different viewpoints. i certainly did that on the blue ribbon commission. we were not all of one mind at all, but we did work together to forge consensus. that final report was consensus document. sometimes it was hard-fought, but it was well worth it. i don't think anybody expects the five commissioners to agree on everything. i don't think that was the intention. but certainly they should work collegially together. >> all right. i would just add to that. i've said this in this room before, and this is just my counsel to you. would be to as leaders, in you're confirmed to become the chair, to try to focus on what is the right thing to do, not the easy or expedient thing to do, but the right thing to do. it sounds like you're very much attuned to treating your colleagues and those who work at the nrc the way you would want to be treated. that's critically important. i've reminded the commissioners a number of times if it isn't perfect, make it better.

everything i do, everything we all do we can make it better. and that certainly includes the operation of our nuclear power plants in this country. finally, you think you're right, you know you're right, don't give up you. soend like a person that doesn't give up. if you're confirmed, two out of the five commissioners will have m.i.t. ties. we want to express our thanks to p prem.i.t. for preparing you. >> thank you. seeing you and your family sitting there, we welcome them. it reminds me about 20 years i was in the same spot. i had been nominated by the first president bush to his cabinet. and senator metsenbaum from ohio, said senator alexander, i've heard a number of disturbing things about your background, but i don't think i'll bring them up now. and senator kassebaum looked over and said well howard, i think you just did. i don't intend to do that to you because i haven't heard such

things. but we welcome you and we welcome your family. and commissioner svinicki, we welcome you and thank you for a great job. i won't go into the management issue. senator carper did. i share his attitude and his concern and would expect you and your colleagues to address that let me begin with specific questions. dr. macfarlane, you served on the bipartisan commission on waste. do you agree that -- and i'm not going to ask you, either of you whether you're for or against yucca mountain. let's put that over here for a moment. i imagine you'll get a question about that. i'm not asking that. whether one is for or against yucca mountain or the one is, do you agree with the commission's suggestion that we should move ahead to break the stalemate on disposal of used nuclear fuel by, number one, beginning to identify consolidation sites to which to move fuel from the

sites around the country? and two, begin to find a repository since even if we were to open yucca mountain, we would still need a second repository. do you believe it's prudent to move ahead on parallel tracks with both of those activities? dr. macfarlane. >> thank you very much for that question. again, i remind myself that the nuclear regulatory commission's mission is that of regulating that of health and museum human safety. again, putting on my blue ribbon commission hat, i wholeheartedly agree with both of those statements. have i always been a very strong proponent of geologic repositories. >> but we can move ahead with the consolidation sites -- >> absolutely. >> while we -- >> absolutely there is ample need to do so. there is ten shut down reactors in this country at nine facilities. and it makes both economic and security sense to consolidate that material at a few

locations. >> commissioner svinicki, the nuclear regulatory commission certainly would have a role in moving ahead on those parallel tracks with licensing of both of sites and of transportation. do you agree that we should move ahead on parallel tracks? >> in both previous law there and initiatives on consolidated storage and the proposals that i've heard from congressional committees regarding future activities i believe would have the nrc license those consolidated storage sites. so yes, nrc would have an involvement in that activity. >> and commissioner svinicki, do you believe that the legislation with which you may be familiar, senator feinstein and i have introduced which would begin a pilot program on the consolidation sites now in the appropriations bill and the steps that we're taking with senator bingaman and others begin to take the form of plan that would help the commission

on its waste confidence rule in light of recent court decisions? >> the commission has not taken a position at this time on that legislation, senator alexander, but the commission has indicated that as long as this fuel is at the sites it's at now, it's our highest priority of course to make sure that it is stored safely. and the commission also indicated that it is not -- it is not a policy preference that the fuel remain at dispersed locations. >> thank you. now i have two more questions, so i'll ask for short answers if i may. dr. macfarlane, small nod lar nuclear reactors, the tennessee valley authority and the oakridge authority have expressed interest to the department of energy on-siting one there. sandia national laboratory has expressed the same. the congress has approved the beginning of a five-year jump-start program for small reactors. if you were chairman of the commission, would you assign a

priority to the commission's role in creating environment where we could move ahead with small nuclear reactors? >> if confirmed and then designated as chair, i would certainly be interested in learning more about the commission's role vis-a-vis small modular reactors. i know a little bit about them technically from my own background, and i think they're very, very interesting. i would look forward to seeing license applications and seeing how they go. >> would you support the idea of moving ahead with them? >> excuse me? >> do you support the idea of moving ahead with small nuclear reactors? >> small reactors? certainly. >> in my service on nrc i have supported activities that would prepare the nrc to receive designs for review of small modular reactors so that if vendors decide to proceed, the nrc would be in a state of readiness to have in place the

requirements and framework to review those applications. >> thank you very much. i'll submit a question about mox fuel in writing. let me ask a question in my remaining 22 seconds. i'd like to get an idea of your attitude about nuclear power in general. and maybe a good way to ask it would be this. as you look ahead, do you see nuclear power as a source of electricity, as a significant share of the united states' ability to produce reliable, clean, low-cost electric power? >> currently the u.s. as i think maybe yourself or one of the other senators pointed out gets 20% of its electricity from nuclear power. that number is not going to go down for a while, but it could go down. i certainly think it's very important that for this country and for the security of the country that we have diverse energy supply and nuclear is part of that diversity, certainly. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. >> thank you. senator sanders?

>> thank you. before i begin, if i may say to senator alexander, to the best that you talked about nuclear power being low cost, to the best of my knowledge in terms of the production of new electricity, nuclear power is the most expensive form of new generation. >> madam chairman, i'll look forward to a private discussion with senator sanders, and i would love to present him with the national academy of sciences study that shows just the reverse. and the windmills -- are much more expensive. >> okay. but to the commissioners, let me start off with dr. macfarlane. doctor, i have suppressed concern with the nrc voting process. and i think you and i discussed this when you were in my office, which does not include a public meeting where commissioners meet to vote yes or no and explain their vote. i have no problem with commissioners continuing to use

the notation vote process whereby each drafts an opinion and reconciles it to provide a majority opinion and orders to the staff. but i see no logical reason why the nrc cannot also have a public voting meeting so that the american people can see what the nrc is doing, is not doing, and how the members feel about a given issue. we in fact have been talking about this issue for a number of years. and i think it's time to move, and in fact, if i do not see changes at the nrc in terms of the voting process, i'm going to offer legislation to mandate that that happen. so my question to you, dr. macfarlane, will you commit today that for the next vote that the nrc conducts, if you are appointed chairman, you will hold a public voting meeting where staff can present the

issue and each commissioner can vote yes or no in public and explain his or her vote? can i have that commitment? >> thank you for your question, senator. we did have a discussion about this when we met. i certainly commit to being as transparent adds possible, as transparent as i can be at the commission if confirmed. at the moment i am still learning about the voting practices and procedures at the nrc, and i would like to learn more about the history of voting practices at the nrc to better understand the options for internal commission procedures. and in an effort to maintain collegiality before any changes are made to current voting processes, i would like to consult with the other commissioners to understand their thoughts on this process. >> well, let's consult with commissioner svinicki. let me ask her this question.

commissioner, in your written testimony to this committee, you describe openness as a key principle for good regulation. i certainly agree with you. but as you know better than i do, the nrc voting process is anything but open or transparent. in fact, it is extraordinarily opaque and complicated. it makes it difficult for the average citizen to understand what is going on at the nrc. it begins with a staff paper offering recommended actions, then each of the five commissioners votes via a detailed statement and somehow a majority opinion is cobbled together. and then in yet another document, orders are given to staff to carry out the result. right here for better or for worse, every member of the united states senate has to raise his or her hand and vote yes. we vote no. very rarely people vote present. but everybody in our home state in america nose how we vote on an issue. so i don't think it's complicated.

my understanding, commissioner svinicki, is chairman jaczko in fact requested that the nrc hold a public voting meeting, that he made that request to the commission. did you agree with that request? >> i'm -- i'm trying to recollect what specific voting matter that might have been. it may have been -- well, i'd rather check my records. and i'm not remembering. i know that chairman jaczko was in favor of modifying the commission's voting practice. >> right. he had the wild and crazy idea that in a democracy maybe the people of america might know how you voted. do you agree -- so let me ask you that. i happen to agree with jaczko on that. will you -- i didn't get a clear answer from dr. macfarlane. but will you be supportive of an open and transparent public vote so that members of the senate, the american people know how you vote? >> senator, i -- the notation,

written notation voting process that you referred to, my views are apended to a vote that is made public on the nrc's website. so if i understand your proposal, it would be in addition to the release of the -- >> i'm asking for the radical idea that you raise your hand in public and tell the american people whether you voted yes or no on the issue. you don't do that now. will you have -- can you give us assurance that you will support that process? >> again, my votes are made public. i think they've been quoted to me by members of this committee. and so i have supported the written notation voting process. i benefitted when i came on the commission from being able to read the written votes of prior commissioners to learn the history of issues. >> you're telling me no in fact. we can -- i can write a 12-page analysis of how i feel on an issue and know how to do it without allowing the people to know really whether i vote yes or no. that is what is going on in the

nrc. i would hope regardless of political persuasion, we would want our constituents back thome see or yes or no vote. if we don't get it, i will offer legislation to mandate that. i hope i can have bipartisan support for that. let me get -- oh, thank you, madam. >> thank you, madam chairman. dr. macfarlane, let me first say how much i enjoyed talking with you, and i appreciated that opportunity yesterday. i'd like an actual answer for these questions. what experience and technical expertise do you have concerning reactor safety? i know that you have your doctorate in geology, which can be helpful with regard to waste disposal or plant sitings.

but the actual operation of a nuclear plant, what experience have you had or technical expertise? >> my expertise is on the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. so that does deal with part of what nuclear power plants produce, which is spent nuclear fuel, which are on reactor sites. and so part of my expertise has to do with that. i think that in general, as well as you pointed out, seismic issues are important, not just for plant siting, but for plant operation, as we saw in terms of what happened in japan. >> with regard to the 4,000 employees, the chairperson is given some supervisory power. what is the largest organization you have ever managed? >> i have managed different

committees within academia and different -- i've been chair of boards on different boards, but they have not been 4,000 people. >> well, the nrc budget exceeds $1 billion annually. what is the largest budget you've ever overseen? >> it's been smaller. >> have you received funding directly or indirectly from the department of energy or the nuclear regulatory commission in the course or other federal agencies related to yucca mountain? >> no, have i not. >> how much have you received funding directly or indirectly from any organizations opposed to the yucca mountain facility? >> no, have i not. >> six months ago, senator kirk

and i joined by seven colleagues wrote the chairman jaczko urging him to ensure that all documents and files related to the yucca project be preserved and kept available for future decision-makers. would you agree it would be prudent for the nrc and the energy department to maintain and preserve the work that has been done on the yucca project? >> speaking as a scientist, absolutely. there is a wealth of scientific knowledge there. it's important. . >> i know you have expressed your view that hearing i believe one call by maybe senator reid that there was a lack of political support for the yucca site.

certainly there have been objections in nevada to that site. but are you aware that the board of county commissioners of the third largest county in the united states -- issued a resolution last year or wrote the blue ribbon commission to say that, quote, strong local community support for yucca mountain exists at the host county level. the letter also states, quote, that their own research convinces us that the science embodied in doe's license application for yucca mountain and its hundreds of supporting documents is sound, closed quote. they write that the yacht ca repository, quote, has been hijacked of the politics of a single powerful senator and what some view as complicity by the nrc chairman, close quote. of course, the then nrc chairman

had formally worked for perhaps that senator, and i don't mind saying it was my friend, senator reid, the majority leader i'm sure they're referring to. do you agree that while there is opposition in nevada, that at least the people in this large county where the site would be are supportive? >> as commissioner with the blue ribbon commission, i had multiple opportunities to interact with people from nye county and from the other counties in nevada who came to many of the meetings. so we had opportunities to talk. i was aware of their views. >> have you provided the committee with all the articles you published in writings? >> i provided them with a long list of all the articles and writings that i had done. >> the question would be have you provided the committee with all your articles and published writings? >> yes. >> and does that include speeches that you have made?

>> i do believe, yes, i included all the speeches as well. >> commissioner svinicki, congratulations receiving the 2 presidential citation a few weeks ago by the american nuclear society. that's quite an honor. and you should be congratulated for it. i think it does conflict well on your abilities. my time is up. thank you, madam chairman, you've been very gracious. >> thank you, senator. senator corbin. >> thank you, madam chair. dr. mcfarland, first let me congratulate you on your good judgment. i know you grew up in connecticut but you now live in maryland. i wanted to point that out to the committee. >> finally figured it out, huh? >> congratulations on that. i want to follow up on senator alexander's point on the storage issues. and i understand both of your positions as it relates to

regional fa sill dids or for depositories. and i understand that. that can take some time as we all know before they're implemented. i want to get your thoughts on on-site storage as it relates to the safety issues as to the advisability and long-term use of on-site storage and your views as to how that relates to the work of the commission. i'll let you start. i'll ask some specific questions. there's some trade-offs, obviously. trade-offs on transportation, trade-offs of risks at a regional or national depository. there's the issues of how safe different regions of the country have different risks. we know that certain areas may have more weather-related concerns than other areas. how would you go about dealing with the storage issue as it relates to your responsibilities on a long-term need to do storage on-site?

>> would you like me to start? >> either one. dr. mcfarland, you can start. >> thank you. thank you for the question. as a safety regulator, if confirmed, my main concern would be ensuring the safety of the storage on-site as reactors. let's limit it to on-site at reactors right now. reactors need spent fuel pools. you cannot operate a light water reactor without one. it's thermally and radio actively hot. it needs that 40 foot deep swimming pool to sit in in and have the water circulated around so it remains cool. after five years, though, it's cooled off enough that you can actually put it in what we call a dry cask. there are a lot of in any event designs. there's mostly concrete and steel structures which are passably cooled. and so you need -- you don't need the dry casks but you can use them but you do need that spent fuel pool. and we know in terms of safety

from recent experience with dry casks, both at the japanese facility in fukushima, and the one in virginia at north anna, where there was an earthquake last summer you guys might recall, those dry casks performed very well. so i think they are safe. but i think understanding how they behave over the long-term is important to ensure their security. and also continuing to work on the safety and security of spent fuel pools is important as well. >> so are you saying that from a long-term perspective, the dry cask storage, is it an acceptable option? or do we need to move forward on regional or national depositories? >> from my point of view, we absolutely need to move forward on national repositories. those dry casks are fine on the decade time scale if you're talking hundreds or thousands of years, you know, there's no --

no long-term guarantee. you need some keep of deep geologic repository. >> which is worth the risk of transportation and a centralized site, i take it? >> i believe so. >> senator cardin, within its regulatory authorities, the commission has been focused on making certain that either the pool storage or the dry cask storage, if fuel remains at sites for some longer duration of time, can be done safely. the commission has assessed it has all the regulatory authority it needs in order to put in place requirements to make sure that continues to be case. as i noted earlier the commission in offering that assurance of continued safety indicated that it was not to be interpreted as a policy preference, that leaving fuel dispersed at different sites was preferable from a policy standpoint. clearly that is not the preferred policy. >> thank you. >> okay. i've just been notified we're

going to have two votes at noon, so in order to get everybody a chance we're just going to have to go down to three minutes apiece. i do deeply apologize. >> thank you, madam chairman. just a couple of quick questions, dr. mcfarlane. my home state of wyoming is an abundance of domestic uranium. permitting of these sites is met with a lot of bureaucratic delay and red tape. these sites, good-paying jobs, american jobs for folks in my states, other states where uranium is found. do you believe domestic uranium production is preferable to being dependent to importing foreign uranium? >> first of all i think wyoming is one of the most beautiful states in the union. that aside, the job again of the nuclear regulatory agency is to assure safety and security. not to opine on policy positions. but given that and my past views on things, certainly it's important for the united states

to have as diverse a supply of energy as possible and to have as much domestic supply as possible as well. >> what assurances can you provide the commission that you'll not unduly delay commission decisions, ensure that all the perspectives and opinions of your colleagues are dealt with in a respectful and timely manner? >> i assure you wholeheartedly. >> commissioner, you've had a number of questions asked to you today. i just wonder if there are any things, any comments you'd like to make to the committee to kind of tie together or answer some of the charges that may have been made by others? >> i would reflect that, again, i was privileged to be a senate staff person for a long time. i have tremendous respect for the senate's unique role under the constitution to review president obama's nomination of me. and i know that i've not achieved universe agreement in my actions and positions i've taken on the commission. i'm very respectful that there are differing views, i think as

dr. mcfarlane has indicated, it's not an expectation that everyone agree with everyone. so that standard was probably not within my reach. but i have worked to assess issues based on the facts in front of me. and i've attempted to fulfill my duty in that way. thank you. >> thank you. thank you and congratulations to both of you. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, senator. i really do apologize for the three minutes. senator lautenberg. >> thanks very much. i appreciate the opportunity. a couple of questions. for dr. mcfarlane, it is critical that we apply the lessons of fukushima disaster to improve nuclear safety here at home. one of those lessons is ensuring that containment vents work properly and are filtered to prevent the release of radiation. now, would you support requiring

filtration of containment vents where appropriate? >> thanks for that question, senator. i understand that the nuclear regulatory commission is actually looking into that specific issue right now, and i would, if confirmed, be very interested in their results of their analysis. i am somewhat familiar with the issue and so i would be very interested to learn more. i'd definitely follow that issue. >> and commissioner, you've said that you don't believe that u.s. power mantes should be required to install filtered containment vents. these systems could prevent the release of radiation into the atmosphere in the event of a nuclear accident. why do you oppose taking this precautionary step? >> senator lautenberg, i believe i was asked about that, my support for that, in a speech in march.

and what i indicated was that i had not been provided any analysis to date that would support or make the case for installation of filtered vents. as dr. mcfarlane indicated, nrc staff is preparing an evaluation of that issue now and later this summer that issue will come before the commission. >> you're therefore not committed to say no to that? >> i will review with a very open mind the staff's evaluation of this issue. >> good. in march, dr. mcfarlane, i sent a letter raising concern that nrc was not allowing public comments at the annual meeting for the oyster creek plant in new jersey. i think that local residents deserve to have their voices heard on these issues. if you are to be the nrc chair, would you try to make sure or work to try and