write it in the newspaper. we all have power to make a real difference on this issue. we have the power to change lives here. you heard that from chris. but we have another example. we have a wonderful man named doran hawker who is here with us today. doran served in the air force for three years including a deployment to korea during the vietnam war. now he never saw combat as he saw more death and devastation than most of us ever will. when he got back to the states door and says the first thing he does was kneel down on a patch of grass and kiss the ground. but then the months and years that followed door and couldn't shake the things he had experience and started drinking more and isolate himself from his wife and his baby daughter. he ended up getting a divorce and hauling in with the wrong people. for almost three decades door

and was homeless. as he says now he said i tried to kill myself for 30 years slowly. he said it got so bad that people were throwing change at my feet in the streets. finally door and decided turn his life around. he wrote down a list of 21 things he wanted to accomplish things like opening a bank account, cooking in his own kitchen. he moved from detroit's two saint paul minnesota and once he got there he walked across town to a local nonprofit that he knew could help him and with their help and the help of the minnesota assistant counsel for veterans he got into housing and of substance abuse treatment program. today doran has checked off all 21 items on that list. [applause]

[applause] a little cooking in the kitchen paying his own rent and hugged his daughter who he had been separated from for 25 years. like so many veterans doran continues to give back. he is working full-time as a caseworker to help other veterans find and sustain housing of their own. he is dedicating his life to making sure that every veteran comes home will never have to go through what he did and here's the thing, that's especially important now because with our war in iraq over in our war afghanistan drawing to a close thousands of men and women who risked their lives for this country are transitioning back home and we cannot make the same

mistakes for this generation that we have for the past generations. that means we have got to move quickly. we have got to share best practices between cities and we have got to find every veteran like chris and make sure that she doesn't fall into homelessness in the first place. we have got to reach out to every veteran from doran's generation and get them the monterey roof right this minute. we have made great progress over the past few years because of leaders like all of you who refuse to accept veteran homelessness as a fact of life. and now we have to finish the job once and for all because when a veteran comes home kissing the ground it is unacceptable that he should ever have to sleep on it. [applause]

so just like it's our country's duty to bring back all of our men and women from the battlefield we have also got a duty to make sure that every single veteran has a place to call home when they get here and for the rest of their lives. so thank you all. thank you for this effort, thank you for your courage ,-com,-com ma thank you for all the work that so many of you have been doing on the ground long before we ever showed up. this means so much to these men and women and their families. it is truly a sign that they are coming home to a grateful nation and i am proud to be part of this effort. so let's get to work. thank you all and god bless. [applause]

[applause]

>> good morning everybody. today the epw committee is holding its ninth oversight hearing with the nrc since the earthquake tsunami and the weird meltdown in japan. it has been more than three years since the fukushima disaster and japan is still struggling to clean up the site. the massive underground ice wall intended to prevent radioactive water from flowing into the sea will take a year to finish and cross more than $300 million. we must learn from the events in

fukushima and take necessary steps to ensure the safety of nuclear facilities in the united states. today i'm going to continue to focus on whether the nrc has done that. it's vitally important that the nrc remain committed to its mission which is and i quote to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the environment. based on every view of the progress made since the book is shame a disaster and i'm what additional steps need to be taken by nrc to ensure the safety of the people and the environment which is your charge i'm afraid they may have lost sight of the mission. the fukushima near-term task force made up of nrc senior staff recommended 12 measures to upgrade safety and an august 2011 the former nrc chairman testified before our committee that the nrc should be

able to act on those recommendations within 90 days and that they could be implemented within five years. as of today the nrc has failed to require reactor operators to complete implementation of a single one, a single one of the post-fukushima safety measures. this is scandalous. summary -- reactor operators of noncompliance with the safety requirements that were in place before fukushima. the nrc has only completed its own action on or of the 12 task force recommendations. now your team that you praise all the time told you you have got to do this. this is unacceptable this delay inapposite safety of the american people at risk. thank you. we have this and i'm sure you know what these are but we have these for you. i also have serious concerns about the safety of spent nuclear fuel.

nrc study shows the consequences of a fire at a spent nuclear fuel pool can we as serious as a severe accident on an operating reactor. not only does nrc allow that fuel to be stored in the pools could definitely nrc is considering requests for decommissioning reactor operators for exemptions from emergency response measures designed to protect nearby communities. while the nuclear energy institute claimed in a letter sent to me yesterday that these exemptions are granted only when quote special circumstances on quote exists in the facility the truth is that never has the nrc denied even want waiver request. it rubberstamps them every single time a reactor shuts down. i've introduced three bills with senators markey and sanders to increase the safety of spent nuclear fuel and improve the decommissioning process.

these are not theoretical concerns. on the same day, the same day that this committee held a hearing on this topic last month and out of control fire was burning a half-mile away from the san onofre nuclear plant. those are the people of california. millions and millions of them. this is it and this plant is asking for waivers so they don't have to deal with any type of emergency response. my concern that nrc's amendment to identify remedy safety problems is highlighted by my investigation into the installation of defective equipment that sam onofre. for example i learned the nrc staff was for preparing to allow the restart of one of the reactors before it had received a single answer to any of the technical safety questions that asked southern california edison

to submit. continuing a pattern of doing everything they are asked do by the industry. this oversight investigation that i'm conducting is important not only to get to the bottom of the problems that san onofre but to avoid disastrous problems like this in the future for it i'm also concerned that whistleblowers and rc feel they have no recourse but to contact congress to report safety problems and that is what they are doing ladies and gentlemen because nrc's internal procedures for addressing these concerns are broken. remarkably nrc has continued to obstruct my investigation by withholding documents that the committee has a right to receive and let me be clear. the nrc has no legal right whatsoever to refuse to provide the company -- the committee with these documents and today i will make available a comprehensive analysis of this conclusion. in order for the nuclear industry to maintain the confidence of the people and we have a lot of people who are strong supporters of the nuclear

industry i believe it's critical that you step up to the plate on safety. and rc's recent track erred does not inspire confidence and that does not vote well because at the end of the day if the american people don't want to have to reactor near them because of these problems than the industry is not going to be there in the future. there are a lot of people on this committee that want to see the industry in the future. i too look forward to asking you some more questions and without a call-in senator vitter. >> thank you chairman boxer for convening today's hearing and i want to thank her nrc commissioners for your work, your dedication for being here to testify. lately various members on this committee have been very active in fundamentally attempting to have the nrc manages itself in enter nations nuclear generating facilities. in recent months we have seen

legislation letters and statements from some of my colleagues in favor of new and costly and in my view usually unnecessary regulations. today i want to urge our commission to be precise and direct with your thoughts on these initiatives. you and your staff are the experts. we are not. we depend on your expertise and so i'd urge you to recommit to using the best available science and facts to ensure that any new rules and regulations are necessary and appropriate for our fleet which happens to have a long track record of safety. there exists a baseline standard that the commission should meet when considering new regulations i want to commend the commission for basing their recent vote to illuminate further generic assessments to expedite the transfer spent fuel from pools to raw storage on facts. while some of my colleagues may

disagree with the commission and myself on this issue is important to note that the nrc staff who recommended the elimination of these assessments have extensively studied the issue and compiled all available data to make the best possible recommendation. as most of you are aware this past monday epa administrator gina mccarthy and president obama released new regulations for carbon emissions from existing power plants as part of the president's climate action plan. while the president's efforts to kill coal-fired generation are obvious and already underway i'm really concerned about another and somewhat more subversive and undercover effort to really cripple the nuclear industry which is ongoing. when the verse to announce the climate action plan the president notoriously stated that he supports in and all-of-the-above approach. i think the disingenuous nature

of this claim requires only a cursory review of recent actions by the administration including on the nuclear side. for the nuclear sector the work done to undermine the waste confidence rule and to kill the yucca mountain project is a clear example of a long-term strategy to shut down all of our and nations nuclear power. another example is the recent 316v rule for cool water intake systems. although the epa's rule this time around they not look like f. is a critical impact many of the environmental community hoped it will certainly be litigated and that process will assuredly be worse. i firmly believe the nuclear sector should play a role in meeting our domestic energy needs safely and with the confidence of the american people however i'm concerned

that some senate democrats are using these hearings to provide cover for efforts quite frankly to kill nuclear generation which has only served to decrease the output incapacity of our nations reliable nuclear fleet. ironically the shutdowns will increase greenhouse gas emissions as states struggle to find other base load power. finally i want to state my concern on the lack of communication from nrc and the administration about the renomination of commissioner apostolakis whose term is up at the end of this month as well as a replacement for commissioner magwood when he vacates his seat later this year. keeping these positions filled by qualified individuals must remain a priority to ensure the safety of our constituents and for our nations economy. i urge the administration to act on this quickly so that the commission can continue its

important work without interruption or distractions. again thanks very much for being here and thanks for your work for it i look forward to your expert's testimony. >> thank you senator. senator carper. i mean senator cardin. >> i picked up a spot in seniority. madam chair thank you for conducting his hearing and i want to thank the commissioners for being here. i thank you very much for your public service. this is a follow-up on senator vitter's point. i do think we can have less pollution in our air and reduce carbon. we can do it in a way that will help public health and we can do it in a way that will create more jobs and we can do it with nuclear energy in a safe way. i think all of the above are very important and this hearing is a time we are hearing for many reasons that we have a responsibility in regard to public safety to make sure the nuclear regulatory commission is operating in a way that his top

priority is to protect the public safety of the people in our community but it's also timely because of the administration's announcements on their powerplant rules about our commitment to reduce our carbon emissions and nuclear energy is an important part of that. i think all of that comes together in today's hearing and i very much appreciate this opportunity. nuclear energy is an extremely important part of our energy supply in this country. 20% of our electricity is from the airpower in 60% of our carbon free energy electricity is produced through nuclear energy. it's a critical part of our energy efficiencies in this country and therefore we need to do this in a way that is mindful of the safety of the people of our country. we have about 100 reactors today

obviously it's a major concern to me. the nuclear regulatory commission is home to my state of maryland and we are very proud of the people who work there. it is consistently ranked as one of the best places to work which i think reflects the management at the nuclear regulatory commission and we are very proud about that. as we conduct this oversight hearing let me just point out a couple of trends. first we are going through a very difficult time of sequestration, government shutdown pay freezes and that has had an impact on your workforce. we expect the best to be in this field so i am concerned about the impact of recent government policies on the budget has had on your capacity to get the very best people and retain the very best people so we can carry out the mission of public safety and nuclear power in this country. so i welcome your candid views

as to where we are with regards to your ability to attract and retain the very best in order to ensure the safety of the people of this country and to be at the forefront of nuclear technology. a senator vitter said using best information to make sure we are doing what is right. on the other side of that equation there has been a change in your mission over the period of the last couple of decades. the number of nuclear reactors are not what we had rejected them to be. that affects your overall mission and how it's adjusted to the realities of the number of reactors we have in our country. the handling of nuclear spent materials, waste has changed radically over the last couple of decades. what has been your adjustments to your mission in order to make sure that you have adequate

resources to carry out those missions. so i welcome this hearing so that we can carry out our responsibility of oversight to make sure we have the tools necessary to not only provide the best for our country but we know we are the leaders in the world and what we are doing on it deregulation. secondly whether because of the change in the mission we should be looking at a different way of making sure we have the adequate tools to carry out the responsibility. i look forward to your testimony and i thank you all for being here. >> thank you senator. next senator sessions. >> thank you chairman boxer and ranking member of vitter and madam chairwoman i know you are concerned about safety and that's an important issue and you will be challenged to meet those standards that we expect of the board that the nuclear industry i have got to say represents a vital part of our energy mix.

it produces no carbon emi in a week when a president has unveiled regulations demanding a 30% reduction from 2005 levels of co2 by 20303 surely should be discussing the role for that nuclear power can play in reaching those goals and in fact we have had excellent safety record. i do believe it should never be forgotten that despite all the other dangerous and lives lost in other energy sources we have never had an individual loss as a result of a nuclear power generating action, zero and none since to my knowledge so this is a tremendous safety record and a tremendous environmental record. the risk involved in the safe management of nuclear power have been reduced and our commission has been responsible for that. you have been watching this carefully.

you are are professionals and you are experienced and you have a right and a duty to uphold these industries and businesses to account but you also have a duty and a responsibility to listen to them and if they provide good information that helps you made the plant safer at less cost you should be able to listen to that and respond to it. according to the energy information agency the energy produces 20% of all of our electricity and produce a 60% all carbon free electricity. the continued work of the nrc to follow the district d.c. circuit courts in a can come to licensing of yucca mountain is of vital importance. as the court stated because quote congress did not enact new legislation because congress sets the policy not the commission regarding the storage of nuclear waste it is clear the commission was to continue with

the legally mandated licensing process for disposal of waste. i hope you will continue to move forward that. rf united states has spent $15 billion on yucca mountain according to the gao. $15 billion and we have not been able to utilize that effectively. the united states has had to pay $2 billion so far and amount that can grow to 50 million according to the congressional resource service for claims from the government's failure to deal with the nuclear waste issue. this is an unbelievable series of events. i know the majority leader opposes this but the local people have supported it in the area of yucca in the congress has voted for it. it's time to move forward. united states needs a robust nuclear generating fleet and so i'm really concerned that the power station wisconsin closed vermont yankee closed crystal river unit three in florida

closed two and three and california closed and new jersey to close by 2019. we only have vocal in georgia and sumner and south carolina being developed so this is a serious concern. safety is a priority but clean responsible they slowed nuclear-powered a reasonable rate is so important for america. so madam chairman i appreciate the hearing. i know this commission needs to be held to account but they have been doing a good job. ..

hamas >> >> to investigate the nurse he oversaw in the emergency you prepared this. the latest fukushima's of reports remind us the technology remains largely

stagnant over the past six years despite the availability of significant petraeus is. security bill require taking advantage of innovative approaches. there is one concept to dusk not require water for cooling switch can be built away from the short side of the coastal elements. %heir current nuclear fleet is aging and as you have heard from my colleagues and the reactors ago when offline. last year for nuclear reactors close to the west of the vermont yankee station will be decommissioned by the end of the year. well and that energy disappears from the grid other sources have to fill the cat. to receive the greenhouse gas production of wine made to explore all potential options and technologies for zero carbamide base load power. investing more in technologies like small modular reactors may be a

way to produce more energy welch generate less waste as we work to address the reliable base low-power variation the apply the lessons to fukushima's research and develop advanced nuclear technologies progress chairman of the subcommittee i appreciate the opportunity to hear from of commissioners on this critical issue and to thank the chairman and ranking member for holding this important hearing. >> thank you. i am so happy to see you. >> base to be here. >> when i first became chairman of the nuclear sub committee in 1997 we had had the oversight hearing in 10 years. of course, for research to have them now we have to in a matter of weeks.

since 1997 we have been increasing oversight hearing successfully but it seems to the blood dash to be to put it out of business then to insure the appropriate oversight. is right and they looks into the issue of expediting spent fuel to dry cask looking at the fukushima's disaster. to deter the devastates risk of idiological of these of the spent fuel pool is very low about what time in 10 million years or lower and the study predicted no early fatalities to radiation exposure. that was the report of the majority of the commissioners.

according to researchers in it means it is less of the likelihood the earth could be struck by a mediocre which has the risk of poker reid once every 4 billion years. appropriately the nrc staff concluded expediting movement of spent fuel does not provide a substantial safety enhancement. and when you consider mandating this would cost an additional $4 billion it was right to vote but disappointed that nrc will spend even more time and resources with this topic it will only serve over additional taxpayer dollars by a full confidence to handle the decommissioning process and with the majority intent to undermine the confidence on this topic. justice make release amid global warming regulations

for an existing power plant and the cost is a dermis that translates to 224,000 jobs while the president's plan treats nuclear plants more favorable than other side of not naive enough to believe as we all know with the a trade as it is successfully used with fukushima many environmentalists are similarly positioned pursuing every impulse for is the cumulative cost of compliance and then also with the additional

licensing due to the waist competence issue but what happened and as a result of a relatively short period of time we actually went down the cost per kilowatt hour in germany 18 through 36. germany currently has three times the cost as we do in this country and that should be a major consideration. it provides 20 percent of electricity here in america and if the environmental left is successful to shut down the save domestic source of energy then they will suffer. this administration is inconsistent with its energy policy. as of a greater reliance to offset the phase-out of coal

nrc pushes the industry down the compliance rabin hold of new regulations and. with the flood and seismic and others to have the effect to put nuclear out of business. sometimes i just wish the democrats would sit down and talk to each other about how we should power the machine called american affairs successful with these endeavors. >> now we turn to the commissioners. >> senator? uk been so quietly. >> thank you. please proceed by appreciate your scheduling today and the commissioners, madam chairman it is vital to insure nuclear safety and it

is important to make sure their commission is carried out effectively although some may question in policy decisions made i believe we have come a long way from a few years ago. it recently made the decision to recognize the power plants need flexibility from spent fuel to try cast storage and that is safe but pools is not a long-term solution for storage. the fuel must be put into the dry cask to be shipped to yucca mountain road whenever facility is chosen. freer working on the safety assessment for yucca mountain but the commission has not requested supplemental funds for those related activities that is a concern to believe that yucca mountain is a viable option for the long term storage.

senator graham also of concern to the nrc has made with qualified individuals but the term is ending at the end of this month as the administration i'd understand the rationale as the vital member with years of experience i would suggest the president renominate him as soon as possible to maintain the full commission that continues to protect our community with a nuclear safety this is best achieved by having experience commissioners to work well. if he has a different nominee in mind that this be given the time to consider that nominee before the end of the commissioners term. the delay to make a decision

shows a lack of respect which is committee plays of regulatory commission is the important asset to oversee nuclear power and must be comprised of competent individuals to ensure it is an important part of the energy mix with the base load power of nuclear energy also making it to energy independence. we continue to develop this resource with the steady supply to power american homes and businesses for years to come. if we are to have the true all over strategy we must build new power plants the suze central to nuclear power in america every cannot tamper nuclear power by over regulating the plans that we have ready to strike a balance while continuing to ensure the viability. i think he madam chairman

and and look forward to the testimony said in a kettle see any more so we will turn to said chairman and every other commissioner that has five minutes. please proceed. >> good morning. my colleagues and i appreciate the opportunity to appear before hugh on behalf of u.s. nuclear regulatory commission and provide to discuss debtors see accomplishments and challenges that we're making to ensure we are performing as effectively as possible. letters he continues to make significant progress to address lessons space from the fukushima accident there are a track to be completed before the end of 2016 and we address the tyrol mac two and tier iii issues as well to make modifications to

safety systems with electrical power in multiple ways to inject cooling water into the reactor's and spent fuel also installing additional equipment two weeks ago i had the opportunity to visit the palo verde generation -- generator in arizona they continue one dash have additional radiation protection than other equipment that can be delivered to a plant within 24 hours. they gave me the opportunity to see how the it requirements are being mitt to me beyond basis accident while maintaining focus on the fleet the nrc is overseeing construction at the unit two plant and the d.c. summer to assure that

they're being constructed in accordance with their improved design and issues that inspectors identify. with the four reactors shutting down has the number of you have mentioned fedders he has sharpened the transition from operating to decommissioning plans. is important to emphasize when the reactor sees his operation the security continuous. after fuel is removed from the reactor core it continues to ensure operational safety controls and security and emergency preparedness reid made inappropriate to protect the public. the nrc must review the plan schedules and cost estimates for public meetings near the plant before decommissioning

activities can begin. the overseas facility transition to ensure decommissioning is carried out safely be encouraging licensing to perform with members of the public with state and local officials throughout the process. the nrc believes the safety and security requirements will be most effective if prioritized to maintain focus on safe operations we're carefully working to understand and manage the cumulative effects including time lines for requirements based on the priority associated with each action and the availability of the nrc and industry resources. we have enhanced public anticipation to perform with regulatory cost investments. the commission has directed the staff with kiva the tiv

of impacts to assess the effectiveness of the nrc process. it faces a different future from what we anticipated a few years ago with a significant increase of their reactor licensing. recognize the the agile and efficient manner with the expected workload through 2020. while fewer operating plans with the applications it has increased in other areas and in addition to the work area we are continuing to address the court decisions preparing for fox of much of the reviews as they meet the challenges i am confident in battersea ability to execute the strategy needed for safety and security. thank you for the opportunity to appear before

you today i am pleased to answer any of your questions spinet think you'd chairman and ranking member and members of the committee to appear before you today on the oversight hearing on the implementation to enhance and maintain nuclear safety. the chairman at commission macfarlane has provided a, perry had said description challenges to carry out the mission it continues to use those lessons learned from fukushima with the process m procedure while also maintaining our focus to assure the safe operation of nuclear facilities across the country. the next period of implementation of fukushima regulatory action lasted several years will require discipline and focus from

fatah nrc experts as they review andover see a large body of complex and related workers and confidence the nrc dedicated staff members are up to the task and i think that once again to its work thank you for the opportunity to appear today in the live forever to your questions. >> chairman boxer good morning. the chairman has outlined many of our recent accomplishments and challenges implants i concur with the chairman's statement debbie understand the need to be proactive about our future to address challenges says there five to maintain a focus politicize there are policy issues that include sinn

assessment of the review of the associated risk if the proposed station with the rulemaking with the license for current operating reactors beyond six years that a subsequent places renewal and waste competence and waste management regulatory framework that proposes a long-term vision on the framework. cannot recall a more receptive to get a group of factions in such a short period of time. the commission oversight regarding these issues shapes a framework for a long time to come. of thank you very much. >> fate q. chairman good morning to you and the

former chairman it is a pleasure to meet today with the lessons learned from fukushima. the chairman's statement highlighted our progress and will have a few additional comments i noted the three years since the accident i have seen nothing that would make me question the safety of the u.s. power plants since 2011 have analyze technical issues major regulatory policies and engaged in the open public discussion about lessons learned. after that the conclusion reached in the months after remains that u.s. nuclear power plants are safe. up the same time it is important to emphasize the reason why is we the license committee and reconsiders put a high value to respond to the experience we are saved because we learned from six decades from 38 mile island and then 113 can

do no less in the fukushima experience i believe the changes we have made the steps have made them more resilience and two weeks ago the plant that has obtained vast new equipment but many do the same thing. but we're confident and according to a death threat a and i look forward to your questions. >> 8q so much. >> regarding fukushima's strides have been made that

is from tear roll back one to direct licensees with the methodologies. i know with the nrc we have completed the submissions that they continue to operate with the nrc to conduct more evaluations. also as noted the industry has just opened the original response center in phoenix to be provided to renew nuclear power plant to supplement on site dependent as necessary. as a commissioner i have great confidence in the nrc decision making for fukushima the route the commission end our staff this all principles of science and engineering and risk-management.

appreciate the committee's oversight role and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for your testimony. chairman, there are categories of documents that relate to the investigation you have repeatedly told me the reason nrc has these documents is because'' constitutional separation of powers concerns. '' now working with your of the bill staff we could not get the information. asked a renowned constitutional scholar who worked for crs for 35 years if you have cited him often in your correspondence with us, this is what he says

says, your letters to and we demonstrated a'' us a profound misunderstanding of congress investigatory power they in this state court decisions and ignore case law that support is the committee's right to receive the material and no lack of awareness of over 90 years of congressional investigation in which agencies have to give congress what it asks for in their last unanimous consent to place this paper into the record at this time. chairman macfarlane your clearly relying on misguided and deeply flawed and legal advice it is time to decide for yourself will then receive follow the law to give the committee would has asked for or not? >> chairman boxer, i with like to be clear the commission has not come to this position lately. we have spent much time and

effort steady this situation and seeking views on the situation in so brief feel we can provide you with as much information as people believe that we can. . . we hope that you will change your mind because it is a very, very serious thing that this is

being withheld, and, by the way, we will get it one way or the other. but we need to have it. now many of you have said you are thrilled about the progress. drill was not your word. very pleased with the progress you are making post fukushima. can we put up those 12 recommendations? as a matter of fact, you used words that, you know, exclaim all the progress. from the chairman on down. i would like to ask you, as far as you know, have any of these been implemented? >> some of them have. >> which ones? >> well we did at the commission after the near term task force presented us with those 12 recommendations, we prioritized of half. >> i did not last that. no. i am asking you, these 12 recommendations that were made by your top staff, and you lot of them, all of you. i want to know -- i have the

answer. i just want you to confirm it. i have the answer. not one of these has been implemented by industry on the ground. do you disagree? >> chairman, those are recommendations. based on those recommendations we issued a number of orders, number of requests or affirmation, and we have entered into a number of rule making is. we are still -- >> i'm asking you a question. has industry implemented any of these 12? they have not. and so you can sit there and say you are proud and everything else. the fact is, not one of these has been implemented on the ground. it is three years and counting. now, my last -- >> madam chairman, i would like to hear from the commission. >> i am running out of time. would you add another three seconds? now, this last question is very important because it deals with

a decision you made which is to keep the spent fuel where they are and in that decision you assumed emergency planning would be in place. so i am asking each of you a very important question. you saw the photo. would you show the photo one more time of how close that fire came to a city where 8 million people live within 50 miles. when i saw that my heart stopped . now, that plant is shut down. these fuel rods that are hot right there, you have decided not to move them. i am asking you reach, if asked to waive the requirements that this plant have an evacuation

plan in place, if you are asked to waive that, will you deny that request? you are making a face like you did not understand. i will say it again. you have been asked by the operator to waive the requirement that there be emergency evacuation planning at that site. they don't want to do it anymore they don't want to have a siren. they don't want to have the plan. 8 million people. the fire came within half a mile . will you deny that request? >> exemptions are not waivers. the plant may have applied for an exemption. that is not a waiver. emergency preparedness at decommissioning plans may, in some cases, be reduced in scope, but it will not be eliminated. i want to be clear.

exemptions for decommissioning plans are down on a site specific basis. >> i am asking you, will you deny the exemption when it is presented? >> we will ensure that the plant -- >> that is not the answer to my question. say yes or no war i don't know or i can't answer it. will you deny a request for an exemption from any emergency plan? >> we will ensure that the plant will be safe. >> madam chair, will you let our witnesses answer your question? the way it normally works is you get to ask the question, but they do get to answer. >> will you answer yes or no war i don't know? i do not need a lengthy explanation because my question is quite simple. will you vote to deny an exemption from safety rules from the operator?

>> as i said, in simpson's argon on not site specific basis and based on an established process. >> the more you talk the more you ignore my question yes, no, i don't know. >> madam chair, we do not normally have hearings requiring witnesses to fill in bubble -- >> when you have the platform you make the rules. would you please answer? >> i have not been presented with enough information to make a decision. >> then you don't know. >> respectfully, chairman, i will not prejudge the action. >> i don't know either. >> i have not seen the exemption request yet. >> i agree with my colleagues. >> great. well, let me just say for the record, never has the nrc ever

denied a request for exemptions from safety. i have to tell you, this is in my mind, my heart, and the people in my state expect you to protect them. the fact that you cannot commit today to uphold the safety planning for this plant given that the number of fuel rods in there are far greater than the plant was planned for, which you allow it. not saying you, but the commission allowed. it is outrageous. and you wonder why people are losing confidence. senator david vitter. >> i want to go directly to this so-called exemption issue because i'd think it is a lot of semantics being used along quite frankly, to confuse and scare the public. commissioner kristine svinicki, is it correct that we are talking about some changes that are made with your permission,

if an exemption is granted when a site goes from being an operating nuclear facility to a facility that is shut down? we are talking about how changes made presumably to reflect the fact of those are two very different animals. is that what we are talking about generally? >> yes. as the chairman noted in our regulations and some assistance is there is not a provision for whether the reactor is operating or in the process of decommissioning. the nrc historically has had a heavy reliance on the use of exemptions to reflect the changes in the facility as it is decommissioned and the changes in risk. >> thank you. i am not suggesting and and and you aren't either that a plan that has been shut down, you can just walk away from that and not worry about it. i am not suggesting that. it does seem reasonable that there is a significant

difference between a nuclear plan that is operating in a nuclear plan to shut down and presumably these exemptions -- and again, i think a lot of this debate is being revved up over these semantics, but presumably these exemptions are about reflecting that change. >> yes, senator. >> okay. and as reactors are shut down, are there a number of requirements that were necessary for reactor operations when a reactor was up and running that are no longer applicable when a reactor is shut down? >> yes, senator. but i would know that any request for exemption is extremely case-specific. they are accompanied by a safety evaluation done by the proposed or licensee. that is, as the chairman indicated very thoroughly, reviewed by nrc. so that is a process, but it is

specific. >> okay. and in these cases of decommissioning, has there ever been an exemption granted for all safety requirements simply because they planned has moved from operational to being shut down? >> i am not aware of any approval that was that's sweeping. again, as i have indicated, they are very specific to the request itself. >> okay. commissioner william ostendorff, i wanted to ask you about this expedited transfer. the staff submitted their recommendations in this area on november 12th 2013. the commission did not take action until may 23rd 2014. i am concerned that taking so long to move on in that area really clusters your table and does not allow you to properly focus on the tier one

recommendations, the high priority recommendations. so do you think a length of time the commission took to approve such a steep recommendation was appropriate? >> senator, thank you for the question. i supported the staff recommendation. i also supported the views of the advisory committee. i am a member of a 5-member commission. we'll take different amounts of time to review and do our due diligence, and i respect my colleagues and the time it took to resolve these. i understand your concern as part of the dynamic of being part of an independent regulatory commission. >> thank you. chairman allison macfarlane, a final question. i am very concerned that various folks are dragging their feet obstructing, basically in an effort to shut down nuclear.

and i think that would be really unfortunate. i have asked you in previous hearings. in your order directing the staff to complete the ser, you noted the commission does not have adequate resources to fully complete the review and issue a decision as the court told you to do. in light of that, have you proposed a supplemental budget request to zero in b? >> we have not. >> okay. obvious question, why not. the court said it on with this. it is a requirement. you have said we don't have the resources. why aren't you taking the steps to at least request what you need help to do what is mandated under law and by the court? >> senator, the courts required us to begin the licensing process, again, using the funds

that we have, and we have done so. any further decision will be a commission decision. >> i would urge the commission to face that because you have already said we don't have the resources to do this. that already seems crystal clear. i think it is simply going to increase the foot dragging and the delay never to even make a request to the administration to get you what you need. >> in my view when the applicant, in this case the department of energy, shows that it has the resources and is seeking to complete the work, that is the point in time when we should move forward. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chairman. you might remember, the last hearing we had opposed the question that the workload is really the way i see it

decreasing substantially. this is not one of the questions , but just as an observation it would seem to me that the lack of resources and personnel is the -- should not be a strong point. commissioner william ostendorff, despite the nrc staff and the majority of the commissioners concluding that they would be safe even in the event of a massive earthquake, why would the nrc now expend additional agency and industrial and industry resources on additional site specific studies? do you have any short answer for that? hupeh. >> senator, i think your question is dealing with spent fuel transfer or seismic studies make sure i understand. >> yes, on the studies.

>> the commission decision has been to not require further work to require any look. we have closed that issue. >> in 2012 the district court remanded the nrc waste conference room. and when will the revised rules become final? >> a draft rule that is supposed to come to the commission this summer. we expect the completion of that in the fall this year. >> given that spent fuel integrity was an issue raised by the d.c. circuit in their remaned of your waist confidence rule, how you plan to satisfy the court if the seismic safety or the spent fuel remain an open question under the review? >> senator, i understand the question and would comment that since this involves an adjudication there are certain

things we cannot address, but i would tell you that i personally believe the commission decision on the transfer of spent fuel from the pools has been clear. we have confidence in the integrity. i will just leave it at that. >> that is fine. chairman mcfarlane, i am concerned about your vote on the expedited transfer of spent fuel . the other four commissioners as well as the staff agree with their assessment that the $3 billion cost and expediting transfers would not be warranted however, you did not agree. let's see. ed claman and bob alvarez that held a position contrary to the nrc. do you agree now that the spent

fuel is at fukushima survive a massive for earthquake, 45 ft. tsunami, hydrogen explosives? >> apparently they have. i think we are still collecting information, but apparently. >> it is also my understanding that the safety of the pool is ten times now and has consistently concluded that they are safe. can you tell me how much money and how many full-time employees have been working on this issue? >> at this moment i cannot, but i can certainly -- >> for the record. it would be interesting to me to see what kind of resources a used. i know it is going to be quite a bit. causing me to question your open mindedness. i know you had positions in the past, statements that were made. you have the paper we just now

referred to. are you open-minded? >> absolutely. my vote is based, if you have a close look at it, entirely on the analysis the two reports provided. >> okay. you were not able to answer completely the question that the chairman was asking. she was asking for a specific answer. is there anything you would like to add to elaborate? >> the question of exemptions for decommissioning reactors. thank you for the opportunity. they are certainly done on a site specific basis. we do not grant the same kind of exemption for everyone. they follow an established process based on a detailed technical analysis. there is no exemption from safety, and the plans themselves have to show the safety is maintained. we take our safety mission very,

very seriously at the nrc. >> one of the staff and the commission -- for several years i mentioned my first experience was 1997. i know it is a thoughtful commission, and we are pleased that we have this commission. let me reenforce the remarks made by others sang that we want to make sure that we encourage the administration to keep this at full staff when i mentioned the odds, you know, one in 4 million years, you just think about that when you are making these considerations. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. and thank you for bringing up the evacuation issue because that is what i will not talk about again. thank you. it is my understanding that the commission has never in its history turned down their request for an exemption from having to have evacuation plans. to any of you think i am wrong

on that? if so, which did you turn down? >> i'll have to take that for the record. >> okay. just know that we have exhausted the record and there is not any, but you go ahead and let us know if i'm wrong. anyone else have anything? let's be clear about this, folks . this commission has a very easy record to access on the question there has never been a time when an operator was told that they had to keep an evacuation plan in place. and let me tell you again. that is your job, to ensure safety. let me say this to the chairman. is this not what you said when asked whether or not a shutdown plan could be dangerous? this is what you said, the fire could well spread to older spent fuel.

the long-term land contamination consequences for such an event could be significantly worse than those from chernobyl. do you remember saying that? >> that is from the 2003 paper? >> yes. >> it was a collaborative effort , that paper. >> did you sign a statement? >> i am one of the authors. >> thank you. is it not true that the nrc said in 2001, spent fuel fires can have health effects comparable to those of a severe reactor accident? does anyone think that is a misstatement? update. let's just be clear. anyone who says it is not serious because you have shut down does not know what they're talking about. what's just be clear. now, senator david vitter, who

interrupted me several times, does not know that my operator there for san onofre submitted these many pages of exemption requests. now, let me just tell you what they're asking for. the proposed exemption would allow the operator to discontinue off site emergency planning activities. senator edward markey, would you join me up here? i know you were presiding. we appreciate your being here. let me say again, this is what they're asking for. the operator is asking to discontinue off site emergency planning activities and reduce the scope of on-site emergency planning. examples of requirements subject to the proposed exemption that are related to discontinuing offset emergency planning activities include but are not limited to requirements for off

site agency emergency plant, emergency planning zones, in ingestion pathways zones, emergency operations facility, evacuation time estimates, offsite notification time limits, off site those projections, protective action recommendations, examples of requirements subject to the proposed exemption that are related to reducing the scope of on-site emergency planning activities. now, look, they're basically asking to be let off the hook if you grant this exemption, you have never turned one down before and won't answer my question, none of you will. i will show, again, the picture. i want senator edward markey to see this. how close a fire in california came. to any of you know how many spent fuel rods are in that

plant? >> i do not have an exact number. i can take that for the record. >> anyone? for the record, 2600. do you know what it was designed for? >> the original design? if it was the original design, probably about a quarter of that amount. >> 1300. so this does not even go into other decommissioned plants. anyone who says that a shutdown plant is not as dangerous hasted just read what the chairman herself said, read what the nrc said. i have to tell you, i represent those people.

i worry about my people. i'm not gonna stop. i cannot give anyone of you to commit to me that you will turn down this request, this request for everything that they want to wage. you have never turned it down before. you will answer the question. >> if i could for clarification, this commission has not received any document or request for a commission decision making on this topic. >> then you don't know your work no, i'm sorry. this was sent to you on march 31st. what happened to your record keeping? people did not give you this information? >> it is sent to the staff. >> how long does the staff sit on this? >> as i said before, the staff,

we have an established process, and the staff does detailed technical analysis. we do not take these decisions lately. >> one are you going to have the staff report? >> i do not know. >> you do not know? well, let me tell you, you better know. i have a million people that live within 50 miles of that site. i have a fire that came within half a mile. the operator had to evacuate the people inside. and now they don't want to have the evacuation plans. this is a no-brainer. i'm sorry. you can sit there and say we take it seriously. let me just tell you, this facility sits on an earthquake zone, on a tsunami is on. you know it happens. you yourself road in a collaboration that an accident here would be worse than chernobyl. all i am saying is march 301st

i got this. i think it would be nice if the commissioners got this. as a matter of fact, i'm going to make sure that before the staff go through it the commissioners get this. yes, sir? >> thank you for giving me a chance. >> of course. i think we have all been aware that our staff have received the documents you are referring to, but as the chairman noted, i will tell you i had a discussion within the last week with mike johnson, i think is here who will brief on the status of this and the fact that it is working in discussions with fema. i want to assure you that this is working through our process. your response as to when a decision can be expected. >> i will await that response, but i want to say again, to me there is an urgency. to you there should be.

this is not just any power plant. this is a nuclear power plant that has many of these spent fuel rods in an earthquake zone, a tsunami zone, and the fire came within half a mile. i hope that the staff will work overtime, just like my staff does when there is an emergency. that is what i consider. >> chairman, i just want to be clear that emergency preparedness will not be eliminated at the site. >> okay. >> i do want to be clear about that. >> you are agreeing that you will not allow them this exemption of their arrest in for all of this. >> we will not eliminate emergency preparedness. sometimes it is reduced in scope after we have considered the request. >> let me ask you, you will not waive the requirement for off

site evacuation plans. >> i do not know the details. >> and you will not waive their requests to be exempted from having warning sirens. >> i do not know the details. they have to prove to us that they can maintain the safe level of operation and under decommissioning. >> and you don't know right now if you will eliminate offsite evacuation plans, what about relocation centers? >> we will ensure that the site will be safe. adequate measures will be in place to respond to any kind of radiological emergency. of course. that is our mission. >> fair enough. let me ask you this. do you think offsite evacuation plans are a necessary part of that facility being safe? do you personally believe? the you believe that having

offside evacuation plans are a necessary part of having that facility safe? >> and operating facility, of course, always requires evacuation plans. >> so you would not waive that requirement? >> i will have to consider it. we consider the site specific requirements. >> you have never said no to exemptions of all offsite emergency plans. that is live on drilling down on this. the nrc who cares a lot about safety has never turned down such a plan. i am deeply troubled that commissioners have not seen this , maybe knew about the fire. if i were one of you i certainly would have said, what is happening? this could have been -- i don't even want to say the type of disaster. all i have to do is "the chairman and her 2003 paper in which she said, the fire could

well spread to older spent fuel. the long-term land contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly worse than those from chernobyl. >> a couple of things on this topic for the record. first of all, i want to restate what i have said. the chairman was sort of suggesting that i was saying that a decommissioned site is there run-of-the-mill industrial site and does not need concern or a lot of careful regulation. as i explicitly set to widen not think that. nothing could be further from the truth. but clearly and operating nuclear facility is a different animal than eight decommissioned site. i was simply making the point that under your rules the only way to account for that are these so-called exemptions. now, you know, maybe people

would feel better if we have a different rule book rather than talk about exemptions, but that is semantics, not substance. that is my first point. my second point is, i find it ironic and confusing that the chair is now disappointed that your staff is actually reading this stack of paper carefully and taking it seriously upon. if you or a rubber stamp, as she has been suggesting, for any suggested exemptions, then the staff of representative. in the week, give it to you, and you would have voted by now. that is not happening, i assume, because you and your staff actually take this seriously, actually read it line by line and go through a thorough process. i don't think -- it should not drag on forever. we deserve to know what a reasonable timetable is. and the commissioner william ostendorff has said you will get

back to us with that, but i do not think that we should be complaining about a careful, thorough process. i just wanted to make those points. >> senator, thank you. what i did say was in light of this year disaster i am very disappointed that the commissioners have not gotten more involved. >> thank you, madam share. thank you for calling this important hearing today. fukushima reminded us of the devastating effects of on nuclear reactor meltdown, radiation from the accident was detected over 1,000 miles away. land contamination continues to keep tens of thousands of people from returning to their homes, and cleanup cost estimates continued rise. industry admitted that it will cost well over $100 billion.

meanwhile, in the united states we have packed so much radioactive waste into spent fuel pools that even nrc studies conclude that spent fuel fires could spread as much contamination as a meltdown of an operating reactor. throughout the united states many pools, including the one at the pilgrim nuclear power plants , are dangerously overcrowded. the solution to this is simple, take the waste out of the pools and put it into safer, dry cask storage. that is why i recently introduced the dry cask storage act which gives plans seven years to remove all of the ways that can be removed from the pool and put it into safer, dry cask storage, provide funding to help offset the cost, and increases the size of emergency planning zones around plans that

choose not to remove the waste from their pools. madame chair, is it true that removing waste from the pool and putting it into a dry casks reduces the amount of radioactivity that could potentially be released if a spent fuel fire were to occur? >> operating reactors need both -- let me just say, operating reactors need pools because when they discharge fuel it is hot and needs the water circulation to keep cool. you need a spent fuel pool. when the spent fuel is aged at least five years, right now the united states it can be then transferred. and those dry casks are safe, passive systems. the spent fuel pools are active systems and require active

circulation of water. >> okay. didn't the nrc studies show that even at decommissioned reactors it was never possible to rule out the possibility of a spent fuel fire? >> i think there are a variety of studies out there. i could take that for the record because i myself would like to see more analysis of the number of these issues. >> are any of you familiar with any studies? show that there could, in fact, be a fire? >> yes, senator. there could be a fire. the question is, how likely is it. the nrc studies have shown it is extremely unlikely. that is what the studies say. >> the commission recently voted to allow plans to continue to

overfill these pools as long as they wish to do so. each of you is saying that it is highly unlikely that there will be a fire and therefore there is no need to move toward dry cask storage? is that correct? >> well, there were four main input that i considered in my vote. the analysis, the adviser committee on reactor safeguards, independent experts agreed. the historical record that showed that there are spent fuel pools with very severe earthquakes beyond designed basis. there was a statement by dr. thompson that raised a lot of issues and questions, and a distinguished member of the visor committee.

so all the evidence pointed to the extreme low likelihood of a fire. >> let me just read to you from the nrc statement. it says, and as set the fire could have health effects comparable to those of a severe reactor accidents. large seismic events that failed the dominant contributor to causing an sfp fire. so where there are earthquake zones, you know, southern california as an example, but they are all over the country, how do you deal with that in terms of your own agency with regard to the danger of a fire that could become catastrophic?

that an chair. >> the commission has voted on this issue, and the commission decided that this issue needed no further study. >> and i appreciate that. but, again, we just had fukushima. we know that many of the nuclear power plants in our country are billed on or near earthquake faults. we have the commission's actual conclusion. i understand the industry does not want to spend the money. i understand that the industry does not want to have to of sort those kinds of costs. again, i am just dealing here with your own agency's conclusion about the danger that exists. >> senator, the seismic evaluation project will also look at their spent fuel pools

again. >> and what is the time line for that? >> it is in progress. i don't know. >> for the top priority group of plants, there are seismic probabilistic risk assessments that will be completed by 2017. >> well, you know, the whole concept of probabilistic risk assessment is one that is very long. obviously it goes back to the late 70's, early 80's with assessments made even then with regard to the probability of an accident and the need to build and proper projections. so prsa is the longstanding standard, and it just seems to me almost irresponsible that we will wait until 2017 to complete

that kind of study of knowing the danger that exists the longer the decommissioned plants sit there with the spent fuel rods in place. have you implemented any permanent seismic safety measures? are you planning to do that before 2017? >> yes. what we have done -- there has been a seismic hazard reanalysis that we ordered as a result of lessons learned from fukushima. actually, it was already in progress. we have moved it up. will we have done is what we are trying to be proactive. >> you have done the analysis. have you put anything in place in order to put or ensure that there are safeguards? >> certainly. the plants are built with a

significant amount of margin. now, the analysis, analyzing the hazard, we are trying to now understand what the probabilistic risk assessments is the capacity of the plants to withstand that. >> so you have not put any new standards on a permanent basis and place since fukushima? nine? and that is, to me, still, you know, unforgivable. we know what can happen. we know what the consequences are. we saw what happened in three mile island. the potential consequences of reactor meltdown years before chernobyl and fukushima, and experts have given us clear warnings that they spend fuel pool fire can be worse than a reactor meltdown. with that much at stake at the commission's vote not to heed

these warnings was simply irresponsible. >> can i clarify for you? in 2012 we ordered and requested the plans to do seismic and flooding has a walk down. and so the plant operators had to go through the plants, make sure that all of the bolts were tightened, that there were not hazards. >> that is a study. >> it was not a study. they walked through the plants and made sure that everything was as they were supposed to be, met their licensing basis with a seismic hazard and in some cases they found small problems. they have corrected or in the process of correcting. >> but those are pre fukushima standards, and you have not promulgated in the post was far. they are still, in many instances, not in compliance.

chairman, with the department of justice recently and adding five members of the chinese military on charges of acting in the u.s. company systems, according to the indictment, the chinese efforts included the theft of nuclear reactor trade secrets from westinghouse. these started in may of 2010 and lasted until at least january of 2011. at the very same time that those deaths occurred westinghouse was hosting a job shadow program that placed dozens of chinese personnel at u.s. reactors for months during the identical time frame in which the alleged thefts occurred. this job shuttle program was approved by the nuclear regulatory commission. i recently wrote you a letter asking for more information on this program. i look forward to your response. chairman, did any of the chinese nationals who were stationed at the american nuclear reactors

have on escorted access to the facilities? >> senator, this job shadow program was a private sector activity. it was not under the control of the nrc. nrc ensure that its security regulations were followed during this time, and i respectfully ask you to refer all questions on this topic to the justice department. >> let me ask you this, which nrc rules and regulations allow unescorted chinese nationals? with our regulations allow that to occur? >> i can tell you that our regulations, security regulations were followed, but i do request -- >> i'm asking, do those

regulations allow for chinese nationals to work through our nuclear power plants on escorted? >> no, senator, they are not allowed to do that. >> they are not allowed. >> no. >> then how could it have happened then that they were walking through our power plants, especially post 9/11? >> senator, we are in the process of responding to your letter. i request that you direct your further questions to the department of justice. >> and i appreciate that. i'm just trying to get at the heart your of what you allow and then what happened. and i'm getting a little bit of, i think, a mixed message here. you are saying that they would not be permitted under your regulations. >> that is my understanding, senator. yes.

>> so how could they possibly gain access on escorted into nuclear power plants, especially post 9/11, with these additional security provisions, many of them things that i am the author of with regard to access to our nuclear power plants? >> i don't know, senator. >> do you know? which we are in the process of responding to your letter, and i ask that you refer all for the questions to the apartment of justice on this topic. >> i will just say this in conclusion. the nrc claims to foster a safety conscious work environment where, and i quote, personnel feel free to raise safety concerns without fear of retaliation, intimidation, harassment my office has heard from an increasing number of whistleblowers from many different offices. these people are all serious, dedicated individuals who are calling my staff because they feel that they are not being heard by their own managers and colleagues.

they feel that when they step forward to report safety security or other problems they're systematically retaliated against. i have raised this concern many times a few. i'm holding a report written by the nrc but not yet publicly released that actually serve it those who have attempted to use nrc formal processes for resolving policy disagreements. a staggering 75 percent of those who use them said that they received a poor performance appraisal after they raised their whistle blower concerns. almost two-thirds of them said they were excluded from work activities by their managements. 25 percent were passed over for promotions. 25 percent were verbally abused by colleagues and supervisors. those results are shameful, and i asked that portions of this report be entered into the record and request your formal written response for what you

plan to do to fix these problems >> without objection so ordered. >> and that thank you and will just say that i began chairing a committee overseeing their nuclear regulatory commission in 1981. i had a hearing on site at san onofre in 1983 on site. this just continues. this whole pattern just continues. it is one that is troubling because especially post fukushima. it is very important for this culture to change, and i'm just afraid that it does not. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chairman. i appreciate both of your interest. i do have a different view. i think the good news is that in our nuclear power industry, unlike coal, natural gas, oil, and other industries, we have

not had a single individual be killed in the entire process of that industry, nor have we had a person to my knowledge made sick as a result of nuclear actions. so i say that today we have had a pretty good record. i will ask some different commissioners year, maybe commissioner william ostendorff, introduced a nuclear plan decommissioning act which grants a large role to states and communities in the development and decommissioning of nuclear plants based on your experience, would you share with us any thoughts you have as to whether that would make it more likely that a new nuclear plan would be built in america? >> senator, thank you for the question. i believe the predictability of

regulatory process is important. we are an independent regulatory agency and base our decision making on solid principles of science, engineering, and risk-management. we think the nation benefits from that. i could foresee potential problems in the predictability being lessened if there were confusion or blurring of lines as to a role between federal agency, us, and states. >> i think that is transparent. now we will have a nearby city extort the power company for whenever ideas they may have that may not be in the public interest, and result in much less likelihood that we could have clean nuclear power plants built. i really think that creating a situation in which states, cities, and counties can now impose of the regulations on the building of a nuclear power

plant with the decommissioning of it in retrospect is bad policy. i strongly oppose that. i just don't think that is good. >> senator, can i have something i came to this agency after having been an official at the department of energy. i tell you that the transparency and openness of nrc whereby we gauge -- last year we had a thousand public meetings. state, local, community, anti-nuclear groups, there is a significant process by which they were able to bring their forces to bear and share concerns. i think that is not often enough reflected upon when these issues ,. >> thank you. with regard to a pool stories just because the rods are kept in pool stores does not mean it will blow up or cause a fire,

does it? >> that is correct. if i could make to technical points. studies of the pools at fukushima, as the chairman mentioned earlier, today we are not aware of any damage to the pools at fukushima as far as structural integrity. the study we based our decision on had some significant conservatism's. we can certainly provide those for the record. significant conservatism's that show that we were taken almost a worst-case analysis and looking at the integrity. i would also add that the current initiatives being taken by the u.s. nuclear industry with respect to the flex program, mitigating strategies to add additional pumps, hoses, sources of water as well as the instrumentation requirements that we have levied, those are the steps for mitigation standpoint. >> thank you. with regard to this whole

process, the professional staff, in sites and data before then made a recommendation. >> they did. >> mr. william ostendorff, they recommended the process you have adopted for bull storage, and a majority of the commission, 4-1, voted to adopt the process to you think that the staff considered the concerns that have been raised? to the commission consider those concerns before you made a decision? >> yes, senator, i agree with the observations and technical points by commissioner william ostendorff and earlier commissioner george apostolakis talked about the record that was available to us.

>> the staff were outside people have made, expressed concerns that were validated faugh and you felt would create a risk , would you have voted differently? >> yes, senator. i, again, as my colleagues have a knowledge, it was a complex and large record. it was voluminous. each of the spent a considerable amount of time evaluating that. they did a 30-year survey of other studies and research. so it was, maybe, a lot of material to go through. i think those of us who supported the staff recommendations did so based on a fair review of the matter before us. >> would you say that the commission is working better? >> i do appreciate the acknowledgement from some of the

members of the committee. has the longest serving member of the commission, i commend her. she and i do not agree all the time, but her lead has been tremendous. the collegial tone that she said has been such a wonderful thing. thank you. >> well, i think the other members are nodding their heads in agreement. congratulations. a difficult challenge. i am not sure you and i agree on all nuclear issues, but it was important, i think, that we get the commission more collegial, open. i believe you are achieving that you have created and protected the country your for a number of decades now without any serious accidents. i hesitate to crack down on plants that have even small errors in safety. i know that you have hammered the one in alabama, and i think

you will probably right. thank you for what you do, and i know that they have improved immediately, the errors that were noted by your team. thank you, madam chairman. >> well, i want to thank the commission. you will be glad to know that i just have a few more questions. you know, i am glad their is a spirit of collegiality among all of you. that is fine. you ought to have it in the workplace so that whistle-blowers to not get a tax and shut out. i want to thank senator edward markey for pointing that out. it is easy for five grownups to be collegial. we go at it. we certainly do not agree, but i like them personally. good for you for that.

but we need to take that spirit and infuse it so that whistleblowers are not fearful. we look forward to your response . you said you had no concerns with safety at any of our plants is that correct? >> i said i don't have concerns about safety at u.s. nuclear power plants. >> that's what i just said. >> i certainly am not saying that there are no issues. >> but you don't have -- you said, i don't have any concerns. let me ask you this question of why does san onofre shut down, crystal rivers, the close of the end of 2019. if they are also hunky dory. >> i think you'd find that for each of those plans their is a different reason. i can go through each if you like, but some were financial, others were for --

>> well, what don't you talk about the ones that have safety problems. you said you had no concern. >> i don't think any of those plans were shut down because there were not being operated safely. some were shut down because they have equipment issues. >> that is safety, isn't it? >> it was never a safety issue. >> it was not a safety issue and san onofre? >> san onofre engineers, the plant was shut down. >> my point. when i am saying, when the commissioner says in the opening statement, i have no concerns, let's be clear, there are concerns. we all hope that everything is safe and we never have problems. this is what we all want. we all wanted to be true because let me assure everyone here, before fukushima the japanese

were saying the same thing. japanese were saying, we have safety in our nuclear industry. ..

the consumer product safety commission requires advanced public disclosure of all meetings including travel. a the american people need to know who you are meeting with fischer decisions are very important. if an agency that regulates toys and other consumer products can do that disclosure so can an agency that regulates nuclear reactors and we have bipartisan support for this. going forward will each of you commit to providing advance notice of your meetings and your travel and providing information about the topics intended to be discussed at each meeting? starting with the chairman. >> i commits to providing to the degree that i can because my schedule changes on a daily and sometimes hourly basis and as i sure does yours.

certainly for my travel advance notice of my travel and other meetings to the degree that i can. >> commission or svinicki. spare would request the opportunity to respond for the record. >> i won't have any trouble doing that. >> at my confirmation hearing i promise to make my calendar available. i have done that from the moment i have been on the commission that i have published my calendar continuously and i have not made a practice of putting a lot of detail on my calendar. >> thank you because it's important we know who you are meeting with. >> chairman boxer my calendar paintings is on my web site. >> excellent. that's excellent. commissioner magwood travel

records you provided to this committee indicate you spend 127 days on international travel since 2010. they also indicate before you leave the commission the summer you'll be spending more than three weeks visiting the united arab emirates malaysia japan and brazil. do you think this nrcc commissioned to have a traveling the world just before you sign sign -- resign your seat? >> but the indicate that i'm not doing brazil. that was an invitation that i was considering and have ultimately decided not to take that trip. the other visits are very important despite the fact that i am stepping down from the commission later this summer the presence of the nrc commissioner is important whether it's either me or commissioner apostolakis. regulatory independence is pete

pete -- important of these people. >> i'm curious i'm seriously interested in the united arab emirates do they have nuclear power and what's the issue that you will be addressing in that country? >> well i hesitate to get into a lot of detail in an open session but let me say that we are watching very closely as a new regulator has assembled. they have a lot of challenges. some of them are cultural challenges and it's a good time for someone from the nrc commission to visit again to reinforce our realtor independence as a new regulator and nuclear power plants. >> and dependents from? >> from other policy issues. >> i don't understand. i don't understand that but that's okay. in malaysia what's happening over there? >> the same sort of thing. malaysia is considering new nuclear power plants. they have a very -- they have a

regulator that is under the process of being restructured. our staff thinks it's a good time for the nrc commissioner to go and talk about issues such as independence and i was happy to try to do that. >> and japan i think is good. are you going to go over and get a briefing on fukushima? >> i'm actually going to visit fukushima again. >> let me say this. that makes a lot of sense and everybody makes a decision but i just want to speak as someone who cares a lot about the safety at the san onofre plant. you haven't even seen documents. i gave them to mr. ostendorff but there's so much to be done. not one of the 12 recommendations has gone to -- the operator of san onofre is asking for exemptions from all kinds of emergency planning when the fire was a half a mile away and i just wish -- i need your

leadership here. i need your leadership here. maybe your leadership is more important at the united arab emirates but from my point of view and i'm being honest here you have got a backlog. the chairman could answer a lot of questions because she's got to get back at my -- back to me and i just hope you'll consider this. in any event i want to thank you. these hearings are very difficult because you have made decisions as the chairman said and you are done. no, you are not done because we have oversight over you and it's uncomfortable but we are going to keep on doing it. i think this is our ninth since fukushima and we are going to keep it up and i thank all the colleagues and we stand adjourned.