12 recommendations within three months in order to fully implement new, post-fukushima regulations by 2016, and i applaud him for doing that. this does not sound very ambitious to me, but the media reports this time frame is apparently too ambitious for three of our commissioners, and i hope they dispel what i have heard, and that is commissioner svinicki, magwood, and ostendorff. if they want more study, review, and the late. i happen to have been here long enough to know what happens in this town when we want to postpone a study. it means that the issue will be swept under the rug. nothing will happen, and that is not acceptable. we need a commission focused on safety and acting on the task force recommendations in a swift and transparent manner.

i believe we should all demand that the nrc commissioners commit to start action on recommendations within three months. delay is not an acceptable option. our look for to hearing from the commissioners. -- i look forward to hearing from the commissioners. >> senator alexander. >> thank you, chairwoman. thank you to the commissioners for their service. he is always useful to begin with a safety -- it is always useful to begin with a safety record -- no deaths on any nuclear reactor, navy reactor, and no one was hurt on three mile island. that is an enviable record. i would like to approach it differently. what if we did not have nuclear power? what if we did not have that at all? it is 20% of all electricity,

70% of all clean electricity. we use about one-quarter of all of the electricity in the world to power this country. what if we did not have nuclear power? we can look at japan and get an idea. there were a couple of articles last week that gave us a picture of it. "the wall street journal" article said the japanese are very patient people, so they will turn their air conditioners up to 82 degrees. the reason this is true is that because since the earthquake most reactors are out. they have been closed for maintenance. so, they have lost about 20% of electricity in japan, about the same amount nuclear power provides to us. it conditioners are 82 degrees. carmakers are operating on weekends to avoid second up electricity in the week.

the emperor and empress are wandering around the imperial castle with flashlights and candles. they are expecting electric bills to go up because if they use more renewable power that is higher costs. bloomberg is more graphic, quoting the chairman of a company that has a plant in tennessee making solar panels that the issue of power supply could be the end of manufacturing in japan. an exodus of japanese manufacturers he sees. one myers said young -- 1 mayor said young people will move abroad, leaving the country with only grandmothers and grandfathers. it is estimated that gross domestic product will fall by 60% if all of the reactors close by next spring if scheduled

maintenance takes them offline. there is a snapshot of what would happen if you lose 20% of your electricity, which is what nuclear power provides this. we have an aging nuclear fleet. we have not billed a new reactor in 30 years. 25 or 30 years from now this commission will have to decide whether to extend the life of older reactors. i have advocated building 100 new reactors, and even if we did that we would still barely replace the reactors that we have, and the need for electricity in this country because the energy administration institute estimates that the increase in the need for electricity will be up by 31%. we will need all lot of clean, reliable electricity in this country, and we cannot afford if we want a high standard of living and good jobs to lose 20% of our electricity.

if we do not have nuclear power we will have to rely on coal and gas, which are dirtier, and who knows what the price of gas will be, and relying on when let -- know windmills is the energy equivalent of going to war on sailboats. as long as we are having testimony on the blaze, i would recommend we have no delay in one of the other recommendations of the committee, which is to complete without delay the designs for the 81,000, and -- ap1000, so we can move ahead building a sufficient number of nuclear reactors to give us the kind of clean, reliable electricity that will permit us to have the low-cost energy to have good jobs in the united states and not experienced the kind of exodus in manufacturing

overseas said the japanese are afraid might happen to them if they're not able to bring reactors back online. thank you, madame chair. >> thank you very much. senator udall. >> thank you, madame chair for calling this hearing. i think many others have said it already, but safety is the key here, and i am going to want to hear from each of you as to how you believe we should move forward on the safety issue. i think it is not acceptable to have the kind of thing happened in the united states that happened in japan, and i hope that you are on a wavelength that you are going to move in the direction of taking seriously what this task force said. this is a task force with 139 years of experience in this

area. they are substantial. they're people that really know what they're talking about. we talk about recommendations that fall into five categories. these categories seem common sense -- clarified, -- regulatory framework. you have to take a hard luck every now and then add regulatory frameworks and how they work. insuring protection -- the task force recommendation is potential enhancements to the capability to prevent or mitigate seismically-induced fires. we have seen, in new mexico, those kinds of fires and floods, and they are seeing them across the midwest. we need you to take a hard look at that. the third category -- enhancing mitigation, the task force recommends the nrc strengthen station blackout capability,

operating reactors for design basis and beyond. i hope we will have time to discuss that with you. strengthening emergency preparedness -- the fourth category seems very common sense to me and something we can move forward with it. the fifth, improving the efficiency of nrc programs -- we always want to be doing things like that. i will not use all of my time. i yield back at this point to get to the questions. >> next, let me get my list, senator john harms. >> thank you. -- senator johanns. >> thank you. so many things were said by senator alexander that it would almost be sufficient to say that

i adopt his statement, but let me offer a thought or two if i might. i am anxious to hear about the safety concerns. we have nuclear power in the state of nebraska. it has been a good neighbor and our state. we feel it runs efficiently, smartly. we feel that the folks that are operating the facilities in our states are responsive to the community. i would be remiss if i did not mention the quality jobs that go with the facilities. all of that has worked very well for us. the second thing i would say about that is that, as you know, for many months, we have been in the throes of an historic flooding event with the missouri river in nebraska, and that has implemented -- infiltrated nuclear facilities.

we have found the staff to be responsive, and it has been an experience that although difficult and trying, because so much land has been underwater for so long, we feel, in terms of the nuclear facilities, that people have responded well, and not overreacted, but worked with us. therefore, i am very anxious to hear about the safety recommendations. i do not think there is any doubt, wherever you sit, that we want to make sure that our facilities are safe. i would also offer a thought that there is a reason why we are not building nuclear power plants these days in any kind of numbers. when i talk to folks in this industry, they say it is complicated, very difficult to get through the process, enormously expensive, and there is no guarantee you'll get

anything at the other end for that massive, massive investment. there seems to me to be a better way of doing this. this is not an area of expertise for me. i have no nuclear background whatsoever in my background, but having said that, why i am anxious to hear about today is the economics of what you are recommending, just because i wanted full picture. sometimes you have to make hard decisions, do the things you have to do from a safety standpoint, even though you know the cost is there, but there is just no other choice. i always like to waive the way the decision is made against the cost that is incurred. i want to get an understanding of how we have benefited the situation. this industry, i worry, it is literally at a point where it

could shot down over time if we could not somehow free up the ability to approved plants and construction, and deal with the safety issues in a cost-marked sort of way. those are the kinds of things i am interested in, but i do not say that to criticize you. like i said, our experience working with the nuclear regulatory commission has been a good experience. i am interested in doing this in a way that is safe but economically viable. thank you, madame chair. >> thank you. senator lautenberg. >> thank you, madame chair, and members of the nrc. i think you do a very good job. i will start off with that, but then i will get more critical. crisisapan's nuclear

began unfolding, americans have wondered could it happen here? the nrc's taskforce study the situation closely and determined that our nuclear facilities posed no imminent threat to the american people, and while this is reassuring news, our work is just beginning. the nrc's taskforce issued 12 recommendations to strengthen nuclear safety and insurer reactors remain safe, including long-term steps to improve emergency preparedness and protect facilities when earthquakes or other natural disasters happen. it is critically important for the nuclear regulatory committee to act on these recommendations quickly. the five commissioners who we will hear today are from all mom

our country's most important guardians, -- are from a long that our country's most important guardians. a prompt -- prompt action is particularly important to the people of my state, new jersey, where four nuclear power reactors provide our state with half of its electricity. just last month, the nrc re-new be licensed to operate the reactor and hope creek, which shares the design as the damaged reactor's in japan. in the reno, conditions were included and tend -- in the reno will, conditions were included to make the whole creek safety. we need to take steps to make sure these facilities are as safe as we can make them. nuclear power plays a critical role in our country, and it is an emissions-free energy source

that provides 1/5 of our nation's electricity. nuclear power can continue to be part of our energy future, but the disaster in japan has taught us nothing can be taken for granted where nuclear power is concerned. japan is a world leader in technology, and its leaders believe that the plant in fukushima was strong enough to withstand a worse case scenario, but as we now know it was not. likewise, the chernobyl tragedy, 25 years ago, taught us that the effect of a single nuclear accident can win their for generations. we have to pay attention -- can linger for generations. we have to pay attention, which means continually revisiting the laws, strengthening the nrc's regulation, and in sharing plans

are in compliance at all times. the nrc has to ask the hard questions to make sure the american people get the answers they deserve, and i urge you, commissioners, to act quickly to take the next step to make sure that nuclear facilities are prepared and the public is fully protected. by thank you. >> thank you. senator sessions? [unintelligible] >> ok. >> what ever. thank you for having this review. the task force has produced a report that is a good first step. nuclear energy provides an affordable, reliable, emissions- free supply of energy to power

the economy and create jobs, and especially industrial and manufacturing jobs. we need to learn and to implement both short-term and long-term lessons from the event in japan, and safety must remain our highest priority. all of us agree with that. american nuclear energy is produced with oversight from a strong, independent regulatory agency within a robust culture of safety. our industry is the gold standard, and we need to keep it that way. the task force review confirmed that appropriate mitigation measures have already been put in place, and the continued operation and licensing opportunities do not pose a risk to public health and safety. i would very much like to encourage the commission, that as they move forward, they do so with speed, but more

importantly, or as importantly, they do this very, very thoughtfully. we need a process that allows the commission, the nrc staff, the commission, and other stakeholders to be fully-gauged. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. -- fully engaged. with that, i yield back. >> senators sessions, you are less monopolies. >> thank you. -- last -- senator sessions, you are less, but not least. >> thank you. this is a good starting point. but i do think it is important to keep in mind as senator alexander noted, we have not had one single event at an american nuclear power generating plant where an individual has lost their life or sustained a serious injury as a result of

nuclear effects. so, i think that as a significant thing that we need to remember since over 20% of electricity is coming from nuclear power. it is a big part of our economy, and it has been very save. i think we need to rest -- remember that. many lives have been lost in the process of creating coal plants, providing fuel, and in natural gas, which also provide co2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere. i am interested, as senator inhofe is, at looking at the japanese system, to see if there's is less effective than ours. i hope we have the gold standard, and -- and we need to

know if our regulation would have prevented this. power plants must demonstrate for the satisfaction of you, the nrc, that the plant can continue to operate safely, even during a blackout scenario. i believe that as senator alexander noted, the ap1000 would have gravity-fed water processes that would shut down a plant even if there was a complete loss of power and the backup failed. so, those would be even safer plants, it seems to me, and those ought not to be unnecessarily delayed. delay is cost, and you create uncertainty. pretty soon, people are afraid to invest one would need to be invested for us to create a cleaner, more productive form of

energy that is safer than other forms of energy. my goal has always been that we should have cleaner energy. we want american energy, not imported, wherever possible, we want safe energy, we want cost- efficient energy -- energy that does not place an unnecessary burden on our people and our economy. nuclear power fits all of those. it might not be the total solution, but it fits all of those qualities. i hope, pray, and urge that you do your job to make sure we are safe, make sure it is operating safely, but do not be a burden on our ability to meet the needs for increased electricity in the future by blocking a reasonable cost development of

new sources of nuclear power. i have noticed that in alabama we have a shutdown of power. we have power failures to our nuclear plant at browns ferry. the backup system responded just as expected, just as required, just as you have monitored and required, and there was no dangerous scenario that happened. i also appreciate the fact that your committee has found there is no reason to doubt the safety of our nuclear power facilities. your task force report concludes "a sequence of the events like the fukushima accident is not likely to happen in the united states. continued regulation and licensing activities do not pose a significant risk to public health and safety." madam chairman, thank you for

having the hearing, as i think it is something we should move forward with, and hopefully we will be able to effectively allowing new generation of even more efficient, more safe nuclear power plants to come on line. plants that produce tremendous amounts of base load electricity with the polluting our atmosphere and provide safety to all concerned. >> thank you, center. under the agreement we have reached, chairman will have five minutes, and each colleague will have three. chairman, go ahead. i will ask everyone to stick with their time because we are so close to a vote and we want to conclude before then. >> chairman boxer, members of the committee, on behalf of the commission i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the near term task force recommendations and their potential implementation.

in the aftermath of the fishing off accident the commission -- fukushima accident, the commission started the task force of members that include more than 135 years of experience. the task force efforts were independent, but by no means an isolated or solitary. in developing recommendations, the task force said access to the untitled -- entire nrc staff. if they spend thousands of hours reviewing products and information and consulted with the nrc team in japan. they outlined 12 recommendations, many with short and long term elements that touch on a broad range of issues including the loss of electrical power, earthquakes, flooding, and emergency preparedness. i provided a detailed review in a written testimony.

as the report makes clear, the task force hasn't done an outstanding job helping the -- has done an outstanding job helping us understand what the commission needs to do. the commission has not yet reached a decision on how to proceed. although my colleagues might hold differing viewpoints, i believe our goal remains for the commission to come to an agreement on a -- in an open and transparent way to make a decision in a finite period of time. the commission must move forward with the urgency called for by these real safety issues. although the task force did not find imminent risks, they identify specific concerns, and recommended improving the regulatory framework. fukushima clearly demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances can challenge plants in unexpected ways, and we must

commit to a strong and timely response. the american people expect no less. to the members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity before you. i would be happy to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners and a key. -- commissioner svinicki. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. the members of the nrc's near- term task force covered tremendous ground in the conduct of their 90-day review. the task force concluded that a sequence of -- sequence of events like the food fish in the accident is not likely to happen in the united states, and continued licensing activities do not pose an imminent arrest. in providing the safety reassurance to the commission and the public, the task force's work within their

responsibilities. it provides the opportunity to proceed with established rules. the nrc is now in a position to conduct activities that the task force's short time frame did not allow them to undertake, namely a more extensive stakeholder involvement, and opportunities to consider a comprehensive set of facts regarding the events in japan and to receive the. expert views on reactor safeguards. in that vein, i view the report as an important first step in the process of learning from the events at fukushima. if the conclusions drawn by the six individual members must now be open to challenge by our many public stakeholders and tested by the scrutiny of a wider body of experts, including the

technical staff who would be responsible for carrying out the changes. i support acting with the appropriate urgency, but without shortchanging the thoroughness, inclusiveness, and the liberation of our response. thank you for this opportunity. >> thank you. the hon. george apostolakis. how did i do on that one? we met in california, so i had a chance to practice that. go ahead. >> chairman boxer, chairman carper, ranking member reso, and members of the committee, good morning. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. my views regarding the way forward are summarized as follows -- first, it is important to bear in mind the significant task force conclusion that the current regulatory commission has served

the public well, and a sequence of events like those that happened in fukushima are unlikely in the united states. second, many people have referred to the events in fukushima as unthinkable or not foreseen and implied that we should protect nuclear plants from unimaginable events. however, there is growing evidence the historical record of tsunami is had not been used improperly to determine the design basis, and consequently protection of the plans was not sufficient. in addition, the location was less than optimal with respect to protection against flooding. the accident was not of extremely low probability. it was not unthinkable or unforeseen. these observations suggest they should be mindful of striking a should be mindful of striking a proper balance of confirming