captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008 it would seem to me the lack of resources and personnel should not be a real strong point, as it could have been in the past, just an opinion. commissioner ostendorff, despite the nrc staff and the majority of the commissioners, including that the spent fuel pools 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? >> certainly, senator, i think your question is dealing with spent fuel pool transfer. >> mm-hmm. >> or is it dealing with seismic

studies. i want to make sure i understand. >> yes, on your -- on the studies. >> the commission decision has been to not require further work to require any look at transfer. we've closed that issue. >> okay. on the -- in 2012 the districts court remanded nrc's waste confidence rule. when will the revised rule become final? >> the revised -- there's a draft rule that's supposed to come to the commission this summer, and we expect the completion of that waste confidence rule-making in the fall of this year. >> okay. given that spent fuel integrity was an issue raised by the d.c. circuit in their remand of your waste confidence rule, how do you plan to satisfy the court if the seismic safety or the spent fuel pools remains an open question under the review? >> senator, i understand the question. i would just comment that since

this involves an adjudication. >> yeah. >>? n response to the d.c. circuit there are certain things we can't address, but would i just tell you we have a -- i personally believe in the commission decision on the transfer of spent fuel from the pools has been very clear, that we have confidence in the existing spent fuel integrity and that i think i'll just leave it at that. >> okay, that's fine. chairman macfarlane, i'm a little concerned about your vote on the expedited transfer on spent fuel vote. the other four commissioners, as well as the staff, they agreed with their assessment, that the risk to the public is so low that a $3 billion cost of expediting transfer would not be warranted. however, you didn't agree and cited a paper that you wrote in 2003, let's see, with ed layman and bob alvarez, that held a position contrary to the nrc

staff. do you agree now that the spent fuel pools at fukushima survived a massive earthquake, a 45-foot tsunami and hydrogen explosives, isn't that correct? >> apparently they have. i think we're still collecting information, but apparently. >> it's also my understanding that the staff has studied the safety of the pools ten times now and has consistently concluded that the fuel pools 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 can't, but i can certainly take -- >> let's do that for the record. it would be very interesting to me to see what kind of resources are used because i know it's going to be -- it's quite a bit. should your vote against the nrc cause me to question your open-minded about things like yucca mountain? i know you had positions in the past, statements that were made

in the past. you had the paper that we just now referred to. are you open-minded? >> absolutely. in fact, my vote is based, if you have a close look at it, it's based entirely on the analysis the two reports provided by the staff. >> okay. now you weren't 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 on that -- that question? >> the question of exemption? >> mm-hmm. >> for decommissioning reactors? thanks for the opportunity. just to say that when we do consider exemptions, they are certainly done on a site-specific basis. we don't grant the same kind of exemption for every plant, and they follow an established process that's based on a detailed technical analysis. there is no exemption from safety, and the plants themselves have to show that safety is maintained.

we take our safety mission very, very seriously at the nrc, and the staff takes that mission very seriously as well. >> the staff has and the commission has, for the past several years i mentioned my first experience was back in 1977, and i know it's a very thoughtful commission, and i -- we're very pleased that we have this commission and let me just reinforce remarks made by others saying that we want to make sure that we encourage the administration to keep this at full staff so that we can continue, and then when i mentioned the -- the odds, you know, 1 in 4 million years, you all just think about that a little bit when you're making these considerations. thank you, madam chairman. >> thanks. senator, thank you for bringing up the evacuation issue so that's what i'm going to talk about now again, so thank you. it is my understanding that the commission has never in its history turned down a request

for an exemption from having to have evacuation plants. do any of you think i'm wrong on that, tell me, an evacuation plan, and if so which one did you turn down? >> i'll have to take that for the record, chairman. >> just know that we've exhausted the record, and there isn't any, but you go ahead and let us know if i'm wrong. anybody else have anything that knows -- okay. so let's be clear about this, folks. this commission has a very easy record to access on that question, and 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's your job is to ensure safety, and let me say this to the chairman. is this not your question when asked whether or not a shutdown plant could be dangerous. this is what you said. the five 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. do you remember saying that or writing that? >> that's from the 2003 paper? >> yes. >> it was a collaborative effort, that paper. >> did you sign that statement? >> i am one of the authors, that is correct. >> thank you. and is it not true that the nrc said in '01 spent fuel fires could have health effects comparable to those of a severe reactor accident? does anyone think that that's a misstatement by myself? okay. so let's just be clear. anyone who says it's not -- it's not serious because you've shut down if there's a fire doesn't know what they are talking about. let's just be clear. let's just be clear. now, senator vitter, who

interrupted me several times doesn't know that my operator there for san onofre submitted these many pages of exemption questions. now let me just tell you what they are asking for. the proposed exemption will allow the operator to discontinue off-site emergency planning activities -- senator markey, would you join me right up here. i know you were presiding, and we appreciate you being here. let me say again. this is what they are 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 off-site emergency planning

activities include but are not limited to requirements for off-site agency emergency plans, emergency planning zones and ingestion pathway zones. the emergency operations facility, evacuation time estimates, off-site notification time limits, off-site dose projections, protective action recommendations, examples of requirements subject to the proposed exemption that are realated to reducing the scope of on-site emergency planning activity. now, look, they are basically asking to be let off the hook, and if you grant this exemption, and you've never turned one down before and you won't answer my question, none of you will, i'm going to show again the picture. i want senator markey to see this, of how close a fire in california came to that decommissioned plant. now, do any of you know how many

hot fuel, spent fuel rods are in -- in that plant? >> i do not have an exact number. i can take that for the record. >> anybody else know how many? just for the record, 2,600. do you know what it was designed for? >> the original design? >> yeah. >> or after the re-racking had been done. if it was the original design and the open racks, probably about a quarter of that. >> 1,300. so this doesn't even go into other decommissioned plants, so anyone who says that a shutdown plant is not as dangerous has to just read what the chairman herself said, read what the nrc said. the consequences of an event could be significantly worse than those from chernobyl, and i've got to tell you i represent

those people, just like senator vitter represents his people and worries night and day about their safety from hurricanes and the rest. i worry about my people, and i'm not going to stop because i can't get any one of you to commit to me that you will turn down this request, this request for everything that they want to waive, and you've never turned it down before, and you won't answer the question. yes, would you like to answer. >> just point of clarification. >> yeah. >> this commission has not received any document or request for 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, so what happened to your record keeping here? people didn't give you this information? madam chairman, why doesn't the commissioner know about this? >> it's sent to the staff. it has not been brought up to

the commission. >> how long does the staff sit on it before they let you know about it? >> as i said before, the staff -- we have an established process, and the staff does detailed technical analysis. we do not take these decisions lightly. we take them very seriously. >> when are you going to have the staff report, madam chair? >> i do not know. >> you do not know. >> but i can get it for you. >> let me tell you better know because i've got 8 million people that live within 50 miles of that site. i had a fire that came within half a mile of that site, and the operator had to evacuate the people inside, and now they don't want to have evacuation plan. this is a no-brainer. i'm sorry. you can sit there and say we take it seriously, really? well, then let me just tell you this facility sits on an earthquake zone, on a tsunami zone. you know it happens. you yourself wrote in the collaboration with other people

that an accident here could be worse than chernobyl, so all i'm saying is march 31st, i got this. i think it would be nice if the commissioners got this, and as a matter of fact, i'm going to make sure that before the staff goes through it the commissioners get this. yes, sir. >> just, senator, thanks for giving me a chance. >> of course. >> i think we've all been aware that our staff has received the documents you're referring, to but as the chairman not it's in a staff process. i'll tell you that i had a discussion within the last week with mike johnson, when i think is here, who has briefed me on the status of this and the fact that he's working in discussions with fema on these issues, so i want to assure you that this is working through our process and we owe you a response as to when a decision could be expected. >> i will await that response, but i want to say, again, to me

there's an urgency, and to you there should be an -- this isn't just any power plant. this is a nuclear power plant that has many of these spent fuel rods, okay? in an earthquake zone, a tsunami zone and a fire came within half a mile. so i hope the staff will work overtime, just like my staff does, when there's an emergency, because that's what i consider it. yes. >> chairman, can i just -- i just want to be clear that there -- emergency preparedness will not be eliminated at the site. >> okay. >> i do want to be clear about that. we'll not eliminate emergency preparedness. >> so now you're agreeing that you will not allow them this exemption that they are asking for all of this? >> we will not eliminate emergency preparedness. sometimes it's reduced in scope after we've considered requests.

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

do you believe personally? you can't answer for anyone else. do you believe that having off-site evacuation plans are a necessary part of having that facility safe? >> an operating facility, of course, always requires evacuation plans. >> so you will not waive that requirement? >> i will have to consider it, as i said, we consider the site-specific requirements. >> you have never said no to exemption s of all off-site emergency plans so that's why i'm drilling down on this. because the nrc who cares a lot about safety, that's your job, has never ever turned down such a plan. so let me just tell you this. i am deeply troubled that commissioners haven't seen this, commissioners -- maybe they knew about the fire. if i were one of you, i would certainly would have said what's happening. this could have been -- i don't even want to say the type of disaster. all i have to do is quote the

chairman in her 2003 paper in which she said the fire could well spread to older spent fuels, long-term land contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly worse than those from chernobyl. senator vitter. >> now a couple things on this topic for the record. first of all, i want to restate what i said. the chairman was sort of suggesting that i was saying that a decommissioned site is a run of the mill industrial site, doesn't need concern, doesn't need a lot of careful regulation. as i explicitly said, i don't think that. nothing could be further from the truth, but clearly an operating nuclear facility is a pretty different animal than a decommissioned site, and i was simply making the point that under your rules the only way to account for that are these

so-called exemptions. now, maybe people would feel better if we have a different rule book rather than talk about exemptions, but that's semantics. that's not substance, so that's 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 the stack of paper very carefully and taking it very seriously. i mean, if you all are a rubber stamp, as she has been suggesting, for any suggested exemptions, then the staff could whip through it in a week, give it to you and you all 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 shouldn't drag on forever. we deserve to know what a reasonable timetable is, and --

and commissioner ostendorff has said you'll get back to us on that but i don't think we should be complaining about a thorough careful process. >> senator, thank you. what i did say was in light of this near disaster i am very disappointed that the commissioners haven't gotten more involved at this point. senator marky. >> thank you, madam chair. and thank you for calling this very important hearing today. fukushima reminded us of the devastating effects of a nuclear reactor meltdown, radiation from the accident was detected over 1,000 miles away. land contamination continues to keep tens of thousand of people from returning to their homes and cleanup cost estimates continue to rise and 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 plant are dangerously overcrowded. the conclusion to this is simple. take the waste out of the pools and put it into safer dry cast storage. that's why i recently introduced the dry cast storage act which gives plants seven years to remove all the waste that can be removed from the pool and put it into safer dry cast storage, provides funding to help offset the cost and increases the size

of emergency planning zones around plants that choose not to remove the waste from their pools. madam chair, is it true that removing waste from the pool and putting it into dry cast storage reduces the amount of radioactivity that could potentially be released if a spent fuel fire were to occur? >> operating reactors need both pools -- well, they need -- let me just say operating reactors need pools because when they discharge their fuel, it's very hot, and it needs the water circulation to keep it cool, so you need a spent fuel pool. when the spent fuel is aged at least five years, right now in the united states, it can be then transferred to a dry cast, and those dry casks are safe,

they are passive systems. the spent fuel pools are active systems and require active circulation of water. >> okay. so 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's a variety of studies out there, and could i take that for the record because i myself would like to see more analysis of a number of these issues. >> are any of you familiar with any nrc studies that show that there could in fact be a fire? are any of you familiar with that at all? >> yes, senator. there could be a fire. the question is how likely is it. the nrc studies have shown it's extremely unlikely. that's what the studies say. >> so the commission recently

voted to allow plants to continue to overfill these pools for as long as they wish to do so, so each of you is saying is that it's highly unlikely that there will be a fire, and, therefore, there is no need to move towards dry cask storage, is that correct? is that what you're saying, mr. apostolakis? >> well, there were four main inputs that i considered in my vote. the detailed stop analysis which argued that way, the advisory committee reactor safeguards, independent experts agreed with the staff. the historical record that showed that the spent fuel pools withstood very severe earthquakes, beyond designed basis. there was a statement by dr. thompson who raised a lot of issues and questions, and there

was a distinguished member of the advisory committee that rebutted from these issues that he raised, so all the evidence pointed to the extremely low likelihood of the fire there. >> okay. so let me just read to you from the nrc's own statements. it says, "an sfp fire could have health effects comparable to those of a severe reactor accident, large seismic events that fail the sfp are the dominant contributor to causing an sfp fire." so where there are earthquake zones, you know, southern california is an example, but they are all over the country, how do you deal with that in terms of your own agency's conclusion with regard to the

danger of a fire that could become catastrophic? madam chair? >> the commission has voted on this issue, and the commission decided that this issue needed no further study. >> and i appreciate that, okay, but, again, we just had fukushima. we know that many of the nuclear power plants in our country are built on or near earthquake faults, and we have the commission's actual conclusion here. i understand the industry does not want to spend the money. i understand that the industry doesn't want to have to absorb this kind of a cost, but, again, i'm just dealing here with your own agency's conclusion about the danger that exists.

>> senator, the seismic re-evaluation project will also look at the spent fuel pools again. >> and what is the time line for that? >> it's in progress. i don't know when they end. >> for the top priority group of plants, their size him probablistic risk assessments will be completed by 2017. >> okay. >> well, you know, the whole, you know, concept of probablistic risk assessment is one that is very long, and obviously goes back to the late '70s and early '80s with assessments made even then with regard to the probability of an accident and the need to build in proper protections, so pra is the longstanding standard, and it just seems to me almost irresponsible that we're going

to wait until 2017 to complete that kind of a study knowing the danger that exists the longer that decommissioned plants sit there with these spent fuel rods in place. have you implemented any permanent seismic safety measures, and are you planning to do that before 2017? >> yes. what we've done -- there's been a seismic hazard reanalysis that we implemented as a result of lessons learned from fukushima. actually it was already in progress before the fukushima accident and we've moved it up. what we've done is we're trying to be proactive based on newer -- >> you've done the analysis. have you put anything in place in order to put -- in order to ensure there are safeguards

there? >> yes, certainly, certainly. the plants are built with a significant amount of margin. now, the analysis has analyzed the hazard. what we're trying to now understand with the probablistic risk assessment is the capacity of the plants to withstand that reanalyzed hazard. >> so you haven't put any new standards on a permanent basis in place since fukushima, none. >> this is site specific. >> 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 that warned us about the potential consequences of a reactor meltdown years before chernobyl and fukushima and experts have given us clear warnings this a spent fuel pool

fire could be actually worse than a reactor meltdown and with that i think the commission's vote not to heed the warnings is unforgivable. >> can i make a point. in 2012 we order, requested the plants to do seismic and flooding hazard walkdowns, and so the -- the plant operators had to go through the plants, make sure that all the bolts were tightened, that there weren't hazards. >> and i appreciate that. >> and they have complete that had. >> that's a study. that's a study. >> it wasn't a study. they actually walked through the plants and made sure that everything was as they were supposed to be, that they met their licensing basis for their seismic hazards and -- and in some cases they found small problems. they have corrected them or they are in the process of correcting them. >> but those are pre-fukushima standards and you've not promulgated any post-fukushima standards thus far, and -- and they are still in many instances it's not in compliance with

pre-fukushima. chairman macfarlane, the department of justice recently indicted five members of the chinese military on charges of hacking into u.s. company systems. according to the indictment the chinese efforts included the thefts of nuclear reactor trade secrets from westinghouse. these thefts started in may of 2010 and lasted until at least january of 2011. at the very same time that those thefts occurred westinghouse was hosting a job shadow program that placed dozens of chinese personnel at u.s. nuclear reactors for months during the identical time frame in which the alleged thefts occurred. this job shadow 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 macfarlane, did any of

the chinese nationals who were stationed at american nuclear reactors have unescorted access to the facilities? >> senator, this job shadow program was a private sector activity. it was not under the control of the nrc. the nrc ensured that its security regulations were followed during this time, and i respectfully ask you to refer all questions, other questions on this topic, to the justice department. >> well, let me ask you this. would nrc rules, regulations allow unescorted chinese nationals to go through private nuclear complexes? do your regulations allow that to occur, that the chinese would be unescorted and walking through domestic nuclear power plants? >> i can tell that you our regulations, our security regulations were followed, but i

do request that you refer -- >> i'm asking do those regulations allow for chinese nationals to walk through our nuclear power plants unescorted? >> no, senator, we are not allowed to do that. >> they are not allowed to do that. >> then why -- how could it have happened that they were walking through our power plants, especially post- 9/11 and post -- >> senator, we're in the process of responding to your letter, and i do request that you direct your further questions to the department of justice. >> well, i appreciate that. i'm just trying to get at the heart here of what you allow and then what happened, okay? and i'm -- i'm getting a little bit of i think a mixed mess aag here. you're saying, mr. apostolakis, that they would not be permitted under yore regulations.

>> that is my understanding, senator, yes. >> okay. so how could they possibly gain access unescorted, chinese nationals, into nuclear power plants, especially post- 9/11 with these additional security provisions, many of them think i'm the author of, with regard to access to our nuclear power plants. >> i don't know, senator. >> you do not know. >> do you know? >> we're in the process of responding to your letter, and, again, i ask that you refer all further questions to the department of justice on this topic. >> okay. and i'll just say this in conclusion that 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 or discrimination. in the past year my office has herd from an increasing number of whistleblowers from many different offices at nrc. 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 are systematically retaliated against. i have raised this concern many times with you. number holding a report written by the nrc but not yet publicly release that had actually surveyed those who have attempted to use nrc's formal processes for resolving policy disagreements. a stagger 75% of those who use them said that they received a poor performance appraisal after they raised their whistleblower concerns. almost two-thirds of them said they were excluded from work activities by their management. 25% were passed over for promotions. 25% were even verbally abused by their colleagues and their supervisors. those results are shameful, and i ask that portions of this report be entered into the

record. i request your formal written response for what you plan to do to fix these problems. >> without objection so ordered. >> and i thank you, and i will just say i began chairing a committee overseeing the nuclear regulatory commission in 1981. i had a hearing on site at san onofre in 1983 on site, and this just continues. this whole pattern just continues at the agency and it is one that is just -- it's troubling because especially post-fukushima you know, it's very important for this culture to change, and i'm just afraid that it has not. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator. senator sessions. >> thank you, madam chairman. i appreciate both of you senator interests and study of this over the years. i do have a different view. i think the good news is that in our nuclear power industry unlike our coal, natural gas,

oil and other industry we've not had a single individual be killed in the entire process of that injury nor have we had a person to my knowledge made sick as a result of nuclear accidents, so i say that to date we've had a pretty good record. i'll ask some different commissioners here, maybe commissioner ostendorff, the boxer markey requested an act which grants the decommissioning of a nuclear plant. 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 plant would be built in america or less likely?

>> senator, thank you for your question. i believe the predict act and stability of a regulatory process is very important. we're an independent regulatory agency. we base our decision-making on solid principles of science, engineering and risk management. we think that the nation benefits from that inperspectiv. i could foresee some potential problems in the predictability being lessened if there was confusion or blurring of lines as to the role between the federal agency, us and states. >> well, i just think that's transparent. so we don't have a nearby city extort the power company for whatever ideas they may have that may not be in the public interest and result in much less likelihood in my view that we could have new safe, clean, nuclear power plants built. i really think that colleagues are creating a situation in

which states, cities and counties and to impose other regulations on the building of a nuclear power plant or the decommissioning of it in retrospect is bad policy, and i strongly oppose that. i just don't think that's good. >> senator, could i add something to that. >> i think -- i came to this agency after i'd been an official at the department of energy and spending many years in the military. would i say the transparency and openness of the nrc whereby we engage the entire american public. last year we had 1,000 public meetings, so state, local community, anti-nuclear groups, there's a significant process by which they are able to bring their forces to bear, share their concerning and i think that is not often not reflected upon when these kinds of issues come up. >> now, thank you. now with regard to this pool storage, just because mr. -- mr. ostendorff, just because

rods are kept in a pool storage doesn't mean it's going to blow up or cause a fire, does it? >> that is correct. if i can make two technical points there. studies of the pools at fukushima, as the chairman mentioned earlier in response to question, to date we're not aware of any damage to the pools at fukushima daiichi as far as structural integrity. the spent fuel study that we based our decision on had some significant conservatisms. we can certainly provide those for the record, but significant conservatisms that showed we were taking almost worst case anal seize to look at the integrities, and i would also add that the current initiatives taken by the nuclear industry with regard to the flex program, mitigating strategies to add additional pumps, hoses, sources of water as well as the spent fuel level requirements that we have levied, that those are the steps from a mitigation

standpoint and have not been discussed today. >> well, thank you, and with regard to this whole process, the professional staff took insights and data, did they not, madam chairman, before they made a recommendation? >> they did. >> and mr. ostendorff, they recommended the process you've adopted for pool storaging and a majority of the commission, 4-1, voted to adopt that process. do you think that the staff considered the concerns senator marquee and others have raised, and did the commission consider those concerns before you made a decision? >> yes, senator, i agree with the observations and technical points made by commissioner ostendorff and earlier commissioner apostolakis spoke about the record available to us in this decision, and i also had

reliance on the same inputs that commissioner apostolakis previously testified to. >> if the staff or outside people, miss svinicki had made express concerns that were validated and you felt would create a risk, would you have voted differently? >> yes, senator. i, again, as my colleagues have acknowledged, it was a very complex, large record. it was voluminous, and i think each of us spent a considerable amount of time in evaluating that. the nrc staff indicated that they did a 30-year survey of other studies and research, and so it was a fullsome record. it was maybe a lot of material to go through, but i think most of us who supported the staff's recommendations did so based on a thorough review of the matter before us. >> would you say that the commissioner is working better under chairman macfarlane than some of the difficulties you had

previously? >> i do appreciate the acknowledgement from some of the members of the committee of chairman macfarlane's leadership as the longest serving member of the commission. i really commend her. she and i don't agree all the time, but her leadership has been tremendous and the collegial tone she has set for our work i think has been such a wonderful thing. thank you. >> well, i think the -- i know other members are nodding their head in agreement with that, so congratulations, chairman macfarlane. you took over a difficult challenge. i'm not sure you and i agree on all nuclear issues, but it was important i think that we get the commission more collegial, more open and i believe you're achieving that. you've create and protected the country here for a number of decades now without any serious accidents and haven't hesitated to crack down on plants that have even small errors in

safety, and i know you hammered one in alabama, and i think you were probably right, so thank you for what you do, and i know they have improved immediately the errors that were noted by your team. thank you, madam chairman. >> well, i want to thank the commission. you'll be glad to know that i just have a few more questions. you know, i'm glad there's a spirit of collegiality among all of you, that's fine. you ought to have it at the -- at the workplace so that whistleblowers don't get attacked and shut out, and i want to thank senator marquee for pointing that out. it's easy for five grown-ups to be collegial. i'm very collegial with all my colleagues. we get -- we go at it, we certainly don't agree but i

really like them personally so good for you for that, but we need to take that spirit and infuse it so that whistleblowers aren't fearful, and we look forward to your response. mr. magwood, you said you had no concerns of safety at any of your plants in your testimony today. is that correct? >> i said i don't have concerns at u.s. nuclear power plants. >> that's what i just said. >> yes. >> so i'm not saying that there are not issues that need to be looked at at specific plants. >> but you don't have any -- you said i don't have any concerns post-fukushima. >> post-fukushima. >> let me ask you this question. why did san onofre should down? why did crystal river shut down? why did vermont yankee shut down and why can oyster creek is going to close at the end of 2019? if they are all so hunky-dory. >> well, i think you would find

for each of the plants there's a different reason. some were for financial reasons. others were for -- >> why don't you talk about the ones that had safety problems because you've said you had no concerns so which of those had safety concerns? >> i don't think any one of those plants were shut down because they weren't being operated safely. they were shut down because they had equipment issues that became -- >> that's safety, isn't it? >> no, it was never a safety issue. >> it wasn't a safety issue at san onofre? >> san onofre's steam generators were flawed. >> was leaking. >> the plant was shut down after the leak. >> my point. >> okay. >> so when what i'm saying when a commissioner says in the opening statement i have no concerns, let's be clear. there are concerns, and when senator sessions says we all hope is true that everything is safe and we've never had problems, that we did have a couple, but it's -- this is what we all want, so we all want it to be true because let me assure

everyone here before fukushima the japanese were saying the same thing, senator sessions. the japanese were saying we have safety in our nuclear industry, and then fukushima. so if we do our jobs and you do yours, we can avoid something like that, so when you -- when you tell us that you haven't done one of the 12 recommendations of your own staff, not one has been implemented, that's disastrous, and i think any one of the american people would say, wait, it's been three years. now, i'm going to turn to another issue of travel. at our last hearing you all committed to making your travel and meeting calendars available, and you have all made some effort in response, and i thank you, but it's not really enough. only chairman macfarlane's meeting calendar contains any detail about what each meeting was about. until just a couple of days ago chairman macfarlane and commissioners svinicki's calendars hadn't been updated

since march, and not a single one of you provide advance public notice of any of your meetings. by contrast, the consumer product safety commission, their meeting policy requires advanced public disclosure of all meetings including travel. i'm sure you know why this is the case. the american people need to know who you are meeting with because your decisions are very important. if an agency that regulates toys and other consumer products can do that disclosure, so can an agency that regulates factors, and we have bipartisan support for this. going forward will each of you commit to providing advanced 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 commit to providing to the degree that i can, because my schedule changes on a daily sometimes hourly basis, as i'm sure does yours.

>> sure. >> certainly for my travel, advance notice of my travel and other meetings to the degree that i can. >> commissioner svinicki? >> chairman boxer, would i request the opportunity to respond for the record. >> sure. >> sure. >> commissioner apostolakis. >> i don't think i would have any problem dealing with that. >> commissioner magwood? >> chair, at my confirmation hearing i promised to make my calendar available. i've done that from the moment that i've been on the commission. i will lock ok at doing that. >> thank you. >> it's important that we know what you're meeting with. >> chairman boxer. >> yes. >> my calendar is on my website. i have an open door policy and i understand your concern. >> excellent. that's excellent. now commissioner magwood, this

is delicate, but travel records you provided to this committee indicate you spend 127 days on international travel since 2010. they also indicate that before you leave the commission to,summer you'll be spending more than three weeks visiting the united arab emirates, malaysia, japan and brazil. do you think that it best serves nrc safety's mission to have you traveling the world just before you resign your seat? >> i do think my travel is appropriate. first, let me indicate that i am not going to brazil. that was an invitation that i was considering and have ultimately decided not to take the trip. the other visits i think are very important despite the fact that i am stepping down from the commission later this summer, the presence of an nrc commissioner in many of these countries is important, whether it's either me or commissioner ostendorff or apostolakis, doesn't matter which of it is, the fact that the united states nuclear regulatory commission goes to these countries in the

cause of energy independence is very important for these people and i think my travel is very important. >> i'm seriously interested. in the united arab emirates do they have nuclear power? what's the issue there that you'll be addressing in that >> well, i -- 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 is 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 some of the messages about regulatory independence as both a assembling nuclear regulator and assembling power plants. >> independence from? >> from other policy issues. >> i don't understand. i don't understand that. but that's okay. malaysia, what's happening over there? >> same sort of thing. malaysia is considering new nuclear power plants. they have a very -- they have a

new -- they have a regulator that is under the process of being restructured. our staff thinks it's a good time for an nrc commissioner to go to talk about regulatory 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 planning to visit fukushima again. >> good. well, let me say this, i think that makes a lot of sense. but, you know, 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 the documents i gave to mr mr. ostendorff. there's so much to be done. not one of the twelve recommendations has gone into place. the operators at san onofre has asked me 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. now maybe your leadership is more important at the united arab emirates. but from my point of view, i'm being honest here, you've got a backlog. i mean the chairman couldn't answer a lot of questions because it's all, you know, got to get back to me. i we have to look at this and i just hope you'll consider this. in any event, i want to thank you all. i know these hearings are very difficult. because you've made decisions as the chairman said, and you're done. you're done with looking at spent fuel -- no you're not done. because we have oversight over you and it's uncomfortable. but we're going to keep on doing it. i think this was our ninth since fukushima and we're going to keep it up. i want to thank all colleagues and we stand adjourned.

the center for strategic and international studies hosts a discussion today on china/russia relations. former australian prime minister kevin rudd and stapleton roy a former u.s. ambassador to china will talk about both nations' increasing tensions with the u.s. as relations between china and russia continue to warm. we'll have that live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. today the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee will hold a hearing on u.s. border security. officials from u.s. customs and border protection, the u.s. office of special council, and the national border patrol council, the labor union that represents border patrol agents, will testify. we'll have that live at 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3.

a senate transportation subcommittee held a hearing on funding surface transportation programs. members talked about funding for the programs which expires in september, as well as the safety and security of rail, motor carriers, and the transport of hazardous materials. they also heard from industry experts. the hearing is about two hours. >> good morning. welcome, everyone. we were -- we're just waiting for senator blunt. i'm going to begin with an opening statement. when he gets here, he can make his. i welcome senator klobuchar and thank her for her leadership on these issues. we're here at a moment of tremendous promise and peril for our nation's transportation system. literally, the funding for that system expires at the end of september and there's a need to

reauthorize the nation's surface transportation law known as the map 21 which expires at the end of september. even before then the highway trust fund will go broke in july, just next month. and, fortunately, the appropriate senate committees are moving ahead with those funding proposals. but the transit funding must include rail and must include safety. and that brings us today to these issues and to hearing from the representatives of some of our most important federal oversight and scrutiny agencies when it comes to safety and reliability. we're here at a moment of enormous peril and promise. promise because we have an opportunity to invest in the future of our transportation system, grow the economy, expand job creation, and achieve a larger vision for our nation's

transportation system. but at the same time, there's tremendous peril in the decaying and crumbling infrastructure that faces us literally every day on our roads, bridges, railroads, and other public facilities. so we're here to examine how well the agencies are doing, as welling a our transportation systems. we need to look at what our agencies are doing in their watchdog and oversight roles, as well as what our public transportation systems are doing to protect safety and reliability. for the pipeline and hazardous material safety administration, protecting safety and reliability means ensuring that transportation of many products and materials is done in a way that assures protection of the people who live in their environs as well as workers who

operate them. for the federal rail administration, our hearing today means ensuring the safe movement of people and freight on our nation's massive railroad system. the ability to properly ensure this mission is about resources as well as rules. that's true about all your agencies, resources and rules and effective enforcement of those rules is a prerequisite to safety and reliability. there are indications that some of these agencies have, very simply, been absent from what they should be doing, not on the job. i want to make sure that we are as rigorous and vigilant as need be to protect people who use our railroads, as well as other transportation systems. there are red flags. for example, have been red flags with metro north, which is a

railroad much in need of attention as, as well as investment. and i want to make sure that both metro-north and the fra have leshed from the incidents that have occurred there. and of course, the agencies include the federal motor carrier safe administration which is essential to ensuring the safe commercial driving workforce that drives our economy, as well as the individuals who ride it. so this hearing is about resources and rules. our job is to assure that there are sufficient resources, as well as rules, but really the rules have meaning only if they're enforced, and only if scrutiny and oversight works to protect people who rely on those rules. and part of our job, in addition to make being the rules, the rules of the road and the laws

that govern those rules, is to assure that they're realistic and practical, but also that they are properly funded. i want to hear from all of you and i look forward to hearing from our colleagues on these issues and turn now to the rank member, senator blunt. >> well, thank you, chairman. i want to say, chairman, in the brief time you've been chairman of this committee, you've really brought focus on a number of issues. we've had a number of hearings, including the one we're going to have today, that i think are very important and your leadership here has made a difference. the commerce committee does work on all modes of transportation, not just highways. railroads, waterways, even pipelines. and from a state like mine, this is critical work. if you look at a railroad map of america or highway map of america or river map of america, as i told the general assembly in missouri the other day, and began to focus on where all

three of those things come together, we're right in the middle of that. all these things matter dramatically to our future, to our economic future, and our ability to compete. obviously there is a lot of discussion going on about the highway bill for a couple of reasons. one is the one we are currently under expires in september. another one is that that fund runs dry even before that. what our committee can do, and what this subcommittee can do to get ready for our part of that bill is important. things we can do to draw attention to sustainable funding and to additional and innovative funding sources i think can make a difference here. we're now examining how we maintain this system. i'm going to be interested today to hear from the federal rail administration and the pipeline hazardous materials safety administration on how things are

going in the crude by rail discussion. obviously there's been a lot of testing data shared recently involving bokken crude and how we're reacting to that. i'll also be interested to hear how this is being utilized as we line up the collection that fsma is doing and how we're going to be ready for that. also, ongoing concerns regarding regulations and enforcement programs with federal motor carrier safety administration are topics that i hope we hear discussed today. i'll have some questions on that. i've heard from motor carriers of all sizes that the agency really isn't adequately considering the impact of its rules and programs. i asked the secretary at a hearing we had not too long ago for a response on a couple of specific questions that i haven't gotten yet. and hopefully will get those

covered today. i finally look forward to hearing from the office of research and technology on how research funding might be accessible to local communities who are trying to come up with innovative and locally driven solutions to their transportation problems. i'll close by stressing the need to focus on our long-term transportation planning which includes a stable funding source, something that every member of the senate and the congress should be interested in. great opportunities are out there with the expansion of the panama canal with how we collect all of our transportation modes together, how we connect them together in the best possible way and i'm pleased we're having this hearing today. again, thanks for your leadership, chairman. >> thank you, senator blunt. and thank you for your leadership and for your being here today. i'm not going to provide lengthy backgrounds as to your -- each of your credentials in the

interest of time. think we'll just turn to the testimony. but we're very pleased to have today individuals who not only lead significant agencies but also have extraordinary backgrounds and expertise in the areas of transportation. so we thank you for your public service, as well as for your being here today. perhaps we can begin with joseph szabo, administrator of the federal railway administration. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and to ranking member blunt and members of the subcommittee. i appreciate this opportunity to testify today. by 2050, our surface transportation system must be ready to move an additional 100 million more people. which equals the combined population of our four most populous states, california, texas, new york, and florida. our freight system, meanwhile, will have to annually move an additional 4 billion tons of freight. the weight roughly of 10,000

empire state buildings. so imagine if we fail to move all these people and all that freight safely, reliably and efficiently. imagine the negative impact that that could have on business growth, commute times and quality of life. if we return to a decades-long pattern of underinvesting in our rail system, there will be negative consequences. look at highway and airport congestion. more than $140 billion in 2012, and this was driven by current demand, not future. we have an opportunity to chart a more sustainable course. we have an opportunity as the title implies to grow our rail network and grow america's transportation capacity to be future challenges. in the grow america act, it will enable us to do this while driving continuous improvement in safety. since fiscal year 2004, our rail safety program has reduced train

accidents by nearly 50% to record low numbers. but we also know from our data that our most vulnerable safety area is human error. today it accounts for nearly 40% of train accidents. in grow america, in several ways, supports our efforts to drive continuous safety improvement. for one, the $19 billion it would invest in rail safety and rail development programs includes $2.3 billion to support commuter rail lines in their efforts to install positive train control. to technology that is designed to reduce human error accidents. and it would provide us the tools to manage the implementation process effectively, including the authority for provisional certifications. grow america would also give us the authority to establish new hours of service regulations, based on sound fatigue science, a key step towards reducing

accidents caused by fatigue. and it calls for a national nationwide rollout of confidential close call reporting systems, allowing us to gather data before an accident occurs, and develop risk mitigation strategies well in advance. but sustained federal investment in rail network enhancements, and in research and development, has to also be a part of the mix. on the rail development side, our bill would fund needed repairs, improve existing services, and build new corridors. it would invest in the rail passenger connections that record number of amtrak riders deserve. and it would invest in short line rail infrastructure, safety upgrades to bridges, tracks and signal systems. and it would invest in grade crossing improvements in the sealing off of corridors, improving network efficiency, reducing the negative impacts of rail operations on communities and enhancing the safe transportation of hazardous

materials. but our proposal does even more than that. it provides rail for the first time ever with predictable dedicated funding to put it on par with other service transportation modes. if you go back to 2009 and 2010 when the passenger rail program was made available, those years we received applications requesting seven times the available funding. grow america will keep us moving forward, and not just for one or two years, but over the long term. so we look forward to working with all of you to reverse this pattern of federal underinvestment in our rail system, to working together to foster public/private partnerships, to incentivize state and local funding all across the country in need of a federal funding partner. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, administrator szabo. now to administrator ferro,

thank you for being here. >> thank you. mr. chairman, ranking member blunt and members of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting me to testify today on the federal motor carrier safety administration's progress in implementing both our map 21 requirements as well always the opportunity to lay out the safety provisions in the grow america act. safety is fmca's top priority. yet since 2009, with the advent of our continued economic recovery, which is very good, the down side is there's been an 18% increase in crashes involving commercial motor vehicles and the number of people killed in those crashes. we can do better than that. in working together with congress, enforcement, advocates, and our industry partners, using research, public dialogue and sensible policies, we can raise the safety bar for truck and bus operations. map map 21 has been part of the

strategy. fmca is pressing forward to meet all the requirements. to date, we've completed more than half of the rule makings under map 21. for example, at the outset we implemented agricultural exempt shuns and new security requirements for brokers and freighters as required under the law. and we are well on our way to establish the first national drug and alcohol clearinghouse which will in fact help employers determine whether a driver is complying with federal drug and alcohol regulations, including mandatory testing. the notice of proposed rule making and 90-day comment period closed just last month. in march, we issued a supplemental notice to create an electronic logging device requirement across the industry. this proposal will improve our service compliance, and hence, the uniform use of those logs will actually improve and mitigate the impacts of fatigue related driving and fatigue related crashes. in fact, the analysis of this

proposal shows that it will help prevent approximately 20 deaths, over 400 injuries each year, and have an annual safety benefit of almost $400 million. comments on that proposal are still able to be made up through the end of this month. map 21 is helping us to get one level of safety for all passengers regardless of what type of bus company they choose. we're training all of our safety experts with new and enhanced tactics to remove dangerous buses and operators from the road. some companies take full advantage of the opportunity we give them to get better, to use the information we provide, use the audits to fix their problems. but for those that don't we will put them and we have put them out of business. last year we shut down over 100 unsafe bus operations. looking at the long term, president obama has laid out a vision in the grow america act that enhances our safety work. grow america focuses on three

key areas to improve commercial motor vehicle safety. on motor coach safety, grow america will expand our opportunities to inspect motor coaches at additional sites, and it will give fmcsa jurisdiction over passenger ticket brokers, folks who really do defraud customers as to what kind of company they're about to use. it takes strong steps to improve our effectiveness under grow america by allowing criminal prosecution of companies that deliberately violate federal out of service requirements. another provision requires companies to pay drivers for uncompensated time. it's not news to know that when drivers are held up at the loading dock, waiting for shipments to be loaded or unloaded, they're more often than not unpaid, uncompensated. as they face pressure to make up that loss, uncompensated time by pushing both their physical limits as well as the legal driving limits. this proposal will ease the

economic stress on long distance drivers by ensuring that they receive fair compensation for the hours they work. finally, grow america streamlines and consolidates our safety grant program, providing better efficiencies for the agencies and more importantly for our state enforcement and licensing partners. mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share a bit about what fmsca is focused on and the opportunity to answer questions today. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. and now administrator quarterman, thank you for being here. >> good morning. chairman blumenthal, ranking member blunt and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify on the pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration's progress in implementing the hazardous material safety provisions of map 21. i'm also delighted to discuss the ways the grow america act

will further improve upon the efforts of fmsa and the department to enhance the safety of our nation's hazardous materials transportation system. safety is the top priority of secretary fox, the department of transportation, fmcsa, and its sister modes. all of us at d.o.t. appreciate your dedication, and leadership in advancing hazardous materials transportation safety. for a relatively small agency, with limited resources, the staff at fmcsa works diligently to protect the american public and the environment from hazardous materials transportation incidents, and have made great strides in implementing the provisions of map 21. since map 21's enactment in 2012 fmcsa has met or will meet more than 90% of the established timelines for the 32 separate

provisions assigned to the agency. this is significant, given that the many challenges and emerging issues that fmcsa has faced over the same time period, including efforts to enhance the safe transportation of crude by rail, and continuing to consistently reduce the number of hazardous materials incidents over the past 25 years. a significant contributor to fmcsa's success has been the strategy and action plan we developed and implemented to take advantage of the additional resources map 21 provided, to bolster compliance with hazardous materials regulations. as the transportation sector continues to evolve and become more interconnected with the international community, fmcsa has attempted to adopt smarter strategies to adapt to those changes. as a part of our enforcement strategy, and through the authority of map 21, fmcsa raised its maximum civil penalty amount for violations resulting

in death, injury or illness. we believe that clear and appropriate civil penalties can improve transportation safety by acting as a deterrent for noncompliance. that's why the grow america act submitted to congress by secretary fox proposes to further increase the maximum amount of phmsa for violators of hazardous materials regulations. the increased penalty authority will allow us to address situations where a higher penalty is warranted, including those events resulting in death, injury, or illness. in addition, the grow america act will further build on that map 21's successes and support the department's safety initiatives by improving phmsa's ability to oversee the safe transportation of hazardous materials. grow america will give phmsa the

ability to issue orders to industry to cease activities without prior notice in response to emergency situations. similar authority is already held by fra and fmcsa and grow america will indreet d.o.t.'s ability to stop unsafe conditions or practices that may threaten life, personal injury, or harm to property or the environment. grow america will also enhance communities and improve safety by expanding hazardous registration requirements and improve the effectiveness of phmsa's hazardous materials emergency preparedness grants program. these are just a few of the many ways map 21 and grow america act can and will provide further safeguards against hazardous materials transportation risks for american communities. as i've stated earlier, phmsa is committed to improving transportation safety and i

believe our approach is working. our safety mission is guided by our vision that no harm results from hazardous materials transportation. and i truly believe our efforts will continue to prevent and mitigate accidents and move us closer to our goal of zero deaths and injuries. thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. we look forward to continuing to work with this committee and congress to protect people, property and the environment from hazardous materials transportation risks, and i would be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. secretary winfree? >> thank you, chairman blumenthal, for the opportunity to visit with you, ranking member blunt, and members of the committee to talk about the department's progress in implementing map 21 and the administration's proposal to reauthorize surface transportation programs, the grow america act. the office of the assistant secretary for research and

technology continues to lead the department's research coordination and commercialization efforts, driving cross modal collaboration to meet our challenges. congress has long recognized the value of transportation research by funding research and data programs through the highway trust fund. in my organization three 3r57s that you authorized under map 21 have continued to advance the departmental goals for american transportation. the intelligent trance portation systems research program. the university transportation centers program. and the bureau of transportation statistics. in i.t.s. research some of our team's progress has been attracting public attention. most notably through the i.t.s. funded connected vehicle's safety pilot in ann arbor, michigan, which is the largest such test program in the world and conducted in collaboration with the university of michigan transportation research institute. the results led to the decision to proceed with vehicle-to-vehicle communication

technology for light-duty vehicles. this technology will improve safety and has the potential to reduce nonimpaired fatalities by up to 80%. the department continues to work toward connected vehicle applications for heavy-duty vehicles, and a federal highway administration is preparing to issue guidance in 2015 for installing vehicle-to-infrastructure v-to-i applications for roadway safety and improved traffic operations. i note that all of the success and standards that support it are based upon the availability of the 5.9 gigahertz dedicated short-range communications spectrum. our utcs continue bringing innovation to the transportation system and developing the next generation of transportation leaders. we are extremely pleased with the nationwide consortium of universities selected under the open competition enabled by map 21. covering over 120 universities which bring expertise in

multiple disciplines, utc's enabled some of the systemic interdisciplinary cross modal research we need to address increasingly complex challenges. we're seeing exciting work in robotic bridge inspections, automatic vehicles, wireless monitoring of bridge integrity and disaster resill yns with much more to come. bts continues to fulfill its role as one of the government's 13 independent statistical agencies producing key information to eliminate decision making. bts places a priority on making data readily available and has improved access to data through such applications as the national transportation atlas viewer. and to all forms of transportation data through the national transportation library. bts products include the commodity flow survey and it's transborder freight data program which are the foundations of our understanding of freight transportation. the range of bts's airline data is widely cited.

bts led to the establishment of continually growing safety data.gov website, and supports map 21's performance measurement goals. the item with the largest impact on my organization took place after the passage of map 21. january's omnibus appropriations bill transferred the powers and authorities of the research and innovative technology administration to the office of the assistant secretary for research and technology. this is the culmination of an initiative begun in the president's fy-13 budget request. the elevation to the office of the secretary will bring more leadership insight into transportation research and development, and data and statistics, and will heighten the influence on policy discussions and decision making. the trust fund programs of the office of the assistant secretary will continue their existing missions and remain key components of the newly elevated office. in addition, the elevation returns responsibility for positioning, navigation and

timing, and spectrum management to the secretary's office, appropriate for a critical responsibility which impacts all non-military users of gps. we will continue to oversee the wide ranging and cross-modal efforts of the national transportation system center and the national transportation safety institute. the grow america act recognizes that research and data play a significant part in improving safety, transportation planning, and decision making, and preparing the nation's workforce. the grow america act requests a few changes in research and data programs, specifically implementing the results of the second strategic highway research program by allowing the allocation of up to 25 million per year from the highway account. establishing a national cooperative freight research program in support of departmental freight goals, including a targeted focus on hazardous materials. creating a priority multi-modal research program enabling cross-agency research and

innovation in three priority areas. infrastructure systems resilience and recovery. a zero emissions transportation system. and a multimodal s.t.e.m. education in workforce development program. thank you for this opportunity to update you on our progress and i look forward to your questions. >> thanks, mr. winfree. i'd like to begin my questioning with mr. szabo. and really, pursue a point that ms. quarterman raised, and i emphasized earlier, which is that standards need to be sufficiently high. they need to be enforced. rigorously. and that penalties have to provide a deterrent to violation of them. and miss quarterman rightly emphasized the need for increased penalties when they fail to provide a deterrent to violation of safety standards. the experience of metro north i think provides a national poster railroad in culminating years of

neglect and systematic and cultural failure in a series of catastrophic incidents, costing lives and injuries as well as dollars. and i think that a lot of eyes were opened by a series of reports, most significantly in the connecticut post, that detailed the absence of significant penalties over a period of time, 2004 to 2013, where most of the penalties were in the range of $5,000 or $10,000. i think the total was around $220,000 for a series of defects in procedures and operations that were serious. and severe. one of them, for example, applied to robert luten, a metro north worker, killed on the tracks near west haven as a

result of a senseless and needless neglect of safety by metro north. the $5,000 was nowhere near a measure of the kind of message and penalty that should have been imposed. more recently, a report about kenneth mcgrath, whose death in 2009 resulted in a penalty of $2,000. these relatively miniscule penalties of $2,000 or $5,000, or $10,000, i think the highest over that period of time was $39,000, plainly, i think provide an inadequate deterrent to violation of safety standards. my question to you is, what is the reason for these small to miniscule penalties, what can be done to increase them, and isn't it in a sense a mark of

inadequate scrutiny, and it may be that your authority needs to be increased, that we have this kind of pattern? >> well, thank you for the question, senator. first let me say that, you know, the series of events on metro north were an eye opener for all of us. as you've heard me say, you know, the goal of my agency is continuous safety improvement. that's what i expect from myself, that's what i expect from my agency, that's what i expect from the industry that we regulate. and so even though we've been able to drive down accidents, injuries and fatalities over the past decade, to record lows, we always look for the avenues that we can take to improve, to ensure that we continue to achieve new record lows. how do we get to zero, and then once we get there, how do we stay there.

certainly penalties and fines are one piece of the mix. it's one tool in our toolbox. it's one that we try to use effectively. if you're a carpenter, a hammer is important, you bet. but it's not the only tool that you use to build a house. certainly coming out of the ranks, you know, as a rail worker that's been out there, and as a union rep that's written up complaints to the agency i now head, there's always been a frustration with the level of penalties. so one of the things that i did when i got here was make it a priority to do what i could with the tools that i had. to increase our level of penalties. in the five years i've been here, senator, we have in fact assessed the highest number, the highest dollar amount of penalties in any five-year period in the agency's history. >> but those penalties in the metro north incidents were extraordinarily low, were they not? >> well, there's a penalty schedule that we have to follow.

and while certainly we -- you know, we can and will once again take a look at reviewing that penalty schedule, you know, our authority is somewhat limited, i think, to get to the level of penalties that you're talking about. >> but i think the important point is, whether we need to increase that authority, or provide some other incentives for the agency to be more rigorous and vigorous, more aggressive in its enforcement. because frankly, mr. szabo, a lot of riders have lost trust and confidence not only in the railroad, but also in the enforcement authority, the fra, and similar watchdogs responsible for protecting safety. >> we certainly owe the public. we owe the public better. we always owe the public better. we have our work to do as an agency, and certainly metro north as a railroad, to regain that trust.

but i really think that if you take a look at what has been proposed in the grow america act, it has the package that we need to achieve the next generation of safety. and while penalties and enforcement are one piece of that puzzle, i would argue it's only a piece. you know, what we've learned through metro north is less about the need for more inspection, more enforcement, and frankly, comes more down to the need to advance proactive risk-based programs that identify and mitigate risk in advance. things like confidential close calls, in the system safety rule that will be final later this year that will require all passenger railroads to do an analysis, and then file a risk mitigation plan with us that we review and approve. and this gets refreshed on an annual basis.

so i think there are more tools in the package that we have in grow america, as the appropriate mix of tools. >> i'm going to return to this line of questioning. my time has expired for right now. but we'll have a second round. and i appreciate your responses to my questions. >> sure. >> i continue to believe that there has to be attention to the penalty provisions to make sure that they are commensurate with the kind of neglect and failing that we've seen at metro north on occasion to deter that kind of violation of basic standards that the public has a right to expect. i'll turn to senator thune now. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you and senator blunt for holding this hearing. i've said many times that maintaining and improving our nation's infrastructure is absolutely vital to our country's economic prosperity.

it's also essential that we have a reliable and safe form of transportation in this country. you all represent agencies that are key to that mission, and i appreciate you being here and your willingness to answer questions. i want to direct the first question, if i might, to administrator szabo. i was pleased to see that the grow america act for the first time formally acknowledged the need for an extension. but my question has to do with why there wasn't a straightforward extension of the entire deadline as opposed to try and deal with this as has been suggested on a case-by-case basis, knowing full well that none of these railroads will be able to meet that 2015 deadline? >> senator, we really believe that the package that we've put together under grow america, particularly relative to positive train control, gives us the right tools and provides the right balance to most advance and ensure public safety. you know, we believe you've got

two extremes on this argument. every time i come and testify, i hear from different senators, those are saying under no circumstances should you expand the 2015 deadline, to those that say there should be a blanket extension. we believe that with the proposal that we have for provisional certification, that by working with each carrier to modify their implementation plan, in setting up the milestones that fit for each railroad, based on the technical and programmatic challenges that each one has individually, and then being able to provisionally certify a piece of the system that we can best advance, the benefits, achieve the benefits of as much of ptc as possible, as soon as possible. we really think that it's the right approach that recognizes the challenges, while also

having that accountability, and giving the public what they deserve. >> doesn't it make sense -- i mean, if you want to uphold the railroad's feet to the fire, there's no deadline in what you're talking about. and many of us, our colleagues on the committee here and others have introduced legislation that would provide this blanket extension that i referred to, which does have a hard firm deadline in it. we know that no single railroad, freighter, or passenger is likely to meet the 2015 deadline, but the proposal that you're suggesting here doesn't have any particular sense of urgency attached to it either. if you're just going to be able to waive this on a case-by-case basis. it strikes me it would make a lot more sense if you want to -- and if you want to treat the railroads in sort of a fair way, to give them -- you know, push that out there knowing they're not going to be able to meet the 2015, but still keeping the sense of urgency and their feet to the fire. >> the key, though, senator,

it's still critically important that you give us the authority that we need for provisional certification. because otherwise we can't approve an implementation plan that doesn't fully meet the deadline. we can't approve partial deployment. and so the industry needs, as well as my agency needs, the industry deserves the opportunity for us to have the appropriate element of flexibility to work with them on the challenges that they're facing, while still advancing as much of the system as possible, as quickly as possible. the technology will save lives. it would have saved lives on metro north. you know, so it's critical that we have the tools that we need to properly manage deployment. >> well, i think the legislation also halls the provisional certification that you talked about as well.

i mean, it's got some flexibility, but it also has the deadline attached to it. it seems like a better approach. >> we certainly would be willing to work with you on some technical assistance to try and strike the right balance here. >> okay. quickly, because we have a lot of colleagues that -- i want to direct this to you, miss ferro. this spring the d.o.t. and inspector general reviewed the csa program, and you reportedly concurred with the ig's six recommendations, but the two gao recommendations remain open. the comments were not provided to the gao. does the fmsca plan to take action on those recommendations? and could you provide us an update? and if not, explain why. >> certainly. the compliance safety accountability program otherwise known as csa is at its heart a program to improve our overall enforcement, and focus on the highest risk carriers with our limited resources. and the data structure which takes advantage of over 3

million inspections managed each year to get at the performance of individual carriers really does provide carriers as well an opportunity to look at their own performance and improve before we even need to get there. if in fact they're showing high risk behavior. that being said, it is an improvement over the prior system, but it's a program we can continue to work on. the gao report as well as the inspector general's report identifies strategies for us to improve both the adequacy of the data, the utilization to ensure we're looking at the highest risk carriers, as well as the access of the data to the public that takes advantage of it. we did in fact reply in full to the gao. i'm sorry you don't have a copy of that. we'll make sure you see that. they received our response last month. there are certainly aspects of the gao analysis that we're making full use of.

the core component that we disagreed with really relates to a methodology they propose, that isolates the csa analysis to a very small group of carriers, only the largest ones. and while large carriers have significant impact on crash activity across our country, smaller carriers impact about half of those fatalities and injury crashes. so it's important we look at the full spectrum. so to cut to the chase, we are utilizing the recommendations from both agencies in continuing to improve the csa program. the underlying data analysis, and accessibility to that data. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, senator blunt. >> senator klobuchar? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you to you, senator blunt, for your good work in this area. i want to start off by saying we need to get map 21 done and we need to move forward on these rail safety rules and everything else. i was just in southern minnesota on highway 14, which has received some federal funding in the past, but now 125 people have died in two decades on one

highway. that's a two-lane highway in southern minnesota. a lot of it because of freight that should be on a four-lane highway. some of it because we simply don't have enough rail in this country, and it's not safe enough. and so in minnesota, thanks to the good fortune of our neighbors in north dakota, where they're producing oil and natural gas, it put a strain on our rail system and a lot of our ag products are having a hard time finding rail, and we need to upgrade everything we have as far as i'm concerned. because if we're actually going to be an export economy we want to be, we need to have a transportation system that's up to the task. ms. quarterman, phmsa sent its rule for rail car standards to omb for review. i know your agency is working diligently to finalize the rule. it's a complex task. can you tell me when the final rule will be completed? >> i cannot tell you when the final rule will be completed.

i can tell you what the process is. the process is that it goes over -- >> i kind of know the process. i'm just wondering -- >> i can assure you, senator, that we're working very hard to get the rule out as soon as humanly possible. it's a first priority for secretary fox, and for me. so we are working as hard as we can to get the rule out as soon as possible. >> there's currently about 228,000 d.o.t. 111 rail cars carrying a wide range of products, including hazardous and nonhazardous materials. roughly 92,000 are used to move flammable liquids yet only about 14,000 of these are built to the latest industry safety standards. miss quarterman, considering the large number of the d.o.t. 111s in the fleet, is phmsa considering different rules on what product is being shipped? and would such an approach enable phmsa and the industry

to better apply resources and get the quickest safety improvements? >> well, the rule that we discussed earlier includes not just tank cars, it's a comprehensive approach to rail safety. and included in that rule are issues related to the existing and the new tank cars. so i can't go into the details of that rule, but we are taking a comprehensive approach to deal both with prevention, mitigation and response to crude by rail incidents. >> we've had one in minnesota, one in north dakota. last month canada's transportation safety board announced that all older tank cars used for carrying crude must be phased out by may of 2017. how is phmsa approaching the issue of whether to phase out older tank cars? and has canada's action increased pressure to include a phaseout requirement as part of the rule making? >> i can tell you we're working very closely with canada. we are talking to them on a weekly basis about their

actions, and coordinating to the extent we can, actions here with them as well. we applaud their movement to remove 111 tank cars in three years' time. secretary fox has already said that those cars should be removed from crude oil service, or retrofitted. canada has the advantage of being able to say in a public forum that they can remove those cars from service in three years, because we have a pending rule-making under the existing -- the requirements here in the united states, we cannot say anything comparable on the record until it goes through the rule-making process. >> okay. mr. szabo, this committee last passed a rail safety bill in 2008. since then we all know the landscape of freight rail has changed dramatically. transportation reauthorization bill would be an opportunity to

update some of the rules and standards that govern the freight rail industry. how is the increase in freight rail traffic over the past few years changed how this committee should view rail safety, and what do you think of the most important issues that we could address in that bill? >> well, thank you, senator. i think it's, first, important to note that by many respects, rail is in fact the safest means of moving both people and goods. when you compare it to the other transportation modes, under most measurements, most circumstances, we're the most safe transportation mode. and again, statistically, the industry is at an all-time best. a part of a decades-long continuous improvement in rail safety, to record low numbers of accidents, injuries, and fatalities. but there's no question that the change of products being hauled,

particularly with these hazardous flammable materials, that it's forcing us to really change the way that we view safety. you know, take a fresh look, a new look at everything that we think that we have known about safety. even though we have historically been very, very good, and continue to get better, particularly when it comes to these volatile products. we'll have to be near perfect. and so as administrator quarterman said, it's a matter of taking a look at everything from the tank car, you know, to understanding the product, ensuring proper classification. you know, those things that we've put into place with the industry through the voluntary agreement are the appropriate steps to be taken using the routing protocol, using the 27 factors to -- through the computer model, ensure we're using the most safe, secure route for moving the products, hardening the assets.

additional track inspections, both by the industry as well as with my inspector resources, ensuring a higher level of health to the equipment. you know, and continuing on. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. senator blunt? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. szabo, i was confused by your answer on positive train control. do you have the authority to extend the deadline or not? >> no, we do not. only congress can extend the deadline. >> that's what i thought. so you don't have any authority -- there are no provisions that you have that allow you to do a provisional certification? >> not at all, senator. that's why we believe it's so critical that we be granted that authority, so we can manage this in a rational manner. >> does that mean you don't want a deadline? >> well, we believe that -- >> the bill that senator thune and i are sponsoring with

several other people on this committee set a new deadline of 2018 and gives you provisional abilities to implement between now and then. what more than that do you want? >> i think the key is ensuring that we have the appropriate flexibility that we need with the provisional certifications, the ability to effectively manage the implementation plans on each railroad. i would have to take a look at how your legislation does or does not address that. through technical assistance, we would be happy to work with you. >> well, you don't think in the compliance by 2015, by the commuter lines is possible, do you? >> i don't believe there's a railroad in this country that will achieve full deployment by 2015. partial deployment could be possible. the one exception might be metro north in california. there's a fighting chance that

they can reach their 2015 deadline. we'll see. but there's certainly not another railroad in this country that can fully comply by the 2015 deadline. >> since you don't think that anybody can comply with the 2015, and i don't think that anybody can comply with the 2015 deadline, i'd like you to look at our legislation and give us some advice on how you think it could be improved. we don't want to just blow by this deadline, as if it's not there. surely that's not the right thing to do. and i'll continue to have some concerns about provisional compliance for the freight lines particularly that may put them at some competitive disadvantage. >> right. and it does the opposite, senator. i think that's a real important point. i saw your question to the secretary, and we're concerned with that issue, too. two things, one, i think the final rule amendments that are in executive clearance right now are going to partially address

those concerns, and then the approach for provisional certification would fully address those concerns. we agree that this is about advancing safety, not putting somebody who's been out in front on deployment doing all the right things at a competitive disadvantage, where if they have hiccups during early deployment, that it ends up gumming up their capacity. >> well, i think also that early deployment can create test cases where we see what's the -- what the problems are, what can be done better. >> precisely. precisely. and that's what provisional certification gives us the flexibility to do. >> have you had a chance to look at the new tower citing agreements that appear to be between the fcc and tribal councils? >> yes. we think it's a good first step. there's clearly more work that needs to be done. but we think that this is significant movement. but i would also note that our proposal in grow america

actually gives fra a little more formal seat at the table in working with the fcc. so again, we would urge the adoption of those provisions that we have. we think that it can actually help everybody work through this tower problem with fcc. >> and of the 10,000 towers that still need to be approved, what's your estimate of how quickly the first ones may be approved by the fcc? >> i'll have to get back to you for the record on that. but i think certainly we continue to make sure that fcc is aware of the sense of urgency. i believe they are. i know the industry, i think, was at least reasonably pleased with the recent movement by fcc. so we'll keep pressing on the issue. >> miss ferro, when senator warner was the chairman of this committee, the subcommittee briefly, he and i introduced legislation regarding sleep apnea. the legislation required that

any action on intrusive sleep apnea be taken only through official rule making. that was passed unanimously by congress, signed into law. i'm told that your trainers are still referring to doctors even though there's no rule that's been promulgated yet. do you know if that's true or not? >> senator, first and foremost, we absolutely are abiding by the mandate of congress, that any change to the current medical guidance regarding obstructive sleep apnea would be done through a rule-making. that being said, what initiated much of the concern, i think that resulted in that law was that we were working to clarify the information that's on the long medical form that medical examiners who administer the d.o.t. physical for truck drivers and bus drivers follow,

and have followed for years, the same information that they have always had is still in the long form. that has not changed. and in fact, the training that medical examiners -- the curriculum that medical followed the same provisions that have always been there. so there has been no change. i assure you. let's follow up on that, between your office and my office and maybe the committee and be sure of what we understand what "no change" means. i think legislation is not very complicated and very specific in what it required and i'm not sure we're in compliance with what the law now says. so let's be sure we are. >> we are follow up and i will tell you for sure medical examiners are expected when they examine a truck or bus driver to meet -- and determine if they meet the physical qualifications for holding a commercial

driver's license, they include a full examination of chronic conditions and conditions that could affect that driver's ability to be alert and conscious behind the wheel. so among those conditions that they have always looked at have been breathing disorders and pulmonary disorders that obstructive sleep disorder falls into. >> are you in the process of promulgating new rules as the law would anticipate? >> we are not but we will follow up as you directed and meet with your staff that there's a clear sense that we are conforming both with the law that you passed last year as well as a very visible and transparent process. the requirements haven't changed one bit. >> let's be sure we here in compliance with the law. >> absolutely. >> thanks, senator blunt. senator fisher? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you all for being here today. administrator quarterman, as you know, the rail industry worked

with a number of agencies in coming to an agreement, and it was a voluntary agreement, on the speed reductions standards that you recently came up with. does fisma support that voluntary agreement? >> senator fischer, the secretary put together a aggressive plan, an action plan, the administrators who are hitting here today, and we talked to the petroleum and the railroad industries about what immediate actions could they take while we do our comprehensive rule-making process to improve safety and one of the items that they put on the table was to restrict the speed and it is a very important

element so we are supportive that they have gone forward to do that with respect to certain trains. >> part of that agreement was community relations, emergency response, but specifically the speed reductions. in working voluntarily with agencies, i think that's a good way for industry to operate. i think it's a good way for the agencies to operate. so my question to you again do you support that? do you support the agencies coming with industry, with private industry and trying to reach these voluntary agreements instead of mandate from the top down always? >> i absolutely support industries coming forward. we think that compliance with regulations is not enough in many instances, that when we're talking about moving hazardous materials across the country in

the backyards, the main streets of america both the railroad and petroleum industries have been given a public trust and complying with regulations is not necessarily enough. safety is our ultimate goal. so absolutely we think it is great when industries come together and agree on a cooperative, collaborative basis to take steps that have not yet been put into regulations. >> do you feel that the railroads negotiated in good faith during the voluntary negotiations that took place? >> i have no reason to view anything otherwise. >> i guess i would ask administrator szabo the same question. do you support a voluntary agreement with the railroads

with regards to the speed reductions? we all want safety, that's the numb number-one concern. we all want that. we want to make sure that the tank cars that are being refitted possibility, and i know there's some railroads that are taking the lead on that in trying to move forward to make sure that we move certain materials in the most safe way that we possibly can. do you think this voluntary agreement was a good step? >> i think it was very significant and certainly commend the industry for coming forward with it. but as i said earlier to senator klobuchar, you know, we have to rethink everything that we know and everything that we've been doing relative to safety. and so while i think it's an exceptionally good agreement

that immediately provides significant benefits to the public on safety, it doesn't change the fact that as we look at this entire process from the time the product comes out of the ground until it's delivered to the refine they there's more work to be done. >> thank you. i would ask administrator farrow. with the new truck driver hours and service rules that you put in place of july of 2013 do you think that they're having a substantial impact on productivity? i'm curious and i wonder how your department is going to measure and confirm whether any health benefits have really been realized through these. >> absolutely. so the hours of service rule that was finalized in december of 2011 and, as you know, went into full effect last july is

identified with rigorous analysis to project an impact of saving up to 19 lives per year, or at least 1 liv9 lives per ye and avoiding injury crashes and significantly more crashes and overall net benefit to the nation. there was also clearly in the analysis a recognition of the economic impact on industry. a recognition and an analysis that identified about a $500 million economic impact cost to indust industry, some portion of that is our law ens force. officers for retraining. do what do we think has happened yet? yes, there has been an economic impact on industry. we certainly recognized that would happen. we identified through an unprecedented level of both

analysis and solicited public input throughout the rule-making process as much fact and information and data as we could muster from all arti iparties t sure we were analyzing the components of the industry that rule would affect. the majority of the impact is on the long haul over the road, the regular route driver. what we have seen in recent months -- and i think you probably have heard from some of these individuals -- is that carriers whose schedules are not necessarily a regular route but they are scheduled service to their customers that still exceed a 60 hour seven-day week are feeling the impact of the rule as well. and i think early on the estimate was overall about a 3% impact on productivity for some of the sectors. now, with regard to the safety benefi benefits, the way crash and injury data is reported we don't the data to show but we do know that it is having an impact and

continue to press forward with the rule that's in place and we'll press forward as we committed, even the rule making, to a very robust analysis of fatigue, measuring fatigue, of monitoring and measuring the impact of the rule itself going forward. but with new technologies we have the ability to do that much better than we could before -- the electronic logging devices, on-board technologies, monitoring of drivers so all of that will be part of our analysis going forward through naturalistic driving studies. it's very important to reflect on the history of our service rule making. because much like what administrators somedzai bow described, we want to drive to zero fatalities. there are different points of view on how to get there.

one side of the argument felt we didn'tfatalities. there are different points of view on how to get there. one side of the argument felt we didn't go far enough and o t other side feels as though we've gone too far. both sides took us to court and the court for the first time in 15 years of litigation, the court actually deemed that the agency -- i think in the court's own language says "we think the agency has reacted reasonably if incrementally to promote driver health and safety." so we have a rule that has withstood that challenge so it's important that we continue the analysis, that we view -- let's get through several years of this operation, let's begin the data collection now. and the analysis now. so we can continue reporting. >> and just short answer. do you have a time frame when you'll be able to confirm that? >> no, but i'd like to follow up with you with a clearer timeline. >> great, thank you. thank you for answering the question. i appreciate it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator ayotte? >>