[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]