first, and this is especially -- will be especially for dr. macfarlane is the management question. i've never seen anything in my life and public life in and out of government over the last 40 years as the dispute that has occurred among very well qualified members of the nuclear regulatory commission. and without with even getting very far into why that happened or how that happened, dr. macfarlane, if you're going to be the chairman-designee, i'll be asking you what you sfweinteo do about that, what your manner and attitude will be in an organization where you have well-qualified colleagues and 4,000 or so employees. second, i'll be asking about used nuclear fuel, nuclear waste, what are we going to do about it. you may get some questions about whether you're for or against yucca mountain. i won't be asking that.

i'll be asking whether or not you're for or against it, should we not move ahead to find a repository and to find consolidation sites along parallel tracks as recommended by the bipartisan commission on nuclear waste on which dr. macfarlane served. three, i'll be asking about small nuclear reactors and your attitude toward that. that's an opportunity our country has, has broad support here in the congress. we're funding a jump-start of it. the nuclear regulatory commission's nurturing of that process over the next three or four years will make a difference whether the united states is able to move ahead with it successfully. i'll be asking about that. two other things. one is the mox fuel. tba is a federal agency that's volunteered to use it in the nuclear regulatory commission, will have to qualify it and license the reactor. this is all part of the united states effort to take nuclear

weapons that were intended to blow us up and turn them into fuel we could use to heat our homes. we've invested a lot of money into it in the united states, this who be a beginning use of this fuel, which if it works properly could even reduce the cost of fuel at our civilian nuclear plants. and finally i'll be looking for a general attitude toward nuclear energy and its importance in the united states. as senator boxer mentioned, japan, which uis a concern for all of us. of course, the nuclear regulatory commission has an exemplary safety record. never a death at a civilian reactor in the united states. no one even hurt in three mile island which is our most celebrated accident. and we'd like to continue that. i think one reason why support for nuclear power has continued in the united states, despite the pictures of fukushima is

because we understand it pretty well, and because the nuclear regulatory commission has done such a good job over the years of safety in so many different ways. in fact, other parts of our energy industry such as drilling for oil offshore could take a lesson from the shared responsibility that nuclear power plants have with each other for making sure they are safe. my own view is, particularly as i look at japan, i was speaking to one of the former ambassadors the other day. japan has closed its plants. that gets rid of 30% of its power for the nation's second or third largest economy. that's a terrible blow. they're having manufacturing on weekends and thermostats are up, and the emperor was running around the palace with a candle to set a good example. that's not the way you build a vibrant strong prosperous economy. we need lots of clean, low-cost

reliable electricity. japan's has been nuclear. 25% of ours is. the former ambassador said two he hoped two of the japanese plants will be opening soon. he hoped that two by two by two they would come back for the welfare of the japanese people. they don't even have the advantage of cheap natural gas over there that we have here. i'll be looking at your general attitude about the next 20 or 30 years of nuclear power. mine is that we'll probably need 100 new plants, partially to replace the ones we have, and partially to keep our air clean and to meet the demand for electricity in a country that uses 25% of all the electricity in the world. i wouldn't ask you to endorse that idea. i simply will be asking you about whether you're prepared to envision a future where nuclear power is a significant part of our base load electricity. i know that tva where i'm from

plans to produce -- it's putting -- it's putting pollution control equipment on its coal plants so it can operate them in the future and produce about a third of its power from electricity. it plans to make a third or 40% of its electricity from nuclear power, tva is the largest public utility. right south of that is the southern company. the largest private utility. they have the same idea. they're going to make a third of their electricity from coal plants with pollution control equipment. and then they're going to make about a third of it with nuclear power. so i'll be asking do you envision a future in which you can regulate that kind of large percentage of our electricity coming from nuclear power. so i welcome you here. i'm -- i thank you for the opportunity to do this, and i thank the chairman for having the hearing. >> thank you so much, senator. senator sanders. thank you, madam chair. welcome to dr. macfarlane and commissioner svinicki. thanks for being with us. let me begin for expressing a

little bit for a change a disagreement with senator inhofe. that happens every once in a while. i think he referred to chairman jaczko as, quote/unquote, having exercised failed leadership. let me respectfully disagree. i happen to think while i've had disagreements with chairman jaczko, i think he has done a good job. i'll tell you what i'm upset about. i'm upset about the level of personal attacks that have been waged against him from this committee and within the nrc itself. and i happen to belief that those attacks, personal attacks were a smoke screen for a philosophical divide that existed within the nrc and exist there's today. now, in this committee we have fundamental philosophical differences. it's no great surprise. i hope and believe it's not necessary to wage personal

attacks against each other to disguise our philosophical differences, and i fear very much that has been the case within the nrc. so i happen to believe that commissioner jaczko has been a strong defender of the most important task of the nrc, and that is to protect the safety and the well-being of the american people. about and sometimes he has cast a lone vote. he has been outvoted 4-1. i think he's tried to do his job with dedication and sincerity. let me express a few words about some -- >> yield on that point. as i told the chairman -- >> can you stop the clock and allow senator inhofe to ask a question. >> yeah, not even a question. but we had a whole hearing on chairman jaczko and on some of the alleged treatment of employees, the disagreements with the commission, and the failure to share things with the commission. and so i think it would be a good idea anyone who is interested in this subject and the statements that the senator

made go back and get the script of that hearing. i think it's pretty revealing. >> i think it is, in all due respect not revealing. i think he was subject to mccarthy tactics and i hope we don't see a repetition of that. in terms of some of my concerns about commissioner svinicki, she was one of the three members of the nrc who voted in secret, in secret, to recommend to the department of justice that it weigh in on entergy's side in litigation with the state of vermont over the future of the vermont yankee nuclear power plant. in my very strong opinion, the role of the nrc is not to represent entergy or any other nuclear power committee against vermont's or against any other state. it is to ensure the strongest safety standards possible at nuclear plants. that is its job. not to be an advocate for nuclear energy, not to be an

opponent of nuclear energy, but to do everything possible to protect the safety of the american people from potentially a very dangerous technology. not only do i believe that commissioner svinicki's vote was wrong on the merits, but i am concerned that she voted without having reviewed the major supreme court ruling that defines the roles states have in regulating nuclear plants. this is a very big issue. everybody agrees the function of the nrc is to protect the safety of the american people. that is its job. it is not to be a proponent of nuclear power. and in the case of vermont, against the wishes of the people of vermont who did not want to see that plant extended. in terms of fukushima reforms, commissioner svinicki has consistent with an industry request required that fukushima reforms be subject to a cost

benefit test that could water down their effectiveness. commissioner svinicki's votes do not require new reactors comply with all fukushima reforms. too often she defers to industry-led voluntary initiatives instead of voting for nrc-mandated safety requirements. that concerns me very much. another very, very important issue that i hope we deal with in the near future has to deal with with the issue of transparency at the nrc. i'll be speaking to dr. macfarlane about this in my questioning as well. commissioner svinicki along with her colleagues does not disclose stakeholder meetings and will not agree to public meetings for nrc votes. very important issue. more broadly, i am concerned the commissioner svinicki appears to be a promoter of nuclear power. and interestingly, my friend and

colleague, senator inhofe seems to agree with me. and i would like to present for the record an article appearing in a publication called "energy guardian." let me quote from that article. the interview with senator inhofe, he said in that article, inhofe says good for nuclear energy, i happen to be on the pretty extreme side in wanting to do more quicker, and i think she has that tendency too. end of quote. well, frankly i do not want to see somebody on the extreme side of any issue being on the nrc. it's one thing for elected officials. to go before their constituents. they have whatever position they want. but that curbs me very much. we need commissioners who are thoughtful and safety conscious. commissioner svinicki has given multiple speeches over the past several years that cite a, quote/unquote a nuclear renaissance, a term nuclear

advocates use in the hopes of building dos of new plants with billions and billions of dollars of government support. in those speeches she has stated that the nrc's job is to, quote, to enable commercial energy activities to proceed, end of quote, provided certain requirements are met. i disagree. i believe again that the nrc's job is to protect the public and be a strong and fair regulator without bias in favor or against the nuclear industry. we have before us today another nominee, dr. macfarlane, to be commissioner and chair of the nrc as well. and i look forward to hearing more about her views. my hope is she will make strong commitments to us today that ensure the nrc can move forward aggressively toward transparency and openness as a good starting point for reform. however, i want to be clear, and

i want to make this point as clear as i possibly can, that if the nrc does not move forward to reform its voting process to be open and transparent, i will be introducing nrc reform legislation to mandate a transparent public voting process. the current situation is opaque, the public does not understand how nrc members are voting, and that has got too change. i would hope, dr. macfarlane, that if you are confirmed, you will lead the nrc in that direction. if not, i will be offering legislation to mandate that we do that. madam chair, thank you very much. >> yeah, i would with yield the remainder of the time to senator inhofe if he would like to respond. >> no, jut a quick response. the article, and i think it was an accurate article when it was mentioned, let's keep in mind the context of that. i think rather than "extreme," i should have used the word "impatient."

i'm ready for nuclear energy. we have to have it in our mix. and it seems to me in the years that i've been on here, it takes so long to get anything done. that was the context. >> let me just respond. it's one thing to be impatient, but i do not want to see if this country a nuclear accident. i want to see the commission do everything possible to protect the safety of the american people. >> i agree, i agree, i agree. >> and impatience, by the way, senator inhofe, is not one of the qualities we want on those commissioners. i want them to be patient, i want them to be thoughtful. i want them to go the extra ten miles. nuclear power cannot be 99.99% safe. that's the problem we have with that technology. so impatience or extreme is not a quality that i would like to see on the commission. >> all right. senator sessions? >> thank you, madam chairman. let me make a couple of points about professionalism of this

nominee. kristine svinicki. her record shows that she is dedicated to the safe operation of nuclear plants and collegial work. in the past four years while on the nrc, kristine svinicki voted on 135 or so significant policy or rule-making matters. and over 90% of the votes she voted to approve the recommended action of the nuclear regulatory commission professional staff, and voted with the majority well over 90% of the time during that period. let me also mention this concern that was raised about her testimony that she does not disclose involvement in a paper concerning yucca mountain when she testified last time. her involvement in the yucca

project was fully evaluated during her confirmation process in 2007-2008. she was fully forthcoming in her written questionnaire, and written responses to questions about her involvement in nuclear waste issues early in her career, and testified before the epw committee. she was unanimously confirmed, ironically the technical paper that her opponents claim she was hiding from the senate during her confirmation process was actually the first of her articles listed in her senate epw questionnaire submitted five years ago. i think it's -- i don't want to use mccarthyite phrases, but we need not to be -- we need to be careful about somebody of her integrity and ability in suggesting motives that aren't there. also, i would note that the paper that she was referred to

that she co-authored as a young engineer working in the clinton department of energy, it was very short, less than three pages. it briefly described the yucca mountain site and described the potential waste acceptance and disposal process. she left this particular doe waste program in 1997 during the clinton administration time long before secretary abraham under the bush administration recommended yucca mountain to president bush in 2002. i would also note that and pleased to learn that just this week, ms. svinicki was awarded the 2012 presidential citation by the american nuclear society, an organization of 11,000 engineers, scientists, and educators. when she was issued the award, the ans president said, quote, commissioner svinicki has

demonstrated leadership and adherence to the highest professional conduct while serving on the commission. she combines an unshakable demeanor with proven technical and professional qualifications, and we support her nomination to a second term on the commission. the award specifically recognized her, quote, courageous leadership, dedication to public service, unwavering commitment to a regulatory framework that enables facilities to operate safely and securely with nuclear technology. also i would note that mr. david lock baum, who is the nuclear safety project director of the union of concerned scientists, basically anti-nuclear and take a very liberal views, said this about her. according to the ee newsletter, she is no way is a, quote,

industry puppet, close quote, and her views have stayed consistent since he first met her more than a decade ago. quote, i don't agree with some of the positions she takes, but i think they're sincere views. i don't think that the industry is getting to her or she is reading their script, close quote. mr. david lockbaum, concerned scientist. so i just would make that point. and i know we have a good record here that she would operate under. and dr. macfarlane, i did enjoy very much meeting with you. it was a good conversation. i note you're taking over a very important task, and if appointed chairman as the president indicated he will do, which is his prerogative, that you will be undertaking to supervise 4,000 employees, a supervisory role you have never had before. and it would be a real step for you. i hope that you can handle that

effectively. so it raises that concern with me. and there are other issues i might question you about as we go forward. but i have enjoyed meeting with you. i think the president does have -- i think there's a situation that's occurred with regard to the controversy at the committee. and i am supportive of the idea that we need to move forward. i'll support -- i will not seek to block your confirmation, and i think it will be a tkrbt right thing for us to do, to do both of these nominations and move them together, although i would express that your background is not the kind of background i would normally look for in a chairman of the. thank you, madam chair man.

>> thank you, senator. senator lawsuitenberg? >> thank you very much, madam chair man. thanks for bringing us together to consider the nomination of dr. allison mcfar hand and christine svinicki. everyone knows it has been critical to meeting our nation's energy needs and it is an emissions free energy source that provides one-fifth of america's electricity. my state of new jersey, four nuclear power reactors provide the state with more than half of its electricity. but as we saw in japan last year, there are also many reasons to be cautious. in order to operate plants safely, the united states must have an effective policy for disposing and storing spent

nuclear fuel. and right now most nuclear power plants store more than 1,000 tons of nuclear waste and spent fuel pools on site. it's not a sustainable situation. in new jersey, nuclear waste is stored on site for our -- at our fewer nuclear reactors. and some of it is in dry cast storage. but most is in spent fuel pools, which rely on a steady supply of water and/or electricity. in japan, when the tsunami knocked the power out, we saw rescue workers desperately spraying water from fire hoses into the spent fuel pools. more than half a year later, there are still serious concerns about the safety of spent fuel at fukushima. and one thing is clear, we've got to find better and safer ways to store nuclear waste to

ensure that a disaster like the one that took place in japan never happens here. that means finding more secure ways to store fuels on site, finding agreeable places to store national spent fuel, and making sure these sites have long-term viability. we have now heard from the presidents blue lib bon commission which made a number of recommendations that could provide a path forward. and i look forward to hearing from the two nominees on how they plan to approach the commission's proposals and fill their mandate. if confirmed, these nominees will hear from industry, interest that may oppose strong safety regulations. and we have to be particularly careful about proposing the -- a particular company or organization.

let the question be is this safe enough? are we doing what we can to protect the public. and that's where the interest must lie. but don't forget, companies that are accountable the shareholders have focused on short-term costs and quarterly profits. in contrast, the nrc must be accountable and people must stay focused on ensuring the safety of this generation and the next. so i expect both of these nominees, if confirmed, to always err on the side of safety. relaxing regulations could harm the public and would do the industry no favors. just look at japan. they were not prepared to withstand last year's disaster. and last month they shut down the last of their 54 nuclear reactors. i find it shocking that they're able to get by after shutting

down 54, all of their nuclear reactors and still have the society functioning. but that's life. and we have to evaluate how much of our energy ought to be created in nuclear facilities. nuclear energy has been critical to our nation's energy needs in the past. but we've got to take the necessary precautions now in order for that to be true you in the future. and thank you and i wish each of you luck in continuing your service to the country. thank you. >> senator barosso. >> thank you very much, madam chair man. our two distinguished nominees here with us today, congratulations to both of you. the nuclear regulatory commission has gone through a

very dark period recently. the commission has experienced a crisis of leadership at the top of the agency. incidents of harassment of staff, outbursts of rage, and with holding information from fellow commissioners by chairman yazko. it has hurt the agency's image. throughout it all, the other four nrc commissioners and the staff percent veered as they always have, ensuring that the mission of the agency, nuclear safety, is not compromised. today we should be pleased to have this opportunity to work towards strengthening the leadership of this agency by ensuring the agency has a full complement of commissioners. i believe that commissioner svinicki is imminently qualified to continue her distinguished career on the commission. she has shown leadership and expertise that has earned her the praise from fellow commissioners both democrats and republican. despite delays in getting her

renominated by this anyonation, i and many of my colleagues will work to ensure that she is swiftly confirmed. with regard to dr. macfarlane, who is yet to serve on the commission, i believe that we do need to look at what are the qualifications that we seek in a nominee to serve out the rest of chairman yazko's career. served on the blue ribbon commission on america's nuclear future. it is our job to explore her positions on what she sees as the future of nuclear power. that is what are her views on uranium production, which is very important to my home state of wyoming where uranium is in abundance. true all-out, all of the above energy strategy that the president has talked about we must continue with building new power plants examine developing a long-term place to store

nuclear waste. these are all essential to the future of nuclear power in america. as i've stated, there's been a crisis of leadership at the top of the commission. we need to find a leader of the commission who doesn't try and run the commission with a top down command and control approach, someone not afraid to reach out and utilize the years of technical expertise that the other distinguished commissioners offer, someone who has a demonstrated record as a successful manager, knows how to take a large complex organization with different personalities and backgrounds and get it working towards a common goal without compromising ethics. at a time when there is a void of leadership at the very top of the nrc we need the best, most qualified person that we can find. when it comes to the issue of nuclear safety in america's energy future, the public expects no less. we have great challenges ahead of us in the next few years to

secure america's energy future. with a need to dress america's command for clean, safe, domestic, affordable energy we need to work together to strengthen the commission. as a ranging member of the subcommittee on clean air and nuclear safety, i pledge to work with my colleagues to accomplish this goal. i'd like to say once again congratulations to both of you on your nomination by president obama. i would also like to read to you both quotes from both industry and from labor which describe the qualities that have -- that they have seen both industry and labor. they both have seen from commissioner svinicki during her ten taour. american nuclear society says, quote, commissioner svinicki combines an unshakeable, unshakeable demeanor with proven technical and professional qualifications and we support her nomination to a second term as nrc commissioner. the american