issue of spent fuel. i think it's important for the commission to make decisions. inaction causing policies to be formed because of inaction is not i think the best interests of our country. and i very much want to focus on safety. that's a critically important part of your responsibility, but also how we move forward with nuclear energy in this country. i think we need to have that right balance, and the commission must act in order to give us the guidance to do that. the failure to act can cause policies to move in a certain direction that perhaps is not in the best interest of our country. one of the areas that had been the most difficult i think for all of us to get a grip on is how do we deal with the spent fuels. can we safely store long-term on-site the spent fuels, whether they're in pools or whether they're in cast storage? and i think it's important for

us to get your views as to how you see the future of the nuclear energy in america based upon the storage capacities and where we need to be looking at from the point of view of our nation from the safety and the need for nuclear energy. once again, i thank you very much for your willingness to step forward. this is a very important assignment, and we very much look forward to your testimony and your service. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. senator udall? >> thank you, madam chair. and i'm just going to be brief. >> sure. >> and ask that my full statement be put in the record. but i want to also echo what other members have said in terms of safety. i mean the buck really stops with the nrc when it comes to safety. and i hope that you hear that message from us. it's just tremendously important that you have that as a focus. and when you look at regulating, that you highlight that.

and we don't have to look any further than japan to see what happens if safety goes wrong. the articles i've been reading about japan, as senator lautenberg said, 54 plants have been shut down. their businesses are talking about moving overseas. their economy is collapsing. they're having serious problems. so safety interreacts with all the other issues that are out there, and the vital issues that we all share here about our economy and our economic development. and with that, let me just thank dr. macfarlane for your service on the brc, on the blue ribbon commission. i know that you traveled to new mexico. you took a great interest in that blue ribbon commission that is looking at where do we go on the waste that is stored around the country, and how do we thread the balance between interim sites or consolidated

sites as we're calling them and these long-term depositories that we're studying. and we very much appreciate that blue ribbon panel's recommendations. and our chairman, chairman boxer, has been already on top of this, and this committee has. we've had hearings on your report, and we believe as senator carper was the chairman of the subcommittee that looked into that, that our committee has the jurisdiction on that. and we intend to weigh in and take your recommendations seriously and come up with legislation. so with that, thank you, madam chair. >> thank you very much. and at this time, we're going to actually get to our nominees. but i want to thank colleagues, because i thought, you know, we're just laying things out on the table here. and i thought senator sessions was extremely honest about what is happening and how it will play out. so thank you for that. now i would like to turn to dr. allison macfarlane, who has been

nominated to be chairman. and we're very honored that you're with us today, and we look forward to hearing from you. >> thank you. chairman boxer, ranking member inhofe and members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as president obama's nominee for the position of member of the nuclear regulatory commission. before continuing, i want to thank my husband, hugh gusterson, and my son graham who are here with me today for their unwavering support and encouragement. i am also pleased to be at the table today with commissioner kristine svinicki. if confirmed i look forward to working with commissioner svinicki and the other commissioners. they are all talented individuals engaged in the high calling of public service. and i look forward to forging a collegial relationship with them if confirmed. over the last week and a half, i have had the opportunity to meet some of the talented staff of the nrc who have provided me

with a number of briefings on some of the important issues before the nrc. while i was aware of the staff's reputation, these briefs have reinforced my observations about both the quality of the nrc staff and their level of commitment to the mission of the commission. and that mission boils down to a simple concept -- protecting the safety of the american people and the environment. the nrc's main mission is to protect public health and safety, promote common defense and security and protect the environment. and my background has prepared me for all of these mission areas. my background as a scientist and a public policy scholar, we are trained to be objective, analytical, and to treat our peers as equals. i note that academics over the years have made important contributions to nuclear safety. among those are former chairs shirley jackson, nils diaz and

dale klein, and now commissioner with whom i share. geology as you are aware plays an important role in the safety of a variety of nuclear facilities. recent history in japan,as many of you have mentioned this morning has reminded us of the relevance of geology and reactor safety. i have worked at both public and private institutions including harvard, stanford, mit and george mason industry and have contributed to nuclear policy debates since 1996 and have served on national academy of science panels reviewing nuclear energy programs and nuclear weapons issues. most recently, i was honored to serve on the president's blue ribbon commission on america's nuclear future, another area where my primary background had a role. i make this commitment to you today. if confirmed, he will devote all

my energies to serving on the nrc with the attributes that i consider important to good governance -- openness, efficiency, and transparency. i will make a strong commitment to collegiality at all levels. an agency endowed with the public trust such is as the nrc requires a respectful working environment to ensure its integrity. i am absolutely committed to working with all interests, industry, the public, government agencies, and especially members of congress. i will solicit a wide range of opinions, ask questions, examine the facts objectively, and reach decisions based on those facts. and i will work to energy that the nrc remains the global standard among regulatory agencies and continues to be a top-ranked workplace for its employees. thank you, and i would be happy to answer your questions. >> thank you very much.

commissioner svinicki? >> thank you, madam chairman, ranking member inhofe and members of the committee. i'm grateful to president obama for nominating me to an additional term of service on the commission. if the senate acts favorably on my nomination, i would be privileged to continue this work. i congratulate dr. macfarlane on her nomination and extend my best wishes do her in this confirmation process. i am grateful for and humbled by the kind introduction of senator sessions. i was very privileged to serve senator sessions and other members of the senate armed services committee and learned much in those years of service. when i arrived at the nrc in march of 2008, i joined an agency already deeply active in the review of applications for the construction of new nuclear plants and new reactor designs, an agency continuing to adapt its security framework to post-9/11 realities, and a program regarded as among the most informed in the world. in approaching this work i have

approached the facts and the history of issues and have endeavored to understand fully the effect of proposed regulatory changes. have i also looked to the fundamental guide post envisioned in the nrc's principles of good regulation of independence, openness, efficiency, clarity, and responsibility in assessing the issues. the tragic events in japan in 2011 cast nrc's work into even sharper relief for the american public. nuclear technology is unique, and its use demands unwavering commitment to principles. the nrc had just issued a series of orders to nuclear power plant licensees to require features to mitigate beyond basis extreme natural events, requiring the installation of hardened venting systems, and requiring enhanced instrumentation for spent fuel pools. the nrc is also requiring nuclear power plant licensees to undertake substantial reevaluations of seismic and flooding evaluations at their

sites. since issuing these requirement at least months ago, the nrc has been developing and communicating the specific guidance for implementing the requirements, and has continued to hold public meetings on these topics. this work has benefitted from the input of nuclear operators, nuclear safety and environmental interest groups and the public. of course, none of this could be achieved without the hard work and commitment of the women and men of the nrc and their sustained efforts to advance the nrc's mission of ensuring adequate protection of public health and safety and promoting the common defense and security. their commitment over the last four years has inspired and impressed me. i would like to take this opportunity to convey my personal gratitude to each of them for welcome me to the nrc in 2008 and supporting me in the contributions i have endeavored to make to our shared goals. madam chairman, senator inhofe and members of the committee, i thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to appear today, and look forward to the committee's questions. >> thank you.

we're going to have six minutes per member for questions. before i ask my questions, i wanted to put two items into the record. one is a ranking of the nrc from its employees in 2010. senator barrasso said this is a dark time for the agency and how horrible it was under greg jaczko. the fact is the employees rated it number one out of all the different agencies. so i'll put that in the record. now i do think it's been a dark time in terms of what senator sanders dead about the terrible situation with the commissioners. which, you know, and i'm so happy with what you said, dr. macfarlane, about this, because the point is we can disagree and not be disagreeable. we can disagree and be respectful. look, the two of us agree on one thing out of a thousand. and it's the highway bill. outside of that -- [ laughter ] -- we don't agree on much.

but we really like each other, care about each other, and respect each other. now that's just two of us. and every colleague could say the same about a colleague on the other side of the aisle. and that's the kind of thing that thing we need at the agency, not trying to destroy people, okay? that's wrong. you don't destroy people. as senator sanders said. and i also worry about that, that that's what was going on over there. it's very disturbing. i also want to put in the record, because senator alexander talked about the support for nuclear power. this last article said it had dropped among the people. now it's understandable. could i ask for -- it's understandable it fell given what happened at fukushima. but it dropped to 42% from 61%, support for building more nuclear power plants fell to 42% from 61%, that it was in '08.

so i just want to put that in the record. having a said all that, i'm now going to ask some questions, mostly to commissioner svinicki, because my requests of dr. macfarlane, i don't have questions for her, is just to bring that collegiality, bring that professionalism, as you have shown that you have done in every job that you have had to the commission. because it's necessary to have a fresh start over there from everyone. and also a lot of transparency. we're going to be holding a lot of oversight to see how it's going with all the commissioners. because i think it's important. okay. so commissioner svinicki, there is serious problems with the steam generators at the san onofre nuclear plant. i know you're aware of that. and it's shut down. and we don't know when it's going to open. the operator is very concerned. and there are many people who believe it was a design changes

that were permitted to go forward. i asked and wrote and asked if we could have a review whether or not there should have been a license amendment. do you agree or disagree that there should have been a license amendment? >> senator, i understand that as a part of the augmented inspection team that was begun a couple of months ago that the nrc staff has under way a review of the justification of the licensee for not submitting a license amendment. i support that review and look forward to the results from our augmented inspection team, which will look into the issue of whether or not there should have been a license amendment. >> i appreciate that. but, again, that is not what you did. i would place in the record that commission correspondents, you crossed out the sentence that chairman jaczko wrote, and this is what it said. "we are reviewing in retrospect whether licensee's evaluation

should have resulted in that changes to the facility require nrc review." and you cross that out. why did you cross that out if you say now you want to see it reviewed? >> in voting to that, the commission's response to you, senator, i understood that the review was already under way as part of the augmented inspection team. i did not intend for that editorial change to change the augmented inspection team was already looking at that issue. >> well, this is a letter to me from the commission. if that's what you believed and this is all your writing, you know, i have it, you could have written in, senator, this is already taking place. it's another one of those examples of my being extremely disappointed in the way you answer me, if it goes back to yucca, which senator sessions said you were very obvious on. you weren't obvious on it. i mean the record speaks for itself. i simply asked you a very straight forward question, did you work on yucca and you said

no. but i'll put that in the record. we're not going to retread that. it's one of the reasons i'm not supporting your renomination, and i don't have to go through it again. but this is another example. i ask you a question. you say oh, you support me. but when you had the chance to support it in writing, you cross it out, said to me now already it was happening. but the facts don't comport with that. so now i -- i want to ask you this. at nrc's annual regulatory information conference in march, you read from an article that was entitled, quote, the world has forgotten the real victims of fukushima that use the phrase a nuclear disaster that never was. that's what this article was. a nuclear disaster that never was. do you really believe the meltdown of three nuke carereac of fukushima as a nuclear disaster that never was? >> no, senator. i quoted at length from the article to discuss the human tragedy that occurred to the

people of japan. i had felt that some of the narrative contained therein was very moving about watching these events unfold on television and the tremendous scale of the human tragedy that had occurred there. that was the focus of my repeating some of that text of that article. >> okay. so you believe that fukushima was a nuclear disaster? >> yes, definitely. >> okay. so that leads me to my next question. the nuclear regulatory commission established a goal to implement the fukushima recommendations within five years. however, it appears that the recent orders which begin to implement those recommendations allow nuclear power plants more than five years to comply with safety. if confirmed, will you work to ensure -- and answer me please honestly -- work to ensure that the schedule is accelerated so safety improvements are implemented within five years? >> as i had testified in march, i believe that there are potential opportunities to

accelerate those skids. and if confirmed to another term, i would work ernestly with other members of the commission to find those activities to accelerate the schedule as possible. >> i'll repeat the question. will you work to ensure that the schedule is accelerated so safety improvements are in five years? it took ten years to get the safety in after 9/11 that is too long to work. will you work to see that they are implemented within five years? >> yes, senator, he will work to ensure that they are implemented in five years. >> thank you. >> knowing that there may be implementation challenges beyond my control. >> well, that's a big loophole. but we will talk about it as time goes by, believe me. and i'll close with this question. ms. svinicki, 94 organizations concerned with nuclear safety signed on to letters opposing your renomination to the nrc.

and it's a disturbing thing for me. and they're not just using rhetoric. they are showing the votes, and i read some of those into the record. if reconfirmed, would you meet with a few of the safety advocates who have qualifications within the organization so we can work with you on that, will you sit down with them across the table, just you and them and hear their concerns so that, you know, maybe we can bridge this divide that i fear is present in this community? >> yes, chairman boxer, i make that commitment. >> thank you. >> and i have met over the course of my time at nrc with some of the organizations that have signed that letter. >> okay, good. we'll work together on that, then? >> yes. >> i don't think more than three or four is a good idea. but i think if you could meet with three or four, it would be great. well, thank you very much. and i turn to senator inhofe. >> thank you, madam chairman. i would like to enter something in the record.

page 33 of the hearing, and i happen to be chairman at that time of this committee of 2007 was your confirmation hearing in this. this subject was discussed in terms of her response. and it seemed to be a satisfactory response. so page 33 of the hearing of 2007. you know, i've been saying to both of you, when tragedy occurs such as 9/11, it changes the behavior. we do things that we hadn't done before. and of course we have airspace issues and all that. when fukushima happened, the same thing happened. however, the nrc has imposed a number of actions on nuclear power, the plant owners post-fukushima, which have to deal with in addition to the daily activities -- in other words, they took on more responsibilities. it seemed to me at the time, and i'm just going from memory,

commissioner svinicki, that a lot of the things that they had not done in fukushima we were already doing here. and i'd like to just ask you, how would you prioritize the changes that took place after fukushima compared to before fukushima? >> thank you, senator inhofe. although i'm not aware of any organization that has done a comprehensive comparison of the regulatory requirements in place in japan and the united states, but it is apparent that the actions that the nrc mandated after the attacks of september 11th would have provided an opportunity at u.s. plants to mitigate against this extreme kind of natural event that occurred in japan. since japan had not had a 9/11 type event, their regulators had not put equivalent measures in place in japan to my knowledge. in prioritizing the nrc's response to the lessons learned of fukushima, we have of course

looked at extreme natural hazards. and that's one of the outgrowths is to look at the readiness to mitigate and defend a nuclear power plant against extreme natural events. we discussed three immediately effective emergency orders requiring that nuclear power plants in the united states enhance their ability to mitigate against what we call beyond design basis, or very extreme natural events. we also issued an order to require hardened venting systems at bwr plants of a certain containment design. and then we also are requiring enhanced spent fuel pool instrumentation so that there will be greater knowledge about the status of the spent fuel pool should an extreme natural event occur. we also are requiring the reevaluation of seismic and flooding risks at plants as i described in my testimony. those appeared to the nrc the most immediate actions that should be put forward after

fukushima. of course, we have what we call tier 2 and tier 3 recommendations also under evaluation. >> okay. thank you. that's a very good answer. and dr. macfarlane, i'm sure you're aware and have studied this before since your nomination, that in 1980, we had a reorganization of the nrc. and it did prescribe specific duties of the chairman, of the commissioners, and of staff at certain levels. i'll just ask you two quick questions here. one is in that plan, they stated that the chairman, quote, shall be responsible for issuing -- for ensuring that the commission is fully and currently informed. as chairman, would you interfere or seek to influence the flow of information between the commissioners and the agency staff? >> no, he will not. i will ensure that the other commissioners are fully informed. >> i think you covered that pretty well in your opening statement. but i wanted to make it in reference to this oh organization statement. >> right.

>> the second thing that was in that plan in 1980, it says the chairman, quote, shall be governed by the general policies of the commission. would you also agree with your -- >> absolutely. >> fine. thank you very much. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. thank you very much, senator. senator carper? >> thanks, madam chair. again, thank you both for your testimony today and for your willingness to serve. i want to just return to a discussion that took place in this room just a few days ago with the -- several members, including brent scowcroft from the blue ribbon commission on which you served, dr. macfarlane. and the discussion dealt with spent fuel is not going to end up in yucca mountain. how do we go forward and find a place that is suitable? this country, or places that are suitable in this country? and senator alexander, we both served adds as governors and we had to be concerned among other things where to site prisons.

not an easy thing to do in a small state like delaware, and not in other states. as it turns out, there were states that literally competed for a right to become a repository if you will for people that violated the law in our state and were incarcerated. and we had a competition that flowed from that situation. in a consent-based approach which is what the blue ribbon is suggesting, really makes a lot of sense to me in whether regardless what happens with yucca mountain, we have to learn from that, that experience, and just be a whole lot smarter going forward as we prepare to take next steps. how might we incentivize other states, other localities to be willing to, as they are in france and some other countries, to be willing to be a site for these kinds of activities? your ideas from both of you, please.

well, it will be your counsel twice. >> well, first of all, i would say that the mission of the nrc is protecting human health and safety and not making energy policy. but speaking as a former blue ribbon commission member, in that form, i would say that it's important to offer compensation without necessarily specifying what that compensation is to the local community who might be interested in following up an opportunity to host either an interim storage facility or a repository, and work with the community in determining what form or shape the compensation would be. and that's one way of offering something. >> what seemed to have worked in some other countries? >> you know, i don't think we even need to look as far as other countries, because the united states is the only country with an operating deep

geologic, the waste reclamation pilot project. it has operated successfully since 1998. they have received over 10,000 shipments of waste from the nuclear weapons complex. it was not straight forward in terms of arriving there, and it took about 20 years, but there was a lot of good back and forth between the state and the federal government and the local community. and the local community and the state now from our experiences on the blue ribbon commission with them are very, very supportive of this. it's worked very well. so it can work, and it's worked within our country. >> all right. fine. commissioner svinicki, any comments you might like to add, please? >> as noted by dr. macfarlane, the nrc did not take an active role in the blue ribbon recommendations. i know that some of our technical staff presented before the blue ribbon commission and provided information as requested by the commission. >> i would just remind us all as

we're concerned about safety with respect to the operation of nuclear power plants. part of safety is the safe storage, if you will, of spent fuel rods. so it's something that i think we all need to be mindful of. one of our colleagues, i don't know if it's senator sessions or not, but one of our colleagues, dr. macfarlane, mentioned that it's not everybody that gets the opportunity to really lead an organization of 4,000 employees. i think you mentioned that a number of folks who served on the commission and served as chair of the commission who have not run organizations of this size and complexity before. talk to us about your approach to leadership and why do you think you have the skills to be able to lead an organization of this magnitude and what might you do to further strengthen those skills. >> great. thank you very much for your question. first, i should note at the nuclear regulatory commission there is already an exceptional structure in place that manages the day-to-day operations of the agency. and oversees the dedicated

employees there. so if confirmed, i would view my role as continuing the mission of the nrc and continuing to be accountable to you all and to the people of the united states. i see that the main mission for the chairman currently, especially given the current circumstances is a leadership position. and i think that some of the important attributes in terms of being the chairman in this leadership position is behaving as in a collegial manner as possible. if confirmed, i would plan on reaching out to the commissioners on a regular basis, having one-on-one conversations with them. they all have different sets of expertise, and i would certainly want to tap that expertise, consult them on issues that come before the commission. and in the past i've worked with people