some more agitated by the fact. they did raise issues with the chairman regarding that discussions they had had. at no time did they understand that the scr would be stopped. >> your time has expired. we recognize mr. waxman. . >> over the last few months, the chairman of this subcommittee has told us that the nrc chairman acted illegally with regard to its handling of yucca mountain. mr. bell, you have conducted a seventh month investigation. did you find that the chairman of the nrc acted illegally? >> no. >> you have a concern that chairman jaczko controls and restricts the information to his fellow commissioners. some of this appears to be due to a change in management style. he has taken a more hands-on

role with the budget process. your report describes his duty as providing direction and the east division formulates a budget document and submits it to the chairman and the chairman sees the budget that's his responsibility and says he is entitled to develop a budget has he sees fit. although some staff may not like this approach, doesn't mean it was illegal? >> it is not illegal. it is the prerogative of the chairman, the direction of the budget. this chairman has elected to have the budget filtered through him and his office. he disseminates a back to the chairman. >> jaczko made the decision there should be a shutdown of yucca mountain. he did not think that the nrc would going to have enough funds to pursue the matter.

wasn't that decision vindicated by the continuing resolution passed by the house and the senate and signed by president were $10 billion was provided to close out yucca mountain? >> a decrease in the budget for the program was one of the contributing factors to move toward closing. there was a zero budget for high-level waste. >> others might not have agreed, but he made that decision. it looks like it was vindicated by the actions of congress. yes taken a more active role in the planning of the agenda. at times he is directed staff to not develop an issue paper for review by the hall commission. at other times, he is determined an issue paper is in the administrative matter, not a policy matter worthy of consideration by the commission.

the report states he wants to control the flow of policy issues to the commission to allow them to be more efficient. some disagree. they see it as a means to limit the information available to other commissioners. although some staff may not like this, does that mean it is legal? >> it is not illegal. any commissioner has an opportunity to get a majority of vote and then have them move from -- you have to have a majority agree with that. what the chairman has done is not illegal. the commission knows that if they want to move an issue from 1 per view to another per year, they have to get a majority

vote. to date, that has not been done. a communication memorandum of an issue they want to move forward. >> they could have acted to take the issue away but they did not. >> they can take any issue they get a consensus on and move it from the chairman's per view to the commissioner. >> it seems to me that his interpretation of his role differs from how other commissioners see his role and responsibility. this seems to be the root cause of the conflict. your report also announced that chairman jaczko has a bad temper and creates an "intimidating work environment." he admits to having a short fuse, especially with his fellow commissioners.

obviously he should work in his interpersonal skills at the office. but does this mean his behavior -- illegal?text >l >> no. >> i am surprised when i hear my colleagues are -- have a temper. i'm shocked when some colleagues twitter things to people. i do not have any knowledge of that. i guess members of this commission noticed his poor interpersonal skills. not admirable, is it? i guess that is rhetorical. mr. green said the report does not find the legal conduct nor does that make an assertion about whether the

administration's decision to close in yucca mountain was proper. is that an accurate statement? shittah repeated? you said you did not find illegal conduct nor does it make an assertion about whether the administration opposed the decision to close yucca mountain was proper. >> that is accurate. >> mr. green said he thought congress needed to address the issue. congress did address the issue in the continuing resolution. is that a correct statement? >> yes. >> the chair recognizes the the chairman emeritus. >> thank you. i do not know where these rumors come from that members have tempers. that must be on the minority side. we are all peace and sunshine on the majority side.

[laughter] >> i read a twister about it. -- twitter about it. >> we will investigate those rumors. i want to put into the record an article from the december 2010 periodical "waste management." it is part of the nuclear news magazine. it refers to dale kline's comments. he wrote an open letter to the commission and several journalists about this issue we are debating today. i will put the entire article in the record. part of the letter states, "

there was no intention by the commission to approve or contemplate a pre-emptive termination of the high level waste program." i would ask that this be put into the record. >> is there objection? so ordered. >> i have read the executive summary of your report and i listened as you answered some questions from chairman waxman. it is my understanding that one of your conclusions is that while chairman jaczko did not act appropriately, he did not violate any law. i have a different opinion.

i am not an inspector general. my opinion is just that. i think it is an informed opinion but i have read the statute that applies to the regulatory commission. it has languished this as the chairman -- has language that the chairman must fully inform other commissioners of all impending actions. you say that chairman jaczko misled but he certainly did not fully inform the other commissioners. how can you state, if that is a true statement, how can he not have violated federal law? >> what we were attempting to convey was the fact that, if the commissioners wanted to move this decision from budget space

to policy space, there is a mechanism by which to do that. clearly there was an attempt to do that in october shortly after the memorandum. >> how can you put the burden on a commissioner if the chairman has the information and the chairman doesn't fully inform the other commissioners? how can you put the burden of proof on an uninformed commissioner? >> there was a responsibility to ensure all the commissioners understood the purpose of the budget guidance memorandum. >> if i understand your report, he felt that responsibility. >> the commissioners that were involved in the process went to the chairman and indicated that

had they known it was going to be stopped, they would not have given approval. >> that would appear to me to prove he violated the law. i don't know how you can have it any other way. he has an obligation to fully inform the commissioners. the report indicates he did not fully inform the commissioners. had they known, there was taken action to prevent what he did. he violated the law. he did not oppose his responsibilities. that is clear common sense. my time has expired. i've a couple more things i wanted to state. before this reports about him of violating the law, did you check with legal counsel? did not. this is an internal decision.

what is your opinion as of right now, the licensing application, is it active? has it been terminated? should still be acted upon? what is the legal standing given that the construction authorization board refused to allow the department of energy to withdraw the application? >> they denied the appeal. the application is still before the commission. >> so it is active. it should be acted upon. the commission should make a decision. >> correct. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the lady from colorado for five minutes. >> thank you very much. at the beginning of your report, you provided background for the structure of the nrc and for the

authority. this is important based on the last question in. -- questioning. much of the power was evenly distributed, correct? >> under the reorganization. >> under the original structure of the commission, much of the was evenly distributed. then it was changed and it was changed because of three mile island. is that right? after three mile island, the presidential commission and an nrc commission review identified issues with that structure i described with the equal power. so they completely overhauled the commission. can you talk to me for a minute about some of the expanded duties and responsibilities of the chairmen under that

reorganization in 1980? >> under section 2, it assigns the chairman responsibility for all functions serving as the spokesman, the principal executive officer, responsible for developing policy planning and guidance. it also assigns some responsibility for the function of the commission, distribution of business and per person -- preparation. and the distribution of funds. on the -- the chairman determines the use of funds in accordance with the distribution of appropriate funds. clearly he has some unique response abilities that are different than those of other commissioners. >> see as additional. -- he has additional duties. and, to say that what may or

may not have happened in this situation is illegal, is probably inaccurate. is that correct? >> yes. >> mr. chairman, i would like to make a suggestion. we had a very informative trip last week where we looked at nuclear disposal. studies for permanent and reprocessing. i have been interested in this issue for many years, ever since i went to yucca mountain with chairman emeritus barton. respective of what you think of nuclear energy as a policy, the fact is that we have to grapple with this.

we have to grapple with it in a way that a science-based, not in a way that is based on politics. the concern i have is that in this country, much of what we have done, and you can argue who was at fault, we base our issues on how we should dispose of the current and future nuclear waste on politics and not on science where it will work. my suggestion would be, we are in a situation where we had looked at yucca mountain. they were undergoing their scientific studies. the last administration tried to expedite certification even though the studies were not over. now this administration has shut it down. we can argue back and forth whether what the chairman did was illegal or maybe just wrong

or maybe just a miscommunication. the truth is we do not have a permanent facility that is certified or under certification process. it seems that would be a very fertile area for us to look at in this committee. at some point, regardless of how we take our nuclear energy policy, we will have to grapple with this. that would be my suggestion. we can waste a lot of time arguing or we can move forward and say, what are we going to do now? i yelled back. >> i would just say that the delay of the report is a delay of science. that is part of this whole debate. the report that has been delayed. i yield five minutes to the vice chairman. >> it certainly is important to

hear scientific information. the implication is the credibility of the nrc and many issues of licensing. last week chairman jaczko says your office has exonerated him. i'm not sure your report supports that interpretation. on the matter of the continuing resolution, the report makes it clear that the senior managers and other commissioners believed it to be a policy matter. is that correct? >> yes. >> on page 22, you say the chairman told the director, " there may be commissioners to do not agree with this and will try to make it a policy issue." he say that the edo had are informed him that this was a policy matter and should have been brought before the commission. i believe the example of page 15

is that they should vote on it. he expressed concerns that the commission needed to see the memorandum. the report also detailed efforts of the chairman to deny information needed to make an informed decision and prevent other commissioners. is that correct? >> yes. >> it is a crime -- is it a crime to mislead? >> id is not a crime but is not a good way to do business. the designer ration -- exoneration was the chairman's statement. >> it is against the law to overturn statute? >> no. if congress overturned it to -- >> the chairman shall be

responsible for ensuring the people are informed. that was signed into law. is that illegal? >> it is wrong. >> is he required to keep this fellow commissioners fully informed? >> yes. >> the chairman and executive director was required to keep the commission fully informed. do you conclude from your investigation that this is currently happening? fully and currently informed? is that your conclusion? >> they are not being fully informed. the chairman has given them just enough information to proceed in

the manner he wanted to proceed. >> from what you're out said so far, that runs contrary from what the statute says. how does failure to follow obligations exonerate the chairman? my point is, given the statements made by mr. bell in reference to this statute, my question is, how this failure to follow obligations exonerate the chairman? put the microphone up close. >> the reorganization is dependent on keeping the commissioners in formed of matters within their protocol.

they did not fully understand the implication of the budget memorandum. >> the chairman responded he should avast. his intent to mislead by withholding information. to affect behavior. isn't this a violation of the statute? >> what we attempted to do was lay out what transpired during the course of these events. to leave the interpretation regarding legality to others. >> i understand. asking whether this is criminal. the question is, is it a violation of the statute? in terms of what they actually

did? >> it is opposite the intention of the statue. >> thank you. rex the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you very much. thanks for being with us today. i wanted to touch on the department of energy pose a motion to withdraw the application which was denied by the appeal board. after that, the fact that there has not been a final vote on whether not to uphold the appeal board. a chairman said, and i want to know if you can affirm this, he said that he went to chairman jaczko on september 9, october 5, october 9, october 27,

wanting to know when they were going to vote on this. did your investigation find that? >> he did talk to them. >> jaczko chairman -- chairman jaczko told him he was going to delay because he thought it would leave the appeal board in limbo. is that correct? some of the commission members felt like a 2-2 vote would uphold the appeal board decision. is that correct? >> in most instances, a 2-2 vote does a poll. -- uphold. >> what was jaczko thinking about when he said it would leave the decision in limbo? >> we could only look into the process of their votes.

we could not look at their thinking and what was behind their casting the vote. >> 82-2 vote upholds the board. some people were saying jaczko was a freight 82-2 vote with the this and confusion. in addition to that, i've just read to some of this testimony. jaczko that's chairman controls and restrictions formation available to his fellow commissioners. did get people say that? >> yes. >> they view him as a professional and manipulative. >> those are things that have been said, yes. >> they find that he suppresses papers and manipulates the agenda planning process because he wants to control the sequence

of papers to be presented to the commission. >> the chairman has indicated he is trying to prioritize those matters. >> i am not asking what he is trying to do. was this told to you? you were told that the chairman withholds information by either suppressing papers or manipulating the agenda. >> yes, we were told that. >> you were also told that the distinction between policy issues and the minister of actions is a subject of contention within the commission. >> that is correct. >> the chairman would like for it to be administrative so it is not a policy matter so he would have more control. >> that is correct. anything to stop policy. >> it's as as some people i've said he acts in an

unprofessional way, he uses intimidation in the work environment. he yells at people. his tactics have a negative impact on the camaraderie in the office. he rules by intimidation. his behavior creates an environment which is difficult for people to work with him. he even said that himself. the thing that disturbs me, here you have a chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission that has such a dramatic impact on this country that is now resulting in a legal judgments against the federal government paid for by taxpayers. the impression is we have one chairman over there who is

unprofessional, who manipulates, this has all been testified to by people you ever interviewed. would you say that the tenure of that would be a violation of the reorganization act? to provide transparency and information? would his actions be violating that act? >> i do not think it violates back. -- the act. his demeanor and personality were considered unprofessional. >> my time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. bell, you ask the chairman to response to your office on what, if any, action he intends

to take a response to your investigation. to your knowledge, does the press release last week by chairman jaczko that he was inaugurated, represent the views of the commission? >> that is his press release. >> do you consider the release an adequate response? >> that is not a response to me at all. that is when he issued publicly. we have not had any correspondence yet. >> >> what do you intend to do if the chairman fails to respond formally to your report? >> i mean, the report stands on its own, and it -- the report

will stay open until we get some response. if we don't get a response, then the actual report itself will be closed. until we get some notice from the chairman, it will be an open report. >> all right. regarding the issuance of the c.r. guidance, the executive director for operations on page 15 said, quote, expressed his concerns to the chairman that the commission needed to see the memorandum, and the chairman told him the memorandum would not be issued until the other commissioners were onboard with the memorandum language, end quote. the e.d.o. went on to testify that, quote, the chairman told him that all four commissioners were in agreement with the language, end quote. is that correct? >> that's what we were told, yes.

>> now, you conclude the chairman selectively misled three commissioners and to one commissioner, he rerevealed nothing at all about the c.r. guidance to close out the yucca review, correct? >> that's correct. someone's testimony appears to be false, either the e.d.o. is misstating he received this assurance from the chairman, or the chairman did not tell the truth to the e.d.o. about having the agreement of the other commissioners. how do you recollect ok sile this testimony. >> the chairman did not recall when asked if he had communicated to the e.d.o. and exactly what he had communicated in terms of giving him the green light to issue the c.r. memorandum. however, the e.d.o., as you've indicated, does say or did tell us the chairman told him the memorandum could be issued, all

were onboard, he had spoken to all the commissioners. and therefore, based on that, he signed the c.r. memorandum. >> well, i think the question raised by this report here is that somebody is not telling the truth in this process. your report lays out what people say, but you do not connect the dots. what are the next steps? >> we cannot say the chairman lied to us. he said he did not recall telling the -- what he told the e.d.o., quite frankly. that's in our report. there is a conflict and sometimes you can't resolve that conflict. >> is this investigation continuing? are there other facts and issues that you believe warrant investigation? >> at this juncture, this still is an open investigation. if something were to be presented to us that they says tated us looking at a

particular issue related to the allegations themselves, then clearly we would take it under that context to assess. but as has been said, occasionally in a investigation with you're cognizant of, you can't always reconcile the testimonies between people. there was no anecdotal, documentary evidence to line up what the chairman recalls or did not recall in relationship to the e.d. orment's testimony it was in fact told to him. so that just was a point we could not resolve regarding that communication. >> it appears chairman yasco has let politics trump science here. he's man up plated the process and misled some of the fellow commissioners about the consequences of the actions that were taken and i think the credibility of the n.r.c. has been damaged, its reputation has been damaged and there's some real serious questions about the agency's independence and scientific integrity, and i thank you for your testimony.

>> the gentleman's time is required. the chair recognizes mr. bass. >> i want to follow up very quickly on a line of questioning mr. pitts brought up at the beginning of his time. it's my understanding the chairman of the infirm r.c. sent out a press release exonerating himself. is that the only response he's required to make to your report? >> the press release is not a response to my report. his response to my report has to be directed to me. >> he hasn't done that? >> he hasn't done that. >> he has no obligation to either, right? >> well, no, give me an opportunity to respond, normally give 120 days. >> if nothing happens in 120 days, it's the end as far as you're concerned? >> it's the end of what we looked at. >> all right. fair enough. i have a couple questions regarding control of commission information. mr. bell, is it your experience under former chairman staff

could bring policy measures to the full commission? >> under the previous chairman? >> yeah. your experience, under previous chair men it was the standard staff could bring policymakers directly to the full commission. i don't know firsthand but it's never come to us in a manner that was disputed like this. >> fair enough. yet in your report under chairman jasco, the staff was not able to bring policy matters directly to commission, could they. >> could i help clarify that to some degree? the staff has periodic meetings. and during the course of those meetings, a variety of issues surface which is coming from the staff in and of itself. it's just that the manner by which the current chairman handles the agenda, if you would, is whether there has been disconnects with the previous chairman in the

commission itself. >> do you think it's fair to say that the staff were constrained from communicating policy matters to the full condition or matters the chairman may have had a disagreement with staff. >> i think that as mr. mcmillan indicated, the staff does communicate with each of the commissioners. they generally know what the staff may be working on. >> what becomes more difficult is when the staff is looking for guidance and wants to, for example, get a paper up to the commissioners, that that process has to go through the e.d.o. who in turn has to go through the chairman and it's at that point, even though the commissioners know, they may not know always real time items are coming up and how they're prioritized.

>> you think the staff was constrained from communicating policy matters to commissioners at any time. >> i'd say yes. >> fair enough. according to your report, page 29, the executive officer of corporations e.d.o., said he didn't want differences between his budget and the staff's proposal and saw it as his budget. he also wanted to change or review in the staff's response to the commissioner's questions. do you believe ruin laterally editing is an appropriate way to manage information sharing? >> again, this chairman operated differently than previous chair men, and previous chairmen, it was an open and collaborative discussion of the budget. this chairman has sought to take the budget as his responsibility and has taken full responsibility for it.

i mean, if commissioned officers seek any information from any office, then all this information has to be filtered back through the chairman. for a response. >> it's your opinion unilaterally editing staff information supplied to the commission is an opponent -- appropriate way, then, to to manage agency information? >> no. >> your report on page 37 the chairman's budget estimate was submitted to the commission without fundamental supporting documents presented by the staff, is that correct? >> correct. but i think that has subsequently, through the general counsel, has advised the chairman's office that he submits budget information to any of the offices, it has to be supporting documentation to support the budget, or the appearance here is everything is coming from the chairman itself.

i think the chairman has recognized that in the future, any budget items that go forward has to have some supportive documentation from the office that provided the budget information. >> mr. chairman, i'm out of time. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thanks very much for being here today. i tell you, sitting through these hearings, i've come to the conclusion if i was teaching federal administrative law in law school i'd have the perfect case study to do. and also having been a county commissioner in the state of ohio where we had rules and regulations we had to follow, this is amazing. i know chairman barton expressed that in the last hearing and i'm just astounded by what i'm rathering today. also when i read the reports, i make lots of tabs and everything else. but if i could, the question,

you know, you said it's the prerogative of the chair who gets the information. but first of all, doesn't this board sit as a quasijudicial board, mr. bell? would it sit as a quasijudicial board? >> was "-- a quasijudicial board? >> has to have all the information come before the board? >> i think the commission as a whole has to make a decision. >> but the board makes a decision but it's quasijudicial that's doing this? >> yes, i would agree with that. >> would you say the commission needs to make timely actions on their actions before they have something come before it. because if you don't, justice delayed is a justice denied.

would that be a fair statement? >> you would think after a certain time frame after anything has happened you would have motions going forward to end whatever it is you're in the process of doing. >> also following along, when the commissioner's internal figures say commissioners should vote for 10 office days. isn't holding that for that amount of time unfair in that situation? >> it seems unfair but there's no -- i mean, the voting process is very laxed. it's not enforced to where it should be. >> i did find your report very interesting because on page 36 when you're talking about the chairman told the o.i.g. he did not see the he email from his staff not requesting an extension to vote. and then he said that the

commission does not always act in accordance with procedures, for example, the procedures say the commission votes on matters within 10 days. but then he goes on, he said that the commission providers are a guideline and not absolutely rules which takes us back to what was said earlier, going back to the reorganization plan in section 1, section 2, it really lays out with the commission is supposed to be doing. did the commission act the way it should be acting under its rules and regulations. >> no. >> ok. going on. on page 29, again, this report is fascinating. page 29, in talking -- when you were interviewing commissioner osendorf. he says the general council, the attorney, told the commissioner it was his

experience that there were certain issues the chairman does not want to hear from him on. he goes on to say the conversation left him with an impression there probably was not an open trirmente to provide unfiltered advice to the chairman without fear of retribution. is this the way we have due process carried out in our administrative boards or commissions here? going back to the whole idea of due process and getting something done" did that occur under the policy of the commission. >> that's what we were told. this is what commissioner osendorf said, the general council told him. >> and again, in your opening statement, again, intriguing. page 7 again in your first full

paragraph, when you said in the second line, o.i.g. found the chairman had authority to direct staff to follow the f.y. 2001 budget gun and was not forthcoming to stop work on the s.e.r. to close out the activity. again, is that proper procedure under the law, under what they have as the rules and regulations at the n.r.c.? >> no. >> just real briefly, when you're saying not forthcoming and i heard the term by one of my fellow colleagues talking about being misled. are we talking about a word it should be -- is it a lie to mislead, is it a lie to not be forthcoming. or are we just talking about what some people like to talk about back home, that they call it a lie back home but today we're talking about a white lie? >> that's a characterization with a white lie or an outright

-- it was clear the commissioners that spoke with the agents conveyed the fact they did not have all the information to believe that s.e.r. was going to be stopped as a part of that budget guidance memorandum. that's factually what we were told by each of the commissioners we interviewed. now, the characterization to his intentions behind it, the regular shots about it, we didn't get into that quite frankly with regard to what we were trying to do, was line up, what occurred when and how did the document get out without their concurrence. that's what they told us. they had no knowledge the k. r s.c.r. would be stopped. >> my time has expired. i yield back. >> the chair will ask unanimous consent mr. markey be recognized for five minutes. without objection. so ordered. >> thank you very much. i find it highly ironic we're having a hearing to express the

majority's apparent surprise that matters related to yucca mountain are sometimes political. this issue has been nothing but political fromed beginning. the department of energy was to select two scientifically sites, one east of the mississippi river and one west of the mississippi river. but the speaker of the house then said he didn't want it in texas. that was one of the sites. the second site was in washington state. the majority leader said, i don't want it in washington state. it was out. the third side was in indiana. they said no. the fourth sight was in north carolina. the commissioner said they didn't want it in north carolina. mississippi itself was a potential site but they will a powerful delegation at that time and said they don't want it in mississippi.

and john sununu, as the governor of new hampshire o on behalf of george bush said we didn't want it in the granite formations. so the nuclear -- so it all happened on a political basis. i was here. you make a political decision you'll end up with big scientific problems at the end of the day. so congress actually -- this committee barred the department of energy from looking at any other site other than yucca mountain. we use political science, not real science to hand that nuclear queen of spades to nevada. that's the legacy this committee left. the problem is that yucca mountain has two fault lines running through it and is in an active earthquake zone. there have been more than 600 earthquakes within 50 miles of

the site within the past 12 years. we jaw just how earthquakes can impact spent nuclear fuel in japan just a few months ago. moreover, in 1997, scientists found that plutonium from nuclear weapons tests that had been conducted just a few decades earlier had migrated a mile through water in the rock near yucca mountain which contradicted earlier assertions that the repository site was geologically isolated from the water table. so basically what we had was congress writing a law that yucca mountain was a nuchal came trez from -- nuclear alcatraz but scientists said it was more like a nuclear sieve. we heard that from the national academy of sciences in 1986 and heard it from them here but

this committee and others ignored that warning. the obama administration that moving record with yucca muenten -- mountain and was not the appropriate political direction to take. but congress decided to slash funding for the project. the chairman greg yasgow did whatever office would do when a building plan a canceled, he topped spending money, processing the permit. though members of this community accused him of doing something legal. but the general council found it was bell and entirely within his authority to do so. mr. bell, you said earlier that chairman's press release on your report was his alone and you had no input. but isn't it true that you and your deputy saw the statement before it went out.

upon chairman yasgow and you told the chairman's chief of staff you had no objections, is that true? >> no, that's not true. i read the statement but said that was his statement. we made no chances to the statement. i just saw the statement because he said he was going to put it out. >> did you say you had objection >> i did not impose to him. >> ok. great. so in finding number one, you said two the commissioners didn't understand that when the chairman told them that he would be using the appropriations process to proceed with closer of the yucca mountain program, this meant the documents necessary for the yucca mountain license would cease being prepared. on page 23, your report notes when chairman q -- chairman yasgow suspected one of the commissioners didn't understand the discussion they had he

directed a staff to follow up with the commissioner to be clear. do you believe the chairman was responsible for a failure by other criminals -- for a failure by others that it would begin adjudicated abilities when the application was withdrawn even after he tried to explain it to him? >> clearly he said the chairman was responsible. >> is it his fault they didn't understand it? >> he had a responsibility to ensure that they understood the context of the four squares of that piece of paper. and if they're saying -- and what they related to us during the interviews was they never came to understand that the s.e.r. -- and i think sometimes the differences -- >> i have a hard time when two commissioners on the nuclear regulatory commission can't understand something this simple when they have to understand the most complex nature of nuclear material.

so to say that they didn't understand something so fundamental as to the way in which the regulatory process works, in my opinion, they did not do their job. they did not -- they had a responsibility after they were told that was the route the -- >> out of time. i thank the gentleman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, for five minutes. >> when the staff reported in march of 2010 to the commission about their plans for completing the yucca safety evaluations in tight budget constraints, their plans were to complete volume one and volume three of the s.e.r. not later than i believe august and november of 2010 respectively, is that correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> now, according to your report, the e.d.o. and technical staff believed even if d.o.e. were to withdraw the application it would benefit the country to have completed the technical review, is that

correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> the most critical portion of the technical review, the s.e.r. volume three was almost complete and on track to be committeed -- completed well before, correct? >> yes. >> the completion the end of august is consistent with a not later than november schedule reported to the commission in march, isn't it? >> just on that last question in regards to completion, that was not a necessary concurrence and approval. while it might very well have been completed by the staff to be forwarded up, it still had to go through a concurance project including e.c.g. >> thank you p. when the chairman learned the report could be ready in august before the fiscal year, is it true he inserted himself into the process in june and directed staff to slow down? >> he directed the staff to maintain the current published schedule with regard to the

release of the various products. >> did he not in fact -- did you have an addition to that? >> i would just note the august time frame was for volume one, it was not for volume three. volume three was anticipated in november. however, the majority of the work had been done and they believed they could get both volumes ahead of schedule. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> which is amazing a government agency would be good enough to move quickly instead of being way behind so in that aspect i would applaud the n.r.c. for being prompt. >> i'll go back and ask this, in fact, though, the chairman did direct staff to issue the s.e.r. volume 3 not earlier than november, isn't that correct? >> his june 11 memorandum speaks to not issuing volume 1

prior to schedule. it does also speak about other volumes but only volume 1 is specifically identified as not being released prior to august. >> ok. but prior to november was volume three. >> volume three was due in november, correct. >> now, was the impact of his actions in the s.e.r., volume 3, would not be completed by what date, you say october 1? >> november. november. >> ok. as your report on page 27, when senior staff discussed the chairman's action to slow the compleeks of the s.e.r., they indicated it would be contrary to the agency's value of openness and transparency to slow down that work, is that correct? >> our report reflects one manager told us that, correct. >> at least one commissioner also warned the chairman it was not a good idea to slow the process, is that correct. >> yes, one commissioner agreed

it shouldn't be slowed. >> did the chairman listen to the senior staff and other commissioners and allow the staff review to continue with the same pace the staff themselves had set. >> no. the staff also informed the commission in march 30, 2010 it planned to work on any remaining s.e.r. volumes until f.y. 2010 funds were exhausted, is that correct? >> correct. yes. >> were those funds exhausted by november of 2010? >> no, they were not. by the end of the fiscal year 2010 there was approximate $7 million remaining. >> ok. and in fact, according to your report, the n.r.c. staff, including the e.d.o. assumed as late as mid nept the c.r. guidance would continue the licensing review with those available funds as you said. so the draft c.e.o. them as of

mid september bear it out. despite the chairman's instructions to slow down, staff plans to continue work using those f.y.i. 2010 funds. but the chairman changed that, that's where we are, right? >> the senior staff always anticipated they would be able to complete certain volumes and they were relying on f.y. 2010 funds to do that. >> this was the chairman's policy, to slow walk these critical reports to october, early november, and use his budget authority to ensure the staff findings would not be made public, is that correct? >> i think the report is reflective of the fact once it got into budget space you'd have to use another mechanism to change the course and since you did have the budget guidance memorandum everyone was complying with, it would have taken a calm at that juncture to move it over. >> my time is almost up. let me ask this question, did your investigation examine

whether the chairman's actions were directed by or coordinated with the white house or senator harry reid? >> we have had no indications or interferences by anyone that came to us and assured us or stated to us that occurred. >> my question was did you examine that possibility. did you look into that? >> it was nothing that would lead us for that from the information the interviews we conducted. it didn't state that and didn't probe further. we stayed within the allegation that was proper to us and no one said there was any interference by the white house at all. >> but did you ask? >> i want to get back with you on that one particular point just to ensure in our notes but i want to assure you that never came up. >> my question is, did you ask if there was any communications along the lines of what i just inquired? >> i have to get with you with regard to that specific question. >> thank you. with that i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes

jafment -- the gentleman from louisiana. >> thank you. i appreciate mr. markey's efforts to defend his former employee, but he alleged that maybe those other commissioners were derelict in their responsibility of learning as much as they could learn. did you find any evidence of dereliction of duty and learning other issues by the other commissioners? >> no. again, i think it was clear when the commissioners were interviewed by our office, they were very concerned by the fact that they felt they did not have all the information. >> ok. now earlier, i think you, mr. bell, mentioned that the senior staff felt constrained in conveying information to the other commissioners. but just to be clear, would they have been constrained without instructions from the chairman as to what to communicate? would they on their own say we

shall be constrained because of whatever, or would they know it would have been a directive from their chairman to not communicate certain issues? >> what i think was pretty common knowledge that any communications that went back to the chairman had to go through the chairman's office. >> so the constraint would have come from the chairman? >> it was just the way this chairman has elected to do business. if it's not a policy issue, and his office control, whatever it was, whatever request the commissioners made, whether it be the budget or otherwise, before the commissioners got an answer it had to be vetted through the chairman's office.

. .

>> the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. today, we take another step in understanding the management breakdown. i welcome our witness and i thank him for his professionalism. he started this review last october at the request of chairmen often. his work is thorough and timely. having read the entire report, i'm struck by three problems.

first, the inefficiency. this is unbelievable that one week after the new policy act says that the nrc must either approve or deny the license application or formally notify congress as to why it needs more time, the commission cannot even reach the question of whether the application is even alive. one year ago, the atomic safety and licensing board ruled that the department of energy has no authorityo withdraw the application and must continue to review it. less than two months later, the question was put to a vote of the full commission. on august 10th, one commissioner abstained. on august 25th and 26, the commissioners voted. then, the chairmenetracted his vote. then, another commissioner

voted. somehow, 10 months after all of that, the voting is still not over. you don'teed internal commission to -- procedures to see that this is horribly inefficient. we he no one to blame except chairman. there are interl commissioner proceedings. commissioners are to vote within 10 business days once a quorum has voted come up mission to vote late might be that -- granted by a majority of the commissioners. a delay might only be given by a majority of the commissioners. none of that has been followed. its the chairmen's duty to make sure it is followed. parties to the action rely on the commission to follow their own rules and keep the trains running on time for the chairmen past neglect of duty is shocking as it denies to the partisan interest a full timely

determination. if it becomes clear that the promise are worse than just in efficiency and worst the neglect of duty. there is outright malfeasance. the report is replete with instances of the chairmen deliberately misleading both his fellow commissioners and senior staff. he knowingly withheld crucial information from his fellow commissioners even though the federal statute requires that all commissioners have a front information. -- have access to all information. in some cases, the commissioner manipulated the situation. when confronted by one commissioner about this, the chairman merely insulted his colleague by sarcastically recording, you should have asked. i hope all members study the report carefully and take time

to seek any clarification. the situation warrants our attention and best judgment. >> thank you for addressing this issue. there has been a lot of discussion by the administration not to proceed with yet the mountain. this produced 806 kilowatt hours making this the biggest producer of nuclear power in the world. now, $25 billion ler, we're closing our only long-term solution for nuclear waste. the president has said he supports investment in

alternative forms of energy. the secretary has testified that we would be unable to meet the president's goals if we cannot continue to invest in nuclear- powered. as we look forward and focus on investing more, we still have radioactive waste. today, will be inspecting the report to terminate the review object mountain. many allegations have been made on the legality of the decision to terminate the review. this evaluated two allegations, one was that the chairmen and properly closed at the review of the application while the government still operating under continuing resolution. then, the chair is preventing the commission from ruling on the licensing board decision to de d d zero e motion to deny

the application. the inspector john report found that the chairman had not been forthcoming. -- inspector general report found that the chairman was not forthcoming. the rept does not review whether or not the actual decision to close yucca was appropriate. there is some internal issues that should be evaluated and addressed. it is frustrated -- frustrating that our country is the largest emitter of nuclear waste in the world and this is eclipsed by those that don't have as much nuclear power as we do. this is frustrating after all of these years. i would like to thank mr. belfort appearing before the committee. i yield back my time. >> the chairman recognizes that the chairman of the full committee. >> thank you, . chairman.

this is essential to energy security as well as national security and that should not be treated as a partisan issue. there are concerns about the apparent breakdown in the operations, a departure for non- partisan tradition and billions of dollars invested. if justice delayed is justice denied and has been a year since states and other parties went to court seeking a ruling on the licensing application. the atomic safety and licensing board ruled that the nrc must consider andote on the application. the commission is not >> it appears that a he devised a complex calculated strategy to kill the license application without consideration by the

commission. consumers have been paying into the fund since 1983 with the promise of something in return. a permanent place to send the spent fuel away from the reactor. when the application was filed three years ago, it grew more common. the nrc would grant the license or explain to congress why they needed more time. instead they will not give a straight answer about whether the application is still alive. it is not just nuclear power consumers who are cheated. it is taxpayers'. nevada pays because the doe is late. the taxpayers on the hook for an additional $15 billion on top of the nearly $15 billion already spent. that is a liability. if not, it rises by another half billion dollars every year.

the circumstances surrounding this rush to pull the plug on yucca mountain are as alarming as they are disappointing. we have a administration that wants to raise the effect launched by reagan casting aside three decades of scientic research. they want to start from scratch the matter what the cost. despite this moment of dysfunction, the nrc's intrinsic body lies in the dedication and expertise of its professional staff including our witnesses today. we will do what we can to rescue the agency from the ditch some have driven it into. we will get the nrc to focus once again on a statutory mission to serve all the people instd of the political patrons. i yield to mr. whitfield.

>> in january 2009, president obama made the statement. transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstone of this presidency. yet when you read the inspector general's report, you see words like "misleading "false statements." that is not the type of transparency that we need in america today. i would like to reiterate what the chairman has said. this is more than just about the chairman. this is about the american people and the american taxpayer who have spent over $10 billion preparing their come mountain who have now been sued by utilities an additional $15 billion. that is increasing every year because the government cannot

meet its obligations because of one person at the nrc whose personal objective is to close this project at yucca mountain. i think it is an abuse of his authority. i look forward to the testimonies today. >> chair recognizes the chairman emeritus for five minutes. >> thank you. this is the third hearing this subcommittee has held on the closure of the yucca mountain waste repository. today will hear from the nuclear regulatory commission inspector general who has issued a report on allegations of the nrc chairman relating to the closure. the primary finding of the report was that the chairman's ambitions have been a stat --

consistent with law and his authorities as chairman. this finding is different om what the chairman has been saying for months in the press and in this hearing. he has repeatedly stated that the chairman has been acti illegally. this is the problem with pre- judging the outcome of an investigational before it has started. despite the rhetoric, today we will not be presented with evidence of lawbreaking. instead we will hear about internal procedures. we will examine the consultation requirements and functions of the nrc curses the functions of the other commissioners. some commissioners felt misled by the chairman. they did not like his style. they expressed concern about the unilateral action these are

legitimate issues to examine. we should be exercising our oversight to ensure that it operates as smoothly and fairly as possible. the chairman of the commission has an obligation to conduct proceedings fairly and impartially. chairman shimkus' concern that the chairman jaczko held information is legitimate and one we should examine today. ironically, we should look at how this committee has operated. over our objections, the staff of the subcommittee -- the chairman says that the report " reveals a calculating chairman

who has abused his authority and withheld information from fellow commissioners." that is how some of us fill when we are being treated in this investigation by denying us access to interviews. let's make sure that our committee operates as a model to not criticizing as we hope they would. i look forward to hearing from you today. i sport a thorough investigation into the yucca mountain and the actions of the nrc. any such investigation should be fair and nonpartisan. i would hope our committee would meet this standard. >> the chair now calls for the witness. he is accompanied by joseph

macmillan, assistant inspector general at the nrc. and the senior level assistant for investigative operations in the office of inspector general. the testimony you're about to give is subject to title 18 section 1001 of the united states code. when holding an investigative hearing, this committee has the practice of taking testimony under th. the have any objection to testifying under oath? both shake their head no. under the rules of the house and the committee, you are entitled to be advised by counsel. tus desire to be advised? all shake their head, no. if you would please rise and raise your right hand. i will swear you win.

-- in. do you swear the testimony about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you very much. you may give your 5 and the summary of your written statement. welcome. >> good morning. mr. chairman, it is my pleasure to appear before you today. senior level assistant for investigative operations. by insuring integrity, efficiency, accountability in our programs. we carry out this mission by conducting and supervising an

investigation related to the programs and operations of the nrc. my operating budget is $10 billion. with 58 full-time employees. lastly, my office issued a report on the dangers that the nrc chairman improperly closed out the department of energy's operation -- application while we were working on -- and was preventing the commission from concluding its ruling to deny its motion to withdraw the license application from nrc. we also looked into concerns raised about the management style and with his prevention of making other commissioners of

killing their responsibilities. the nuclear waste policy act of 1982 named yucca mountain as a single candidate for a waste repository. they would consider application for a repository within three years of the application. nrc accepted this application in september 2008 and planned to issue a a safety evaluation report containing its findings. in february 2010, the energy secretary said the administration would suspend licensing for the repository because it was not a workable option. in march 2010, we submitted a moon to withdraw the license application which was denied. the commission chose to review the decision ended august 2010

began consideration of this matter. on september 30, they decided to spend money at 2010 levels to continue 2010 projects and activities. on october 4, 2010, senior officials issued a memorandum to suspend activities on the licensing. document -- that document, soon after they were direed to stop working and proceed to closing the program. the staff was directed to follow budget guides about how -- based on the chairman's office. the chairman used a memorandum

to close up the license application although the budget had not been passed. the decision was quoted by the chairman council within the authority on the reorganization plan of 1980. the administration opposed the decision to determine the -- stop the project. we also found that wily chairman had the authority to direct staff to follow the budget guides, he was not forthcoming with the intention to stop work as part of implementing close down activities. [unintelligible] a majority agree with the outcome of the memorandum which

was directed to stop work. they did not think the conditions to proceed had been met. on october 6, two commissioners elected not to vote on the matter. they could not move the matter to policy space within the commission's per view. oig found it difficult to fulfil its obligation to review the a come out and license application -- yucca mountain license application. the decrease in the preparations for the high-level waste program. oig found its voting procedures are not consistently enforced.

they do not provide details on the process between completion of a vote and an affirmation vote. the lack of enforcement and specificity coupled with the decision not to move to affirmation into law commissioners agree, allows matters to sit in abeyance. oig found that thenformation provided to others on his interpretation of staff to the authority -- because he controls the information available, they are uncertain as to whether they are adequately informed. ultimately, any issue they perceived as a policy matter before the commission and give the majority commissioners.

we would be pleased now to answer questions. >> thank you very much. recognize -- i ask consent that the contents of the document be introduced into the rerd. without objection, the document will be eered into the record with any reactions as staff determines are appropriate. i now recognize myself for the first five minutes. mr. bell, thank you. how many interviews did you conduct for this investigation? >> 39 total, sir. >> they were transcribe interviews under oath. >> the majority were. what are to were not transcribed. all under oath. >> did you review documents as well? >> yes, we did. >> your report is based on

documented evidence in sworn testimony both in the narrative and in the findings. >> correct. >> this evaluation was conducted independently without any direction or intference from outside of the office of inspecr general. >> that is correct. >> you investigated the decision to close down the safety evaluation of the yucca license last october. you determined that the senior staff expressed concern that the whole commissi needed to be on board with guidance. and the chairman told senior staff he would inform the commission and later said the commissioners were in agreement with the direction. is that the case? >> yes. >> the chairman did not and sure they understood the implication of this guidance.

>> the inference that the chairman had told the commission was that before he issued any memorandum, that the commissioners would be informed. this would be done with himself having a conversation or the chief of staff talking to the commission offices that he and not spoken with personally. >> on your report, chairman jaczko did not insure that each understood the implication of the guidance. according to your investigation, he was not forthcoming with the commissioners. he did not even talk to one of them. did not explicitly explain his plans to direct the shutdown of the yucca review.

is that which you found? >> that is correct. >> is the reorganization plan of 1980 under which the nrc operates? >> yes. >> according to the requirement in this plan, the chairman, "shall be responsible for ensuring the commission is fully informed about matters within its functions." >> that is what it states. >> that is an essential responsibility for the chairman as laid out in the law. according to your investigation, the chairman strategically provided three of the four commissioners with varying amounts of information about his intention to not complete the safety evaluation report. that is what to determined.

-- you determined. it is withholding information from different commissioners consistent with "insuring that the commission is lly informed?" >> no, sir. >> it became clear that many staff including senior staff and the majority of the commissioners considered the guidance imposed by the chairman to be a policy matter. >> a policy matter, correct. >> you write to that the chairman himself "knew the commission did not support the guidance for the high-level waste program and that he wanted to be prepared for battle." even the chairman recognize this would be a policy fight. would you agree that the decision surrounding the yucca

mountain application had a profound implications? you agree? >> it is a policy matter. >> what see here was a matter of national policy which the chairman tried to mipulate into a mere administrative matter within his control. is this consistent with the obligations for how to formulate policy? >> no, sir. >> i yield five minutes to the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you had to allegations that chairman jaczko improperly closed out the nrc review of the application while the government was operating under a resolution in fiscal year 2011. and that the chair is preventing people from ruling on the licensing decision to deny the motion to withdraw.

you found that the chairman had not been forthcoming and acted within his own authority. did you evaluate whether was appropriate to close the yucca mountain generally? >> no. >> the report said it was wrong? >> no, sir. >> this is the second time i have noticed that and administration takes leave under continuing resolution. did your investigation discuss anything about the administration using liberal interpretations of the continuing resolution? >> no, sir. >>ome of my colleagues has said it decided to close up the process for some nefarious purpose. this was done at the behest of

the president for political purposes. did you find indication that the president reached out to the chairman and personally asked him to stop reviewing the yucca mountain application? >> no, sir. >> i think we need to take the allegations seriously. the report doe not find a legal conduct nor does that make assertions about whether the administration opposed the decision was proper. i think our committee needs to look at the nrc and general government. there have been me cases, like with nasa, some decisions were made based on the budget but it did not pass the house of representatives. yet they made these decisions to change programs. i think that might be the problem we have. i think whether it be another agency, they need to come back

to congress where they make these decisions, particularly after $15 billion has been put into it and aft 25 years of work. that all of the sudden we say, we're not winter except that. that is our problem. congress needs to take away that authority. >> would you yield for one second? >> i would be glad to. >> if there was a policy decision that should be made, it should be made by commissioners collectively. isn't that correct? >> it should be a commission. >> this is a commission. we should all have a say when there is a change in policy. it is our intention to report that they were made by the chairman. >> i agree. something this major, we ought to have the opportunity as elected officials to make the decision.

the appropriations for $15,000,000,000.25 years. i yelled back my time. >> the chair recognizes the full committee for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to thank you, mr. bell, for the report. president reagan signed the policy waste back to 1982. in reading the commercial nuclear waste report from this last april, i want to read to you one long paragraph. "prolonging on-site storage would add to the burden by increasing the liabilities that have barred been incurred due to on-site storage at commercial nuclear reactors. for them to open yucca as planned, it would still have taken decades to take custody of the inventory." asming the opening -- the

total liabilities for the backlog as of 2020 would be about $15.4 billion. it would increase each year thereafter. it is important to recognize these liabilities are outside of the $15 billion already spent. the estimated $41 billion still to be spent if yucca mountain were to be considered and become operational. for neay $100 billion at the end of the day. in reading the report, i want to read a couple of comments on three commissioners. the first is commissioner magwood. "he told the chairman he would not support a precipitous termination of the high level waste program.

the chairman assured him this was not the expectation. the chairman became very agitated and said he would never have taken these actions had both commissioners not agreed to support the guidance." he objected to the statement strongly. the chairmanever told him his plan had been to shut down the high-level waste program and with the publication of the scr volume. on page 18, on october 21, 2010, chairman jaczko told him at the memo would have the staff commence the license application. he told the chairman that he disagreed with his direction. the direction was wrong and he should n issue it.

as relates to the third commissioner, shimkus mr., her staff informed the chairman jaczko's office that he objected to the guidance. she stated she did not have any communication with the review regarding the matter before the budget guideline memo was issued on october 4, 2010. can one come to a different conclusion that there least three votes in opposition of where they ultimately were? it is a pretty damning report does a relates to his control of these three commissioners who they didtyhhe record, not agree. can one come to a different conclusion? >> he thought the memorandum

that was being circulated would not stop the scr from progressing. why the commission my be moving toward the closure of the program, in each of those cases, it was their oppression that it would be continued. >> was a not the fact that the staff review plan was going to be expdited? it was chairman jaczko that said the slowdown? >> there was a time frame when the sta went to the chairman and indicated a desire to advance to numbers one and three. the chairman indicated to the staff that he wanted to maintain the publish schedule that was in

the record at that time. that was their understanding. they would maintain the public schedule of timing. >> what the commissioners filled when they learn that the decision had been withheld from them? >> sting of the in the context of the report, -- staying within the context of the report, some more agitated by the fact. they did raise issues with the chairman regarding that discussions they had had. at n time did they understand that the scr would be stopped. >> your time has expired. we recognize mr. waxman. . >> over the last few months, the chairman of this subcommittee has told us that the nrc chairman acted illegally with regard to its handling of

yuccmountain. mr. bell, you have conducted a seventh month investigation. did you find that the chairman of the nrc acted illegally? >> no. >> you have a concern that chairman jaczko controls and restricts the information to his fellow commissioners. some of this appears to be due to a change inanagement style. he has taken a more hands-on role with the budget process. your report describes his duty as providing direction and the east division formulates a budget document and submits it to the chairman and the chairman sees the budget that's his responsibility and says he is entitled to develop a budget has heees fit. although some staff may not like this approach, does't mean it was illegal? >> it is not illegal.

it is the prerogative of the chairman, the direction of the budget. this chairman has elected to have the budget filtered through him and his office. he disseminates a back to the chairman. >> jaczko made the decision there should be a shutdown of yucca mountain. he did not think that the nrc would going to have enough funds to pursue the matter. wasn't that decision vindicated by the continuing resolutn passed by the house and the senate and signed by president were $10 billion was provided to close out yucca mountain? >> a decrease in the budget for the program was one of the contributing factors to move toward closing.

there was a zero budget for high-level waste. >> others might not have agreed, but he made that decision. it looks like it was vindicated by the actions of congress. yes taken a more active role in the planning of the agenda. at times he is directed staff to not develop an issue paper for review by the hall commission. at other times, he is determined an issue paper is in the administrative matter, not a policy matter worthy of consideration by the commission. the report states he wants to control the flow of policy issues to the commission to allow them to be more efficient. some disagree. they see it as a means to limit the information available to other commissioners. although some staff may not like this, does that mean it is legal? >> it is not illegal. any commissioner has an

opportunity to get a majority of vote and then have them move from -- you have to have a majority agree with that. what the chairman has done is not illegal. the commission knows that if they want to move an issue from 1 per view to another per year, they have to get a majority vote. to date, that hasot been done. a communication memorandumf an issue they want to move forward. >> they could have acted to take the issue away but they did not. >> they can take any issue they get a consensus on and move it from the chairman's per view to the commissioner. >> it seems to me that his

interpretation of his role differs from how other commissioners see his re and responsibility. this seems to be the root cause of the conflict. your report also announced that chairman jaczko has a bad temper and creates an "intimidating work environment." he admits to having a short fuse, especially with his fellow commissioners. obviously he should work in his interpersonal skills at the office. but does this mean his behavior -- illegal?text >l >> no. >> i am sprised when i hea my colleagues are -- have a temper. i'm shocked when some colleagues twitter things to

people. i do not have any knowledge of that. i guess members of this commission noticed his poor interpersonal skills. not admirable, is it? i guess that is rhetorical. mr. green said the rept does not find the legal conduct nor does that make an assertion about whether the administration's decision to close in yucca mountain was proper. is that an accurate statement? shittah repeated? you said you did not find illegal conduct nor does it make an assertion about whether the administration opposed the decision to close yucca mountain was proper. >> that is accurate. >> mr. green said he thought congress needed to address the issue. ngress did address the issue

in the continuing resolution. is that a correct statement? >> yes. >> the chair recognizes the the chairman emeritus. >> thank you. i do not know where the rumors come from that members have tempers. that must be on the minority side. we are all peace and sunshine on the majority side. [laughter] >> i read a twister about it. -- twitter about it. >> we will investigate those rumors. i want to put into the record an article from the december 2010 periodical "waste management." it is part of the nuclear news

magazine. it refers to dale kline's comments. he wrote an open letter to the commission and several journalists about this issue we are debating today. i will put the entire article in the record. part of the letter state " there was no intention by the commission to approve or contemplate a pre-emptive termination of the high level waste program." i would ask that this be put into the record. >> is there objection? so ordered. >> i have read the executive summary of your report and i

listened as you answered some questions from chairman waxman. it is my understanding that one of your conclusions is that while chairman jaczko did not act appropriately, he did not violate any law. i have a different opinion. i am not an inspector general. my opinion is just that. i think it is an informed opinion but i have read the statute that applies to the regulatory commission. it has languished this as the chairman -- has language that the chairman must fully inform other commissioners of all

impending actions. you say that chairman jaczko misled but he certainly did not fully inform the other commissioners. how can you state, if that is a true statement, how can he not have violated federal law? >> what we were attempting to convey was the fact that, if the commissioners wanted to move this decision from budget space to policy space, there is a mechanism by which to do that. clearly there was an attempt to do that in october shortly after the memorandum. >> how can you put the burden on a commissioner if the chairman has the information and the chrman doesn't fully inform the other commissioners?

how can you put the burden of proof on an uninformed commissioner? >> there was a responsibility to ensure all the commissioners understood the purpose of the budget guidance memorandum. >> if i understand your report, he felt that responsibility. >> the commissioners that were involved in the process went to the chairman and indicated that had they known it was going to be stopped, they would not have given approval. >> that would appear to me to prove he violated the law. i don't know how you can have it any other way. he has an obligation to fully inform the commissioners. the report indicates he did not fully inform the commissioners. had they known, there was taken

action to prevent what he did. he violated the law. he did not oppose his responsibilities. that is clear common sense. my time has expired. i've a couple more things i wanted to state. before this reports about him of violating the law, did you check with legal counsel? did not. this is an internal decision. what is your opinion as of right now, the licensing application, is it active? has it been terminated? should still be acted upon? what is the legal standing given that the construction authorization board refused to allow the department of energy to withdraw the application? >> they denied the appeal.

the application is still before the commission. >> so it is active. it should be acted upon. the commission should make a decision. >> correct. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the lady from colorado for five minutes. >> thank y very much. at the beginning of your report, you provided background for the structure of the nrc and for the authority. this is important based on the last question in. -- questioning. much of the power was evenly distributed, correct? >> under the reorganization. >> under the original structure of the commission, much of e was evenly distributed. then it was changed and it was

changed because of three mile island. is that right? after three mile island, the presidential commission and an nrc commission review identified issu with that structure i described with the equal power. so they completely overhauled the commission. can you talk to me for a minute about some of the expanded duties and responsibilities of the chairmen under that reorganization in 1980? >> under section 2, it assigns the chairman responsibility for all functions serving as the spokesman, the principal executive officer, responsible for developing policy planning and guidance. it also assigns some responsibility for the function of the commission, distribution of business and per person --

preparation. and the distribution of funds. on the -- the chairman determines the use of funds in accordance with the distribution of appropriate funds. clearly he has some unique response abilities that are different than those of other commissioners. >> see as additional. -- he has aitional duties. and, to say that what may or may not have happened in this situation is illegal, is probably inaccurate. is that correct? >> yes. >> mr. chairman, iould like to make a suggestion. we had a very informative trip

last week where we looked at nuclear disposal. studies for permanent and reprocessing. i have been interested in this issue for many years, ever since i went toucca mountain with chairman emeritus barton. their respective of what you think of nuclear energy as a policy, the fact is that we have to grapple with this. we have to grapple with it in a way that a science-based, not in a way that is based on politics. the concern i have is that in this country, much of what we have done, and you can argueho was at fault, we base our issues on how we should dispose of the current and future nuclear waste on politics and not on science where it will work.

my suggestion would be, we are in a situation where we had looked at yucca mountain. they were undergoing their scientific studies. the last administration tried to expedite certification even though t studies were t over. now this administration has shut it down. we can argue back and forth whether wt the chairman did was illegal or maybe just wrong or maybe just a miscommunication. the truth is we do not have a permanent facility that is certified or under certification process. it seems that would be a very fertile area for us to look a in this committee. at some point, regardless of how we take our nuclear energy policy, we will have to grapple with this. that would be my suggestion. we can waste a lot of time arguing or we can move forward

and say, what are we going to do now? i yelled back. >> i would just say that the delay of the report is a delay of science. that is part of this whole debate. the report that has been delayed. i yield five minutes to the vice chairman. >> it certainly is important to hear scientific information. the implication is the credibility of the nrc and many issues of licensing. last week chairman jaczko says your office has exonerated him. i'm not sure your report supports that interpretation. on the matter of the continuing resolution, the report makes it clear that the senior managers and other commissioners believed

it to ba policy matter. is that correct? >> yes. >> on page 22, you say the chairman told the director, " there may be commissioners to do not agree with this and will try to make it a policy issue." he say that the edo had are informed him that this was a policy matter and should have been brought before the commission. i believe the example of page 15 is that they should vote on it. he expressed concerns that the commission needed to see the memorandum. the report als detailed efforts of the chairman to deny information needed to make an informed decision and prevent other commissioners. is that correct? >> yes. >> it is a crime -- is it a crime to mislead? >> id is not a crime but is not

a good way to do business. the designer ration -- exoneration w the chairman's statement. >> it is against the law to overturn statute? >> no. if congress overturned it to -- >> the chairman shall be responsible for ensuring the people are informed. that was signed into law. is that illegal? >> it is wrong. >> is he required to keep this fellow commissioners fully informed? >> yes. >> the chairman and exetive

director was required to keep the commission fully informed. do you conclude from your investigation that this is currently happening? fully and currently informed? is that your conclusion? >> they are not being ful informed. the chairman has given them just enough informaon to proceed in the manner he wanted to proceed. >> from what you're out said so far, that runs contrary from what the statute says. how does failure to follow obligations exonerate the chairman? my point is, given the

statements made by mr. bell in reference to this statute, my question is, how this failure to follow obligations exonerate the chairman? put the microphone up close. >> the reorganization is dependent on keeping the commissioners in formed of matters within their protocol. they did not fully understand the implication of the budget memorandum. >> t chairman responded he should avast. his intent to mislead by withholding information. to affect behavior. isn't this a violation of the

statute? >> what we attempted to do was lay out what transpired during the course of these events. leave the interpretation regarding legality to others. >> i understand. asking whether this is criminal. the question is, is it a violation of the statute? in terms of what they actually did? >> it is opposite the intention of the statue. >> thank you. rex the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you very much. thanks for being with us today. i wanted to touch on the department of energy pose a motion to withdraw the application which was denied by the appeal board. after that, the fact that there

has not been a final vote on whether not to uphold the appeal board. a chairman said, and i want to know if you can affirm this, he said that he went to chairman jaczko on september 9, october 5, october 9, october 27, wanting to know when they were going to vote on this. did your investigation find that? >> he did talk to them. >> jaczko chairman -- chairman jaczko td him he was going to delay because he thought it would leave the appeaboard in limbo. is that correct? some of the commission members felt like a 2-2 vote would

uphold the appeal board decision. is that correct? >> in most instances, a 2-2 vote does a poll. -- uphold. >> what was jaczko thinking about when he said it would leave the decision in limbo? >> we could only look into the process of their votes. we could not look at their thinking and what was behind their casting the vote. >> 82-2 vote upholds the board. some people were saying jaczko was a freight 82-2 vote with the this and confusion. in addition to that, i've just read to some of this testimony. jaczko that's chairman

controls and restrictions formation available to his fellow commissioners. d get people s that? >> yes. >> they view him as a professional and manipulative. >> those are things that have en said, yes. >> they find that he suppresses papers and manipulates the agenda planning process because he wants to control the sequence of papers to be presented to the commsion. >> the chairman has indicated he is trying to prioritize those matters. >> i am not asking what he is trying to do. was this told to you? you were told thathe chairman withholds information by either suppressing papers or manipulating the agenda. >> yes, we were told that. >> you were also told that the

distinction between policy issues and the minister of actions is a subject of contention within the commission. >> that is correct. >> the chairman would like for it to be administrative so it is not a policy matter so he would have more control. >> that is correct. anything to stop policy. >> it's as as some people i've said he acts in an unprofessional way, he uses intimidation in the work environment. he yells at people. his tactics have a negative impact on the camaraderie in the office. he rules by intimidation. his behavior creates an

environment which is difficult for people to work with him. he even said that himself. the thing that disturbs me, here you have a chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission that has such a dramatic impact on this country that is now resulting in a legal judgments against the federal government paid for by taxpayers. the impression is we have one chairman over there who is unprofessional who manipulates, this has all been testified to by people you ever interviewed. would you say that the tenure of that would be a violation of the reorganization act? to provide transparency and information? would his actions be violating that act?

>> i do not think it violates back. -- the act. his demeanor and personality were considered unprofeional. >> my time has eired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. bell, you ask the chairman to response to your office on what, if any, action he intends to take a response to your investigation. to your knowledge, does the press release last week by chairman jaczko that he was inaugurated, represent the views of the commission? >> that is his press release. >> do you consider the release an adequate response? >> that is not a response to me

at all. that is when he issued publicly. we have not had any correspondence yet. >> >> what do you intend to do if the chairman fails to respond formally to your report? >> i mean, the report stands on its own, and it -- the report will stay open until we get some response. if we don't get a response, then the actual report itself will be closed. until we getome notice from the chairman, it will be an open report. >> all right. regarding the issuance of the c.r. guidance, the executive director for operations on page 15 said, quote, expressed his concerns to the chairman that

the commission needed to see the memorandum, and the chairman told him the memorandum would not be issued until the other commissioners were onboard with the memorandum language, end quote. the e.d.o. went on to testify that, quote, the chairman told him that all four commissioners were in agreement with the language, end quote. is that correct? >> that's what we were told, yes. >> now, you conclude the chairman selectively misled three commissioners and to one commissioner, he rerevealed nothing at all about the c.r. guidance to close out the yucca review, correct? >> that's correct. someone's testimony appears to be false, either the e.d.o. is misstating he received this assurance from the chairman, or the chairman did not tell the

truth to the e.d.o. about having the agreement of the other commissioners. how do you recollect ok sile this testimony. >> the chairman did not recall when asked if he had communicated to the e.d.o. and exactly what he had communicated in terms of giving him the green light to issue the c.r. memorandum. however, the e.d.o., as you've indicated, does say or did tell us the chairmanold him the memorandum could be issued, all were onboard, he had spoken to all the commissioners. and therefore, based on that, he signed the c.r. memorandum. >> well, i think the question raised by this report here is that somebody is not telling the truth in this process. your repor lays out what people say, but you do not connect the dots. what are the next steps? >> we canno say the chairman

lied to us. he said he did not recall telling the -- what he told the e.d.o., quite frankly. that's in our report. there is a conflict and sometimes you can't resolve that conflict. >> is this investigation continuing? are there other facts and issues that you believe warrant investigation? >> at this juncture, this still is an open investigation. if something were t be presented to us that they says tated us looking at a particular issue reled to the allegations themselves, then clearly we would take it under that context to assess. but as has been said, occasionally in a investigation with you're cognizant of, you can't always reconcile the testimonies between people. there was no anecdotal, documentary evidence to line up what the chairman recalls or did not recall in relationship to the e.d. orment's testimony it was in fact told to him. so that just was a point we could not resolve regarding

that communication. >> it appears chairman yasco has let politics trump science here. he's man up plated the process and misled some of the fellow commissioners about the consequences of the actions that were taken and i think the credibility of the n.r.c. has been damaged, its reputation has been damaged and there's some real serious questions about the agency's independence and scientific integrity, and i thank you for your testimony. >> the gentleman's time is required. the chair recognizes mr. bass. >> i want to follow up very quickly on a line of questioning mr. pitts brought up at the beginning of his time. it's my understanding the chairman of the infirm r.c. sent out a press release exonerating himself. is that the only response he's required to make to your report? >> the press release is not a response to my report. response to my report. his response to