staff 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. so it's something i think we all need to be mindful of. one of our colleagues, i don't know if it's senator sessions or not, one of our colleagues, dr. macfarlane said it's not everybody to gets the opportunity to lead an organization of 4,000 employees. you mentioned a number of folks who served as chair of the commission who have not run organizations of this size and complexity before. it talked to us about your approach to leadership and why you think you have the skills to be able to lead an organization of this magnitude and what might you do to further strengthen the skills. >> thank you to very much for your question. i should note at the nuclear regulatory admission there's already an exceptional structure

in place that manages the day-to-day operations of the agency and over seas the dedicated employees there. so if confirmed i would view my role as continuing the mission of the nrc, 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 leadership position. and i think that some of the important attributes in terms of being the chairman in this leadership position is behaving 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 conversation 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 from a variety of different viewpoints. i certainly did that on the blue ribbon commission. we are not all of one mind at all. but we did work together to forge consensus. that final report was a consensus document. sometimes 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. >> i would just add -- i said in this room before and this is just my counsel to you would be to as leaders if you're confirmed to become chair to try to focus 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 between your colleagues and those who work at the nrc the way you would want to be treated is critically important. and i've reminded commissioner

svinicki will tell you a number of times if it isn't perfect make it better. i think everything we all do we can do better. that certainly concludes the of our nuclear power plants in this country. if you think you're right, you know you're right, don'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 m.i.t. for sharing both you and dr. post lock as. thank you. >> we turn to senator alexander. >> thank you, madam chair man. dr. macfarlane, seeing you and your family, we welcome them. in 20 years ago i was in the same spot. i was nominated by the first president bush to his cabinet and senator metsen bomb from ohio, governor 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 metsen bomb said, well, howard, i think you just d. i haven't heard such things. but we welcome you and welcome your family and commissioner svinicki, thank you for a great job. i won't go into the management issue. senator carler did. i share his attitude and concern that&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. put that over here for a moment. i'm not asking that whether one is for or against yuck ya mountain. 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 geologic repository. do you believe it's prudent to move ahead on a 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 human health and safety. again, putting on my blue ribbon commission hat i wholeheartedly agree with both of those statements. i have always been a very strong proponent of geologic repositori repositories. >> but we could move ahead with consolidation. >> absolutely. there is ample need to do so because we have 10 shutdown reactors in this country at nine

facilities and may expose to consolidate. >> commissioner svinicki, nuclear regulatory commission would certainly have a role in moving ahead with licensing both of the sites and of transportation. do you agree that we should move ahead on parallel tracks? >> in both previous law there are initiatives on consolidated storage and proposals that i heard regarding future activities i believe would have the nrc license those consolidated storage sites. so, yes, nrc would have an involvement in that activity. >> commissioner svinicki, do you believe that the legislation with which you may be familiar senator feinstein introduced which would begin a pilot program on the sites now in the appropriations bill and the steps that we're taking with senator binghamman on others begin to take the form of a 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 to make sure it is stored safely. and the commission also indicated that it is not a policy preference that the fuel remain at disbursed locations. >> thank you. i have two more questions. i'll ask for short answers if i may. dr. mack far hrar, small modular nuclear reactors, oakridge laboratory, for example, suppressed to the department of energy on citing one there.

congress approved a five-year jump start for small reactors. if you were chairman of the commission would you assign a priority to the commission's role in creating an environment where we can 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 reactions. i know them technically from my own background and i think they're very interesting. i would look forward to seeing license applications and seeing how they go. >> do you support the idea of moving ahead of them? >> excuse me? >> do you support the idea of moving ahead with small modular reactors? >> certainly. >> senator, in my service on nrc i have supported activities on activities that would prepare the nrc to receive steins for review of small modular reactors so 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 one question in my remaining 22 seconds. i would like to get an idea of nuclear power in germ. as you look ahead, do you see nuclear power as a source of electricity as a significant share of the united states's ability to produce reliable, clean, low-cost electric power? >> currently the u.s. as i think maybe yourself or some 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 for this country and the security of the country that we have diverse energy supply and nuclear is part of that

diversity, certainly. >> thank you very much, madam chair man. >> senator sanders? >> thank you. before i begin, if i may say senator alexander, the best you talked about nuclear power being low cost. to the best of my knowledge in terms of production of new electricity, nuclear power is the most expensive form of new generation. >> madam chair man, i'll look forward to a private discussion with senator sanders and i would love to present him with a national academy of sciences study that shows just the reverse. and the windmills that you like are much more expensive. >> okay. but to the commissioners, let me start off with dr. mack marfan. 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 and opinion and reconciles it to provide a majority opinion and orders 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 northern 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 as possible, as transparent as i can be at the commission if confirmed. at the moment i'm 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. >> well -- >> and in an effort to maintain collegiality i would like to consult with the other commissioners to understand their thoughts on this process.

>> let's consult with commissioner svinicki and let me ask her this question. commissioner, in your written testimony to this committee you described openness as a key principal for 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. each of the five votes via detailed statement. somehow a majority opinion is cobbled together and then in yet another document orders are given to staff to carry out the result. now, right here for better or for worse every member of the united states senate has to raise his or her hand and vote yes or we vote no. rarely people vote present. but everybody in our home state

in america knows how we vote on an issue. so i don't think it's complicated. my understanding, commissioner svinicki, is chairman yotkko requested that the nrc hold a public voting meeting. he made that request to the commission. did you agree with that request? >> i'm trying to recollect what specific voting matter that might have been. it may have been -- well, i'd rather check my records. i'm not remembering. i know that the chairman was in favor of modifying commission's voting practice. >> right. he had the wild and crazy idea in a democracy the people of america might know how you voted. so let me ask you that. i happen to agree with him 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, the notation, written notation voting process that you refer to my views that is made public on the nrc's website. so if i understand your proposal it would be in addition to the release -- >> 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. can you give us insurance 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 been -- i have supported the written notation voting process. i benefited when i came on the commission from being able to read the written votes of prior commissioners to learn the history of. >> you're telling me no, in fact. i can write a 12-page analysis

how i feel and allow people to know whether i voted yes or no. i would hope regardless of political persuasion we would want our constituents to see a yes or no vote. if we don't get it, it sounds like we're not going to get it. i would offer legislation to mandate that. let me get -- oh, thank you, madam. >> thank you, madam chair man. dr. macfarlane, let me first say how much i enjoyed just talking with you. and i appreciated that opportunity yesterday. i would like an actual answer for these questions. what experience and technical expertise do you have concerning reactor safety? i know that you have a doctor at

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 the 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 citing you for plant operation as we saw in terms of what happened in japan. >> with regard to the 4,000 employees a chairperson is given some supervisory power.

what is the largest organization you've ever managed? >> i have managed different committees within academia. i have been chair of boards on different paordz. but they have not been 4,000 people. >> well, nrc budget exceeds $1 billion annually. what's 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 of or other federal agencies related to yucca mountain? >> no, i have not. >> have you received funding directly or indirectly from any organizations opposed to the yucca mountain? >> no, i have not.

>> six months ago senator kirk and i joined by seven colleagues wrote the chairman yosko urging him the 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's been done on the yucca project? >> speaking as a scientist, absolutely. there's a wealth of scientific knowledge there. it's important. >> i know you've suppressed your view that -- hearing one called by maybe senator reid, that

there was a lack of political support for the yucca site. certainly site. certainly there have been objections in nevada to that site. are you aware that the board of county commissions have not counted the third largest county in the united states issued a resolution last year or wrote the blue ribbon commission to say that strong local community support for yucca mountain exists at the host county level. the letter also states "their own research convinces us that the sites embodied in the license application for yucca mountain and hundreds of supporting documents is sound." they write that the repository has been hijacked by the politics of a single powerful senator and what some view as

complicity by the nrc chairman. the then rc chairman had formally worked for perhaps that senator and i don't mind saying it's my friend, senator reed, the majority leader i'm sure they are referring to. do you agree that while there is opposition in nevada, 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 the people from the other counties in nevada. we had opportunities to talk. i was aware of their views. >> have you provided the committee with all of the articles that you published in writings? >> i provided them with a long list of the articles. >> the question would be, have you provided the committee with a list of articles and published

writings? >> yes. >> does that include speeches that you made? >> i do believe yes, i included the speeches as well. >> commissioner, congratulations on receiving the 2012 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 reflect well on your abilities. my time is up. thank you. you have been very gracious. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, madam chair. doctor, first let me congratulate you on your good judgment. i know that you grew up in connecticut and live in maryland. i wanted to point that out to the committee. >> finally figured it out? >> yes. congratulations on that. i want to follow-up on senator

alexander's point on the storage issues. i understand both of your positions as it relates to regional facilities or depos tories. i understand that and that can take time before they are 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 views as to how it relates to the work of the commission. >> i will let you start. i will ask specific questions. the trade offs on transportation and trade offs and the risk at a regional or national depos tori and the issues of how safe different regions 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. doctor, you can start. >> thank you for the question. i as a safety regulator if confirmed, my main concern would be ensuring the safety of the storage on site at reactors. let's limit it right now. reactors need spent fuel poles. you can't operate without a spent fuel pole. it's thermally and radioactively hot. it needs the 40-foot deep swimming pool to have the water circulator around that. it remains cool. after five years, it cooled off that you can put it in a dry cast. there a number of different designs. mostly concrete and steel structures that are passively cooled. and so you don't need the dry

casts, you can use them. you need a spent fuel poll. we know in terms of safety from recent experience with dry cast both at the japanese facility and fukushima and in virginia where there was an earthquake last summer, you may recall. the dry casts performed very well. i think they are safe, but i think understanding how they behave over the long-term is important to ensure security and also continuing to work on the safety and security of spent fuel poles is important as well. . you saying for a long-term perspective the dry cast storage, is it an acceptable option or do we need to move forward on regional or national depos tories? >> from my point of view we need to move forward. those dry casts are fine on the

decade time scale if you are talking hundreds of thousands of years, there is no long-term guarantee. you need some kind of deep geologic depos tori. >> that's worth a centralized site? >> i believe so. >> within the authorities, they are focused on making certain that either the pool storage or the dry cast storage if fuel remains at sites for a longer duration of time can be done safely. they assessed they have the authority that it needs in order to put in place requirements to make sure that continues to be the 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 dispursed at different sites was

preferable. clearly that is not the preferred policy. >> thank you. >> okay. i have just been notified we will have two votes at noon. in order to get everybody a chance, we will have to go down to three minutes apiece. i deeply apologize. senator? >> thank you, madam chairman. a couple of quick questions. my home state of wyoming and i know you were taking notes. permitting of these sites met with a lot of bureaucratic delay and red tape. these are good paying jobs and american jobs for folks in my state and other states. do you believe that the domestic production is preferable to being dependent on importing uranium from countries like russia? >> should i say that wyoming is one of the most beautiful states in the union. that aside, the job again of the nuclear regulatory agencies to ensure safety and security not

to get policy positions, but given that and my past views on things, certainly it's important for the united states to have a diverse supply of energy as possible and to have as much domestic supply as possible. >> what assurances can you provide the commission thaw will not unduly delay the decisions and ensure the perspectives and opinions are dealt with in a respectful and timely manner? >> i assure you. >> commissioner, huh a number of questions asked to you today. i wonder if there any comments you would like to make to the committee to kind of tie together and answer 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 and i have tremendous respect for the senates and to review president obama's nomination and i know i have not achieved universal agreement in my actions and positions i have

taken on a commission. i'm very suspectful that there different views as dr. farland indicated. it's not an expect that they agree with everyone. that standard was not within my reach. i have worked to assess issues based on the facts in front of me and attempted to fulfill my duty in ma that way, thank you. >> congratulations to both of you. thank you. >> i do apologize for the three minutes. senator? >> i'm sorry. i am ready to review. i appreciate it. a couple of questions. for dr. mcfarland, it is critical that we apply the lessons of fukushima disaster to improve nuclear safety here at home. one of the lessons is ensuring that contant