course there are other problems we have to look at.
But we should not reinvent the wheel. If we are the same design
31 times, I think we can learn, you know, from that. So, let us
agree with you that let us not obsess over it, but since there
are 31 plants, those plants should not make the same mistake as
plants that we had in Fukushima and all of the horrible
problems there and the people turning against nuclear. That
does not really help the nuclear industry.
And the other point I make about Yucca Mountain, I mean,
this is still a fight, right? I thought it was over but
obviously it is still there. I want to make a point for my
people in California who, if there is a leak, and it shows that
there were leaks when they had the tests, that there would be
leakage to our underground water supply and Republican members
of boards of supervisors all over that area of my State, which
is a pretty wet part of my State, said no way, no how.
So, again, I feel bad that you have to deal with these
difficult issues every day. It is, we know what that is like
here. But there are very different views on it.
Now, I will not take my 5 minutes. I know you want to do a
statement but I want to make one point. In your statement,
which you are doing now, if you can just answer the questions
that you know I want to hear about, San Onofre, then I will not
have to ask you those questions later.
Go ahead.
[The referenced letter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATEMENT OF ALLISON MACFARLANE, CHAIRMAN, U.S. NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION
Ms. Macfarlane. Thank you. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member
Vitter, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Sessions and members of
the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today. I am honored that the President has nominated me to
continue my service on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I
also want to thank my husband, Hugh Gusterson, for his constant
support and for being here with me this morning.
Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to extend my
deepest sympathies to the people of Oklahoma as they recover
from the enormous tragedy that they have just suffered. We have
been in close contact with our Agreement Statement Partners in
Oklahoma and they have verified that all licensed nuclear
materials that were in the vicinity of the tornado are now
secure.
Last June, I committed to you that I would foster a
collegial, productive working environment at the NRC. The NRC
faced challenges and I committed to meet them. From the first
day, I made it my practice to meet regularly with my fellow
Commissioners to hear and understand their views and establish
collegial relationships with each of them. I value their
expertise and perspectives and I believe that we have
alleviated the challenges and are now focused on the important
safety and security mission at the NRC.
I have been privileged to get to know the NRC staff and
have benefited greatly from their guidance. I have visited each
of the NRC's four regional offices, our training center in
Tennessee and a number of our licensed facilities including the
Diablo Canyon, Indian Point and San Onofre nuclear power
plants. I will travel to the Vogtle construction site in a
couple of weeks and see the construction there.
I have been impressed by our resident inspectors and the
talented men and women of the NRC who are dedicated to ensuring
that our licensed facilities operate at a consistently high
level of safety, that nuclear materials are protected from
those with malicious intent and that the public has confidence
in our work.
During my tenure, the NRC staff has continued its excellent
work. Our most recent plant performance data demonstrates that
the majority of plants are performing well. We continue to
implement post-Fukushima safety enhancements to protect further
our licensed facilities against severe accidents. The staff is
working to address Waste Confidence in a timely and
comprehensive manner.
The NRC remains committed to ensuring the safe construction
of new nuclear facilities without undue delays. When our staff
identified potential problems at the Vogtle and Summer plants,
the NRC expedited its comprehensive review of license
amendments in addressing these issues to enable the sites to
safely move forward with construction.
I have also ensured that we are prepared to process new
reactor license applications, including those for small modular
reactor technology.
Under my leadership, the NRC has navigated a number of
internal challenges. I am proud that our agency has been able
to address sequestration without furloughs. I am also managing
extensive succession planning among the agency's senior
management including the replacement of our retiring Executive
Director of Operations.
Further, I have ensured that the NRC is taking the
necessary steps to reduce its office space footprint and make
more efficient use of our space in close cooperation with the
General Services Administration. And finally, I have been a
strong proponent of effective engagement with the public and
plain language communication.
I have also assumed several important international
leadership roles in activities that directly benefit the NRC's
domestic mission. I led the U.S. delegation to a major nuclear
safety conference in Japan late last year and in January I
became Chair of the Multinational Design Evaluation Program, a
collaborative international program that focuses on new reactor
designs and will give important input to our own construction
oversight.
If confirmed, I will remain committed to openness,
transparency, fairness and efficiency in the NRC's processes. I
will continue to seek views from a broad range of parties
affected by our work and ensure those views inform the agency's
actions.
I will oversee timely implementation of continued post-
Fukushima safety enhancements while ensuring that this work
does not distract the staff from other important safety and
security priorities. I will endeavor to more fully integrate
our consideration of the entire fuel cycle and I will also work
to ensure that the starting point for all agency decisions is
rigorous scientific analysis.
I have been honored to serve as Chairman of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for the past 10 months. The NRC has
accomplished a tremendous amount in that short time and my
leadership has promoted the openness and collegiality necessary
for us to focus on our priorities. There are a number of
challenges ahead but I believe we are on a good course.
If confirmed, I enthusiastically look forward to continuing
to lead the talented staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
through what promises to be a dynamic and rewarding 5 years.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Macfarlane follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
I want to talk to you about San Onofre which is a cause of
great alarm for a lot of people there and even the group, the
judges, the Administrative Law Judges, that you, the NRC, all
of you, asked to comment on whether there needs to be a public
hearing about what is going on there before the plant is
opened.
So, there is seriousness here. And the population in just
San Diego County and since the original plant was approved has
increased by more than 300 percent. And so again, we have 8
million people there and when I asked the sheriff, the county
sheriff, what would the evacuation look like if there was a
problem, she pointed to the road and said that is the
evacuation plan. And anyone who knows California roads knows
that it is always crowded there and God forbid in case of any
kind of emergency what would happen.
So, as the population near the plant has dramatically
expanded, we have learned more and more about the threats of
operating nuclear reactors there. We better understand the full
extent of the seismic risk because there was a new report done
several years ago that discovered another fault. We know the
plant is located in a tsunami zone. This thing is really
disturbing. And we know after Fukushima the devastating impact
these two forces of nature can have on nuclear power plants.
So, you put it all together and to me it says one word, danger.
Now, I was very pleased that you and every one of your
colleagues on the Commission assured me at our last oversight
hearing that you will not let this plant start up unless you
are absolutely convinced it is safe to operate. I asked each
one of you then, will you let this plant start up if you are
not absolutely convinced it is safe to operate. Everyone said
they were with me, they would not allow it to open.
Now, in an October letter to me, you reaffirmed, this is
your words, reaffirmed the Commission's commitment that the
agency will not allow a restart at San Onofre until the
investigation is completed and the facility is safe to operate.
Now, I want all of the investigations to be completed
before the plant is restarted. And it is very important that
the Commission not back pedal on this.
Southern California Edison, who runs this plant, wants to
rush to restart. We have seen documents over the last several
months that reveal that SoCal Edison is trying to get approval
to restart without ensuring that the problems are fixed.
They have actually asked to operate the plant before the
investigation is completed at 70 percent of power. And they
said something like this, I am paraphrasing, we will start it
at 70 percent and we will see what happens. We will see how it
goes. That is like saying I think I fixed the damaged brakes on
your car but do not drive it over 40 miles per hour. Do
whatever when you get in the car.
And as I said, three Administrative Law Judges just
recently on the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board who were
chosen by your Commission and who are distinguished experts in
nuclear safety found Southern California's proposal to startup
at 70 percent was ``an experiment.''
Well, maybe there are some people here would like to
experiment on my people. But I am not going to let it happen.
Let us be clear. And this group, this Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board, which is selected by the NRC, also ruled that
the public should be provided with a meaningful hearing
opportunity before the NRC makes a restart decision.
So we have talked about this a lot. You know of my concern
for the 8 million who live within 50 miles of the plant. So, do
you agree that the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
ruled that the San Onofre Restart Plan should be considered a
license amendment that gives the public an opportunity for a
hearing? I am not asking whether you agree with them. I am
asking, do you agree that they ruled that the Restart Plan
should be considered a license amendment that gives the public
an opportunity for a hearing?
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, I agree.
Senator Boxer. NRC's Office of Investigations is currently
looking into whether SoCal Edison provided the Commission with
complete and accurate information. So, do you believe that the
investigation should be completed by your Office of
Investigation on this issue before any decision is made to
restart?
Ms. Macfarlane. Senator, it is my personal belief that the
technical staff should have all the conclusions from the Office
of Investigation investigation available to them prior to any
restart decision. And my understanding, currently, is that
based on what we know today, that these two, the restart
decision and the Office of Investigation investigation, will
conclude around the same time.
Nonetheless, if the Office of Investigation investigation
is not complete when the technical staff is ready to make a
restart decision, the technical staff will, following their
procedures, talk to the Office of Investigation's staff and ask
are there any significant safety issues that should affect our
restart decision.
That said, the technical evaluation and the Office of
Investigation investigation are two separate processes and it
is very important that the agency maintain the integrity of
these processes.
Senator Boxer. Well, I do not say that the, I agree that
there should be integrity. I do not agree under any
circumstances that there ought to be a restart until the entire
investigation is complete. So, we have a bit of a difference.
But let me just say here, lawsuit. There is no way, at all,
that any judge, in my view, reading the NRC's Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board ruling that calls all of this an experiment, is
going to allow this to go.
So, just let me tell you this. I respect what you said. I
do not agree with what you said. An investigation is an
investigation. If it has subpart a, b, c and d, they have to be
completed because it is very important, if we find, let us just
say, the SoCal Edison was not honest in what they said to the
Commission but you allow them to restart until you really know,
it is a problem. So, we disagree on that.
Now, NRC is also investigating allegations of willful
wrongdoing, willful wrongdoing, at San Onofre. Do you believe
the results of investigations into potential criminal conduct
are relevant to SoCal Edison's credibility to build and operate
nuclear reactors?
Ms. Macfarlane. Again, I would, just as I have done, said
yes, it is my personal belief that these investigations, in an
ideal world, would be complete and inform, be available to
inform the technical staff's restart decision prior to that
restart decision.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, I just do not agree with what you
are saying because the bottom line is they have to finish this
up, not that they are relevant, it goes to the heart of letting
this outfit open up San Onofre.
So, let the record show I do not agree with you. To me, it
is pretty simple. All the parts of the investigation have to be
complete, the criminal part, the part that deals with complete
and accurate information and the rest of it, and what you call
the technical part, whether or not they can open up at 70
percent without a new license.
So, we do have disagreements here. I do appreciate your
willingness to discuss these with me. I do appreciate the fact
that you are telling me the way you feel. And let that be a
lesson to some of my colleagues with other nominees. I do not
agree with you. But I think that you are a good leader of this
Commission. But I do not agree with you, on the way you are
handling this, to be honest.
The last question I have is, I am going to ask you for some
documents. They are in the public, they have to be in the
public domain. And I am going to ask you about some
communications that went back and forth. Would you wait until
after this hearing is over so I can tell you which documents I
want, then I will put it in writing, you and your staff?
Ms. Macfarlane. Sure.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Macfarlane, I am not a nuclear scientist. I am not
a safety expert. I am not going to try to go to the substance
of San Onofre----
Senator Boxer. San Onofre.
Senator Vitter. San Onofre.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. It is Lake Pontchartrain and San Onofre.
Senator Vitter. OK.
[Laughter.]
Senator Vitter. I am not going to try to go to the
substance of those scientific issues. I do want to ask you
about the process and how it should be guided by the science
and by the experts. You made remarks relevant to this on March
20 of this year at a U.S.-Japan roundtable where you described
what you believe is required for a regulatory body to be
effective.
Specifically, you stated ``To be effective, a regulatory
body must be independent from economic, policy and political
interests. Its decision must not be subject to undue influence
that can compromise safety.'' Do those remarks adequately
represent your opinion on how the NRC should operate?
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Vitter. And will you commit today to upholding this
principle, even when faced with outside political pressures?
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Vitter. Great.
Madam Chairman, on Yucca Mountain, we have been struggling
with some agencies' failure to conduct their work in an open
and transparent manner. And that is why I ask, if reconfirmed
as Chairman, will you commit to conduct the Commission's
business in a completely and transparent manner including such
things as the agency's conclusions resulting from safety
analyses?
Ms. Macfarlane. If confirmed, I will conduct the agency's
processes in an open and transparent manner. Absolutely.
Senator Vitter. Right. And does that commitment to
transparency extend to the release of the NRC's conclusions
regarding the Yucca Mountain Safety Analysis Report?
Ms. Macfarlane. We are awaiting the court's decision on the
Yucca Mountain case and the NRC will follow the law.
Senator Vitter. OK. So, specifically, if the court requires
the NRC to resume the license review, will you honor that court
decision?
Ms. Macfarlane. We will follow the law. We are very aware
of the importance of this court decision, not only to the NRC,
to the public, but to the Nation as a whole. Before making any
final decisions, of course, I have to consult my fellow
Commissioners. We are a collegial body of five and at this
point in time I do not want to prejudge any decisions until I
have seen the court decision.
Senator Vitter. But the court decision would represent the
law and you would follow it?
Ms. Macfarlane. We would follow the law.
Senator Vitter. OK. And going back to the Yucca Mountain
Safety Analysis Report, if there is nothing in the court
decision that prohibits that release of the NRC's conclusions,
will you release those conclusions?
Ms. Macfarlane. We will follow the law. Yes.
Senator Vitter. Well, I am not sure exactly what that
means. If the law does not prohibit the release of those
conclusions, will you release them in the spirit of
transparency?
Ms. Macfarlane. Again, Senator, with all due respect, I
will need to see the court's decision, I will need to discuss
it with my fellow Commissioners, and at this point in time I do
not want to prejudge anything about the court's decision until
we have it in hand.
Senator Vitter. OK, that is fine. Again, to be clear, all I
am asking is if there is nothing in the court decision that
prohibits that, I would specifically request that and urge
that.
Ms. Macfarlane. Thank you.
Senator Vitter. OK, that is all I have, Madam Chairman.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Vitter. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Is that your husband sitting right behind
you?
Ms. Macfarlane. It is. Yes.
Senator Carper. What is his name?
Ms. Macfarlane. Hugh Gusterson.
Senator Carper. Mr. Gusterson, thank you very much for
sharing your wife, a remarkable woman, with our Country.
I think you said in your statement you have been the
Chairman for about 10 months now and I just want to ask you to
highlight for us, if you will, over that period of time how the
NRC has strengthened the safety culture at a number of nuclear
power plants. Just give us some examples of how you think you
strengthened the safety culture at those plants.
Ms. Macfarlane. Sure. We oversee the safety culture at our
nuclear power plants in part through our reactor oversight
process and we evaluate what goes on at the plants and ensure
that there is an operating safety culture, that there are not
any chilling effects, that employees feel free that they can
bring up problems and will not be discriminated against. And
these are issues that we look for on a day-to-day basis at the
reactors.
Senator Carper. All right. Are there some other things that
we ought to be doing or that we could be doing? Not just you as
the Chair, not just the NRC Commissioners, not just the folks
who work with you, but including us here in the Congress,
especially on this Committee. What are some things that we
might be doing to better ensure that our nuclear plants are
safe that you are aware of or mindful of at this time?
Ms. Macfarlane. I think one of the most important things
that certainly we at the NRC can do and I think the industry
can do and you and Congress, to the degree that you can and it
would be helpful, is to work on communication.
I think communication is extremely important in the issue
of regulating nuclear facilities. We need to be clear about
what everybody's role is and we need to be clear about the
issues and we need to engage the public and all concerned folks
on these issues and make sure that each of us understands the
concerns of each other.
Senator Carper. Did you tell us in your statement that you
are looking forward to going and visiting the construction
sites for the four new nuclear plants down in, what is it,
South Carolina and Georgia?
Ms. Macfarlane. In Georgia, yes. I will be there the first
week of June.
Senator Carper. Just give us a brief, just a brief update
in terms of how those projects are coming along in terms of
expected schedule, cost, problems that they are facing,
successes that they have achieved, please.
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, this has been a good process. There
are four reactors under construction, two in South Carolina,
two in Georgia. In March, both sites poured their nuclear
concrete and the South Carolina site has laid the basket to
receive the containment vessel. So, they are progressing
nicely.
There have been some issues where the plant had to submit a
license amendment request. We are following a new process in
licensing and constructing these plants now and that is in
response to industry request. We now have a combined operating
license.
So, the licensee will submit a design to the NRC and we
hold them to building that design. That is what we have
evaluated, that is what they are going to build because then
they will be able to operate once it is constructed.
And there were some issues with the construction not being
built to the design and we have dealt with them. We are moving
forward. We are examining ``lessons learned'' ourselves at our
agency. So, I think it is a success story overall.
Senator Carper. Good. Thanks. One last question. As you
know, we have already referred to here to extreme weather
events such as the horrific tornado in Oklahoma earlier this
week and Super Storm Sandy which visited my part of the Country
which seem to be occurring with greater frequency these days.
Folks tell us extreme weather events are expected to remain and
maybe even get worse as we move into the future.
Could you talk for a moment about what the NRC has done or
is doing to better ensure that our nuclear facilities are safe
as we face these extreme weather episodes and what more, if
anything, can or should be done or is being done?
Ms. Macfarlane. I appreciate that question. As an earth
scientist, I appreciate the question. And I have a particular
view as an earth scientist.
I would not call these events extreme. I would call them
normal. They may be extreme because we have very limited
experience on this earth with them, but they are normal events.
And being normal events means we need to, at the NRC, make sure
that we are accounting for them and that our facilities are
prepared to deal with them.
And so, we are in the process of evaluating and updating
and requesting that our facilities update their evaluations.
Right now, we are in the process of requesting that our
facilities update their evaluations of their seismic hazards
and the flooding hazards and, as we work through our Fukushima
activities, we will move on to examining other external events
such as missiles generated by tornados and hurricanes and that
kind of thing.
Senator Carper. OK. Thanks very much. Thanks for your
responses to our questions. Thanks for being here. Thanks for
your service and for your willingness to serve further.
Ms. Macfarlane. Thanks.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. Senator Fischer, you
have questions, and then we will have Senator Boozman conclude
with his questions at that time.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
As you know, Nebraska has uranium. And in the regulation of
facilities that recover uranium using in situ recovery
technology, the NRC has asserted regulatory jurisdiction over
all aspects of their operations in a Commission vote in 1999,
including activities that are regulated by our State, the State
of Nebraska, and other States under their primacy authority
granted by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
To date, this has created a duplicative regulatory
environment for our State and for also the licensee. It delays
licensing, complicating enforcement and extending
decommissioning timelines. In other areas where there is a
duplicative regulation of activities by State and Federal
agencies, there are Memorandums of Understanding where there is
clarification of regulatory jurisdiction. But that is not the
case here with this uranium recovery.
Is this regime sustainable and would the Commission be
willing to provide some clarity regarding the State and Federal
jurisdiction so we know how to handle these situations in the
future to make it easier?
Ms. Macfarlane. Certainly, Senator. The way that we handle
State versus Federal requirements is that some States are what
we call Agreement States and those States are given the
opportunity to oversee nuclear issues and we provide them, we
provide oversight of the Agreement States. And then those
States that are not Agreement States, we provide direct
oversight, like Wyoming, for instance. So, we are the ones who
deal with the uranium recovery applications directly.
Senator Fischer. So, where is Nebraska on that?
Ms. Macfarlane. Nebraska is, I believe, not an Agreement
State. So, we are ensuring that the licenses and applications,
we oversee them ourselves.
Senator Fischer. So, even though we have regulations in
Nebraska and the licensee has to go through that process, you
are saying that because we are not an Agreement State they also
have to go through the Federal process?
Ms. Macfarlane. Through the Federal process, yes.
Senator Fischer. How does a State become an Agreement
State?
Ms. Macfarlane. There is a set process to apply and become
that. I know Wyoming is in the process of considering becoming
an Agreement State. It takes 3 or 4 years to get through that
process.
Senator Fischer. Is it your Commission, then, that would
grant that?
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes.
Senator Fischer. Is it an easy process to go through?
Ms. Macfarlane. I am not sure what the definition of easy
is.
[Laughter.]
Senator Fischer. If it takes 3 or 4 years in this
regulatory environment, that sounds pretty easy.
Ms. Macfarlane. Then it is easy.
[Laughter.]
Senator Fischer. A lot of things take a lot longer. What is
involved in that, do you know?
Ms. Macfarlane. We have to be assured that the State
understands our oversight processes, our regulations, that they
have adequate staffing to ensure that the materials licensees,
etcetera, are going to be overseen on a regular basis, and that
kind of thing.
Senator Fischer. OK. Thank you for that information.
Your staff has stated publicly that resources are extremely
limited for the licensing of uranium recovery facilities. Yet,
90 percent, I believe, of your money comes from fee recovery
and that is how your agency is funded. So, how can we help to
advance that process through your agency? I guess I am
questioning if you really have limited resources, since you
have that 90 percent fee recovery.
Ms. Macfarlane. In terms of uranium recovery?
Senator Fischer. Yes.
Ms. Macfarlane. We do have resources to do uranium recovery
right now. We can process between 8 to 10 applications at a
time. We have received 14 applications since 2007 for new
licenses and four for license renewals and we have processed
seven to completion and three are halfway complete.
And, you know, it depends on what the future brings. Right
now we have been told to expect another 15 license applications
by 2015 or so. And then there may be some kind of delay. But it
all largely depends on what we get.
Senator Fischer. And you know we have a facility in
Nebraska that it has taken some time to go through the process.
So, hopefully, that will move along.
Ms. Macfarlane. Right.
Senator Fischer. OK. Thank you very much, Doctor.
Ms. Macfarlane. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Dr. Macfarlane, thank you being
here. We do appreciate your willingness to serve and this is
such an important thing that you are in charge of and working
hard to do a good job.
You talked about the importance of using qualitative
analysis versus quantitative analysis, not just, you know,
quantitative analysis but the other also when you analyze
issues. This has been called an extraordinary step in regard to
the NRC guidance documents urging the use of qualitative
analysis only after the quantitative analysis has been
exhausted.
And I guess, you know, and you can argue with this, but to
me, I think what you are saying is facts versus opinion and
common sense, to some degree. In fact, I would characterize
that. But again, my concern is that you seem to be breaking
from the NRC precedents of exploring and exhausting the
quantitative analysis first before you get into the other. I am
sorry, I am confusing myself. Again, common sense versus the
facts, common sense versus an opinion, versus the facts.
Ms. Macfarlane. The Commission has made a number of
decisions using both quantitative and qualitative analysis in
cost benefit analysis, what we call back fit analysis. And I
think you may be referencing, in particular, the recent
Commission decision on filtered vents and that decision was
actually a two-part decision.
The first part of that decision was, and it was a unanimous
decision, the Commission voted unanimously to move forward to
make sure that containment vents are hardened and made severe
accident-capable. And that analysis that was done for that
decision, included both a quantitative and a qualitative
portion. So, the entire Commission supported the qualitative
analysis of the hardened vents.
Senator Boozman. Again, I guess we agree then, you agree
with the precedents of using primarily, as you can, you exhaust
the quantitative analysis, the facts, you know, the data that
you can drive, before you get into the other. The problem is,
and you are a scientist and you know, you understand this very
well, if you do not do that, then you can essentially do
whatever you want to do.
Ms. Macfarlane. I will just note that this was not a
precedent-setting decision. There have been a number of
decisions in the past at the Agency that have relied on
qualitative analysis. And I would happy to get those, to get a
list of those together for you for the record.
Senator Boozman. Right. And again, I am not arguing with
you. But like I say, I mean, you agree that you would exhaust
the facts and then get into the other.
Ms. Macfarlane. In general, that is the methodology that
the Agency uses.
Senator Boozman. Yes, which is the scientific methodology
which we all use as researchers and things like that.
Let me ask you, just very quickly. You came into the
Agency, or you took control at a very interesting time. I think
we would all agree that it had significant problems and this
and that and we were thrust into a very difficult situation.
Tell me what you have learned from that. Tell me some of the
changes you have made to try and get things back on the right
track.
Ms. Macfarlane. Well, it has been an interesting experience
and it has been an excellent experience, frankly. From the
first day I arrived, I started meeting with my fellow
Commissioners on a regular basis and I made sure that I do, I
try to meet weekly with them if they are in town, if we are all
in town.
Not only that, but my staff meets, all of our staffs meet
on a daily basis. And I have made it a priority for my staff to
make sure that they work well with their colleagues on the 18th
floor. They are all above us on the 18th floor. We are on the
17th floor. So, it has been very important to me to make sure
that we establish a good relationship, an open relationship, a
transparent relationship. We have made sure that we share all
documents with them in a timely manner, and we follow
Commission procedures.
But then there is also the staff piece and it has been a
wonderful experience for me to get to know the staff at the
NRC. They are a dedicated, extremely capable group of folks all
the way down to the resident inspectors at the reactor sites.
Those are fantastic people dedicated to the mission of ensuring
public health and safety. And I have enjoyed talking with the
staff and having detailed technical discussions, that is my
favorite thing to do, and establishing a good, open working
environment.
Senator Boozman. Good. Thank you very much and again, we
thank you for your efforts.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
So, I have just two quick questions and then I am going to
turn to Senator Gillibrand. We have a vote coming up shortly.
I wanted to ask you because, I guess that Senator Boozman
did not agree with the Commission decision to require hardening
of vents. Is that what I am gathering?
Senator Boozman. No, no, not at all. I think what I was
trying to do was just make sure, especially now, having ability
to make sure that we have processes in place where we are using
facts versus opinion, using the scientific data. We can come to
the right conclusion in a lot of different ways. But again,
just reinforcing how important it is that we have reproducible
things that we can have confidence in the decision.
Senator Boxer. OK, well let me just back that up. I mean,
we need to go with the science and safety science. But the
vents hardening is pretty important and frankly, the filtering
of these vents is important because you keep out the radiation
with the filter. But I do agree, you want to have the experts
tell us what we need to do and we have to learn from things
like Fukushima of what failed. And I am dealing with a failed
plant right now and I can tell you, it is not a pleasant
experience.
And the other thing I want to do is say that I had a
meeting with the California Energy Commission yesterday and
happily they said they have a plan in place. I want to tell you
this because this is not really what would motivate you, but
they have a plan in place to get us through the summer. San
Onofre provides about 8 percent of the State's energy and they
have made a summer assessment they feel, they say operating
electricity margin is expected to be above the level at which
service interruptions could occur.
So, I really want to praise them. They are really, they are
good at their job there. Twenty-five percent of the replacement
energy is from solar and wind and the rest has to do with
restarting up other plants.
So, I want to just put on the record, let us not have scare
tactics to rush to open a plant. We are going to be OK. And I
want to praise Governor Brown and his team for just saying
look, we are not in this fight, we do not know whether the
plant is going to open or not, but we are going to make sure
that our people have the electricity. So, that is good news.
If we could then go to Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for
holding this essential hearing. It is so important.
The Government Accountability Office issued a report in
March, as you know, that questioned the basis for assumptions
about how many people would evacuate should an incident occur
at Indian Point. Specific questions were raised about the
residents of the shadow zone defined as outside the 10-mile
radius.
According to the GAO, neither the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission nor the Federal Emergency Management Agency has ever
examined public awareness outside the 10-mile emergency zone.
We are talking about New York City, 8 million people,
Westchester, surrounding areas.
I wrote a letter to you May 6, I think you have gotten it,
to Administrator Fugate of FEMA and Chairwoman Macfarlane, to
actually take a review of this and look at independent data
collection agencies to collect the information and data to
better determine the potential reaction of residents in the
shadow zone should an incident occur.
So, my fundamental question is, if you are reconfirmed, can
you assure me that you will reassess the emergency planning and
evacuation system as a priority, particularly in light of the
GAO's report questioning the assumptions?
Ms. Macfarlane. Thank you, Senator, for the question and
yes, I think I received the letter yesterday or the day before.
So, we are considering it at the Commission right now.
Let me assure you, to begin with, that we have been aware
of the issue of shadow zone evacuations and at the NRC we have
staff who have taken into account data from actual evacuations,
more than 60 actual large-scale evacuations, in the United
States in the past, I do not know, some decades, and looked at
the experience there. And so we feed that information into our
own analyses.
But, let me assure you also that, as part of our Fukushima
follow-on plans, we are going to examine the 10-mile emergency
planning zone as part of that and we will be looking into this
situation.
Senator Gillibrand. A related question was, after Super
Storm Sandy, obviously Westchester was largely shut down. There
were very few, there was no public transportation, most
emergency evacuation, the main evacuation routes were closed,
almost all roads in the impacted counties were closed, and many
of the communications systems were not functioning. The
Governor and surrounding counties all declared states of
emergency and urged people not to leave their homes.
I understand that the NRC determined that the weather
situation did not meet your criteria for shutting down the
plant. But one consideration that I do not believe you made is
whether the emergency plan could actually be implemented if
there is a problem.
So, I would like you to re-look at the standard because,
just because Super Storm Sandy was not a significant enough
hurricane to shut down your operations, the reality is if there
was a problem, you would not be able to evacuate even the 10-
mile radius with zero transportation infrastructure, next to
zero communications ability. You would not be able to inform
the community that there was a problem.
So, I think that must be included and I want your
commitment that you will look at that issue and give me a
response on that topic.
Ms. Macfarlane. We will look at that issue.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, I
appreciate your time.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Well, we want to thank you very, very much for being here
today and we will have a markup soon on this nomination, get
you to the floor and get you back to your desk. And we thank
you very much.
And what I would like to do is talk to you and your staff
about some of these requests that we have made that we have not
yet received.
I do have to ask you a couple of questions.
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee
or designated members of this Committee and other appropriate
committees and provide information subject to appropriate and
necessary security protection with respect to your
responsibilities?
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Do you agree to ensure that testimony,
briefings, documents and electronic and other forms of
communication of information are provided to this Committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees in a timely fashion?
Ms. Macfarlane. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Do you know of any matters which you may or
may not have disclosed that might place you in any conflict of
interest if you are confirmed?
Ms. Macfarlane. No.
Senator Boxer. OK. So, I am just saying, noting that you
have said yes, I have asked you for documents. You just said
you would certainly turn them over. I am going to be specific
with you in short order. So, thank you very much. We will come
over to you in just a moment.
Thank you, colleagues.
[Whereupon, at 10:27 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey
Madam Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing to
consider the re-nomination of Dr. Allison Macfarlane to be
Chairwoman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Nuclear energy has been critical to meeting our nation's
energy needs. It is an emissions-free energy source that
provides one-fifth of America's electricity. In my State of New
Jersey, our four nuclear power reactors provide the State with
more than half its electricity.
But--as we saw in Japan more than 2 years ago--we need to
ensure the safe operation of these facilities. In addition to
operating plants safely, the United States needs to have an
effective policy for disposing of and storing spent nuclear
fuel. Right now, most nuclear power plants store more than
1,000 tons of nuclear waste in spent fuel pools onsite. This is
not a sustainable solution.
In New Jersey, nuclear waste is stored onsite at our four
nuclear reactors. Some of it is in dry cask storage, but most
is in spent fuel pools, which rely on a steady supply of water
and electricity. Superstorm Sandy showed how important it is to
ensure nuclear facilities are safe and resilient.
In Japan, when the tsunami knocked the power out, we saw
rescue workers desperately spraying water from fire hoses into
the spent fuel pools. More than 2 years later, there are still
serious concerns about the safety of spent fuel at Fukushima.
One thing is clear: we must find better and safer ways to
store nuclear waste to ensure that a disaster like the one that
took place in Japan never happens here. That means finding more
secure ways to store fuel onsite, finding agreeable places to
store national spent fuel, and making sure that these sites
have long-term viability.
We've now heard from the President's Blue Ribbon
Commission, which made a number of recommendations that could
provide a path forward. As a former Commission member, I look
forward to hearing from Dr. Macfarlane on how she plans to
approach the Commission's proposals and fulfill its mandate.
If re-confirmed, she will hear from industry interests that
may oppose strong safety regulations. But do not forget--
companies that are accountable to shareholders often have to
focus on short-term costs and quarterly profits. In contrast,
the NRC must be accountable to the people, and it must stay
focused on ensuring the safety of this generation and the next.
So I expect Dr. Macfarlane, if re-confirmed, to always be
on the side of safety. Relaxing regulations could harm the
public and would do the industry no favors.
Nuclear energy has been critical to our nation's energy
needs in the past. We must take the necessary precautions now
in order for that to continue in the future.
Statement of Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand,
U.S. Senator from the State of New York
Madam Chair, I am pleased to join you and my colleagues on
this committee to examine the work Ms. Macfarlane has done on
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Considering nuclear power's
sizable footprint in New York State, I am very interested in
Ms. Macfarlane's perspective on steps that can be taken to
ensure the safety and transparency of this industry in the
years to come.
Some topics I hope will be covered during this hearing
include addressing what has seemed, at times, like the modest
pace for the implementation of the post-Fukashima task force
recommendations.
Emergency planning like this is incredibly important,
especially as we continue to see the damage that natural
disasters can wreak on our communities.
In the same vein, I hope we can work together to address
concerns raised about the ability of local infrastructure to
support implementation of the emergency planning, such as in
the wake of Superstorm Sandy. I would also like to ensure that
it will be a priority of Ms. Macfarlane's to address concerns
raised by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding
emergency planning zones around plants, and the importance of
understanding ``shadow evacuation zones.''
Finally, as Indian Point in New York is up for licensing
renewal this year, I would like you to address the seemingly
novel approach the NRC is taking with its ``timely renewal
provision.'' Specifically, I would like to know how using this
provision will trigger other time limits, restrictions or
regulatory compliance requirements while the plants are in this
status. And, whether the NRC is evaluating the criteria used
for relicensing, including the length of license duration.
Madam Chair, I know Ms. Macfarlane has spent a significant
amount of time doing the hard, boots on the ground work. During
her recent visit to New York, she met with many local elected
officials, business leaders, and environmental organizations,
providing the opportunity to speak directly to the Chairwoman.
I applaud this effort, and I look forward to her continued work
on the NRC's commitment to transparency and accountability.
Thank you.