the new policy even added restrictions that could have been used to withhold information from the chair and ranking member of the oversight committee. even though each of you are up for the conformation absolutely agree to make all documents available. and my counsel tells me whether you were sworn in or not is considered a sworn statement. congress unambiguously rejected the new policy when it rescinded that policy. your policy in the appropriations bill. i want to thank the bipartisan leadership of that committee for making sure that you can't do that. nrc still has not responded to my document request in a manner consistent with congressional direction. and not back down on this matter. in recent letters, the nrc cites nonspecific constitutional separation-of-powers as a basis for continuing to withhold

documents from our committee. however, there is simply no constitutional basis that this is applicable to the documents in question. finally i note excessive travel is of concern. i'm going to ask you about your travel. it's been difficult to schedule oversight hearings because one or the other is somewhere in the world. i'm mist satisfied as to why the travel records provided to me are marked nonpublic. i plan to ask questions about the lack of transparency. and scheduling of your travels. during a period where reactors are closing due to adverse safety regulations. the nrc's role is a strong safety regulator has never been more important. however, i'm concerned that whistle blowers who have raised safety and other concerns within the nrc have been ignored. so those are issues of deep concern to me. i have to ask you about all of

them. i look forward to hearing your open and complete answers. i would turn to my ranking member. >> thank you for convening today's hearing. i also want to thank our nrc's commissioner for being so accommodating with your schedule after the previous hearing was postponed to facility the majority photoon the nuclear option. thank you for coming back. as the chair alluded, many of these hearings have been scheduled and canceled because of the ongoing pursuit of documentation from the nrc. ..

management of nuclear waste. the legal commitment. more importantly, it's a step in the right direction for the federal government after years of political gains pacoima frankly. the policy and agencies tiering ship. today in his resulted in over $50 billion in spending with very little for movement. it is really irresponsible in the failure of that the yakima and safety evaluation report was halted in the first place and should not have required a court ruling for the agency to comply with the law.

nuclear energy has become an indispensable contributor to our base low electricity needs then it will continue to be for years to come as the commission continues to develop new regulation, it should certainly keep in mind the negative consequences that have resulted in specific cases from misguided regulations and federal interference. it would seem in recent years clearly negative result can ensue. add to the commission loses sight of its clear mission or partisan politics sway decisions regulations for the sake of regulating can become a profound burden on our fellow americans who rely on nuclear energy to meet their everyday needs. the negative effects of an unwanted plan closure can result in more than just a diminished power supply but economic hardship, loss of jobs : negative environmental impact.

the very nature of the nrc requires its leaders to operate independently of political and ideological pressures. the focus is on the safety and energy reliability needs of all of our communities. certainly the effects of the 2011 fukushima accident will continue to play a significant role in future regulation of nuclear industry, and we all agree with that crime. first and foremost by far of a safety. but we need to put that improper context of a stand our u.s. nuclear fleet. the safest and the world before fukushima. thank you all very much for being here. >> they key very much, ranking member. senator carper will go next, the subcommittee chair. if it is okay with your side, senator sessions will then go.

>> members of our panel. thank you for your service. it bears repeating today, the nrc plays a critical role in protecting the public and our environment. we must continue to have energy resources with respect to our nation's energy policy which i believe that again today because sometimes costs congress loses sight who of what the federal work force dozen indian and databases first. when the congress decides what to do our basic job like providing funding for the federal government bears a really difficult time trying to

do your job. as many of you know, as you try to find what you can, the government shut down is no exception. despite the extreme obstacles congress put before the nrc last october during the government shut down the commission and the simple use rose through the challenge and valets to ensure. have been never have to go through that again. the nrc workforce. the rest of the efforts. since october congress has passed a budget. some of these accomplishments are stepping stones to help toward a functioning government,

moving from one crisis to the next. right now of the embassy has plenty of new plan. out only is the nrc insuring existing reactors continued arrests safely over reactors. thirty years in trying to help our reactors to grapple with the nuclear waste as we continue first to debate our nuclear waste policy. all the while unclear reactors are facing economic in clemens challenges, putting additional challenges on the nuclear industry. there is an important opportunity to check in in see how the nrc is doing. despite my colleagues, one of my colleagues miss it.

save nuclear fleet faugh first minister of the commissioners to here. sometimes we disagree on how to get there, but at the end of the day we should a single. and because nuclear powers often a very technical issue of farm that many of our disagreements are caused not by different use, because a lack of communication or breakdown in communications. that's why i encourage my colleagues in this commission to continue to find ways to communicate better with one another and the public that we serve. as i said a tortured before, believe that nuclear power plants are some of the safest, may be the safest in the world. look forward to working with the commission ensuring the safety continues to be our number one priority. think you very much, madame chair. >> thank you very much, subcommittee chairman. now we turn to the ranking

member of the subcommittee, senator sessions. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you for your leader of the subcommittee. you are, indeed, an excellent chairman. work hard, he took responsibility for this. to a degree, unusual in the senate you stay on top of the commission. about person way to participate in that. it's a good example for gasol. this is our first meaningful oversight hearing what the nrc. a tumultuous time. it is get that under the lead of chairman mcfarland and with the support of her colleagues the nrc has stabilized and seems to be functioning well. it is an important test that you have at this time. the fragile financial stability in the nuclear industry.

a few bad decisions the deal of body blows to that of industry. many issues to review this morning such as post fukushima action bake units to the effect of regulations and a licensing activities. in 2001 nuclear energy comprise 20 percent of total u.s. electricity generations. and even more recently many of us your anticipated in the clear renaissance that would allow the percentage to increase. congress streamline the nrc licensing process to help facilitate and nuclear power. we thought it was the right thing to do. regrettably however by 2012 our reliance on nuclear power has declined to 19%. the u.s. is still producing basically the same room of megawatt hours and their powerful and it didn't 2,001.

i am deeply concerned about a rash of shutdowns to u.s. nuclear power plants. crystal river community in florida, songs in a two and three in california. last august he to energy and thus it would now move forward with its lee county florida nuclear power plant project which was previously scheduled for licensing last year. the tennessee valley authority announced plans to scale back work. modern nuclear power plant constitutes long-term assets that can provide safe, affordable, reliable preparers and ratepayers for decades to come. last month's edition of nuclear and is the publication of the nuclear society, the senior

editor noted that the united states is to our dismay now in an era in which decisions can be made that those reactors, which have been operating and continue to be exemplary performance producing electricity safely and close to peak capacity. so what factors are at issue year buick there seem to be many. our decision by a grid of operators skew away from nuclear energy in toward other sources like wind power or the article seems to raise that question. the article also noticed that nuclear operators are still counting the cost of compliance. the total cost and currently only the estimated. but in the extra cost to normal operation could cast doubt on any reactors continued operation this is a factor. what about the confidence

issued? waste confidence. is that a factor? rihanna settled the sufficiently. market forces are work. there are many important questions to consider. i hope congress will take the time as we look to develop a coherent energy policy to consider the role of nuclear power in our energy future. i firmly believe the u.s. should remain the world's leading nuclear producer. there has been some good news. southern company and their partners continue to make a progress. to a new 1,100-megawatt units, the most and best in the world are under construction. units three and four will be the first new nuclear units built in the united states in the last three decades. operations are expected to begin in 2017 and 2018. the steve farr way. post fukushima actions, it's

important to keep in mind that these units and a passive cooling system. the technology is designed to ensure that the kind of failures experienced africa surely cannot occur here. thank you, madam chairman. >> 1115. >> for the record. >> absolutely set of soaring. right now is senator sanders. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you for holding this hearing. thank you very much for being with us this morning. madame chair, this oversight hearing is covering a wide range of very important issues. i would like to focus on one specific issue, an issue a check

of about with chairman mcfarlane the need to provide as strong role for the state's in the decommissioning process where nuclear plan shuts down senator sessions below the fact that the nuclear power plant in vermont is going to be shut out. senator, i would suggest to you that the people of vermont would respectfully disagree with you. many of them of one to shut that down for a long-term. the important point is -- and endo is a governor and is the minister should have been working with the owners the important issue years the role of the state itself in terms of the decommissioning process. right now the rules as i

understand it, and obviously this applies not just of vermont, but to the clear power plants over the country which are in the process of being shut down to read what the rules do is allow the nrc to sit down with the companies and negotiate a decommissioning process abuse generally speaking the states to not have any significant role to london share, in the process. they can be observers, public meetings, provide input, but at the end of the day the companies and the nrc work out the agreement. madame chair, i think on the face of it that just as numic a lot of sense. the people of a given state to whether vermont or your state of california, it seems to me, have our right to have a place at the table.

adopting this will be the case. there was of one. some suggestion. may take 60 years. out of the fed's going happen. sixty, 60. that was the suggestion. frankly i don't think that's going happened. i don't think that's the intention, but imagine having a hulking man us in southern vermont deteriorating for 60 years. nobody that i know in vermont was that to happen. what about the jobs? we are concerned. while the negatives of the shutdown is the loss of decent paying jobs. everything being equal, we would like to see those workers are currently employed get a shot at being part of the commission process. they know the plan. i understand site. can that take place? think again. should the state committee union be involved? a petition. now, an important part is this is not an issue that system packs vermont.

we have a number of nuclear power plants that are being decommissioned, including in states like california, florida, wisconsin, new jersey, new york, an ohio. this clearly is a of a democrat or republican or independent issue, the rural or urban. this is a simple issue to be to the people of those states get a seat at the table? right now the rules doesn't understand it really precludes states. we can either change its rules come i will be asking you questions, we can do it through law. but warm way or another a think the states in this country should have a strong ceded the table. madame chair, that is my area of interest in this discussion. thank you very much for allowing this. >> senators, intention is to give everyone to and minutes

back-and-forth. hopefully we come back after. >> it was in 2003 when i was chairman of this committee, the nuclear regulatory commission last congress for a bigger budget to build new buildings and add significantly to the number of people. design acidification for a new reactor designs. >> only approved one designed to be the nrc workload did not increase the way it was expected there are some questions about that, but the commission still increases by over 30 percent. this is very concerning to me because of the past two years the commission has been developing sweeping new regulations that impose

draconian cuts on the industry. without producing sufficient benefit. it is as if the nrc with this new building and all of this new people have been using his spare . the analyses done this. while it is reasonable for us to review will withdraw and make sure we are not telling the same problems, it is not reasonable for the nrc to use the disaster to justify a new, expensive rules and reduce risk. employing its own principles of good regulation. just a few months after fukushima millionairess your near-term task force released its paper showing that there is a minimal chance at the disaster not only of the u.s. nuclear

plants designed more robust than japan's, but forcing a free and cultural differences both within the plan in between the plan in the nrc makes it much less likely. really apples and oranges. despite all this inner-city is continuing to push new regulations in response to the focus human disaster presuming that planning more and more continues. many more and more redundancies, even with the cost of these actions. a hundred million dollars. it wants to ensure a disaster like the one that fukushima doesn't happen in the united states and that it really comes them to keeping your reactor cool end of of sight and on-site power. our plans are designed to protect against all external has since with the current rate of one and a million years. unlike the plan in fukushima,

on-site emergency diesel generators and feel packs i located. we have to external pumps ready to operate. the united states nuclear fleet is safe and well prepared to face unforeseen events. the nrc has also continued to press the nuclear fleet to prepare for terrorist attacks in the wake of september 11th. the nrc is required the fleet to implement the security features, and many of them were quite well we're getting close to crossing the point where additional requirements are simply adding costs without any benefit. when you add in the efforts of the eta to impose more regulations on the water being used to cool the reactor, is justified because of all the tissue that the kids from being

damaged. start to regulate the nuclear energy industry out of business just like it's been trying to regulate fossil fuels out of business. and today there are more than 50 rules and other regulatory actions on top of the nrc which is more than i can remember since serving on this committee. and i would submit for the record since i know i will have time, but i would say that this is something that will cover in the questions that we ask. we keep in mind, we need the nuclear energy. there are some who don't want nuclear energy. we don't really use of regulation to accomplish a community, the chairman. >> senator, thank you. >> thank you for again being here to offer their testimony.

hour hearing in november was unexpectedly cut short due to the majority regrettable insistence on changing the longstanding center for nuclear option. an eager to hear today witnesses and some of the important issues facing the nuclear industry. the united states must truly embrace the comprehensive energy portfolio that includes all the best resources and technologies available today. we must also plan for the energy of tomorrow. nuclear power is of vital component of this approach to nuclear station which opened in july of 1995 becoming the first and only nuclear power plant to produce electricity in mississippi. today mississippi grand gulf is the largest single unit nuclear power plant in the country, and the fifth largest in the world

that provides americans with an affordable energy research and a key component of the state's industrial base. for plants such as grand gulf have continued success in this vital that the nrc exercise its oversight responsibilities in a manner that provides certainly for the country's nuclear industry. currently all final licensing decisions for nuclear plants are state pending the new waste toughest decision. the nrc previously has provided assurances that the commission is on schedule to complete this decision, but it recently was announced that the time line may be delayed. perhaps you can hear about that today. at the commission recognizes the importance of making this action a priority. and we will address this during the question and answer. in addition, have heard for many industries takeovers to were concerned about the cumulative impact of existing nrc

regulations as well as for their actions that may turn up to be unworkable or financially untenable. there is no doubt that the fukushima disaster in japan has reemphasized the nrc principal role to ensure the safety of the u.s. nuclear plants in the surrounding communities. in the wake of this tragedy, however, we must not lose sight of the fact met absent clear priorities regulatory actions can divert management from the most important matter, safe and reliable operation. it is vital that the nrc balance the needs of the industry with effective regulatory measures as it continues its important work to insure the safety and success . thank you, madam chair. >> senator, thank you. as we previously agreed we will

open it up for five minute speech commissioner two minutes, and the move will begin the question. >> thank you very much. >> chairman boxer, ranking member, distinguished members of the committee. my colleagues and i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the u.s. nuclear regulatory commission. the nrc continues to have a full plate of regulatory responsibility from the operation and construction and decommissioning of reactors to a nuclear materials, waste, and security. the commission continues to function effectively into leisurely. hideo of like to share some of our accomplishments and challenges. we can to him to address lessons line from the focus u.s. accident and employ an appropriate regulatory enhancements. licensees have purchased and distaste backup equipment a reactor sites, install supplemental flood barriers and pumps to mitigate expensive

flooding in the heart of -- and are developing plans to install hard invents and improves the pool facilitation. implementation of these and other activities will continue. follow up with detailed inspection once implementation is complete. we're also making progress on several important role makings of a carefully ensuring that this work does not distract us from day to day safety priorities. the highest safety and hence the for the operating reactor fleet will be implemented by 2016. 150 public meetings to give input and are fukushima work ensure progress. the nrc receives regular reports of the status of the fabricius aside from the government of japan and the tokyo electric power company as they continue their work at the damaged reactor building in dvr also

closely coordinated with other u.s., federal, and state agencies regarding information about current concentrations of radioactive contamination in the pacific ocean. based on the best scientific and permission available bell is a senior at states or abroad as identified in the evidence of concern for u.s. food and water supply or public health. the vast majority of operating reactors in the united states to perform well for. a few board enhanced oversight to ensure their safe and secure for operation. several reactors have recently shut down or else their decision to cease operations. the transition from operating to decommissioning and have two years to develop and provide the nrc with the decommissioning plan. the nrc will adjust its oversight accordingly ensure these meet our regulation. the nrc has acted expeditiously to comply with the d.c. circuit court of appeals decision directing us to renew and review

the yucca mountain license application. the commission carefully reviews feedback and budget permission. last november and again last week the commission issued orders directing the staff to complete the safety evaluation report for the application and to make the licensing and support network documentation publicly available in the inner see adam's database, among other things. the project planning and building of the technical capability to finish the safety evaluation report is nearing completion. the nrc also continues to make progress in its waste conference work. the proposed rule in generic impact statement were available for comment from september through december of last year. we conducted 13 public meetings in ten states to get feedback and address questions. in the agency that receive more than 33,000 public comments. the commission has recently revised its review scheduled for publication october 3rd did

not make full licensing decisions depending upon the ways conference until the court braman has been fully addressed. construction of the new units is well under way. construction also continues a unit to, and the staff is working toward an operating license in position for the plan in december this year. also busy preparing for the first design certification applications of the small modular reactor which we expect to receive this year. the nrc has accomplished a great deal, and a confident it will continue to meet the challenges ahead to be let me assure you, safety and security and are operating license some materials remain a top priority. thank you for the opportunity to

appear before you today. pleased to answer your questions . >> thank you, chairman, breaking the mark, chairman, a ranking member, and members of the committee for the upper tennessee to appear before you today at this oversight hearing. the commission's chairman and her statement on behalf of the commission have provided a comprehensive description of carrying out the important mission of protecting public health and safety and promoting the common sense of security of our nation will be in a recent communication to all agency employees the nrc senior career official for the sec director for operations to the following, our future is likely to be dynamic and a predictable, and the agency will remain flexible and agile as a response to new events and external pressures. you will need to continually evaluate the work we do in fact, give careful consideration as to how best to use resources and remain focused on safety and

security. i agree with this statement. as an organization which embraces the precepts of continuous learning he and arce consistently seeks to improve its organizational effectiveness as a member of the commission and will continue to work with our commission in the nrc staff to support the agency's assessment of how we can accomplish our work efficiently and effectively come in light of the circumstances highly professional staff members are up to the task of meeting these challenges as they have proven time and again of the course of the agency. and thank them for their sustained commitment to the agency, its work, and each other. i appreciate the opportunity to appear today in the courts your questions. >> commissioner. >> the chairman, ranking member, members of the committee. as chairman of the crows stated we have made a great deal of

progress in implementing the lessons learned from the focus sumacs the to republic to have the window and more today of what it would take to implement the lessons learned that we did in 2011. the commission said its goal is to complete and implement the lessons learned from the fabricius accident within five years, 2016. the focus exclusively on the five-year -- of surrey, it is important not to focus exclusively on the five years. but rather the better safety, some of elite by implementing the prairies. the spec to meet the five-year implementation go. it will improve beyond 2016.

impose. in another case saw allowing licensees more time to complete comprehensive site specific seismic risk allowances in my view these actions are consistent with the original intent of the commission to properly and effectively implement the lessons learned. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. >> members of the subcommittee, appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the work your agency. chairman's comments capture the full range of activities, and it

has been an extraordinarily busy time for the nrc. will lead briefly the the we appreciate the encourage her from this committee. since march 2011 the nrc has learned and taking clear, rational action to enhance safety. kantor pledged to another overreact or under react to events in japan. think we got in just about right our challenge now is to of sort yeah activities in prioritized appropriately. to do so requires to understand how the men as a preparation beyond design basis events in concert with their ongoing efforts to protect against much more likely accident scenarios. i am confident that the agents have met the challenge. again, i think you for your engagement during the last three years of hard work and therefore to answer any questions you have. >> thank you, commissioner.

>> a chance to do before you today. after receiving the fukushima near-term task force recommendations it was clear to myself and my colleagues at the table those recommendations needed to be prioritized to focus on the action items, so-called tier one activities. and believe that great strides have been made in implementing tier one activities. the chairman has been dead about covering these issues. a lot of progress has been made. i agree with my fellow colleagues that from our perspective and bin right. oregano is there's been a lot of work done, something's added to the place as the original nearterm task force report. a lot of discussion about what we should do or should not do. would say that the commission decision process as been very thoughtful indeliberate in these areas they're is a great deal of work has been done.

appreciate this committees over several. >> the queue. >> thank you. each of us would get ten minutes of questions. madam chairman, but the nrc five letters requesting documents that relate to the floods being generated in san enough rate. just two days ago he told me in writing that the nrc did not provide me with everything requested and you admitted that because of constitutional concerns. i have here the comprehensive congressional research service manual of congressional oversight. there were to constitutionally based privileges that allow an agency to withhold documents from congress and everyone is an assertion of executive privilege : the other is the exercise of the fifth amendment right not to incriminate oneself. which one of these are you asserting, as you do not give me my documents amassed for? six. >> madam chairman, thank you for the opportunity to answer your questions year.

we've certainly what to have a good relationship. >> i don't have time. and like you. i have a good relationship with you. what are you asserting? and need these documents. is it -- is it executive privilege? >> we have been working with your staff, with the committee staff to provide documents. >> if we head up the responsive to your request. we, of course will would like to continue to work with the committee to see. >> adelle what you to work with the committee. you have promised the ranking member and myself that whenever we ask for documents you give it to less to be.

>> best team of its other recrimination our executive privilege. talked-about preparation of power. we will serve. we also heard other things from your counsel the deal with other reasons was just don't make any sense. so we will continue to work with you. you know, we have had eight oversight hearings. >> travel. >> we all travel and business. sometimes it is extremely important to do so. the trips in the city of taken in your time.

>> commissioner, 127 days and international travel since 2010. and know that the chairman has requested that all five commissioners be in town of least one week each month. in order to ensure that the commission can conduct its business and be available to testify before congress recesses of asking if each of you would agree to a request starting with his finicky. >> yes, i think we work very allegedly of scheduling matters. cards and asking if you agree with the request, the you be in town all of you together. >> and of think there is a mature hasn't been. >> yes. >> yes. >> has good. it will make it easier on us. some of my colleagues are complaining we don't have enough oversight. no, the nrc travel records i received are marked nonpublic which is mystifying to me since there is no good reason to keep that information secret.

the taxpayers are paying for him. heat will michele free after shareware we tell it what it costs. some of the publicly disclosed some of the travel. but most of the doe. yes and no, will each of you commit to this committee to making all your travel and meetings publicly they will go mental work? >> el ready to make my schedule probably available in my travel publicly available. >> will you do that? >> ready to do it. >> you will do that. >> currently do that. >> are currently make my least publicly available. >> well my understanding, you haven't in the past. so we look forward to seeing none in the future. i'm going to be introducing legislation to insure that the commissioners and staff for more open to be. >> at think we all agree the nrc must be independent. it is essential.

i am concerned that your independence may have been compromises you consider the request to restore all the senate of a nuclear reactor. the reactor shut down in early 2012 when the steam generators like to be in very bad shape. the nrc properly requested a considerable amount of technical information from licensee in order to the side of the the reactor with. you're right to do that. the documents i have received, at least a received some indicate the nrc staff was. document declaring the reactor and saying that the restart of the reactor was safe months before it received all of the responses to the technical question is so how can we have confidence in the nrc independence when it was preparing to grant industry requests months before it received the necessary safety and related information.

>> the generator and a failure at the center of french nuclear generating station. there were many concurrent issues that were working at the nuclear regulatory commission. it was a very complicated proceedings when. there was an active investigation. >> and just asking a specific question. documents show that you were ready to allow the plan to start up before all of the technical studies were done. the end you have something drafted. i mean, i am just concerned. i guess what i am getting it, you close the reactor them. thank god. because of the problems. the company actually didn't, you did. but the bottom line is i want to make sure that the future, if there is an investigation going on, you should never reopen. i guess my question is, do you

think it is right to reopen the facility while an investigation is still going on? you don't really know what the problem is. >> it depends on the particular situation. unfortunately i can't give you a specific answer is a depends on a particular situation, and in some situations are regulations allow for a plan to restart while an investigation continues >> fair enough. i am going to continue to work on this. chairman, are these statements accurate? nrc former senior resident inspector file a formal dissent saying that they were operating outside the seismic requirements of its license to be is that accurate? >> i believe that this senior resident in years past did file nonconcurrence. >> you believe that is correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> secondly also said that the analysis showed that the newly

discovered faults could cause ground shaking those 70% stronger than the nrc license allows. is that correct. >> i would have to look. >> would you back to me on that? >> for the record. >> i have a number of other questions i want to ask about that for a record. now will ask all those. >> madam chairman, recently the nrc voted to delay recommendations by its own staff that two people be present whenever highly enriched uranium or plutonium was being handled. order to protect against an insider threat. the department of energy has had a rule like that in place for decades. in 2011 the department of homeland security warrant that violent extremists have changed insider positions a utilities. insiders and their actions pose a significant threat to the infrastructure and information systems of u.s. facilities. so i would like you to answer, do you support the quick

adoption of the two-person security rodeo staff recommended ? >> the commission decided not to go forward with that at this time. >> why? >> it was a commission decision. >> why? was the vote? >> i'm not sure. no recall what the vote was. >> does anyone recall what the vote was not to go forward with this? that you remember. >> madam chair, the specific issue was that the staff had not completed the cost-benefit analysis to assess whether any of the two-person room was appropriate corrective legislation -- >> we don't have an answer to what the vote less. >> i don't recall if. >> does anybody -- five people, it's done a lot of people, 3-2, 4-1? >> of voting against. >> and review the? >> voted against. >> how did you vote? >> i believe i voted against.

>> how did you vote? >> i don't recall. >> i completely -- this is a big and important issue. and this business of a cost-benefit analysis when you're dealing with a potential terror attack and the takeover of a nuclear plan, you have got to be kidding. let me say, you have never done a cost-benefit analysis for the appearance checking in the past. and you found the cost was minimal, less than a million the year. wood said the benefit of presenting someone from sterling major it to have nuclear weapon material would be priceless. i would suggest if you don't move to reverse yourself on this there will be legislation. thank you a chance to my colleague. question no, i think oftentimes in government in washington in particular we become very process oriented and lose the forest for the trees every son

just going to suggest a question not to be answered here, but suggested question for all of us to think about. senator sessions went through the last september into energy announced it would not move forward. they announced it would scale back work. no if any of us as individuals think most of all for unsafe or not save enough, that's a good result close to a pro wheel of those were safe. it's a little severe. our's breaks, congress, though establishment.

they don't lose sight of it. first of all, madam chair, at your confirmation hearing you stated your clearly, to be effective a regulatory body must be independent from economic policy and political interests. in the majority opinion, judge cavanagh stated that the commission's political prognostications may not prove to be correct regardless. in mayor may not rely of political guesswork about future congressional appropriations. did not considered a close call. why did it take you a court decision will to move forward

without legal mandate. why was the political part rustication about political this work about congressional appropriation not being independent from political interest to consideration. >> those decisions are made. i was not trying to second-guess the decision that were made in the best. i can assure you that we are fully complying with the court's decision and we are moving forward continuing with the proceedings. we're moving for properly and this. >> let's move to that. the commission has repeatedly and knowledge in this order that it does not have adequate resources. issue a decision. is that correct?

>> for to fully complete the lessons in decision. >> issue a decision pursuant to the review. >> that you propose a supplemental budget? >> we have not. >> have you taken any other action to solve the problem? >> we are complying with the court decision. >> let me ask you about existing resources. the few minutes ago, nrc staff has increased 34% since 2000. meanwhile, the expected increase in workload is never materialized. quite the opposite. a huge increase in staff note in

terms of applications for licenses. are you moving any of that staff to solve this resource problem? >> i have a little chart here. it's been it's a story. it shows in actual dollars and custom dollars. if you look at the custom dollar chart which is in red is the lowest it's been since 2007 to my belief. and in that timeframe since 2007 a workload has increased significantly. we have been dealing with it. we have been dealing with confidence. we have been dealing with fukushima. in addition to all the other worker doing, the new

construction work, all the work. we are actually now doing more less. >> well, there will be a lot of folks who disagree with you, and that goes back to my original statement. if you become completely process oriented, i'm sure you're dealing with more because he created that process. if you step back at think you come to the opposite conclusion. as you know, those resources were given to you to meet in the expected increase in license applications coming increase insights can increase in nuclear reactors. none of that and seven. in regulations have multiplied almost exponentially. but that fundamental growth of the industry as of happened that me as my question about people because you will agree that at

least since 2000 there has been a huge increase in body. >> since 2000, we hit our maximum a couple of years ago and we have decreased in size since 2010 we never of 30700 employees. >> okay. will not that long ago it was 2500. there has been a big increase over that time from. are you moving in the of those folks to solve the year career resource? >> absolutely. absolutely. >> moved recently from something else. >> i can assure you that we are currently about 80% staff cut for dealing with this safety evaluation report. so we are going to be ready to go. >> but again i was talking about following the whole process through. you said several times you don't

have adequate resources. of talking about the broader challenge to a have to you propose to solve that? >> the budget appropriations has been settled. we are in a reasonable position going forward. ellen s. my colleagues. cook seeking congressional reprogramming. activities used must be appropriated. they have to receive a congressionally program. >> a commission decision, something will have to decide as a body. >> i you considering making the request?

>> we will when it comes up in the future. >> the office, the new reactors. smooth the number of his personnel of the last two years because of the drawback and licensing. the action items the appropriate fiscally prudent use of these resources. >> well, i hope you can understand my general concern, which is it took a court order to have the nrc follow they cleared a legal mandate. and even as that is happening their statements. we don't have decisions to

follow through and get everything done. the review and decision. and so what will we start thinking about how we solve that problem. >> i don't hear any requests for reprogramming, any significant movement of individuals, even though there has been a major increase over a decade. any proposal to allow in the. so can you all discuss how we solve that problem overtime and present to us in congress and everyone appropriate your plan for solving that problem, not just identifying the problem, not just pointing to the problem. thank you. that's all i have. ..

i do a fair amount of travel and i'm chairman of the homeland security and i need to spend more -- do more travel.

i need to do a better job this year now i had the first year of the chairmanship behind me. but i travel a lot. some of you travel -- the chairman doesn't travel that much. she hasn't been on the commission as lock. some of you travel a lot to japan. that's understandable. most of you travel to places where it's less clear. i ask in term of taxpayer paying for your travel, where are you -- my understanding is that, eh, come not from taxpayer dollars but fees collected from the utility. can you give me the break down. 90/10. >> 90%. i go to justified places. it's hard to criticize you. explain why it is important and why you think --

i always like to think one trip i take is front page of the niewp and i have to defend it. take that approach to it. and make sure that you use the good common sense. i want to turn to sandy. sandy visited my state and our region of the country did a lot of damage. i think if it is real, i think it is we're going it see more sandy in the future. certainly we were actually very impressed with our licensee's response to sandy. they were on the alert. they were all prepared. we were prepared. we had extra inspectors at the facilities ready and watching. so we were all ready to manage.

the plants managed very well. the only plant that any kind of incident during that time it didn't achght the plant. >> others. what are some thing you learned from sandy acting on now. we could have done better not just within the nrc but the planet themselves and the state and local government. thank you for the question. we had the commission meeting earlier this month. we had one in public. we had our supervisor there. i think the licensing learned some things. we learned some things. the two comments i have regional coordination and the licensing and communicate with fema.

on sight there was areas identified to enhance the procedure. >> anything the nrc is doing -- to better ensure that our plants in the community around them are better prepared for storms like this in the future? >> well, we're certainly -- he asked our plants to reevaluate the flooding hazard at the plant. we are getting their flood hazard reevaluations in. we got a big trunch in last year. we're expecting another this year. to keep up with the potential for increases in flood hazard from climate change or what have you. we are on top of that and analyzing other aspects of whether and natural disaster events as we work through the fukushima tier iii dfts.

>> okay. how are they doing in the recovery? somebody give us -- how are they doing in the recovery from their terrible disasters they were visited by? >> how are we doing? >> no. how are we doing. >> at fiewksha ma? >> yeah they're a sister state to us. it's a difficult situation. it's an unprecedented celebration. they are so make it up as they go. it's a constant issue of radiation leakage in to groundwater. they have a lot of water issues there. and they're working very hard to minimize it. they lorelly, i think, are working around the clock. so, you know, but new problems will crop up and as commissioner noted. we are learning more all the time now about the accident or what happened.

i appreciate the question from you, senator. there are some important programs to begin relocating from the fuel. that's an important milestone that people in japan are watching closely. i think the biggest challenge say that have in japan, frankly, is to continue set schism the public has about the ability of the government and the regulators to speak clearly to requirements and making decisions. and they have the doubts. i think this will be a challenge for our colleagues. as they try to make good decisions. i think they are doing a good job. it's very high. >> okay. sticking with fukushima for another minute or so. in response to the fukushima event the commission continues to long list of lessons learned

from the accident. that's good. the nrc has several deadlines to meet in the next couple of years. i believe to meet the timeline established in march of 2012. are there any lessons or issues that have been a lot more difficult than you might have expected. and so what have they been? >> issues that have made achieving the activity? issues more difficult to address than expected. >> i would say at this moment not districtly, no. we are learning as we go and shifting around a little bit as we go. we issued an order, for example, on hard -- to make them more more secure. last year the commission revisited this issue and said, you know, we need make sure the vents are -- hardin them as possible open

them in a scenario. they have to be able to withstand the conditions of an accident. the it temperature, pressure. intense condition. we revised the order and reissued it. so these vents will be capable of being operated under those conditions as well. so we're doing that as we go along. chairman, it was last september along with senator sessions and barbara sew. we sent a letter encouraging them to streamline the lining process. since we sent the letter we understand they implemented a new expedited process for approving it which designs. i was wondering for you might elaborate for us on that process.

i have some foodback you received from the industry. how are we doing here? there are no complaint from the industry. i think we are doing fine as far as i know. anybody else want to respond? >> no. all right. can you give us an update? >> yes. as i said, we have finished our public comment period of getting public comment on the way environmental impact statement. we're now in the process of going through those and addressing them and we will be about right now the estimate is one month over time. we'll be done by the beginning of october. >> our colleague the governor

had on about the appropriate state and local government. we have a clear interest in the commission around the facility around our country including vermont. there's clearly an interest. i would have it as welt. and the use of common sense to make possible state and local government to have -- and we'll followup senator sessions and follow up with you for further discussions. thank you. i was have to confess i was hypoing that senator sessions would make it back because i always do so much better when i ask my questions after senator sanders ask his question. you'll find out in a minute. i -- let me ask this also. i really think, i've been here

for quite quite awhile. i was the chairman of the committee a long time ago. i think we have an excellent commission. i appreciate your service. it's well balanced. i notice that you're going to be the next one that would be coming up for renomination. i hope you could continue on inclined to do so. i would appreciate your service to continue. in my opening statement, i'm going repeat something i said there. it's following up a little bit on what senator vitter was talking about. maybe in a different way. i said that -- i remember so well. at that time i theired the committee. it was 2003. that the nrc asked congress for the bigger tbowngt build new buildings and all the employees. by the way, i have some specific

numbers. i have to say you weren't here at the time. you're off the hook partially. but they wanted to do this so they could add expected design certifications for new reactor designs and 17 of the -- that's not the normal we talk about. the construction and operating license. that was 4 and 17. that was actually at that time in discussing this. we were looking -- i went back and checked our note. e with would have to anticipate having the increase workload in three to five years. it's been a long time. and now ten years later, we only have approved one design certification. it's gone from one an expectations the design certification of 17 down one and

two. now i say this. i would like to get a response from each member maybe start with -- since you weren't here. tell me how it can happen. why did it happen? i would note, senator, some statistics i found very quickly here that nrc does have under review right now three design certifications. and -- chairman is helping me out. >> i talk about underreview. we said at that time we would have those by three to five years. not reviewing them ten years later. some member of the committee noted in the opening statement. some of the larger economic circumstances for the utilities that were interested in building these new reactors have changed somewhat significantly descrult some have suspended or withdrawn their application.

some have he creased the pace at which they are supporting the review of their application. by which i mean they generate questions. they indicated they're content with a lower pace to our review. some have become protracted for that reason. because of timing. i come back and ask the same question of the other three. i want to get out thing in here. the nrc -- near term task force in two japanese report determine that the disaster one we call made in japan. in other words, the cultural differences and the gaps that are out there. it would seem we need to have that determined. we talked about this way back in 2011 when it happened. we said there are difference here. there are cultural differences here. i would ask chairman has the nrc conducted a thorough gap

analysis between the japanese and the united system and regulation to compare and contrast the complete picture compare u.s. and japanese nolgd more closely and wisely cost-effectively suggest policy changes. have we made that? we did a comparative study. but it wasn't comprehensive. we did -- >> no. in part because it's to get in to the weeds of comparing the u.s. and japanese we have to translate all regulations to fullly understand the differences. let me jump to the conclusion of the study we did. we found some similarities. and we found some differences. but the bottom line was there was no evidence that a fukushima type accident would have been completely avoided in the u.s.

>> what i've learned from the fantastic staff at the nrc is that one of the most important things for regulator is operating experience. and the operating experience we have gained during the fukushima accident is significant. we did not prior to the fukushima accident expect or analyze for more than one retack or it at the sight to have an accident. that was not planned for. we had not prepared properly for extended long-term station blackout. no electricity. no backup sources. we're now addressing that. and do you know what? every country with significant nuclear program around the world came to the same conclusion. they are doing the same. >> what i would like to have is the copy of the report you have. >> certainly. >> not as complete as we would

probably want. i want to compare the note we took three years ago. on the change, for example. you have to go get permission and advance to do things we are through the nrc empower those people on the sight to do. and there are so many changes like that. i would like to ask, well, qap contain. would you think it's important for us to have the benefit of the complete report even more complete than the one we have right now? >> senator, i appreciate the question. i agree with his response. i know, it's been some discussion over the last couple of years. the committee. i think we have thoughtfully taken aboard the fukushima lessons learned including scope of japanese regulations in place at the time for those areas important. >> okay. well. we like to have the benefit of

everything. while we talk about getting reports, miami chairman. i've been watching closely to see do you have a date we would have the report? >> i think it's about a year from january. but i need get back to you on that. let me take it for the record. >> for the record, i would like to have you give me a date that we should anticipate receiving it. i think it's to me, anyway, that's important. in the remaining time, i would ask the question in opening up how we can when we're looking at -- oh. first of all, increasing staff. it's my information we have 900 more employees right now than we had in 2004. i don't know if it agrees with your chart. take your chart, since this action took place in 2003,

extend it to the three years prior to 2003. so we can get a better look how much came from the increased activity that we anticipated we're going happen in design certification. so i wouldn't ask you take the chart. go back to instead of starting in 2003 start in -- >> we can do that. in the rest of you in term have the increase from anticipating design certification in 17 and only getting one. design certification. the ore three of you that didn't have a chance to respond to that tell me what i'm overlooking here? >> on the face we don't domestically look good. >> that's a good response. how about you? >> senator, i think when you

look at what actually is taking place on the last several years, you find that the applicants and the licensees have actually struggled somewhat. it's a little bit dpircht than the gap i'm talking about. >> there's been significant back and forth with the applicants over technical issues. it's taking longer than anybody thought. there are still review underway as we speak. >> i'm almost out of time. real quick, senator. real quick. two examples on design certifications. met bee she had a design certification for the apwr. submitting group backed off the resources to folks back in japan. the epr and the international community. >> my time is up.

one more thing for my good friend senator sanders. >> 1115. i'm afraid people won't -- one sentence. okay. [laughter] out of your time. that's good. that's good. do you think it was unfair me me to assert that perhaps we're trying to egg late the nuclear energy out of business just like we're trying to regulate the fossil fuel business out of business? thank you for that with that we turn senator sanders. let me begin. i know we disagree. we share your line of questions about the growth of employees at the nrc. and the commissioner said doesn't look good on the surface. i agree with you. that's something we want to pursue together. the other issue i want to get back to the point i made earlier

about the role of state government and decommissioning process. before i do that, i want to get to the voting issue. every person up here is there any reason why every vote that you can cast should not be made public. right down the line. madam chair? >> i think there are -- when we vote -- >> very briefly. in the role, those votes, i don't believe. my point is give me an absolute. we have cast votes about whether we go to war or not. some consequence.

they are made public. any reason why your vote how would not be peaked public. you think are some occasions where they should not. i yield back. >> i agree with that. and add if there are security-related matters those are not made public as well. that's big word. security. we can hide a lot of security. >> i agree with my colleagues. the vast majority are public. >> every single one of our votes that come to us on sticky paper in the voting process are complete. they are made public. >> i happen to think that unless there are some extraordinary circumstance they should be made. it's my own view. it's an issue i want to pursue. i think ranking member vitter raised the issue of nuclear shut down in this country. the truth of the matter is in a rot of people concerned about nuclear power. we have concern about safety aspect of nuclear power.

we are concerned about the cost. many of my conservative friends here say over and over again they want the government to deregulate and out of the private sector. we see it every day. the truth matter of the we didn't have legislation like price anderson which is not a well-known piece of law. if there was a nuclear disaster. i'm noser sure everybody is aware. they would be called upon to come up with tens and tens and. tens of billions of dollars to deal with the cost incurred. am i right? >> you are correct. in the goal of getting --

to repeal it so we can leave the nuclear power industry alone. and not get involved in government. and i look forward to working with senator vitter or senator inhoff getting the government out of the nuclear power industry. any volunteers? okay. there we go. i'm not going to volunteer. i want to underscore exactly what i said. i listed all of those shut downs. i said if you believe most or all of thesesighteds are not safe or not safe enough, then that's a good result. if you don't, and i think the vast majority of informed folks do not. then i think it's a failure upon our collective part. >>. >> no more back and forth. i'm nervous people won't get a chance. finish your time. i have heard -- it sound so engaging.

we have heard speech after speech about the government being involved in the private sector not letting free comprise dot thing. here you have a situation without prize anderson. it is likely the nuclear industry in america will collapse tomorrow. wall street whose job to make money don't think that ensuring nuclear power plant is a profitable enterprise. they won't do it. i look forward to working. the issue that i wanted to focus on. i want to mention in term of nuclear power i think everybody here knows germany is in the process of -- they are not dumb. they're in the process of phasing out nuclear industry. by the year 2020. people around the planet have different view. here is the issue they didn't

want to focus on that the role of states inte interrating my concerns. there are a number of states in which nuclear power plants will be shut down. california, vermont, elsewhere. it is enormous importance to the people in those states how the decommissioning process works. will it take 60 years. has been the case ten years. will the people be satisfied about the lack of radio activity in the area? where will the nuclear fuel rod be placed? who are get the jobs? what about the financial arrangement. all of which are very much concern. i can tell you to the state of vermont. i have flee questions i would

like to ask brief responses to the complition. to you agree that states have a strong interest in u how the nuclear plants are decommissioned? >> i would agree the state and the public. >> yes. >> yes. okay. do you agree that it is fair and reasonable for the host state to have a real seat. i know, the real seat is not quite technical term. but a significant role to play during the decommissioning process? not just a hearing. not just giving their opinion. but having a seat at the table helping to determine the outcome. >> let me explain something. our regulation what we do is regulate the safety and security of the facility as they

decommission. let's talk about that piece of this. in that our relationship with the licensing. we are holding them accountable. make sure they are providing safety and security. now the public should have some kind of role. question do encourage public engagement. we encourage strongly that the licensing form for some kind of community advisory board in which they could -- >> i apologize. i don't have a lot of time. advice can be rejected. >> yep. my question to you all is should the states themselves who have to deal with the consequences of the decommissioning process have a real -- as i understand real is not a

technical term. be part of the process such that if what is negotiated between the industry and the nrc is not satisfactory that will not happen. to be a real player in the process. should the states have that type of authority? very briefly. >> i think it depends on the specific situation in the state. i think there are more interest at stake than just the governor of the state. there are local interests as well. those need to be represented. it's a very important issue. i think your rules right now are not satisfactory. i think you do not give enough not input. you don't give enough power in

the decision making power to the people of the state. i would hope -- we had a chat about this. change the rules. if you do not change the rule i will introduce legislation to make sure states have the authority. thank you. >> thank you, senator. you can continue on my support for that. massachusetts has one. senator sessions? >> thank you. we don't want to get the government out, assume of solar, auto, ethanol, and wind power. >> how about oil? >> oil? not much except -- except 6 billion a year. that's disputed fact. okay. whether it's a tax break or a normal tax situation.

okay. i would like to see done in alabama. i don't know what they can. they sued vermont and -- multiple times. i guess they finally gave up and closed the plant. that's all right. they don't want to hire have the electricity produce using carbon fuel or whatever. so be it. i would like to see clean nuclear power be used more around the country. now i raise this concern because i'm worried about it. i think all of you are aware of the situation we have concerning -- constriction of nuclear power. and if states now -- second guess your regulatory power and maybe they have a right to do so. if they jump in and double up on the cost of closing a plant or opening a plant it's u just one more burden and make it even less likely to have an expansion on nuclear power and more likely

that we will see this decline continue. i'm worried about it. you have been on the commission for some time. you observed these issues develop. would you give your thought to us and share your thought about what might be contributing to the erosion of the nuclear power generation and the failure of new plant to get started that we thought would be started? >> well, i think well acknowledged by economic -- the situation of abundant natural gas while good for the united effects the economic of both new nuclear but also current nuclear. and so from the regulator standpoint. altogether we don't control any of the marc economic factors, i think that our pledge as a commission is to make certain that we do the most discipline sort of analysis and work so that we are only imposing

regulations we analyze and justify. >> is it possible these regulatory factor and thelet say the lack of final certainty over waste disposal in yucca mountain and cumulative cost are effecting the future of nuclear power? >> i support the commission's action to address the court's remand to us of our waste confidence decision. i think that the commission and the agency staff are taking quick and responsible action to address the deficiency that the court identified which were not the entirety of the rule we had put forward. but they the court asserted and found that or analysis and evaluation lacked certain point remedying those specific deficiency. and as the chairman noted we have delayed our schedule by one month. we still continue to push forward very aggressively.

it's worse than that. they hammered for failure to meet this in violence of multiple requirements for law. it goes to the core of who i ares law in america. congress passed law and we chose the sight. it's been authorized and directed. fees have been collected and billions of dollars. little action has been done. wouldn't you agree court's promise was a real the decision was a correct teak of the failure to on the congressionally approved yucca mountain site. >> yes. the court's language was of unequivocal and very strong. but we have taken action to address the writ.

when will that be completed? >> we are providing monthly report to the committee. we don't have the team of nrc expert who address the work fully assembled. i believe the last e heard we have 75% of the expert assembled. as the chairman noted, i think they still tapet takes one year. >> she talk abouted that previously. i think if you need to reprogram money. will the governor of the united execute the law accomplished by the elected congress, and you have duty to do that. not one of the united states senator some powerful senator ought to be able to block what has been decided by out majority of congress. i feel like -- ly say this. i believe if you're seeking investments to build nuclear plant in the future, the fact we

have failed to have an approved disposal sight is a factor. how much i don't know. in weighing against build ling and doing forward with investment. you can have the waste disposal disposed as required. you will be less confidence in investing. how many plants are license or relianced process now? >> licensing process? we have nine combined license reviews underway. many have been slowed down in part because there are delays in the design certification for

the. those were requested by the venn or its themselves. there are no firm construction plans for those right now. >> right. we have five reck actors under construction. actively in the u.s. we'll be seeing most likely the completion of the unit. >> so you say the tba -- yep. >> the two. and two at summer in south carolina. >> and the they entirely -- they are entirely new designs. yep. >> how would you describe. i know, you have been to the plant i hope they don't complain about the travel. it's good travel. to go observe it and see what is going on. the observation the plant with the new design ap1,000s pass i

have cooling. you allow the water to cool is the system and prevent disaster. would it be an improvement on the fukushima design? avoid some of the dangers there? >> half the systems are certainly better than active systems systems that strob activated. they are an improvement. >> for people listening. would you describe how the passive system works? in light of the time i'm taking it for the record. >> okay. do you feel like the plant that ron the new ones moving forward could help the united be a leader in a modern nuclear plant and set an example for the world as well as our country? >> well, it's our job at the nuclear regulatory commission to

ensure that the operating plant and the plant under construction are moving along safely. they are operating safely and securely. we're protected of public health and safety. it's not our job to prognosticate on the safety of the -- sorry the health of the nuclear industry or what is best in term of nuclear policy or energy policy. we leave it up to the congress and the administration. >> well, you have a roam to play in it. and excessive regulation at this time real competition for low cost natural ghast is fairly clean carbon fuel but not as clean as nuclear power. i think that the scale ask be tilted in a way that we could see it collapse. in the future of nuclear power. i think you have to be aware there are ramifications from

your decisions. thank you for your work. i thank you for trying to dot right thing for the country. >> thank you very much. thank you for being here today. nice to see you. the principles of good regulation, they emphasize efficiency and focusing on activity that have the greatest safety significance. rule makings are a small portion of the total scope of the activity that licensees must respond to. how does your agency prioritize the nonrulemaking activity to ensure your finite resources are focused on activities of the highest safety significance and the most significant manner. >> let me say thank you for your question. do you believe that prioritization process is necessary? >> yes. we use a prioritization

process. we work with industry in helping set the prioritization process. i believe we're going to be receiving a staff paper on the top thick year. let me say in general we accident occurty at the highest priority setting factor. we depend how new rule fit to the strategic plan and how what the interests are within the nrc and congress and other governmental bodies and the public ngo. and industry, as i said. >> with regards to fukushima and what happening there, part of evaluating that lesson. i think need to be how you look in the future of the consequence s in working with other agencies within our government. and especially with regards to more dams up stream and if there would be any failures of those

dam. this is a subject i know not of interest to you but also to our other agencies out there. the core, for example, department of homeland security. how is the commission coordinating their research on that? >> we are working with the other agencies that you mentioned as well as the federal energy regulatory commission. which also has some purview over dams. we are working closely with them to deal with the issues. they are significant issue. >> do look at any uniformity in trying to come up with the good assessment on that? >> you formality among the federal agency? how is that working? >> yeah. >> we have our differences. >> do you think you're going to be able to work together? >> yes. yes. >> this is a huge concern. yes.

do you have a formal process in place? that work with the other agencies? >> yes. we do. our staff has been coordinating with them and meeting with them on a regular basis. do you anticipate you're going to be coming up with a plan or soon or going to be targeted for each area? >> let me get back to you with a specific answer on that one. >> okay. from a review of industry perform over the last twenty years. it appear the most significant safety improvement have been obtained as a result of voluntary industry assessment to identify and fix those vulnerabilities. do you agree with that? >> no. i don't. >> tell me why. >> i don't think there's any evidence that any -- let me put this way. there are a number of voluntary actions taken by the industry but i think they have been

prompted by actions within the nrc. and anticipation of new rule at the ncr. my colleague might disagree. i encourage you. the study that was done in the nowed late '80s to identify -- [inaudible] certainly contributed to the and the safety of the i wouldn't call those the most significant safety improvement. i think we have made tremendous progress in the protection, for example. both the industry and the nrc staff. come up of ways of improving it and understanding better. i would say that is more significant improvement.

qon text of the fukushima. two comments. one, the commission back in 2011 made a very concerted decision to prioritize those safety issues and tier i, tier ii, and iii. i being the most important. it srved them well. the second piece in the context of few she ma industry developed a flex proposal to deal with loss of power offset, on sight. to deal with other issues associated with the catastrophic event. that's been a partnership industry developed that in response to our mitigating strategies order. i would say it's a partnership lot of discussions and interactions between the regulator and vitter raised and the public on the issues.

and their own desire to build margin and increase safety. there's a handshake along with that. i think each plant benefits from voluntary matches taken by licenses. how to today up and compare them to regulatory action. i don't think we try to do that. i agree with my colleagues i think the regulatory framework. thank you. i want to thank my colleagues. it's great. they just started the vote. that's good. i want to thank you. we're going have you back soon.

there's a ton of issues we didn't get to. specifically, in the next hearing we're going look at more of the transparency by commissioners who are going to look at the twelve recommendations made post fukushima for safety by your own staff between them had 150 years experience who laid out 12 thing you should be doing. you should do. that the time it was a hope in the commission to get those things done in five years. fukushima's march 2011 and 2012 passed and 2013 and approaching 2014. i also found a very interesting talk about cost benefit. we are going to make public your

vote. you voted with everybody else not to do. everybody agreed not to do the two-person. just a reminder jog your memory. we found it in the public record. so the issue is your own staff who had 150 years of experience get the twelve things done. don't do a cost benefit able sis. the cost of fukushima, might i remind you, is pretty much immeasurable and the benefit of avoiding that is pretty much immeasurable. you doctor doing cost benefit on everything. i'm going to find out from you next time. all of you. the status of each of these twelve recommendations. i hope you can move forward on them. that is critical. i'm going put in the record a letter i got as you delivered

you signed it the next area of information and you're answer if you have a problem call me. i have a problem! you asserted some kind of illegal bar to giving me everything! is your general counsel here? i've never met her! okay. i think it's important that you talk to my counsel and you also speak with those who advise us. our understanding is the privilege that you are suggesting is absolutely off the wall! our interesting from every legal expert here is you can assert executive privilege or the fifth amendment right not to incriminate yourself! you're talking about some

separation-of-powers. well the arrogance of that is unbelievable! you wouldn't be here without the congress. you wouldn't be here without the congress setting you up you wouldn't be here! you have to be subjected to oversight. we have a right to document. when you sit there and you tell me and senator vitter you're going hand us all the documents we want and you don't, i say very sweetly. i'll be happy to find out! what! if you need anymore, yes i need them all! it's not personal.

i'm sure we can be friendly on a personal level! that's not what this is about! it's about openness and transparency! it's about safety! it's about accountability. and for you to withhold documents, which you admit you are doing! based on some phony legal argument. it's beyond it. maybe it winds up in court. maybe we sue you! i want the information. i will get it. even if i have to go to whistle blowers. i'll teaming you get me the information! even before the inquiry there was a staff opinion to let it go and open it! i can't find out why and how. it's wrong! i'm sorry but this continues on and on. i thought maybe the new chairman

and new spirit here things would change, you know, but whether it's your travel that some of you don't even want to have buried. you asked us to make it considerable. don't tell people what we spend. what is that about! you're not above the american people! i want you to travel somewhere! i want you to go to japan. i don't know some of the other places look like they're fun to go to. i don't know how much they have to do with anything. i'm hoping you would go back and talk to each other and instead of going back and saying that barbara boxer! you have a right to do that. but i hope you will also change your attitude about openness, transparency, about moving a little quicker adopted one out of these 12 recommendations i don't understand it.

just look at the faces of the people who got caught. you can say all you want florida never happen here. don't say that. we never thought we would be hit on 9/11. we never thought we would see the like of hurricane sandy. no one ever thought kids would have to be in a bus on an iced road for over night either. we're not that powerful. we're just not. we're humble in the face of what could happen. i hope you'll go back and i hope your counsel will look at the law in the light that our experts are telling us. they don't have anything to hide oar anything to gain they vitamin been advise congress forever. i have their opinion here!

i'll give it to your counsel! this summary of it! we have the whole book if you need. it i hope you'll take a look at this. should we give it the whole thing? we'll give you the whole entire book about it! what you're telling us is simply unheard of! we don't get it from any other agency, just so you know. people complain about epa they're not asserting. they're asserting executive privilege or one of the arguments that are legitimate. so we'll have you back soon! we're going look at the twelve recommendations and how are you going about it. i thank you for being here and answers the questions you did. thank you very much. we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

house republicans are currently in maryland at the state eastern shore region for a policy conference. about raisings the debt ceiling. >> let us know what you would like to do with the get ceiling and whether or not it's an appropriate place to try to depress what your worried about. i would like to remind you that it was the president who then and the senator said that the

lack of a plan to deal with our long-term debt at the time we're voting on the debt limit was a failure of leadership. so i would shine the spotlight back on the white house to say america knows that house republicans are a serious about dealing with our debt! america knows that house republicans have solutions to bend the cost curve and balance the budget! what america doesn't know is where the president stands.

others? do you favor -- if not what do you want to attach to it? i think the real question here patrick from north carolina. i'm under usher 40. [laughter] the question has been posed to the house. what is your plan on the debt limit? i would pose the question to the other body within congress called senate. we like to see their plan and i would like to see if harry reid can assemble his democrat majority to produce a plan we'll be happy to receive it in the house. consider it, and start negotiations. this has been placed on the house it lead. the president's require to lead. he's made it clear he wants to clean debt ceiling.

his party controls one-half of congress we would like to see their plan put forward. [inaudible conversations] you know the president wants it -- [inaudible] there's going to be back and forth how to get here. i think the point is made. neighbor not the first time in history i'm surprised the president abdicated leadership. he asks congress to be the leader of the american. our job is to debate issues. we can be leaders within the country. the connective branch is the one that is supposed to lead. i haven't heard the president talk about this stuff.

yes or no, do you except the clean debt ceiling? >> look you're asking hypothetical. i tell you negotiations occur. .. >> visit our newly redesigned website. follow a set c-span.org.