labor, congress of industrial organizations, afl-cio says, quote, we believe a review of ms. svinicki's qualifications and her previous service t nrc demonstrate that she is precisely, precisely the kind of public serve ant that gives all americans confidence in the safe operation of our nation's nuclear energy industry. and the international brotherhood of electrical workers stated, quote, through her dedication and leadership, commissioner svinicki has demonstrated the right kind of approach to technical and legal issues before the agency that is critical to ensure the safe operation of our nation's nuclear energy industry. this all high praise very well earned. so commissioner svinicki, i trust you will commit to serve the public interest and work collegially with your colleagues and prospective new colleagues

in the same example larry way. ms. macfarlane, i suspect that you will work with this fine commissioner and her colleagues as well in hopes that you will earn similar respect and praise. thank you, adam chairman. >> thank you, madam senator. >> i'll be happy to have more time. that's fine. he will use the time, i know. >> madam chair man, i know we're anxious to hear from our witnesses but first let me thank both of our participants today for their willingness, one, to continue in public service, the other to put herself in a very important position for our country. so we thank you for your willingness for public service. we know this is not just your commitment. it's a family commitment. so we thank your families for being willing to share you with your country. i just want to make one observation and will ask that you focus either in your

presentations or in the questions as to the storage issue of spent fuel. i think it's important for the commission to make decisions. inaction causing policies to be foreign because of inaction is not i think the best interest 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 commissioner must act in order to give us guidance to do that. the failure to act can cause policies to move in a certain direction not in the best interest of our country. one of the areas most difficult for all of us to get a grip on is how do we deal with spent fuels? can we safely secure on site the

pools, whether in pools or 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. >> thank you. senator? >> thank you, madam chair. and i'm just going to be brief. >> sure. >> and ask my full statement to be put in the record. >> sure. >> but i also want to ebg what other members have said in terms of safety. the buck really stops with the nrc when it comes to safety. and i hope that you hear that message from us. it's 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 in the 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. businesses are talking about overseas. the economy is collapsing. they're having serious problems. so safety i knowreacts with all the other actions that are out there. and with that let me just thank dr. macfarlane pore your service on the brc, on the blue ribbon commission. i know that you traveled to new mexico, you took a great interesting spw in that blue ribbon commission that's looking at where do we go to the waste that is stored around the

country and how do we thread the balance between interim sides or consolidated sides as we're calling them and these long-term depositories that we're studying. and we very much reach that blue ribbon panel's recommendations. and our chairman, chairman boxer has been already on top of this and this committee has. we have had hearings on your report. and we believe that the senator was the chairman of the subcommittee that looked into 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. at this time we're actually going to get to our nominees. but i want to thank you. we're just laying things out on the table here. and i thought senator sessions was extremely honest about what's happening. so thank you for that.

now, i would like to turn to dr. allison macfarlane, who has been nominated to be chairman. we're very honored 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, sit 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 and my son graham who are here for me for their unwaivering support and encouragement. i'm also pleased to be at the table today with christine svinicki. if confirmed, i look forward to working with commissioner svinicki and others. 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 briefings have reinforced my observations about both the quality of the nrc staff and their level of commitment to the mission of the commission. that 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 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 a positive lock eus with whom i share an m.i.t. connection. 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, m.i.t. and georgia tech and george mason university, and i have contributed to nuclear policy debates since 1996 and have served on national academy of science pans 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, i will devote all my energies to serve on the nrc with the attributes i consider good to good govern answer, openness, efficiency and transparency. i will make a strong commission to khraoebg ality at all levels. agency endowed with the public trust such as the tphrg 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 ensure 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 chair man, ranking member inhofe and members of the committee. i'm thankful for president obama to nominating to an additional term of service. i would be privileged to continue this work. i congratulate dr. macfarlane on her nomination and extend my best issues to her in this confirmation process. i am grateful for by the kind senator sessions. i 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 continue to go adapt its security framework to post-9/11 realities and an agency whose regulatory program

is regarded as the most informed and disciplined in the world. i have researched the facts and history of issues and have endeavored to understand fully the effect of proposed regulatory changes. i have also looked to the fundamental guide posts envisioned in the principals 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 it's used demands to safety principals. when i last appeared before this committee in march, the nrc just issued a series of orders to nuclear power plant listenees requiring features. requiring the installation of hardened venting systems and requiring enhanced instrumentation for spent fuel poolsment the nrc is also requiring nuclear power plant licensees to undertake

substantial reevaluations of seismic and flooding hazards at their sites. since issuing these requirements three months ago, the nrc has been developing and communicating the specific guidance for implements the requirements and continued to hold public meetings on these topics. this work has benefited 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 men and women of the nrc and their sustained efforts to advance the nrc's mission of ensuring adequate protection of adequate public health and safety. 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 welcoming me to the nrc in 2008 and supporting me in the contributions i have endeavored to make to our shared goals. madam chair man, senator inhofe and members of the committee, 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 take -- ask my questions i wanted to put two items into the record. one is a ranking of the nrc from its employees in 2010, you know, senator barrasso said this is a dark time for the agency and how horrible it was. the fact is the employees rated it number one out of all the different agencies. so i put that in the record. now, i do think it's been a dark time in terms of what senator sanders said 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 stkprae and not be disagreeable. we can disagree and be respectful. look, the two of us agree on one thing out of 1,000.

and it's the highway bill. outside of that we don't agree on much. but we really like each other, care about each other and respect each other. now, that's just the two of us. and every colleague here could say the same about a colleague on the other side of the aisle. and that's the kind of 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, you know, 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 dropped among the people. that's understandable. could i ask for -- it's understandable that it fell given what happened at fukushima but it is -- 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 said all that, i'm now going to ask some questions mostly to commissioner svinicki. because my request of dr. macfarlane, i don't have questions of her is just to bring that professionalism, as you have shown that you have done in every job 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. commissioner svinicki, there are serious problems with the steam generators at the san onofre nuclear plant. i know you're aware of that. and it is 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 design changes that were permitted to go forward. so i asked and wrote and asked if we could have a review whether or not there should have been a licensed amendment. do you agree or disagree that there should have been a license amendment? >> senator, i understand that as 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 committing 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 the commissioner correspondence. you crossed out the sentence that the chairman wrote. this is what it says.

we are rekraoug whether or not licensees evaluation resulted in the determination that the changes to the familiarity required nrc review. and you cross thad out. why did you cross that out if you say now you want to see it review reviewed? >> in voting on 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, 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.

the record speaks for itself. i asked you a very straightforward question, did you do work on yuck ya and you said no. i'll put all that in the record. i'm not going to retreed 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 and you say, oh, you support me. but when you had the chance to support it in writing you crossed it out and said to me now it was already happening. but the facts don't comport with that. so i want to ask you this. at nrc's annual regulatory conference in march you read from an article that was entitled "the world has forgotten the real victims of fukushima that used 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 nuclear reactors qualifies as a nuclear disaster that never was? >> no, senator, i intended by quoting at length from that

article to discuss the human tragedy that had occurred to the people of japan. i 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. >> 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 you goal to implement the 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 the schedules. if confirmed to another term i would work earnestly with other members of the commission to find those opportunities to accelerate opportunities where possible. >> i'm going to repeat the question. will you work to ensure that the schedule is accelerated so safety improvements are implemented within five years? it took 10 years to get the safety improvements after 9/11. that is too long to wait. will you work to see that they are implemented within five years? >> yes, sure, i will work to ensure that they are implemented in five years knowing there will 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 letters to your we nomination to the nrc. 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 organizations and we can work with you on that. will you sit down with them across a 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. and i have met over the course of my time at 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 that would be great. thank you very much. and i turn to senator inhofe. >> thank you, madam chair man.

i would like to enter something into the record. >> thank you. >> page 33 of the hearing, and i happened to be chairman at that time of this committee in 2007, was your confirmation hearing. in this, this subject was discussed in terms of her response and it seemed to be a satisfactory 1307bs. page 33 of the hearing of 2007. you know, when i would say to both of you it's a tragedy occurs such as 9/11 it changes the behavior. we do things 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 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, svinicki, that a lot of the things that they had not done in fukushima we were already doing here. and i would like just to 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 sit 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 did not have a 9/11 type of event. their regulator had not put equivalent measures in place in

japan, to my knowledge. in prioritizing the nrc's response to the lessons learned at fukushima we of course looked at extreme natural hazards. one of the outgrowths is to look at the readiness to mitigate and defend a nuclear power plant against extreme natural events. we issued 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 we also are requiring enhanced spent fuel pool implementation so there will be greater emergency should an extreme natural event occur. we are also requiring the reevaluation of seismic and flooding events as i described

in my testimony. those appeared to the nrc to be the most immediate actions that should be put forward after fukushima. of course we have tier 2 and tier 3 recommendations also under evaluation. >> 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. so let me just ask you two quick questions here. one is in that plan they stated that the chairman, quote, is shall be responsible for issuing -- for ensuring that the commission is fully and currently informed. as chairman, will you interfere or seek to influence the flow of information between the commissioners and the agency staff? >> no, i will not. i will ensure that the other commissioners are fully informed. >> i think you covered that

pretty well in your opening statement. i wanted to make knit reference to this reorganization statement. the second thing that was in that plan, 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 chair man. >> thank you very much, senator. senator carler. >> 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 several members from the blue ribbon commission on which you served, dr. macfarlane. and the decision dealt with spent fuel is not going to end up in yucca mountain. how do we go forward and find a place that's suitable in this country that replace it or suitable in this country?

we had, among other things to be concerned about, site prisons. not easy to do in a small state like delaware and a number of other states. as it turns out, other states that literally competed for the right to become a repository, if you will, for people that violated the law and who were incarcerated. and we had a competition that flowed from that situation. in a consent-based approach, which is what the blue ribbon commission is suggesting, makes sense to a lot of me and regardless of what happens with yucca mountain, we have to learn from that experience approximate&be a whole lot smarter going forward as we prepare to take the next steps. now might we incentivize other states, other localities to be willing to as they are in france and some other countries, be

willing to be a site for these kinds of activities? your ideas from both of you, please? what would be your counsel to us? >> well, first of all, i'll 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 forum, i would say it's important to offer compensation without necessarily specific exactly 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 seems to have worked in some other countries. >> you know, i don't think we need to look as far as other countries because the united states is the only country with an operating deep geologic

repository and that is in the great state of phpl until just outside carlsbad. the waste isolation pilot project. and it has operated successfully since 1998. they have received over 10,000 shipments of waste from the nuclear weapons complex. it was not straightforward 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 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 commission recommendations. i know se