    [Senate Hearing 113-744]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 113-744

    OVERSIGHT HEARING: NRC'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FUKUSHIMA NEAR-TERM TASK
    FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AND OTHER ACTIONS TO ENHANCE AND MAINTAIN NUCLEAR
                                     SAFETY

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

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR
                               AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                                    AND THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   ----------

                                JANUARY 30, 2014

                                   ----------

      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

                                                            S. Hrg. 113-744

    OVERSIGHT HEARING: NRC'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FUKUSHIMA NEAR-TERM TASK
    FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AND OTHER ACTIONS TO ENHANCE AND MAINTAIN NUCLEAR
                                     SAFETY

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

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR
                               AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                                    AND THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                JANUARY 30, 2014

                                   __________

      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

    97-582 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 20402-0001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION

                      BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
    MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico                ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York         DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
    CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey

                    Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
                      Zak Baig, Republican Staff Director
                                  ----------

                  Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
    MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico                JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    BARBARA BOXER, California (ex        DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex
        officio)                             officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                JANUARY 30, 2014
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California...     1
    Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana.....     3
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     4
    Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama......     5
    Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont....     7
    Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...     8
    Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi...    10
    Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska,
      prepared statement.............................................   515

                                   WITNESSES

    Macfarlane, Hon. Allison M., Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
      Commission.....................................................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Boxer............................................    35
            Senator Carper...........................................    57
            Senator Gillibrand.......................................    61
            Senator Vitter...........................................    71
            Senator Sessions.........................................   192
            Senator Boozman..........................................   210
            Senator Fischer..........................................   225
    Svinicki, Hon. Kristine L., Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
      Commission.....................................................   228
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................   229
            Senator Vitter...........................................   231
            Senator Sessions.........................................   312
            Senator Boozman..........................................   325
    Apostolakis, Hon. George, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
      Commission.....................................................   331
        Response to an additional question from Senator Carper.......   332
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Vitter...........................................   333
            Senator Sessions.........................................   335
            Senator Boozman..........................................   338
    Magwood, Hon. William D. IV, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear
      Regulatory Commission..........................................   341
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................   342
            Senator Vitter...........................................   346
            Senator Sessions.........................................   461
            Senator Boozman..........................................   474
    Ostendorff, Hon. William C., Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear
      Regulatory Commission..........................................   486
        Response to an additional question from Senator Boozman......   487
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................   488
            Senator Sessions.........................................   491

    OVERSIGHT HEARING: NRC'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FUKUSHIMA NEAR-TERM TASK
    FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AND OTHER ACTIONS TO ENHANCE AND MAINTAIN NUCLEAR
                                     SAFETY

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2014

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                  Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety,

             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
    406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Boxer, Vitter, Carper, Sanders,
    Gillibrand, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Boozman, and Fischer.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Senator Boxer. Hearing will come to order.
        Today we are holding our eighth NRC oversight hearing since
    the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown in Japan.
        The third anniversary of Fukushima is coming, and Japan is
    still struggling. Failed efforts to prevent radioactive water
    from washing into the sea have led officials there to build a
    huge underground ice wall. And it will be at least 3 more years
    before 60,000 local residents can return to their homes safely.
        We must learn from the tragic events in Fukushima and take
    all necessary steps to ensure the safety of our own nuclear
    facilities.
        Now, more than 2 years ago the NRC charged its most senior
    nuclear safety officials with making recommendations to help
    prevent such a disaster here. Some of the 12 recommendations
    that NRC's task force proposed have been acted on. The NRC
    issued orders to enhance safety when plants lose electrical
    power and to increase the reliability of venting systems to
    prevent explosions. That is good.
        But other measures have not moved forward. For example, the
    NRC has allowed 3 full years for seismic evaluations of nuclear
    reactors in the western United States to be completed. If a
    seismic evaluation finds that there is a seismic risk, the NRC
    provides an additional 3 years for yet more analysis. To me,
    this is an unacceptable delay, because earthquakes aren't going
    to wait until your paperwork is done.
        Now, when the NRC is made aware of a new seismic risk, as
    it was for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Facility near San Luis
    Obispo in my State, it should require immediate steps be taken
    to protect the people who live and work near these facilities.
        On another issue, our ability to conduct oversight is being
    impeded by a lack of cooperation from the NRC. During my
    investigation of the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in
    California, I learned that NRC's general counsel directed NRC
    staff to withhold documents that I requested. My investigation
    into why flawed equipment was installed at San Onofre is very
    important, as it will provide lessons learned for the
    Commission's future safety decisionmaking activities.
        The NRC's response to my investigation is not the only
    recent example of the agency's effort to avoid congressional
    oversight. Last fall, the NRC attempted to unilaterally change
    its policy on providing information to Congress from one that
    generally made non-public documents available to one that did
    not. The new policy even added restrictions that could have
    been used to withhold information from the chair and ranking
    member of this oversight committee, even though each of you, as
    you were up for your confirmation, absolutely agreed to make
    all documents available; and my counsel tells me, whether you
    were sworn in or not, it is considered a sworn statement.
        Congress unambiguously rejected this new policy when it
    rescinded that policy, your policy in the appropriations, and I
    want to thank the bipartisan leadership of that committee for
    making sure that you can't do that.
        NRC still has not responded to my document requests in a
    manner that is consistent with congressional direction, and I
    will not back down on this matter. In recent letters, the NRC
    cites non-specific constitutional separation of powers as a
    basis for continuing to withhold documents from our committee.
    However, there is simply no constitutional basis that this is
    applicable to the documents in question.
        Finally, I note that excessive travel by NRC commissioners
    is of concern. I am going to ask you about your travel. It has
    been difficult to schedule oversight hearings because one or
    the other is somewhere in the world. I am also mystified as to
    why the travel records provided to me are marked ``non-
    public.'' I plan to ask questions about the lack of
    transparency and scheduling of your travels.
        During a period where reactors are closing unexpectedly due
    to adverse safety or economic conditions, the NRC's role as a
    strong safety regulator has never been more important. However,
    I am concerned that whistleblowers who have raised safety and
    other concerns within the NRC have been ignored.
        So those are issues of deep concern to me. I intend to ask
    you about all of them. I look forward to hearing your open and
    complete answers.
        And I would turn to my ranking member.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

        Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair, for convening
    today's hearing. I also want to thank our NRC commissioners for
    being so accommodating with your schedules after the previous
    hearing was postponed to facilitate the majority's vote on the
    nuclear option. Thank you for coming back.
        As the chair alluded, many of these hearings have been
    scheduled and canceled because of the chair's ongoing pursuit
    of documentation from the NRC. While I disagree with the chair
    on many aspects of that issue, I do want to note for the record
    her aggressive fight for complete transparency of agencies
    under the jurisdiction of this committee, and I welcome her to
    that position and look forward to following up on that, with
    regard to the EPA, as well.
        I want to briefly revisit some of the points I made during
    the November hearing before we get to your testimony.
        The NRC's compliance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    D.C. Circuit's decision is a very important step forward in
    addressing the long-term management of nuclear waste in the
    legal commitment to Yucca Mountain. More importantly, it is a
    step in the right direction for the Federal Government, after
    years of political games, quite frankly, taking precedent over
    good policy and agency stewardship. To date, Yucca Mountain has
    resulted in over $15 billion of spending, with very little
    forward movement. It is really irresponsible and a failure of
    leadership that the Yucca Mountain safety evaluation report was
    halted in the first place, and it shouldn't have required a
    court ruling for the agency to comply with that law.
        Nuclear energy has become an indispensable contributor to
    our base load electricity needs, and it will continue to be for
    years to come. As the Commission continues to develop new
    regulations, it should certainly keep in mind the negative
    consequences that have resulted in specific cases from
    misguided regulations and Federal interferences. We have seen,
    in recent years, what clearly negative results can ensue when
    either the Commission loses sight of its clear mission or
    partisan politics sway decisions.
        Regulations for the sake of regulating can become a
    profound burden on our fellow Americans who rely on nuclear
    energy to meet their everyday needs, and the negative effects
    of an unwarranted plant closure can result in more than just a
    diminished power supply, but economic hardship, loss of jobs,
    negative environmental impacts. The very nature of the NRC
    requires its leadership to operate independently of political
    and ideological pressures, and in a transparent manner, that
    focuses on the safety and energy reliability needs of all of
    our communities.
        Certainly, the effects of the 2011 Fukushima accident will
    continue to play a significant role in future regulation of the
    nuclear industry, and we all agree with that and we all care,
    first and foremost, by far, about safety. But we need to put
    that in proper context and understand our U.S. nuclear fleet,
    which is the safest in the world; was before Fukushima, is
    today.
        Thank you all very much for being here.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Vitter.
        Senator Carper will go next; he is the subcommittee chair.
    And if it is OK with your side, Senator Sessions will then go;
    he is the subcommittee ranking member. All right.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much
    for pulling this together today; it is nice to see all the
    members of our panel, and thank you for your service.
        My colleagues have heard me say more than a few times, but
    it bears repeating today, that I believe the NRC plays a
    critical role in protecting the public and our environment, and
    impacting our energy security. It is with that in mind that we
    must continue to have the nuclear power and the mix of energy
    resources as part of the all of the above approach that the
    President referred to Tuesday night in his state of the Union
    address with respect to our Nation's energy policy.
        I believe that again today, because sometimes here in
    Congress we lose sight of the importance of good governance, we
    lose sight of the important work that our Federal work force
    does on a day-in and day-out basis. When Congress decides not
    to do our basic job, like providing funding certainty for the
    Federal Government, Federal agencies like the NRC have a really
    difficult time in trying to do your jobs, and I would say that
    the NRC's job is one of the most important in our country.
        But as many of you know, I do try to find, whenever I can,
    a silver lining in most situations, the Government's shutdown
    is no exception here. Despite the extreme obstacles that we in
    Congress put before the NRC and other Federal agencies this
    last October during the Government shutdown, the Commission and
    its employees at the NRC rose to the challenge and found ways
    to ensure that our nuclear facilities remained safe in this
    country. I hope we never have to go through that again, and I
    am sure you share that sentiment, but I would like to commend
    the leadership of the Commission and the NRC work force for
    their outstanding efforts during a particularly trying time.
        Since October, Congress has passed a budget, as we know,
    and a spending plan that sees us through the near future. These
    accomplishments are stepping stones, we hope, toward a
    functioning Government and away from the model of governance
    that has led us moving literally from one crisis to the next.
        Finally, I think we are starting to do our jobs, and when
    we do our jobs the NRC is better able to do its job. Right now,
    the NRC has plenty on your plate. Not only is the NRC ensuring
    existing reactors continue to run safely, but the Commission is
    implementing lessons learned from Fukushima and all of our
    reactors, overseeing the construction of the first new reactors
    in some 30 years, and trying to help our reactors grapple with
    their nuclear waste as we continue to debate our nuclear waste
    policy. All the while our nuclear reactors are facing economic
    and climate challenges that they have never seen before,
    putting additional challenges on the nuclear industry.
        Today is an important opportunity to check in and see how
    the NRC is doing and how you are handling these challenges, and
    I look forward to today's dialogue with the Commission and with
    our colleagues here on the panel.
        One final word, and that is despite where my colleagues may
    sit on this dais and where we are on the issue of nuclear
    power, I believe we all want a safe nuclear fleet. I also
    believe that is true of the commissioners that are here before
    us. Sometimes we disagree on how to get there, but at the end
    of the day we all do share the same goal. And because nuclear
    power is a very sensitive and often a very technical issue, I
    have found that many of our disagreements are caused not by
    differing views, but because maybe of a lack of communications
    or breakdown in communications. That is why I encourage my
    colleagues and this Commission to continue to find ways to
    communicate better with one another and with the public that we
    serve.
        As I have said a time or two before, I believe that our
    nuclear power plants are some of the safest, maybe the safest
    in the world. We look forward to working with the Commission,
    our colleagues, and the nuclear industry to ensure that we reap
    the benefits of nuclear power by ensuring that safety continues
    to be our No. 1 priority.
        Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Subcommittee Chairman.
        Now we turn to the ranking member on the subcommittee,
    Senator Sessions.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

        Senator Sessions. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you,
    Senator Carper, for your leadership on the subcommittee. You
    are indeed an excellent chairman; work hard, you take
    responsibility for this, and, to a degree unusual in this
    Senate, you stay on top of the Commission and the activities,
    and you have invited me, in a bipartisan way, to participate in
    that. A good example for us all.
        This is our first meaningful oversight hearing with the NRC
    since September 2012, when the NRC had just emerged from a
    tumultuous period under your previous chairman. It is good that
    under the leadership of Chairman Macfarlane, and with the
    support of her four colleagues, the NRC has stabilized and
    seems to be functioning well. It is an important task that you
    have at this time of fragile support, fragile, I guess,
    stability in the nuclear industry. A few bad decisions could
    deal a body blow to that whole industry.
        There are many issues to review this morning, such as post-
    Fukushima actions, the cumulative effect of regulations, status
    of Yucca Mountain licensing activities.
        In 2001, nuclear energy comprised 20.6 percent of total
    U.S. electricity generation, and even more recently many of us
    here anticipated a nuclear renaissance that would allow the
    percentage to increase. Congress took steps, such as
    streamlining the NRC licensing process, to help facilitate
    expanded reliance on nuclear power. We thought it was the right
    thing to do.
        Regrettably, however, by 2012, our reliance on nuclear
    power has declined to 19 percent. The U.S. is still producing
    basically the same amount of megawatt hours of nuclear power as
    it did in 2001, and I am deeply concerned about a rash of
    shutdowns on U.S. nuclear power plants like Kewaunee Power
    Station, Wisconsin, Vermont Yankee, Crystal River Unit 3 in
    Florida, SONGS Unit 2 and 3 in California.
        Last August, Duke Energy announced it would not move
    forward with its Levy County, Florida, nuclear power plant
    project, which was previously scheduled for licensing.
        Last June, the Tennessee Valley Authority announced plans
    to scale back work at the Bellefonte Nuclear Generating
    Station, raising new doubts about when that important project
    would be completed.
        Modern nuclear power plants, which Bellefonte would be,
    constitute long-term assets that can provide safe, affordable,
    reliable, and clean energy for taxpayers and ratepayers for
    decades to come.
        In last month's edition of Nuclear News, a publication of
    the nuclear society, the senior editor noted that the United
    States is, to our dismay, now in an era in which decisions can
    be made to close reactors, some of which have been operating
    and continue to be exemplary performers, producing electricity
    safely and at close to peak capacity.
        So what factors are at issue here? There seem to be many.
    Are decisions by grid operators skewed away from nuclear energy
    and toward other sources like wind power or due to Federal
    policies? The article seems to raise that question. The article
    also notes that nuclear operators are still counting the costs
    of compliance with lessons learned from Fukushima. Total costs
    can currently only be estimated, he says, but any extra cost to
    normal operation could cast doubt on any reactor's continued
    operation. So this is a factor.
        What about the confidence issue, waste confidence issue, is
    that a factor? We haven't settled that sufficiently. What
    market forces are at work?
        So there are many important questions to consider. I hope
    Congress will take the time, as we look to develop a coherent
    energy policy, to consider the role of nuclear power in our
    energy future. I firmly believe the U.S. should remain the
    world's leading nuclear producer.
        Plant Vogtle. There has been some good news. Southern
    Company and their partners continue to make good progress with
    Plant Vogtle, where two new 1,100 megawatt AP1000 units, the
    most advanced in the world, are under construction. Vogtle
    Units 3 and 4 will be the first new nuclear units built in the
    United States in the last three decades. Operations are
    expected to begin in 2017 and 2018, not too far away.
        Since the focus of our hearing today is post-Fukushima
    actions, it is important to keep in mind that these new units
    at Plant Vogtle will have pressurized water reactors, including
    Westinghouse AP1000 and a passive cooling system. The
    technology is designed to ensure that the kinds of failures
    experienced at Fukushima cannot occur here.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Boxer. Thanks, Senator.
        We have a vote at 11:15. That means most of us have to get
    there by 11:30. So my hope is to conclude, so I am going to be
    tough on the gavel.
        Senator Sessions. I offer the remainder of my remarks for
    the record, please.
        Senator Boxer. Absolutely, put them in.
        Senator Inhofe, followed by, if there is no Democrat--oh,
    no, I am sorry. Right now it is Senator Sanders.
        [The referenced remarks were not received at time of
    print.]

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

        Senator Sanders. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for
    holding this hearing and, commissioners, thank you very much
    for being with us this morning.
        Madam Chair, this oversight hearing is covering a wide
    range of very important issues, but I would like to focus on
    one specific issue, an issue I chatted about with with
    Chairperson Macfarlane not so long ago, and that is the need to
    provide a strong role for States, States, in the
    decommissioning process when a nuclear plant shuts down.
        Senator Sessions bemoaned the fact that the nuclear power
    plant in Vermont is going to be shut down. Senator, I would
    suggest to you that the people of Vermont would respectfully
    disagree with you. Many of them have wanted to shut that plant
    down for a very long period of time and feel pretty good about
    the decision to see it cease at the end of this year.
        The important point is, however, and I know our Governor
    and his administration have been working with Entergy, the
    owners of Vermont Yankee. The important issue here is the role
    of the State itself in terms of the decommissioning process.
    Right now, the rules, as I understand it, and obviously this
    applies not just to Vermont Yankee, but to nuclear power plants
    all over this country which are in the process of being shut
    down, what the rules do is allow the NRC to sit down with the
    companies and negotiate a decommissioning process. Generally
    speaking, the States do not have any significant role, Madam
    Chair, in that process. They can be observers, there can be
    public meetings, they can provide input, but at the end of the
    day the company and the NRC work out the plan.
        Madam Chair, I think on the face of it that just doesn't
    make a whole lot of sense. The people of a given State, whether
    it is Vermont or your State of California, it seems to me, have
    a right to have a place at the table. How long is the
    decommissioning process going to take place? Well, in the case
    of Vermont Yankee, I don't think this is going to be the case,
    but there was at one point some suggestion, well, it may take
    60 years. Sixty years. I don't think that is going to happen.
        Senator Boxer. Six-zero?
        Senator Sanders. Six-zero. Sixty years. That was a
    suggestion. Now, frankly, I don't think that that is going to
    happen; I don't think that is Entergy's intention. But imagine
    having a hulking mass in southern Vermont deteriorating for 60
    years. Nobody that I know in Vermont wants that to happen.
        What about the jobs? We are concerned one of the negatives
    of the shutdown of the nuclear power plant is the loss of
    decent paying jobs in southern Vermont. Everything being equal,
    we would like to see those workers who are currently employed
    get a shot at being part of the decommissioning process. They
    know the plant. I understand there is a difference in job
    description. Can that take place? I think it can. Should the
    State, maybe the union, be involved in that discussion? I think
    that they should.
        Now, the important point here is this is not an issue that
    just impacts Vermont. We have a number of nuclear power plants
    that are being decommissioned in the foreseeable future,
    including in States like California, Florida, Wisconsin, New
    Jersey, New York, and Ohio. And this clearly is not a Democrat
    or Republican or Independent issue; it is not rural or urban.
    This is a simple issue: Do the people of those States get a
    seat at the table?
        Right now the rules, as I understand it, really preclude
    States from sitting down. We can either change it through
    rules, and I will be asking you questions about that, or we can
    change it through law. But one way or another I think the
    States in this country should have a strong seat at the table.
        So, Madam Chair, that is my area of interest in this
    discussion and I thank you very much for allowing us to have
    it.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you.
        After we hear from our two Senators, my intention is to
    give everyone 10 minutes to have their back and forth, and
    hopefully that will mean we don't have to come back after.
        Senator Inhofe.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
        It was in 2003, when I was chairman of this committee, that
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asked Congress for a bigger
    budget to build new buildings and add significantly to the
    number of people. They expected approval of four design
    certifications for new reactor designs and 17 construction and
    operating license applications, or COLAs.
        Now 10 years later, that was 4 and 17, 10 years later the
    NRC has only approved one design and two COLAs. The NRC's
    workload did not increase the way that it was expected, and I
    have some questions about that, but the Commission still
    increased its staff by over 30 percent.
        Now, this is very concerning to me because over the past
    few years the Commission has been developing sweeping new
    regulations that impose draconian costs on the industry without
    producing sufficient benefits. It is as if the NRC, with its
    new building and all of its new people, have been using its
    spare time to come up with new things the nuclear industry must
    do to maintain compliance with the law.
        The NRC has done this most clearly in its reaction to
    Fukushima. While it is reasonable for us to review what went
    wrong there and to make sure that we are not vulnerable to the
    same problems, it is not reasonable for the NRC to use the
    disaster to justify new expensive rules that don't reduce risk.
    I question whether the NRC is still employing its own
    principles of good regulation.
        Just a few months after Fukushima, the NRC near-term task
    force released its papers showing that there is a minimal
    chance that the disaster at Fukushima would happen here. Not
    only are the U.S. nuclear plant designs more robust than
    Japan's, but our significant cultural differences, both within
    the plants and between the plants, and the NRC make it much
    less likely that we would face the same problem. It is really
    apples and oranges.
        Despite all this, the NRC is continuing to push new
    regulations in response to the Fukushima disaster, presuming
    that planning more and more contingencies and implementing more
    and more redundancies the right path to take, even when
    cumulative costs of these actions can exceed $100 million a
    plant.
        Everyone here wants to ensure that a disaster like the one
    at Fukushima does not happen in the United States and that
    really it comes down to keeping the reactor cool in the event
    of both offsite and onsite power is lost. Our plants are
    designed to protect against all external hazards with the
    occurrence rate of one in a million years. Unlike the plant in
    Fukushima, our onsite emergency diesel generators and fuel
    packs are located safely above the ground from floods, and we
    have external pumps ready to operate like a fire department in
    the event that first and second redundancies fail. The United
    States nuclear fleet is safe and it is well prepared to face
    the unforeseen events.
        The NRC has also continued to press the nuclear fleet to
    prepare for terrorist attacks in the wake of 9/11. The NRC has
    required a fleet to implement new security features and many of
    them work quite well, but we are getting close to crossing the
    point where additional requirements are simply adding cost
    without any benefits.
        When you add in the efforts of the EPA to impose more
    regulations on the water being used to cool reactors, claiming
    the new rules cost is justified because of all the fish it will
    keep from getting damaged, it is as if Government at the EPA
    and the NRC is trying to regulate the nuclear energy industry
    out of business, just like it has been trying to regulate
    fossil fuels out of business.
        Today there are more than 50 rules and other regulatory
    actions on tap at the NRC, which is more than I can remember
    since serving on this committee.
        I would submit the rest for the record, since I know I
    won't have time to do it, but I would say that this is
    something that we will cover in the questions that we ask. I
    think it is very significant that we keep in mind we need the
    nuclear energy, and there are some who don't want nuclear
    energy, and we don't want to use overregulation to accomplish
    the wrong goals.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

                      Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
                    U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma

        Thank you all for being here today.
        It was in 2003, when I was chairman of this committee, that
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asked Congress for a bigger
    budget to build a new building and add significantly to its
    staff to support the expected approval of four design
    certifications for new reactor designs and 17 construction and
    operating license applications (COLAs). Now, 10 years later,
    the NRC has only approved one design certification and two
    COLAs. The NRC's workload did not increase the way that it was
    expected, but the Commission still increased its staff by
    almost 30 percent.
        This is very concerning to me because over the past few
    years the Commission has been developing sweeping new
    regulations that impose draconian costs on the industry without
    producing sufficient benefits. It is as if the NRC, with its
    new building and all of its new people, has been using its
    spare time to come up with new things the nuclear industry must
    do to maintain compliance with the law.
        NRC has done this most clearly in its reaction to
    Fukushima. While it is reasonable for us to review what went
    wrong there and make sure we aren't vulnerable to the same
    problems, it is not reasonable for the NRC to use the disaster
    to justify new, expensive rules that do not reduce risk. I
    question whether the NRC is still employing its own
    ``Principles of Good Regulations.''
        Just a few months after Fukushima, the NRC Near-Term Task
    Force released its paper showing that there is a minimal chance
    that the disaster in Fukushima would happen here. Not only are
    the U.S. nuclear plant designs more robust than Japan's, but
    our significant cultural differences--both within the plants
    and between the plants and the NRC--make it much less likely
    that we'll face the same problem.
        Despite this, the NRC is continuing to push new regulations
    in response to the Fukushima disaster, presuming that planning
    more and more contingencies and implementing more and more
    redundancies is the right path to take, even when the
    cumulative cost of these actions can exceed $100 million per
    plant.
        Everyone here wants to ensure that a disaster like the one
    in Fukushima does not happen in the United States, and that
    really comes down to keeping the reactor cool in the event that
    both offsite and onsite power is lost. Our plants are designed
    to protect against all external hazards with an occurrence rate
    of one in a million years; unlike the plant at Fukushima, our
    onsite emergency diesel generators and fuel packs are located
    safely above ground from floods, and we have external pumps
    ready to operate like a fire department in the event the first
    and second redundancies fail. The United States nuclear fleet
    is safe, and it is well prepared to face any unforeseen events.
        The NRC has also continued to press the nuclear fleet to
    prepare for terrorist attacks. In the wake of 9/11, the NRC has
    required the fleet to implement new security features, and many
    of them work quite well. But we're getting close to crossing
    the point where additional requirements are simply adding cost
    without any benefits.
        When you add in the efforts of the EPA to impose more
    regulations on the water being used to cool reactors, claiming
    the new rule's cost is justified because of all the fish it
    will keep from getting entrained and impinged, it's as if the
    Government--at EPA and NRC--is trying to regulate the nuclear
    energy industry out of business, just like it's trying to do
    with every other industry.
        Today there are more than 50 rules and other regulatory
    actions on tap at the NRC, which is more than I can remember
    since serving on this committee--many without any clear
    linkages to safety enhancement. Some are relatively small, but
    others--like EPA's 316(b) rule or the post-Fukushima required
    change to the Spent Fuel pool level instruments, are
    outrageously expensive. And when you look at them all
    together--when you take the cumulative impact of all of them--
    even many of the small ones become unjustifiable. In the grand
    scheme of things, they just do not add much value to our
    already rock solid nuclear fleet.
        For the industry that is providing 20 percent of our
    Nation's electricity, we need to be careful not to overreact to
    world events by imposing unjustifiably expensive regulations
    onto this industry based on the assumption that more
    regulations will yield more safety and security.
        I thank you again for coming to testify here today. I look
    forward to the Q&A.

        Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you.
        Senator Wicker.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
    hearing, and thank you to the NRC commissioners for again being
    here to offer their testimony.
        Our hearing in November was unexpectedly cut short due to
    the majority's regrettable insistence on changing the
    longstanding rules of the Senate with a nuclear option, so I am
    eager to hear today from our witnesses on some of the important
    issues facing the nuclear industry.
        The United States must truly embrace a comprehensive energy
    portfolio that includes all the best resources and technologies
    available today. We must also plan for the energy developments
    of tomorrow. Nuclear power is a vital component of this
    approach.
        In Port Gibson, Mississippi, we are proud to have Grand
    Gulf Nuclear Station, which opened in July 1985, becoming the
    first and only nuclear power plant to produce electricity in
    Mississippi. Today, Mississippi's Grand Gulf is the largest
    single unit nuclear power plant in the country and the fifth
    largest in the world. It provides Americans with an affordable
    energy resource and is a key component of the State's
    industrial base.
        For plants such as Grand Gulf to have continued viability
    and success, it is vital that NRC exercise its oversight
    responsibilities in a manner that provides certainty for the
    country's nuclear industry. Currently, all final licensing
    decisions for nuclear plants are stayed pending the new waste
    confidence decision. The NRC previously has provided assurances
    that the Commission is on schedule to complete this decision,
    but it recently was announced that the time line may be
    delayed. Perhaps we can hear about that today. I hope the
    Commission recognizes the importance of making this action a
    priority and will address this during question and answer.
        In addition, I have heard from many industry stakeholders
    who are concerned about the cumulative impacts of existing NRC
    regulations, as well as further actions that may turn out to be
    unworkable or financially untenable.
        There is no doubt that the Fukushima disaster in Japan has
    reemphasized NRC's principal role to ensure the safety of U.S.
    nuclear plants and their surrounding communities. In the wake
    of this tragedy, however, we must not lose sight of the fact
    that, absent clear priorities, regulatory actions can divert
    management and staff attention from the most important matter,
    safe and reliable operation.
        It is vital that NRC balance the needs of the industry with
    effective regulatory measures as it continues its important
    work to ensure the safety and success of the U.S. nuclear
    industry.
        So welcome to our witnesses and thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you.
        So as we previously agreed, we will open it up and the
    chair will have 5 minutes and each commissioner 2 minutes, and
    then we will begin the questioning.

    STATEMENT OF HON. ALLISON M. MACFARLANE, CHAIRMAN, U.S. NUCLEAR
                         REGULATORY COMMISSION

        Ms. Macfarlane. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman
    Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter, Ranking Member Sessions, and
    distinguished members of the committee. My colleagues and I
    appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf
    of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
        The NRC continues to have a full plate of regulatory
    responsibilities, from the operation, construction, and
    decommissioning of reactors to nuclear materials, waste, and
    security. The Commission continues to function effectively and
    collegially. Today I would like to share some of our
    accomplishments and challenges.
        We continue to address lessons learned from the Fukushima
    Daiichi accident and implement appropriate regulatory
    enhancements. Licensees have purchased and staged backup
    equipment at reactor sites, installed supplemental flood
    barriers and pumps to mitigate extensive flooding, and are
    developing plans to install hardened vents and improve spent
    fuel pool instrumentation. Implementation of these and other
    activities will continue throughout this year under NRC
    oversight. We plan to conduct audits at every site to assess
    licensees' implementation efforts and follow up with detailed
    inspections once implementation is complete.
        We are also making progress on several important
    rulemakings. We are carefully ensuring that this work does not
    distract us or the industry from day-to-day nuclear safety
    priorities. The highest priority safety enhancements for the
    operating reactor fleet will be implemented by 2016.
        The NRC has held more than 150 public meetings to get input
    on our Fukushima work and share progress. The NRC receives
    regular reports on the status of the Fukushima site from the
    government of Japan and the Tokyo Electric Power Company as
    they continue their work at the damaged reactor buildings. We
    are also closely coordinating with other U.S. Federal and State
    agencies regarding information about current concentrations of
    radioactive contamination in the Pacific Ocean. Based on the
    best scientific information available, no agency in the United
    States or abroad has identified any evidence of concerns for
    U.S. food and water supply or public health.
        The vast majority of operating reactors in the United
    States are performing well, while a few warrant enhanced
    oversight to ensure their safe and secure operation. Several
    reactors have recently shut down or announced their decision to
    cease operations. As they transition from operating to
    decommissioning, they have 2 years to develop and provide to
    the NRC their decommissioning plans. The NRC will adjust its
    oversight accordingly and ensure these plans meet our
    regulations, keeping the public informed all the time, of
    course.
        The NRC has acted expeditiously to comply with the D.C.
    Circuit Court of Appeals decision directing us to resume review
    of the Yucca Mountain license application. The Commission
    carefully reviewed feedback from participants to the
    adjudicatory proceeding and budget information from the NRC
    staff. Last November and again last week the Commission issued
    orders directing the staff to complete the safety evaluation
    report for the application and to make the licensing support
    network documentation publicly available in the NRC's Adams
    data base, among other things. The project planning and
    building of the technical capability to finish the safety
    evaluation report is nearing completion.
        The NRC also continues to make progress in its waste
    confidence work. The proposed rule and draft generic
    environmental impact statement were available for public
    comment from September through December of last year. We
    conducted 13 public meetings in 10 States to get feedback and
    address questions, and the agency has received more than 33,000
    public comments. The Commission has recently revised its review
    schedule for publication of the rule and GEIS no later than
    October 3rd, 2014, this year. In the interim, the NRC continues
    to review all affected license applications, but we will not
    make final licensing decisions dependent upon the waste
    confidence decision until the court's remand has been fully
    addressed.
        Construction of the new units at Vogtle and V.C. Summer is
    well underway under rigorous NRC inspection. Construction also
    continues at Watts Bar Unit 2, and the staff is working toward
    an operating licensing decision for that plant in December of
    this year. We are also busy preparing for the first design
    certification application of a small modular reactor, which we
    expect to receive later this year.
        The NRC has accomplished a great deal and I am confident
    will continue to meet the challenges ahead. Let me assure you
    safety and security at our operating and licensed facilities
    and materials remains our top priority.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
    am pleased to answer your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Macfarlane follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Thank you.
        Commissioner Svinicki.

      STATEMENT OF HON. KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER, U.S.
                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

        Ms. Svinicki. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member
    Vitter, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Sessions, and members
    of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today
    at this oversight hearing.
        The Commission's chairman, Dr. Allison Macfarlane, and her
    statement on behalf of the Commission has provided a
    comprehensive description of key agency accomplishments and
    challenges in carrying out NRC's important mission of
    protecting public health and safety, and promoting the common
    defense and security of our Nation.
        In a recent communication to all agency employees, the
    NRC's senior career official, the executive director for
    operations, stated the following: ``Our future is likely to be
    dynamic and unpredictable, and the agency will need to remain
    flexible and agile as we respond to new events and external
    pressures. We will need to continually evaluate the work we are
    doing, give careful consideration as how best to use resources,
    and remain focused on safety and security.'' I agree with his
    statement.
        As an organization which embraces the precepts of
    continuous learning, the NRC consistently seeks to improve its
    organizational effectiveness. As a member of the Commission, I
    will continue to work with my Commission colleagues and the NRC
    staff to support the agency's assessment of how we can
    accomplish our work efficiently and effectively, and in light
    of the circumstances and factors we face day to day.
        I am confident that the NRC's dedicated and highly
    professional staff members are up to the task of meeting these
    challenges, as they have proven time and again over the course
    of the agency's history. I thank them for their sustained
    commitment to the agency, to its work, and to each other.
        I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and look
    forward to your questions. Thank you.
        [Ms. Svinicki's responses to questions for the record
    follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Thank you, commissioner.
        Commissioner Apostolakis.

       STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS, COMMISSIONER, U.S.
                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

        Mr. Apostolakis. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter,
    Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Sessions, and members of the
    committee, good morning.
        As Chairman Macfarlane stated, we have made a great deal of
    progress in implementing the lessons learned from the Fukushima
    accident. I would like to add that we know a lot more today
    about what it will take to implement the lessons learned than
    we did in 2011, when the Commission set its goal to ``strive to
    complete and implement the lessons learned from the Fukushima
    accident within 5 years, by 2016.''
        It is important not to focus exclusively on the 5-year goal
    to complete the recommendations but, rather, on the entire
    process, which allows us to improve safety significantly by
    implementing the highest priority safety enhancements in a well
    informed and effective manner.
        I emphasize that for the most safety significant
    enhancements we expect to meet the 5-year implementation goal.
    Schedules will extend beyond 2016 in the case of the boiling
    water reactor containment vents because additional requirements
    were imposed after issuance of the initial orders. In another
    case the guidance for addressing seismic hazard reevaluations
    was revised in order to implement safety enhancements and
    actual plant modifications earlier, while allowing licensees
    more time to complete comprehensive site-specific seismic risk
    analysis.
        In my view, these actions are consistent with the original
    intent of the Commission to promptly and effectively implement
    the lessons learned from Fukushima. Thank you.
        [Mr. Apostolakis's responses to questions for the record
    follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Thank you, commissioner.
        Commissioner Magwood.

     STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD, IV, COMMISSIONER, U.S.
                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

        Mr. Magwood. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. Good morning to you
    and to Ranking Member Vitter, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
    Sessions, and members of the subcommittee. We appreciate the
    opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the work of
    our agency.
        Chairman Macfarlane's comments capture the full range of
    activities and, as you can see, it has been an extraordinarily
    busy time for the NRC. I will add briefly that we appreciate
    the encouragement from this committee as we have received to
    the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Since March 2011, the NRC has
    learned vital lessons from this disaster and taken clear,
    rational action to enhance nuclear safety. We have kept our
    pledge to neither overreact nor underreact to the events in
    Japan, and I believe we have gotten it just about right.
        Our challenge now, both for NRC and its licensees, is to
    absorb the post-Fukushima activities into our normal work and
    prioritize it appropriately. Doing so will require us to
    understand how to manage the preparation for beyond design
    basis events in concert with our ongoing efforts to protect
    against much more likely accident scenarios. Considerable work
    lay ahead, and I am confident that the agency is up to the
    challenge.
        So again I thank you for your engagement during the last 3
    years of hard work. I look forward to answering any questions
    you have.
        [Mr. Magwood's responses to questions for the record
    follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Thank you.
        Commissioner Ostendorff.

      STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, COMMISSIONER, U.S.
                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

        Mr. Ostendorff. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter,
    Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Sessions, thank you for the
    chance to be before you today.
        After receiving the Fukushima near-term task force
    recommendations back in July 2011, it was clear to myself and
    my colleagues at the table that those recommendations needed to
    be prioritized to focus on those safety significant action
    items, the so-called Tier 1 activities. I personally believe
    that great strives have been made in implementing Tier 1
    activities.
        Chairman Macfarlane has, in depth, in her written and oral
    testimony, covered these issues. I think a lot of progress has
    been made, and I agree with my fellow colleagues that we have
    gotten it, from our perspective, about right.
        I acknowledge there have been a lot of things done. There
    have been things added to the plate since the original near-
    term task force report, a lot of discussion about what we
    should do, what we should not do. I would say that the
    Commission decision process has been very thoughtful and
    deliberate in these areas. A great deal of work has been done.
        I appreciate this committee's oversight role and look
    forward to your questions. Thank you.
        [Mr. Ostendorff's responses to questions for the record
    follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Thank you. So now each of us will get 10
    minutes of questions.
        Madam Chairman, I have sent the NRC five letters requesting
    documents that relate to the flawed steam generators at San
    Onofre. Just 2 days ago you told me in writing that NRC didn't
    provide me with everything I requested, and you admitted that,
    because of constitutional concerns.
        I have here the Comprehensive Congressional Research
    Service Manual on Congressional Oversight. I have confirmed
    there are two constitutionally based privileges that allow an
    agency to withhold documents from Congress. One is an assertion
    of executive privilege and the other is the exercise of the
    Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate one's self. So which
    one of these are you asserting as you do not give me my
    documents that I have asked for?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Madam Chairman, thank you for the
    opportunity to answer your questions here. We certainly want to
    have a good relationship with the oversight committee----
        Senator Boxer. No, no. I don't have time. I like you; I
    have a good relationship with you. What are you asserting? I
    need these documents. Is it----
        Ms. Macfarlane. We have been trying----
        Senator Boxer [continuing]. Right not to incriminate
    yourself or is it executive privilege? Those are the two that
    are allowed.
        Ms. Macfarlane. We have been working with your staff, with
    the committee staff to provide documents. In fact, we just
    provided another tranche of documents yesterday and the day
    before to the staff that was responsive to your request.
        Senator Boxer. So you will give me all of the documents I
    have requested?
        Ms. Macfarlane. If we have not been responsive to your
    request, as you go through the documents that we just provided,
    we of course would like to continue to work with the committee
    to see how we can accommodate your request.
        Senator Boxer. No, no, I don't want you to work with the
    committee. You have promised the ranking member and myself that
    whenever we ask for documents, you get them to us. You have
    also committed that to everyone else. So I am just saying to
    you if we do not have the documents that we request rightfully
    and legally, you better assert why you are withholding them.
    Either it is incrimination or it is executive privilege. And
    you have talked about separation of powers. We will share with
    your legal people. We also heard other things from your counsel
    that deal with other reasons which just don't make any sense,
    so we will continue to work with you.
        We have had eight oversight hearings. I am glad that my
    colleagues want more, because I want more as well; and that
    leads to an issue of your travel, all of your travel. Now, we
    all travel on business because sometimes it is extremely
    important to do so. But I have looked over how many trips each
    of you have taken in your time. Commissioner Svinicki, 17
    international trips to 23 countries; Commissioner Magwood, 127
    days on international travel since 2010.
        And I know that Chairman Macfarlane has requested that all
    five commissioners be in town at least 1 week each month in
    order to ensure that the Commission can meet to conduct its
    business and be available to testify before Congress. So I am
    asking if each of you would agree to her request, starting with
    Ms. Svinicki.
        Ms. Svinicki. Yes, I think we work very collegially on
    scheduling matters and I----
        Senator Boxer. I am asking if you agree with her request,
    that you be in town 1 week a month, all of you together.
        Ms. Svinicki. Yes. I don't think there is any month where I
    haven't been in town 1 week.
        Mr. Apostolakis. Yes.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you.
        Mr. Magwood. Yes.
        Mr. Ostendorff. Yes.
        Senator Boxer. That is good, because it will make it easier
    on us, because some of my colleagues are complaining that we
    don't have enough oversight. We are going to do more oversight.
        Now, the NRC travel records I received are marked ``non-
    public,'' which is mystifying to me since there is no good
    reason to keep that information secret. The taxpayers are
    paying for it. Now, when we travel, we get heat sometimes. We
    have to show where we go and what it costs, et cetera. Some of
    you publicly disclose some of your travel and your meetings,
    but most of you don't. So, yes or no, will each of you commit
    to this committee to making all of your travel and meetings
    publicly available going forward?
        Ms. Svinicki. I already do make my schedule publicly
    available and my travel publicly available.
        Senator Boxer. OK. Yes. Will you do that?
        Ms. Svinicki. Yes.
        Mr. Apostolakis. I think I am already doing it.
        Senator Boxer. You will do it.
        Mr. Magwood. Yes, I currently do that.
        Mr. Ostendorff. I currently make my meetings public.
        Senator Boxer. OK. Well, my understanding is, Commissioner
    Magwood, you haven't in the past. So we look forward to seeing
    that in the future.
        I am going to be introducing legislation that will ensure
    that the Commission and staff are more open about their travel.
        Chairman Macfarlane, I think we all agree NRC must be
    independent, it is essential, and I am concerned that your
    independence may have been compromised as you considered a
    request by SoCal Edison to restart the San Onofre nuclear
    reactor. That reactor shut down in early 2012 when its steam
    generators were found to be in very bad shape. The NRC properly
    requested considerable amount of technical information from the
    licensee in order to inform its decision on whether the reactor
    was safe. You were right to do that. But documents I have
    received--at least I have received some--indicate the NRC staff
    was preparing a document declaring that the restart of the
    reactor was safe months before it received all of the responses
    to the technical questions. So how can we have confidence in
    NRC's independence when it was preparing to grant industry's
    request months before it received the necessary safety related
    information?
        Ms. Macfarlane. During the investigation of the steam
    generator failure at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,
    there were many concurrent issues that were working at the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It was a very complicated
    proceeding and there was an active investigation----
        Senator Boxer. Well, I am just asking a specific question.
    Documents show that you were ready to allow that plant to
    startup before all the technical studies were done and you had
    something drafted. I mean, I am just concerned. And I guess
    what I am getting at, you closed that reactor down, it is gone,
    thank God, because of the problem. Well, the company actually
    did it, you didn't. But the bottom line is what I want to make
    sure of, in the future, if there is an investigation going on,
    you shouldn't reopen. So I guess my question is do you think it
    is right to reopen a facility while an investigation is still
    going on? You don't really know what the problem is.
        Ms. Macfarlane. It depends on the particular situation.
    Unfortunately, I can't give you a specific answer because it
    depends on the particular situation, and in some situations our
    regulations allow for a plant to restart while an investigation
    continues.
        Senator Boxer. OK. Fair enough. So I am going to just
    continue to work on this in my investigation.
        Chairman Macfarlane, are these statements accurate? One,
    NRC's former senior resident inspector for Diablo Canyon filed
    a formal dissent, saying that Diablo was operating outside the
    seismic requirements of its license. Is that accurate?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I believe that the senior resident, in
    years past, did file nonconcurrence.
        Senator Boxer. You believe that is correct, then.
        Ms. Macfarlane. I believe that is correct.
        Senator Boxer. Second, he also said that PG&E's own
    analysis showed that the newly discovered faults could cause
    ground shaking that was 70 percent stronger than the NRC
    license allows. Is that correct?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I would have to look, I am not----
        Senator Boxer. Would you get back to me on that and let me
    know?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes. I can take that for the record.
        Senator Boxer. OK. I have a number of other questions I
    want to ask about that for the record, so I will ask all those.
        Madam Chairman, recently the NRC voted to delay a
    recommendation by its own staff that two people be present
    whenever highly enriched uranium or plutonium were being
    handled in order to protect against an insider threat. The
    Department of Energy has had a rule like that in place for
    decades, and in 2011 the Department of Homeland Security warned
    that violent extremists have obtained insider positions at
    utilities and that ``insiders and their actions pose a
    significant threat to the infrastructure and information
    systems of U.S. facilities.''
        So I would like you to answer do you support the quick
    adoption of the two-person security rule that your own staff
    recommended?
        Ms. Macfarlane. The Commission decided not to go forward
    with that at this time.
        Senator Boxer. Why?
        Ms. Macfarlane. It was a Commission decision.
        Senator Boxer. Why? What was the vote?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I am not sure. I don't recall what the vote
    was.
        Senator Boxer. Does anyone recall what the vote was not to
    go forward with this? None of you remember? Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ostendorff. Madam Chair, the specific issue was that
    the staff had not completed a cost-benefit analysis to assess
    whether or not the two-person rule was appropriate.
        Senator Boxer. Well, could I just say----
        Senator Sanders. We don't have an answer to what the vote
    was. Could you tell me what the vote was?
        Mr. Ostendorff. I don't recall what the vote was. I voted--
    --
        Senator Sanders. Does anybody? Five people is not a lot of
    people. What was the vote, 3 to 2, 4 to 1?
        Mr. Ostendorff. I voted against the rule because of the
    two-person piece.
        Mr. Sanders. OK.
        Senator Boxer. How did you vote on it?
        Mr. Magwood. As I recall, I voted against it.
        Senator Boxer. How did you vote on it?
        Mr. Apostolakis. I can't remember.
        Senator Boxer. How did you vote?
        Ms. Svinicki. I believe I voted against it.
        Senator Boxer. How did you vote?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I don't recall right now either.
        Senator Boxer. I am completely flummoxed. This is a big and
    important issue, and this business of a cost-benefit analysis
    when you are dealing with a potential terror attack and a
    takeover of a nuclear plant? You have got to be kidding.
        Now, let me say, you have never done a cost-benefit
    analysis for these sorts of materials tracking in the past, and
    you found the costs were minimal, less than a million a year;
    and I would say the benefit of preventing someone from stealing
    nuclear weapons materials is pretty much priceless. And I would
    suggest if you don't move and reverse yourselves on this, there
    will be legislation.
        I thank you and I turn to my colleague.
        Senator Vitter. You know, I think oftentimes in Government,
    and in Washington in particular, we become very process-
    oriented and lose the forest for the trees. So I am just going
    to suggest a question, not to be answered here, but suggest a
    question for all of us to think about. Senator Sessions went
    through the rash of shutdowns very recently: Kewaunee in
    Wisconsin; Vermont Yankee; Crystal River Unit 3 in Florida;
    SONG 2 and 3 in California. Duke Energy announced it wouldn't
    move forward with Levy County, Florida. TVA announced that it
    would scale back work at Bellefonte.
        Now, if any of us as individuals think most or all of those
    sites were unsafe or not safe enough, well, that is a good
    result. But if we think, as I do, that most, probably all of
    those sites were safe, were safe enough, that is a fundamental
    failure on the part of all of us; NRC, Congress, the whole
    establishment. So I just want to try to have us focus on the
    forest, and not lose sight of it.
        Let me ask some specific questions about Yucca Mountain.
    First of all, Madam Chair, at your confirmation hearing you
    stated very clearly, ``To be effective, a regulatory body must
    be independent from economic, policy, and political interest.''
    However, in the majority opinion on Yucca Mountain, Judge
    Cavanaugh stated that, ``The Commission's political
    prognostication may or may not ultimately prove to be correct.
    Regardless, an agency may not rely on political guesswork about
    future congressional appropriations as a basis for violating
    existing legal mandates.'' And he didn't consider it a close
    call.
        Why did it take you a court decision to move forward with
    that legal mandate? Why was not that political prognostication
    and political guesswork about congressional appropriations not
    being independent from political interest and considerations?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Thanks for the question, Senator. I was not
    on the Commission when those decisions were made, so I will not
    try to second guess the decisions that were made in the past.
    What I can assure you is that we are fully complying with the
    court's decision and we are moving forward, continuing with the
    proceedings, and we are moving forward promptly on this.
        Senator Vitter. OK, well, let's move to that. The
    Commission has repeatedly acknowledged in its order, including
    this week, that it does not have adequate resources to fully
    complete the Yucca review and issue a decision. Is that
    correct?
        Ms. Macfarlane. To fully complete the licensing decision?
        Senator Vitter. Yes, to fully complete the review----
        Ms. Macfarlane. We do not have adequate resources.
        Senator Vitter [continuing]. And issue a decision pursuant
    to the review.
        Ms. Macfarlane. That is correct.
        Senator Vitter. OK, so what action are you taking to solve
    that problem? For instance, have you proposed a supplemental
    budget to OMB?
        Ms. Macfarlane. No, we have not.
        Senator Vitter. Have you taken any other action to solve
    that problem?
        Ms. Macfarlane. We are complying with the court's decision.
    They told us to use the existing funds that we had, and we are
    going forward using those funds.
        Senator Vitter. Let me ask you about existing resources. As
    was pointed out by other members a few minutes ago, NRC staff
    has increased about 34 percent at least since 2000. Meanwhile,
    the expected increase in workload has never materialized. Quite
    the opposite. So huge increase in staff, no increase in
    workload in terms of applications for licenses, et cetera. Are
    you moving any of that staff to solve this resource problem?
        Ms. Macfarlane. You know, I would like to actually submit
    something for the record, if that is OK. I have a little chart
    here which shows our budget from 2003 to 2013. And I know it is
    a bit of an eye test for you, but it shows it in actual dollars
    and constant dollars. And if you look at the constant dollar
    chart, which is in red, our current budget is the lowest it has
    been since 2007, I believe. And in that time period since 2007
    our workload has increased significantly. We have been dealing
    with Yucca Mountain, we have been dealing with waste
    confidence, we have been dealing with Fukushima, in addition to
    all the other work that we are doing, the new construction
    work, all of that work. So we are actually now doing more with
    less.
        Senator Vitter. Well, there are going to be a lot of folks
    who disagree with you and that goes back to my original
    statement. If you become completely process oriented, I am sure
    you are dealing with more because you have created that
    process. If you step back, I think you come to the opposite
    conclusion. And, as you know, those resources were given to you
    to meet an expected increase in license application, an
    increase in sites, increase in nuclear reactors. None of that
    has happened. Yes, regulations have multiplied almost
    exponentially, but that fundamental growth of the industry has
    not happened.
        Let me re-ask my question about people, because you will
    agree that at least since 2000 there has been a huge increase
    in bodies at the NRC, correct?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Since 2000? We hit our maximum a couple
    years ago, and we have decreased in size since 2010, and we now
    have around 3700 employees.
        Senator Vitter. OK. Well, not that long ago it was 2900, so
    there has been a big increase over that time period. Are you
    moving any of those folks to solve the Yucca resources?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Oh, absolutely. We are currently about----
        Senator Vitter. How many of those folks have been moved
    recently from something else to Yucca?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Well, I can assure you that we are
    currently about 80 percent staffed up for dealing with the
    safety evaluation reports, so we are going to be ready to go on
    those very soon.
        Senator Vitter. But again I was talking about following the
    whole process through. You have said several times you don't
    have adequate resources, so I am talking about that broader
    challenge. How do you propose to solve that problem?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I think right now that the budget
    appropriations have been settled. We are in a reasonable
    position going forward. I would ask my colleagues to weigh in,
    if they would like to.
        Ms. Svinicki. Senator, if I could just add to the
    chairman's answer.
        Senator Vitter. Sure.
        Ms. Svinicki. In terms of reallocating appropriated money
    to Yucca Mountain related activities, there are prohibitions on
    our doing that. We would have to seek a congressional
    reprogramming because activities used for Yucca Mountain, I
    believe, must be appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund, so
    our other appropriated moneys would have to receive a
    congressional reprogramming.
        Senator Vitter. Are you all going to make that request?
        Ms. Macfarlane. This will be a Commission decision, so it
    is something we will have to decide as a body.
        Senator Vitter. Are you considering making that request?
    Has there been any discussion?
        Ms. Macfarlane. There has been some discussion. We will
    entertain this as it comes up in future budgets.
        Senator Vitter. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, if I may add to Commissioner
    Svinicki and Chairman Macfarlane's comments. Glenn Tracy, who
    directs our Office of New Reactors, a New Orleans native, has
    moved a number of his personnel over the last 2 years, because
    of the drop-back in licensing of new reactors, over to help
    with Fukushima action items and the seismic and flooding area.
    I think Mark Sartorius, our executive director for operations,
    who is back here in the back row, has taken a lot of steps to
    ensure the appropriate fiscally prudent use of these resources.
        Senator Vitter. Well, I hope you can understand my general
    concern, which is it took a court order to have the NRC follow
    a clear legal mandate, and even as that is happening there are
    all sorts of statements, well, we don't have the decisions to
    follow through and get everything done down the line. I realize
    we are not talking about the immediate work at hand, but the
    full review and decision. So why don't we start thinking about
    how we solve that problem? I don't hear any request for
    reprogramming, any significant movement of individuals, even
    though there has been a major increase over a decade, any
    proposal to OMB. So can you all discuss how we solve that
    problem over time and present to us and Congress and everyone
    appropriate your plan for solving that problem, not just
    identifying the problem or not just pointing to the problem?
        Thank you. That is all I have.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Madam Chair.
        I want to go back to the issue raised by my chair, and that
    is the two-person rule. Let me just note for the record we have
    heard around here hundreds of times, thousands of times, and
    people ask me from time to time how did you vote on such-and-
    such. Frankly, I don't always remember, so I can understand how
    you may not remember how you voted. But, for the record, let us
    know how you voted. The other thing, for the record, let us
    know why you voted that way.
        In my old job in the Navy, the Navy PT aircraft world, as
    Commissioner Ostendorff knows, we handled, from time to time,
    nuclear weapons, and we had an aircraft rule: when using
    nuclear [unclear] bombs, you want to arm them or whatever, two
    people involved in that; and that was for a good reason. So
    just let us know what is your rationale for doing this. If
    there is a good reason for it, we would like to know it; and if
    ultimately there is not a good reason for it, we would like to
    know that too, and we would like to know sooner rather than
    later. So if we can put that out there, that would be great.
        Another thing, just clarify for the record. You all do a
    fair amount of travel. We do a fair amount of travel. I am the
    chairman of Homeland Security Committee. I need to do more
    international travel, and I am more cognizant of that and am
    going to try to do a better job this year, now that I have my
    first year of my chairmanship behind me. But you all travel a
    lot. Some of you travel a lot. The chairman doesn't travel that
    much; she has not been in the Commission for as long, which may
    be the explanation. Some of you travel a lot to Japan. That is
    understandable. Some of you travel to places where it is less
    clear. And I would just ask, in terms of taxpayers paying for
    your travel, my understanding is that the lion's share of the
    expenditures at the NRC, and I presume it is travel as well,
    come not from taxpayer dollars, but from fees collected from
    utilities and so forth. Can you all give me the breakdown of
    that? What is it, 90/10? What is it?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, it is 90 percent. We are a 90 percent
    fee recoverable agency.
        Senator Carper. It sounds like you are fairly transparent
    on the travel that you do. Just make sure. We get criticized
    for foreign travel, and a lot of cases it is stuff that is
    justified. I usually go to places where we have Americans
    getting shot at, killed at, and so forth, and it is kind of
    hard to criticize that. But just make sure that you continue to
    be transparent; explain why it is important. I always like to
    think what if the trip that I take is going to be on the front
    page of the newspaper, banner headlines, and I have to defend
    it. Just kind of take that approach to it and make sure that
    you are using good common sense.
        I want to turn to Sandy. Sandy visited my State a little
    over a year ago, our region of the country, did a lot of
    damage, and I think if climate change stuff is real, I think it
    is, we are going to see more Sandys in the future that are
    going to come to other places around our country and around our
    world. What were our lessons? What were our lessons learned
    from Sandy? What could we have done better not just from our
    nuclear power plants, but within the Federal, State, and local
    governments?
        Ms. Macfarlane. What were the lessons learned?
        Senator Carper. Yes.
        Ms. Macfarlane. Well, certainly we were actually very
    impressed with our licensees' response to Sandy; they were all
    on alert, they were all prepared. We, ourselves, were prepared;
    we had extra inspectors at the facilities ready and watching.
    So we were all ready to manage, and the plants managed very
    well. The only plant that had any kind of incident during that
    time was Oyster Creek in New Jersey, which did have high water
    levels, but it didn't reach the design basis and didn't affect
    the plant.
        Senator Carper. Other commissioners, what are some things
    we learned from Sandy that we are acting on now, we could have
    been better, not just within the NRC, the plants themselves,
    maybe State and local government in their response? Anybody?
        Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, thanks for the question. We had a
    Commission meeting earlier this month, in public, from
    Rockville, and we had operation supervisor from Salem Hope
    Creek there, and I think the licensee learned some things, we
    learned some things. The two comments I had were regional
    coordination and how the licensee and the NRC communicate with
    FEMA. Then, onsite there were some areas identified to enhance
    the operating procedures in the event of a flood.
        Senator Carper. OK. Anything the NRC is doing--and this
    could be for the chair or the other members as well, but
    anything that the NRC is doing to better ensure, to better
    ensure that our nuclear plants and the communities around them
    are better prepared for storms like this in the future?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Well, we asked all our plants to reevaluate
    the flooding hazard at the plants, and we are getting their
    flood hazard reevaluations in. We got a big tranche in last
    year; we are expecting another this year, to keep up with the
    potential for increases in flood hazard from climate change or
    what have you. So we are on top of that and we are going to be
    analyzing other aspects of weather and natural disaster events,
    as we work through the Fukushima Tier 3 activities.
        Senator Carper. Let's go across the world to Fukushima this
    morning. How are they doing there in their recovery? Just
    somebody give us--30,000 foot. How are they doing in their
    recovery from the terrible disasters that they were visited by?
        Ms. Macfarlane. How are we doing?
        Senator Carper. No, no, how are they doing.
        Ms. Macfarlane. At Fukushima?
        Senator Carper. Yes. They are like a sister State to us in
    Delaware, so we care about it.
        Ms. Macfarlane. They are working very hard. It is a very
    difficult situation and it is an unprecedented situation, so
    they are really having to make things up as they go, in other
    words. There is a constant issue of radiation leakage into
    groundwater. They have a lot of water issues there and they are
    working very hard to minimize it. They really literally, I
    think, are working around the clock. But new problems will crop
    up, and as Commissioner Apostolakis noted, we are learning more
    all the time now about the accident, about what happened, and
    that is giving us more insight into our own operations here.
        Senator Carper. All right. Some of you travel extensively
    to Japan. Anybody else want to just give us a quick 30 seconds
    or so? How are they doing over there in their recovery?
        Mr. Magwood. Appreciate the question, Senator. There has
    been some very important progress. They have begun, for
    example, to begin relocating some of the spent fuel from the
    damage in the fuel pools, and that is a very important
    milestone that the people in Japan were watching very closely.
    I think the biggest challenge they have in Japan, quite
    frankly, is the continued skepticism that the public has about
    the ability of the government and the regulators to speak
    clearly to requirements and making decisions, and they still
    have those doubts; and I think that is a big challenge for our
    colleagues at the Nuclear Regulatory Authority as they try to
    make good decisions. I think they are doing a very good job so
    far, but that public skepticism is still very high in Japan. It
    is a big challenge for them.
        Senator Carper. OK. Sticking with Fukushima for another
    minute or so, in response to the Fukushima event, the
    Commission, I know, continues to pursue a long list of lessons
    learned from the accident. That is good. The NRC has several
    deadlines to meet in the next couple of years, I believe, to
    meet the time line established in March of, I think it was
    2012. Are there any issues that have been a lot more difficult
    than you might have expected? If so, what have they been?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Issues that have made achieving the
    activities?
        Senator Carper. Are there any issues that have been more
    difficult to address than expected?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I would say at this moment not directly,
    no. We are certainly learning as we go and shifting things
    around a little bit as we go. You know, we issued an order, for
    example, on hardened vents to make them more secure. Last year
    the Commission revisited this issue and said, you know, we
    really need to make sure that these vents are hardened, it is
    possible to open then in an accident scenario, but these vents
    have to be able to withstand the conditions of an accident; the
    temperature, pressure, intense radiation conditions of an
    accident. So we revised the order and reissued it so that these
    vents will be capable of being operated under those conditions
    as well. So we are doing that as we go along.
        Senator Carper. All right.
        Commissioner Apostolakis, it was last September, along with
    Senator Sessions and Senator Barrasso and Cardin, we sent a
    letter to the Commission encouraging the NRC to streamline the
    licensing process for dry cast storage. Since we sent our
    letter, we understand that the NRC has implemented a new
    expedited process for approving dry cast storage designs, and I
    was wondering if you might elaborate for us on that process, if
    there was any feedback that you have been receiving from the
    industry, please. Commissioner Apostolakis, if you would,
    please. Do you have some feedback that you have received from
    the industry? How are we doing here?
        Mr. Apostolakis. I have not heard any complaints from the
    industry. I think we are doing fine, as far as I know.
        Senator Carper. Anybody else want to respond to my
    question? No? All right.
        Chairman Macfarlane, can you give us an update on where the
    NRC is on waste confidence, please?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes. As I said, we have finished our public
    comment period of getting public comments on the waste
    confidence rule and the generic environmental impact statement.
    We are now in the process of going through those over 33,000
    public comments and addressing them, and we will be about,
    right now the estimate is 1 month over time. So we will be done
    by the beginning of October.
        Senator Carper. Madam Chair, our colleague, Senator
    Sanders, raises interesting questions. I put my old Governor
    hat on, about the appropriate role for State and local
    governments. I have a clear interest in the decommissioning of
    these facilities around our country, including Vermont and
    other places. And I don't know that we need a law to do that, I
    don't know if we need regulations to make sure that they have
    the ability to play an appropriate role. There is clearly an
    interest and a concern. I would have it as well. And let's see
    if we can't use some common sense to make possible for the
    State and local governments to have some involvement. We will
    follow up, Senator Sessions and I will follow up with you, some
    further discussions, and involve Senator Sanders if he would
    like to be part of that. Thank you.
        Senator Boxer. Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have to
    confess, I was hoping the Senator Sessions would make it back,
    because I always do so much better when I ask my questions
    after Senator Sanders has asked his questions, and you will
    find out in a minute.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Inhofe. Let me ask this also. I really think, and I
    have been here for quite a while and I used to chair this
    committee a long time, and I think we have an excellent
    Commission. I mean, all five of you, I just appreciate your
    service so much, and it is well balanced.
        I noticed, Mr. Apostolakis, that you are going to be the
    next one that would be coming up for renomination, and I would
    hope that you would continue on and, if you are inclined to do
    so, I would appreciate your service to continue.
        In my opening statement, I am going to repeat something
    that I said there because it is kind of following up a little
    bit on what Senator Vitter was talking about, but it may be in
    a different way. And I remember it so well because at that time
    I chaired this committee; this was 2003. The NRC asked Congress
    for the bigger budget to build new buildings, add all these
    employees. And, by the way, I have some specific numbers.
        Madam Chair, you weren't here at that time, so you are off
    the hook, partially.
        But they wanted to do this so they could add expected
    approval of four design certifications for new reactor designs
    and 17 of the COLAs; not the normal COLAs we talk about, the
    construction and operating license applications. So that was 4
    and 17.
        Now, that was actually, at that time, in discussing this,
    we were looking in terms--because I went back and checked our
    notes--that we would have to anticipate having that increase
    workload in 3 to 5 years. Now, that has been a long time, and
    now 10 years later we only have approved one design
    certification and two COLAs. So it has gone from an expectation
    of 4 design certifications and 17 COLAs down only 1 and 2.
        Now, I say this, and I would like to get a response from
    each member, maybe start with, well, since you weren't here at
    that time, let's start with Ms. Svinicki. Tell me how that can
    happen. Why did that happen?
        Ms. Svinicki. Well, I would note, Senator, some statistics
    I found, just very quickly here, is that NRC does have under
    review right now three design certifications and--the chairman
    is helping me out.
        Senator Inhofe. I am not talking about under review. We
    said at that time that we would have those in 3 to 5 years, not
    be reviewing them 10 years later.
        Ms. Svinicki. As some members of the committee have noted
    in their opening statements, some of the larger economic
    circumstances for the utilities that were interested in
    building these new reactors have changed somewhat
    significantly. As a result, some have suspended or withdrawn
    their applications, but some have decreased the pace at which
    they are supporting the review of their application, by which I
    mean when we generate questions, they have indicated that they
    are content with a slower pace to our review. So some of the
    schedules have become protracted for that reason.
        Senator Inhofe. OK. Because of timing, I am going to--if
    there is time, I will come back and ask the same question of
    the other three, but I want to get another thing in here in the
    meantime, and that is that the NRC near-term task force in two
    Japanese reports on Fukushima determined that the disaster was
    one that we call made in Japan; in other words, the cultural
    differences, the gaps that are out there. It would seem that we
    need to have that determined. And we talked about this way back
    in 2011, when it happened. We said there are differences here,
    there are cultural differences here.
        So I would ask Chairman Macfarlane has the NRC conducted a
    thorough gap analysis between the Japanese and United States
    systems and regulations to compare and contrast the complete
    picture comparing U.S. and Japanese models to more closely and
    wisely cost-effectively suggest policy changes? Have we made
    that kind of a study?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, we did a comparative study of the U.S.
    and Japanese regulatory systems, but it wasn't comprehensive.
        Senator Inhofe. It was not comprehensive.
        Ms. Macfarlane. No, it wasn't completely comprehensive.
        Senator Inhofe. It didn't include all the cultural----
        Ms. Macfarlane. In part because to get into the weeds of
    comparing the U.S. and Japanese, we would have to translate all
    of their regulations to fully understand the differences. But
    let me just jump to the conclusions of the study that we did.
    We found some similarities and we found some differences. But
    the bottom line was that there was no evidence that a
    Fukushima-type accident would have been completely avoided in
    the U.S.
        Senator Inhofe. OK.
        Ms. Macfarlane. And what I have learned from the fantastic
    staff at the NRC is that one of the most important things for a
    regulator is operating experience. And the operating experience
    that we gained during the Fukushima accident is significant. We
    did not, prior to the Fukushima accident, expect or analyze for
    more than one reactor at a site to have an accident.
        Senator Inhofe. OK.
        Ms. Macfarlane. So that was not planned for. We had not
    prepared properly for extended long-term station blackout; no
    electricity, no backup sources. And we are now addressing that.
    And do you know what? Every country with a significant nuclear
    program around the world came to the same conclusions and they
    are doing the same thing.
        Senator Inhofe. OK, what I would like to have is a copy of
    this report that you have.
        Ms. Macfarlane. Certainly. It is publicly available.
        Senator Inhofe. Even though you state that it is not as
    complete as we would all probably want. But I want to compare
    it with the notes that we took 3 years ago on the changes. For
    example, you have to actually go get permission in advance to
    do things that we, through the NRC, empower those people on the
    site to do; and there are so many changes like that.
        I would like to ask, Captain Ostendorff, would you think it
    is important for us to have the benefit of a complete report,
    even more complete than the one we have right now?
        Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, I appreciate the question. I agree
    with Chairman Macfarlane's response, and I know that this has
    been some discussion over the last couple of years with this
    committee. I think we have thoughtfully taken aboard the
    Fukushima lessons learned, including the scope of Japanese
    regulations in place at the time for those areas that were
    important.
        Senator Inhofe. OK. Well, we would just like to have the
    benefit of everything. While we are talking about getting
    reports, Madam Chairman, I know we have had enough funding to
    complete the Yucca Mountain report, and I will be watching real
    closely to see--do you have a date that we would have that
    report?
        Ms. Macfarlane. I think it is about a year from January,
    but I need to get back to you on that, so let me take that for
    the record.
        Senator Inhofe. OK. When you get back to me, and for the
    record I would like to have you give me a date that we should
    anticipate receiving it, because I think, to me, anyway, that
    is very important.
        Now, in the remaining time, I asked the question, in
    opening up, how we can--first of all, increasing the staff. It
    is my information that we have 900 more employees right now
    than we had in 2004. Now, I don't know whether that agrees with
    your chart or not, but what I would like to have you do is take
    your chart, since this action took place in 2003, extend it to
    the 3 years prior to 2003 so we can get a better look on how
    much of that came from the increased activity that we
    anticipated were going to happen in COLAs and design
    certification. So I would ask that you take the chart, go back
    to, instead of starting at 2003, start at 2000.
        Ms. Macfarlane. Certainly. We can do that for you.
        Senator Inhofe. OK.
        Now, the rest of you, in terms of the increase from
    anticipating 4 design certifications and 17 COLAs, and only
    getting 1 design certification and 2 COLAs in that time, would
    the other three of you who didn't have a chance to respond to
    that tell me what I am overlooking here?
        Mr. Apostolakis. Well, on the face of it, I must agree it
    doesn't look good.
        Senator Inhofe. OK, that is a good response.
        How about you, Mr. Magwood?
        Mr. Magwood. Senator, I think that when you look at what
    actually has taken place over the last several years, you find
    that the applicants and the licensees have actually struggled
    somewhat when it comes to answering some of the technical
    questions.
        Senator Inhofe. Yes, but somewhat is a little bit different
    than the gap that I am talking about.
        Mr. Magwood. There has been significant back and forth with
    the applicants over technical issues, and it has taken
    significantly longer than I think anyone thought. But as
    Commissioner Svinicki pointed out, there are still reviews
    underway as we speak.
        Senator Inhofe. I am almost out of time.
        Mr. Ostendorff. Also, real quick, Senator, I will give you
    two examples on the design certifications. Mitsubishi had a
    design certification submitted to the NRC for what is called
    the APWR. They, the submitting group, backed off their
    resources to focus them back in Japan.
        Second one, ARIVA had an application in for the EPR. There
    have been problems in the international community with digital
    alliance----
        Senator Inhofe. My time is up. I will tee up one more thing
    for my good friend, Senator Sanders----
        Senator Boxer. We have a vote at 11:15, so I am afraid
    people aren't going to get a chance.
        Senator Inhofe. No, just one sentence. Out of your time,
    that is good. All right, that is good.
        Do you think it was unfair for me to assert that perhaps we
    are trying to regulate the nuclear energy out of business, just
    like we are trying to regulate the fossil fuel business out of
    business? That is it.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you for that provocative thought.
        With that, we will turn to Senator Sanders.
        Senator Sanders. Let me begin. Senator Inhofe and I
    disagree every now and then, despite being very good friends,
    but I share your line of questioning about the growth of
    employees at the NRC. And as Commissioner Apostolakis said, it
    doesn't look so good on the surface, and I would agree with
    you. That is something we want to pursue together.
        The other issue I want to back to the point that I made
    earlier about the role of State government in the
    decommissioning process, but before I do that I want to get to
    this voting issue, which concerns me. It is actually an issue
    that has been raised for a number of years. Every person up
    here as United States Senators has to cast some very difficult
    and controversial votes, and occasionally those votes are
    distorted and put on to 30-second ads. That is our reality; we
    live with that.
        Is there any reason why every vote that you cast should not
    be made public? Right down the line. Madam Chair.
        Ms. Macfarlane. I think there are, when we vote----
        Senator Sanders. Very briefly, please. Maybe yes or no.
        Ms. Macfarlane. When we vote in our adjudicatory role.
    Those votes I don't believe are public.
        Senator Sanders. My point is just give me an answer. We
    cast votes about whether we go to vote or not, of some
    consequence. They are made public. Any reason why your votes
    should not be made public? You are saying yes, you think there
    are some occasions when they should not. I hear that.
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes.
        Senator Sanders. Ms. Svinicki.
        Ms. Svinicki. I agree with that and would add that if there
    are security-related matters, those are not made public as
    well.
        Senator Sanders. Well, that is a big word, security. We can
    hide a whole lot under security.
        Mr. Apostolakis.
        Mr. Apostolakis. I agree with my colleagues.
        Senator Sanders. All right.
        Mr. Magwood.
        Mr. Magwood. The vast majority of our votes are public.
        Senator Sanders. Mr. Ostendorff.
        Mr. Ostendorff. Senator Sanders, every single one of our
    Fukushima-related votes that come to us sticky paper, when the
    voting process is complete, those votes are all made public.
        Senator Sanders. Well, you know, I happen to think that
    unless there is some extraordinary circumstance, votes should
    be made public. That is just my own view and that is an issue I
    want to pursue. I think Ranking Member Vitter raised the issue
    of a ``rash'' of nuclear shutdowns in this country. The truth
    of the matter is there are a whole lot of people who are
    concerned about nuclear power. We are concerned about safety
    aspects of nuclear power; we are concerned about the cost of
    the production of nuclear power. You know, many of my very
    conservative friends here say over and over again they want the
    Government to deregulate; they want the Government out of the
    private sector. We hear that every day. The truth of the matter
    is if we did not have legislation like Price-Anderson, which is
    not a well known piece of law--what Price-Anderson is about,
    if, God forbid, there were ever a nuclear disaster of
    consequence, a Fukushima in the United States, I am not sure
    that everybody is aware the taxpayers of this country would be
    called upon to come up with who knows, tens and tens and tens
    of billions of dollars to deal with the cost incurred in that
    disaster.
        Am I right, Ms. Macfarlane?
        Ms. Macfarlane. You are correct.
        Senator Sanders. So I would, in the goal of getting the
    Government out of the private sector and overregulating, I
    would wonder if any of my conservative friends would cosponsor
    with me legislation to repeal Price-Anderson so we can leave
    the nuclear power industry alone and not get involved with
    Government. And I look forward to working with Senator Vitter
    or Senator Inhofe getting the Government out of the nuclear
    power industry. Any volunteers at this point?
        Senator Inhofe. [Remarks made off microphone.]
        Senator Sanders. OK. There we go.
        Senator Vitter. Bernie, I am not going to volunteer. I just
    want to underscore exactly what I said. I listed all those
    shutdowns and I said if you believe most or all of these sites
    are not safe or not safe enough, then that is a good result.
    But if you don't, I think the vast majority of informed folks
    do not, then I think it is a failure on our collective part.
        Senator Sanders. Well, David, my only point here is----
        Senator Boxer. We can't do too many more back and forths,
    because I am so nervous people aren't going to get a chance. It
    is not fair.
        Senator Sanders. OK. I would just say----
        Senator Boxer. But finish your time.
        Senator Sanders. David, I have heard all of your given
    speeches, we have heard speech after speech about the
    Government being involved in the private sector, not letting
    free enterprise do its thing, and here you have a situation.
    Without Price-Anderson, it is quite likely the nuclear industry
    in America would collapse tomorrow. And you know why? Because
    Wall Street, whose job is to make money, and the insurance
    company, whose job is to make money, they don't think insuring
    nuclear power plants is a pretty profitable enterprise, and
    they won't do it. So I look forward to working--maybe Jim and I
    can work together on this--getting the Government out of the
    nuclear power industry.
        All right, that is an aside.
        I also wanted to mention in terms of nuclear power, I think
    everybody here knows Germany is in the process, the people in
    Germany are not dumb, they are in the process of phasing out
    their nuclear industry, I think by the year 2022. Switzerland
    and Spain have indicated they don't want any more nuclear power
    plants. So people around this planet have different views on
    nuclear power.
        All right, here is the issue that I did want to focus on,
    and that is the role of States. And I appreciate Senator Carper
    for reiterating my concerns. There are a number of States in
    which nuclear power plants will be shut down; California,
    Vermont, elsewhere. It is of enormous importance to the people
    in those States how the decommissioning process works. Will it
    take 60 years? Will it take, as has been the case, 10 years?
    Will the people of the State be satisfied about the lack of
    radioactivity in the area? Where will the nuclear fuel rods be
    placed? Who will get the jobs? What about the financial
    arrangements? All of which are of very much concern, I can tell
    you, to the State of Vermont. So I have three questions that I
    would like to ask for brief responses to the members of the
    Commission.
        Do you agree that States have a strong interest in how
    their nuclear plants are decommissioned? Ms. Macfarlane.
        Ms. Macfarlane. I would agree that States and the public
    certainly have a strong interest.
        Senator Sanders. Ms. Svinicki.
        Ms. Svinicki. Yes, States have an interest.
        Senator Sanders. Mr. Apostolakis.
        Mr. Apostolakis. Yes.
        Senator Sanders. Mr. Magwood.
        Mr. Magwood. Yes.
        Senator Sanders. Mr. Ostendorff.
        Mr. Ostendorff. Yes.
        Senator Sanders. OK.
        Do you agree that it is fair and reasonable for the host
    State to have a real seat--now, I know the term real seat is
    not quite a technical term, but a significant role to play--
    during the decommissioning process; not just a hearing, not
    just giving their opinion, but having a seat at the table
    helping to determine the outcome? Ms. Macfarlane.
        Ms. Macfarlane. Let me just explain something. What we do
    is regulate the safety and security of these facilities as they
    decommission. Let's just talk about the decommissioning piece
    of this. And in that our relationship is with the licensee. We
    are holding them accountable to make sure that they are
    providing safety and security. Now, the public should have some
    kind of role, OK? And we do encourage public engagement; we do
    hold public meetings----
        Senator Sanders. You and I chatted about this issue.
        Ms. Macfarlane. We encourage strongly that the licensee
    form some kind of community advisory board in which they can--
    --
        Senator Sanders. OK, I apologize, I just don't have a whole
    lot of time. I understand all that; we chatted. Community
    advisory, that is not satisfactory to me because advice can be
    rejected. So my question to you all is should the States
    themselves, who have to deal with the consequence of the
    decommissioning process, have a real--and I understand real is
    not a technical term, but be part of the process such that if
    what is negotiated between the industry and the NRC is not
    satisfactory, that will not happen; to be a real player in the
    process? Should the States have that type of authority? Ms.
    Macfarlane, very briefly.
        Ms. Macfarlane. I think it depends on the specific
    situation in the State. I think that there are more interests
    at stake than just the Governor of the State; there are local
    interests as well.
        Senator Sanders. Absolutely.
        Ms. Macfarlane. Those need to be represented.
        Senator Sanders. But in our democratic society it is the
    State government that ends up getting elected to do those
    things.
        Let me just say this, because I think I am probably not
    going to get a clear answer from any of you. This is a very,
    very important issue. I think your rules right now are not
    satisfactory. I think you do not give enough input--not input,
    you don't give enough power, if you like, in the decisionmaking
    power to the people of the States. I would hope, and you and I
    will chat about this, Ms. Macfarlane, that we will change the
    rules as they are currently constituted. If you do not change
    the rules, I will introduce legislation to make sure that
    States do have that authority.
        Madam Chair, thank you.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you. And you can count on my support
    for that, because I think decommission; I think Massachusetts
    has one coming as well.
        Senator Sessions.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you.
        Well, we don't want to get the Government out, I assume, of
    solar, auto, ethanol, wind powers.
        Senator Boxer. How about oil?
        Senator Sessions. Oil? There is not much in that except----
        Senator Boxer. Except $6 billion a year.
        Senator Sessions. That is a disputed fact.
        Senator Boxer. OK.
        Senator Sessions. As to whether or not that is any special
    tax break or whether it is just a normal tax situation oil
    corporations have.
        OK, what I would like to see Bellefonte done in Alabama. I
    don't know whether Vermont does. They sued Vermont Yankee
    multiple times. I guess they finally just gave up and closed
    the plant. That is all right; Vermont wants to have their
    electricity produced using carbon fuels or whatever, so be it.
    I would like to see clean nuclear power be used more around the
    country.
        Now, I raise this concern because I am really worried about
    it. I think all of you are aware of the situation we have
    concerning constriction of nuclear power, and it is staged now.
    I get to second guess your regulatory powers and maybe they
    have a right to do so, but if they jump in and double up on the
    cost of closing a plant or opening a plant, it is just one more
    burden that makes it even less likely that we will have an
    expansion of nuclear power and more likely that we will see
    this decline continue. So I am worried about it.
        Ms. Svinicki, you have been on the Commission for some time
    and you have observed these issues develop. Would you give your
    thoughts to us and share your thoughts with us about what might
    be contributing to the erosion of nuclear power generation and
    the failure of new plants to get started that we thought would
    be started?
        Ms. Svinicki. Well, I think, as is well acknowledged by
    economic experts, the situation of abundant natural gas, while
    good for the United States in many ways, does affect the
    economics of both new nuclear, but also current nuclear. So
    from the regulatory standpoint, although we don't control any
    of those macroeconomic factors, I think that our pledge as a
    Commission is to make certain that we do the most disciplined
    sort of analysis and work so that we are only imposing
    regulations that we have thoroughly analyzed and justified.
        Senator Sessions. Is it possible that these regulatory
    factors and, let's say, a lack of final certainty over waste
    disposal and Yucca Mountain and cumulative costs of compliance
    are affecting the future of nuclear power?
        Ms. Svinicki. I support the Commission's action to address
    the court's remand to us of our waste confidence decision. I
    think that the Commission and the agency staff are taking quick
    and responsible action to address the deficiencies that the
    court identified, which were not the entirety of the rule that
    we had put forward, but the court asserted and found that our
    analysis and evaluation lacked certain points. We are remedying
    those specific deficiencies and, as the chairman has noted,
    although we have delayed our schedule by 1 month, we still
    continue to push forward very aggressively.
        Senator Sessions. Well, it is worse than that. The court
    hammered the Commission and Congress and declared it was an
    absolute violation of multiple requirements of law, and it goes
    to the very core of who writes law in America. Congress passed
    laws, we chose this site, it has been authorized and directed,
    fees have been collected in billions of dollars, and very
    little action has been done. Wouldn't you agree that the
    court's decision was a real critique of the failure to act on
    the congressionally approved Yucca Mountain site?
        Ms. Svinicki. Yes, on the matter of Yucca Mountain, the
    court's language was unequivocal and was very, very strong.
    But, again, we have taken actions to address the writ of
    mandamus.
        Senator Sessions. Will that be completed in what time?
        Ms. Svinicki. Well, we are providing monthly reports to
    this committee. We do not have the team of NRC experts who will
    address that work fully assembled; I believe the last I heard
    last week we have 75 percent of the experts assembled. And as
    Chairman Macfarlane noted, I think they still anticipate it
    will take approximately 1 year.
        Senator Sessions. I understand she has talked about that
    previously, but I think if you need to reprogram money you
    should ask for it. It just comes down, at some point, to a
    constitutional question: Will the Government of the United
    States execute the laws established by the duly elected
    Congress? And you have a duty to do that. Not one member of the
    U.S. Senate, some powerful Senator, ought to be able to block
    what has been decided by the majority of Congress.
        I will say this, I believe if you are seeking investments
    to build a nuclear plant in the future, the fact that we have
    failed to have an approved disposal site is a factor--how much,
    I don't know--in weighing against building and going forward
    with investments in a plant. If you are not sure that that will
    ever be affected, ever saw, it could reduce your confidence
    that you can have the waste disposal disposed of as required,
    you will be less confident in investing.
        Ms. Macfarlane, how many plants are in license or re-
    license process now?
        Ms. Macfarlane. In licensing process? We have nine combined
    license reviews underway. Many of them have been slowed down in
    part because there are delays in the design certifications for
    the plants, and those delays were requested by the vendors
    themselves. And there are no firm construction plans right now
    for those, including Bellefonte.
        Senator Sessions. Right.
        Ms. Macfarlane. But we do have five reactors under
    construction actively in the U.S. and we will be seeing, most
    likely, the completion of the Watts Bar 2 Unit.
        Senator Sessions. So you take the TVA, Watts Bar 2, the two
    at Vogtle----
        Ms. Macfarlane. Two at Vogtle and two at Summer in South
    Carolina.
        Senator Sessions. OK. And the Vogtle and Summer are
    entirely new?
        Ms. Macfarlane. They are entirely new designs, yes, the
    Westinghouse AP1000.
        Senator Sessions. I know you visited the Vogtle plant
    recently as part of your inspecting tour. I hope they don't
    complain about that travel; that is good travel. You can go and
    you can observe the plant and see what is going on. Was it your
    observation that these plants with the new design, AP1000 with
    passive cooling, so if all power is shut off, you can still
    allow the water to cool the system and prevent disaster, would
    that be an improvement on the Fukushima design and avoid some
    of the dangers that occurred there, and how would they?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Passive systems are certainly better than
    active systems, systems that have to be activated, so those
    passive systems are an improvement.
        Senator Sessions. For people who are listening, would you
    describe how the passive system would work?
        Ms. Macfarlane. In light of the time, I am going to take
    that one for the record.
        Senator Sessions. OK. Well, do you feel like these plants,
    the new ones that are moving forward, could help the United
    States be a leader in a modern nuclear plant and set an example
    for the world, as well as our country?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Well, it is our job at the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission to ensure that the operating plants and
    the plants under construction are moving along safely, the
    plants are operating safely and securely. We are protective of
    public health and safety. It is not our job to prognosticate on
    the health of the nuclear industry or what is best in terms of
    nuclear policy or energy policy, we leave that up to Congress
    and the Administration.
        Senator Sessions. Well, you have a role to play in it, and
    excessive regulation at this time of real competition from low
    cost natural gas that is fairly clean, carbon fuel, but not as
    clean as nuclear power, I think that the scales could be tilted
    in a way that we could see a collapse in the future of nuclear
    power; and I think you have to be aware that there are
    ramifications from your decisions.
        Thank you for your work. I think all of you have tried to
    do the right thing for the country.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
        Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you all for being here today. Nice to see you, Dr.
    Macfarlane.
        The NRC Principles of Good Regulation, they emphasize
    efficiency and focusing on activities that have the greatest
    safety significance. Rulemakings are a small portion of the
    total scope of your activities that licensees must respond to.
    How does your agency prioritize its non-rulemaking activities
    to ensure that your finite resources are focused on activities
    of the highest safety significance and in the most significant
    manner?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Let me first say thank you for your
    question.
        Senator Fischer. Do you believe that a prioritization
    process is necessary?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes, and we do use a prioritization process
    and we do work with industry in helping set that prioritization
    process, and I believe we are going to be receiving a staff
    paper on this topic this year. But let me just say that, in
    general, we weight safety and security as the highest priority
    setting factor, but we also depend on how new rules would fit
    into our strategic plan and what the interests are within the
    NRC, within Congress, within other governmental bodies, the
    public, NGOs, and, as I said, industry, of course.
        Senator Fischer. With regard to Fukushima and what is
    happening there, part of evaluating that lesson I think needs
    to be how you look in the future, the consequences and working
    with other agencies here within our Government, and especially
    with regards to more dams upstream, and if there would be any
    failures of those dams. This is a subject, I know, that is not
    just of interest to you, but also to our other agencies out
    there, the Corps, for example, Department of Homeland Security.
    How is the Commission coordinating its research on that?
        Ms. Macfarlane. We are working with the other agencies that
    you mentioned, as well, as the FERC, the Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission, which also has some purview over dams.
    But we are working closely with them to deal with these issues.
    They are significant issues.
        Senator Fischer. Do you look at any uniformity in trying to
    come up with a good assessment on that?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Uniformity among the Federal agencies?
        Senator Fischer. Yes. How is that working?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Macfarlane. We have our differences.
        Senator Fischer. Do you think you are going to be able to
    work together?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes. Yes. Certainly.
        Senator Fischer. I mean, this is a huge concern.
        Ms. Macfarlane. Yes.
        Senator Fischer. Do you have a formal process in place that
    you are following right now?
        Ms. Macfarlane. To work with other agencies? Yes, we do.
    Our staff has been coordinating with them and meeting with them
    on a regular basis.
        Senator Fischer. OK. Do you anticipate you are going to be
    coming up with a plan soon or is it going to be targeted for
    each area?
        Ms. Macfarlane. Let me get back to you with a specific
    answer on that one, OK?
        Senator Fischer. OK. And then from a review of industry
    performance over the last 20 years, it appears that the most
    significant safety improvements have been attained as a result
    of voluntary industry assessments to identify and fix those
    latent vulnerabilities. Do you agree with that?
        Ms. Macfarlane. No, I don't, actually.
        Senator Fischer. Good. Tell me why.
        Ms. Macfarlane. I don't think there is any evidence that
    any--let me put it this way, there have been a number of
    voluntary actions taken by the industry, but I think those have
    been prompted by actions within the NRC, in anticipation of new
    rules at the NRC.
        But my colleagues might disagree, and I encourage you to
    ask them.
        Senator Fischer. Yes. Do any of you have anything to add to
    that? Can you give me specific examples?
        Mr. Apostolakis. The studies that were done in the mid- to
    late 80s to identify so-called vulnerabilities certainly
    contributed to enhancing the safety of the plants, but I
    wouldn't call those the most significant safety improvements. I
    think we have made tremendous progress in fire protection, for
    example, where both the industry and the NRC staff have come up
    with ways of improving fire safety and understanding better. So
    I would say that is a more significant improvement.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you.
        Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, thanks for the question. I would
    just provide another example, and that is in the context of the
    Fukushima action items. I would make two comments. One, the
    Commission, back in 2011, made a very concerted decision to
    prioritize those safety issues into Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3,
    Tier 1 being the most important. And I think that served the
    Commission and the industry and the country well.
        The second piece I would mention is that in the context of
    Fukushima, industry developed what is called a flex proposal to
    deal with loss of power offsite, onsite, to deal with other
    issues associated with a catastrophic event. That has been a
    partnership; industry has developed that in response to our
    mitigating strategies order, so I would say it is really a
    partnership with lots of discussions, interactions between the
    regulator and the industry and the public on these issues.
        Senator Fischer. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Magwood. Senator, I think it is an excellent question
    and I think it is a complicated question because if you look at
    the operations of each individual nuclear power plant,
    licensees take actions both in response to NRC initiatives and
    also to their own desire to build margin and increase safety;
    and there is a handshaking that goes along with those. So I
    think each plant benefits from voluntary actions taken by
    licensees. How to add that up and compare them to regulatory
    actions, I don't think we have ever tried to do that, but I
    agree with my colleagues that I think the regulatory framework
    we put together is one that is built to assure safety, and when
    licensees go above that, that is just a good thing.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Fischer follows:]

                        Statement of Hon. Deb Fischer,
                    U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska

        Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter, thank you for
    holding today's hearing. Chairman Macfarlane and Commissioners,
    thank you for being here and sharing your time with us today.
        When Chairman Macfarlane was before our committee last
    year, I shared with her Nebraska's unique distinction of being
    the only State in the Nation that is 100 percent public
    powered. We are very proud of our public power system in
    Nebraska and thankful that we enjoy some of the lowest
    electricity costs in the country.
        In Nebraska, electricity costs are well below the national
    average--thanks, in part, to nuclear energy. Nebraska normally
    receives more than 25 percent of its electricity from its two
    nuclear power plants.
        Recent nuclear power plant shutdowns have shown us just how
    important nuclear energy is in keeping electricity rates down.
    The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in July
    that the California power market experienced a 59 percent
    increase in wholesale power prices, which it attributed in part
    to the outage of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.
        In Nebraska, we are very grateful that Omaha Public Power
    District's Fort Calhoun plant is now back online. We appreciate
    NRC's efforts to ensure a safe restart. We are also hopeful
    that following a process of more than 7 years, the license
    renewal for the Crow Butte uranium mining operation will be
    completed. Also pending before the NRC are license applications
    for development of three expansion sites in Nebraska, so our
    nuclear fuel resources can be safely developed for years to
    come.
        It is critical that we ensure the continued viability and
    success of the U.S. nuclear energy industry. The Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission plays an important role in that task. We
    must have an NRC that ensures the safety and security of our
    nuclear power and inspires public trust and confidence 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.
        As NRC works to implement new safety enhancements, complete
    a safety evaluation of the Yucca Mountain repository, and
    review and approve licensing requests, we need a Commission
    that truly puts these principles into practice.
        Commissioners, I look forward to our discussion on these
    important issues at today's hearing.
        Thank you.

        Senator Boxer. So I want to thank my colleagues because
    this is really great. The votes, I guess, have just started?
    They just started, so that is really good.
        I want to thank all you commissioners for coming here
    today. We are going to have you back real soon because there
    are many more issues we didn't get to. Specifically, we are
    going to go in the next hearing, we are going to look at more
    of the transparency by commissioners. We are also going to look
    at the 12 recommendations that were made post-Fukushima for
    safety by your own staff, who between them all had 150 years'
    experience, who laid out 12 things you should be doing, you
    should do; and at that time there was a hope in the Commission
    to get those things done in 5 years. So Fukushima is March 2011
    and March 2012 has passed and March 2013, and we are
    approaching March 2014. My understanding is there is one rule
    out of the 12, and everything else is in stages.
        I also found it very interesting, talk about cost-benefit,
    and we are going to make public your vote because you don't
    seem to mind on who voted which way. My understanding is,
    chairman, you voted with everybody else not to do--I mean,
    everybody agreed not to do the two-person rule, so that, just
    to jog your memory, we found that in the public record
    somewhere, we dug for it. So the issue is that your own staff,
    who had 150 years of experience, said get these 12 things done,
    don't do a cost-benefit analysis because the cost of Fukushima,
    might I remind you, is pretty much immeasurable, and the
    benefits of avoiding that is pretty much immeasurable. But, no,
    you are doing cost-benefits on everything. So I am going to
    find out from you next time, all of you, the status of each of
    these 12 recommendations, and I hope you can move forward on
    them. That is very, very critical.
        The other thing, I am going to put in the record, Madam
    Chairman, a letter that I just got as you delivered, you signed
    it, this next tranche of information, and your answer to me
    was, well, if you still have a problem, call me. I have a
    problem, because you asserted some kind of a legal bar to your
    giving me everything. Is your general counsel here? I have
    never met her. Is she there? Could I meet her, please?
        Ms. Macfarlane. She is here.
        Senator Boxer. OK. I think it is important that you talk to
    my counsel and that you also speak with those who advise us,
    because our understanding is the privilege that you are
    suggesting is absolutely off the wall. And our understanding
    from every legal expert here is that you can assert executive
    privilege or your Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate
    yourself, and you are talking about some separation of powers.
    Well, the arrogance of that is unbelievable, because you
    wouldn't be here without the Congress. You wouldn't be here
    without the Congress setting you up. You wouldn't be here. And
    you have to be subjected to oversight and we have a right to
    documents, and when you sit there and you tell me and you tell
    Senator Vitter you are going to hand us all the documents we
    want, and then you don't, and you say very sweetly, oh, I would
    be happy to find out, if you need any more. Yes, I need them
    all. And I need to know what whistleblowers are saying. I need
    to know that all because I swear that I will uphold this
    Constitution and defend and protect the people that I represent
    and the people of this country.
        So this is not a good relationship. It certainly isn't. I
    feel very bad. It is not personal; I am sure each of us could
    just be very friendly on a personal level, but that is not what
    this is about. It is about openness and transparency; it is
    about safety; it is about accountability. And for you to
    withhold documents, which you admit that you are doing, based
    on some phony legal argument is beyond the pale. Maybe it winds
    up in court, maybe we sue you, I don't what we do. I want the
    information and I will get it, even if I have to go to
    whistleblowers. But I am just telling you get me the
    information, because when I have a situation where a plant was
    obviously in a dangerous situation, and even before the inquiry
    there was a staff opinion to let it go and open it, and I can't
    find out why and how is just wrong. So I am really sorry that
    this continues on and on.
        I thought maybe with a new chairman and a new spirit here
    things would change, but whether it is your travel that some of
    you want to have buried, you have asked us to make it
    confidential, don't tell people what we spend. What is that
    about? You are not above the American people. I want you to
    travel somewhere; I want you to go to Japan. I don't know, some
    of these other places look like they are really fun to go to. I
    don't know how much they have to do with anything. But I am
    hoping that you would go back and talk to each other, instead
    of going back and saying, oh, that Barbara Boxer, ooh. You have
    a right to do that, but I hope you will also change your
    attitude about openness, transparency, about moving a little
    quicker.
        To have adopted one out of these 12 recommendations, I
    don't understand it. Just look at the faces of the people who
    got caught. And you could say all you want it will never happen
    here. Don't say that. We never thought we would be hit on 9/11.
    We never thought we would see the likes of Hurricane Sandy. No
    one ever thought kids would have to be on a bus on an ice road
    for overnight, either. We are just not that powerful, we are
    just not. We are humble in the face of what could happen.
        So I hope you will go back and I hope your counsel will
    look at the law in the light that our experts are telling us,
    and our experts, they don't have anything to hide or anything
    to gain; they have just been advising Congress forever. And I
    have the opinion here. You know what? I will give it to your
    counsel. This is the summary of it. And we have the full book
    if you need it. But I hope you will take a look at this. Shall
    we give her the whole thing? OK, we will give you the whole
    entire book about it, because what you are telling us is simply
    unheard of, and we don't get it from any other agency, just so
    you know, we don't. People complain about EPA, but they are not
    asserting--they are asserting either executive privilege or one
    of the arguments that are legitimate.
        So we will have you back soon. We are going to look at the
    12 recommendations and how you are going about it. And I thank
    you for being here and for answering all the questions you did.
        Thank you very much. We stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m. the committee was adjourned.]

                                     [all]