The following interview with Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chair Allison Macfarlane was conducted by RadWaste Monitor reporter Jeremy L. Dillon this week at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md. Macfarlane plans to leave her position on the Commission at the end of this year.
RW Monitor
12/19/2014
What would you say is your proudest moment during your time on the Commission?
Well, I guess just a couple of things. Certainly off the bat was bringing some calm, a sense of collegiality, back to the Commission, both the Commission level amongst the commissioners and then between the Commission and the staff. Also, bringing attention to the back end of the fuel cycle, and bringing attention to public engagement and focusing on that.
How can the NRC maintain that collegial nature going forward?
We should just talk to each other and share information.
Has the Commission been a little bit too politicized in recent years?
I don’t know that it itself has been politicized. In fact, sometimes I find that the political parties weigh in very little on how people vote on things. I think the outside situation is more politicized, it affects us.
In what kind of ways would you say it affects you?
Well, Capitol Hill is a lot more interested in what we do. They seem to be interested into getting into a lot of people’s business.
What is needed in a member of the NRC? Is the Commission a place for Congressional staffers, or should there be more of a technical background?
If it were me, I would make all the Commissioners academics. Well, maybe I have a little balance there, but I mean, if it were me, if I was queen, I would draw from different broad technical backgrounds, different experiences. I think it’s good to have a broad set of experiences, not a narrow set. I think the Commission itself and the staff are better served by having a broader view.
In this past year you’ve spoken up a little bit about the need for a decommissioning rulemaking. What would you suggest that look like?
Well, I think we just have to get going with it to begin with. I think it’s important to make some headway on that. We can’t continue to rule by exemption, which is what we’re doing now. There is no time as a good time to start that. It’s just one of these things that are always easy to put off because you’re not having an emergency associated with decommissioning. It’s just easy to put off, so I think we have to say we’re going to do it. It’s our responsibility, and move forward.
Would you like to see the NRC have more of a role in how these reactors choose to decommission?
I don’t know that we need more of a role in how. We may need a role in it, and that may be appropriate. I think it needs to be looked at, and I haven’t looked at any of this in detail, so I don’t have a view. I think it should be considered whether the NRC should have a role in approving formally the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report, and issues like that.
One of the things you discussed during a briefing on decommissioning the NRC had a couple of months ago was SAFESTOR. Is that something that needs to be looked at again?
I think that would bear looking at. Is 60 years reasonable still? Is that what most places are doing? I mean, do they really need that long time period? There are three options on the book, right? There is DECON, you know, move to decommissioning right away. There is SAFESTOR, so keep it for some period of time up to 60 years before decommissioning is complete. And, then there is ENTOMB. No one has ever used that. Maybe we should just take that one off the books, you know, because I don’t think anybody would allow that in terms of the public response. So I think that bears looking at.
How much should the community be involved, the local government and the states?
I think this is another area where we should look at. I don’t have a strong view because I haven’t looked into it. I don’t make decisions unless I have data on which to base them. I think this bears some thought. It appears now, and has done so since a numbers plants decommissioned in the very late ’90s or shutdown I should say, that the public and the states want to have some say in what goes on.
So given that, maybe we should sit there and think about what are appropriate roles for them, and where is the appropriate place and how to make it work well. I mean, we still need to be the regulator. We can’t allow the public to regulate, right? But, we certainly need to be responsive and make sure we get their input.
You have a history with Yucca Mountain, and your time with the Commission has seen things escalate with Yucca Mountain again. Do you think your perspective on Yucca Mountain has changed at all?
I haven’t looked at Yucca Mountain or thought about Yucca Mountain or read about Yucca Mountain for more than a decade, so…
With the process of resuming the licensing for the repository, is there anything that can be learned from that for future sites, or future interim storage sites?
No, not particularly.
Another issue you have brought up this year is the issue of transfer and storage of casks. The 72-71-72 issue. Do you see this as being something problematic in the future?
Well, actually I just heard a little bit about this this morning. I think it’s something that bears some looking at and sort of paying attention to. I don’t feel like I understand the full range of all casks out there and what they are licensed to, but for at least some of them, my understanding of the situation now is that if you load them to their highest heat capacity initially you have to wait in the order of a quarter of a century to be able to transport those casks. Now, I’m sure that none of us really think we’re going to see much going on in the next quarter of a century, but if some place develops an interim storage facility or central storage facility, then maybe that could change. So, I think it certainly bears paying attention to both from the NRC’s point of view but also from the industry.
You’ve said many times in regards to the decision for the final disposition of this waste that the NRC is only a regulator. They’re not here making the policy for the solution to that. But, is there something NRC can do in the meanwhile to help that process along either by rulemakings or just taking measures that could help in the future, either the licensing process or updating it?
We don’t have regulations for generic repositories right now. We need to work on those. I mean, those are absolutely necessary. We have regulations right now that were specifically tailored for Yucca Mountain.
Do you think it should change?
Oh, absolutely. I mean, this is totally consistent with the Blue Ribbon Commission, that’s what we said in the Blue Ribbon Commission. I think we need those kinds of generic standards.
Consent-based siting was one of the main goals that came out of the Blue Ribbon Commission, but can there ever truly be consent-based siting, in your opinion?
What do you mean by consent? Are you talking about unanimity or you’re talking about consent?They aren’t the same.
Could you explain that?
Well, unanimity is that everybody agrees. You’re not going to get that anywhere, but consent is that the majority agrees to go forward. And consent, that’s what they have in Sweden and then Finland, well, and that’s what they have in New Mexico with WIPP.
In your mind is there some way to guarantee consent for the amount of time it takes to build a repository?
It’s not guaranteed, but it’s been done and it’s being demonstrated in places in this country and outside, so I think it can be done. You have to have a place that’s willing from the beginning. Obviously, we can’t impose this on others, that’s where you meet a rather big problem.
Waste Confidence was a big measure you completed in your time on the Commission. Do you feel that it’s been put to rest now, and that the NRC can move forward in licensing?
We are moving forward in licensing. We’ve gotten some contentions about waste confidence, or the continued storage rule, so we’ll be hearing those. Those will be adjudicated.
A lot of those contentions have cited the indefinite storage part of the rule as a possible problem. I know you voted for that. That’s one of the things you voted on and you’ve mentioned.
Yeah, I have a real problem with that.
Do you foresee that stalling the rule?
I have no idea. No predictions on whether that gets in the way. It certainly gets in the way of how can the NRC help with the process of fixing the repository strategy. We can’t really. I mean, it’s not our purview to go and set this kind of policy for the country. That’s for Congress and the administration. That’s their job, but I certainly don’t want to see us giving them a way out of doing their job by saying, hey, the NRC says, you know, you can store this stuff indefinitely, no problem, which I don’t believe is factually correct.
So I think that it’s hopeful and optimistic that there will always exist some benevolent group like the NRC to make sure that regulations are followed and that this material is kept in a safe manner. But, I don’t think there are any guarantees that such a benevolent organization will exist forever. It’s a long period of time, indefinite.
What’s the one thing you regret or you wish you could change from your tenure at the Commission?
Well, that’s a good question. I don’t know. I don’t have a good answer to that. There are many things small and big and other that I wish I had gotten to this issue or that issue didn’t come up in time for me. There are a number of issues around the way we do things here at the agency, but also other issues that the agency is going to be taking up after I leave.
So you started from academia, and then went to the Commission, now back to academia. How do you think the Commission has changed your view on academia?
I certainly know a lot about regulation now, nuclear regulation. I know about the value of it, and the importance of it. That part will definitely change my thinking. I will now go and spread the gospel of the importance of an independent strong regulator.
What about some other issues like sensitive document policies? I know that’s been issue of contention especially with Congress. Has your viewpoints on public access and transparency changed at all since your time on the Commission?
I think the agency is pretty transparent and we’re trying to be really responsive to our oversight committees. We are not just Commissioners making regulations, but we’re also basically in the role of judges. And so, we’re under the same kind of legal constrains that judges are on a number of issues.
So there are certain issues that I can’t discuss with certain groups because there is a case that we’re having to adjudicate on. We’re not allowed to get extra information, and we’re not also allowed to share some of that information. Otherwise, we may compromise the case. And because we are the only people representing the American people in a number of cases, the onus is on us to make sure that we prosecute these cases very carefully and very fairly. And so that’s part of why we end up in the place that we end up in.
Any advice for the next chairman?
Have a good staff, a really strong staff. Make your decisions based on as much input as you could get. Think broadly and make your decisions data-driven. I always tried to do that. Depend on the staff, listen to them, they have a lot to add.
