greece clearly that italy for example. italy this year is going to run a primary surplus meaning that absent the interest, it is actually in surplus. hit his head in the past decade a number of years in which the primary surplus was four or 5% of gdp. what is that attributable to? basically, in the last decade or so, they have managed their deficits much better than they had historically and certainly far better than us. in the last decade, they had deficits and these aren't primary, these are actual deficits as we normally look at. they have had deficits not lower than germany over that decade, lower than france. ..

about $1 billion in money is unadjusted for. we'll have that bankruptcy investigation later. >> for the past few months on c-span we have examined the political lives of the contenders, 14 men who fight for the office of president but lost and had a lasting impact on american politics. this friday we will talk with a history professor gene baker and presidential historians -- historian richard norton smith to see what they learned friday

at 8:00 p.m. eastern. to watch additional video and review the video is a visit c-span.org / the contenders. >> the nation's top nuclear regulator has been on capitol hill this week to update congress on nuclear safety issues. the main line of questioning has been the regulatory commission chairman gregory jaczko management style. we will hear from the chairman and the nrc commissioners at this joint senate subcommittee hearing. this is three and a half hours. >> let me start off by saying happy holidays to everybody. merry christmas. happy hanukkah. whenever is your preference. we welcome you all here. >> christmas and hanukkah. >> if i had anything to say about it, absolutely. absolutely. it is the responsibility of the environment and public works committee to conduct oversight

of the nuclear regulatory commission, the nrc, and to ensure that ted nuclear industry maintains the highest level of safety for the american people. let me start, as i often do, by reading the nrc mission statement. the mission of the nrc, lessons, and regulate the nation's civilian use of byproducts and special nuclear materials in order to protect public health and safety. promote the common defense, security, and protect the environment. so today is the fifth time the members of this committee have gathered in this room to discuss napier safety following the fukushima crisis in japan in march. but each of those meetings i repeatedly asked the nrc to heed the wake-up call from fukushima and reevaluate the safety and security of nuclear plants in the united states and to implement the recommendations of

the task force as soon as possible. in fact, at our last nrc hearing on august the second, for a few made the commitment to me and to this committee that you would move forward on some or all of the near term task force recommendations within 90 days. to my great disappointment that has not happened. although chairman teenine repeatedly asked you to keep your commitments, and you are more than a month overdue and that commitment. it does not appear to me that such action is set to occur anytime soon, and i am hopeful that may be the commission, all of you, especially the chairman could tell me if i am wrong on that. i would hope there is a date to act on those recommendations. colleagues, less than a week after the task force delivered its report to be nrc, chairman jaczko and laid out a road map

to address the lessons learned from fukushima, and he set a deadline of october 201st for action on those recommendations. he was proactive, because without a specific timetable for these common-sense safety measures the nrc will not live up to its mandate, as we just saw, to require repair power plants to be safe and reliable. instead of taking action every commissioner except chairman jaczko focused on delaying the review. guess what the result was? that review came to the same conclusion. so here we are on december 15th and not one of those recommendations has been acted on. this is simply inexcusable. slow walking needed reforms after a disaster like fukushima, widespread contamination has set back japan immeasurably must not be an option.

yesterday instead of focusing on nuclear plant safety the house committee conducted what i consider to be an attempt to assassinate the character of dedicated public servants. frankly, i was shocked and appalled. one of you commissioners even said in written testimony that the chairman of uses women. i asked my staff to check out this allegation, and let me tell you what they found. they found the opposite. in fact, the chairman, according to one respected timesaver, was -- quoting heard directly, the most fair person she has ever met. she went on to say he treats everyone equally. other comments include, he invites people to descend, and i have never seen in the street others. -- missed three others.

our nation is fortunate to have him sitting in the chairman's seat because seat is a proven leader. i believe that without his on the commission the nrc might never have implemented the important safety recommendations made after the september 11th terrorist attack. it took ten years, but it was the chairman that made it happen finally. the nrc must focus on safety, and it must take action without delay if it their power is to maintain the public trust. i want to show you part of the new york times from july 203rd if nuclear power is to have a future in this country, americans have to have confidence that regulators and the industry are learning the lessons of fukushima and taking all steps to ensure safety. the american people faith in

nuclear power was shaken by the fukushima crisis. polls show that their confidence was shaken, and the american public rightly expects the nrc to redouble its efforts to ensure that our nuclear plants are the safest in the world. but that has not happened. let me tell you what happened. when people lose confidence and that nrc and the nuclear industry, right now there is a petition circulating in my state for a ballot initiative would effectively shut down the two nuclear plants we have in california. you know about this, because i questioned you about it. as a matter of fact, i met one of the commissioners there, and we went and investigated. there are a lot of concerns. in one case tens of millions of people live within, you know, 50 miles. i should say to in. how many? sorry. 7 million people live within

50 miles of one of those plans. the other is about half a million people. so here is what happens. if the nrc does not do his job, if the american people feel that they are not being protected, if the american people feel that all this is about is some battle as to who should be the chairman and who is going to score political points and you're distracted from what you have to do, you're going to see more of these moves across the country, and that would be very, very sad because there are many power plants that have similar characteristics as fukushima. so i speak to you from the heart like i did last time when i say, can't you stop this battling and talk to each other like human beings. what happened yesterday was a horrible setbacks, but it is not too late to recover. we should be focusing on the work that you have to do, not

petty politics and personal ambition. i hope going forward we focus on safety, really focus on safety, and stay away from the politics of personal destruction. >> well, madam chairman, i it would use some of the same words you used when you said you were shocked and appalled at the apparent character assassination of one person that the attempted assassination of the character of four public servants. in 1996i chaired the subcommittee. at that time we had gone several years without any oversight. we totally changed it and it has been doing very well since then. i was very proud of it. i have to say, i am blown away by the numerous reports

intimidation and retaliation against senior staff, agency staff, attempts to fundamentally undermine the initial function of the commission and to, perhaps, allegedly, for his own objectives in his efforts to withhold information from his fellow commissioners. now, what surprises me is that the white house appears to condone the behavior, dismissing it as differences. well, the management differences we have here are serious. one chairman who believes that bullies staff is acceptable in an effort to further his own agenda. four commissioners to disagree. in 2006 the late commissioner, and i think everyone remember sam. such high esteem. we lost and, unfortunately, but he made a statement, and it's actually a speech to the nrc employees, and i think it's appropriate to read the speech.

he said you come to an institution, nrc, that is routinely subject to baseless attacks by groups opposed to nuclear power that call themselves nuclear watchdogs, peace groups who demonize the nrc, you and me to fund themselves and they're anti-nuclear agenda. i arrived at nrc in 1996 and had spent two decades working on national-security issues first in the foreign service officer and as an aide to senators. i did not know that i was a demon, but it did not take long for me based on my scientific judgment that we were not to the liking of the anti-nuclear zealots, and so i became a demon. he went on to say, madam chairman, the same year i became chairman of the subcommittee, but he would not to say -- and i am still quoting from his speech

he said conner often involves telling people, perhaps colleagues, supervisors, but they don't want to hear. it may make it and enemies, but the stories i could tell you would persuade you that you can afford such enemies, but you cannot afford to confine your honor and your personal benefits. it is appropriate that we read his statement. probably held in the highest regard of any of the men of the years i have been here. what we saw this weekend is an immediate concern and a public attempt to demonized for public servants. they're only crime was to conduct themselves with honor, seek assistance as a last resort from the white house and address problems that have not been held to resolve on a round. risking their professional reputations in court. on behalf of the employees and no work, employees who are forced to choose between what

they believe is right and what chairman jaczko wants them to do. his actions cannot be ignored. the white house appears willing to ignore the warning of four commissioners resting on their statements that this action, these actions have not been impaired the commission's ability to execute its mission to protect public health and safety yet to this is the president wedding to act until this happens? after all, still believe that mr. cain and remains a despot. i don't know what will have to happen to change his mind. thank you. >> thank you. senator carper will pass at this time. >> thank you, madam chair. i think many of us are not happy about what we're reading in

terms of what is going on with that nrc. an enormously important job. protect the safety of the american people. napier power plants. that is an enormous responsibility given what we have seen recently in japan. clearly the nrc has to be vigilant and a rigorous and enforcing the safety regime that gives the american people comfort, and i will tell you, in my state we have the same laws, nuclear reactor that melted down in japan, and in my state the people are not comfortable and want to know the nrc is doing everything they can to protect the safety of the american people. the media has been reporting that we have a major personality conflict on the commission. i don't know if that is true. i suspect that there is more going on here, other than personality conflict.

the media has characterized what is going on as a "and "to attended by several commissioners to remove the chairman, mr. canion, who, in fact has been pushing for secure form i think what we may have here is a situation where some commissioners did not understand the functions of the chairman and where some commissioners have a philosophical disagreement with the chairman on safety. so what i hope we look at today go beyond personality conflicts and maybe understand some of those those that have taken place and, in fact, why we don't know. transparency at the nrc. on the point of the administration of the commission, it appears the other commissioners are upset about the management of the chairman jaczko. white house chief of staff, and this is an important point --

congress has structured the nrc to have a strong chairman. this has produced conflict between the chair and the commission dating back to 1999. madame chair, i would tell you, we used to have conflict. a disagreement about who have responsibility for what. i think the record is pretty clear. the rules in terms of the nrc are clear, and have been changed over the years to create a strong chairman for that nrc. i think there may be some confusion about that. i think we all know, president carter submitted a reorganization plan to congress in 1980 following three mile island which clearly states the plan revises the duties of the chairman has principal executive officer, in addition to directing the day-to-day operations of the agency the chairman will take charge of the commission's response to nuclear emergencies.

on the issue of transparency, madam chair, three commissioners will confirm what this committee last year. when there were confirmed the told this committee that they supported the chairman's proposal to open up the nrc voting process to more transparency. today each nrc commissioned officer of votes. as i understand it , by writing his or her on opinion behind closed doors, obscuring the process for public view and making it difficult to know how or result is reached. in addition, it takes weeks, sometimes months, sometimes a month after a vote is initiated for the public to learn the results. as far as i am aware no progress has been made to have an open and transparent public meeting process. perhaps this is part of a philosophical difference. if so, we need to get into this

issue of transparency and find out why some commissioners opposed more openness. i can remember on a personal no a couple of months ago vermont is right now engaged in illegal dispute in the courts with a large energy company, and i ask the commissioners to tell me that there was a vote, the vote read the nrc had urged her in my view absolutely inappropriately. and i asked how you voted. i did not get a clear answer. people in vermont want to know. i think in general we need more transparency. my understanding is that chairman jaczko is fighting transparency, and some of you are not. that is not a personality difference but a philosophical difference. that is political. on the primary issue, the nrc should be concerned with safety. we are approaching the 1-year anniversary of fukushima in

march. in the united states we have come to three nuclear reactors with the same design as the plan that experienced at least a partial meltdown in japan including one in my own state. yet the nrc has not acted to implement all 12 recommendations made by the task force of senior nrc staff to perform safety at u.s. plants. the chairman has made very clear that he is ready to move on all 12 recommendations, but not all commissioners, as i understand it, i agree. the union of concerned scientists at cetus scientists point out that 48 reactors still do not comply with rules established in 1980 and amended in 2004 to ensure it there are power systems that can prevent a meltdown in an emergency. yet, we have four commissioners who, against the chairman's vote, voted to approve a bill late through 2014.

that is not a personality difference. that is a point of view on safety or not. there is one person that voted for or against. not a personality conflict. the difference about what the function of the nrc is. these are just too. in many instances i am aware. with the chairman has been in the minority putting for strong safety measures. i hope that the debate today is not about personality. who is fighting for safety and who is not. this means that there is, in fact, a philosophical divide, and that is okay. it does not mean that the commission does not function, but we need to get to the bottom of what that divide is. today just some of your fellow commissioners apparently desire, instead of talking about safety to talk about personality

conflict. i call on all members of the commission to get back to doing their jobs, and their job is to protect the safety of our nuclear power plants for the well-being of the people of this country. >> think you very much. next would be center alexander. >> thanks, madam chairman and members of the commission. welcome. i remember the hearing for three new members of the commission, three appointees of president obama, and how pleased i was with the president's appointments. two were democrats and one republican, but one was a distinguished -- three of them sitting here, one a distinguished professor at mit

represent. what happens is, fukushima was a huge cyclone hurricane tidal wave. the electricity that brings water did not work. that was the problem. and the nrc is working on ways to fix it. already, as we have said many, many times, the gold standard for safety in the world from nuclear power is in the united states of america. there has never been, never been a death at a civilian nuclear reactor, and no one was even heard at three mile island, so i

am very disturbed, particularly because i would like to hear today what is going on. i would like to get back to the issues. of course the chairman has more responsibility during an emergency. but here is also what the law says. each member of the commission, including the chairman shall have equal responsibility and authority in all the decisions and actions of the commission and shall have full access to all information the chairman cannot withhold or delayed providing information. it is important to know whether these distinguished members of the commission feel that they cannot do their jobs because they are not having equal access to information. somebody is right and somebody is wrong, and we should not be sloughing it off as a personality disorder. we should ask the commissioners if they can resolve it themselves. that would be best. but apparently four of them,

three appointed by president obama with distinguished reputations have gone to extraordinary lengths of a letter to the white house, so i hope, mr. chairman, for whom i have great respect and the other members of the commission where i have respect, i hope you can tell us what is going on, and i hope you yourself and solve the problem and that we can focus for not just on lessons from fukushima. we know what happened and what to do about it. let's focus on the other issues so that we can start producing more reliable clean electricity. i look forward to hearing the testimony and the opportunity to ask questions. >> thank you very much, senator. now, senator carper, do you still wish to waive? okay. please use your microphone, senator. can you move it closer to you, please? it is far away. we need to hear you. thank you. >> i spent 30 years in the computer business, and i just don't get these things.

madam chairman, what we are seeing today is what happens when an agency that has traditionally been controlled by the industry that it serves and regulates meets its chairman that puts safety of the american people ahead of the interests, profit interests of the industry the chairman 9/11, the first chairman in history of the nuclear regulatory commission that has not come from the industry. he is a scientist. he is running his agency based on science, and he clearly, some powerful people don't like his

style. that is what i think it boils down to, and i would like to hear something about that. after the accident of fukushima i sat down with chairman teenine for more than an hour, and i was impressed with the sharp focus in making sure our plans felt good about what was being done to make sure that our plants are safe and secure. and then the months since that time it seems to me he has done everything he can to move quickly to further improve our nuclear regulatory system. that has meant taking on some entrenched and powerful interests. july the nrc near-term task force proposed recommendations to improve nuclear safety after fukushima, but the nuclear industry delayed or blocked some of the recommendations.

according to a report released last week, even chairman jaczko fellow commissioners tried to delay the creation of the task force, slowing down the release of those recommendations. but that was not the first time the other members of the commission conspired against safety measures. at least on eight occasions the chairman pursued safety improvements that were blocked by other commissioners. faced with the late tactics and other obstructions chairman jaczko has used all legal tools available to him to improve nuclear safety. it is no secret that nuclear companies would rather have a nrc chairman that lets industry write the rules, but that is not the way government is supposed to work. make no mistake. after seeing the nuclear crisis that threatens japan this year, the american people want to know

that their government is doing everything in its power as promptly as can be done to make sure that a nuclear nightmare does not happen here. the american people and officials in washington, they want them to stand up for them, not the special interests, and in my belief that is what chairman jaczko is doing. he served this country well, and i urge him to keep pushing forward. we need strong regulators to put the interest of the public about the interest of an industry. it wake up every day looking for ways to make our country safer. mr. jaczko has committed to improving his work relationship with other customers, commissioners. i hope that the nrc commissioners will put this dispute behind them and get on with our tasks. above all, our priority must be nuclear safety. the nrc near term task force

determined our country's nuclear plants are safe, but a number of recommendations exist to make your plants safer, and our mission now must be to implement these recommendations quickly and completely, and it is important that the people of new jersey, my state, where four nuclear reactors provide our state with half of its electricity. in fact, one of the new jersey reactors, the one located in oyster creek is the nation's oldest, and shares the same design as the damaged reactor's in japan. communities are around nuclear plants are counting on us to make sure safety and security remain our highest priorities. if there is a difference in style, demeanor, it seems to me that that is the case, then,

perhaps we can air it in a private meeting, madam chairman. let's let it all hang out. i know one thing. i served in europe in world war ii. one of the most intemperate people that we had was general patton. guess what? he got it done. thank you very much. >> and now we will turn to senator sessions. >> thank you. i don't believe this is an issue of disagreement over personality . i am confident that from what i have read in the record that the chairman has violated the a explicit rules of the commission and has been abusive in his treatment of staff and other commissioners. it is not safe to have a chairman filter, screen, and alter reports on the task force the you have referred to, the

task force he selected without the input of the other members, and did not follow procedures that the other members believe was appropriate. i strongly believe that the assumption of emergency powers after fukushima was clearly in violation of law. looking at a letter before the record, mr. dale klein, the former chairman of this commission, ph.d. and he wrote that i can see no reason to invoke emergency powers because nothing in the incident would have required a suspension of normal commission procedures. more than that, i would say nothing in the instance would qualify it leisurely either. but he goes on to say, as i stated, i never declared in receipt powers in the four years he was there, and had i done so i would have so stated in

writing, called my fellow commissioners, and most importantly solicit their support for my actions. furthermore, would have indicated in the authority was expected to end and would never have excluded my fellow commissioners as has been reported during the fukushima event. this is just unthinkable. a fiasco. that is why york commissioners are concerned about your bleeding. during the august hearing i asked mr. jaczko a series of questions about the origins of power. i have since received a written report from mr. jaczko about his activities during that time. i find his report and sufficient. he did not answer the two most fundamental questions. one, why did he decide to exercise emergency power. why did he feel like he could not operate in the normal way? under this statute, section three of the 1980 act clearly states those powers are only

available for an emergency concerning a particular facility for materials places or regulated by the commission. it fukushima was not a licensed or regulated facility by the nrc and had no right, i believe, to execute those powers. it too, he did not address how he declared the use of powers. he said a declaration was not necessary. he said it was just distracting from the work he was doing. if you are going to take over in aggregate the responsibilities of the members of the commission i think the american public in talking about transparency need to know immediately. beyond that, he provided only a brief report, just over five pages, and not the complete report out performance during the emergency declaration as required.

it was not timely. so his report did not each action he took or decision he made pursuant to his powers. his report talked in vague generalities and extraordinary use of emergency powers, it would require an explanation and report of the actions taken. it did not discuss the request for information that he and his staff received from the other commissioners during this. the requested information of precisely how he sought to provide it. commissioner magwood pier lee testified yesterday before the house that there have been situations where mr. jaczko failed to provide important information that commissioners requested. the nrc executive director of

operations also test the blood that the chairman influences the information and timing of information that is provided to the commission. it is that improving safety in america? one man gets to decide what the do league, lawfully commission receives this information? this is in violation of section to see of the act. it says the chairman saudi -- shall be responsible for insuring the commission is fully and currently informed about the matters within its function. if we don't have that, if the chairman is not willing to comply with that he should not be chairman. it is just that simple. it is logical, the right thing to do, and it is required by explicit statutory. says he has been abusive in creating a workplace environment that has been very uneasy and troubling

for a lot of people. i think that is an additional problem that we have here, so this behavior by the chairman raises a high level of concern. i believe the testimony we here today will show that to be the case. i am sorry we have not had this hearing. i wish it or not so, and it does seem to me, madam chairman, that what i have seen from the interviews conducted by the house staff and virtually all the high level staff members of the nuclear regulatory commission are very troubled by the chairman's lead. >> thank you very much. i just want to make a couple of points. one is that this particular hearing was called well before any of this sniping began, and if you look at the title, is reviewed in that nrc near-term task force recommendations for enhancing reactor safety in the

21st century. that is what this hearing is supposed to be about, but it is totally appropriate for people on both sides to comment on these other issues. i ask unanimous consent to place in the record to documents, one the testimony of the general counsel of the nrc, which grew future claims, and second, the investigation by the inspector general that refutes your charges as well, so that we will have what you said next to the -- well, let me just make that unanimous consent request and then i will take your objection. hearing none, senator, you want to put something in the record? [inaudible] >> of course we will put that in the record right next to the ig report and the general counsel. >> well, i think -- >> yes. >> chairman, i don't necessarily

agree with the summary analysis of that report as the chairman expressed it, but i certainly do not object to it being part of the record. >> thank you. thank you very much. people can rebuild and make their decision. henry, do you wish to go? we will go on. >> take you very much, madam chairman. if i believe it goes without saying that all of us are very disturbed by what is happening here. it seems to me that is truly a remarkable circumstance when four members of a 5-member commission from both parties come forward with a letter to the president to state that they feel that the operation of the commission on which they are serving is jeopardized. and then to see those numbers vilified in a -- what appears to be a retaliatory response.

it just raises a tremendous concern on my part of what is happening here. after these members of the commission have raised their concerns they have been accused of being controlled by others in their actions. they have been accused of trying to undermine the security and safety of our nuclear operations in the united states. end they have been accused of trying to block transparency in the agency. these accusations are not minor, and it appears to me that it is something we ought to look into in this committee. >> sure. >> because it is very disturbing if you read the letter that was sent, these commissioners said just the opposite. they expressed the concern that the nrc is a shot -- the essential mission to protect the health and safety of the american people is being

adversely affected. it has been said they're trying to undermine a proper response to the fukushima accident. they have made the point that they feel the chairman has attempted to intimidate the advisor committee on reactor safeguards, a chartered group of independent advisers to prevent it from reviewing certain aspects of the nrc analysis of the fukushima incident. we have very different versions about what is going on here. the bottom line to meet this that we have four members of a 5-member commission, and again, clearly from both parties, folks who have been appointed by the current president, president obama, three of the four, and the accusations in addition to those mentioned also are that they don't understand the law and don't really have the authority to be concerned about

the issues they are raising, which i also find to be a remarkable response to the questions. as i understand it, the law says each member of the commission, including the chairman shall have equal responsibility and authority in all decisions and actions of the commission shall have full access to all information relating to the performance of his or her duties and responsibilities and one vote. in a 1980 review of the operation of the commission it was concluded that the chairman may not withhold or delayed providing information requested by the commission, individual members shall also have full access to all information in order to assure diverse views are properly informed. this report goes on to say that the commission's functions -- information relating to the commission's functions will be given to the commissioners immediately and without any alteration.

i understand there is an authority of the chairman of the commission to declare an emergency, and maybe we will get into battles over whether the chairman of the commission can simply eliminate the relevance of the other four members of the commission by declaring an emergency, but it seems to me that we're getting into some pretty dangerous territory here if we start, as a committee, involving ourselves in an effort to personally attacked and undermine the character of any of the members of this commission. we ought to look into these facts, find out what has been happening, and see whether we need to take any action in that regard. offs -- i am concerned that not only that members of the commission had to come forward with a letter to the president, but i think everyone in america can see how remarkable it is that four members of the commission would deem it

necessary to do that. at don't think anyone would believe that they did this lightly. and then to see the retaliation that has occurred in response, it is truly disheartening. thank you. >> thank you very much. i'm sorry. >> thank you, madam chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to talk. i have grave concerns. the world at large has been discussing the need for improving nuclear safety. they want us to ensure that there will not be a repeat of the nuclear disaster that we saw in japan. communities across america are safe from harm and that the people around the country understand the nuclear regulatory commission is tasked

with protecting us. not a responsibility that should be taken lightly. the october 13th letter to the white house chief of staff, william daley, raises serious concerns, in my view, about public safety. it is noted in the press and the house oversight hearing yesterday, the letters describe the chairman's actions and his behavior as causing serious damage to the nrc and are creating a chilled work environment at the agency. the letter states that the chairman intimidated and bullied a senior staff to the degree that he has created, he, he has created a high level of fear and anxiety resulting in a chilled work environment. most importantly, the letter states that the commission no longer functions as effectively as it should. now, this is not the first time

that this committee has heard such charges. before this committee earlier this year i raised the issue of the june nrc inspector general report. the report stated several current and former commission staff members said the chairman's behavior caused an intimidating work environment. the former chairman told the office of inspector general that the chairmen often yelled that people and his tactics have a negative effect on people. he describes the behavior as ruling by intimidation, page 43 of the report. are we to dismiss the inspector general's report where he states that there are a number of interviewees and several current and former nrc staff who echo what the four commissioners here today with us have told the white house? is nearly the entire nrc out to just get the chairman? or is there some truth to the concerns being raised by the

many individuals who are trying to get this agency back on track. we must get back to the mission at hand. do the proper oversight to see that this agency gets back on track. we have four commissioners here who say that the agency is not working as effectively as it should. that means that this agency tasked with protecting the american people is not fulfilling its mission under this chairman's lead. white house chief of staff said of the chairman, the chairman apologized for the distraction caused by the present tensions and has taken responsibility for improving communication among the commissioners. well, apologizing for causing a distraction to the obama administration, to me, is not an apology. this is about public safety, and the commissioner needs to apologize to the public for letting things get to this point. bill daily's call to have all

the commissioners meet with a trusted third-party to work everything out with the chairman, while it ignores the claims made about verbal harassment by women and others and the hostile work environment that the commissioners and staff have alleged, in no other workplace in this country with such charges be simply ignored or with the accuser be told to work everything out with those who are making the accusations. the white house needs to do much more. so as remember of the subcommittee on clean air and nuclear safety i ask the chairman of the subcommittee and full committee to hold additional hearings to investigate these claims and find out how this agency has gotten off track and how we can get it back on the right track for the safety of the american people. thank you. >> thank you, madam chair, and to all of our witnesses. i want to underscore in the

strongest possible terms all of these concerns that have been voiced on my colleagues. we are in a time following the japanese disaster. we are in one of the two most sensitive and important times regarding civilian nuclear safety in our lifetime. the good news is we don't have a crisis situation in terms of our reactors in terms of immediate safety concerns, in terms of the industry and the state of the industry and the state of our technology. but the bad news is, we do have a crisis of government, and a crisis of leaders as evidenced by this discussion and the lead of the chairman. again, want to repeat because it is so important that he is -- these concerns are coming from four other commissioners, two democrats, two republicans, three appointed under president

obama. by definition, this is obviously not some purely partisan disagreement. i think we need to take it extremely seriously because nuclear safety is involved, and it has reached, unfortunately i believe, a crisis of government and the person of the chairman. i also strongly agree with my colleague the first this committee should take a strong and active aggressive role in fixing the problem because we owe it to our constituents. secondly, we need to urge the president to get actively involved because in some sense and only he and the white house can really truly fix this. i certainly agree with previous comments that the suggestion of bringing in some third-party mediator type to deal with

everyone is not getting truly and seriously involved. we need from the president of the white house to fix this quickly, and i urge that as well. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. separately, in the interest of time because i know we need to get to the panel. the purpose of the hearing today to discuss fukushima and the aftermath and how we can prevent that from happening here, all of that is so important, but i think the real problem is that the -- and i think that we would all agree from whatever reasons, the committee, the commission rather is pretty dysfunctional. i had not been around here as long as some, but, you know, for me in the past ten years this is probably the kind of a unique

thing. it should not be a partisan issue, and i don't think it is. the sense that we have democrats and republicans serving on the committee. career staffers are having problems. i am sure there are democrats and republicans to but we do have a real problem. so i would very much like, you know, for -- we are charged with oversight. i would very much like for us to figure out whatever steps we need to do to help solve the problem, and like i say, i think that really is very important. for whatever reason we have a major problem here at that time when this is one of the commissions that is so important after the aftermath we have seen what happens with lax supervision. again, right now, we have a significant problem. and i would hope that the

committee does its job in doing the oversight to get this figured out and to solve the problem. with that, i look for to the testimony. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, thank you all for joining us here today. i remember and listened to senator alexander's comments. i remember the day we had the hearing, president obama and his being proud of the demonstration and the president for the selections he made and the nominees that he sent to us that day. i remember the first time the five of you came before this committee to testify and feeling proud that the subcommittee has jurisdiction over clean air and nuclear safety and knowing it is in your hands. a year or two later to be here today on the heels of the house

of representatives yesterday, the assertion of letters to the white house and my conversations with each and every one of you, i share in the dismay of my colleagues. others have said it, and i will say it again, 20 percent of the electricity in this country comes from nuclear power. we have less air pollution. we have less reliance on fossil fuels. we have greater energy independence. frankly, a lot of good paying jobs that help provide us with the electricity we need to run this country. we need for this commission to bring its 8-game to work every day, not just some of the time, all the time. you have heard me say more times than you probably want to remember, it is not perfect.

make it better. there is a lot that you do well. i don't think the nrc, you're not bringing your 8-game. frankly, when we serve on the side of buyers, sometimes i look at the u.s. senate and see wonderful people, smart people, bright people, good hearted people, dedicated people. instead of getting synergy out of this group, sometimes we get just the opposite. and to have a group of people as talented and dedicated and capable as you are, not be able to work together and be better than you are is just this may. i had the opportunity. madame chair, with your blessing i withheld the entire subcommittee would help to get

to the bottom of why this of the nrc is unable to function better and more effectively. in my own experience i find ownership is the key of everything i have been a part of. in a submarine, months. i know he knows about it, and i think attitude. i know as a leader around here, when i -- when people are unhappy with me i go to their office. i go to their offices. and if there is some way i have offended somebody, i apologize. i don't ask them to come to meet or ignore them. i go see them. there are things that the leader has to do it in order to create that environment of cooperation.

skills that we learned at times in our life. i think our leader, i'm pretty sure our chair when some of those lessons, but this is a man with the potential to be a very fine gentleman, and i want to make sure as long as you are the chairman that is the kind of chairman you're going to be. let me just say, the experiences at dover air force base, which over the last four years has been selected to be the best air force base in the world, we have gone through an experience where people would pray to god every day and three people blew the whistle on inappropriate behavior. what happened to them, they became demonized. in one instance two people were fired.

we are not interested in the fact that our other four commissioners are whistle-blowers, but i want to find out and hope in the context of this conversation today in the hearing that falls we can end up not with recrimination, not with finger-pointing, not with political gain this year, but in the up with a group of regulatory commissioners that actually do things they're supposed to do every day to protect the health of the american people, to protect our safety, our security, and make sure that our nuclear power plants operate as close to perfect as they possibly can. ..

in the 2011 accomplishments of the agency. before i do provide the specific updates, i'd like to take a moment to just make a few brief comments. as many feel vindicated over the past several days disciplinary tension between management and the understand dynamics of the commission. i regret these internal matters have been elevated to public fora and accept my share of responsibility for this situation. as i've indicated, i'm committed to working with alex to address issues and better understand the. a great respect for experience and expertise of colleagues and commit to her before to market

effectively to ensure the safety and security at nuclear power plants and materials in the united states. in the aftermath of the few cushy maximin, finish and establish the near-term task force to spearhead the methodical review of the undersea nuclear reactor safety program. subsequent agency's most experienced and expert staff collectively have more than 135 years of regulatory experience. in conducting the review, task or suffers from panic, but have full access to the entire nrc staff with more than 100 hours of briefings. he sent thousands of hours reviewing agency products and information and consult a the undersea team in japan. when they last appeared before you come the task force had its report to the commission for consideration and in its report the task force outlined a comprehensive set of 12 recommendations that touch on a broad range of important issues, including loss of electrical power, earthquakes, flooding,

panting and emergency preparedness. the task force recommendations have now undergone two additional reviews. one night he nrc staff mark bradley and another by the advisory committee on reactor safeguards. with benefit from the insights and perspective of industry leaders if we are seeking permanent groups and members of the public. the staff review endorsing out all the task force's recommendations and identified several additional issues for consideration. advisory committee and safe earth endorsed all of the task force recommendations that it's had the chance to examine the spark to propose some additional steps. the commission is now directed his staff to begin implementing immediately, partially or fully fire the safety recommendations from the task force and cycles of completing station blackout rulemaking within 24 to 30 months and complete all accidents in response of lessons learned from few cushy mid-day you she within five years. in addition, the commission is

finalized its recommendation or comments on an additional set of prioritization recommendation made by the staff at the agency in regard to the remaining recommendations. in summary with benefit of our staff expertise, the hcr advice and critical stakeholder input, commission is moving forward on recommendations. i think we all agree that this past year has been an exceptionally challenging and productive year for the nrc. we are proud to once again scored among the top-tier federal agencies in the 2011 best places to work in government ratings and agencies scored number one in off for industries. the staff and commissioners done an outstanding job. we anticipated 2011 would be busy, but fukushima freight substantial challenges. in spite of these challenges, the sacrament focused on critical safety mission and all

cat to public health and safety at the forefront of all of its actions. at that include my testimony and please take this opportunity to ask questions. >> thank you very much. mr. magwood, tiffany comments? >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning chairman boxer, carper for the opportunity to speak with you again on this important topic. when they left before this committee and onto second time a few weeks after the issuance of task force, among others chairman boxer emphasize the importance with which he viewed he fishiness infrastructure and in doing so as quickly as possible. we took encouragement to her to use its challenge yourself. within two weeks come in this commission completed its first out on the recommendations feared we agreed unanimously to direct staff begin immediately engaged with stakeholders and identify within three weeks those actions which could be

implemented without delay and approach actually suggested and my colleagues support if this led to a recall the 21 day paper which the commission adopted by mid-october. as a result of the decision, several areas are underway. the nrc staff has held numerous meetings with industry, public groups and other members of the public for the rulemaking, other regulatory tools needed to implement several of the higher priority task force recommendations. we've also recently finalized our kinds as the chairman mentioned a few minutes ago to the staff about the actions of the agency will pursue her the coming years in response to lessons lessons of few cushy mat. artwork has been a him in a stakeholder interactions. areas the task force are now prominent elements for analysis. we will consider the need i'm off through our agenda as though it's review pre-staging of the emergency planning zone.

few cushy mat provides important insights regarding how these issues and we can use that knowledge to enhance safety in the united states. we've also received valuable support from the advisory committee safeguards. review of the task force report on the 21 day paper had several areas of concern which we've become less focused. for example, if serous highlighted the name for no rulemaking, the hcr assets continued strong involvement in aye anaphora must be a hallmark of our response in the cushy mat. the commission directed the staff to strike a complete and implement lessons learned within five years. however, believe we must approach overall after an recognized in some aspects of response such as station blackout of more safety imports and others should therefore be completed as quickly as possible. my particular case, commissioner hoffenberg has provided a leaf to make sure the rulemaking is complete within 30 months. i believe we met the challenge

and it made tremendous progress in a short period of time. i also believe he must assure the focus on the last do not distract an existing regulatory work than they had equal or greater safety benefits and somehow offensive or few cushy and a response. it is vitally prioritized our work and replace resources on most tasks to provide the greatest safety benefits. thank you for your attention. >> thank you. ms. svinicki. >> thank you chairman boxer and members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today on the topic of the review of the nrc fukushima response activities. i joined chairman jaczko and staff for their tireless effort as he is described in near-term task force recommendations touch on a broad range of important safety areas, including loss of power due to earthquakes, flooding or other natural disasters to issues relate to spent goals or scrutiny of

emergency preparedness activity. the task force recommendations include requirements for nuclear power plants to reevaluate an upgrade seismic and flooding protection to strength and ability to deal with the prolonged loss of power and develop emergency plans to specifically contemplate the possibility of events involving multiple react to. the task force recommendations of now undergone review by the nrc staff and advisory committee on reactor safeguards. the agencies broadsided stakeholders have been accused to multiple public meetings. through these offers to benefit from the insights and perspective of industry leaders, nuclear safety and environmental groups and the public in several public meetings the commission is heard directly from a diverse array of stakeholders and plans to continue to do so during the coming year. i believe all of these offers have strengthened the nrc that duties in response to the few cushy mat fence. as the nrc requires more about the accident will assess the

impact of such information on actions already underway to determine whether additional actions are needed. the institute of operations has released a special report in a nuclear accident of the few cushy a plan plant, which provides a detailed timeline of events after the earthquake and tsunami in japan. the commission's longer-term will evaluate emergent information such as this report as they become available. identify any recommended actions and assess any impacts on actions underway. in addition to commending the nrc staff artwork i'd also like to acknowledge extraordinary efforts of the advisory committee and having responded quickly to the commission's request in all of the agency stakeholders who have participated in our public meetings today. i believe they're sustainable that will further strengthen activities as soon as i peered thank you, not him. >> thank you. yes, the honorable.

>> good morning. i had hoped to testify on the progress have we at the nrc has made on the afghan task force accommodations. recently however, some of my fellow commissioners and i have been accused of conspiring to weaken the nrc response by deliberately delay in the implementation of these recommendations. i regret what i have to address such an accusation. the fact is that we have acted methodically and expeditiously. i find it deeply offensive that the motives are strange to us. nuclear safety models of type equity complex. this is one of the reasons there is an independent five-member commission. decisions of nuclear safety matter should not be made without careful deliberation. such celebration includes the technical evaluations by dnr the senior monitor and use of advisory committee on reactor safeguards, public meetings and

stakeholders. these open and transparent process would be followed in the case of few cushy mat because of the task force conclusion, the continued operation of u.s. nuclear power plant and continued licensing activities need not pose any imminent risk. as a result of this process, technical basis will implement and the recommendations has been strengthened and additional technical issues for consideration have been identified. in particular, review of recommendations by senior nrc staff members identified additional issues such as filtration of containment events hamas is the ultimate heatsink. the acr is made recommendations for the two sides ache of valuations. finally, public stakeholders make contributions on issues such as the distribution of potassium iodide, following perspectives on the process of

issuing orders. i would now like to highlight recommendation one as presenting an enormous challenge. the force recommends the commission must publish a regulatory framework that appropriately balances defense and to reconsiderations. these translate to a significant restructuring of the nrc regulatory framework. the commission wisely detected staff to pursue recommendations separately. this decision has enabled the nrc staff to begin working on those recommendations that can provide the most immediate safety benefit without delay. i am pleased with the progress the commissioner has made the sauce the fact that the process for reaching decisions have and transparent and methodical. thank you very much. >> thank you. finally my finales the honorable william ostendorff.

>> thank you for the chance to be before you today. it's been nearly four months since her last appearance before this committee. i am pleased to say to you today that the commission has provided clear directions of nrc staff on an appropriate path for disposition in near-term task force recommendation and improving regulatory actions that can be implemented without delay. since august i continued to take steps to enhance my understanding of these issues by looking at measures in place the u.s. nuclear power plants and deal with the basis of events and natural hazards. and that poker commissioner magwood and i visited diablo canyon in california. during a visit to the facility selected seismic hazard, tsunami protection laws and emergency preparedness. on california, commissioner magwood and i took the opportunity to meet with mothers for peace, st. louis county of supervisors, state emergency officials to listen to your feedback and hear concerns.

both the travel to wolf creek and can say is an look at measures in place first edition blackout. because the importance of the nrc is post-fukushima actions, the commission has set an ambitious schedule for a series of voting papers with nrc status, review of near-term task force recommendations. the last 20 months i have developed a great appreciation and respect for the confidence and professionalism of nrc staff. their input to the commission's decision process is vitally important and why a voter to ensure expertise provided to the commission for a decision-making. the three fukushima related posts i've cast and their last meeting here with you and i guess have been shaped in large part by their insight. i joined commissioner cossack and addressing recent reports in the media that we have been accused of being slow walking and not taking steps for nuclear

safety. i share commissioner apostolakis statements. these statements are inaccurate, misleading. we're not dealing with simple go or no go decisions. these are complicated, highly technical matters with focused consideration and responsible decision-making. the senior-level committee that we have is a commission chartered has provided us with larger recommendations and prioritization seductions. at least some members of the committee that i am personally confident and pleased with where the commission is making these decisions. i appreciate the oversight will look forward to your questions. if the mac thank you all for your testimony. you know, i am addressing this statement to all of us here as senators because i think there is a reason that the public approval of the congress is 9% and most of the 9% probably our

family. and if we don't get home by christmas, they will leave us, to. but i think a lot about why. in one of the things that come up when it is that people look at us and see a involved in personal attacks, us, rather than dealing with the policy. there is nothing wrong with having a policy dispute. we have been here and i think we do very well. in this case, and very disappointing with my colleagues on the other side because i think that this hearing gave him astray to turn it into a chairman i said it yesterday. rather than look at the issue you i'll address. happily today. good for you. so here's the thing. our committee is charged with ensuring that you do your job to

make certain that our nuclear plants are safe as they can be. and we all know that. and i will tell you a sign of sam chairman, because some people want to have some more hearings on purse and all matters, i am going to be clear. maybe you can get another chairman. i hope not. i hope he trusts me enough, but i have to say that i will not allow this committee to conduct witchhunts against anybody, anybody. that is not our function is. and i would also say in reference to whistleblowing -- and i mention this to senator carper, when i look at the nuclear industry over the years because i've watched it over the years, we have had very interesting experience at the nuclear power in california. in most communities, they've decided they'd they'd rather go another way in some communities they've embraced it.

but i will play this. the whistleblowers are the ones who blow the whistle on safety problems. they are not the whistleblowers who blow the whistle on things they don't like for the this or that. sabena whistleblower is in the eye of the beholder. mr. chairman, since we're supposed to be talking the safety issues, i want to ask you this question. i got a commitment from four of the fact that in 90 days he would vote on these. mr. ostendorff said it's very complicated. okay, when he planning to have the meeting were you a vote on this recommendation following fukushima? what is your plan? >> well, we won't at this point. we have taken them piecemeal and put them in various ways. we don't have names on activities. >> so when will you begin -- do you vote on the various recommendations? let me put it that way.

>> in general what we are voted on is the process to have the staff began looking at recommendations. everything in the first vote i cast and/or stop the recommendations. i think in bits and pieces the commission also extended various recommendations, but i wouldn't say we've given a clear upward bound though. >> so in your opinion as chairman, how many of those recommendations is their majority support for going forward? >> well, probably the clearest of the ones for which we have sent our short-term recommendation and those are basically five of the recommendations. at this point there is majority support to move forward. >> which you and your fellow commissioners sent a letter to senator inhofe night outlining which type is to be? >> absolutely. >> i'm going to ask about certain of those. according to experts and power operations, the loss of electricity a senator like sand or has set triggered the

meltdown at the fukushima plants because it prevented react to us from being properly cooled to address the next none of us to power the task force recommended that nuclear power plants from essential cooling and monitoring for seven years without being connected to the electricity. mr. magwood, yes or no do you agree with that recommendation? >> i think the recommendation is correct. the specifics of the problem i had with it. 72 hours may or may not be the right number so we started the process to find out how to approach that unregarded launchpad. >> so do you support having a system running for a period of time without being hooked up? to support that recommendation? >> yes. >> how about you, senator? >> i did vote in support.

>> you, mr. chairman? >> yes. >> chairman boxer, i voted on september 16 and i also paas at the high-priority decision-making and 24 to 30 months the majority of the commission has concurred in that additional amplification. >> thank you for image. that's encouraging. mr. chairman, would she was simulator and respond to questions i have about two other recommendations. one is recommending reactors have technology to prevent hydrogen explosion beside japan and the other has to do with -- this is very important to my state. a recommended every 10 years nuclear reactor safety standard should incorporate any new information on the strength of earthquakes and tsunamis, hurricanes or other natural disasters. so if you could let me know and confirm that the others to make

sure you adequately represent pairs. >> chairman, a nonpartisan, nonprofit or public service knesset annual survey of more than 250,000 employees to rank the best places to work in the federal government. in last years the nrc employees have ranked the commission as number one or number two. it doesn't seem to indicate that you're the kind of person. can you respond to how you felt when you read it that way? >> i was very pleased. it's a strong statement from the staff to the nrc that they have confidence in the leadership and competence of the organizations itself. they have confidence in themselves and that's a very strong statement of support. >> okay. and mr. chairman, you've been attacked mightily from a lot of people and your leadership in a

way that is wrong, harish -- that's a nice way of thinking. i want to quote from a conversation you had at the nrc staff regarding their view on the task force recommendations. this is what you said. i welcome non-concurrences. i'm not telling you to not concur. i'm not telling you to think any different than what you think. i welcome what you think, but there just needs to be a reason. and you need to be owed to articulate because the task force deserves to know that. i deserve to know that. the american people deserve to know that. he said, does everybody understand that? i put these out there because these are your words. this is what you told yourself. it is what i would hope most

leaders to do, which is to say to the staff as a lot of us do and it's really do come and tell the truth. tell us what you think. you might want to hear. to get upset, but i need to know from you. and as that which your site leadership has continually been? to tell people to tell you that your, but now they have to back it up with facts? >> that's the way i like to read and i do challenge people to defend and support their views. i think that makes us stronger. it makes us better to understand. i can appreciate how people may find not challenging sometimes been difficult. if i ever do that in a way that causes somebody to feel uncomfortable and would immediately address sending correct it. we have a very good stuff at the agency, but i think what we do with this important subject matter and it's important to get

to the bottom of issues and perceived them. >> i agree. the future of nuclear power is at stake when i look at my own state and the people who live near those nuclear plants. they are very worried and they will be a lot less worried, commissioners, if he really stepped up to the plate on his recommendations. and if you don't step up to the plate. it is slow up for whatever reason. a second salt and a buddy i don't. but they're going to take matters in their own hands and take the ultimate protection, which is weird to be sold plans. people don't want that to happen. so it's really a lot of responsibility you have, not only to protect the people, but for the future of this industry. >> thank you command chairman. it is my intention to stay the entire hearing, however i will be participating in a colloquy with the servicemen and have to need for a short while called. let me just say, chairman jaczko

that when you were first talking about, discussing in this position, a people coming to me and saying he should not -- you should not view this position because you are breaking your agenda in. i remember talking about that at the confirmation. it was her hero to my office and privately. i became convinced that they were wrong. i am convinced they were right and i was wrong. i'm going to ask you a series of questions and i can do it in the time that you have. there's only yes or no questions. i don't want elaborate on this. when you hear them you understand. first of all in your letter to mr. daley, hebrew, as chairman of a collegial body to take responsibility for improving the level of our dialogue. is that true, yes or no? >> yes. >> the nrc office of affairs reports directly to you.

this came with reorganization and we talked about from that peer. it sat directly to us? >> way. >> eliot brenner reports directly to? >> correct. >> here is that the nrc website says about the opa, office of public affairs ministers and directs agencies programs providing advice to agency officials and developing key strategies that contribute to increasing public confidence. this includes keeping top management informed the public's interest in news coverage of nrc's regulatory actions as well as providing timely, clear and accurate information on nrc at dignity to the public. and the media through news releases, fact sheets, brochures, interviews, web postings and videos. i say this because we can all agree that's it's supposed to be

happening. and yet, bring that in. somebody may be marquis is our boss at one time released a report entitled, read the title, regulatory meltdown come out for nuclear regulatory commissioners conspired. that's euphoric, conspired to delay and weekend nuclear reactor safety in the wake of fukushima. representative markey, your former boss said in a statement about the report quote, the actions of these four commissioners since the fukushima nuclear disaster has caused a regulatory meltdown that has left america's nuclear fleet in the general public at this instead of doing what they have been sworn to do for commissioners have attempted a coup on the chairman and have abrogated their responsibility to the american public to assure

the safety of america's nuclear energy. that's in this report. i have an e-mail here and i'm going to have to be made a part of the record, any mail that was sent by eliot brenner, director of the covington affairs at the nrc to a reporter. no sense that, my staff has contacted other reporters. three others have confirmed this. i have to conclude that all reporters were contacted and to receive similar information on the female. but they too have a redacted version of this inserted in the record promotion authority done. i read a portion of this e-mail. eliot brenner talking to reporters. as we approach the wednesday hearing, the hearing yesterday, it would be a useful exercise to read two things. the 1980 organization plan with an emphasis on the bulls and

responsibility for commissioners and direct during the chairman and also the murky reporter. i got deep into the marketing and found it quite interesting. this is -- this was instructions to the reporters covering yesterday's meetings to read this report appeared, which is about the four commissioners. i was a chairman jaczko coming to believe representative markey's report is an accurate characterization of the nrc that to reduce clicks do you believe that? >> i certainly believe it's based on a nostrum the colleagues and i was deeply disturbed when i saw the content. >> to believe this increases public confidence? >> i don't and it is unfortunate some communications going along with colleagues unbeknownst to me were happening. >> it does not increase public confidence. i can't tell you how stunned ibm

and all use the same characterizations i suppose now that i'm on the other side of this. the idea a spokesman for the agency would encourage the media to read a report that is clearly designed to denigrate for commissioners to attack the agency's credibility and undermined public confidence. i think it's reprehensible. i have to echo some of the statements made by my colleagues who have served on this committee. i've never seen anything like this on this committee. chairman jaczko, when you committed to mr. daley to improve the level of dialogue with your colleagues, did he knew you were going to use her authority as the agency's official spokesman to encourage media interest in a report that denigrates and personally attacks your colleagues? >> i never discussed this with mr. delaney. >> he did talk about this report? were you aware this has been

made? >> i saw the report. >> so your made part of that then? >> now, i was not part of it. >> he didn't ask any questions? >> uma questions asked in my staff for myself how to do the females had provided. >> that's fine. you're aware of the report and the content. in your letter to mr. daley yugo, i continue to be unbelievably proud of the nrc staff and their single-minded focus on the agency commission. that is a quote. the staff you are so proud of, are they the same ones that recommend representative mackey said a conspired with four commissioners to delay the release of an alter the nrc near-term task force report from fukushima? >> i am not going to comment. >> their senior staff. >> it's congressman markey's report and it's probably more appropriate to ask him about his

statements. >> some of her supporters say it's not illegal and they may be correct. a lot of things aren't illegal, but we don't like that and it's still not right. i think you go an apology to your colleagues in the 4000 men women at the nrc. in your letter to mr. daley and i quote again, i assure you that i come to work everyday to do my job better than the day before. let me suggest to you, sir, that you reached a depth on saturday, december 10, but no nrc chairman has ever reached during my time on this committee. i think when you read the report and see that the person who answers to you, mr. chairman, is the one who is responsible for sending out the mission -- the statement from this committee. and it is one where he is saying you need to read this report by representative markey, who is targeting these for

commissioners on each side of you, that is just totally unreasonable that this could be happening. >> the fact that he reports directly to you >> brings you into it and i holger just as responsible. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator carper. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, mr. jaczko comment you mention the commissioners agreed to move forward on seven recommendations, maybe fewer. could you give us a timeline of when you believe those recommendations will be implemented by staff and completed by commission? >> it's not clear at this point that the staff has developed timeline for completion. the last information i received was for the orders on some of those near-term would probably be done until may or june.

i indicated to the staff that was unacceptable. that was too much time or need to figure out how to accelerate the timetable. some of the letters so called referred to as 50/50 letters, which are essentially request for information would likely be done a little sooner. but i think we have taken probably too long to get to the point where we can get down and start having the staff do their work to really engage directly with licensees. i would've hoped we are further along at this point, but we are where we are. >> just to follow-up, i believe the commission has stated they hope to be complete and implement the lessons learned from fukushima accident in five years. by 2016, based on the progress so far, do you think nrc is likely to meet that goal? >> i think it's difficult to say. at this point we haven't really

laid out a clear enough pass to get to those five years. so certainly given everyone has expressed an interest, i am hopeful we'll be able to accomplish it here but i'm not sure you see a plan yet to look at in five years. >> if i could, commissioner svinicki, do you believe in those timelines and they will make them? >> i agree with mr. jaczko, and that you could have a better degree of assessing whether could be done in five years. it often gets a reasonable target. >> some of my colleagues on the commission and crushing and testimony have alluded to the powers of the chairman. the powers of the chairman were found to be not clearly delineated. there some pain -- all of the chairs to be the first among

equals and they were clearly telling needed as they should have been. by understanding and history is because the thought police come after the three-mile accident,, the chairman was granted by the urging of president carter was granted powers for emergencies and tea today authorities. at every chairman has elected to fully use those powers. my understanding is chairman jaczko has decided to use those powers were others have chosen not to. i think back to the times in my own life, maybe other colleagues as well, when we had the authority when i was governor to do a certain thing and chose to do something just a little differently because of the interest in building team cooperation and stability. i would just ask us to go forward that you keep that in mind, mr. chairman. the other thing i want to save is a question.

a colleague of ours, blanche lincoln, whose side are succeeds, our dearly beloved colleague from arkansas said during her reelection campaign last year, remember this? used to say what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. and i can imagine what you're going through right now, yesterday or today, is something you remember fondly. but it's not going to kill you and may make you stronger. my question is will make you better they do a better chair and soho. >> has indicated yesterday, some of these things consent of my colleagues i found out about yesterday and i've offered to reach in and talk to them and for us to meet as a group to discuss issues and better understand where my interpretation of the statute or any of my actions have been caused concern on their part. i think if they are willing to

engage in dialogue that would make the commission stronger, which i think in the end my leadership is defined by how well the commission functions. but i will say that in the end, i am committed to safety. i would always prefer a commission in which we all agree and in which there are no conflicts or disagreements. i don't think it is realistic and i think we have to continue to work and figure out away to disagree without there being personal accusations are things of that nature. >> let me conclude if i can. in less than an hour, barry black will contain a bible study group. he does with every thursday around 12:30 or so and it's something that maybe seven or eight of us who need the most help show. and he reminds us almost every week as leaders of this country, that we are supposed to be that

this imac has tried to challenge humility. he reminds us we are servants. we are servants and we need to keep that in mind. most of all here in memphis to treat others the way we want to be treated. he describes the golden role as the cliff notes of the new testament. that's good advice for everybody on this side of the dais and certainly good advice for people at this table. everyone of you and particularly the chairman i ask you to take that to heart as we try to every week. thank you. >> thank you, senator. we will turn out with them looking to senator alexander. >> thanks, madam chairman. mr. chairman, do you believe the 140 civilian nuclear juice in the united states are operating a fleet? >> well, we have varying degrees

of operation. just a day or so ago the staff did indicate he placed one of our plants in what is called manual chapter 0350, which is a very strong statement by the agency that we have real concerns about the safe operation of the facility. it is currently not operating on a shutdown. with the exception of that facility, although plans are otherwise operating safely with varying levels of successful performance. >> thank you. inadequacy 23 react tears that are like the reactors if you could she not? >> right now i can't we have all of those plants are generally operating within our safe levels. >> trying to understand discussion about recommendations, do you agree some of the recommendations are different from others in the

right to be a priority in addressing them? >> well, the way i look at rarities is trying setback figure out constraints because you prioritize the situation for which you have constraints. >> i am asking is it appropriate to put them ahead of others? >> yes, in principle we would act for everyone immediately and with the same level of dispatch. >> yet and you don't mean complete your work? unit set up a process, is that correct? >> i think a acting, getting us to the point where plants are making modifications. >> mr. apostolakis said recommendation number one but take a good deal of time to complete. is he wrong about that? >> it is more of a philosophical description about what we do at those events that are considered dionne basis events. i think what the task force is

really saying is over the years we've dealt with those types of events and a regulatory framework. it just never given a label. we've given that of a pool and so-called extended behind a basis events. this is something any other regulatory counterparts in other countries do. it's not really that novelty concept. it is something we can move forward on. but from a practical standpoint, it is not necessarily changing any decisions at the plants. >> according to the united states code 5841 status quo, each member of the commission shall have equal responsibility and authority in all decisions and actions of the commission shall have full access to all information, can you think -- have you provided each member of the commission full access to all information? >> absolutely. i would know, senator, that is

from the 74 energy -- >> still the law? >> correct. >> it didn't change that law commentated? >> it to change the provision. it changed information provision statue. >> i will follow that up with your right. i'll accept your point. >> he may be helpful in not. >> how about the testimony at the chairman may not withhold or delay information requested by the commission? individual member shuffle access to information. is that still? >> correct. i think probably where there is the need for continued dialogue is the end of the provision states for ensuring matters within its functions. so that if they think where the tension exists in the commission clearly all information can't be provided to the commission. i don't have access to information within the agency.

so what i've tried to do, which is one of the recommendations in 1999 was to institute a more rigorous agenda planning process. >> i'm going to save 30 seconds for myself so i don't corner me time. i thought senator carper's advice is pretty good about leadership. i've been it mistakes in my life many times and sometimes have gone to the office of my senate colleagues worry that they'd have been unreasonable. i have listened to them and found in some cases i might've been. at least it provided a way to move forward. it is an extraordinary event when four members of the commission, three appointed by the current president say they are not it was do their jobs because of the way you are doing your job. and that of chairman, i hope you reconsider your thoughts at this committee whose job is oversight, should not keep an eye on this. another carper is a fair-minded

individual and i think it is the responsibility to watch this, but your responsibility to straighten it out and i think that starts with the chairman and i hope that happens. >> thank you. >> sent krasny, what i said was we were going to have a witchhunt. if it were going to actually continue this. i will have hearings every 10 months. so they can keep track of this because when we hear from the chairman -- i didn't hear anyone else coming that we are not on track to get the recommendations done. the senior staff at the nrc, 135 years of experience are not on track to do this in five years and that is a problem. so absolutely we will have a hearing and people can ask whatever questions they want. but i am not going to be holding a here in the chairman i said it to delve into personnel matters and character assassination of anyone because i don't think that's appropriate. >> cannot think anyone this

committee has six just a bit like to participate on that. >> than good, i'm glad. we are all in agreement. senator sanders. >> thank you, none of chair. let me begin by commenting on something that senator inhofe spent a bit of time criticizing an employee of the nr's the first suggesting that reporters read a report published by congressman markey, a veteran member of the house and it may be one of the environmental leaders of the congress. i would suggest that there's probably no member of this committee and no member of the united states congress to himself or herself or a staff member has not suggest it to reporters to read something. a document from the united states congress. senator inhofe may not like that report. but to criticize somebody working for the agency to say we have been published by a member of the united states congress to; a is sense to me.

man in chair, as i understand -- >> let's read the time. >> the statement that i read. listen carefully i asked my good friend. this is what the murky report said that mrs. wyatt the employee that you referred to as the reporters to read before yesterday's commission. he says the action of the four commissioners has caused a regulatory meltdown that i thought this leads at risk instead of doing what they afford to do. talking about these four. the four commissioners have a folk did a coup on the chairman and have abdicated their responsibility to the american public to assure the safety of america used. i'm not asking if you think that's appropriate. to go to the media and try to have them believe some thing

before the hearing takes place. >> and all do respect, senator inhofe, you and your staff have asked reporters to look at him situation information on global warming that many of us think are beyond comprehension. you're entitled to your views. at markey you have every right to disagree. i don't say anything outrageous or wrong. if somebody says here is a report in the united states congress. i do understand you don't agree with it. but i don't think that's a subject for much criticism. a make it back if they make to where he wanted to go. i want to get back to the point that under a lot of will be here today is philosophical disagreements about the role of the nrc in terms of nuclear safety. i do not criticize the integrity of any member. people are entitled to different points of view.

senator sessions and my girlfriend. we like each other. we disagree. does that mean i don't think it's a decent and good person. but when they get back to -- let me ask chairman jaczko a question. as i understand it, there are 48 reactors in this country who still do not comply with fire safety rules established in 1980 and amended in 2004 to ensure that fires do not threaten backup or assistance that commitment to meltdown in an emergency. this here as i understand it, four commissioners voted to approve a delay for compliance until 2014. you, mr. chairman, did not. can you tell us why you did not and where your differences of opinion are with the other members? >> i think the big difference is whether or not we should ignore

our enforcement process for those that were not moving forward with the new provisions. i thought after all these years that plans were going to move to the regulatory system, they should be subject to having violations counted in our process. if you air as for fire protection for meeting our standards, those data to be processed. i felt that with you strong way to encourage plans to ultimately get to complying with this new regulation. the other area we strongly disagree with this i believe at this point that the new regulatory structure or program that is better and should be mandatory that we really shouldn't be in the business of giving licensees the option to pursuing regulation. it really should be mandatory in something they have to comply with. that way you think we get to the business of adopting these

requirements. >> let me ask you another question. after the tragedy if you could she not, as i understand it, a senior nrc staff made recommendations for nuclear power plants in the united states. as i understand it, you ask your colleagues to make a final decision about what changes the nrc should make so that action could be taken? as i understand, a majority of the commission instead asked for the staff to provide even more information, some of which could take years to develop before making any decisions. why did you vote one way and a majority of the other way? >> i can't say why the others stayed. i felt to have enough information to endorse recommendations. i also provided the commission a

plan for how we could solicit stakeholder input before he made a final decision and how it could solicit additional input as well as from the advisory committee. the plan was designed to get us all the information so we could make a final decision in 90 days. but i felt a responsibility having help establish that task force with the commission's concurrence. i felt the responsibility to support their recommendations. they worked very hard. their recommendations withstood all the other reviews and demonstrated they were a solid other recommendations. so i was comfortable taking that. bipartisan statement of my leadership of the organization to endorse the recommendations at that time. >> i thank you, senator. we now turn to senator sessions. >> thank you. and senator carper, thank you

for your wise advice to all of us. let me ask this. former chairman mercer when he claimed openly he was doing so. he did so in consultation with his fellow commissioners and he send his fellow commissioners specific duties and tasks that they were involved in all aspects. commissioner alcindor from your distinguished military record. would it be fair to tell you that you know what thing or two about crisis management. were you aware and did the chairman make any firm announced that that emergency powers had been exercised when he was doing so? >> senator sessions, i along with other commissioners did receive anything chairman trant reads briefings to commissioners early on. i agree the chairman's registration. but with that name in japan was

superb reedit. that said, i did not think we had clarity whether or not the van and emergency power decoration. i did discuss this at a meeting with chairman jaczko and discussed concerns there is a lack of clarity here. >> as a military person, when someone assumes command of the situation to the normal chain of command, that should be crystal clear, should it not? >> from my experience, yes, sir. >> mr. jaczko, do you believe the chairman is allowed to withhold or delay providing information requested by other members? >> a research and information in particular. the tradition has been a budget information as the chairman formulates and budgets information that is not provided to the commission.

that has been established in commission procedures. so there's areas in which information is not provided to the commission. if there's ever an area of doubt, commission has the opportunity as a voting matter to specifically state they wish to get information and information provided. >> the statute at least under alexander is correct, is still in effect. but i hope you understand that. it says each member including the chairman shall have equal responsibility and authority to a decisions and shall have full access to all information. you agree with that or do you think you're not bound by that? the chairman can decide what he wants to reveal to the other members and screen information going to other members? >> as i said, 1980 bureaucratization act indicates

the commission is kept currently performed within its functions. so there is some information within the commission come within the agency that is that is not within the function and that is not routinely provided to the commission. >> well, i don't agree. i think you're misinterpreting the statue. i don't know why you would withhold budget information or any other information do you think you have a right to deny the other members. >> senator, if i could out when it comes to voting matters i am always providing information to the commission. as my colleagues have stated twice in front of congressional hearings, they have had all the information is needed to carry out the voting responsibilities. so where you think again there are some areas where we continue to work and better understand the situation as soon as he was not routinely within the functions of the commission and providing that information is sometimes an area of dispute or disagreement and that's where you want to continue to better

have a dialogue. >> the problem with the dispute is you don't knowledge of the full duty to immediately respond to the inquiries of your commission and share with them any information you have on any matter related to the commission. if you don't acknowledge that, i think we have a real problem. i don't believe it's a personality problem. i believe it's a question about management according to the law of the united states. isn't it true that the spec for general on june 6, in his report, found that you control information and that you act as a gatekeeper for information that goes to the commissioners? >> i do not believe the commissioner made that is the finding. he indicated staff had made those comments, but it was not a specific finding of the inspector general. i would have to check the record. limited that to you on that.

>> why were you so insist tent we move on these

recommendations, being challenged and cloaked in what i think is a little bit indirect language. was it too hasty? >> well, i didn't think it was too hasty. we asked the task force to complete their work within 90 day, and the bulk of the work was done then because of the report which they issued, and it was very thorough and a readable report, had done a tremendous amount of research and investigation. i thought it was reasonable that the commission could review that information and respond to it within about the same amount of time in 90 days. >> the -- i'm reading from the marky report for the committee report and it says the four commissions, four commissioners attempted to delay an otherwise impede the creation of the ncc near term task force. they conspired with -- goes on to make an accusation here that

is -- i give it to you without my information, which is conspired with each other and other senior nrc staff to delay the release of after the nrc near term task force report on fukushima, so what -- this policy difference, why -- can you imagine why it is they thought that that more time could be not rushing this thing along? if any one of the commissioners was to -- do you want to respond to that? >> certainly. thank you, senator. as i recall, there was never really any discussion about delaying the formation of the task force. i think we were all very

supportive of it, and it happened # very quickly. regarding the issue of the near term task force report, the only discussion i remember about delaying it was providing days for the commission to read the report before it went public because obviously we were approached with questions, so the only conversation with any other commissioner was whether it made sense to release reports the day it was available versus giving us a couple days to read it to understand what -- >> so is that one of the most serious criticisms lay that there's a couple days difference -- do you think the chairman was hasty in moving to get the report done? >> no, of course not, no. >> no because it's characterized as a blemish, and i didn't understand why that is. >> yeah. >> while chatting with you,

commissioner, when you were nominated at the nrc, more than 100 environmental groups wrote a letter opposing your appointment saying mr. magwood's interest promoted nuclear, not the public's health, safety, and the environment, and when you were being sworn in, the nrc report says it makes note of the fact that you have a distinguished career in the nuclear field, public service, but it does also point out that you served four years as its associate director, the office of nuclear energy as the associate director for technology and programs. that's a fairly high comfort

level with the industry, and i just wonder whether they were of help to you, and trying to move schedules along and things of that nature? >> no, actually, my role at doe was principally associated with advanced research and technology so i spent my time working with national laboratories and universities. we had programs with the engages with the industry, but it was not the principle area of work that we had. we had one very important program prior to 2010, but outside of that, my industry interactions were limited. we worked closely with international partners on a vast technology research cooperation, so not -- >> sorry, senator, we just have -- we're going to have another round, but we have to move. so sorry to interrupt about friends on either side of the aisle, but we have to move. >> thank you, madam chairman.

"new york times" hears litany of objections, fellow nrc members accuse chairman of bullying tactics. i'd like to introduce both -- >> sure. >> thank you. >> sure. >> the "new york times" article, first paragraph, in exchanges that ranged from merely testing to toxic, four member ease of the regulatory commission told a house committee wednesday their chairman withheld information from them, berated the agency's staff, reduced female employees to tears with because abusive comments and created a chilled at atmosphere that was hurting the agency's ability to function. i ask the chairman, in the hearing yesterday, commissioner magwood eluded to the three career women at the nrk rc who quote, were brought to tears and felt humiliated by your actions. i think these are the same incidents that commissioner

svinicki called outbursts of rage by you. the incoming member of the committee yesterday said that he was concerned as a father of two daughters about hearing about these incidents. his exact words were "it concerns me." he asked whether the allegations were true. i don't think your answers were clear. well, i have two daughters. i want to know also. are the allegations true, yes or no? >> no, i was -- i was shocked, and i was have to say mortified to hear those statements. i have a wife, i have a sister who had a daughter just about 12 days ago, and i have interacted and worked with a tremendous number of people at the agency including a large number of women, and i have never intentionally beraided, threatened, bullied, or intimidated any member of the staff. i can, at times, as i've said,

be passionate, be intense in my questioning, and if that is ever, ever led to an emotional reaction by somebody, i would want to know that, and i would address it immediately. >> it -- thank you. commissioner magwood, at yesterday's hearing, you spoke about a growing cancer of a chilled work environment because of the chairman talking about verbal abuse, screaming, language against women by the chairman. the white house is recommending a third party mediator should work things out between the commission and the chairman. based on your long experience, is that the type of solution the private sector does to respond to charges of harassment in a hostile work environment? bring the accused and accusers together and say work it out? >> well, i think the private sector, likely not, but 24 is not the private sector. i recognize the space is more complex, and, you know, i should

say whatever -- whatever is going forward, it's my determination i'll continue to serve my role as a commissioner as best i can under the circumstances. >> thank you, thank you. mr. chairman, yesterday congressman of utah asked a simple question whether you did anything wrong. didn't feel there was really a clear answer to those, so it's a simple question. are any of the charges made against you from the four other commissioner or from the nrc staff true? >> well, my experience has been that there is not a chilled work environment. i interact with staff on a daily basis. they tell me their views frankly and candidly. i have not seen a situation in which people are afraid to raise their views with me. as i said, i can be passionate, intense, committed to the safety job that i have, and if that's -- if that's ever been misconstrued or misinterpreted, i want to know that immediately so that i can address it and

assure people that it's simply not the case, but i would note that i have had for two and a half years the same core group of senior managers. i have had over 15 or more staff working in my personal office, ten of whom, at this time, are women. none of them have ever expressed any concern to me and i think they very much enjoy working for me. >> thank you. just to all the other commissioners, i think commissioner, yesterday, you testified you fulfilled your oath of office by signing a letter to the white house expressing serious concerned about the chilled work environment at the nrc, and did all of you believe that when you signed the letter to the white house agreeing at times you were full lilling your oath of office to the american people? >> yes, sir.

>> thank you. >> yes. >> thank you. >> yes. >> i agree. thank you for fulfilling your oath of office. >> thank you very much, senator. we will now turn to senator sanders. >> oh, i'm so sorry. senator udall. senator you'll be next, i'll waive my time. sorry. >> thank you, chairman boxer. the new york noshing article -- the "new york times" article just read talked about withholding information. has the commission received all the necessary information to implement the task force recommendations, and if not, what additional information is needed? say it seems to me there's a simple answer to that, and maybe i'll start here. have you received all necessary information you needed in order to act upon these task force recommendations? >> yes, i believe so. >> yes, senator.

>> yeah. >> yes. >> yeah? >> an exception noted in the letter to the white house that the paper 11-00 # 93 submitted to the white house on july 2011 did not detail the staff recommendations originally part of the staff recommendations as how to proceed. >> have you received those now? >> we received those, a number of different versions of these, the paper was sent to the commission and withdrawn shortly after that. other than that particular piece, i do believe senator received information i needed for this report. >> thank you. the -- >> senator? >> yeah, if i can just add. >> go ahead. >> that's one of the areas that my colleagues have expressed concern about. i would note that the -- there was a paper that was provided. it did not con tape any specific -- contain any specific

recommendations, and moreover in my discussions can senior staff, i felt it mischaracterized the position of the staff because the entire staff has not yet been fully con coltedded -- consulted about and had their views sought about the recommendation. i felt it was not properly characterizing the situation. i notified all colleagues in person i was going to have that paper withdrawn and replaced with just a straight cover memo transmitting recommendations. at that time, none of my colleagues expressed objection to that course of action or expressed concern about that course of action. >> thank you. chairman jakzko, the nrc task force recommended 12 steps to improve it, and there's immediate implementation of the 7 of the 12 recommendations and did that october the 20th, and

when you look at recommendations, they are very concrete things. i mean, i just pick out a few here. order plans to evaluate and upgrade the necessary seismic and flooding protection, strengthen blackout mitigation, order reliable hardened vents and boiling water reactor facilities, enhance the capabilities and instrumentation of spent fuel pools, which we know are a concern out there, have these recommendations been fully implemented? what's been done on the ground at this point? i mean, mind you everybody should know that march 11th was when the incident took place. we're approaching an anniversary here in a couple months. >> well, we have not done much yet on the ground from a direct regulatory perspective. the industry, to their credit, has begun to do some of those things on their own, and they are meeting, actually with one of our advisory committees just a few weeks ago in fairly direct

terms and in terms i have not heard from a chairman of that advisory committee. he stated pretty much that we have spent the last eight months doing a lot of talking, and it was time to get down to doing actual work, and i think that was a good wakeup call for the commission that we have to get on the with the business of getting these recommendations into the plant and getting changes made in the plants. i think we're at that point now where we can begin that, but we have work to get there. >> when do you think that will happen? what's your sense of the timing right now? >> well, as i said, the most near term has to do with a series of orders, and what the staff has told me at this point is they were targeting for may or june. i told them they need to go back and rethink that and come up with a tighter time frame, so i have not heard yet what the result of that is, and i expect it to be sooner than may or june. >> thank you so much. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair.

i'm very concerned, as i stated, about many of these specific suggestions that have come up. you had an exchange a minute ago, and i want to revisit it. i'm not asking you about your intention. i'm asking did you have an exchange with staff that led to that involved staff breaking down in tears? >> not in my presence, no. >> okay. did you have such an exchange that led to their breaking down in tears shortly thereafter outside of your presence? >> i only learned of the possibility of these events in the last several days prior to the hearing yesterday. >> okay. so you've learned of that. how many instances have you learned of? >> well, all i know is what's been stated by the commissioners in the hearing. i have not had any staff come to me and specifically tell me there's been a problem.

i would welcome that, and if there had been -- >> well, let's say we're driven to tears, you may understand why they may not approach you. does the learning of this information concern you? >> oh, absolutely. as i said, if i've ever done anything to cause -- >> what are you going to do about the specific instances? >> well, i would be more than happy to discuss it with the individuals if they want, and we'll remedy in whatever ways appropriate, but, again -- >> what do you plan on doing in plans of your future behavior in light of the specific instances? >> well, i certainly would want to understand what in my approach led to that, and, of course, i would not take any kind of action that could lead to a reaction like that inappropriately. >> okay. let me ask the other four commissioners without naming names of staff, do you know of such instances? >> senator, i had -- not naming the individual. i'm aware of three senior

executive service females who have been yelled at by the chairman, and one of them has told me directly she was utterly humiliated by that interaction. >> i have no further personal experience of this happening. >> okay. >> i'm aware of these events. >> commissioner, how many events are you aware of? >> i'm aware of three events. >> mr. magwood? >> as i discussed yesterday, it certainly, there's three i've had personal contact with the women involved and talked with them about the incidents. >> okay. mr. chairman, my guess is these women don't want to have a conversation with you for obvious reasons, and in light of that, what are you prepared to do about this in terms of those events and in terms of future behavior? >> well, again, without knowing more specifics, i, you know,

it's hard for me, and it's something i'd be happy to talk to my colleagues about, and they can, perhaps, give me more specifics about what caused the -- what caused the concern, and i'll do what i need to do. >> you have no guess what caused the reaction? >> there's times that i can question people intensely, and that's something that i'm aware of in my style that -- >> do you plan to change that style? >> i work on it every day to do it and to do it better. >> okay. let me ask the other four commissioners in terms of instances of not receiving requested information. can you outline any instances of where you requested certain information, budgets, anything else, and did not receive adequate information in your opinion? >> i've already mention the

withdrawal of the paper, and the chairman appropriately acknowledged that i discussed that with him, and he discussed that with the colleagues, did not agree with how he handled that, did not agree with his characterization of the staff's view points in the paper in 11093, and i've had concerns on provisions of other papers, and there was an issue in august i did not believe recommended the staffs' best recommendation as how we should proceed. with respect, the licensing periods of the nuclear power plant. >> any other commissioners? commissioner? >> i received a paper recently that i cannot name what it does because it's in front of the commission, but it had four options, and the recommendation was go with option d, and then i learn from the staff that the

staff really thought, and would have recommended option b, but they were pressured to change that. >> can i just follow through -- >> i'm holding everybody -- there's another -- >> well, i'd like -- >> i'm holding everybody to the previous time. >> i have a follow-up question. that's the usual around here. >> i changed it and cut off senators because we're running out of time. the commissioners and us. we'll move on -- >> madam chair, that all happened after the question up -- >> no, no -- >> finished. >> no, it's not true. i cut you off in the answer. we don't have the time. we'll have another five minutes a piece. >> we better make the time for this. >> senator, i will sit here as long as you want. i will sit here as long as you want. >> second round. >> i'm a fair person. we are going to have a second round, and i'm giving up my slot

to senator sanders. i will take mine at the end. >> i'm not comfortable with the direction in which this questioning is going, and i think the door was open by mr. barrasso. i think we're asking chairman to comment on issues he's not even aware of. we're into this meeting of your wife business. the door has been opened. it was opened by mr. barrasso, the door was opened by senator vitter, so i'll ask mr. magwood a question. it was quoted from the "new york times," and i'll quote from "huffington post," one of the larger internet publications in the country. this is what it says on december 12th, to 20* 11. "the man at the ender of the effort to overthrow the chairman at the nuclear regulatory commission and likely

successor if the move is successful, served as a -- and part of the nomination and confirmation process which is obtained by the huffington post. another comment in the piece, "when magwood was nominated by president obama in 2009 to become a commissioner, nearly 100 environmental groups along with the project and government oversight urged his defeat in the senate arguing he was too close to the industry to regulate it." further quotes, magwood coordinated with the two republicans and democrat on the panel to delay and water down safety reforms according to e-mails made public following the fukushima disaster, he's made an effort to increase safety standards, an effort closely watched by international regulators and nuclear companies across the globe.

let me ask, and, again, i'm not comfortable in doing this, but i think after hearing mr. barrasso and mr. vitter, we have to ask questions as well. that is mr. magwood, this article suggests that for whatever reason he was forced from his job that you're ready to take it over. are you prepared to tell us as a member of the commission that is not the case that if for whatever he left the job, that you would not take the position as chairman of the nrc? >> well, as i mentioned yesterday when i was asked the question about whether the chairman should be removed #, i gave the opinion that, you know, it's not -- my role and my responsibility was to provide the truthful information as i saw it. it's not to make personnel decisions, so i am not going to make a recommendation for the

-- >> that was not the question. my -- >> i wouldn't make a recommendation or a comment about what my role would be either, so i don't -- >> well, that's an interesting point. it's an interesting point because according to the huffington post, and i'm not saying it's right or wrong. >> okay. >> according to the article, you have been involved on a, quote-on-quote, coo, to get rid of him. you may be, if he's gone, in line to become the chairman. i'm asking you a simple question. will you tell us that you, that that's not true, and that you are not accepting the chairmanship if he left? >> well, let me first say i don't think my characterization as a coo leader -- >> fair enough. >> we worked -- we talked about this et letter to the white house, a mutual decision. i don't think there was a coo leader. >> okay. >> why i'm singled out, i can only guess, but i'm not the

senior democratic on the commission, so why people point at me, i don't know. >> you didn't answer the question. i'm not saying i agree or disagree with what the huffington post wrote. i'm quoting from a publication. you didn't answer the question, though, and the question was if he, as a result of political pressure was forced out of his job, will you tell us now as a member of the commission who some suggest, i'm not suggesting it, were involved in that action. are you saying, no, you're not interested in becoming chairman to replace him? >> well, i've never really expressed interest in being chairman. it's a very time consuming and very difficult job, and i had not exactly come on to commission with that in mind, but i'm also not sitting here telling you if the president asked me to serve a role like that and had --

i'm not saying i would turn it down. >> i'd suggest the president would make that decision anyway, and i seriously doubt he would -- anyway, let me just real quickly, i understand the nrc and inspector expwrnl reports -- general reports directly to the chairman; is that correct? >> i'm sorry? >> that the inspector general reports directly to the chairman, that's you. >> it's a -- it's a very lose reporting relationship. >> well, okay, okay, but that's what i understand from the 80 -- the changes that are there, so, i mean, i assumed you would say yes. >> well, again -- >> i don't want to take a lot of time. did you influence the inspector general or delay the investigation? >> no. >> i understand, and i know the process here, but i think you have to explain it. i understand there was an app captain to the nrc asking the agency waive an administrative

delay between approval of a new plant license and effective date. i also understand that the nrc staff presented a paper to the commission recommending retention of the delay; correct? >> yes, sir, that's correct. >> the delay really is to the benefit of the applicant to give them time. >> let me explain. i think it will clarify the senator vitter question we were trying to get to when the time ran out. the paper referred to with respect to the staff recommendation being different from what we thought it was going to be based on discussion with the office director, we're talking the same paper, and the staff had told us that there was no nuclear safety issue at all involved in the process, once this federal notice is transferred down to the office of budget, hence it was the

office's recommendation at that point in time that the effective date of the rule be tied to the time period of transmission to omb, and there was the recommendation that commissioner and i are referring to. >> oh, okay, so both the directer of nuclear reactions agreed with the statement you just -- >> this was the directer of the office of nuclear new recreated aactors. >> new reactors, that's correct. does this administrative delay have any safety implications 1234 >> no, sir, it does not. >> if i understand you correctly -- no, i'll go ahead and yield my last couple minutes to senator vitter, because he wanted the remainder of his -- >> i appreciate that very much. picking up on the information flow issue, mr. chairman, does the whole commission not vote on a budget or budget issues? >> yes, at a high level, yes, it does. >> okay, i don't understand the previous comment that budget information, detailed budget

information, should not be provided upon request. >> they are based on the statutory history. the chairman is solely responsible for preparation of the budget, so the -- >> it is a voting matter, wouldn't it be reasonable for any budget matter, information requested by the commissioner when voting on the budget for that commissioner to be able to get it which apparently he or she can't? >> actually, that's not true. this year -- last year's budget, there was, i think, a misunderstanding on my part about how information was provided, when the budget was transmitted, so actually this year with the budget, i provided all previous drafts, versions, documents, related to the development of the budget, and that was provided to each commission office when they received the budget to receive the deliberation. >> what was the instance where they asked for you budget informs, and it was not provided? >> i don't recall what the incident was, but they were

provided all information about the budget, and the budget, itself, is a large document. >> any request made about budget issues will be honored timely in terms of information? >> again, the issue there is really more about timing. i think there's been a tradition to, you know, a budget development is as we say, a sausage making process. there is, i think, been a tradition to give the chairman an opportunity to kind of do some of the sausage making and then present that ultimately to the commission. >> can i ask the other commissioners to chime in about issues they think still exist here, if any? anyone? >> senator, if i can say, i think -- >> i'd like to move on. >> uh-huh. >> first of all, if they are not getting information timely, i think that's in many cases the same thing as not getting information. i mean, time is of the essence. were you going to say something?

>> we'll have time in the next round. senator carper. >> just a quick question for commissioners. it's my understanding that the nrc staff also recommended that the commission quickly agent on the implementation of spent fuel instrumentation. i think that these actions would ensure we can monitor water levels in the spent fuel pools at the reactors, an issue in the fukushima crisis. for some reason, that recommendation was not included in the recent actions approved by the commission. could you both just very quickly explain why, very quickly? >> it was not included in the ones that are supposed to be after the ones without delay, i believe. >> it subsequently was? >> it subsequently was. i'm a bit confused. it is included.

>> it is. is that your understanding? >> i was looking at the sx exc110737, the fukushima actions, a tier one, two, and three approach, and the staff upon reviewing added spent fuel pool instrumentation to the list which has been approved by the commission. >> okay, good, thank you very much for that clarification. >> can i make a comment, senator? >> very briefly, please. >> this is a good example how confident people have different views. >> uh-huh. >> i was talking over dinner, actually with some members of the adviser committee on the safeguards, and they said, why do you want to do that? it doesn't improve safety. no, receiving information, of course, is always a good thing, but, again, if we think in terms of the constraints, in terms of resources and so on, and the chairman mentioned them earlier, they didn't feel this was a paramount importance that had to be done without delay. eventually we said, yes, do it,

but i think it's an example of how confident people can have different views. i was very surprised when they told me that. >> okay. thanks very much. last question. let me ask commissioner magwood, please. with the work on the fukushima report and the reported discoward between our commissioners, has the day-to-day staff work been compromised? >> i'm not aware of a compromise. >> thank you. >> not that i'm aware of. >> all right. let me ask the chairman, where's the commission on the licensing process of potentially new reactors and the reliancing process of current reactors, please? >> well, for new reactor, we have a final decision on the ap1,000 design currently in

front of the commission, and then we also have in front of the commission possible actions on licenses for vogul and the summer site. license renewal is continuing on pace, and we have a number of hearings ongoing for license renewal cases in front of the commission or in front of the licensing boards and the routine staff actions with regard to license renewals is ongoing. this, you know, in the interest of candor, this may be an area in which, if we have resource constraints as a result of the fukushima activities, we may look at license renewal as an area to pull resources. if that were to be the case, i don't anticipate a real impact on any of the license renewals because many come well in advance of the time they need their actual approvals if it were to be granted. >> okay. any other commissioners want to add what was just said?

anybody? okay. all right. the other thing i would say going back to actually comments of senator alexander who used to be governor, and he was also an aid, a long time ago, to senator baker, not everybody knows that. he was president of the university of tennessee, chairman of the national governor's association, and we said about the same thing, there's times we offended people and didn't know it. some cases we did know it. what we have done for years in all the roles we've played, as we have literally, personally gone to the person who's offended and said, if i've done something to offend you, i apologize. literally. in some cases i was not sure i should apologize, but i've done that routinely, and the door's always been opened to let me? when this man calls you and says i want to sit in your office and talk with you, close the door, and just have a good

heart-to-heart, have the door open, a good discussion, and give him a shot, and i say mr. chairman, when they do, make the most of it. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, senator. >> senator inhofe would be next, and is it senator sessions next? thank you, sir. go ahead. i'd like to pursue the report issue, and the issue of a chairman and the allegation the chairman feels it's appropriate to be objective on with regard to information that gets to the other members of the board because i think that's pretty important with regard to the integrity of everything you do. i believe as board members, you have a right to insist on that.

when asked about that yesterday by chairman issa, this was the question, "is it true that any information that you have has ever been withheld on your request?" he replays, "not that i'm aware of, and i work every day to ensure that the commission has the information it needs." i guess i'd ask don't you think that the commission -- that the chairman is not entitled to decide the information that you need? that you're entitled to have the information that the commission and the staff has? >> senator sessions, i think it's in order for us to vote on matters to come before us, we have to have the full information and the full views, uninfluenced by the soon your staff -- senior staff. the senior staff is uninfluenced by any other office, and we have

a few examples of those, and i know it's been a concern of yours, and that was a key, and in writing the letter that we did not believe our senior staff, and i talked to a bunch of them, and i think the other colleagues have as well and did not feel they can always present their views that might be different from those of the chairman. >> and so when you asked for a staff report and evaluation about an issue, you weighed their recommendation very seriously as you -- >> yes, sir, as i said in my opening statement today, i think the priorization efforts from fukushima are perhaps one of the key efforts that manifest the need to hear from the staff, not my view, but all recommendations had equal safety significance. some were really, really

important like the blackout initiative is important to do quickly, and i think the value of hearing from the staff, their unfitterred recommendations was where can we get the biggest bang for the buck in the shortest amount of time for safety enhancements -- >> but the report and information from the staff was the unfitterred or filtered in your opinion? >> we had concerns with the withdrawal of the paper back in july, the near term task force report that did remove from the commission recommendations from the staff as to how to go about moving forward with external stake holder engagement and priorization. >> do you agree that you have concerns in that area that the staff reports in not getting to you unfitterred on occasion -- un--

unfitterred on occasion. >> i do because there's been areas where what's in the report is not what we think. that does not happen every day. i don't not want to give you the idea that this stay widespread thing, but in some instances that has happened, and that's certainly not a healthy situation it seems to me. >> commissioner, have you shared the same concern? >> yes. i rely upon the staff providing their independent recommendations, and i have had concerns that i have not had their views in an unvarnished form. >> commission ire magwood? -- commissioner magwood? >> yeah, the experiences my colleagues talked about, i see the same thing either staff telling us after the fact that papers didn't represent their views or there was a paper they wanted to represent, but they can't get it to us. we've had those conversations many times. >> any of you aware of the incident of the isa report alleges the chairman became

shaking angry and accused the deputy executive directer of operations for being less than honest when a paper already significantly altered to confirm to the chairman's vision did not confirm to his desires, interest, or views? you know what incident that might be referring to? are you familiar with another incident cited from the review that the chairman used his supervisory authority? >> we'll have another round. >> time is up, you're right. >> we'll have another run. we'll stay here as long as we can. okay. we're going to move to senator lautenberg. >> thank you, madam chair. is there a difference among the commissioners in how quickly the task force can implement task

force recommendations? anybody want to answer that? what kind of a time frame? what kind of rush gets put on these things? >> well, i'll take the first shot at that, senator. i think that, you know, from the conversations i've had, i think we're pretty much on the same wave length. i think we are understanding is in common, and we want to move forward aggressively as possible, and i think we've been moving through the issues just as quickly as we can, and as i mentioned earlier -- >> as quickly as we can. okay. thank you. do you want to volunteer? >> i agree with commissioner magwood. >> okay, thank you. >> yes, i do believe that the goal of completing everything in five years is a good one. >> senator, if i may also respond, chairman and prior to committee hearings has been public about a five year goal. i think all five of us agree

that's an appropriate goal and support that. the paper 110137 dated october 3, 2011, is a 51-page paper provided to the commission by bill, our executive director of operations, and it's a fairly detailed plan, not exact every date in there, but a plan to move forward in a number of areas, i think, to do this in a very responsible, responsive time period. >> why is it felt that the commissioner'smented to delay the task force report on fukushima? i want to ask you this question. we heard about scoldings that took place, and that's not nice. i ran the company that now has 45,000 employees, and i was ceo

and there were times i'd be darned if i didn't lose my head and scold somebody, but i had the job for a long time, and i would ask you, i'll go in order, starting with you. is chairman jaczko unfit to serve in that exaift? >> mr. chairman, my experience with chairman jaczko is he is an extraordinarily, bright, confident individual. i have never questioned his commitment to the mission of the nrc nor to nuclear safety. that said, i've had significant reservations with how he conducts himself with colleagues, the nrc staff, and we've had frank discussions in this area. there's been real concerns.

>> mr.-- [inaudible] >> i don't think i can add to that. i agree with the commissioner ostendorff's comment. >> restate it, please. >> i admire the chairman's grasp of regulatory policy and technical issues. we've had conversations over the last year and a half that i think have demonstrated that. again, however, as commissioner mentioned, there's other issues that have, quite frankly, overwhelmed the attributes and created problems for us. >> that's pretty heavily hollering saying you both admire his skills and knowledge. mrs. svinicki, do you think chairman jaczko is confident? >> i joined in the letter to the white house because i shared the significant concerns of my

colleague, but these decisions ultimately rest in the hands of others, and i leave them to judge whether the -- >> you have no opinion about it? mr. apostolakis? >> as i said yesterday, yes, he can do doo a great job, but he has to control his temper and not impede the flow of information to the commissioners, which doesn't do all the time, but sometimes it happens. >> thank you, thank you. madam chair, everybody thinks that the chairman jaczko's confident, and that he has to be careful about hollering at people as i understand it. with this job -- >> time's up. >> it seems like a pretty scichy kind of appraisal. >> sorry to interrupt you, but have to be fair.

senator barrasso? >> thank you. the house committee warnedded internal disagreements among the commissioners should not be "a weapon of mass distraction from the issue of focusing on nuclear safety" iments to focus on -- i want to focus on nuclear safety here with folks on both sides of the aisle here. when employees and commissioners within an agency to have the mission of protecting people have disasters, is hostile work environment, outbursts of rage, and threatening the structure, is it just a weapon of mass distraction that we should ignore and move on or investigate? >> well, i always welcome congressional oversight, and i think it's healthy for us as an organization to have that, and, you know, i welcome these issues if there are challenges, and i want to address them. i said that repeatedly, and, you

know, as i said, i've indicated i think it would be a good opportunity to sit down with my colleagues and talking about these issues. that's actually something i proposed a year ago with the colleagues that we have a meeting, sit down, work through the issues, and there was not an interest in all colleagues to want to do that, but i continue and committed to having a better dialogue and to understanding where, you know, i'm exercising my authorities in a way that is leaving them to feel they are not getting full access to information because i do feel like i am working to provide that, and, you know, i would just say, though, that there's a tremendous amount of information that comes to commission offices. there's a tremendous amount of information within the agency as a whole, and, in fact, our commission procedures do specifically state that when there are resource challenges and when there's multiple

requests for information from commissioners, that has to be going somewhere within the resource needs of the agency, and that is ultimately the responsibility of the chairman. >> let me just question here with my time. commissioner magwood, at yesterday's hearing, you spoke of misleading reports in a smear campaign against the four commissioners who wrote to the white house expressing concerns about the hostile work environment. you stated that you do not intend to tactic to succeed. are there things you want to respond to in terms of attacks or anything you want to respond to today in >> well, i appreciate that. i it was rather disturbing 20 see the reports in the media focusing on my background. as i mentioned to senator sanders' comment, my background is one that focuses on research and development. i don't see myself as a voice or representative of the industry by any stretch.

as a matter of fact, a lot of people in the industry, we've never really been happy with me because they see me as an internationalist and focused on advanced technology than day-to-day problems. i did do some -- i did have a consulting business after i left doe. i did two rather small reports on policy level issues that have nothing to do with the work of the nrc. one was on -- i take that back -- one was on emergency planning, but -- so these are not things that influence me today or things i think about. i don't have any relationships with people in the industry which i consider to be inappropriate, so i just found the delegations in the press largely irresponsible, and the other allegations from my colleagues that somehow under the control of the industry i just thought was completely outrageous. >> i appreciate that. thank you for clarification. appreciate it.

commissioner ostendorff, it's been mischaracterized of the situation. elaborate what you mean. >> yes. i said that intentionally yesterday because i was concerned at the letter received monday night. i'm of great candor, tell the committee, it's obvious to everybody that this is an unprecedented action four of us took, not something we decided in the spur of the moment one afternoon to do this. this was the development of many months, frustrated, seeing things that were wrong, we wanted to stand up, and that's what we did. i feel like mr. daly's response to us, with all do respect to his position as white house chief of staff, it is not about lack of communications among the commissioners. itst -- it's not about internal decision agreements. it's about doing damage to the agency and me and other colleagues signing the letter receiving direct reports from

senior career executives about the hostile environment at the nrc. >> thank you. >> mr. magwood, you said it was disturbing to see reports in the media about yourself. do you think it was disturbing to the chairman to see what you said about him in terms of his relationship with the staff? do you think it was disturbing to him? >> i'm sure it was. >> okay. well, let's say it was disturbing to you and him. now, senator vitter opened up the issue of treatment to women. i'm going to take that up because what is said here reminds me of the days, oh, gosh, i'm dating myers, of joe mccar think, i have many my -- mccarthy, i have in my pocket a list of these who are anti-american. that's outrageous character

assassination, and so what we did is we went over and we talked to several women to find out antedotely is universally true. with respect to one female staffer, the chairman's the most fair person she'd ever met going on to say, "he treats everyone equally," and others said he invites people to defend, and he's never mistreated others. another said what i'm floored by is the conduct of the other commissioners. let's put this thing to bed here. i have to be honest with everybody. there are times when i'm intense when i talk to my staff. please, i hope they understand. i get intense. i care. i challenge. let's not be holier than now because that's something that is

hard for people to take. now, senator barrasso proved there's a witch hunt against the chairman. why do i say that? there's reports from yesterday, and he quoted from the reports of the witch hunt and puts them in the record. that's what it was. you know, mr. chairman, when you are in public life, any one of us could tell you that any one can say anything about you, and mr. magwood is finding out that, too, so i'm sorry. i'm really sorry about this. i think what it's about is something entirely different. i think it's about how fast we're going to move on safety at our nuclear power plants. there's a lot of people who don't want to move

expeditiously. that's not a fact unknown. all you have to do is look at what happened after 9/11. it took ten years, and without the chairman's leadership when he was sitting on the commission then moving forward, we never would have gotten it done, and it's life and death stuff, and who is on the side of the staff? i'll tell you who's on the side of the staff -- it's my understanding that in september, the chairman jakzko's leadership, the senior nrc staff endorsed the a, without delay, and 234 a statement they said the staff believes all the recommendations, if adopted, would enhance safety and the staff agrees with moving forward with each of these recommendations. now, the commission is slow walking the staff, and then blaming the chairman for changing the recommendations. these people have 135 years of experience. i have to say, mr. magwood, when we last saw each other, not the most pleasant, sorry if it's not, but i asked you the

following question on june 16th. will you assure me the task force report containing the recommendation is delivered to our offices on the day it's delivered to the commissioners. we asked everybody. you said yes. i have an e-mail from july 5th i'll place in the record without objection showing your chief of staff suggested you had wiggle room in whether to make this commitment and asked if she could contact other offices, and you wrote back it's appropriate to talk with other chiefs of staffs to see what they are thinking. i don't know why you felted you needed -- felt you needed wiggle room from turning over a report to the ranking member and myself. there's other examples of this which i'll put in the record, so i think this is all about safety. all dressed up as something else. i got to tell you, if i go back to my state areas where they have nuclear power, old plants there, millions of people living

nearby, they wouldn't be happen if a -- happy if a chairman was strong or maybe a little bit intense with the staff member, but they want the chairman and every one of you to make their nuclear power plants safe, and with that, i will call on senator vitter. >> thank you, madam chair. commissioner ostendorff, one important instance to the flow of information. i understand in the matter, the staff recommendation was different than you expected. yfs that, and did the -- why was that, and did the directer of the new reactors program explain the change? >> senator, august 10th, i had a routine periodic with mike johnson, the office director for the new reactor office, which has about 500 to 600 people in there, maybe 500 people, and he discussed this upcoming people that we were going to be

receiving in about two weeks with respect to this timing of the license effectiveness, and he told me he recommended that that effectiveness be concurrent with the date the nrc sent the federal register notice to the office of management and budget, and we discussed at great length there's no public safety, nuclear safety issue at all. i had a briefing with another commissioner on the topic. on august 25th, 15 days later, it comes around and the recommendation of that paper was not what i thought it was going to be, but it was rather to keep the status quo, and this is the same paper referred to. we were surprised. what i had heard was there was an interchange between the chairman and mike johnson about this issue and that the chairman's request, that the recommendation was changed.