as a result, it will never pass the senate. in the day days -- e takes since he first rolled out his budget proposal, congressman ryan has hailed for taking on the tough challenges, and we certainly salute him for putting out a plan. but a closer look at his proposal shows that it is not bold at all in leaving pentagon spending and revenues completely untouched, ryan budget used exactly to his party's orthodoxy. some of the columns i read that says it takes courage? well, maybe it takes courage for someone from a different political philosophy so say what he said but not for a conservative republican to say what he said. ryan's budget doe't gore a single republican ox. it is a rigid, ideological

document. consider what congressman ryan wants to do on medicare. in the name of ideology, paul ryan's budget proposes getting rid of medicare as it exists today and replacing it with a private system that would cut benefits. mr. president, we've seen this movie before. five years ago, president bush tried to sell the country on a plan to privatize social security. the public rejected it. well, if you didn't like what president bush tried to do so social security, just wait until you see what paul ryan and the house republicans want to do to medicare. madam president, their budge plan proposes putting the medicare system into the hands of private insurance companies. that is a recipe for disaster.

it would mean an end to medicare as we know it. beginning in 2022, americans turning 65 would no longer be enrolled in medicare but instead would receive a voucher to go shopping for their own health insurae on the open market. insurance companies, however, would not be required to honor that coucher, which would average about $8,000. many private insurance plans for seniors far exceed that price already today. but under the ryan plan, seniors who cannot find an affordable plan at the value of their voucher would simply have to make up the difference themselves out of their own pockets. thisroblem would only worsen over time as health care costs rise ryan caps medicare spending at the level of inflation, even though historically health care costs rise higher than that.

as ryan's voucher covers a smaller and smaller fraction of actual health care costs, seniors would have to cover the gap out of pocket. which is why alice rivlin, a democrat, and president clinton's former o.m.b. director who worked with congressman ryan on his approach for a time, has distanced herself from this final product. she told "the washington post" that she opposes the ryan plan -- quote -- "in the ryan version, he has lowered the rate of growth and i don't think that's defensible. it pushed too much of the cost on to the beneficiaries." let me repeat that last part of alice rivlin, congressman ryan's partner for a time in this proposal. toy pushe"it pushed," she wtes,t pushed too much of cost on to

the beneficiaries." other medicare experts agree with rivlin. steven zuckerman, a health care economist at the nonpartisan you urban institute said -- quote -- "the most serious flaw of that approach is that limiting federal spending on medicare without conce about the potential of this change to shift costs to medicare beneficiaries." a better way, madam president, rein in medicare spending would be to trim the waste and inefficiency out of the delivery system. anyone who's gone through the health care system knows all the waste and inefficiencies. the legendary stories of a doct waiving as you go into the emergency room and then you -- and you never see them again and then there's a $4,000 arge. these kinds of things. but it turns out that ryan's plan does nothing to reduce overall health care costs.

it increases. they we have to preserve the benefits to people but make the cost of delivering them less expensive. that's what every other country in the world does. that's what we have to do. but the ryan plan doesn't do that. the ryan plan not only doesn't try to eliminate the waste and efficiency out o the delivery system but it does nothing to reduce overall health ce costs. it actually increases them. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, in 2030, traditional medicare insurance would cost just 60% of a private policy purchased with ryan's voucher. in other words, the ryan health care plan would cost two-thirds more than traditional medicare. not only would the ryan plan increase insurance costs, it would force seniors to shoulder

a higher share of these costs. c.b.o. said -- quote -- this is c.b.o., not check schumer, the nonpartisan c.b.o. -- c.b.o. writes, "under the proposal, most people entitled to premium payments would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current health care system." how mu more? madam president, it's staggering when you look at the numbers. here they are. the seniors' share of health care costs. we all know that even with medicare, seniors have to pay some of it themselves. but now they pay 25%. under the ryan budget, 68%. so there's this voucher and it goes to the insurance companies, health care costs more and seniors pay more. why the heck would we do that? this is a crippling bden that would drive the average medicare recipient into poverty.

it is not only too much to ask for our seniors, it destroys the foundation of our health care system. madam president, just to check on the time. i believe i said after i finished, i asked unanimous consent that congressman inhofe would follow me? the presidg officer: the senator has used 10 minutes. did the senator wish for more than ten minutes? mr. schumer: i did. and that was the intention of my unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. i'll be finished in aittle while and i thank my colleague from oklahoma. so the bottom line is the house republican budget would cause the cost of health insurance to rise and then would make seniors pay a greater share of that higher cost. it is a cut in benefits plan -- it is a cut-in-benefits plan, plain and simple. if we are serious about reining

in medicare spending, there's a far better starting place than the ryan budget. it's the health care law passed by congress last year. republicans are patting themselves on the back lately for leading on entitlement reform, but when it comes to reining in the runaway costs of medicare, the truth is the president did it first and he did it better. in the health care law, mr. president, we certainly didn't complete the job but we made a good start on reducin waste, inefficiency and duplication in the system. we started down the path of making delivery system reforms. we set up a system for studying the effectiveness of different methods and treatments so that care could be delivered more efciently. we made a down payment on shifting the larger health care system away from a fee-for-service model towards a system that pays providers for episodes of care. the ryan proposal adopts none of these costsaving approaches. in fact, his budget calls for the repeal of the health care law altogether.

left unsaid is that this would have the side effect of reopening the doughnut hole -- another hit to medicare beneficiaries. now, if the ryan budget's only goal was to end medicare, that would be ample cause enough to work tooth and nail to defeat it. but the ryan budget doesn't even put most of its savings from ending medicare towards deficit reduction. amazingly, it cuts medicare, ends medicare as we know it and takes whatever savings it produces and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest americans. that's right, madam president, ryan's budget not only seeks to permanently extend president bush's tax cuts for millionair millionaires, he wants to cut their taxes even lower than the bush levels. in fact, under the ryan proposal, millionaires would pay a rate so low that it was last seen in the days of herbert hoover. what about shared sacrifice? as unbelievable as it sounds,

congressman ryan wants to give millionaires and billionaires an extra tax break. ryan's budget proposal would bring down the top rate from 35% to 25% for those who are vy wealthy. this would make the lowest level -- ts would make for the lowest level of taxing the wealthiest among us since 1931. when the great depression was rage and herbert hoover was president. this is the trade congressman ryan proposes we make -- cut medicare benefits for seniors so we can afford to give millionaires an extra tax break. this is exactly the opposite of what the public wants. they don't think the millionaires and billionaires should even be getting george bush's tax cut, let alone an extra one on top of that. now, i have nothing against millionaires and billionaires. god bless them. many of them made their money the good old-fashioned american

way, but they don't need a tax break when we're cutting medicare and cutting everything else. in last month's -- and most americans agree with me. in last month's nbc/"wall street journal" poll that asked americans what proposals they most stop the reduce the deficit, 81% of americans, including a majority of republicans, as i recall, said that they would support a tax on millionaires, the highest polling answer. one of the lowest polling answers was, you guessed it, cutting medicare benefits. so the ryan budget has its priorities completely upside-down. now, you may ask, if congressman ryan puts all his savings from medicare intomillionaire tax break, how does he propose to achieve any deficit reduction? the answer is by targeting the programs most important to the middle class. it turns out that the republican plan to end medicare is also a plan to end other important

programs. for example, the republican plan to end medicare is additionally also a plan to cut tens of thousands of teachers. and the republican plan to end medicare is additionally also a plan to cut head start for kids. and the republican plan to end medicare is additionally also a plan to cut medical research on diseases like cancer. and the republican plan to end medicare is additionally also a plan to cut clean energy projects that create jobs and help us become energy independent. in all, the rn plan assumes a steady squeezing of government until by 2050, the total cost of everything, save for social security and micare, is shrunk from 12% of the g.d.p. to just 3%. but he doesn't spell out a single detail of how to achieve those cuts. he has a number but no specifi specifics. that is the definition of a

meat-ax approach as opposed to a approach that uses a smart, sharp scalpel. even though the ryan plan doesn't spell out where the cuts would come from to meet his goal, it isn't a total mystery. we can fill in the blanks. the just completed debate on fiscal year 2011 budget offers plenty of hints what the republican approach to cutting spending is. in the debate we just had, republicans wanted to cut the very programs that create good-paying jobs and help the middle class. they targeted everything from cancer research to financial aid to college. we fended off many of their worst cuts by successfully pushing republicans to include $17 billion in cuts from the mandatory side. we also got them to agree to reduce pentagon spending by nearly $3 billion compared to their original budget. this was want the republicans' preferred way to reduce the deficit. because of ideology, they disproportionately targeted the

domestic discretionary part of the budget for cutting. but our deficit problems weren't caused by head start and cancer research and we won't fix them by going after head start and cancer research. in the budget debates to come, madam president, we need to broaden the playing field beyond domestic discretionary spending. we should include, for instance, waste in the defense department. the pentagon makes up half of theiscretionary side of the budget but republicans continue to tre it as off-limits. ryan himself leaves it virtually untouched save for its symbolic trim to. say there isn't waste at the pentagon, like there is waste everywhere else in the budget, is absurd. the bottom line -- any budget that leaves defense and revenues off the table is ultimately not serious. we need an all-of-the-above approach that puts all parts of the budget on the table a dollar cut from mandatory spending or the pentagon is just as good as a dollar cut from non-defense

discretionary spendg. deficit reduction is an important goal, but the sacrifice must be shared. the ryan budget fails that test. in conclusion,he democratic senate will not stand for any proposals that seek to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and of seniors. i look forward to hearing the president's remarks tomorrow and, as for congressman ryan, i would encourage him to go back to the drawingboard and come up with a fairer, more balanced >> president obama will meet privately with congressional leaders to brief them on his speech. you can see that speech at 1:00 p.m. tomorrow. >> a few months ago, i was able to sign a tax cut for american families because both parties

were to their differences and found common ground. now the same cooperation has made it possible for us to move forward with the biggest spending cut in history. >> watched the current debate and the debate about next year's budget as well. from the house floor to around washington on line with the c- span video library. search, watch, clip, and share with everything we have aired since 1967. it is what you want when you watch. >> let's see the top winner in this year's studentcam competition. this was about a topic that help them better understand the role of the federal government. sam is a senior and high school. why did you pick homelessness is the topic of your video? >> there were few different topics i was considering. one of them was federal funding

for public schools, directly affecting me. but with homelessness, i felt it was a more interesting topic, because there is a bit of mystery to it. i know i myself was not exactly sure all the causes of homelessness and what if anything was being done to help them, but i was interested in learning about it and i thought would be interesting to watch as well. >> how is your community affected by homelessness? >> i live in the suburbs, and homeless list -- and the homelessness i saw in my area is different than in st. paul. the homelessness around here, there is only a few homeless individuals, so they have a reputation. like during my video, a lot of people that come up and said, i saw brad, a homeless gentleman i interviewed, and it seems like for him, the assistance he

received in a smaller area of where i lived is a lot more of based on people's generosity, whereas in the city of minneapolis for st. paul, there are shelters and soup kitchens to help people out. >> what did you learn about the people that you spoke with that the food shelter? >> they told me about this program called 211, a federally funded program to try to of boy homelessness. someone feels like they might be on the verge of becoming homeless, the thing called 211 and there is a bunch of resources available to help them avoid that outcome. >> what is the federal government doing to address homelessness? >> that provide funding for soup kitchens and seltzers across the u.s., and they also have housing programs.

i researched hud, the housing and urban development department, temporary housing programs that people that might just need a bit of time to get back on their feet, and they have permanent housing programs to help low-income families or people who are not able to work. >> what should people come away with after watching your video? >> i hope once people see brad story or how the homeless people are in the documentary, that they will have a bit more respect and know that not all people are homeless because of bad choices. when i was interviewing brad, i got a shot of him standing on the corner of the street with his sign. as i was doing that, someone drove by, rolled the window down, and literally threw a handful of change at him. you can see it in the documentary where he bends down

to pick up some of the change out of the snow. the person was yelling at him to get a real job. it is not that easy, especially when you are already homeless and you are struggling. i hope people can see that some homeless people, there are so many people and they need a bit of extra help. >> let's look a portion of sam's documentary. >> while driving to school, i pass a stranger knew the community wall. each day he wakes up, trudges half a mile to the corner, stands in the same place all day. the stranger is familiar to everyone, but known to no one. is there nothing been done to end this tragedy? nothing to help the homeless? ♪ >> nearly 6 million very low income households pay more than half their monthly income for rent or it or to go live in

severely substandard housing. our recently released homeless assessment report found that on any given night in american, more than 640,000 men and women and children are without housing. >> you can see this video and all the winning documentary's at c-span.org. you can continue the conversation at our facebook and twitter pages. >> the senate environment and public works committee was looking at lessons learned from the nuclear power disaster in japan, which officials there say now is at the same level as the chernobyl incident. this is three hours.

>> we have a number of witnesses today and i want to say welcome to my distinguished ranking member. just over one month ago today, japan was hit by 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami that measured roughly 30 feet high. the devastation brought on by these catastrophic events is heartbreaking, and our deepest condolences go out to the victims and their families. today we are hearing that this event and now in terms of radiation leak is equal to that of chernobyl. so the news is not good. just in japan. the tragedy services and important wake-up call for us. we cannot ignore it. i think we all agree that we must plan for the unexpected. and when we know there are threats, addressed them quickly. what can we learn from the tragic situation in japan.

the u.s. is 104 commercial nuclear power reactors operating in 65 sites in 31 states. 23 reactors are boiling water reactors with mark one containment systems like the one at the fukushima dai-ichi plan. however the lessons from the tragedy in japan demonstrate the importance of reassessing the safety of these reactors. the compromise reactors in japan might the u.s. were built on a set of assumptions regarding the potential magnitude of natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunami. we know that u.s. nuclear activities are located in seismic activities in you will hear from our people that we have a couple of those. the situation in japan has shown as we must take a hard look at the risk assumptions that were made when the reactors were designed. in the case of japan, they

designed for lower magnitude quake. bh the reactors were designed. we know in japan they designed it for a lower magnitude quake. as a result of the catastrophic situation in japan, senator tom carper, who is going to chair this hearing as soon as i complete my remarks, tom carper and i have called in the nrc to conduct a comprehensive review of all nuclear facilities in the united states to assess their capacity to respond to natural or manmade disasters. senator feinstein and i also requested that immediate and special attention be given to those u.s. reactors subject to significant seismic activity or located near a coastline. the nrc has identified two plants in california as being located in high seismicity zones. the commission found nine other plantses in illinois, north carolina, south carolina,

georgia, virginia and tennessee, that they're in moderate size rickity zones. both in california are located in high-density areas, 424,000 people live within 50 miles of diablo, 7.4 million live within 50 miles of san anofre. other nuclear facilities in the united states are also located in highly pop late laited areas. if you look at the one in new york, it's about 17 million people live within that 50-mile radius. although evacuation plans are generally a state and local concern, there have been calls for more involvement from fema to assess those plans. today we'll hear testimony from a number of our colleagues as well as the chairman of the nrc, greg gasco, who's been so

helpful to us as we move forward, and also we'll hear frommed administrator of the epa lisa jackson. i'm very interesting to hear how the epa is monitoring the radiation in the u.s. we have, lisa and i, talked over the weeks just making sure we have accurate, up-to-date information on the radioactivity. we know that low levels of radiation have been detected in the u.s. from the compromised reactors in japan. we can only imagine what the potential impacts on health and environment would be if, god fosh forbid, we ever experienced the same type of accidents that occurred in japan. a small but elevated of radiation have been detected in milk and other food. wear we're going to talk about that. experts say that we're okay right now. i want to probe that, make sure of that. and whether it's the nrc's review process of our reactors

or epa's monitoring of our drinking water, complete transparency and prompt disclosure are vital in maintaining the government's credibility, our credibility, frankly, as this oversight committee. the federal government must heed the wake-up call from the catastrophe in japan. as chairman of this committee, working with everybody on both sides of the aisle, particularly my subcommittee chair, i will continue to provide vigorous oversigh tsteps to nation's nuclear facilities as safe as possible. i know chair man yausco and administrator jackson share my concerns. our common goal is to show we're prepared and obviously taking a hard look at what's going on in our country at a time when we need every bit of energy we can get. there's no question about that. but as looking at what's going on over there, it's

the unthinkable and we have to avoid it. so with that, i'm going to turn the gavel over to senator carper. >> thank you, madam chairman. first of all, senator joe in answer -- nance was going to be here today and couldn't be. he asked me if i would put in a statement which i enter into the record right now, ms. chairman. chairman yasco, i appreciate your efforts to ensure the nation that we are -- that the nuclear plants here in the united states are safe, and i appreciate very much, admin strar -- administrator jackson, your reassurance that the materials that have drifted here from japan will not impact public health. i'm sure we all agree that we need to study the accident in

fukushima and learn from it. as chairman yasco frequently reminds us, we can't be complacent with regard to nuclear safety, and at the same time we can't allow us to be paralyzed by fear. harnessing any energy source carries some level of risk, and we need to be sure we can safely manage that risk. ensuring the safety of nuclear energy is a very serious job. in 2004, congress charged five individuals with the responsibility to protect public health and safety. the public is best served by a commission that functio functiofunction functions collectively with their expertise. i'm afraid the country may be getting less than it deserves. i was surprised to learn from my staff that chairman yasco has invoked emergency authority in transitioning himself in the

wake of the tragedy in japan, especially a by phone and in front of this committee. leet get our dates straight. first of all, it took place on the 11th. our phone call took place on the 14th, the hearing took place on the 16th and never was this mentioned that this was going to be invoked. the law confers emergency authority on the chairman in the wake of an emergency at a particular facility or materials regulated by the nrc. at present, i am not aware of an emergency condition that exists in the united states facility. chairman yasco, i want to work with you as the nrc tries to understand what happened in japan, what the united states can learn from it, but our collaboration indeed, collaboration with all of us in congress, with only proceed fruitfully if we have openness and fairness and a transparency. that applies to your office. as we move forward, i hope

you'll provide us with full and complete information about your activities and that you will work with your fellow commissioners in the same spirit. and in that vein, i look forward to your testimony and to yours, administrator jackson, and to working with both of you on gaining full understanding of the impact of the fukushima action. and before i yield to my colleague, i think it's significant that i get my request in here. i'm anxious to see progress on the nominations of commissioners which i hope the president obama sends us soon. given the scope of issues before the commission, it's important we have our commission full with all the members appointed and confirmed. thank you, mr. chairman. >> first of all, madam chair, thank you so much for holding this hearing and for giving the opportunity to co-chair with

you. our thoughts and prayers go out to all the citizens of japan, especially those families of the thousands of disaster victims and those that are going through a very, very difficult time. as this tragedy unfolds, i encourage the regulatory commission and other u.s. agencies to continue to coordinate with the japanese government to provide any assistance they need to recover. the incident that struck japan reminds us we are all vulnerable to disasters, whether it's an act of nature or a terrorist attack. while we cannot predict when and where the next major disaster will occur, we know that it will occur, and we also know that adequate protection, adequate preparation and response planning are vital to minimize both the injury and death when it does happen. today's hearing is one of many i hope this committee will have to ensure that our nation has prepared for the worst in order to prevent any lies lost from nuclear power in this country.

in the united states we have, as you know, 104 nuclear power plants in 31 states which generates about a fifth of our state's total nuclear consumption. nuclear power has relied on dir dirty fossil fuels for global warming. over the years, we have relative safety in the administration and we've worked hard to reinforce those efforts. as a result we have seen or not seen any direct result of nuclear par exposure in this country in over 50 years. as part of this culture of sa t safety, nrc requires nuclear facilities to be designed to withstand disasters and terrorist attacks. after september 11, the nrc took a closer look at the nuclear industry, put in place additional safety and nuclear requirements. despite all the protections that are in place, the krcrisis in

japan and a clear reminder that we cannot become complacent when it comes to safety. my colleague in japan says, make it safer, make it better. that's why i ask the nrc for a conference of review of our nuclear fleet. we want to make sure that every precaution is being taken to safeguard the american people from a similar nuclear accident. the nrc is just getting started on this review, and i anxiously await their results. today i look forward to hearing from our witnesses an update on fukushima diachi, a nuclear plant and an update to our response on that crisis. i also look forward to hearing what we can learn of the ongoing crisis to prevent similar things from occurring right here. i'm particularly interested in hearing about the state of

emergency planning process from the delaware safety and homeland security. as chairman of the subcommittee on nuclear safety, i take seriously my responsibility, our responsibility, to make certain we are taking the appropriate measures to make the nuclear industry as safe as they can possibly be. as i said before, while i'm a proponent of clean energy, my top priority of nuclear power industry remains public safety. and with that having been said, i look over to my right and i see senator lamar alexander of tennessee. we await your comment. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i want to thank you and senator boxer for -- >> senator, i did not notice senator brosler slipped in. are you sure? thank you. >> go ahead, sir. >> thanks, senator brasso. i thank senator carpenter for

having this hearing. i think nuclear reactors is something we ought to have more oversight, and that is because it's complex science, it's complex engineering and it's vitally important to the future of our country. i remember back when i was governor of tennessee in the 1980s, we had a question that was presented to me when tba was building one of its nuclear power plants. and the issue was whether to distribute iodide tablets to people who were in the area of the new nuclear power plant. someone said, don't do that, because you'll scare people to death. the other argument was, well, if people understand what they're for and they're only to be used in the event of an emergency, then it's better to go ahead and talk about the process we're using and let people know what we're dealing with. so i made the decision then, let's go ahead and let people who live in the area of a nuclear power plant have access to iodide tablets in case there

is a problem. i feel the same way about our nuclear power plant in the united states and what happened in japan. i can't imagine a future for the united states that doesn't include nuclear power to create electricity. it's only 20% of our electricity, but it's 70% of our clean electricity. sand senator carper has been very consistent. he feels deeply about climate change. this is one way to deal with it. he and i have worked with clean air in the smoky mountains and on the coast. this is one way to deal with it. so it's hard to imagine it, but on the other hand, those of us who find it especially important have maybe a special responsibility to see that there is clear oversight and public understanding of this complex system of science and engineering so people are comfortable with whatever risks they are. and as we look at our own history, actually, we've done a fair job of that. at three-mile island spawned

several improvements such as the institute for nuclear power operations which have improved safety. that's important for americans to know that while three-mile island was a significant accident and a big problem that no one was hurt at three-mile island. that's important to know. september 11, that had nothing to do with nuclear power but it caused nuclear power operators around the country to take a look at what would happen if there were a terrorist attack, and you can go on youtube and see what happens when an f4 phantom jet runs into a concrete wall at 500 miles an hour. the jet vaporizes but the plant is still there. hurricane katrina had nothing to do with nuclear power, but it caused operators in the 104 nuclear plants around the country to think, what would happen if we had a horrific event like the size of hurricane katrina? so i think we still have a lot to learn from what happened in

japan. for example, on spent fuel storage, a lot of talk about that. it helps us think about, is it proper to -- how long should it be in pools? how soon could it go to dry casts? it's also important to know, as dr. chu has said, the president's nobel prize winning chief, that it's okay to store fuel on-site for more than 100 years. and it's important to know that all the fuel we've stored would fit on one football field to a depth of about 20 feet. that's the mass that beer tawe' talking about. that's important to ask. what about yucca mountain? we do need to dispose of it. we have invested millions of

dollars to dispose of it. why shouldn't we do it? we have been thinking of new reactors. . we have a watched bar. how do we know it's even safer as senator carper said we have not had one single fatality relatd to a reactor in the history of those facilities. so there are important questions to ask. there is a lot of information to learn from the japan disaster, but it's important at the same time to recognize the safety record that we have for this form of energy production in the united states and keep it all in perspective. senator carper and senator boxer, i welcome these hearings. the more of them the better. i believe the more we understand and talk about this complex of city energy protection, the

safest we're likely to be, and the more useful it will be to propose clean air in our country. >> excuse me, i am going to senator udall and back to you. >> thank you. i thank my clients in the house and certainly look guaforward t hearing their testimony. as senator carper has said, our thoughts and prayers really do go out to the japanese people for this tragedy and what has happened to them. i know when i talked the other day with japan's ambassador to the united states, he was very, very appreciative of the level of scientific support that we were giving japan. i know many scientists have come from california, new mexico and from our national labs, so that's something they appreciate and i think we're all very proud of.

this is a three-part disaster, an earthquake, i sue nauchl i, and it tragic. americans should focus on their six kids, the japanese. nuclear accidents are rare but their consequences can be severe. safety must be the top priority for government regulators and it should be the top priority for the industry as well. the japanese crisis underscores the need for information fchl transparency. nuclear energy will gulf of mexico be terribly important to. we have 400 reactors today, and more will be built. but it's hard to build reactors if the public remains in fear of

them. >> my jop is to ensure that the epa and the prc safety standards are of the utmost important and we should be careful to, quote, unquote, stream dline or cut corners on safety standards. it will be up to the bank and local community on whether to invest in community projects compared to the other options out there. nations like france which rely heavily on nuclear power also have taxpayers picking up most of the tab. and that is not realistic for the united states' current budget situation. so i prech appreciate this length of witnesses today, and i'm going to yield back my time so we can get quickly to the soccer yard. >> senator grasso, thank you for

your patience. >> we appreciate our guests for being here to testify, and i want to associate myself with the opening remarks of senator udall regarding his concerns for the people of japan, absolutely. incredible chal lepgz, incredible loss. i think -- the tsunami and the earthquake occurred in japan, not the united states. the machine that preceded the u 'nam i and earthquake occurred in japan. the emergency response is occurring in japan with the help from the united states. but that's not the case. the chairman of the regulatory commission is acting on his emergency powers since the disaster first occurred. the reason why these emergency

ropz, doesn't have implications for the united states nuclear safety response. this is one of the reasons that i believe the hearing today is so important. someone to use this in japan to help wipe out nuclear reaction in the united states. the article states that, quote, environmentalists are stepping up efforts to push the epa to overmine operations in light of the nuclear disaster, targeting the processing of metal because its distraction marks the first step in the nuclear fuel cycle that its proponents tout as an alternative to fossil fuels, closed quote. how uranium mining is tied to a

nuclear emergency is beyond me. i wish they would not ignore these type of stops which would occur if the japanese catastrophe had occurred or not. we heard testimony from those who want to stop hydraulic fracturing. this is a process where we can tap the hydraulic reserves. these people don't want natural gas, either. by tapping all energy sources, including nuclear and natural gas, activists are driving up the cost of energy. they are raising the cost of running a factory, or a minor a small business. they are raising the fact of cooling homes in this country. this will cost thousands of jobs during our economic downturn. we cannot reach a clean energy future without natural gas or some power. that means cole, solar, hydro --

power. the cheapest energy is energy that's not used. we need the type of thing that keeps factories running and homes heated. places like germany who are phasing out nuclear power are recognizing this fact. there was a press story on april 6 entitled "utilities: it goes on and chants, state angela merkle's attempts to take power lines off line of japan's disaster means they are no longer counting on their neighbors. it ppz about 30-gigabyte hours from france and the czech republic every day. so this same pattern we're seeing in germany will occur in the united states.

american states that declare themselves nuclear free, whether california or elsewhere, whatever states declare themselves nuclear free and shut down nuclear plants will have to have power shipped in from neighboring states. it's an energy shell game and it will not hide america's foreign need to power this gain. let's not try to sut down another energy source. let's try and be as clean as we can and as fast as we can without interrupting other jobs. >> as we said, we all agree that our sympathies, our concern, and our desire to be of help to the people in japan who are affected as a result of the earthquake tsunami and the nuclear emergency. but we want to learn from it, and we want to make sure that

we're doing whag we can for people in our country. do americans think of vlg time. what do we have here? soon after the meltdown in ja n japan, i asked them to perform a comprehensive review which provide our state with about half of its electricity. i also requested the the chief executives of new jersey power companies to join me in my office where they agreed with a thorough, shaky review of each of the four reactors. the people of new jersey need to know that if our plants are safe, then we're determined to see that they get the peace of mind that they deserve, of the

reality of being protected. this isn't the only concern in new jersey, a nuclear reactor provides 20% of america's electricity, so we have to make nuclear safety a national priority. the united states has a good track record of keeping our plants safe. there have been few accidents and few fatalities, but we've got to remain vigilant if we want to maintain this record. japan, the world leader of technology, but as we know, it wasn't enough. so here in the united states, we can't take anything for granted. keep americans safe. we also need to make sure we give our citizens a clear guide in steering emergencies. and i was trucked. when american citizens in japan were told to stay at least 50 miles away from the site of the emergency. in our country, guidelines require people to only stay within 10 miles away from a

nuclear emergency. make no mistake, nuclear power demonstrations make energy and they will be part of our energy future. but we cannot ever trade people's safety for the sake of meeting our energy demands. we saw chernobyl a quarter century ago. the effects of a single nuclear accident that will linger for generations. so i look forward to hearing from today's witnesses. i thank our colleagues from the house about how we can learn from past mistakes and make sure the nuclear power remains a safe, clean energy source. that we heard talked about this morning, and that is, well, costs. costs. nuclear power does so much for us, but has risks. when we think of the contribution that nuclear power brings to our energy needs, we know that we're going to keep on

having nuclear power created. but burning fossil fuel has an aftercost. it has a lasting effect on our environment and on the health and well-being of our citizens. so when we look at the cost for energy, we have to look at the cost of -- on fedair for those who have asthma and otherwise and pollution generally. so we have to look at the whole picture. i assure you that we'd like to do just that. i thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. senator markland? >> thank you, mr. chair, and i express my deep sympathies to the families of japan, victims of the triple tragedy, the earthquake, tsunami and certainly the nuclear disaster. and i thank all the heroes in japan who raced to the scene to provide assistance to victims of the earthquake and tsunami, and those who are working around the clock to cool the nuclear

reactors and contain the radiation that is being released. it is very much our worst nightmare that a natural disaster of some kind should cause a similar tragedy in the united states, and that's why it's certainly appropriate and important that we do everything possible to take and look at the lessons in japan and apply them to our own system just as we applied a stress test to the banks and the financial crisis, we need to apply a stress test to our nuclear plants and understand what the weaknesses are. when the disaster happened in japan, certainly a lot of discussion was around the cooling pools for rods. i was taken back to when i was traveling through hanford many years ago, about 14 years ago, and was looking at the cooling pool at hanford, and you had

that kind of eerie blue glow down in the pool, and i asked the question, if a nuclear reactor broke, what happens to the water if it rushes out? the answer was basically a blank look that said, that would be bad. certainly we have to be prepared in far better ways than simply saying something would be bad. in the last two decades, we've built only three new nuclear reactors and by the time we account for a nuclear disaster and by the time we account for terrorist attack. we have to take it seriously because the risk is substantial. that is certainly a factor. we have strategies that have been put forth by groups like new stale in oregon. owe patterns that have fail-safe

mechanisms or passive protections that i think certainly should be -- we should look into and understand that part of this conversation whether fundamentally different designs would greatly mitigate the risks. these disasters occur because we lose the heating transfer medium and plants overheat. but they are designs intended to make sure there is no meltdown even when that happens, whether the medium be water or the medium be helium. that needs to be part of the discussion. so the with that, thank you very much, madam chair, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, so much, mr. chairman, for holding the hearing. madam chairwoman, i appreciate you holding this hearing as well. this is obviously an issue we share great passion for, and in light of the disaster in january, i'm really just thanksing you both to drawing our attention to such a serious

issue. thank you for spending time and answering questions. i may not have the time to mans questions, but i want to highlight my areas for concern and i will hand them in for review. in any planlt which is the one that serves about 30% of new york's electricity right now, it was within a 50-mile radius. it hit 16 million people. so we have significant concern to focus on that, and all the plants in new york to make sure it's safe. at indian point, there has been a number of waivers given. are you going to relook at the. if she should be reconsidered and perhaps withdrawn. so the issue of waivers and

evacuation. the plans with regard to indian point is a ten-miley evacuation plant. i would like to know the reason why there is a difference in evacuation plans. to do a 10-miley evacuation for indian point takes nine hours. i understand there is a different type of redundancy, and another sl to back up a vehicle. how do you reconcile evacuations and how trivial they care about these items. obviously, we are looming on the anniversary of 2011, and one recommendation was to steer clear of all they stand and what kind of investigations are you doing with regard to employees with regard to i mark and

vulnerable structure issues. and the last issue is the pool and dry storage issues. are these pools designed to be long-term storage? what do you intend to do to move them from a fuel pool to dry cast storage facilities, as a general matter, for safety. obviously, that's a long list of concerns and issues. if you do get a chance to look at them, i would appreciate your opinion. thank you for your time. >> introducing congresswoman caps and congressman bill gates. >> congresswoman caps, thank you so much for sharing with us. she's gifted to the people down there. so we're grateful for that. in fact, we'd like to recognize congresswoman lois caps, 23rd district of california, and followed by congressman brian

laray. >> we're glad you hear, roadways you and have mercy. thank you. thank you for joipg ut rocky mountain chairman and members of the committee, thank you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to testify. we could bblg essential focus in the weeks following the japanese and a -- we believe it kenla and other potential threats. yesterday, pg&e asked the nca to delay its license renewal while it still completes studies. here today, in light of the pg&e

action, i'm renewing mine in light of the process. i do not take this lightly. last month i toured the power plant. i left with two things. first, that employees are meant to do it right. i want to be joined by california state senator robert blaxly. state senator blakesly will testify today along with a p hrngs d. i'm sure the information will offer the committee valuable on-the-ground site. the bottom line is this. we do not have the answers we need to comfort believely move

forward. and because the reactors do not need to be licensed for more than a dozen years, we have plenty of time to find those answers. mr. chairman, what happened so tragically in japan offers us the opportunity to question and question again, whether we're rea ready. they have said there could be a multiple catastrophe such as an earthquake and a meltdown at diablo nuclear plant. a quote: something nuclear happening is fairly small. the unthinkable did happen in japan. an earthquake, a tsunami and a nuclear accident could occur,

truly. we know the plant exist. they discovered the falls less than three miles away, forcing a major resign and pushing the project billions of dollars over budget. 2008 they basically discovered another site. it lies offshore about an hour from the plant. diablo was considered one of the two largest power plants for a high risk area. can this plant, -- can this plant be sustained for a long time? many of us on the coast of central california remain concerned that the nrc has not taken action to address these questions or address these warnings.

so much so that the california commission is said and they have directed that peer-reviewed reactor place should be studied. i agree with that. we need to take some time to get all the answers. it's important to note that i'm not talking about diablo. i'm asking that you can be haunted until updated siz mick 303 studies be completed in light of the process and that they be done by a third party with their sin tis. it will cause taxpayers billions of dollars to, once again, belatedly address issues that should have been dealt with

beforehand. that's why i'm hopeful the nrc will work with all stakeholders. if we get to this point, remain steady and remain unresolved. i thank you for the opportunity to testify today. >> congressman bill bray, welcome. >> it's an honor to be here. life-long resident of san jose county. i have the concerns that everyone has after seeing what happened in japan. every one of my children and grandchildren except to those who have been exiled to helen in montana not only live down wind. the state nocches but someone

who the evacuation and response to not just the nuclear issue but also the tsunami issue. and also as a privilege of serving on the california coastal commission, an agency that has oversight and review of the nuclear power plants in california. this issue really did bring back memories of all the hearings and processes we've had the frankly there are still the facts to be taken, still research that needs to be done, but i think there are some indications that are very, very enlightening. one is the fact that even though the japanese plant was not designed to those engineered in our california plants, that it did survive an earthquake that's well over what our plants ever perceived to be. in fact, the point that we're talking about that has struck this plant, we're looking at 7

maximum or 7.2 maximum in california. that frequency of 7.2, as pointed out by secretary chu, occurs every 7 to 10,000 years. so it gives you an idea of the engineering. the japanese were hit with a ground motion of .52. our california santa nofra to a point .2 to a 1.7. it will not get over a 7.2 and that will be no sooner than seven years. it was not an earthquake as we get the information now. it was a tsunami. and as a surfer, let me tell you this is one thing that is not joking in any manner, but it is

one that's very disconcerting. the fact is that japan had a 10-foot surge wall. they're sitting on a possibility in an area where the experts said the tidal waves would never reach that level, but if they did, the difference between the california facilities and the japanese facilities is the california facilities have gravity feed cooling built into their systems and they have their pump systems totally protected which the japanese did not have. they didn't even have their fuel tanks protected, which was a major flaw. i think that's where good assessment can really be made on this issue. remember, as we talk about nuclear, ladies and gentlemen, as a former member of six years on the resources board, we're talking about the amount of energy that a voids emissions, including 86% of all automobiles that are driving on american

soil. i think we have to recognizes the challenges, especially those with the u.s. have to be part of any plan to address climate change. i think one of the things we need to get out of this, madam chair and mr. chairman, is where are we today, have we overengineered, and was that overengineering proof? i think one thing it looks like in california is that we have, and that should be lereassuring. my biggest concern is we're not just talking san ofrio and san diego but relative numbers of yards that the government owns. those are issues we ignore and i think it's one we address. the biggest issue i'd like to agree with you strongly on,

senator, is how do we address the technology that's 40 years old that we have on the ground operating today, but how do we move to technology that's there, but also creates the opportunity to address that waste problem, that 100 yard by 20 foot which now it could not only be a fuel, it could be burned in the technology that's not safe but also a technology which could used up that . >> thank you so much for your contributions. look forward to seeing you soon. thank you. with that we're going to invite our second panel, jim yasco,

administrator jackson, to join us at the table, please. neither of our members on the second panel are strangers to us. we appreciate your hardship and your response to the disasters in japan. first we'll hear from lisa jackson, who the administrator of the environmental protection agency, and following her testimony, we'll hear from greg yasco, who is chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission. we'll ask you to use about five minutes for your statement and then we'll have some questions. thank you so much for coming. your statement will be made part of the record. >> thank you, all the members of this committee, thank you for inviting me to testify on epa's role in responding to the tragedy in japan. i do want to begin by expressing my sympathy for those who have lost loved ones from the

earthquake in sand tsunami and support for those trying to control the radiation at the fukushima nuclear plant in japan. their efforts are truly heroic. as japan tries to control their reactors, many americans are worried about what the many releases to the atmosphere may mean to them, and what the government is doing to make sure they are safe here in the united states. let me begin by speaking directly to those who are concerned about radiation detection, that monitoring and sampling from the epa and other federal agencies are picking up throughout the united states. let me be clear. the epa does not expect to see radiation in our air or water reaching harmful levels in the united states. all the data we have seen, which we continue to be making public on our web site, indicates that while the levels are radiated in some places, they are

significantly below moderate levels. in the days before the tsunami struck, we detected radioactive isotopes. these numbers were so miniscule, that they were 100 times the exposure we all receive. we're exposed to radiation every day, such as resources in the ground and manmade sources, such as x-rays. we will continue to monitor the event for radiation. we'll explain what the data mean to the people and families that we serve. as i've said in this community, transparency will guide all of our actions. if you remain, a response to this role is very important. using a variety of techniques, we expose releases into the environment in the united

states. these radioactive releases are ones that disappear from the environment within days, such as iodine, and those such as plutonium. let me speak for a moment about those monitoring efforts. a monitoring effort called rad net, involve long-term trends and allows them to detect miniscule increases. it's held up to create detexz. they're sending real-time data to our laboratory. in response to the japanese nuclear incident, we responded by quickly deploying local air monitors to far off destinations, including alaska

and islands in the pacific, to detect radiation it as slowly moved away from japan. we can find even miniscule amounts of radioactivity in the air. monitoring stations across the country submit precipitation samples to epa lakts as ra arka rain, fall, snow and sleet occur. under this response we are analyzing precipitation samples as they come into the laboratory and quickly post the results on our public web site. also, epa routinely samples milk and drinking water from sooilit across the nation. like rainwater, these sites are collected and analyzed on a quarterly basis, but in response to the nuclear activity in japan, we measure the level. the information is all available

on epa's website. this web site was quickly expanded after this sue sue, especially ones that are not into physics, could easily tell what the monitors were indicating. it r -- madam chairman, thank you for your leadership on these issues. both of our chairmen, excuse me. we will continue our outreach to the public and the elected officials to provide authorization on our results. thank you. >> before you testify, i just want to say to you, to the other commissioners, to members on the staff of the regulatory commission that we appreciate the way you stepped up and tried to be as helpful as you can to

the people of -- this wasn't just to encourage you to let up. thank you. please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman, madam chairman, and ranking member brosso. i also appreciate the opportunity tragic events across japan. people who have been touched around the country and along the world are following this in japan and many country around the world. as indicated, our hearts go out to those dealing with the aftermath of these national disasters. about two weeks ago, i made a brief visit to japan and made a message and discuss the ongoing situation. as part of that visit, i meant with senior japanese government and tetco officials.

just to briefly recap, on friday, march 11, when the earthquake and tsunami struck, the nrc's headposition. under the reorganization act of 1980. for the past few weeks, they have been monitoring event in japan. despite the efforts, the nths still have reactors for facilities here in the united states. i, needless to say, am incredibly proud of their work. as regards the current situation of the reactors in japan, from the information we have, we believe the situation currently is static. we don't see significant changes on a day-to-day basis with the reactors. it is not yet, however, what we

believe to be stable. namely, that giving additional events or other circumstances that there would not be the potential for significant additional problems at the reactors. so the efforts continue to be on these efforts to transition from static to stable to ensure a long term, ultimately, ability to provide cooling for the spent fuel pools. looking forward to the work that we have as an negative dealing with fugitives in this country, on monday, march 21st, the commission acted quickly to move and explore to determine whether the agency should make improvements to our regulatory system. this i this iss an invitation to take a

systematic review of our own facilities in light of the japan situation. this review will be conducted in a short term and longer term time frame. the short term review, which will take approximately 90 days, has already begun and will identify potential or preliminary near term operational or regulatory issues. a long term review will begin as soon as we have sufficient information from japan. but we expect that review to be completed within six months of the good it in that time. as we move forward with these lessons learned than other counterparts around the world. i recently returned from the fifth review meeting on nuclear safety which provided an important opportunity for nations to address the issue in japan, and begin the terms for short and long-term cooperation. in conclusion, i want to reiterate that we ton to take

licenses and oversight with the u.s. license sees. based on the 90-day review and under -- on behalf of the commission, i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. thank you. >> thanks to both of you for testifying. madam chairman? >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. first i want to thank both of you because you have been available to those of us on both sides of the aisle here to answer our questions. i appreciate that so much. i want to put in the record something i golt from usgs, because it happened in japan, it didn't happen here, obviously.

but how many earthquakes, i would say to my friend, have we had in america that they have managed to document, and it's 157 earthquakes all over this great nation and in every part of this country. these are over 6.0. 157 earthquakes over 6.0. i also asked for the documentation on tsunamis, and what i do have is the areas where the highest risks are. that would be alaska, hawaii very high, west coast high, puerto rico, virgin islands high, the others low to very low. so i'm going to put those both in the record. >> no objection. >> thank you. mr. yasco, i know you've been very involved, mr. chairman, in helping the people in japan. every one of us on both sides

are grateful, because i think america is at its best when we're there for our friends and we certainly are. right now you described -- you said it's a static situation not a stable situation. so let me ask you, what's the best thing that could happen right now with those reactors, and what's the worst thing that could happen? >> i'm reluctant to speculate on the worst thing that can happen because there is always something. >> well, i think it's important. what's the best thing that can happen, what's the worst? we all hope for the best, but what's the worst thing that can happen? >> right now what our focus is on is that it ensures to provide or that the japanese can continue to provide cooling to the reactor and water into the spent fuel pools, and that is a process that is working right

now. as i said, it's not necessarily the most stable configuration. for instance, there was an aftershock last night, so they had to remove some of the individuals, they lost some of the power, so some of the pumps they were using were not able to work for about 15 minutes. what we want is to move into a situation where that kind of situation would be dealt with in a more predictable manner and less for the possibility of the loss of the cooling systems. every day the reactors continue to have cooling and continue to receive water and other types of cooling, the likelihood of a similar event goes down. >> so the cooling, obviously, here is key, and there's nothing else that could go wrong, in your mind? >> that's correct.

the primary focus is to maintain cooling. if you lose the ability to cool the reactors, then you have the possibility of a further degradation in the fuel which could lead to a greater release than what's going on. >> is a leak still going on in the ocean? >> we believe now that some of them have been stopped, but there is the possibility that there are other leaks and other material being released. >> how radioactive is that water? >> right now the japanese are surveying the water that's going out into the ocean. i haven't seen figures of that. >> will you let me know how much contamination is flowing into the ocean? >> absolutely. >> your board found that epa fixed monitors had a tampering

bias against larger particles, which could include hot particles. have you taken any actions to address the concerns? >> yes. yes, chairman, we have. that report was done several kwheerz ago, and since that report was done, epa responded to do an additional study on the ef sassy ficacy of monitoring et in catching all sizes of particles. the real traumatic ones are the smaller ones, and what we found was through that study, our six monitors can collect the very smallest particles reasonably effectively. i do want to say, having newer monitors, there are newer monitors out there that get even greater capture, but if you look at the purpose of the system, which is to give broad levels of background for events that are known, the current system is certainly effective. >> my time is expired, i just want to say to chairman jaszko,

i've got these two nuclear plants that were built a very long time ago, and now apparently pg&e and central california have dropped their relicensing personally now. i guess i want to talk to you about -- and nobody has to respond to this. i'm thinking common sense. . >> you've got more that live within 50 miles of one of my clients and about half the radius that live within 50 miles of the other. about half of these are near earthquake faults. so what i'd like to say to you and the others when we get to speak to them, and i think we will, to my mind, i think the commission when you're relicensing, has to look at this as though it's a new opportunity.

would you license a plant that came to you now with that circumstance right by or near earthquake faults, studies that is there will be more frequent earthquakes and both involve tsunamis though one is the more vulnerable. i just hope that you -- again, i'm not asking you to think lopg a and hard about this, but if you would say no to a new operator, i hope you'll think about how it makes any sense to just keep on going. unless there is a major reinforcement and hardening of some of these buildings and the rest. so i just leave you with that thought that those are my concerns. >> thanks, madam chair. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate both of you being here today and chairman i

appreciate the time you've been available to me, visiting by office and addressing these various concerns that are critical, questions that need toto be answered. i noticed last week the california coastal commission concluded that a nuclear emergency such as is occurring in japan is extremely unlikely at the state's two operating nuclear power plants. would you agree with that california coastal commission's conclusion? >> we think it's very unlikely to see a large earthquake and a tsunami. >> they went on to say, the combination of a strong ground motion and massive tsunami that occurred in japan can't be generated by the kinds of faults that exist in the vicinity of the two plants in nuclear plants in california. you agree with the assessment there? >> it's my understanding the type of fault in japan was a different type of fault that doesn't exist off the coast of california. >> thank you. i mentioned in my opening

statement that on april 6th, activist, strengthen and oversight on uranian recovery and i noticed how they are using that in japan when approving uranian mines domestically in the united states. do you see a japaneconnection we uranian mining in the united states? >> no direct connections. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, when we last had an opportunity to visit my office, i discussed my concerns about the delay in approving permits for uranian mines and you mentioned the delay was working things out with the epa and we finally achieved the resolution necessary. you thought you now had a template to move forward approving additional mines.

do you believe you worked out of those issues so we can now proceed with a faster permitting process? >> i believe we worked out -- come to a good understanding of how we deal with our environmental impact statements. we are, however, continuing to work through issues that are our responsibilities under two consult with tribal governments as part of other requirements and that is the last activity that we're working on as we finalize our efforts on these uranian recovery operations. >> administrator, you are comfortable with and any issues in a timely manner. >> i remain committed to resolve any issues we might have with respect to wyoming. i don't believe the article referenced sites in wyoming. >> the overall approval. thank you. i wanted to get back, mr. chairman, with the nrc response

in japan and you have 250 staff both function s and working hard on this. given the commitment to the resources to japan, if we had any sort of emergency in the united states, would you be able to redeploy in a way we would not put ourselves in a disadvantage? >> absolutely. as this event has gone forward we have looked at our staffing levels and actually we've transitioned our approach to the staff in our operations center to have a smaller team there who can respond quickly but then would reach back to our larger agency to get information requests as they need. it allows us to respond but in away that allows us to continue with our other important responsibilities. >> senator inhofe raised the issue about you invoking an emergency powers as a result of this. could you describe to me how you interacted with your fellow commissioners during this

nuclear incident and how you relied on them on making decisions as well? >> there's not so much invoking of the emergency authorities. that's an authority that the chairman has. most of the activities that i'm engaged in as part of this response have been normal super advisory and communication responsibilities. i would note and we can provide this information for the record, but immediately after we entered our monitoring mode on march 11th. an e-mail was sent down indicating we had done that. within the first 24 hours we had four briefings of the assistance of the commissioners. over the last several weeks, i've done at least 26 briefings to my colleagues on the commission, including one public commission meeting that was held about a week after the event started. there's been about overall, about 60 briefings to staff of the commission assistance and

about 80 products have been provided to the commission indicating the status to the response efforts and activities that are ongoing. i think there's been good communication with the commission about what we're doing and how we're dealing with response. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> miss chairman, as a point of personal privilege as the senator mentioned, the plants in my state, i appreciate his concern. let me put into the record two letters by the california coastal commission, they want new earthquake studies, number one. number two, what my friends said about the fact it would be unlikely we would have such an accident in california absolutely very unlikely. it's unlikely. that's exactly what they said about japan. to the word. so we've got to move beyond talk. and get to this serious question of what do we do to do everything in our power to make it safe. >> is there an objection to the

unanimous request? so ordered. my first question of the chairman, if i could, i would like to quote albert in steen, in adversity lies opportunity. when asked the question, what is the worst that can happen following up on this tragedy? one of the worst things that could happen, we wouldn't learn anything from it. that's one of worst things that could happen. we have had not a whole lot of time but some time has passed since this sad chapter began unfolding. talk to us about the lessons we have learned in the past weeks. and let's -- maybe that would suggest that what we're doing is appropriate, good, smart, safe and maybe some things we learned that we can do better. >> i think one of the issues we've really come to recognize is that the station event is a

very serious event. the good aspect is that we've always known that is a very serious type of event and type of situation which you lose the ability to have electrical power to the site. fundamentally we think that's the primary cause of the problem. what we're really working to establish is why exactly they got into the station with the station blackout and what were the lead factors affecting that. i think we've seen the importance of emergency planning in having the ability to respond and provide emergency guidance to the population around the nuclear power plant and we've seen that that -- carries out its intended function, it moves people out of an area they can be exposed to harmful levels of radiation. if we look at the kinds of things we've seen right now, those are the big lessons we've learned. we have this 90-day task force that will look at very specific things in the next two months,

two and a half months. i don't want to get too far in front of the work they are doing because they put together talented people at the agency. we're going to do a good thorough look. i want them to start giving the answers that they hear me say at a hearing. i think that if there's any one other lesson we've learned, after three mile island, we learned it is important to go about this kind of review in a system being and method callaway. i think that's what we're doing. that will be the continued focus i have with the agency. because we want to make sure we put in place the kind of changes that make safety better and not the kind of changes that in the end wind up undermining safety. >> i think what senator alexander said, >> i think mr. alexander said earlier, if we took all of the

spent fuel this country and stacked it up on a football field, it would be about 50-feet high. we have been working with the president to consider what we should be doing with that spent fuel. give us some idea when we expect to hear back from this commission. an interim report from the commission sometime this summer and then with final report sometime later by the end of the year. when we look at the issues of spent fuel, this is something, again, that the agency, the commission has put a strong focus on making sure the spent fuel can be stored safely and securely, the structures, whether in pools or -- are designed to deal with a large earthquake that are designed to deal with natural disasters, significant security related events. we have a kind of a multitiered system of protection that exists

in all of our plants, and that includes these unlikely events like these natural disasters and then a layer of protection on that to look at if that kind of unlikely event happens and all of the systems don't function well, we have additional procedures in place to address that kind of situation and ultimately equipment put in the plants to kind of do that last line of defense in terms of providing cooling to the pools or ultimately to the reactor core. >> we have 104 nuclear power plants. the first one was built 50 years ago, i think it was 42 years ago, not 50. a number of plants up for re licenseure. new technology and new design, how do the events from japan, how do they figure in the

re-licensing plans and how do lessons learned figure into the approval process, renewal process for the new design? >> fundamentally we think about these issues not necessarily for a plant that's 41 years old or 42 years old or 1 year old and 10 years old. we think about this in terms of the plants there now in the safety of existing fleet of reactors. the reviews we're doing, the first review is to identify any issues we need to address immediately. we wouldn't wait for rely sen re-licensing to make changes to the plants. fundamentally the kinds of changes we're looking at would be applicable to all of the plants in the country, whether they are getting license extended or not. in addition, we have a very robust process of reviewing the license applications and the renewed license applications that gives the public an opportunity for input that gives

an opportunity to raise issue. and we think those procedures and processes are robust enough to deal with the new issues that come about from the japan situation. fundamentally these changes may take time to implement. in the interim, we'll evaluate every situation as it comes up. if there's something we need to do to slow down, we'll slow down. if we can move forward appropriately, we'll move forward appropriately. we'll be in a better position after the 90-day review is done to see if there are any remedial actions that need to be taken. >> senator alexander, you're next. >> thank you both for your testimony. as we look at electricity produced in the united states, we use about 25% of all electricity in the world in our country. i believe about 44% is produced by coal, 20% by nuclear power, 23% by natural gas, 7% by hydroelectric power.

we think of those as base load electricity, electricity that's reliable over long periods of time, about 2% is wind, much less than 1% is solar. what would be the effect on our country's ability to comply with epas clean air standards if we didn't -- if we replaced nuclear power with either coal plants or natural gas plants? >> well, nuclear power emissions are low to zero for the pollutants that epa regulates so there would be presumably an increase in pollution, even with the best pollution control technology fossil fuel plants are going to have higher emissions, including greenhouse gas pollution, which nuclear power does not have. >> but probably half of our coal plants don't have that -- >> about half of our coal plants in the country are not controlled for air toxics like

mercury, arsenic, cadmium. we recently proposed a rule to address that issue. when it comes to carbon pollution, of course, it's quite different. >> we have a live discussion, senator carpenter and i worked a long time on the mercury issue. the point is, to keep it in perspective, nuclear power provides about 20% of our electricity but 70% of our emissions free electricity which is important as we think about clean air and climate change. mr. jacksco, for how long can the 104 reactors we have safely store spent fuel on site? >> well the commission recently re-stated what we refer to as our waste kpency finding, that

we believe at least about 40 years beyond the expected lifetime -- 60 years beyond the expected lifetime of the plant we can safely store spent fuel. that gets you generally to about 100 years of time that you could store the fuel safely and securely. we as part of this recent decision asked the staff to go back and look longer than that and see are there -- if there are any issues right now that would make it challenging to store that fuel for 200 or 300 years or longer time frame. we expect to begin looking at that in the next year and have an answer in probably a couple of years about that question. right now we don't see any major issues that would present a significant challenge for the longer term storage of the fuel. >> for purposes of understanding what we're trying to store, does it sound about right to say as i did earlier, that all used nuclear fuel that's been produced in the last 35 years

would fill a football field about and then about 20 foot high. >> i've heard that statistic many times but never sat down and calculated and made sure it's right but it sounds reasonable as an approximatation. >> the nuclear waste policy act of 1982 established a fund into which rate payers, those of us who pay electric bills, pay about $30 billion to build a finding resting place for used nuclear fuel. a second step of the obama's administration plan for used nuclear fuel which i hardly endorse, not just to store it safely on site, but then to do advanced research to find a way to reuse nuclear fuel which will greatly reduce the mass of it so that -- and permit it to be used over and over again. in the end, aren't we still going to have some stuff left that needs to be stored over a

long period of time? and we still have this football field full of nuclear fuel spread around at 104 sites. where are we going to put that? we've got $23 billion sitting in a fund we've collected from electric bills. shouldn't we be using it to try to find a way to put them out since it doesn't seem to be going anywhere? >> from the nrc's perspective, our job is to make sure the fuel, regardless of how it's being reused or stored or processed, is done safely and securely. that's our number one focus. we, of course, work with the industry. we communicate with the rest of the federal government. as approaches are being developed to look at ways to deal with that in the long-term. the blue ribbon commission in providing them about information about our approach to safety and security as they work to farm late their opinions about

ultimately what could be done with this fuel in the long term. >> you are welcome. thank you. senator lautenberg. >> thanks to each of you for the knowledge and energy you bring and i use that term directly. we feel pretty comfortable, however, the long history that japan had with nuclear power and established nuclear regular tri system looked like japanese installations were absolutely safe. but clearly they weren't. now what assurances do we have that our nuclear plants are prepared as they might -- we could get for our worst case scenario. >> well, senator, i would say

there's really three or four levels of protection that we have at the plants. first and foremost, the plants are designed for the unlikely events of what we think the maximum historical natural phenomenon is. like a hurricane or an earthquake or a tsunami, so we start with that and we design the plants to be able to deal with that kind of situation. then on top of that, all of the plants have a set of procedures and guidelines for what you would do in the situation, all of those systems you built in to deal with the situation failed. and those what we refer to as our severe accident management guidelines. and those give you the procedures, the approaches to dealing with the very severe events if they were ever to occur. for that to occur, a lot of safety systems that are redundant and have a lot of backups would have to fail and not work properly.

even beyond that, if all of those systems were to fail, we required all plants in in country to have an additional set of procedures to deal with very extreme damage conditions at the plant, much like what you're seeing in japan. and we required all of the utilities to put equipment in place to respond and ultimately to be able to provide cooling to the reactors and spent fuel pool. we have a robust system to ensure that we can minimize or mitigate any potential releases to the public. >> the -- what we see is rather frightening in scope because almost no matter what you do, you can't guarantee that there will be zero risk in the production of nuclear energy and nuclear facilities. so we keep on developing new

policies as a result of unfortunately terrible experiences and we have -- we hope we have no further terrible incidents. miss jackson, new jersey is home to four nuclear reactors, including the oldest nuclear plant in the country, the oyster creek station. two years older than the damaged japanese plant. now, with your long experience in protecting health and environment in new jersey, how confident can we be that the nuclear plants at our state are sufficiently safe to protect all of our people at all times? >> well, i would defer to the chairman on the safety issue except to say obviously, what was recently announced, which was that that plant was voluntarily -- the owners have agreed to shut it down, i think

is part of the solution with respect to that particular facility. >> well, we're -- little reassurance honestly because if they said okay, we'll even cut short the period that the license covers, which means that there's an element of worry out there. there can't be -- >> senator, if i could just comment and my understanding of the part of the reason for not extending the plant operation was motivated by the cost and some of the economic factors. certainly from the nrc's perspective, we didn't see a safety reason to not operate beyond 2019 when the plant would operate. again, when we do license renewal. what we do is add on additional requirements to the license sees for them to monitor the plant to make sure the plant equipment

and systems important for safety get older but they have a way to monitor and make sure the aging does not have any adverse impacts on safety. in addition to the standard and regular strong safety program we have, we add on top of that the additional requirements to make sure that as the plants age they do it in a way that's protective of the public health and safety. >> one last question. the rest beyond that i'll send to you for the record and look for response. the nrc requires evacuation plants only within ten miles of a plant. but the american government has warned americans in japan to stay at least 50 miles away from the damaged reactor. we confirmed that when we turned our ships around about 50 or 60 miles. i guess when all else fails, we have to be absolutely certain

that a way to evacuate these areas is foolproof in terms of its ability and its durability. and would it make sense to require evacuation plans in our country to address the same distance to u.s. facilities for new plants? >> well, that's something we're going to look at as part of the reviews we're doing. the ten-mile evacuation zones that we currently have are designed to be the region in which you pre-stage and prepare evacuations. if conditions were to warrant some additional reaction beyond that, those actions could aulsz be taken. as we've seen in japan, nuclear events tend to develop over a long period of time. this is three weeks into this event. and we've had the time and ability to make protective action recommendations and update those and modify them as conditions of the plant change. so that ten miles is really

based upon the idea of what you need to have prepared right away so you have an event that develops quickly, you can address that and have pre-staged and pre-prepared what to do. there's always the ability to go farther or modify the plans to deal with the existing conditions and exact conditions on the ground. but i also want to stress, this is something we're going to take a look at as part of the review to see if there are changes to the emergency preparedness. >> thanks very much. thanks to each much you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you all for your testimony. the first question i wanted to ask about is the venting system to release the hydrogen in the japanese plants succeeded in venting the hydrogen outside of the core only to have it explode outside. the u.s. went through in the 1980s a hardening of our vent

systems on our reactors and the japanese plants went through the upgrade. why the venting system didn't succeed in venting the hydrogen that it wouldn't explode after it left the core and is there a difference in the venting system between the japanese plants and u.s. plants that would give us similar problems? >> it's not exactly clear what the source of the hydrogen was. obviously we saw hydrogen or some fires in the unit four reactor as well. that likely came from the spent fuel pools. the spent fuel pool in that building because of the reacting core there did not have fuel in it. so at this point, we don't have definitive information about the source of the hydrogen. it's possible it came from the spent fuel pools and not necessarily from the venting operation, that's something that we'll look into as we get some more -- really as we get past

the more emerge ent crisis in japan, we'll get the detailed information about that effort. and i would say that really the fundamental issue we see is the station black joult event. in the united states when we're talking about a station blackout event, we require each plant toch at least two diesel generators for each reactor. if there's a multiple reactor site we'll have four diesel generators on the site. they have to have the fuel in an area that's protected so that it can be -- it can supply the diesel generators for in the event of some type of natural hazard. then beyond that, we have something that we call our coping requirements, which requires the utilities to be able to deal with the loss of offsite power until they are able to restore their offsite

power. >> i only have a limited amount of time. you dodged the basic question, is our venting system different from the japanese system? it is fairly understand that a fair amount of hydrogen came from the splitting of water molecules and probably explosion of the clouding. in that situation and understanding that scenario, why did the hydrogen explode after it was vented rather than being disbursed safely into the atmosphere. if we have no insight, that's fine. is our venting system different? >> at this point we don't have the detailed information to know if it's -- >> let me go on to a second question. >> in at least one of the reactors, believe it's number two, that the there was discussion of plugs in the bottom of the reactor vessel, the core that were used for loading fuel in. and concern that that design

left a vulnerability and that the plugs inserted after fuel was put in melted at a lower temperature than the rest of the core containment vehicle and could have been a flaw that would allow fuel to escape. is that just specific to that one reactor or is that a common design and has that been discussed concern in the past? do we have that design in the united states? >> we can get you specific information on that design, but again, i would stress right now the information about the condition of all of the reactors is very preliminary and very uncertain. you indicated the hydrogen explosion. again, it is correct that that is a result of usually of exposure of fuel but that can of course, occur both in the spent fuel pools and as well as the reactor core. the exact source at this point is not clearly understand and probably will be some time before we know definitively where it came from, whether it was interaction with the

clouding in the spent fuel pool or the reactor core itself. and that's where there's a bit of uncertainty. >> you didn't answer my core question. the plugs that are apparently in the design of at least one reactors on the bottom side, do we have a similar design? >> we can get you that information. i don't have that off the top of my head right now, but again, i don't want to speculate necessarily that that was a contributing cause to any of the condition of reactor two at this point. >> another issue is the containment vessel itself. in the 1972, there was a report from the predecessor organization atomic energy commission that recommended the mark one system be discontinued because of unacceptable safety risk because of the smaller containment design and more susceptible to a buildup of hydrogen, obviously something that seems like was an interesting insight given what

we have now witnessed. indeed, apparently the reason for the smaller and lighter containment vehicle was the cost of a heavier and stronger containment vehicle. there was later in the 1980s, discussion of a nrc official, they had a 90% probability of bursting it fuel rods overheat and melt. there has been in changes to the containment vehicles. do we feel we've satisfactorily addressed the weakness issues raised in the 1970s and '80s. >> fundamentally the actions that were taken as you indicated, one was to provide the hardened venting which provides a release path to release material as pressure builds up to release that pressure and do it in a way that you prevent as much of the release as possible when you do that process.

the other thing that was done were efforts to do was called a night droe general inerting, you introduce nitrogen into the atmosphere and reduce the likelihood of a hydrogen combustion. >> we had a series of follow-up studlies that looked at how do you ultimate litigate them. for the mark one containments those were the change that's were made to address that. again, we're going to look at the information from japan to see how similar or different their designs were at the time of the accident to see if there are additional lessons we'll learn. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. thank you. madam chair? >> thanks. i want to follow-up on earthquake faults because we had written a commission and asked

you for an explanation of how many of our reactors or let's just say or plants are located on or near seismically active faults. >> the number in your initial statement, generally we would say two plants that are near -- in high seismic areas and nine plants in more medium areas. again, i want to stress, we require all plants in the united states to be designed to deal with seismic events, as all of us here in washington know, it was only a couple months ago we felt an earthquake here in washington. so they are all designed to deal with seismic events and we design them, again, based on the accelerations that the plant itself would feel or actions and motions that the plant would feel at the actual site of the plant, rather than based on the magnitudes of the earthquake.

>> before you get into all that, i don't have a lot of time. in japan, they would give the same answer. they gave the same answer. tepco said we're proud of the robustness of our containment vessels and in a case of an earthquake everything would safely stop and put it in the record, if i could. not the blah blah but the actual -- >> but the point is it's eerie to me because i don't sense enough humility from all of us here as some great scientist once said, we think we have all of the answers but mother nature may not agree with us. so a lot of what you're saying is the same thing that they said and you're right, you are being

conservative because even though plants don't sit on or near, you're thinking ahead. but the fact is, if you take one of my -- we have the two plants that are high intensity seismic areas. you know, one is built to -- they are both built to withstand a certain level of earthquake and yet so is japanese plant was i believe 7.5 built withstand and they had a 9.0. you can't know for sure what's going to happen. i guess, are you doing a major inspection as senator feinstein and asked you two, of the two plants that are in high propennsylvanpro pensty earthquake zones. >> we are looking at all plants in the country to see if tler lessons learned from japan.

>> you said there are two plants that are in the highest risk and you're not treating them any differently. that's a little worry some to me. >> senator, i wouldn't necessarily say they are in the highest risk. >> there were two plants on the highest seismic activity areas and those two are our plants in our state. >> what we look at ultimately are the consequences, the plants that are in california are designed to deal with much, much higher seismic activity than any other plants in the country. so they -- >> there may be a reason for that, mr. chairman because they are more risk -- look, we just have a new report that says that they are not built to high enough earthquake proof standards because we have reports of a new fault at deab blow, we'll hear that from senator lakesly.

and there are reports that say there will be much more frequent activity than was suspected both in perhaps tsunami and earthquake. i'm asking you again, i don't know if we got the letter back from them. if you could just -- you know how senator feinstein and i feel. it's on our watch. i don't know how many people are? the states -- delaware, how many people in delaware? >> almost a million. >> how many in your state? >> half a million. >> i've got half a million people who live within 50 miles of one of my plants and 7.4 million who live within 50 miles of my other. so this isn't about you know, some theoretical capacity if something went wrong. i know you feel you do ongoing inspections but some of those found safety culture problems

too. so let me just press you. i know senator blakesly is coming up and we're working together on this. that's an important point. nothing to do with partisanship. if i won't be here for his testimony, can i send you his testimony and ask you to take another look because we have both these plants are up for renewal. although their licenses run to about 2022, something like that, 2027. 2022. so they are not going anywhere but they are up -- they are both now going to undertake new 3-d earthquake study, which is great. i praised both operators for doing that. but it means to me that while that's happening you know, as -- correct me in i'm wrong, bill gray said, tell me if i heard him right, the chance of

something like this happening an event like this is between 7 and 10,000? >> i think he said frequently of about 7 imagimagnitude earthquas every seven years. i don't want to speak for the congressman. >> i would say to you, take a look at the record and 157 earthquakes we've had over 6. so as we know, listen, when i was a county supervisor they head 100-year flood, we have to plan for a 100-year flood and i was a lot younger then. do we really need to do this? doesn't mean it's going to happen in 100 years. could happen several times within ten years then not happen again. we've got to respond in a much different way and i don't feel the humility from all sides here. i don't think we're humble enough in the face of what mother nature could do.

and i think that's although i have to admit that the statements made by all parties here were revery reasoned. we need to inject more humility, look what happened in japan, they are bragging how this could never happen. arrogantly boasted of the world's best nuclear technology, now they can't figure out how to keep the thing from leaking and all of the rest. enough said. thank you. >> thank you. >> administrator jackson, i don't want you to feel like you're being ignored here. >> very much appreciated. >> i can barely see her lip move when you speak, mr. chairman. administrator, we were talking earlier, i don't know if it was senator alexander or someone else, who said we were talking

about the number of people who have died in the 41, 42 year history of nuclear power plants in this country because of the radiation. folks either who worked in the plants or lived in the area around those. i think i asked this question of the chairman last time he was here, i think he said, to the best of his knowledge, no one has died of radiation poisoning or sickness. that was the quote you said, right in the. >> at nuclear power plants, there have been in related power, themselves there haven't been any. >> you've been great to work with us on any wide range of clear air issues, including mercury admissions and i don't know -- no want to put you on the spot. i would like to get a sense for the range of injures, death that

have brain damaged children born, babies born because of emissions from fossil fuel plants that put out not only co2 but mercury. can you give us a sense for that? we're talking about the loss of not just tens of lives or hundreds of lives but far greater. can you give us a sense of that over the 40 years? give us a sense of the imaginefy tud? are we talking thousands of folks whose lives have been shortened? >> thank you for your leadership on clean air issues. long and outstanding record so thank you. why don't i simply say we recently released a proposed rule to deal with mercury and toxic emissions from power plants that burn coal. and the estimates were annual

estimates of tens of thousands of fewer bronchitis incidents and 150,000 i believe the number one, fewer visits to asthma related doctor or hospital visits. when it comes to fine part cal pollution, there are -- it's not just sickness, it's death. so literally, tens of thousands a year of avoided deaths, prematures deaths. i don't have a number for 40 years that accumulate, but of course the clean air act has been around for 40 years and has a long and proud history of i think the most recent estimate was $2 trillion in avoided health cost and benefits just from 1990 to 2012, 2020 alone. money isn't the same as lives saved and the tragedy of a sick child but it has quite -- those

emissions have real impacts on public health. >> one of our colleagues earlier in the hearing made the point that for almost any source of electricity in this country, there are risks concerns related to them and obviously we have the kind of concern of risk born in japan that we need to be mindful of to learn as much as we can to make sure that tragedy doesn't occur here. whether it's coal fired plants. in other states we wanted to play off wind mill farm, but there are people who think they are unsightly and complain about the loss of lives of birds. we have concerns with respect to tapping the great reserves of natural gas that we're happy, concerns raised about solar panels and some of the materials that we use to create that. all kinds of concerns.

what we have to have here at the end is be as vigilant for all of them. i would ask there to be as mindful as concerned about air pollution problems that relate to fossil fuel plants as we are the potential loss of life or in danger of health from nuclear power plants. sometimes we lose our sense of balance. let me ask you as a follow-up to that, about the epa radiation monitoring and in the next panel we have several state and local officials and let me ask, how did the epa inform state and local officials about potentially high levels of radiation in milk or water in their community and what actions would be taken in high levels of radiation are found by epa monitoring? >> let me first start every model we've seen and we agree with the inputs don't show we'll see any high levels and we have not seen high levels. if anything i would character them as trace increases from

background. one of the interesting things is we have decades of background. we have a good understanding of what's normal for these monitors. and what we have done is set up a system where we do post the data for rain water and drinking water and milk. we'll post those on the website along with the air monitoring data, near real time, 4 to 6-hour as well as those with the cart ridge data which can take a longer time. even when we see trace levels, we alert the state entities that are affected by those monitors where the states are. we work very closely with our partners at health and human services. through cdc and fda, depending whether we're talking food stuffs like milk or other issues, it's very important that the health officials in those states are not surprised by even trace increases because we want

them to be able to feel comfortable that they know what the data say and what they mean and context you'llize that for citizens. most aren't speaking of radiation or understanding the units coming at them. we haven't gotten it perfect every time. we also work with ee leked officials. >> i'm going to stop there and some colleagues who are here and some not will have questions to submit in writing. how long do they have to submit those? >> they have two weeks to submit their questions in writing and we ask that you promptly respond. thank you so much for being here and for testifying today. again, our thanks to you and the teams you lead at epa. at the nrc for the continued vigilance being demonstrated in response to this disaster. thanks so much. with that, we'll envit our second panel, actually, third panel.

as our third panel participants take their seats, i'm going to go ahead and begin the introductions and first introduction is that of california state senator sam blakesly of the 15th district of

california. next we have mr. james boy, serves a vice chair of the california energy commission. next we have familiar face and friend from delaware, lou scherr ril lo. delaware's department of safety and homeland security. lou, welcome. great of you to come. next we have mr. curtis s. somerhof and director of the miami-dade department of emergency management and charles pardy is quite a notable citizen in the state of delaware. a name's sake to be proud of. he is the chief operating officer of exelon generation and we have dr. thomas cochran, initials are the same as my colleagues and me. he is a senior scientist with the program of natural resources

defense council. all right, your statements -- use about five minutes, try not to go too much over that. five minutes and your statements will be included in the record. we'll start with senator blakesly. how many state senators are there in california? we know we have 53 u.s. representatives. >> we have 40 state senators in california representing about 37 million people. a little over a million constituents per senator. >> how many state reps? >> 53 members of congress and 80 members of the lower house. >> great. please proceed. >> thank you, chair, my fame is sam blakeslee, i'm a california state senator as chairman boxer indicated, i am a republican. the former minority leader in the lower house. i'm a former research scientist earned his doctorate from u.c. santa barbara. i worked in the oil and gas

industry for exxon and now live with my wife and two young dirlz ten miles from deab blow canyon. the seismic can none has been a site of controversy for four decades. they stated in their initial permit application the site had only quote, insignificant fault that's have shown know moment for 100 million years. four years later researchers discovery the fault under three miles offshore which the usgs has estimated is capable of producing a magnitude 7.3 ernl quake. in the end it took 15 years major retrofits and $4.4 billion in cost overruns before the plant became operational. upon being elected to the california legislature in 2005, i called on pacific gas and electric to use more sophisticated oil and gas to assess the complex seismic

setting just off the coast. pg and e response was written by a vice president stating, fresh marn assemblyman blakeslee to conduct another assessment is unnecessary and bad policy. unquote. in 2006, governor schwarzenegger signed the legislation to assess the potential seismic vulener anlt of the state's nuclear power plants and provide recommendations. that same year, pg and e moved to re-license the facility. the current license lasted through 2024 and 2025. then in twefrn while the energy commission was being performed a. a magnitude 6.8 struck japan in the largest nuclear power plant in the world was damaged with three reactors still shut

down. in 2008, the energy commission issued their report saying uncertainties did in fact exist near the plant and seismic studies were recommended. the written response was and i quote, we believe there's no uncertainty regarding the seismic setting and hazard at the diablo canyon site. weeks later they discovered the active shoreline fault running within hundred of yards from the power plant and it could intercept with the larger and very powerful fault. within mere days, pg and e rushed to declare, we don't see anything that exceeds the plant's design basis. it is made for collecting the data necessary to determine the relationship of the shoreline fault to the nearby. fast forward to the events of one month ago when a magnitude 9 earthquake struck offshore japan on a fault system believed capable of only a 7.9.

like the 2007 japanese earthquake, the 2011 earthquake far exceeded the utility seismic and engineering assumptions. three weeks ago i asked pg and e if they still continue to maintain that they believe the previous assertion that there was no uncertainty in the sis miss setting near the plant. this time they responded by saying, although there's always some uncertainty, they were quote, not concerned. i asked them to suspend or withdraw the license application until the seismic data is in hand to allow regulators to make informed decisions. although pg and e may not be concerned about the seismic uncertainty my community was very concerned. yesterday one day before this hearing pg and e began to take this action. after six years of calling for the seismic studies.

state legislation, recommendations by the energy commission, direction from the california public utility commission. two devastating japanese earthquakes, chernobyl proportions, finally willing to slow the re-licensing effort. in closing i have two questions for federal regulators. first in the aftermath of the japan crisis, will the nrc strengthen its and own procedures conducted during the re-licensing process for these two facilities that the nrc has identified as being located in the highest seismic hazard area? and second, given the longstanding reluctant of pg and e to accept the need for such studies, what procedures will the nrc put in place to ensure there's envelope peer review analysis so we have accurate robust conclusions that are drawn by those who have looked at the data independently rather

than relying solely upon the utility and inhouse and rc staff. >> thank you for coming here to testify. very good testimony, thank you. >> mr. boyd, please, welcome. >> thank you, senator. and to senator thank you for being here. i'm jim boyd, energy commissioner and happen to be the stay's liaison to the u.s. regulatory commission which may indicate why i'm here. i appreciate you having this hearing. >> quick question, are you appointed by the governor? >> yes. >> how long have you served? >> i'm in my tenth year. >> thanks very much. please proceed. >> this tragic 9 magnitude earthquake and its impacts upon the japanese people certainly underscore importance relating to seismic understandings in a state like california. you've heard all about our two plants.

you've heard from senator blakeslee and detailed the difficulties we have had of the operator for seismic studies and we have another plant which the recommendations apply equally. the 2008 study found there are seismic concerns there that effect tsunami potential as well. subsequently, you heard from actually senator boxer who referenced that my agency and the puc directed the two agencies, the operators of these plants to undertake the studies. but that resulted in a race by pg and e to file for re-licensing well in advance of what anyone thought would be necessary. the use of these -- this new technology is technology that senator blake dz lee has been used by the oil industry for years. pg and e has done some studies because they were ordered to

have ap seismic study and need to redesign the plant. unfortunately while we have been pushing for this, the nrc has indicated the renew process does not include an assessment of seismic vulnerabilities and does not require the advanced studies be included within a scope of their review. until yesterday, when we learned pg and e has changed their mind and announced they want to hold up their license, we felt that the nrc was going to finish the review in 2002 or 2012 and the studies wouldn't be done until 2013. i thank you for having a hearing. it may have had an impact on pg and e. we still need a concession from the southern california edison operator that they'll do the same type tud study and they are

reconsidering their position. we're looking to the nrc to carry out the short-term and long-term events on japan. we expect a lot of positive recommendations and results, we need to i am plor the congress to not only ease efforts but implementing that follow-up actions are taken at all u.s. reangt actors after they finish their studies. not only should they include the lessons learned from japan, but we have some thoughts we would like to pass onto the nrc and have in previous correspondence, that we have underway with regard to seismic. first is in the waste confidence decision, the nrc waste confidence decisions that spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely on site, should be 100 y should be re-examineded, are

specifically those in seismically active coastal areas. the safety of needs to be re-evaluated in light of what happened in japan. secondly u spent fuel management. the nation's spent fuel management system should be re-evaluated including the current practice of storing spent fuel in pools in tighter configurations than original plans designed for. the energy commission in 2008 recommended the utilities return their spent fuel pools as soon as possible, storing more spent fuel and pools in closer configuration creates greater heat load increasing the risk of fire and other possible problems. as more and more spent fuel accumulates, they've had to rerack their pools multiple times to increase their on site spent fuel storage capacity. this is an increasing safety issue at california's two plants and the station blackout issue is another one that effects the operation of spent fuel pools. in closing, i would say we would

like to see the two utilities in clachlt undertake the studies recommended. we'd like to have the studies included in nrc's license renewal of these plants because they've given no support in routine oversight of the plant license for the activities and the recommendations that have been made. we need to assure ourselves that when these studies are done, all the activity that is need to be taken with regard to quip. and process operations should be taken into account. thank you for this opportunity. >> thank you, mr. boyd. next we want to introduce secretary schrillo. how long have you been secretary now? >> just over two years. >> before that i know you spent a few years in the fbi. how many? >> 25 years, sir. >> thank you for your service. please be proceed. >> good afternoon, chairman.

i am lieu schirilo and the secretary of delaware's department of safety and homeland security. on behalf of governor jack markell i'm honored to be here today to address the important issue of homeland security as it relates to radiological security plans and preparedness. i would like to thank you for the attention and focus on this most important topics. in the days and weeks that followed the nuclear energy crisis in japan, many citizens raised concerns about radiological emergency preparedness in united states. in delaware, citizens concerns about safety of nuclear energy facilities and the state's ability to handle radiological emergency were directed to our department. our department is comprised of sefrlt public safety divisions including the delaware state police, capital police, office of highway safety and most importantly the delaware emergency management agency which we refer to as dema. while our divisions often work during a public safety emergency, dema is primarily

responsible for the state's radiological emergency plan and activity. i would like to open my statement with the information on the nuclear energy located off our state's shore and our state's radiological emergency plan. i will then share insight into our experiences with the utility. our state's location along the east coast puts it within 50 miles of four nuclear generating stations. they are limb bert in peach bottom, atomic energy commission station bth in pennsylvania. calvert cliffs in maryland and the salem hope nuclear generating station in new jersey. of these four stations salem hope which is a 740-acre site operated by pse&g is the close, located 2 dmafl miles from the delaware shoreline. together these plants comprise the second largest nuclear generating facility in the united states and generate enough electricity for three million homes each day. according to the 2010 census there are approximately 41,000

people in delaware that currently live within a ten-mile radius of this utility. the area is more commonly known as the emergencies planning zone or epz. it should be known that within the last ten years delaware's population in the epz increased by over 17,000 citizens according to the recent census. this increase necessitates a mandatory evaluation of our evacuation routes and times. the close proximity of salem hope makes it the most potential threat to our state and as such, dema's radiological staff continue to work closely with the nuclear people at pse&g and the new jersey state emergency management officials to maintain and update the state's radiological plan. this comprehensive plan which is approved by fema is dema's roadmap to provide command, control and coordination for any potential nuclear plant incident impacting our state. as required by the nuclear regulatory commission and fema,

within a six-year cycle dema conducts three plume exercises which really test the state's emergency response capability within the epc and one injection exercise which tests the state's readiness to address needs within the 50-mile radius of the utility. historically delaware's federally graded exercise received very my marks from fema, and these are graded exercises that are quite thorough and exhaustive inasmuch as they test each and every state emergency response resource that could potentially have a role in any radiological emergency incident. they involve our first responders, our evacuation plans, reception centers which are registration and contamination sites, traffic control access points, shelters, schools, hospitals an emergency worker decontamination centers. and in addition to that, dema conducts quarterly radiological drills with pse&g that specifically focus on the epz

and our responder resources. in 2010, 821 people received training specific to the rep plan and emergency worker equipment. i'm going to cut some of this short, senator, but we have absolutely an excellent relationship with pse&g and the emergency response officials in new jersey. i welcome the opportunity as this goes on to answer any questions that you may have regarding those plans. thank you. >> thank you, very much, mr. secretary. welcome gn. mr. sal land. >> i wanted to thank chairman boxer, ranking member inhoff, chairman carper, ranking member burr ras sew and the distinguished -- i'm curtis summer half. the community i serve spans nearly 2,000 square miles, includes 35 municipalities and has a population of more than 2.5 million. we're a coastal community vulnerable to a number of

natural and man-made disasters. including the threat of hurricanes, flooding, fires, mass migration, oil spills and radiological events. miami-dade county's response to emergencies and disasters is guided by a comprehensive emergency management plan and all hazards approach which supports the county's ability to respond to any type of emergency. within our comprehensive plan, we have a number of hazards specific annexes including a radiological emergency preparedness plan. our plan to regularly assess and assumptions analyzed revised and ultimately certified by the federal emergency management agency. site visits, evaluated exercises bring together local, state and federal agencies as well as members of the utility to enhance collaboration and programming. fema oversight and formal after-action reports highlight significant areas that might need improvement. in the event of an emergency at the nuclear power plant we have a public alert notification

system that includes warning sirens in the area around the plant. identified support facilities for the delivery of emergency services, fully trained and equipped public safety response personnel and protected measures adjusted to the threat level. our ability to effectively respond to a radiological or other threat lies not only in our comprehensive planning but our long history of implementing protective actions for the public. over the past decade alone, evacuation orders have been issued to the public on ten occasions as a result of hurricanes and tropical storms and together with our partner agencies we've coordinated the evacuation, trmgs, sheltering, medical care and feeding of tens of thousands of evacuees. consider this. in the ten mile emergency planning zone surrounding the turkey point nuclear power plant there are approximately 180,000 residents. within miami-dade's three designated hurricane evacuation zones, there are more than half a million residents. we've identified shelters for

temporary housing with special consideration given to individuals with special needs. we have designated areas for the dissemination of emergency supplies like water, ice, food and tarps in the event of widespread destruction or power outages. we have read difficult-to-activate disaster assistance centers to provide social services to residents inneed of financial assistance, prescription refails, short and long-term housing and first aid and contracts and mutual aid agreements to ensure continuity of operations during disaster response and recovery. in line with the national response framework, all of our plans are scaleable, flexible and adaptable. the county's department of emergency management fosters an ongoing collaborative planning relationship with the county's mission of central departments and partner agencies to address life safety and property implications from existing hazards. we have a long established state-of-the-art emergency operations center. our nucleus for response and recovery efforts. when disasters threatens, our emergency managers, private,

non-profit sector partners as well as media partners come together under one roof, a critical component for a coordinated response entitling accurate information dissemination. our strengths and experienceses from hurricane response carry over to our ability to implement actions for a radiological event. conversely, planning for a radiological event has a positive effect on our ability to respond to other hazards. based on our experiences we offer the following recommendations for consideration. the recommendation by the nuclear regulatory commission to evacuate americans out to 50 miles from the fukushima daiichi plant has raised many questions. we support analysis of the data and assumptions behind the recommendation to determine if emergency planning zones in the u.s. need to be revised. of course, a wholesale change to increase the plume exposure pathway must be carefully

evaluated and weighed against the value of making the revision. it is also important to note that local officials currently have the flexibility to revise public protective action based on accident per ram terse and the situation on the ground. as we have seen in the crisis in japan as well as other disasters across the united states, interaction and coordination with federal partners is sometimes hampered by the lack of familiarity of local and state response organizations, increasing the inclusion of fema and other federal agencies and local and state training and exercises would make a response more seamless and efficient. finally, it is essential to maintain and expand emergency management all hazard funding programs such as emergency management performance grant program. this year alone every dollar spent in miami-dade is matched with over $5 to build emergency capabilities to enhance

preparedness. empg dollars have also enabled us to invest in staff and resources that have been made available to communities throughout the country, including assistance we were able to deploy to new york after the 9/11 attacks and more recently to neighboring florida county during the hurricane season. i thank you for the opportunity to share our experiences, observations and recommendations. >> thanks, so much, mr. sommer half. mr. pardee, you're recognized. please proceed. >> good afternoon, chairman harper. members of the committee. my name is charles pardee, the chief operating officer at exelon and responsible for all the company's generating assets including 17 units at ten sites in illinois, pennsylvania and new jersey. i appreciate the opportunity to appear this afternoon on behalf of the nuclear industry to discuss the safety of nuclear power plants here in the united states. we have been following the events in japan closely since the historic earthquake and tsunami struck the plant on

march 11th. many in the united states nuclear industry have both a professional and a personal interest in the events unfolding there. many of us, myself included, have been to japan a number of times as part of international technical exchange programs to share operating experience with the tokyo electric power company and others. in fact, i was at the fukushima daiichi station about a week prior to the earthquake striking there on one such exchange. our hearts go out to the japanese people as they respond to the humanitarian crisis they are facing. currently six exelon employees are in japan assisting with efforts there to secure, stabilize and ultimately decommission the fukushima daiichi reactors. it is understandable that many americans are asking if power plants in the united states are safe in light of the events in japan. i firmly believe that they are safe. i would like to make three primary points about the safety of nuclear plants in the united

states to buttress this belief. first, our plants are designed and licensed to withstand a variety of natural disasters including earthquakes, floods, tornadoes and, where appropriate, tsunamis. plants are designed to withstand potential disasters based on the most extreme event known in their geographic location with significant margin added to that extreme event to ensure safety. margins are reviewed and improved as necessary as additional information or experience becomes available to us. second, safety systems, equipment and emergency procedures at nuclear power plants are not frozen in time once the plant is built. in fact, safety is an issue that is being constantly examined by both the industry and our regulators. we have undertaken extensive safety enhancing upgrades to our plants in the aftermath of three-mile island, the events of 9/11 and other events such as

hurricanes katrina and andrew that have impacted the united states. particular attention is being paid to putting systems in place to prevent hydrogen buildup, the likely cause of explosions at the japanese plants. in addition we require multiple redundancies in the event of the loss of off-site power. the precipitating factor in the loss of cooling water issues that have led to the most extensive damage at the japanese reactors. in addition, full capability simulators have been installed at each plant in the united states, giving every operating crew the ability to train under realistic conditions on extreme events such as loss of all ac electrical power to ensure our mitigation strategies are row bust and our operators are fully qualified to respond. i earned an operating license at a plant similar to one of the fukushima daiichi reactors in the 1990s and i personally went

through this training to learn how to combat scenarios such as loss of all electrical power. third, while it takes months, if not years, to fully understand what happened at the japanese reactors, industry is not waiting to take action to incorporate lessons learned from this event. indeed, i firmly believe that the nuclear industry is unparalleled in its ability to incorporate lessons learned to ensure excellence in operations. there are two institutions, the u.s.-based institute of nuclear power operations and its international equivalent, the world association of nuclear operators, that are devoted to ensuring excellence by sharing best practices, assessing and incorporating lessons learned from events such as this and rig laosly assessing plant performance to ensure sound operations. in the united states, the institute of nuclear power operations ensures that reactor operators don't become complacent in any area of operations, particularly when it comes to safety-related issues.

there's a focus on continuous learning from events, both large and small that occur at other plants. whenever a significant event occurs, they perform an analysis to determine relevant lessons learned that are then shared with all operators. within days of the earthquake and the tsunami, the industry issued directives to each of our plants to undertake a variety of actions to ensure that seismic and safety related equipment was in good material condition and to review our emergency response plans including each plant's capability to manage a total loss of off-site power. these assessments are on going and i am confident both industry and nrc will have additional action items in the coming weeks and months to further enhance our ability to operate safely. aside from the safety of nuclear reactors, i know there are also concerns about the safety of spent fuel pools in light of the events in japan. as for the reactors torques

bolster security of spent fuel pools. backup power systems, abundant on site water supplies and additional high capacity pumps provide us with the defensive depth to ensure safety of these pools. let me conclude by recognizing the dedicated employees of the united states nuclear industry. safety is and continues to be the primary focus of our industry, and we have tens of thousands of highly skilled thoroughly trained employees working tirelessly every hour of every day such that our plants operate safely and efficiently. thank you for this opportunity. >> mr. pardee, thank you so much for joining us today. dr. thomas cochran. we have a senator named cochran. >> not related. >> uncle thad? >> not related. >> okay. >> chairman carper and also chairman boxer and members of

the committee, i want to thank you for providing nrdc and me the opportunity to present our views on the japanese nuclear disast disaster. i've submitted my complete statement for the record. i will briefly highlight a few things here. you requested that i offer my views regarding the implications the disaster has for reactor safety in the united states. first, i think we all are in agreement that the first priority is to provide assistance to our friends in japan. but eventually and even today we're turning to the issue of the implication negligencs in t. before turning to that issue, twoish make two observations. first, my colleague, dr. matthew mckenzie, with my colleague dr. matthew mckenzie we made a rough

preliminary estimate of the radiation dose of the external monitoring data from japan. we should be mindful the uncertainties at the exposures in this stage are quite large. there's much we simply do not know. with this caution we find the collective dose from the external exposure to date and the consequently excess cancers projected to result appear to be roughly ten to 100 times greater than the collective radiation dose resulting from the three mile island accident. after chernobyl, the kush ma accident ranks as the second most dangerous nuclear power accident to date. the collective dose of fukushima appears to be in the neighborhood of 100 times less than the chernobyl accident. similarly the long-term human health consequences are less than the immediate nonnuclear

consequences of the earthquake and tsunami. this is a preliminary comparison and it may change as we learn more. second, dr. mckenzie and i have reexamined the historical frequency of partial core melt accidents. we found the historical frequency of core melt accidents worldwide is far greater than what the nrc considers safe. by this measure, operational reactors worldwide are not sufficiently safe because of differences in the numbers of reactors, the reactor safety cultures and the regulatory oversight, the next nuclear power plant disaster is more likely to occur abroad than in the united states. if nuclear power is to have a long-term future, greater attention should be given to current operational reactors. older, obsolete designs should be fazed out rather than having

their licenses extended. turning to the implications for u.s. nuclear power reactors, the concerns raised by the fukushima nuclear disaster that bear directly on the safe operation and regulation of our domestic fleet. while others will add to this list, our immediate concerns include our old ge bwrs with poorly designed mark one and mark two containments and subsequent upgrades imposed by the nrc, safe enough to continue operation or have their licenses extended. what additional improvements should be made to cope with hydrogen production in the event

of a fuel-clad interaction with steam. what improvements must be made toxtd the time reactors can cope with the loss of off-site power. as soon as the fuel has pooled sufficiently to be passively cooled in air. which actor sites are located in areas that cannot be adequately evacuated, which reactor stations pose an undue economic risk to the local, state and even the u.s. economy in the event of a partial core melt accident, which u.s. reactors should be upgraded or fazed out ãearthquake, flooding or tornado that is beyond the design basis, potential radiological accidents caused by earthquakes and tsunamis should be addressed in emergency response plans for u.s. reactors. nuclear plant owners and operators must assume a larger share of the financial ris nk the event of a catastrophic nuclear accident. what are the implications of predicted sea level rise due to climate change on the safety of nuclear reactors near coasts? what are the implications for continued failure of the nrc to

finalize and implement a fire protection rule? what changes should be implemented regarding radiation monitoring during routine plant operations following an accident? and perhaps most importantly, what's the best process for addressing these concerns? i'd like to elaborate on a couple of these starting with the last, the need for an independent -- >> doctor, i'm going to ask you not to elaborate too much. >> okay. similar to the commission that investigated the three-mile island accident. such an independent body could engender public confidence by examining nuclear safety issues including assessing the conclusions and proposed corrective actions arrived by both the nuclear industry and the nrc's 90-day safety review. i'll just touch on one of these issues that i raised. the 20-year license extensions already granted to 23 u.s.

operational bwrs with mark one and mark two containments should be shortened. similar, no 20-year license extension should be granted to the eight bwrs with mark one and mark two containments that have not received license extensions. mr. chairman, thank you. sometime there. i've run out of time. i look forward to your questions. >> thanks so much for your testimony. as i said earlier, your entire statement will be made part of the record. i'm going to telegraph a pitch and let you know my last question is going to be to the panel. basically i'm going to ask each of you do give us a really good takeaway, a really good takeaway, not just for chairman boxer and myself and senator inhoff and barrasso, but one good takeaway from each of you from this hearing for our committee, please. be thinking about that.

in the meantime, let me ask a first question of secretary schirilo. after seeing the devastation in japan, are you concerned with our state, with delaware's emergency planning process? could anything be improved? a follow-on to that, do you feel our plan is flexible enough to be changed if you saw a need to expand beyond the ten-mile evacuation plan. >> thank you, senator. we have a very robust group in delaware and it truly is a team effort. the ability of dema to incorporate all of our partners from the law enforcement and public safety communities, both state and our federal partners, i think is very robust. certainly i think the lesson that we need to learn is what can we take away from the events in japan that would allow us to evolve that plant. it truly is a living document and certainly something that we need to understand. as has been stated, the ten-mile

epc is something we do practice for and plan for. however, i do think the plan is flexible enough. and certain any the power of the governor, that in the event the circumstances go beyond that ten miles that we certainly could react to. we do, as has been stated, plan for that in terms of hurricane evacuations. it is adaptable. i think as was stated earlier, what the ten-mile zone allows us to do is to really give that early warning and start to begin from that. there's no doubt in my mind, based upon the people we have in delaware, that if we needed to expand it, we certainly could and would do that. i feel very comfortable with that. >> all right, thank you. let me follow on with a question of mr. summer hoff and perhaps of secretary schirilo as well. the question is, many families in japan have been away from their homes for close to a month or so. in your emergency planning is it explained to people being asked to evacuate that it could be not just for a couple hours or a couple days. it could be for, in this case

for over a month, a lot of the folks in japan. my guess is the clock is still running there. do we have long-term emergency housing that can accommodate people for these kinds of extended periods of time? >> one of the things we try to do is, as we -- when we educate the public and certainly practice these drills and exercises is we have an emergency reception center concept. the idea with the emergency reception center is to have a place at least temporarily for people to seek shelter an emergency services from local government. from there we're also looking at off-site of the reception center some more long-term sheltering capability and we would be looking at federal resources coming in as well as aids from the nuclear industry, through american nuclear insurers and others to provide more resources for the long-term housing needs and those type of opportunities. all those things you mentioned in terms of both human and

health services type things as well as the housing issue and the mass care issues, all that is provided and explained to folks in terms of education as well as the resources at the reception center concept. >> mr. schirilo, secretary schirilo, anything you want to add? >> just one quick note. as you know, we have had occasion to stand up primarily through the red cross, short-term shelters, one in the event of certain snowstorms we've had and weather-related events. generally that works very well. obviously in the event we needed longer term, the primary responsibility would be for the public safety. if that were the case, i'm confident through our federal partners and other related resources we would be able to accomplish that. >> all right. thank you. a question if i could of mr. pardee. this is related to alert system.

secretary schirilo's written statement, he stated within 15 minutes of a radiological emergency pseg must sent an al lerlt to delaware's emergency response team. do you know if that's a requirement established by the nuclear regulatory commission? >> yes. mr. chairman, the nuclear regulatory commission has strict reporting guidelines applicable to all nuclear stations in sdwruntd states that ensure timely reporting of events as they're unfolding and regular periodic updates to make sure further information is acquired by the station, that that information is shared with state and federal officials for the purposes of making protective action recommendations and mustering resources to assist. >> okay. during an emergency, how does a company communicate with the nrc and with local governments? >> we have emergency response facilities both local to the site and remote from the site, our emergency operating

facilities and most facilities all have dedicated communication links between the nuclear regulatory commission op centers and on a state-by-state basis their emergency operations centers. these are dedicated phone lines. they have backups in the form of satellite radio or cellular communications and such. there are multiple communications links in twoi share the information i described. >> did you say earlier you spent some time in japan? >> i have. i've been both to fukushima daiichi and kaz whack ka that suffered an earthquake about three years ago. i went about two weeks after that earthquake hit. >> a member of our staff, i think maybe lori haines said earlier today, suggested the nrc has the ability to monitor control rooms maybe of all the nuclear power plants in the united states. i don't know if that's true, but if you know, and a followup, whether that's true or not, do the folks in japan have a

similar kind of capability? >> we in united states all have something called the emergency response data system which is a provision to provide technical data to the nrc emergency operations center and other interested parties. i am not strictly familiar with what exists within the japanese regulatory protocol, but i do know that information flow seems to be much more greatly challenged than i would ever expect it to be here in the united states. >> okay. thanks. >> i'm going to ask a question of secretary schirilo and then i want to ask dr. cochran and mr. boyd and mr. pardee to follow up on this. here is a question of secretary schirilo. in your written testimony, i think you stated approximately 41,000 delawarens live within

the salem hope facilities. does that sound about right? >> that's correct, senator. >> if there was a full evacuation of that ten-mile radius because of an emergency at that facility, how long do you think it would take to conduct that full evacuation? >> depending on the time of the day and time of the year, anywhere from three to six hours. >> three to six hours. if i could, of dr. cochran and charles pardee and mr. boyd, if a nuclear power plant in this country faced a full blackout, similar to what we've seen at the fukushima facility, in your opinion, would we have a few days before we might see the fuel rods degrade and, therefore, see harmful radiation levels? let me say that one again. i'll just say it again.

if a nuclear power plant in this country faced a full blackout similar to what we've seen at the fukushima facility, in your opinion would we have a few days before we might see the fuel rods degrade and, therefore, witness harmful radiation levels? >> i don't believe so if you include within that full blackout the loss of emergency power generation at the site. for example, you have both batteries and diesel generator backup systems. diesel generators failed in japan because of the tsunami. if they fail in the u.s., you then can rely on -- and they also -- i mean you lost off-site power. you also have battery power. at some reactors the battery is only designed for four hours.

it's my understanding. >> any idea if those battery kbs recharged. i just drove one of those new chevrolet volts yesterday. as you may know, the battery constantly provides the force for the wheels to move. whether the engine -- if the engine is running, the engine doesn't run, it powers the battery so the battery can be charged constantly. any idea if the batteries at the nuclear power plants can be charged or recharged while they're drawing down electricity? anybody know? >> yes, they can. we have to have the requisite equipment available. but they can be charged. they're very big automobile batteries. >> i bet they are. thank you. doctor, go ahead an finish your response and i'll ask the other two. >> in order to recharge them, you have to have a source of power. if your original premise was that you had station blackout, so you wouldn't be able to charge them under those

circumstances. i think you've touched on one of several issues that needs to be addressed as a consequence of this disaster. in my judgment, the most important thing you need to do is address how this process should be undertaken. we support the nrc's review. we support the industry's review. but we don't feel that's adequate. we don't feel that the nrc, we should rely solely on the nrc to review its own previous failures. and we, therefore, believe that you need something akin to a kim any commission that you had following the tmi accident, similar to the blue ribbon commission you had following the bp oil spill.

there are people in the industry, people in the government who do not want to have an independent review because they see that that might threaten their future course of actions. >> all right, thank you. let me ask, if i could, mr. boyd and mr. pardee to respond as well to this question. mr. boyd? >> thank you, senator. i know, and i just checked with my good senator here that the canyon has a real problem with regard to evacuation. you heard the small numbers of people, but there's incredibly limited access. so the number very we have is about 15 hours to evacuate the area because -- and that assumes the overpasses haven't collapsed on the freeway and that assumes one of the only two escape routes is available. so long as it's a little different with seven million people, i don't have the estimate on the top of my head. while we have significant freeway systems there, it's

still a very substantial period of time that's been modelled over and over again. i can get you that information. additional xhernts on the second question because it relates to the evacuation issue. both of our plants have eight-hour battery backup capability. diablo canyon's backup generators are fairly high up on the hillside. so it would take a very significant tsunami to impact them, but nonetheless, we are in discussions now as a result of what happened in japan with both utilities about the whole question of station blackout. the song's generators are right at the plant which is right at the beach, although hopefully a less earthquake-prone area. they have the advantage of the entire marine corps across the street, camp pendleton. arrangements have been made for

backup generation, portable generateders and what have you in the event there's some kind of problem there. diablo canyon does haven't that luxury. we've been talking about helicoptering in batteries and what have you in the event there's a serious problem there. >> all right, thank you. one last word, if you would, mr. pardee, on this question, please. >> yes, sir. for the first question regarding evacuation times. our times also vary, time of day, time of year, seasonal varieties. somewhere in the order of four to eight, four to ten hours is representative of our stations as well. to your question about our ability to forestall fuel damage for a number of days post station blackout, i don't believe we would have fuel damage, although i don't mean to trivialize the amount of work that would be required on the part of the operators to create that result. but we do have even in the events of depleting batteries,

we have procedures near united states for manual operation of our emergency pumps that would require no battery power for operation or measurement instrumentation, and in other instances, we have temporary or portable battery supplies such as carts with batteries on them that would allow us to operate the equipment necessary to keep the core from being damaged. and this equipment and these procedures are pre staged. we train on them. we have formal qualification programs on them. i am positive that we'll learn things out of the japanese event that will make us better. we're already starting to investigate how we can extend the lives of our batteries and such. i'm sure we'll have to look harder at spent fuel pools and their ability to withstand sustained loss of ac electrical power. but the direct answer to your question is i would not anticipate fuel damage after 48 hours. >> okay. thanks very much. i'll go back to the picture i telegraphed earlier. and that is to ask each of you

maybe to share with us one takeaway before you wrap it up. i'll start with senator blakeslee, if you'd mind responding, that would be great. >> thanks, senator. i appreciate the opportunity. we have 104 reactors in the nation, and the nrc has identified there are only two plants that are in the highest seismic potential category. both of them happen to be coastal plants. only one of them has a recently identified fault of significant proportions in very close proximity. and my concern in listening to commissioner jas jaczko's comments in response to senator boxer's questioning was that, although he's looking at procedures in a 90-day and six-month window, i heard nothing that identified the unique needs of these two plants and the one plant in particular

which had the direct analogy to the threat faced in japan through the 2007-2011 earthquakes. i would again -- the one takeaway i hope we can walk away with is that for these two facilities in california, we upgrade our rely sensing procedures to formally include seismic safety criteria and standards that directly relate to earthquake hazard in our process. >> thank you, senator. thank you for being with us today. mr. boyd please. >> the senator took my first item. i knew he might. i have a couple of others noted here. i'll mention one of them. that's the spent fuel pool safety issue that's been discussed today, the re-racking of the spent fuel pools into high density and the slow speed with which these pools are being emptied in order to put materials in to dry cassing storage is a serious concern to us, particularly in the high

seismic activity areas, again, like california's two plants. >> all right, thank you, sir. secretary schirilo? >> thank you, senator. in my mind -- as you know, senator, our obligation is for the safety of the people of delaware. for me what is paramount is that we learn from the events in japan. from the standpoint of their reaction and the emergency response that they had, we need to learn the lessons from that. that information needs to be transparent. it also needs to be shared with the state and local counterparts, the people that would be forced to respond to this kind of event. what i hope is once the lessons are learned and once that information is gotten, that there be a system to share that with so we can change and develop our plans to meet that. if that doesn't occur, to me that would be the greatest tragedy. i would hope that as the nrc and the other federal agencies get that, that it be shared and we

learn from that. thank you. >> thanks so much for joining us today. mr. summer hoff? >> senator, thank you. our protective action decision making is based on plant conditions oovps. it's based on the conditions on the ground. from that we start making our implementation for protective actions for the public. we're always looking, first, when we look at issues that are going to require evacuation and evacuation isn't always the protective action we're going to implement. it might be sheltering in place. we'll look at those people who are in close proximity to the plant initially, and we'll also look at those vulnerable populations, those difficult-to-move populations. i can't think of a situation where we would just say everybody in ten miles evacuate now. it doesn't happen like that. it happens within phases. that's how we conduct evacuations for all types of hazards, including hurricanes and other types of hazards. i just wanted to make sure that there was this understand that

the way we do implement evacuation protective actions and it's not everybody evacuate at once. i do believe the ten-mile emergency planning zone is the appropriate planning standard for us. we've always considered that there could be implementation of protective actions outside that ten-mile zone. we've never thought based on environmental conditions or conditions at the plant that somehow radiation would stop at ten miles and just fall to the ground. we always have considered that we would have to move outside that ten miles and implement actions to address the public there. i just want to make sure that understanding was known. >> thanks so much. mr. pardee, one good takeaway. >> thank you for the opportunity. >> our pleasure, thank you. >> for my takeaway, i'd simply say we understand the concern on the part of the committee and the general public, the public at large. we're committed to open, transparent and proactive

communications regarding our current state and what changes we're implementing based on the lessons learned from tea vents in japan and that we share the objective of the committee to protect the public health and safety and we'll do that through concerted operations and profitably learning from the lessons learned and taking actions to improve our safety posture. >> thanks so much. dr. cochran, you the last word, please. >> mr. chairman, on page five of my written statement i gave you just over a dozen take-home ones that immediately come to mind. >> cheaper by the dozen, huh? >> i would hesitate to choose one or even several as more important than others. let's take the spent fuel issue. we're 50 years into this industry and we don't have a gee logic repository. we need to start getting that spent fuel in hardened, safe,

tricast stores and we ought to do it at the reactor site as well as any interim site. then there's the issue of these bwrs. we have old reactor designs out there. a third of the u.s. fleet. the issue you should be thinking about is whether we have in place a process that ensures that those things get relicensed over and over again and we try to patch up the designed efficiencies or are we going to get the clunkers off the street? we ought to have a process that retires these old obsolete designs an replaces them with better technology. >> all right, thanks for that, for those closing thoughts. i want to, before i thank you all and send you on your way, u just want to go back to something that chairman boxer said earlier in the hearing. she was asking our first

panel -- maybe it was our second panel, chairman jaczko and administrator jackson, she asked what is the worst that can happen sdm i think that's paraphrasing, but she asked what is the worst that can happen,nd i said a few minutes after that, i said maybe the worst thing that can happen is on the heels of this trashl tragedy which the folks in miyagi, as secretary of state, i have a real sense of empathy an compassion for the folks there. but maybe the worst thing that can happen, at least for us here, were it for all this pain and suffering occurring in japan and for us not to learn anything from it, or maybe for us to have learned from it but not to have done enough about it, not to have acted on the lessons that we have learned. and there's a responsibility i think for all of us, not just on this committee, not just on the

congress, not just in the industry, not just at the nrc, but there's a responsibility for all of us to work together to make sure we fully implement the lessons that we learn and that we remain vigilant until we have done that. and i'll close with the words i use often in this room. and that is everything i do i know i can do better. i think that's true for all of us. and it remains true of the nuclear industry. and we just need to remain eternally vigilant, eternally vigilant. i'm encouraged today that that's our intent and we need to make sure it's not only our intent, but actually what occurs. with that having been said, i thank you again for joining us here today and for providing your input. we look forward to working with you in this on going dialogue. thank you so much. with that this hearing is adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [unintelligible] [unintelligible]

[unintelligible] [unintelligible]

>> for nt moments, all white house event launched an initiative to honor military service members in their family. in about an hour, if secretary of state clinton on relationships between the u.s. and muslim countries. >> hollen "washington journal, "we will focus on federal spending. our guests are republican representative vicky hartzler and allyson schwartz, a member of the budget committee. we will be joined by and joyce raezer, executive director of the national military family association. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern.

to end this week and on c- span2, the politically incorrect guide to socialism and house that work at the u.s. today. is interviewed by a jump of warrants. -- john podhoritz. a look at barbara bush, jacqueline kennedy, and eleanor roosevelt. you can find the complete schedule online. >> president obama and vice president biden joined the first lady and joe biden tuesday to launch their initiative to honor service members and their families. from the white house, this is a little more than an hour.

i became a volunteer when my son is squadron was activated in deployed to the middle east. my son jason deployed the following year. just like in many other states across the country, there is a network of national guard spouses 1 myspace to abolish supported one another, especially during deployment project to support one another, especially during the women. but we wanted to do more. in 2007, my friend kathy and i performed boots on the ground. a nonprofit organization that supports members of the

military, their families, and veterans. especially in times of separation or need. with the help and expertise of individuals, local businesses, and community groups, we have stopped christmas stockings for soldiers, fixed broken air conditioners, and from baby showers. whatever needs to be done, we try to find a way to make sure it happens. during our second year, jill biden became a volunteer for boots on the ground. we have assisted hundreds of military families, in countless different ways. when delaware boots on the ground was born around the breakfast table, i never imagined i would be at the white house with president obama telling you all about it. i never dreamed our story could capture the interest of the entire nation. we are simply military families

helping military families. but today, we are telling that story and for the hard work of first lady michelle obama and dr. jill biden, hundreds more stories like ours are being lifted up so that everyone understands just how easy it is to support our military families. and just how much that support means to the military community. so i want to thank you both, jill and mrs. obama, bore all the q2 on behalf of our military families. -- for all that you do on behalf of our military families. and now it is my honor to introduce someone who is always been committed to the military. he has been a regular national guard events for 30 years and members -- and meets with

members of our military and across the world and across the country. today i have the honor as a military spouse and a military mom to introduce my friend, vice-president joe biden. [applause] >> good job. good job. welcome to the white house. shirley, you are getting to be an old pro. [laughter] when shirley and jill made their first television appearance for boots on the ground, they were both scared to death. now i am scared that followed

jill. [laughter] jill and i just returned from a ceremony that honored bob dole and his heroic service, and on parallel devotion to serving veterans in this country. he always knew and taught me what many of us have come to learn, that we have many obligations in this country but we have only one truly sacred obligation, and that is to prepare those who we send to war with all that they need and take care of those who return from war and their families with all they deserve. although bob's generation is known as the greatest generation, this generation of lawyers, as the chairman of the joints chiefs, admiral mullen, can tell you, this generation of lawyers may be among this devoted -- the most devoted

because of the long, long, long period of service they have had to endure. they've seen multiple deployments. they have participated in the two wars extended almost a decade. in the process, we have lost over 5000 -- not over, exactly as son -- as of an hour ago, 5957 fallen angels. 43,006 wounded. and there are still more jobs to be done, more warriors' deployed. i do not know that there has ever been a time in american history when a generation of military families has had to endure for as long and as much as this generation of american families have.

a pilot set of all the military husbands and wives and out there, he said, they also serve who only stand and wait. and this general option of military families -- this generation has stood and waited for a long time. i'll look get them uniforms of the men and women i most admire, and i may have been mistaken, but i do not know that there's been this many people in battle, seeing bloody battle, coming home for a brief respite, and being sent back out again. it is one thing to be sent out the first time, not knowing what of horrors of war are

light, but to saddle up and go back again and again and again. my multiple flights into iraq and afghanistan, over 25 times, the last time i sat up with the pilot and i said, how many tours? of the four when the cockpit, only one had served only two. three had served -- two had served four, and this was the fifth deployment for the fourth. this generation that michelle and jill are working on bringing the awareness of the rest of the country to come we owe them a lot. they have known the pain and anxiety the comes from when the family is stretched across the goals of ocean and time.

it is your child when you're there, when your child makes the first step, the first big smile, the missed birthdays, the anniversaries they were celebrated on skype. we learned about skype when our son was in iraq for years. but the support at home never wavers, and i would say that they, the families that surely represents, -- that if shirley represents, they are as heroic as those that are there and they truly deserve our support. as i said, jill and i know what it is like firsthand. our sorrow -- our son beau was in iraq for a year. he served once. we learned what it means to those who are in the war zone thousands of miles away, knowing that their family is being cared for.

the their next-door neighbor offered to cut their grass while their husbands is overseas or that the next-door neighbor will get a jumpstart on that cold morning when you're trying to get the daughter or son to elementary school. they know that those little things are the things that make every day work or not work. it matters. it matters because it is one less thing they have to worry about. and all those who served in the military and overseas, no, i am not exaggerating when i say that, every single warrior i need in afghanistan or iraq or bosnia in those days, in kosovo, all they ask about is what it is like a home. can you give my wife a call? can you pick up the phone and call my pot and let him know it is ok. all americans should know that

one act of kindness extended to a family of the shoulder, a sailor, a marine, a coast guard men, reverberates across the water, over the mountains, and through the desert into the heart of the warrior who was standing there alone, thinking as much about his family as his family is thinking about him or her. i promise you, i promise you, all of those of -- all those -- all those of you who are listening on the television or radio, it matters. it matters. jill points out that only 1% of our nation is serving. over 1 million young men in -- men and women, and not so young. last time, when i was in iraq and we were on those impromptu

meetings, you're standing on a chair talking to a bunch, and a guy from the back, general should secchi, yells, john jones, saudi here last time, 61 years old. [laughter] they are not all young, but the fact is that only 1% of the families have served in those wars. yet 100% of american families have an obligation to commit to that 1% and just show one single act of kindness to a deployed veterans family. as jill is declared many times as second lady, helping to muster the strength and to remind the neighbors that everyone in america has a duty to fill the sacred obligation i mentioned, jill knows how important it is for our troops in for their families. she also knows how far just a

little bit of support can go. my wife, who i am about to introduce, feels it in her bones. it is part of who she is. that blue star is sort of indelibly branded on her heart. and it comes among our family and friends, to define her innocence. i am honored to present to you the second lady of the united states, of blue star mom, my wife, jill biden. [applause] >> good morning. i and jill biden and i am a proud military mom. as my husband said, we honored to have you all here at the white house today as we express the gratitude of our entire

nation to those who served in our military and to their amazing families. you are all heroes, from the moms and dads who keep your family together what your loved ones are serving overseas, to the grandparents to step in with much needed support, to the children who are strong and brave while mom and dad are away. you go back to business every day, lifting up of communities, volunteering at four schools, lending a hand to your neighbors, and you do it all while carrying a heavier burden than most folks are imagine. you are truly remarkable. as joe said, we have been a national guard family for the last 10 years. 2.5 years ago, i stood in dover, delaware, watching as our son

beau prepared to deploy to iraq. i remember it like it was yesterday. like other military families, i felt an intense mixture of pride in concern, and i can honestly say that not a day passed during his year away when i did not worry about his safety. during the deployment ceremony, a friend slipped a prayer into my hand. it brought me comfort and i have shared it with many others since then. the press asks for courage and strength for each shoulder -- soldier to do their duty when they risk their lives to protect our freedom, and expresses thanks for the sacrifice of these men and women and their families. that prayer has been a huge source of comfort to me, especially during the years that beau was deployed.

i could be anywhere in the course of my day, riding on the chalkboard in my classroom are preparing a meal, and i would just stop, close my eyes, and say that quick prayer for him and all others serving in harm's way. now when i attend the planned ceremonies, i pass on this prayer to the moms and families i meet in the hopes that it comforts them as it did me. i have had the opportunity of the last two years to attend several deployment and return ceremony. i have seen the pride, the trepidation, the relief, and the pure joy. i've spent time with spouses and children, grandparents, and friends, but somehow it is always the mothers to seek me out. they understand -- they know that i understand their experience. and because i do, hot offer them

my things, my prayers, and a warm embrace. michelle and i have met so many amazing families in the past few years. just last month, i attended a deployment ceremony where i met some folks are now called the grandparents. both parents of three children under the age of 10 were deploying, and these grandparents decided to circle the wagons and take care -- take care of the children together. the grandmothers janice and ellen are here today. rabbi charles is home babysitting. -- grandpa charles is home babysitting. [laughter] think about these women. they are not wearing uniforms. they do not live on a base. but they are serving. they could be your neighbors. ryan, in the, and abbey could be

and your child's classroom. they could be members of your church or synagogue or customers at a hardware store you manage. think about that. now, imagine how a community could rally around his family, helping with carpels, sporting events, for school activities. i have seen from my work with the organization the small community groups can make a huge difference. imagine for a moment not just what the small gestures mean to the family, but what they mean to a soldier thousands of miles away who knows that someone is looking out for the ones he loves back home. there are small and effective groups like this all over the country, from the barbecue master who travels the state of ohio to cook for military families, to the accountants providing free tax service, to

the soldiers in minnesota collecting hockey equipment for military kids. these efforts make a difference in the lives of our families. when i was in iraq last year, i heard a story that has stuck with me ever since. an officer told me about all little girl in his daughter's class who broke into tears when she heard the ave maria song during holiday program. as the teacher comforted her, the little girl explained that the song had been played at her father's funeral. her father had been killed in iraq. as a teacher, i know that all teachers would want to understand that little girl's experience. so i shared that story with a group of educators, and i am so pleased to share the good news today that the american

association of colleges for teacher education has partnered with the military chowed education coalition -- military child education coalition to promote training for future teachers. together they hoped to teach 10,000 future educators how to best serve their military- connected students across the country. in our travels, michelle and nine have seen many teachers who are making a real difference for the military classrooms -- military children in their classrooms. teachers who are range parent- teacher conferences by skype so deployed parents can participate, or teachers to encourage students to take a photo of their deployed parent to their desk so they can look at it whenever they feel the need, or teachers like one in my granddaughter's classroom who

hung up a total of my sons deployed unit so that the whole class would know that natalie's dad was at war. believe me, that photo of her dad on the wall map the world to natalie, and it meant the world to me and joe, too. these teachers and all the other individuals and groups across the country who are supporting their troops and their families are showing all americans that there are countless ways to help -- some large, and many small, but all-important. and i can tell you from personal experience, all appreciate it. we can all join forces. i am thrilled and humbled to be here today with a group of people that represents the best of this nation -- individuals and families who embodied the street, the resilience, and the patriotism that has shaped the united states of america. we -- joe, myself, brock, and

michelle -- we are here today because of you. we are here to celebrate you. you are doing your part. the government is doing its part. and each american has the ability to make a difference in the life of a military family. that is what this initiative is all about. everyone of us can commit to one small act of kindness. and now it is my honor and privilege to introduce an man who is doing his part as a strong leader and constant advocate for our service members, veterans, and military families. he is also the husband of my partner on this effort -- our president and commander-in- chief, barack obama. [applause]

>> thank you, thank you everybody. please have a seat. please be seated. thank you very much. as you can see, the vice- president and i are the warm-up acts here today. [laughter] our role is to introduce our better tabs. actually, michelle and jill unlike are better three-quarters or 4/5. they're basically just all- around better. so thank you, jill, for your introduction and sharing your personal experiences and stories and being able to describe how much this means to you personally.

to the vice-president, the entire family, which like so many others has known both the pride but also the worries and fears when a loved one in uniform is serving in harm's way. we're joined today by members of congress, by members of my cabinet, duties, by leaders across the administration and just about every sector of american society. but most of all, we're joined by our service members and their families, representing the finest military that the world has ever known. and while the campaign that brings us all together is truly unique, it does reflect the spirit that is familiar to all of us -- the spirit that has defined this is a people and as a nation for more than two centuries. freedom is not free. simple words that we all know to

be true. for 234 years, our freedom has been paid by the service and sacrifices of those who have stepped forward, or raise their hands, and said, "send me." that put on a uniform, they swear an oath to protect and defend, and they carry titles that have commanded the respect of generations -- soldiers, airmen, marines, sailor, coastguardsman. our nation in tears because these men and women are willing to defend it with their very lives. as a nation, is our solemn duty and moral obligation to serve these patriots as well as they serve us. but we are here today because this americans in uniform have never served alone -- not at lexington, not in concord, not in iraq, not in afghanistan. behind every american in uniform stand a wife, a husband, a mom, a dad, a son or a daughter, a

sister or brother. these families -- is remarkable families -- are the force behind the force. they too are the reasons we have got the finest military in the world. whenever i m with our troops overseas, when i ask them what we can do for you, there is one thing to request more than anything else -- take care of my family. take care of my family. because when our troops are worried about their families back home, it is harder for them to focus on the mission overseas. the strength and the readiness of america's military depends on the strength and readiness of our military families. this is a matter of national security. it is not just the right thing to do, it also makes this country stronger. and that is why over the past

two years we have made major investments to take care of our military families. secretary gates has been one of the leaders in this process -- new housing and child care for families, new schools for military kids, better health care for veterans, new educational opportunities for hundreds of thousands of veterans and their family members under the post-9/11 gi bill. and that is why is part of a landmark presidential stunning directive, for the first time ever the well-being of our military families is now a national priority -- not just the defense department priority, not just a be a priority, it is a federal government brought -- not just a va priority, it is a federal government priority. my administration is working to implement nearly 50 specific commitments to improve the lives of military families --

everything from protecting families from financial scams to improving education for military kids and spouses, to stepping up our fight to end homelessness among veterans. i am not one of the satisfied until we meet his commitments. across this administration, we're going to keep doing everything in our power to give our military families the support and respect that they deserve. but this cannot be the work of government alone. something else has been true throughout our history -- our military and military families cannot be the only ones bearing the burden of our security. the united states of america is strong as in as americans we are at our best when we remember our obligations to each other, when we remember that the price of freedom cannot simply be paid by a select few. when we embrace our responsibilities to each other, especially those who served and sacrifice in on name, and that is why the extraordinary work that michelle and jill had been engaged in in these past two years is so important. i remember how it began.

during our campaign, michelle was meeting with women all across this country come listening to their struggles, hearing their stories. inevitably there were complaints about husbands. [laughter] not doing enough around the house and being confused when you have to brush the daughter's hair and get that ponytail right. so they were sharing notes. but in all of these conversations, there was one group that just kept on capturing machel's hard -- and that was military spouses. heart, and's that was military spouses. she decided right then and there, if i was given an opportunity to serve as president and she was given the opportunity to serve as first

lady, she would be their voice. and that is exactly what she and jill have done. you see the events around the country with a celebrate our military families, your families, and what we can do to support you better. but you do not see what happens when the cameras are off, how they come back and they are inspired by what they sought in the use their platform to advocate on your behalf in every single agency. i want every military family to know that the shell. you, not just as a first lady or a fellow american, but as a white, and a daughter, and the mom. she is standing up for you and your families, not just today in public events like this one, but every day. and a voice that she promised to be, that is what she has been out there doing, making sure that you're getting the support and appreciation that you and your families deserve. and so it is my honor to introduce to you my extraordinary wife, america's

extraordinary first lady, michelle obama. [applause] >> thank you, everyone. thank you. that is so much. thank you. it is a thrill, and is always nice to be introduced by the president of the united states. always kind of cool. [laughter] and on behalf of all of us, i want to thank my husband, i want to thank joe for their leadership. from the top-down, their personal commitment to keeping our military families strong is really what has allowed us to be

here. and i have told military families that. this is something that comes from the very top. this is not just about me and jill. we have husbands who care about your families, who care about these issues, and we would not be here today if it were not for their leadership. so here we are. this is the moment that we have been working toward for such a very long time. and let me say that i am just thrilled that all of you could be here today as we launch this unprecedented national campaign to honor and support our incredible military families. we are calling it joining forces. pretty good. [laughter] we call it joining forces for a very sing -- special reason. this campaign is about all of us, all of us joining together as americans to give back to the extraordinary military families who served in sacrifice so much every day so that we can live in

freedom and security. joining forces is a challenge to every segment of american society to take action, to make a real commitment to supporting in engaging these families. and i want to thank all of you here because this campaign is the result of everything that so many of you have shared with us and taught us over the past two years. and i'm especially grateful to my phenomenal partner in this effort, a blue star mom herself and a tireless champion of guard and reserve families, and an inspiration to me throughout this entire process, my dear friend, dr. joe biden. and we need -- dr. jill biden, and we need to give jill -- [applause]

joining forces is inspired by the amazing military bosses and children who we have met all across the country, some of whom, like shirley, have been able to join us today. families who have told us that even with the huge outpouring of support over the last decade, the truth is that as a country, we do not always see their families, our heroes on the home front. these families have appealed to us, but the military mom who wrote to me and said, "please do not let americans forget or ignore what we live with." please do not let them forget. joining forces is shaped by the insights of spouses like becky gates and patty sheehan secchi -- patty shinseki and debra

mullen and spouses of the joint chiefs, spouses of our senior enlisted advisor, and countless thousands of all ranks, many of whom i sprinkled around have been terrific advisers to is. also the passionate advocates representing military families who are here, and of course, members of congress from both parties, all in support of this. they are all leaders who have devoted their lives to serving our troops and their families and who have helped us to understand where and how campaign like this could really make a difference. joining forces builds on the great work of the president and vice-president and the entire administration, which is made military families a priority across the federal government, even as we recognize that this work cannot be done by government alone. and i'm just excited at that as a result of the work we have done with so many people, businesses and organizations across america including some of the best known names in brands have already responded to this

call. today as part of joining forces they will announce major new commitments to support military families, and you will all see those incredible commitments as we go forward, but we are tremendously grateful for so many of them stepping up so early. joining forces is rooted in those of american forced -- american values of service and citizenship that have kept our country strong throughout history. in world war ii, for example, the whole nation went to war. just about every family was a military family or knew someone that was. however, today, with an all- volunteer force, fewer americans served or know someone who does. and unlike our troops, military families do not wear uniforms, so we do not always see them. like our troops, these families are proud to serve and they do not complain, so as a result,

the rest of us do not always realize how hard it can be or what we can do to help lighten their load. and i have to admit that i have not always realized it myself. my father served in the army, but he served before i was born, so i did not grow up in a military family. i always revere their trips, but like many americans, i did not see firsthand just how much our military families sacrifice as well. that is why we are joining forces. this is about the responsibility that we eat have to one another, as americans. -- that we each have to one another, as americans. as joe said, 1% of americans may be fighting on our behalf, but 100% of americans need to be supporting our troops and their families. this campaign is about renewing those bonds and those connections because -- between those who serve in the rest of us who live free because of their service. so this is a national

initiative, and here is how it is going to work. as part of a new public awareness campaign, we're going to highlight the service of these families that americans do not always see. the first and taking action is awareness. and the truth is that our military families are all around us. we may not know it. we are going to remind americans the most military families live off base, and thousands of communities across the country. they are our neighbors and co- workers, the military spouse who puts in a full day at the office and then goes home to do the parenting of two while there has been a wife is deployed. we will remind them that most children go to public schools, our kids classmates in teammates, like the girl in your daughter's class trying to make new friends and handle all the normal pressures of growing up even as she worries whether dad or mom will come home safe. many of our national guardsmen