and should not be doing. in my very strong opinion, it is not your business to get involved in that fight. you have to worry about the safety issues of nuclear power. it is not your business to tell the people of vermont that they have to keep open a nuclear power plant they do not want. that is not your business. i am going to pursue during my question time -- i am going to ask each of you how you voted on that issue. i want to thank the chairman. he has been public in the to be involved in that debate. so this is an issue that is very disturbing to the people of the state of vermont. we have enough on our hands taking on one of the large powerful utilities in america. we do not need the n.r.c. to get involved in this debate. i want to thank my colleague from oregon and i yield back my time to him. >> the remaining two minutes.

>> absolutely. >> you're welcome. three minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i will just briefly note if anyone has any comments why the hydrogen exploded. obviously the venting process is to avoid the plant damage. obviously that didn't happen in japan with the three hydrogen explosions. i also wanted to note that i think it is very important that a lot of research be done on different models of nuclear reactors and particularly on mod ular systems. that would have made it irrelevant whether power had been knocked out to a plant or irrelevant whether it was flooded with a tidal wave. i doubts about nuclear power being competitive when you take

into account costs and potential terror threats, natural disasters and human error. i also think it is very important to look at all options as we wrestle with ways to generate non-carbon power. any comments in that vein would be helpful. thank you. >> thank you very much 3678 senator lautenberg, we haven't heard from you. >> thanks very much, madam chairman. i'm pleased that nuclear rate -- commission is here to present the preliminary results of its safety review. since japan's nuclear disaster began unfolding in march, americans have asked with a good deal of trepidation could it happen here. the ongoing safety reviews intended to give them the answer. that's why we have to make sure that the time product is

complete comprehensive and thorough and n.r.c.'s top priority has got to make sure that our country's nuclear facilities are safe and secure and that means leaving no stone unturned during the review. that is especially important to the people of the state. new jersey's four nuclear power reactors provide our state with half of its electricity. and one of those reactors, located in oyster creek is the one's oldest and shares the same design as the damaged reactors in japan. we need the n.r.c. to let us know what risks if any are present in american communitys with the older nuclear reactors and what we have got to do to reduce these risks and protect the public. we also need the no, sir do a better job of making sure -- the n.r.c. to do a better job of making sure that the americans know what to do in the case of a nuclear emergency. i was deeply troubled in march when our country was told that american citizens in japan

should stay at least 50 miles away from the site of its meltdown. we've had this discussion before. near the united states, the n.r.c.'s emergency guidelines only require plants to evacuate people to an area 10 miles from a plant and it is confusing and we ought to not be sending mixed signals. at the same time, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that new mexico power has the qualities that we like to see -- nuclear power that is qualities that we like to see. we have pretty good nuclear safety record. there have been few nuclear accidents and few injuries here in the united states. the bottom line is that nuclear power can be part of an energy future but as the tragedies in other countries have taught us, nothing can be taken for granted where nuclear power is

concerned. japan, it believed that the fukushima plant was strong enough to withstand the worst case scenario and now we know it wasn't. so likewise, chernobyl demonstrated the effect s of a single nuclear accident that can linger for generations after. we have to pay attention and learn from others' mistakes and each one of you members of the nuclear regulatory commission has a responsibility to ask the hard question but to make sure that the american public gets the answers that we deserve. and i -- i've got to say that i -- i think a great job has been done on balance but i think as we find these new circumstances that have come up as a surprise, when in japan, the accident happened as it did and regardless of the elements that created it, the fact of the matter is we shouldn't permit it to happen.

so madam chairman, i thank you for holding this hearing. >> thank you so much, senator. now we go to our distinguished panel. we're going to start with the chairman. five minutes and then each of you has three. go right ahead, chairman. >> thank you, chairman boxer, members of the committee. on behalf of the commission, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to provide an update on the response of the n.r.c. to the nuclear emergency in japan. at the current time, the japanese utility and the japanese government are still in an active mitigation phase at the fukushima site. at this time the reactors do not appear to be changing in a way that create additional concerns. some structural elements are receiving increased attention such as the structural integrity

which is being shord up to strengthen its resistance to earthquakes. large amounts of radioactive water in the basements and a considerable amount of debris across the site. the rainy season is underway in japan. overall, the japan please making significant progress in moving forward in what is a very difficult and challenging

situation. on behalf of the commission, we continue to express our sympathies for the people of japan who are dealing with a very significant crisis. as you know, the decision to recommend a 50-mile radius evacuation of american citizens near the daiche site -- information was scarce, sketchy and uncertain. the recent assessment of the fuel pool is counted by the significant core damage to units one, two and three. it does not invalidate our earlier decision. we are however continuing to re-evaluate and review the 50-mile recommendation. turning to the actions here in the united states, the events of fukushima began to unfold in early march. the n.r.c. has been relaying

information to our country's nuclear power plants. we issued instructions calling for immediate assessment of each plant's preparedness. it covers mitigation guidelines as well as severe accident management guidelines. we also issued a bulletin which is communication to our licensees to provide information on a broad range of issues. we will determine whether additional actions are necessary. we have also convened a senior level task force made up of a number of the agency's most experienced and expert staff. they are proceeding on a shorter and longer term time frame. this task force is examining seismic events, flooding and other natural hazards. how to maintain power in these vicinities and how to mitigate

loss of power and emergency preparedness. during the long-term review we will engage the public licensees and other key stake holders to a greater extent. the final report will be reviewed by the advisory committee. in terms of accident revenge, we evaluating the requirements and other external events that might inflict widespread damage to a plant. in addition to prevention, we are re-examining effective mitigation strategies for severe accidents. as part of our review, the n.r.c. is examining implications for emergency preparedness. >> i'm sorry to interrupt you. we'll just freeze the -- i'm sorry. we understand that you care about nuclear safety, but we

really ask you to put down your signs and you could either put them down and stay or you can leave with the signs. it is up to you. whatever you wish to do is fine with us. thank you very much and if -- oh, you're leaving. ok. we're sorry to lose you. ok. mr. chairman . you have 30 seconds more. >> thank you. >> as part of our review, the n.r.c. is also examining the implications for emergency preparedness, especially in possible situations involving widespread infrastructure damage, multiunit events at a single site and long-term station blackout. the snrs committed to proceeding as openly as possible and is holding a series of three public meetings at the 30-day, 60-day and 90-day marks. we just had the 60-day meeting yesterday to discuss the progress of the near-term review. the third meeting is scheduled for july 19 when the 90-day

report will be. it will gain in long-term component of our safety review which we expect to be completed within an additional six months. chairman boxer, carper, barrasso, members of the committee, this includes my testimony. we will be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. >> could i make a request to accommodate my problem with armed services committee. senator barrasso has been kind enough to take my five minutes in addition to his five minutes. >> we will misyou very much. -- miss you very much. ok. we're going to move along now to each of you for three minutes each. and our next commissioner is -- and i want to make sure i pronounce it right. the honorable kristine svinicki.

did i do it ok there? >> you did. thank you chairman boxer and congressman barrasso. chairman jaczko has a written statement on behalf of the commission. nuclear technology is unique. we must learn the lessons that these tragic events present. the n.r.c. has issued a systematic review of the events in japan while maintaining safety in the nuclear materials here in the united states. the staff cons its work on the licensing, rule making before the agency. the n.r.c. has been entrusted with the important missions of nuclear safety and security. during my service as a commissioner, i found n.r.c. to be an organization of dedicated safety professional whors

mindful of their important obligations to the nation. i strive in enabling them to advance this cause. thank you for the opportunity and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much. we move to a commissioner that i was very happy to meet in california. he was visiting the plant when i was there and we did -- i think that was a very good visit and so it is an honor to welcome you back here from apostolakis. did i do that ok? >> yes. >> all right. >> chairman boxer, ranking member turnovers committee, good morning. i appreciate the honor to appear before you. i will summarize the fukushima events as follows. first, the performance of the n.r.c. staff. i have been a commissioner a little over a year now. during that time as well as during my 15 years as a member of the n.r.c.'s advisory

committee, i had plenty of opportunities to -- with the n.r.c. staff -- i have always been impressed by their technical excellence and dedication to our mission of protecting public health and safety. our team in japan con firled what i already knew. i am told that both the u.s. ambassador in japan and the japanese government have great respect for our team and its advice on technical matters. i am proud of the n.r.c. staff and honored to be an n.r.c. commissioner. second, the value of conservative decision making. the plant at fukushima was subjected to incredibly destructive natural forces exceeding the plant's design limbs without acute health effects resulting from radiation exposure. in my view, this reflects at least in part the -- built into nuclear reactor designs in terms of safety margins.

this is a valued lesson for me as i consider the application of conservatism in our regulatory framework. third, the importance of decision making during emergencies. the terrorist events of september 11 2001 have brought emergency preparedtons the forefront in this country. the fukushima accident demonstrated once again the need for a clearly defined decision making process during emergencies. fourth, a less non humility. there have been numerous studies worldwide. i believe that as a community of safety analysts, we were pretty confident there would be no new surprises. fukushima has challenged that belief. we must retain a questioning attitude and ensure that confidence does not translate into complacency.

thank you, chairman boxer. >> thank you for those remarks. we welcome commissioner magwood. >> thank you chairman boxer, senator carper and mr. barrasso. the importance of responding appropriately to the lessons of fukushima weighs heavily on all of those who serve on the nuclear regulatory commission. may we continue to send our best wishes to the people of japan as they continues their hard work recovering from the march 11 earthquake. we have and will continue to learn from fukushima. that said, i recognize it will take months and possibly years before all the technical facts are fully assessed. while we will learn much from a complete understanding of what happened at the plant after it was -- by the earthquake and tsunami, we know enough today to review the nuclear regulatory framework in the united states.

from what we know now, i believe that we will need to make some changes in a variety of areas. it is our responsibly to take new perspectives and review our nuclear regulatory framework. we need to take safety seriously and step up to identify safety issues in the aftermath of fukushima. while as a staff reported to us yesterday, we remain quite confident as to the safety in the power plants, also in our overall approach to ensure safety into the future, there may be opportunities. if those opportunities exist, we should seize them. i believe the strong role for experts and stake holders will be essential. many observers have raised some important and challenging questions and i believe we should engage directly to ensure our benefits -- this includes a full engagement of the advisory committee and safeguards.

as smart and intelligent as the staff is, even they may not have all the answers. once again, thank you for holding today's hearing, i look forward to working with this hearing. i look forward to your questions. >> and now commissioner ostendorff. >> thank you. also thank chairman carper, ranking member barrasso for the chance to be here today. i'm committed to systematic methodical review of the events at fukushima. i know if we need to make changes and i'm sure there are some changes we will need to make, then the commission will. the full commission received a public briefing yesterday of what the task force has learned so far in the near term resprusme the task force informed the commission of their results today including the results of the inspections of the 104 reactors and several key

things in our safety philosophy. they include assessment and protection of equipment from external hazards. strategies to prevent core damage or spent fuel damage. preparedness. how to prepare our regulations in a consistent and coherent manner. n.r.c.'s highly qualified resident inspectors have inspected severe accident management guidelines around the country to ensure that our licensees are able to deal with the loss of power or a big damage event to their particular reactor sites. the findings from these inspections will help to guide our decisions going forward with respect to any warranted regulatory changes. for the longer term, our view efforts will focus on other key areas related to the fukushima incident. this includes spent fuel pool

safety, emergency preparedness. i'll echo commissioner magwood's comments. for an independent technical review. i'm looking forward to evaluating the n.r.c. staff's recommendation in areas where improvements can be made to our regulatory framework. congress and the public can be sure that our findings will be brought to light. i look forward to your questions. thank you very much. before i start my questions, i want to respond on yucca. because it was important to note that we found out that through a g.a.o. report, that republicans ask for, that they terminated the d.o.e. terminated the project because it was not a workable option and that there were benefits associated with

this. now that is a report that have requested by the republicans in the house. and some of the past problems we had with yucca, the risk that water will seep into the repository and cause the casks holding high level radioactive waste to rust and break, leaking the contents in the vicinities and lord knows i know too much about earthquake faults and dangerous radiation and a particular concern to me, ground water from yucca mountain flows into my state and the fact that there were tests that showed that water was leaking from the site. so since this was so -- to me, it is a closed matter but since it was raised by the ranking member of the subcommittee barrasso, i felt it was important to bring everybody up to date that a g.a.o. investigation asked for my house republicans basically said this was an appropriate decision.

i have a question -- i have some questions here i'm going to focus starting on the fukushima and then move to california, try to cover all of those bases. chairman jazz co, -- jackso, 30,000 children in japan, they live 40 miles from the plant itself. well outside the 12-mile exclusion zone. why do you think 34,000 kids were given radiation monitors? is your mic on? >> it is my understanding there has been a lot of discussion about the protective actions for children in japan as well as in general with all of the people living in japan and the japanese government continues to evaluate the actions that they have taken with regard to protecting all of their population.

this is a very complicated situation and i think as the international committee begins to look more and more at what happened in japan, there is a lot more effort in attempting to come up with a more common set of guidelines for what types of protective actions are appropriate. >> wait a minute. this isn't about protective. this is about exposure. so i would just say that since we want to learn from this. if your answer was because the japanese government has been bombarded by parents i would say that is a better answer because that is any understanding. let us know that we can't have an accident like this is my point because kids are going to school there. they live 40 miles and the parents don't feel -- now one of the things i'm going to ask chairman ostendorff on this so i don't give you all the hard questions because this is a hard one. help me with this. the japanese government has

raised the legal limit for exposure since the plant was devastated. since the plant was devastate bid the march 11 earthquake and tsunami, prior to the accident the dose was 1 milisever per year and now it is five. why did you find out we can be exposed to more radiation? did they raise it because they are concerned that the people were exposed to more than one? >> madam chair, i'm personally not aware of there being any studies that inform that decision but i don't have the detailed knowledge what the japanese government may have considered in that area. i do agree that is a significant change to radiation exposure levels. >> ok. can you do a little more investigation on this because i don't want to see that happen where after an accident we say

oh, it is ok. you were exposed to what we thought was the limit but we're changing limit. it doesn't make it ok. i wanted to ask you about a -- i'll get back to you. on april 11, pg & e asked to prolong the lonsing of the diablo location. i think that was a smart thing they did and the right thing they did. according to press accounts the n.r.c. are moving forward with safety in preparation for a ruling on this request. so i guess what i -- what i want to ask you is it usual if they have asked for a delay, do you normally grant the delay or is that something that is not going to be automatic unless you take a vote? how does that work? >> well, we have -- what pg & e asked for is that we delay final

decision. what we have done is we have moved forward with the safety component of the review but held open a piece of that review on the analysis of the seismic studies. we have held off and won't finalize the final impact statement until the final assessment is done. we are wading for that 3-d assessment to be completed. >> let me just say from a very concerned senator, and i speak for my fellow senators and for the people in my state, if you were looking at a new proposal and it came to you on an earthquake site where we have had studies showing the faults are getting worse, not better and the tsunami s are going to get worse, not better, i would assume you would say take your plants somewhere else. what i'm hoping what you do is understand.

both of these plants have had enormous increase in populations since approved. one has now 7 poun 4 million living within 50 miles. there are earth quarterbacks. they are right along the coast. you have identified issues and problems. i think it is very important that when you look at this in a humble way as commissioner pointed out and i appreciate so much the tone of his remarks, i think we have all -- we're all humbled by what happened. that you look at this with the eyes of the people living there who, you know rrks in a situation where when i went there, one of the women, actually a p.r. person pulled me aside and she said you asked what the evacuation plan is, they don't really have any. here is our evacuation plan. rush hour on the freeway.

anyone who has been to southern california and rush hour on the freeway, that is not acceptable. i'm urging you, do not rush these. i don't know whether vermont is number one in energy efficiency or california, we may be number one, but the bottom line is in our state, we got a lot of sun. we got a lot of wind. we got a lot of g.o. thermal and yes, there may be places for nuclear noo power that are not on earthquake faults or near tsunami zones so please put on those safety hats and we'll be working very closely with you because i don't want to see a rush to relicense these plants. it would not be fair to the people. senator barrasso, you 10 minutes. >> r thank you very much. i'm particularly pleased to see commissioner ostendorff. thank you very much for being here. i congratulate you on your recent nom no nation by the

president to serve again on the commission. your background is extensive. you worked as an engineer, legal council, policy advisor, naval officer, among your many jobs, principle deputy administrator at the national nuclear energy administration. serving as staff director of the strategic force subcommittee and a captain of the navy commanding in attack submarine squadron. i can go on and on. i would like to ask can the chairman do, you believe that the senate should confirm commissioner ostendorff as quickly as possible before his term expires? >> i would leave it up to the senate to decide that but i certainly have had a good and productive working relationship with him and i think tezz a valuable member of the commission -- he is a valuable member of the commission. >> thank you. i agree with senator boxer in our efforts on safety and our concerns about safety.

the -- i know that you had spoken at a symposium in virginia where you said employees of the n.r.c. and industry must feel empowered to ask the difficult questions, ensuring this happens is at the core of safety culture and when we look at that industry, we want safety for workers, for others, for communities and you have to be able to ask questions. do you agree with that statement statement? i see you nodded your head yes. >> absolutely r >> there was a report on june 6 that has been widely rempsed in the press. your statement on june 8 stated that you appreciate the thoroughness with what the inspector general and his staff conducted this comprehensive review. do you still agree with that issue? according to the report, i have read it and the "new york times" did a report on it on june 11. it said mr. jackso had frequent

outbursts of temper, selective release of information to other members of the commission. i ask that the entire report be made a matter of the record. >> those were not findings of the inspector general. they were comments in the report of individuals that they interviewed and there is a distinction between those as part of the review goes. >> continuing. i would say safety, a sense or a feeling of someone being able to speak out and feel zim dated or feel pressure -- intimidated or feel pressure to not speak out, someone who felt that way, may they be less likely to speak out because the inspector's report goes on and says over the course of the investigation, a number of interviewees conveyed their perception that the chairman controls and restricts the information available to his

fellow commissioners and noted concerns about this interpersonal style. it goes on. several current and former commission staff members said the chairman's behavior caused an intimidating work environment. a former chairman said the chairman often yelled at people and his tactics had a negativefect on people. he described this behavior as ruling by intimidation. >> if i could -- i'm not clear. who is making these statements? >> this is a report -- >> i know. this is not -- that is making this -- an unnamed staffer? >> people that are members of the staff and a former chairman. >> a former chairman? >> described the bay behavior as ruling by intimidation. >> is the former chairman still active in the n.r.c.? >> they counciled this chairman on his behavior on two occasions

before leaving the agency. i don't want to use my time as part of the questioning but i'm happy to share this report. i'm focusing on a culture of safety. so i want to make sure that we are getting that culture of safety and if people feel intimidated and they work there, i worry about that and worry about that in coal mines and industrial sites and on the railroads. i worry about that throughout the state of wyoming and also from a new mexico power issue. so yes, mr. chairman -- from a nuclear power issue. so yes, mr. chairman . >> i have worked very hard to make sure that we have an open debate and dialogue at the commission. it is no -- i'm a very passionate and intense person. i hold people accountable for their action at the agency and that's what i have done since i became chairman but i would notes that all of those statements that you read were

not findings of the i.g. which meant they were statements that some people made and they could not corroborate them to the point they became an official finding. i think senator carper has said that we can always -- every day i come to the n.r.c. i work to do my job better and there are going to be difficult issues and difficult discussions that we will sometimes have at the agency but i feel very strongly that the staff -- i have not experienced staff being shy around me and being unwilling to tell me what they think. while sometimes i express my thoughts about what i think to them, i've been very comfortable that we have an open and -- >> do you agree with the "washington post" that yucca mountain is a $15 billion hole to no where are wr? >> it is not something that is in my role and responsibility responsibility to comments on.

>> it seems to me that the home county folks still wanted yucca mountain to proceed and still did want those jobs and that opportunity. to get to the senator's questions, if i run out of time, i would like to submit the others for the record. the energy reorganization act that the chairman is exercising his executive and administrative functions shall be guided by policies of the commission. the commission sets forth procedures for the chairman to follow in exercising the emergency authority under section three of the reorganization plan and i have that section here. there have been some concerns because you have used your emergency authority. i read it. it says you should have it for a limited period of time and it requires additional reporting to the other members. so i would ask the other members who are sitting here if you could briefly tell when did the

chairman inform you he ceased using his emergency powers under section three? >> i received so such notification. >> i did not either. >> never received no notification. >> i have not received any notification. >> so -- because the chairman is required to provide a complete and timely report to the commission on action taken while exercising the authority. you have not yet received a report if you haven't gotten notification. when you testified before this commission back in april, you stated that most of the activities that you had engaged in as part of this response have been in my normal surprisery authorities over the -- supervisory authorities. he asked for a full account of the actions that you took outside your normal authority. you said most of the activities.

will you commit to provide a report to this committee detailing your actions? >> of course. >> thank you. mr. chairman, also, if your testimony before the committee may, you said you were not required to make a formal declaration of your authority. i can read to whole plan but in the interest of time, why did you choose to keep secret the fact that you were transfering to yourself functions vested in the commission? >> i -- the commission was fully aware that i was exercising my emergency authority. i did not keep that secret. i did not make a formal declaration because that is not part of the process. the commission was briefed three times a day by the staff or the staff was briefed three times a day about all the actions that were being taken. they were provided with

situation reports on the out set of the incident produced at least three times a day. i spoke with them at least once a day. generally as much as time allowed in the initial part of the incident. so there was a tremendous amount of communication to my colleagues. they were fully aware of the decisions being take twin agency and ultimately by me as my role as chairman. >> i would like to ask each of the commissioners when did you first learn that the chairman had taken on emergency powers? >> did not receive any declaration. >> next, when did you learn? >> when -- my understanding is that the n.r.c.'s office of congressional affairs informed this committee of the exercise of emergency powers and i believe i learned of it then. >> ok. have you been specifically informed by the commissioner that he was taking over? >> no, i have not.

>> commissioner magwood? >> i first heard about it when we heard the office has notified this committee. first time i heard it. >> i did have a squgs the chairman on march 31 which i understood at that point in time it appeared to me he was exercising emergency powers. >> final question from senator imhoff. he asked you to provide any legal analysis that you transfer powers to yourself. he said you have not provided one yet. are we to conclude you have done it without seeking legal council? perhaps you want to seek legal counsel? >> that is not correct. there is no question about my authority in this case. i have plenty of documentation to support that. >> i'm going to place in the record a document backing up

what chairman jaczko has stated. we will put the actual language in the record because this kind of questioning is to me extraordinary, asking if you did something that you don't have to do. you didn't have to. it is just mind-boggling around here. ok. we're going to turn to the subcommittee chairman now, senator carper? >> i want to get back to -- i thought this hearing was focusing on and that is what have we learned. before i do that, i want to encourage all of you and the roles that you're playing on the commission whether it is as a commissioner or the chairman of the commission, one of the best leadership rules i ever learned in the navy and then a lot of other place places including my own home was the follow the golden rule.

treat other people the way we want to be treated. i would just like to remind you that's how i try live my life. sometimes i fail miserably. treat other people the way you want to be treated. some of us will be meeting in a couple of hours. he always reminded us the golden rule is the cliff notes of the new testament. as it turns out it is the cliff notes of about any major re-religions. having said that, let's talk about lessons that we have learned. the tragedy at fukushima. mr. ostendorff give us one example of the lesson we have learned that we have or have not begun to act upon or implement? >> i would say one area that has come up on the task force, two

meetings we have had so far has been the need to evaluate the adequacy of our existing statement, blackout rules, a.c. power, offsite, onsite. i think the commission will probably receive from the task force, perhaps some recommendations in this area. that is a concrete example that i provide to you. >> thank you. mr. magwood? >> i would agree with commissioner ostendorff. i would also add -- >> that is good. if you want to repeat thing that someone else has said for reinforcement, i appreciate that. >> one other example, one that i think we have -- many of us, after 9/11, we put in place certain procedures in equipment to allow plants to respond to events that require emergency cooling from auxiliary diesel

generators. to drive pumps to provide water to cool reactors and spent fuel pools. we require them to be a short distance away from the reactor buildings. clearly, if we had those procedures in place and had experience with a fukushima-type event, that equipment would have been wiped out along with other equipment. that is a revelation for me and something we have to address. >> there apostolakis, how are you doing? >> i'm fine. one thing that maybe i have learned is that we -- that -- i think at least we should go back and look again at the distinction between design basis events and beyond design basis events. that the legal distinction --

the agency has many, many requirements and inspection requirements and so on for design basis events. for design basis events, we don't really get involved too much. and of course nature doesn't work that way. it does not distinguish between design basis and beyond basis events. i think we ought to go back and look at the -- what we are doing now with respect to beyond design basis events and maybe get some ideas from the staff as to how we can strengthen our involvement. >> good. i want to call you -- it is svinicki isn't it? svinicki.

one lesson? >> i certainly agree that we should look at station blackout and offsite power and we need to relook at the measures put in place after sletch to deal with catastrophic events. i would add an area fruitful for lessons learned would be looking at coordination between federal agencies and local governments should an event occur. it is always difficult to have communications in a crisis situation and i think that is an area we can always be exercising and improving. thank you. >> certainly i think there are good comments from my colleagues. one thing i would add that hasn't been touched on is the significance of spent fuel pools. reactor safety in the events of accidents. we have not put enough tension not necessarily for the pools themselves but how they can

impact the ability to carry out response to the site. our traditional approach has always been to assume a single incident at a single reactor. clearly fukushima has shown us we have to consider multiple unions at a site. multiple fuel pools being spent at the same time. >> thank you. oh, i'm so sorry. senator, i didn't see you come in. >> thank you, madam chair. thanks for the hearing. i guess i would say that our country is well served when you as a commission function collectively and clenaltly. when you do -- clenaltly. i have concerns that the commission may not be fully utilizing the expertise on their advisory committee -- on reactor safeguards.

the advisory committee is mandated by law and structured to provide a forum where experts representing many technical perspectives can provide independent device that is factored into the commission's decision making process. the advisory committee again representeds a wealth of knowledge in reactor safety and severe accident occurrences. i'm concerned that there have so far been limited to merely reviewing the n.r.c. staff's conclusion at the end of the long-term review of the fukushima accident. i guess my question is the n.r.c.'s direction for the fukushima task force list no role for the n.r.c. other than reviewing the staff's final report and the end of the long-term review. considering the wealth of expertise and nuclear and reactor safety and severe accidents -- the task force benefit from the -- throughout

the fukushima review. >> well, the -- the staff has briefed the acrs once already. very early on in the incident. they held a meeting and they briefed them. the senior staff members will also be briefing the acrs i believe next week. so there has been dialogue and interaction between the acrs but the commission provided a role for the acrs in the long-term review but in the short period of time which we asked the task force to work, we really wanted them to focus on their best thinking and reach out to the people they thought would be most helpful. in my discussions with the acrs, i have encourmed them to make their observations available to the task force if they had questions. the acrs was not comfortable with that. they preferred to meet as a body. i think that is unfortunate because they have tremendous expert's that could be made

available to the task force but their interest is not do do that in a way that would be convenient for the task force. >> do you guys want to comment? do you feel like it would be beneficial? >> senator, as the chairman noted, the commission did explicitly instruct that one tasking for the acrs to review the final report but their chairman can also initiate inquiries and look into matters and i'm fully supportive of them doing some looks at fukushima as well. >> i am a former chairman of the acrs. i can say sure you that there is no doubt in my mind that we will hear from them and they will give us their frank opinion. there is nothing to stop them from writing letters any time they want. >> and you agree that is helpful? >> yes. absolutely.

>> i'm fully supportive of a full participation by the acrs particularly in the long-term review. >> i agree with my colleagues and also agree with the chairman's comment that the acrs role and long-term review is perhaps as far as our task force, tasking is appropriate, but as commissioner apostolakis said, if think have other ideas that might be helpful, i welcome those. >> i believe that the chairman sent a letter regarding this. are you familiar with that mr. chairman ? >> yes, i am. i think he asked for a response by june 9. have you sent a response yet? >> i don't believe i have yet. >> ok. do you have any idea when that will be done? >> i assume in the next couple of weeks. >> ok. would you -- again, i'm interested also. would you share the response with the committee? >> i would be happy to.

>> thank you. appreciate you all being here. >> thank you, madam chair. i yield back. >> thank you, senator sanders? >> thank you. thank you madam chair. i believe that it was commissioner magwood who in his remarks said something to the effect that the n.r.c. can benefit from an open process. i happen to agree very much with what the commission has said. in that light, let me ask chairman jaczko just a few questions. mr. chairman, your position, as i understand its, has been that the n.r.c. should not be involved in preemmings issues, the legal fight that is currently going on between the state of vermont and the corporation. is that still your position? >> certainly as i have looked at the issues, i don't see an immediate issue here where there is a concern for pre-emption. i don't want to get into the

specifics. as i said publicly, the states have a role here. the federal government has a role and, you know, i think we have taken our action with our license extension. the state has permanent action. those things are necessary for licensing. >> just to say it again, at this moment, you do not believe that the state -- that the n.r.c. should get involved in the legal dispute between the corporation and the state of vermont? am i hearing you say that n.r.c. should not be involved? >> i don't want to comment specifically on the matter before the commission because that is a privileged discussion but certainly i see nothing that would tell me there is a pre-emption issue here. >> ok. again, my getting back to commissioner magwood's very apt statement which i strongly agree with that the n.r.c. benefits. we all benefit from the open

process. my understanding is that there was a vote yesterday at the n.r.c. on the issue, in fact, of whether or not the n.r.c. should be involved in this case. can you tell me what the vote was, mr. commissioner? >> well, again, the matter in front of the commission was in our -- one of our legal discussions and we generally like to keep those closed matters because it preserves the opportunities for our legal counsel to give us frank -- >> you may like it but i'm going to pick up commissioner magwood's point again about an open process. your job is to represent the best interests to have people of the united states of america. on very difficult issues. my understanding was that there was a vote yesterday on whether or not the n.r.c. should recommend to the depts of justice as to b -- department of

justice as to who were the they should intervene on behalf of energy. can you tell me if i am right and what the vote was on that? >> as i said, at this point the commission has not released those documents. i certainly would be in favor of providing them to you with the understanding until we were to agree to release them publicly. >> well, i don't want them if they can't be released publicly. i would like them released publicly and i would like a member of the commission to know, commissioner magwood, you believe in an open process. will you tell us how you voted yesterday? >> i can only echo what the chairman said. it is a privileged discussion and a discussion that the agency has had with the department of justice. it is something we have been specifically asked not to comments on it by the department of justice. >> i'm asking you to comments on it. >> i'm afraid i cannot do that, senator. >> one of the i guess -- let me

ask -- commissioner -- forgive me. will you tell me how you voted yesterday? >> senator, based on inquiries from your office regarding this legal -- this ongoing litigation, i asked my counsel to inquire and receive advice and confer with the justice department. the justice department asked that i emphasize two things in my response. first of all that the justice department is -- has the litigating authority is sand the sole decision maker on any government involvement in this matter. >> but you can and apparently did make a recommendation to the d.o.j. is that correct? >> there are interagency -- the litigation posture of the united states is under active deliberation by the justice department and they have asked that in our testimony today we not comment any further. >> i won't waste a whole lot of time by asking all of the

commissioners. i suspect i will get the same answer and i find that a disturbing answer. let me ask chairman jaczko, if he could tell me what did the nonpartisan office recommend to the commission about this matter? >> again, in order to preserve the integrity of their advice, i would rather not comment. i would just say personally, i do think historically, it has been very rare for the agency to get involved in pre-emption issues. it is a very high threshold for us to get involved and i think it should be. >> my last question. i'm running out of time now. let me ask the chairman. have its representatives or the nuclear industry as a whole come in to meet or requested to meet with the commission or the n.r.c. staff about this litigation? mr. chairman ? >> there were meetings between

officials and staff at the agency. they requested meetings with commissioners under guidance from the department of justice. i can only speak for myself in that regard. did not take the meeting. >> you did not meet with them but staff did? >> i believe they had a meeting with some of our staff. correct. >> have representatives from the state of met with your staff? have they been invitesed to meet with your staff? >> i'm not aware of that. >> my time has expired. >> thank you very much. i'm going to turn to some of the issues that were raised by fukushima. one of those is regarding event systems. -- vent systems. here in the united states, there is a time in which we recommend vent systems be hardened and

someone could choose to kind of quickly describe what was done in that hardening and whether that was fully implemented an the nuclear power plants across america. >> well, senator, i believe all of our boiling water reactors is kind of a voluntary initiative, did harden the vents which ensures they are able to withstand the pressures in a -- more of a design basis scenario. the event -- it is still unclear exactly what the source of hydrogen was and the challenges with the venting at fukushima whether it was a failure of the vents themselves or whether there was some other leak in one of the systems that would have allowed the hydrogen to accumulate where it did. at this point it is not clear exactly what role they played but that again is something that our task force will be looking at very closely and i expect some specific recommendations on

future changes to our retirements for the hardened vents and other means to control and monitor hydrogen accumulation. >> so one of the other issues that has been discussed in the past has been the automatic depressurization systems and there has been debate over whether the design should be implemented that allow pressure to be automatically decreased or whether there should be a human in the link, if you will. i have received conflicting information about what was done. can you comment on that? >> on this particular issue, i am not as familiar but we can get back to you with some detailed information. >> is there anyone that is familiar with it? >> the general understanding at

the press level that a hydrogen gas that occurred came from dale rogers. -- came from fuel rods. your proposal is that that is perhaps not the reason and what are the other potential sources. >> that is essentially how you generate the hydrogen. the theory is that it did not have a valve that went from the unit 3 into unit four and went back into the pipes.

>> i want to stick to one and three and we will leave the mystery of unit four apart right now. the hope is that it will be inside rather than outside a vessel and clearly something went wrong. what do you think went wrong? >> certainly, the fuel was uncovered and it is likely going to be hydrogen. the plans are designed so that- will cool in the wet well and there is a event that takes that hydrogen from the wet well and releases that amount to the atmosphere. somewhere in that system, there was a failure and it was about to its to late in an area where it should not have accumulated and therefore there was an explosion. at this point, the details are not yet known as to what the exact path of that was from the accumulations of the fuel. >> my understanding is that it occurred after the venting began there is no insight yet as

to what went wrong in terms of whether the explosion began on the outside the united the hydrogen inside. this was a pretty important issue for us to understand because this is key to a lot of the complexities that have come about in the effort to rescue the reactors. what are the top five safety improvements at fukushima? he said there was need for specific the safety improvements. what are the specific needs? >> i'm not sure that i can give you a top five.

an overall -- >> what are couple that you would highlight? >> if the was it at senator that asked about the question. if there is a lesson that you learned, this is that you cannot predict anything that would have been in the future. i think the biggest lesson i take from all of this is that you have to be able to recover from whatever happens. the biggest question is to have the capability, the training, the ability to recover from whatever has transpired and what to do so and an effective manner. >> in order to do that, one has to understand what are the highest risk areas. the preventive measures are

fully pursued. >> thank you, madam chairman. in view of some of the assertions we have heard that were made, how many employees are staffed. >> approximately 4000. >> ok.

modifications designed in the u.s. assures the safety of their reactors. now it appears that the japanese plant also previously made the modifications like the ones that were made at plants in the u.s. and if those cannot prevent what finally happened in the japanese action, can we believe that our plants are not similarly vulnerable? >> that is a very important question. i did visit oyster creek some months ago and i learned a lot during that visit.

i think that what we're finding today is that there are still facts coming in from fukushima. there are things that we're trying to understand as to what exactly where the modifications that the japanese performed. we really don't have all those details. we don't know and the chairman was indicating this. we don't know what happened to the events during the earthquake. there are seven factors that we have to sort out that it would be premature to make a judgment at this point. right now, today, the staff has indicated that they believe that the staff -- that these are safe. >> i am not sure that that is reassuring to the public. mr. chairman, do you have

anything to say about that? >> well, the review are doing to make sure that we got this right. the venting process is still a little bit uncertain because there is still too much radiation for people to get into the buildings and to begin to remove debris and figure out exactly what happened in the units. right now, as part of the reviews and the task force review, we have asked ourselves the question, are the plants still safe we want to get good information and we have time to do that. the likelihood of something like that happening is still very very very small.

these are very unlikely types of events. 90 days might seem like a long time to look at this. this is going by in a millisecond because they have done so many interviews. there's so much information for them to process. it is important that we get it right and so far they are looking at all the right things. >> my concern included the time it is taking to do that. i've addressed this to any and all of you, the spent fuel can be stored in polls at fukushima. we have heard from you that spent fuel and dry cask, each one is a safe method of storage. that is one more, are they

reliable? >> each of them has different strengths and weaknesses. >> i think that we should get past that. can we clearly say yes, this has the edge that the other does not have. >> with all the information, i would say no. they both have a very complex way to maintain the fuel. we might find the information from japan where the spent fuel pools might provide a different approach for storing fuel in the long term. right now, with the information we have, they're both very very safe ways to store fuel to anderson does not seem to be an obvious difference between one approach versus another but we

are really looking closely at what happened in japan and we might get some information from that that tells us that that there is a difference and if there is, we will do whatever we need to. >> have each of you look at this fairly in debt and come up with the conclusion that we have just heard? >> i agree with the chairman. >> i do also. >> i agree with the chairman. i would add one other fact. i believe that there are different aspects to the storage and they both have their attributes, the less safe thing to do is with spent fuel rods moving around a lot. before you make a decision to do this, you have to take into consideration the risks involved in simply transporting this.

>> i would agree with the chairman's comments. i would also add that our office of research is looking right now at a differential risk calculations between leading the spent fuel in a pool as opposed to putting this in a dry cask. >> we will do another round. it is my understanding that the staff will report to the recommendations from this initial phase of the review to the commissioners on july 12th and the commissioners will hold a meeting concerning those recommendations on july 19th. many of us are anxious to see those recommendations. will you assure me that the report is delivered to my office on the day that it is delivered to the commissioners.

>> absolutely. >> i would say that as a decision probably for the commission. >> can you assure me that you would release that to me? >> i support that action. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> you testified that when i asked you a series of questions and i summed it up and said, you did not work directly on this. you said, i did not come and no. i said, ok, very good, thank you. now, there is a report out that says as d zero e employees, you go off in a technical report entitled to acceptance is waste for disposal and the potential repository. this report was used in the site

characterization of that amount in which led to secretary abraham and president bush approving it and according to these documents, while you were at the department of energy, your task to have technical work related to radioactive materials that could be stored and you were a member of the test team. your task with technical issues. >> i am aware of the document and it has caused me to go back and look at the document. you asked me to characterize my work and this indicated that i

had worked in the office of civilian radioactive waste management which was well known and was on my resmae. i indicated that i did not work on the yucca mountain license application, i worked on ways, inventory, and transportation materials. i put that distinction in my testimony. a i did not believe that this is accurate about stating that the reports that i worked on or underlying the at the mountain licensing application. >> that's fair. i would like to say when i summed up and said, so you did not work directly on yucca, i did not mean you were in the mountain taking tests on it, i meant were you working on the whole subject and you were. this is troubling to me, i will leave it at that.

the focus should be on ensuring the safe operation of the reactors in communities across our nation, not on old issues. to insure that everyone is clear that no laws were broken, i would ask you, chairman, to questions about the inspector to report. did they find that the general council supported your decision to direct staff to follow the fiscal year 2011 to guidance on closing out yet and this was consistent with the statute, guidance, and did a ministration's decision to terminate yet the? >> yes. >> was this a budgetary matter within your purview. >> yes. >> thank you.

according to an article in "the new york times," of the chairmen of the task force said that past studies by safety experts have analyzed the risks or from on- site emergency generators but not both at the same time. i now stand this scenario with a loss of offside electricity and on-site generators that happened in japan. that is referred to as a station black out. in light of what happened, will you consider new regulations that will prepare nuclear power plants to better handle the station black out? >> ultimately that will be a decision for the commission. my personal view, this is an area where i suspect it will have to make some changes, in the area of regulations. i suspect that the task force will have some recommendations.

>> you don't see a station blackout as a problem that needs to be fixed at this time? >> there are currently requirements to address the station but gets and i look forward to the adequacy. >> my understanding is that what they deal with are just losing electricity from the grid or from on-site emergency but not both at the same time. >> know. that is incorrect. this means that you lose all power including on-site and there is a role that the commission as promulgated. there are questions coming up as a result the fukushima. for example, in most power plants in the u.s. right now,

the batteries which are supposed to provide the power are expected to work somewhere between four and 8 hours. the japanese incident shows that you might have days or even weeks. these are some of the things that we will have to think about how to dress in the future. >> you don't agree with the "new york times, close load article where the chairman of the task force analyzed the lost electricity from the grid or from on-site emergency scanners but not both at the same time. you are saying that you have had looked over this? >> that is not interested. >> the intention was that when you are looking at the coping time which is the important

factor, if you have to make assumptions about how quickly you can restore that a logical power. what historically has been done, they look at events in which you had a loss of the electric power. then that would take a certain amount of time to restore that and get you to that 48 hours of coping time. that idea of the simultaneous nature of the guidance and getting truly to the recovery and how long it would take to recover, we would make assumptions that you would not necessarily both have catastrophically loss the emergency as well as the park. you would be able to get the pieces back to normal time. if it was the other way and they were not working, you would have been normal way to recover. >> if i can get to what both of

you have said, you have looked at station blackouts but not for such a long direction -- duration. >> correct. >> i'm assuming that you will look at this recommendation carefully, if there is one. >> i would agree. i want to add a small thing. i think the task force is interested in the fact that you can have a failure. that was a new thought for many people. i agree with what others have said, this is something we have to look at. >> the you agree? >> i agree this is an area we have to look at. >> ok, senator. >> thank you very much. >> i appreciate the hearing. i really understand and the country understands how important -- how important this is. i know you have your differences

but we appreciate you working hard together to keep this side. we have a nuclear plant in arkansas and they do a tremendous job. they are a great citizen and we're very proud to have the plant there again realizing that everyone working in harmony to make sure that these things function in such a matter that they not only produced cheap electricity and help us in that way but also began we don't have to worry that we're not doing the very best that we can for the population. i think that probably on the yucca project there are probably thousands of people that work in a minor way and i think the idea as a junior engineer working there in whatever manner, the idea that somehow

that laid the foundation for the bush administration's decision is a real reach. we do appreciate you and we will do anything we can to help. the committee feels the same way. we appreciate your efforts and i yield back. >> thank you very much, senator. >> thank you. i would like to come back to the issue raised by our chairman. it is my understanding that at fukushima, things were not that bad as long as the power batteries were working. they hadn't 8 our life. the batteries were used up and something hit the fan, if i could. i am told that maybe most of our facilities have the backup

batteries and i think they have four hour battery life. should we be looking at the requirement for the operative life of these batteries and extending that? there is a place called 8, 1, 2, 3. the battery technologies are getting better as we go forward, especially with electric powered vehicles. we should be able to do better than a 4 hour battery in the future. >> you are right. this is something that we have

to look into and take some sort of action. i don't know what that action would be. clearly, there is a message from fukushima which is four hours or sometimes 8 and this is not sufficient. interestingly enough, when the requirements for longer hours was put in place, it was actually a conservative estimate. they look at the time it took to recover basic power. the average was about two hours. to be conservative, they doubled it. now, this is very inadequate. that is certainly something we have to look into. >> thank you. >> when i was talking with experts on the staff about this, i was listing to the

history of how the coping time was decided. i remember pointing it out to the staff that i live in montgomery county in maryland and if i lost power for only three hours, i would be thrilled. when i lose power, this is usually for three days. there is certainly a technical background for the four hours. this is fairly simple. >> the other side is the life of the battery and also the ability to get additional batteries on site. is that something that we are considering? >> i don't want to focus too much on the batteries. the focus is the ability to have systems move water or perform whatever kind of safety functions. the way the court rule is written, the batteries do not

activate palms. but they are for is for instrumentation and sometimes bows and other controls. the most important issue is the alteration of all canadian power. that is the most important power. the batteries find a way to cope but that requires some other systems to do the pumping. there are many ways to look at this problem. this might not be a problem of coping in dealing with the batteries but it might be a better more effective approaches to have additional ways to provide alternating current power at this point, it is not clear what the right label be but the real issue is to get the alleged coup power back. as long as you are on the batteries, you are in a coping mode and not an ideal situation. >> we are looking forward to

report to see how this all sorts out. i spent some time with -- and it was really easy to find those and a lot harder to find hours. you are given very realistic scenarios to follow. in nuclear power plants, and ordered to appear for the security from hostile forces, the plants across the country, and we had the bad guys and unfortunately, we have a forced the exercises. the thing that we shouldn't

consider similar things for inspections and for a regular mercosur prepared this exercise with the plant employees are faced with different scenarios that are more realistic than maybe we do today? can you take a shot of that? >> yes, sir. i think the training and qualification and the demonstrated ability is a piece of this and wanted to table top exercise is another thing. you can be up to your knees and water. maybe you have very poor lighting, very poor ventilation. training from a command-and- control, the direction on the individual plant are areas we should look at. >> i was just want to say that

the commission is may be anticipating your question. we just recently finalized an update to our emergency pergamus operation. one of the cornerstones was to incorporate in our emergency planning exercises. i would often, at that everyone knew when to order lunch because we said there would always be a lull in the exercises around noon. one thing we have done is we are going to make them more realistic. the other thing is we have we are going, so to incorporate what you talked about, which is dealing with an emergency response when you have a security aspect as well, so that is something the commission just finalized, and i think that

is a strong effort or brutalized decade. -- over the last decade. >> i am wondering when will we eat lunch. >> thank you, madam share. -- chair. you indicated that rep some of the entity met with three do representatives met with staff. >> -- you indicated that representatives met with the staff. >> that is correct. >> the you think is appropriate for them to meet with the staff ?t the nrg

>> the best way is to see how they handle it, and our staff is three dedicated and focused on their response ability, and we have an effort to listen to their concerns. >> it is not about safety. it is about the right of the state of vermont to not leave license. i am just curious. -- to not a re-license. i am just curious. have you been contacted by the nuclear power industry in any way about the case? >> i have not communicated with energy or any broad interest groups regarding this. >> have they communicated with you? >> they have not. there was a request to meet

with commissioners, but that was withdrawn based on the justice department concerns, so they withdrew that request. >> what about representatives of nuclear power industry? >> i have no knowledge of representatives of nuclear power on this issue. >> i also was aware of a request to meet with commissioners. the request was withdrawn. i have not intervened with members of your industry to discuss this matter. there was a communication that came through with a request to meet. >> what i want to do now is go to a very important supreme court decision dealing with the role of states in terms of nuclear power. a very important decision.

i want to read it to you. it will take me a minute. it has to do with the state of california, and this is what the supreme court said in ruling for the state of california in 1993, and my question is if you can comment about your feelings about this important decision. this is what the supreme court said in 1983. it said the promotion of nuclear power is not accomplished. the elaborate safety positions and state regulation in traditional areas rely on that. moreover, congress had allowed the states to determine as a matter of economics, not safety -- whether a nuclear plant vis-

a-vis a fossil fuel plants should be built. the decision to exercise that authority does not constitute a basis for creating some -- exemption. congress has left sufficient authority in the states to allow of the development of nuclear power to be slowed or even stopped for economic reasons. in other words, to my understanding, what the supreme court said is, forget the safety issue. if a state feels there is another way to go forward that is better for the people of that stage in terms of energy, maybe they want to buy power from canada. maybe they want to go sustainable energy. maybe they want to invest in

energy independence. from an economic point of view, the supreme court has said you cannot push a nuclear power plant on people. it is not a safety issue. let me ask members of the commission if they would give their view on that supreme court position. >> i think it should be rare they are involved in those cases. there are areas where the states have authorities, and we should respect those as we respect our authority. >> i would agree with the chairman there are areas reserved to the stage. i am aware of the state's role.

>> were you familiar west the supreme court decision? >> i made no the when you are talking about, but i have not read it. >> it seems to mean when you are knowledgeable about this, because the commission voted on an issue relative to what the supreme court had to say. how do you feel about that? >> what you said makes perfect sense. >> she you think the state should have right to say no, we do not want nuclear development? >> i am not familiar with that particular ruling. i understand now the state has a stronger role in economics, and

it seems perfectly reasonable to me. good >> i agree with the chairman's statement. i would also comment that ibm -- i am generally familiar with the case in respect to this matter. our authority is not based on economics but rather on nuclear safety. there may be a case where there is an issue of potential nuclear safety issues being raised, and the situation might warrant engagement. if i could also comment on a comment you made during the first round of questions of this topic. the chairman has appropriately characterized the justice's role

in the matter as a litigation authority of the executive branch. i would like to add that the comments to us or discussions between the department of justice are not whether to intervene on the side of energy. each is a matter of whether or not nrc has an issue dealing with this. i want to see if they have a perspective on. >> not so sure. the political reality is that the department of justice is going to have to make a decision, and i think it is quite understandable they would go to you guys and say, what do you think? i want to get to your first point, because i am hearing you say the issue is not safety, the

issue of whether or not a plant should be read-licensed and kept open, you do not see that as an issue the nrc should be pre- empting the state on. is that what you are saying? >> it is an important question to ask. this case is very complex, and i have had a share to read briefing's filed by both parties and tuesday -- a chance to read briefing filed by both parties. >> who briefed you? >> our representatives and interface with the department of justice. each individual case has its own nuances, it specific issues, and our job is to ensure it is done safely.

whether or not there is a safety issue depends on a lot of details and arguments made by both parties, and it is hard to say whether a particular case has that nuance or not. >> of the people want to shut down of plants that has had problems, why do you see that as a safety issue? >> i appreciate the question, and for me to respond to that would be counter to our solicitor.

>> i thank you for giving me more time than i was originally scheduled. i sing all of the commissioners understanding that states under the supreme court decision to have the right for economic reasons to determine whether or not they need a nuclear power plant. is there anyone who disagrees with that? >> i want to follow up with a couple of questions. you just said when there is a safety problem, you have to listen to both sides. is the right? >> i am not sure.

>> can you read that back bowman -- can you read that back? >> what i said is whether or not there is a nuclear safety issue in the case referring to your, it refers to both parties of the case. >> why is that it issue? isn't that the issue whether you find it safe or not? if that is your job, why did you listen to both sides? you need to have your staff a certain -- ascertain whether it is safe or not. i hope that is what you meant. >> i do not dispute that at all. the question of whether or not there is a safety issue a.

i think it is important to hear both sides of the issue. >> don't they have the right to decide if a plant is safe or not? >> that is ultimately our decision, and we strive to make sure and we'll listen to stakeholders. >> you are independent, so when i hear you say there is a safety issue, you want to hear both sides. i think hearing both sides is fine, but at the end of today, you have to perform your own inspections. am i correct on that? can you come back and give review of what is going on?

>> i want to clarify. it is clearly our response as regulators review response ability of regulators to make a final determination -- it is clearly our responsibility as regulators to make a final decision. isn't purely economic sense? dealingornia they wilere with an economics-based. they ask them to listen to the different degrees and our perspectives as to whether or not there is a pre-emption issue. >> are want to commend all of

you for giving your total focus and attention, and there have been some tough moments today. i want to compliment my colleague. i identify with him fighting for his state, and i share his concerns about transparency and openness and not intervening in the states' rights situation. i think if the commissioner votes one way to say, we are, and i assume, spending taxpayer dollars. i am sure each of you could eloquently defend your reasoning, so i would question all of euan ducking this question. i think it -- not all of -- all

of you ducking this question. it is too important. i will close by saying that i have looked through this really good book that you put out. there are nice pictures of you in here, and it really lays out what you do, and i am struck by where you have highlighted some major function of this commission in a clearer whey. this is what you said -- strategic goals -- there are two. safety is first. assure adequate public health and safety and the environment.

what a wonderful job you have. the sacred trust you have to the people of this country so that you never get into a situation where somebody might have done a wrong thing. we just cannot do that. i keep thinking back to all the people who really some of them do not realize how much they're well-being depends on you been vigorous on their behalf. i am going to be vigorous on their behalf. senator feinstein is. you have the power.

i cannot tell you what to do. i can just urge you, and second, security. and sure use of radioactive materials -- ensure use of radioactive materials. there are all kinds of problems there. it would get anything that would lead into the river. i want to close by saying thank you. this committee cares a lot. we have different views. anyone watching us, every point of view is represented.

that is what democracy is. a lot of us think our ideas are the right one. and we will keep on overseeing the work we do. we wish you well. we hope the commission will be kind to one another. yes, there will be debates, but life is too short to make them personal. that is coming from me as a friend. we need to work together, but at the end of today, you have to work it out. you are in charge of safety and security of the american people in an important way with this plan, two of which are in my state and which i worry about. thank you a very much.

i hope to see you again. we stand adjourned. . >> new york congressman anthony wiener resigned today after he admitted sending inappropriate messages and photos of himself to women on the internet. his announcement is next on c- span. in a few minutes, robert gates talks to reporters about libya and pakistan and gives his assessment of the new head of of kited, and members of the -- head of al qaeda, and members testify about new regulations. that is later. we will have more live coverage about the republican leadership congress tomorrow. speakers include michelle

bachman, lebron con. watch live coverage on c-span, scheduled to get underway at 12:40 eastern. now here is anthony wiener announcing his resignation from congress after successive pictures of him surfaced and he admitted lying about it. he spoke from his congressional district in brooklyn. >> about 20 years ago i asked my neighbors to take a chance on voting on me, and years later i asked those same people to join in sending me to congress. there is no higher honor in a

democracy then being sent by your neighbors to represent them in the house of representatives. it is particularly humbling to represent this district, because communities and families are hard working. they are patriotic. they are opinionated. they are authentic. i have never forgotten my neighbors because they represent the same middle class story as mine. i went to middle school. my father-in-law was on the g.i. bill. the middle class story is my story. i am very proud of that. i am here to begin to apologize for the personal mistakes i have made and the embarrassment i have caused. i make the apology to my

neighbors and constituents but particularly to my wife. i hope to be able to continue the work that my citizens elected me to do, to fight for the middle class and those struggling to make it. unfortunately, the destruction i have created has made that impossible, so i am announcing my resignation from congress. so my colleagues can get back to work, and my neighbors can choose a new representatives, and most importantly, the people can continue to yield from the damage i have caused a very from the damage i have caused. most importantly so that i can continue to heal from the damage i have crossed -- caused.

i would like to thank my colleagues, democrats and republicans alike. fundamentally, we all agree. they are all patriots. thank you. i also want to express my gratitude and now to members of my staff. they are people who are not paid very much. they are people who work very hard and long hours. those people define the notion of service. i want to thank the people who have helped me, the people who have given me advice, my constituents who have offered a good ideas, and i want to express my gratitude to my family, to my father and mother who instilled values that carried me this far, and of course my wife, who withstood an

-- who stood with me through this difficult time. i got into politics to help give a voice to many who did not have one. now i will be looking for ways to make sure it will live up to that american ideal, the idea of the leading a family, community, and ultimately a country is the one thing that alternately unites us, the one thing that we share. we will all be successful. good afternoon. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> earlier, defense secretary talked about u.s.

relations in pakistan. they also spoke about libya, afghanistan, and al qaeda's new leadership. this is his last press briefing before stepping down on ahead of -- as ahead of the pentagon. this is 30 minutes. >> let me begin with a person now notice. i recommended to the president that he nominate admiral greenard. his portfolio includes significant budget responsibilities during the following two decades, he seventhd the navy's fleet. good he was nominated end -- if

nominated and confirmed he will succeed the man who will retire this fall. the leadership will have the opportunity to pay a full tribute to his nearly four decades of service and leadership helm of the navy for the last four years. i will say that i very much enjoyed working for gary, and i appreciate his counsel on strategic matters. that is my only news today, but since this will be my final press conference as secretary of defense, and i would like to take this opportunity to say a few words to the pentagon press corps. these past few weeks have truly been a long goodbye, so i will keep it short. now even though i have held senior jobs, before becoming secretary of defense, i had

never sustained interactions with the news media. when i first worried that relations between the pentagon, the military, and the press were mostly characterized by suspicion and resentment, so i made a point of speaking to military officers to remind them that the skeptical press is a politically important guarantor of freedom in the constitution and not to be treated otherwise. i gained even more of an appreciation for the important accountability role of the press early in my tenure when newspaper reports exposed two glaring bureaucratic shortcomings, in the outpatient treatment of wounded warriors at walter reed and resistance to purchasing life-saving mraps for troops downrange. responding to both of these critical issues, which only came to my attention through the media, became my top priority and two of my earliest and most significant management decisions.

over the past four and a half years, i have not always liked what i read, and like anyone else in government, i hate leaks, maybe more than most.but i have great respect for your role as a watchdog on behalf of the american people and as a means for me to learn of problems that the building was not telling me about. i know we don't always make it easy to do your jobs here. gaining timely and usable information out of the bureaucracy and their gatekeepers is always a challenge, a challenge that i've shared with you on occasion. so thanks again for your professionalism, tough questions and hard work. i'll close by saying a few words about the man seated next to me, admiral mullen, and his vice chairman hoss cartwright. chairman mullen has spent four years as the military's most senior officer, every day of it in a time of war. he played an instrumental role in developing and executing our new strategy in afghanistan, where you're now seeing substantial progress.

beyond the wars, mike's focus has been on people -- in particular, his concern about the stress on the ground forces and their families.our men and women in uniform could have no better or more effective advocate, and they will undoubtedly be sorry to see him go when he has his well- deserved retirement. serving alongside admiral mullen has been general hoss cartwright, an outstanding vice chairman of the joint chiefs, bringing to that office his unique technical and strategic brilliance. i consider both general cartwright and admiral mullen as friends, and it has been a true privilege to work alongside them for nearly four years. our country owes them a great debt for their years of service, and i will always be grateful for their wise counsel and extraordinary leadership. mike? >> the only thing i'd like to add is, with respect to the nomination -- the

recommendation for admiral jon greenert, i've known jon greenert for a long time. and an exceptional officer if confirmed, will be, i believe, an exceptional cno. he has wonderful operational experience, fleet experience, he's terrific with people and he has extensive experience in the money world, which is now facing all of us. so i strongly concur with the secretary's recommendation in that regard. >> mr. secretary, let me start by saying that we appreciate the fact that you kept to your promise to appear regularly in this -- in this room to take questions over your four and a half years. >> actually, there was a little joking about that in the situation room yesterday, several of the others commenting that we've made it very difficult for them. [laughter] >> i have questions for each of you. mr. secretary, on the u.s.-

pakistani relationship, which some say has sunk to a low ebb, i'm wondering, as you prepare to leave office, whether you have any regrets about the way the relationship has been handled, and whether you see on the horizon anything that will stop this downward spiral? and for admiral mullen, a similar subject. you have developed, of course, a personal relationship with general kayani. are you concerned that he may be headed out the door? and what would be the meaning for the military cooperation with pakistan if he were no longer in the picture? >> first of all, i would say that the long history of the u.s.-pakistani relationship has had its ebbs and flows. they have regarded over the decades that we have abandoned them on at least four occasions. two wars with india, when the soviets left afghanistan, and

then after the enforcement of the pressler amendment. so it's a -- it's a relationship both sides have had to work on. and it is complicated, but as i -- as i said yesterday in the hearing and as i've said often before, we need each other, and we need each other more than just in the context of afghanistan. pakistan is an important player in terms of regional stability and in terms of central asia. and so my view is that this is a relationship where we just need to keep working at it. >> is there something you see that's going to come up in the near future that can change the direction of the relationship, or is it -- >> well, just as -- just as the ebbs have come at -- in surprising ways, i suppose that the things that would cause an uptick are hard to predict right now.

but the key is to keep the lines of communication -- literally, i mean between our governments -- open, and to continue communicating with each other as openly and as honestly as we can. >> from my perspective, nothing's changed in terms of the criticality of the relationship, which is one of the reasons that i've worked it so hard. and certainly, i have a very strong personal relationship with general kayani, and i consider him a friend. but it's not just the personal relationship, because i have a very strong professional relationship. nor is mine the only relationship in our military-to- military relationship between the two countries. and the -- what he is going through right now, what the pakistani military's going through right now, obviously is considerable introspection based on recent events. that makes a lot of sense to me. they've got some questions.

and in the end -- and i know general kayani well enough to know -- what he cares about the most is not himself. what he cares about the most is his institution.and leaders in -- throughout the world, and certainly in this case, you know, we share that with him. i think we need to give it a little time and a little space as they, you know, go through this introspection. i would agree with what the secretary said. as opportunities come up and we hit some very difficult times, i think there will be opportunities for the relationship to improve. certainly, the challenges aren't going to go away. the region isn't going to go away. and as i said yesterday on capitol hill, i believe we have to be very careful now in terms of the relationship. and you know, were it to break or were we to walk away, i think in a -- it's a matter of time before the region is that

much more dangerous and there would be a huge pull for us to have to return to protect our national interests. >> mr. secretary, and for admiral mullen too, following up yesterday on your testimony on some of the questions asked by some of the senators yesterday, what specifically would be the threat if the u.s. were to cut off funding and close relations with the pakistanis?and can the u.s. strategy in afghanistan succeed without pakistan? >> well, first of all, i would say that the -- that our strategy is succeeding and pakistan is playing a contributory role to that. it is -- it is important to remember that they have 140,000 troops on that border that, at a minimum, are stirring things up. they've basically cleared south waziristan and swat.but even their presence and maneuvering and so on creates uncertainty.

there is some indication that al qaeda is worried that -- because of the way we went after bin laden, their suspicion is that the pakistanis may have been involved in it and are worried that the pakistanis may betray them as well. there is -- clearly the lines of communication through pakistan are critical for our operations in afghanistan. so i think all of these things are important. and then just in terms of regional stability, there is the reality that pakistan is a country that has a number of nuclear weapons. and again, keeping those lines of communication open, it seems to me, is very important. >> i would just re-emphasize the last point. it's a country with an awful lot of terrorists on that border. obviously the links that we've got with -- in the afghanistan-

pakistan campaign, if you will, which is what it's been for me from the beginning -- it's not about one country or another. it's about the region.and those things that i fear in the future, it's the -- it's the proliferation of that technology and it's the opportunity and the potential that it could fall into the hands of terrorists, many of whom are alive and well and seek that in that region. and that's of great interest, i think, to our country and certainly to the rest of the world. >> i'd like to ask both of you your reaction to the fact that zawahiri has now been elevated to the top position in al qaeda. >> well, i'm not sure it's a position anybody should aspire to, under the circumstances. but i think -- i think he will face some challenges. bin laden has been the leader of al qaeda, essentially since its inception.

in that particular context, he had a peculiar charisma that i think zawahiri does not have.i think he was much more operationally engaged than we have the sense zawahiri has been. i've read that there is some suspicion within al qaeda of zawahiri because he's egyptian. so i think -- first of all, i think we should be mindful that this announcement by al qaeda reminds us that despite having suffered a huge loss with the killing of bin laden and a number of others, bin -- al qaeda seeks to perpetuate itself, seeks to find replacements for those who have been killed and remains committed to the agenda that bin

laden put before them. so i think he's got some challenges, but i think it's a reminder that they are still out there and we still need to keep after them. >> it's -- david, it's not a surprise that -- from my perspective, that he's moved into that position. the -- he and his organization still threaten us. and as we did both seek to capture and kill and succeed in killing bin laden, we certainly do -- will do the same thing with zawahiri. >> do you take the seven weeks it took to name him as evidence or maybe just logistical problems or of some dispute within al qaeda over who should succeed? >> from my -- from my perspective, i don't take it either way. i think it's just they're working their way through that process and that's how they made the decision. >> it's probably tough to count votes when you're in a cave. [laughter] >> gentlemen, the last couple

of weeks, there's been growing clouds of anti-war, anti- afghanistan sentiment from both parties, from votes in congress concerned about the cost of the war. in the last few weeks -- and -- [inaudible] -- yesterday, i've noticed that you've had to still sell the war in afghanistan after all this time. does that -- has this frustrated you any more than recently? and what does this say to you -- as far as after you leave, what do you expect the country's going to feel or the leadership in this -- the town that you're leaving behind is going to feel about pressing on with that commitment? >> one of the interesting challenges about this job has been the responsibility of waging two wars, neither of which i had anything to do with starting. and certainly, i saw in 2007 and 2008 how unpopular what we were doing in iraq was, how unpopular the surge was. i had to cancel a trip to latin america in the fall of, i think, 2007, because it looked

like republican support was crumbling and that we might end up with congressional action to stop the surge. so for me, it is the reality that -- as a historian, and i like to remind people of this -- with the exception of the first couple of years of world war ii, there has never been a popular war in the united states in our whole history. they've all been controversial. and each case, it has required the leadership of the president, whether it was president truman in korea, president wilson, world war i, president johnson initially in vietnam, and certainly president bush -- first president bush, with the gulf war. people forget that when the

president said he was going to reverse saddam's invasion of kuwait, it was 15% public support. so this unhappiness and certainly the war weariness after a decade is -- rests heavily on all of us, i think. and the key is how do we complete our mission, as we have largely done in iraq, in a way that protects american national security interests and the american people and contributes to stability? i think most people would say we've been largely successful in that respect in iraq. i think we're on a path to do that in afghanistan. the costs of the wars is huge, but it is declining. the costs of these wars will go down between fy11 and fy12 by $40 billion, from $160 to less than $120 billion.

there's every reason to believe that between fy12 and fy13 there would be another significant reduction. and, of course, with the lisbon agreement, the size of our forces left in afghanistan in december of 2014 would be a small fraction of what they are today. so i think that -- i understand the impatience. i understand the concern and especially in hard economic times. we also have to think about the long-term interests, security interests, of the country. and that's where i come out on this. >> mr. secretary, i was going to ask about the current situation in syria. do you still believe that imposing sanctions on the syrian regime is the appropriate tool to face what the regime is doing? and do you think having a

humanitarian intervention similar to what you have done in libya could be an option? >> i don't -- you know, again, i think we have certain over- arching principles and values that apply everywhere, but we have to take the situation in each individual country one at a time. i have seen -- the libyan intervention started with a resolution from the arab league, involved a resolution by the gcc and ultimately a u.n. security council resolution. i see no appetite for any of that with respect to syria. in terms of sanctions and so on, that really is more in the secretary of state's lane, but i think that if there is to be some pressure on syria to stop the kind of killing that we've

seen, it would have to come through some kind of sanctions like that. [inaudible] >> mr. secretary, a bunch of us were in the room a few years ago when you were asked, i think, the shortest question you were ever asked at a congressional hearing about iraq, whether at that point, in your opinion, we were winning in iraq. as you begin to wind down, i'd like to ask you that same question about afghanistan. you mentioned progress. you've mentioned gains. but fundamentally, do you believe, right now, we're winning in afghanistan? >> the one thing i -- i have learned a few things in four and a half years, and one of them is to try and stay away from loaded words like "winning" and "losing." what i will say is that i believe we are being successful in implementing the president's strategy, and i believe that our military operations are being successful in denying the taliban control of populated areas, degrading their capabilities and improving the capabilities of the afghan national security forces.

those were three of the tasks that the president laid out for us in december of 2009, and i think we've made -- and the other was reversing the momentum of the taliban. i think in all four of those cases, we are succeeding. >> can i just follow, mr. secretary? >> secretary gates and admiral mullen, senator inhofe of oklahoma has expressed some concern and members of the oklahoma national guard expressed concerns that about 800 members of two units of part of the 45th were reassigned at the last moment. they were supposed to head to afghanistan. they are now going to kuwait to help with iraq. these are trainers that were going to go to afghanistan. can you assure the american -- first of all, why were they reassigned, and can you assure the american people that the drawdown hasn't already begun? >> the recommendation came in from both general petraeus and general mattis specifically with respect to their arrival time, if you will, which was beyond the 1st of july.

and they were in -- they were in final training, headed to afghanistan, and the recommendation came in, in light of the fact that we were going to start withdrawing troops this summer, that we would have to make a decision or they were in a -- they were in a good position for us to make a decision about whether they should be diverted or not. based on the conditions on the ground with respect to where general petraeus was, he then made a recommendation. general mattis endorsed that, and it was one -- and quite frankly, it was a decision here, in the end, which then diverted these units in a timely way. more than anything else, it was to try to take care of them -- not get them headed in one direction and then have to rehead them in another direction.

based on the overall plan, which was to draw down some number of troops -- even though that drawdown hasn't started because of -- the decision hasn't been made, but certainly with the expectation that there would be some troops that'll come out, the decision hasn't been made, and that given that, they would be a part of that. >> the president said the drawdown hasn't started, but 800 troops are not -- are -- with the drawdown in mind, are being diverted. >> i think it's actually pretty straightforward. the president has said that we will begin drawing down our forces based on -- in july of 2011, based on the conditions on the ground. as general petraeus was looking across afghanistan and beginning to identify different options, it was pretty clear that these were -- these two units were units that would probably be on that list. and so we took the decision here, as the chairman has just said, to divert them so that we didn't end up putting them someplace and then pulling them

right back out again. so the decision was made here, aware, clearly, of the president's direction of what would begin in july, but frankly to look out for the interests of those troops. >> i have a budget question. you spent a lot of time yesterday explaining the process by which you're going to assess the $400 billion goal. but since that goal was announced by the president, you've never been asked, is that goal -- is it too big a number on top of the $178 billion through 2016 you're already planning to reduce? in other words, can you -- no matter how you get there, can you take $400 billion of a reduction and not seriously degrade national security, or, overall, is it a minor cut when you look at the 12-year plan? >> well, i don't think it's a minor cut. and i think it's important to remember, you know, we didn't start this yesterday.

the decisions that we took to cap or cut 30-some programs in april of 2009, as i said at aei, essentially took a lot of low- hanging fruit, and a lot of people would say, some more valuable stuff as well. but the total value of those programs, had they been built to completion, was about $330 billion. now, we said at the time, now some of those cuts, we're going to have to go back and do other kinds of programs. for example, one of the cuts was the presidential helicopter. we still got to do that. one of the cuts was a bomber. we have a new bomber program. so it's not a net cut of 330, but it would -- it would've been. we then did $178 billion worth of efficiencies, and $100 billion reinvested by the services, $78 billion for the topline.

so -- and halfway through the fiscal year, fy11, our budget was cut $20 billion. so it's not like we're starting from scratch on this. this department has been dealing with these issues for at least the last two years. now, the question that you ask is actually the question to be answered by the comprehensive review. if you look at the different options that are available, once you take into account the things that i've talked about yesterday -- more efficiencies, marginal programs and capabilities, and tackling some of the politically sensitive issues -- you're left with force structure. and so what are the options in terms of getting to that number? now, we're also mindful that there are numbers out there that are bigger than that, so -- and some of them substantially bigger. so i think it's our responsibility to lay before the president and before the congress what the consequences are of cuts at different levels and what changes have to be made in strategy, and what the

implications are in terms of capabilities. that's what we're going to do. that work will be done. i think a lot of it's well underway, and i think it'll be done later this summer and in a position to inform the final budget decisions. and the president was quite clear when he and i discussed this, and he was clear in his public announcement, in his speech, that no specific budget decisions would be made with respect to the $400 billion until we have looked at -- had completed this review. >> sir, you probably have time for two or three more. >> all right. >> can we switch to yemen for a moment? and if both of you will talk about how disruptive the violence there has been to our efforts at counterterrorism -- i believe the -- there's no longer any training, the training has been suspended of the counterterrorist forces -- just what that disruption has been, and also, if you could talk a little bit about the connection between al qaeda in yemen, or aqap, and --

>> yemen's been a focus area for us for several years now, and in great part because of the -- of the al qaeda branch that's there, aqap, which is a deadly, deadly node. and awlaki, who leads that group -- very focused on homeland threat to us, and in fact, have been behind a couple of attempts so far. so we've worked hard to provide the kind of training support that the yemenis' government has asked of us and at the same time -- and developed relationships which actually got to be pretty strong. clearly, with the turmoil that the country is in right now,

that training has been impacted, and we are, as i think everybody is, watching how this plays out, while at the same time still focused very much on this -- on al qaeda, on this group of the al qaeda, not just leaders, but that's in the country there. and i worry a great deal about its continuing to grow and become more viral over time. so i certainly would say that it's -- it's gotten in the way of the training, with what's going on there.the yemeni forces are very focused on their own country right now.but it -- you know, we continue to be committed to that and we're watching very carefully how all this comes out. >> i have a question on -- >> last question. >> -- a question on military aid

to yemen and to pakistan. on yemen, can we -- can the united states really disburse new aid to yemen, given everything that's going on in the country and the uncertainty about its direction? and on pakistan, have you communicated any kind of warning to -- or will you -- to islamabad that reducing the training mission significantly might also have an impact on the amount of military aid that the country might provide? >> i have provided no warning whatsoever, specifically, and then -- to pakistan in that regard.obviously, we've had discussions recently -- i visited there with secretary clinton -- very frank, open discussions about where we were and how to move ahead across a broad range of issues, military and civil. and then with respect to yemen, you mean physically or legally? >> -- aid to yemen. >> whether we can physically do it? >> there is -- there is a -- obviously an aid program that has been, i'd say, interrupted by the current chaos that's in that country.

and it would be -- you know, we'll get on the downside of that chaos to look at what the next steps would be. >> thank you all very much. >> that was robert gates last scheduled news conference. he steps down june 30. his replacement nomination will be voted on by the full senate on tuesday. on tomorrows "washington journal," a conversation on the role the indians will play in the 2012 elections. mary kay henry joined desperate after that, or about the 2012 campaign with freedom works president. later, the head of amtrak joins us. the house transportation committee unveiled a measure to allow private companies to compete with amtrak to provide

high-speed rail service on the northeast corridor. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00. >> a hearing on nuclear plant safety in the wake of the recent disaster in japan. but will your from members of the nuclear regulatory commission. braga boxer chairs this 2.5 hour hearing. -- barbara boxer cheers this 2.5 hour hearing. >> good morning, everybody. the committee will come to order. just to go over the way we are going to operate.

will be a lot of questions and we will go back and forth from one side to the other. to it will be like a tennis match. hopefully, it will be as enjoyable as fact and not too contentious. let me begin. it has been over three months since japan was hit by a devastating earthquake and tsunami. it is expected to take additional time before shutdown of all reactors at the foot issue in the power plant will be achieved. the emergency -- focusing on -- we cannot afford to ignore it. if there is one lesson to be learned, and this is the lesson i think is the most important. we must plan for the unexpected as the japanese told us, they planned for the expected, not for the unexpected. i am pleased to see that the nrc

is taking initial steps to reevaluate the safety and security of new group -- nuclear power plants in the u.s. and light of what has happened in japan. these are the things that i am pleased about. the inspectors have issued reports on the 100 for the operating nuclear reactors and their readiness to address power losses or damage following extreme events. thye nrc is in the middle of a 90 cost -- 90-day review process. i want to talk about the two nuclear power plant in california. which i visited recently. the most recent inspections of california's two nuclear power plants turned up numerous problems that need to be corrected. among other things, the inspections i diablo canyon power plant found that state highways and access roads needed

to reach diesel fuels and an alternative to see water source for cooling may be in excess of laughter and of big. hose is needed to get cooling water from the reservoir to the plant were blocked by a security fence. i want to correct myself. diablo i have not visited in a while. the other a recently visited. i met one of the commissioners there, who was extremely helpful. nrc's inspections at that station, a plant surrounded by millions of people within 50 miles -- what did we say? 7 million? 7.4 million within 50 miles. this is what we found -- a lack of a written agreement for a fuel oil supply to support emergency diesel generators for more than seven days. and we found some firefighting

equipment was stored in locations that could be impacted by an earthquake. firefighting equipment that is stored in a place that cannot be located and if there is an earthquake does not do us any good. i have additional questions about the seismic studies at diablo. they need to be considered. it is very important. i find it strange they would try to get a license before they have the latest information. the latest information will be part of the 3 d seismic studies. and also, three d seismic studies should be part of nrc's review, once it is submitted by [unintelligible] it has not been submitted.

i loaded them for that. i think there is more work that needs to be done. i expect the nrc to examine the results of these inspections in california and across the country, as well as we examine current regulations such as what is in the nrc's review license application. and i expect the commission to implement the task force recommendations. it does not help us to have these recommendations if you do not implement them. the health and safety of all americans things in the balance. i applaud the commission for making the results of its inspections available to the public immediately after compilation by nrc staff in may and june. i believe it is critical for public confidence and the safety of our nuclear facilities that the task force report be

available to the study predicted the public as soon as it is compiled in july. complete openness, transparency, and prompt disclosure are vital to maintaining credibility and confidence of the american people. i want to thank the members of the commission for being here to provide us with preliminary results of the nuclear review that is under way. as chairman of this committee, i will continue to provide vigorous oversight, to make sure we learn all we can from the fukushima emergency. the safety of the american people above all is our number one priority. i look forward to working with each of you to make sure the united states of america has taken every appropriate precaution to ensure our nuclear power plants are managed in the safest possible manner. >> thank you very much. i appreciated your comments about the safety of the american people being a number one priority, because the

storage of nuclear waste should be a top priority for congress and the administration in the wake of japan's nuclear disaster. as you know, spent fuel rods stored at fukushima overheated, causing explosions, fires, and radiation leaks. this occurred when the power was knocked out and backup generators failed at the plant. the american people who watched the coverage of the nuclear crisis in japan are looking to congress and the nuclear regulatory commission to prevent similar instances from happening here. congress took action years ago to begin addressing the problem of buildup of nuclear waste stored throughout the united states. the nuclear waste policy act designated yucca mountain as the only candidate site for a national repository of nuclear waste. congress has voted a number of times to retain of the mountain as the national repository. $15 billion has been spent on

the project. but this administration has seen fit to walk away from the project. as "the washington post" points out in an article entitled "at yucca mountain -- money down the hall" -- this was yesterday's paper. when barack obama ran for president and sought electoral votes in the swing state of nevada, he bowed to kill yucca mountain. in early 2009, steven chu, obama as energy secretary, announced his department did not feel yucca mountain was a workable option. the department of energy terminated the jobs of several thousand federal workers and contractors while hastily abandoned offices in las vegas and transferring dozens of truckloads of furniture,

computers, and other equipment to local schools. the article states the project dates back three decades. it goes on. it has not solved the problem of nuclear waste, but has succeeded in keeping fully employed large numbers of litigators. is that the administration's idea of job creation? the end result of this sock that is a 5 mile long, 25 foot wide, all in the nevada desert. it was meant to restore america's nuclear waste. instead, it stands as a monument to bureaucratic waste of taxpayer dollars. the nuclear regulatory commission before us today has not officially resolved this issue. at the meeting of the nrc's japan task force, the chairman stated, "i believe it is important our safety review proceed systematically and methodically, but with the appropriate sense of urgency given the important issues being examined."

i do not believe the actions of this administration or the chairman have demonstrated the sense of urgency with regard to the issue of storing spent nuclear fuel. thank you, madam chairman. i look forward to the testimony. i am going to call on the senator who chairs the subcommittee that oversees the nrc. >> thank you very much. thank you, madam chair. i want to come back to something that colleagues of mine have said. you have heard me say everything i do i know i can do better. i think that is true of all of us. i was not in the congress in 1982 when congress voted to have a repository. i was a member of congress when the vote was taken to designate yucca mountain, in nevada.

even the county in which you come mountain was located -- yucca mountain was located was chosen as the repository. the congressional delegation have opposed it. the democrats and republicans have strongly opposed the establishment of the repository. if we had to do this over again, we should be smart enough to do what they have done in france. what they have done is incentivize communities in that program to be repositories and to provide really terrific job opportunities for the people who live there. we have states standing in line to be sites for prisons, to take

prisoners from delaware or tennessee or any other state. we could do that and get communities to be willing to host inmates from all over the country. we should be able to provide an incentive system so that states would willingly, unlike nevada, say, "please put your nuclear spent fuel here in our state." meanwhile, we have, as you may recall, a commission that has a lot of smart people. some of them are commissioners. they have been working. they are reprocessing and recycling spent fuel. this is what we think we should do, going forward. in the meantime, if you take the spent fuel rods, in all of the power plants across the country, they would fit on a

football field maybe 20 feet high. that is about right. it is 104 plants. it is not a small amount of spent fuel. but we can safely store for 30 or 60 years on site the spent fuel. does that mean we never need a repository? no, and i think we are smarter in setting those places than we were in yucca mountain. having said that, let me find my place here. i say to all of you today think a lot for coming. thank you for your service. we are anxious to hear what you have to share with us. we have a great opportunity, you have all heard me say before, "albert einstein. adversity births opportunity.

a great opportunity for us and for the rest of the world to learn what they did wrong so we will not make the same mistake in this instance. we have worked, as a bunch of you know, on this committee. we worked a lot of years before that to try to establish what we call a cultural -- a culture of safety. we want to not only establish the culture of safety. we want to strengthen it. we want to make sure that it is not perfect we make it better. this but all the protections we have in place for nuclear reactors, the tragedy in fukushima is a clear warning we cannot get complacent it when it comes to nuclear safety. a disaster could happen here as well. we have asked for a comprehensive review, senator boxer and i. i am glad we are getting that. we need to safeguard our people from nuclear incidents similar to that of japan.

i am anxious to hear the first readouts from the commission on this review. we look forward with working with you to find the right lessons across this country. >> thank you so much. now it is senator alexander. >> let me first welcome the commissioners and thank the chairman and a senator for having this hearing. i think the more oversight hearings we have with the commissioners, the better. the more americans know about nuclear power, the better. both from a safety point of view and how important it is to our future. the subject in america today is jobs. we want jobs. we have to have large amounts of reliable, low-cost electricity.

we now have to add clean to that. it is important to have a hearing on that so americans can know that 20% of our electricity comes from 104 nuclear plants. it is important for americans to know that 70% of our carbon free, mercury free electricity comes from nuclear plants. it is important to have these hearings. it is important for america to know there has never been a death at a civilian reactor at united states. there has never been a death in connection with one of our navy reactors. it is important for americans to know that even though three mile island was our worst nuclear accident in the united states at a civilian reactor, no one was hurt at three mile island. it is important for americans to know this is complex, these big operations, these nuclear plants. it is important for them to know that we are taking very

seriously, especially those of us who cannot imagine a future for the united states without many more nuclear reactors then we have today -- that we are taking very seriously the importance of making their operation safer and safer. we have learned a lot from three mile island, even though no one was hurt there. the safety record is even better as a result of those lessons. it will take months and years to learn from what happened at fukushima. but we ought to do our best to do that. the comments on the repository are important. we both were former governors. i had the problem of locating prisons. we were stuck on prisons in tennessee when i came in. nobody would take any until i announced there would only be one and there would be a competition for it. then there was a line. we need to recycle and used nuclear fuel. that means there will be even less of it. then will need to either reopen yucca mountain or find some

other ones. we should not keep charging billions of dollars to ratepayers and not using it for its independent -- its intended purpose. we need to know more. we have heard from secretary to, our secretary, a nuclear physicist, that spent fuel can be stored safely on site for up to 100 years. it is important for americans to hear that from the top officials in our country, who know about such things. but we need to bring to a close a discussion about whether spent fuel pools or dry cask storage or a long-term repository is the right way to deal with the fuel that we have. we need to take advantage of this panel. the president was appointed to recycle used nuclear fuel in an even better way.

we need to explore and learn from our commissioners how the next generation of reactors can improve safe passive technologies. we need to learn how the small nuclear reactors, the ones that might be 125 megawatts instead of 1140 -- how they might be a way for the united states to get back in the business of leading the world in developing a technology we invented, the peaceful use of atomic energy. the peaceful use of the nuclear process. i would like to know more about how the commission itself functions, the germans used of the emergency power, the -- v general use of emergency power. it is important to have this meeting.

every so often, the subcommittee ought to hear from the commissioners. the american people ought to listen and be assured not just of the safety of our 104 civilian reactors, but the we are on the track to begin to build more and to provide the low-cost, clean, reliable electricity the nuclear power does for this country. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator sanders. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank you commissioners. i want to spend a moment discussing an issue of great concern to the people of the state of vermont. that is the vermont yankee nuclear power plant, located in the southern part of our state. vermont yankee is one of 23 plants in our country with the same design as the fukushima plant that experienced a partial meltdown in japan.

the state of vermont has a unique position in this country with regard to nuclear power. as a result of an agreement signed between the state and the owner of the nuclear power plant in vermont, the agreement went -- and this agreement was signed when they purchased vermont yankee in 2002. our state legislature and public utility commission have a legal say over whether the vermont yankee plant is re- licensed for operation beyond 2012, when its license expires. that is unique in the country. the plant is nearing 40 years of age. it is my firm view that 40 years is enough. but that is not just my view. far more importantly, the

vermont state senate, representing the people of the state of vermont, and voted on a bipartisan basis, 26-4, not to grant an extension to vermont yankee. in my view, that vote represented the wishes of the vast majority of the people in our state. we know vermont yankee has had serious problems in the last number of years, including a collapse of its cooling towers in 2007 and radioactive tritium leaks in 2005 and 2010. the tritium leaks came from pipes. plant officials claimed under oath they did not exist. that did not further the confidence of the people of the state of vermont in the company. in support of the vermont legislature, the vermont congressional delegation has been clear they should respect vermonts laws.

we understand they're well paid corporate lawyers have been pushing for the federal government to get involved in the lawsuit filed against vermont. we have seen the letter from the ceo, who is among the best compensated electric industry ceos at $18 million a year, saying that if vermont successfully defend its right to decide whether vermont yankee is real licensed that we will see states opting out of the voting rights act. he could not be more wrong or out of touch. that is why the vermont congressional delegation was heartened to learn that the chairman, who i believe is a diligent public servant, even if we occasionally disagree, told vermont publicly that the nrc should not intervene in any legislation between that company and vermont.

i believe his position is the right one. the nrc regulates safety. that is what your job is. it is a difficult job. it is an important job. many people in vermont think you are not doing that job very well. but the nrc is not an arbiter of political disputes between a huge energy company and the state of vermont. that is not your business. it is not on your plate to do with a complicated issue of maintaining safety. there is a story in the new york times today raising issues that maybe we are not doing a good job in this country in protecting people in the event of the shutdown of all electric power. pay attention to that. do not get involved in telling the people of the state of

vermont what they should be doing or should not be doing. in that regard, i was extremely disappointed to learn the nrc voted yesterday on whether to recommend to the justice department that the nrc take the energy company's side. the result of that vote was the public. i want to know today that you will make the result of that public. if you have the department of justice involved, you should tell the people of the state of vermont that you voted and halt the vote was, and we would like the relevant materials associated with that vote. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. >> i am going to apologize in advance to this committee. this is a very significant hearing we are having right now. i am also on the senate armed services committee, so i apologize for being late.

i thank you for honoring a commitment to act on the renomination of the commissioner for a five-year term. we have a complete commission. i hope this will happen soon. thank you for this hearing. it has been over three weeks since the earthquake and tsunami devastated japan and resulted in the second largest nuclear action in history. i hope you will help ensure the safety of our nuclear plants based on lessons learned from fukushima. but first i want to take a moment to acknowledge a report by the nrc inspector general into the yucca mountain license application. i was concerned about this situation in 2005, when the commissioner appeared before the committee for the first time.

there was a worry it would impair his ability to act early as the commissioner. i asked him to recuse himself. his conduct has damaged the credibility of the agency and warrants oversight hearings by this committee. however what i find most disconcerting in the report is the image of the chairman who withholds information from his colleagues, act unilaterally, and rules by intimidation. while i focus on the involvement with yucca mountain, i believe his conduct extends beyond that. this first became apparent when preparing for a last hearing april 12, when i heard the majority was breaking with the committee. i was surprised to learn we would only here from the chairman, because he was exercising a privilege.

even more believable was that he had not only failed to inform me of his decision on the last two occasions, but had failed to inform his colleagues. he acted unilaterally without a firm legal basis, failed to keep his colleagues fully informed, and prohibited them from entering the operations center where much of the agency's work was conducted. these actions are strikingly similar to some of the conclusions regarding the chairman's conduct on the yet the mountain. he chose not to utilize the expertise of his fellow commissioners when confronted with the nuclear accident. a true leader would marshall all resources at his disposal and seek out the best expertise that he can. that would be my expectation of any chairman responsible for insuring nuclear safety.

instead, we have a family that shall be governed by general policies of the commission. that selectively ignores procedures, discounting them as merely guidelines. in the nuclear industry, procedures exist to ensure safety. the chairman should show the same respect for procedures governing his actions that he would expect from licensees. the public deserves nothing less. i think you, madam chair. >> if i could just say, i am going to put into the record the statement made by the chairman on the report. there is a disagreement between the ranking member and myself in the characterization he has put forward. my understanding clearly is that the ig found the actions

the german took were consistent with law and his authority. there is a difference here. i have to put that on the record, because i want to feel -- >> that is the first time we have ever had a difference. >> i know. and it will be the last. i just feel it is important. i was a little taken aback by it. >> i would like to yield my time to senator sanders to complete his comments. >> senator sanders has an additional five minutes. >> i am not want to take people five minutes and i think my friend from oregon for yielding. the point i am going to stay on this morning is an enormous important issue for up my state. in vermont, people have been extremely dissatisfied with the role the energy company has been playing. been playing.