technical review and inspection. consistent with the nrc organizational about you of excellence, the task force believes that improving the nrc's regulatory framework is inappropriate, realistic, an achievable goal." german jaczko, what is the problem? -- chairman jaczko, what is the problem? somebody used the word defective. i do not believe the regulatory system is defective. i hear they want to improve it. do we have a problem of improving the regulatory framework? second of all, let us be clear about what we're talking about. you have knowledgeable people that have made 12 recommendations. they want you to go forward. no one is saying you have to accept all 12 recommendations tomorrow. what they are saying is, look at them, analyze them, tell us what

you like. mr. ostendorff has said he is ready to go on some of them. he has concerns on some of them, fine. what is your judgment about taking these recommendations and starting an immediate discussion to see what like and do not like? >> that is something we can do and something that we should be able to get done in 90 days. >> this svinicki, what is the problem of this? >> i voted within days to begin this task force. i do not see that my proposal to take an inordinate amount of time to about with them. >> so you are ready to get going on taking a hard look at these valuations? >> yes. >> mr. magwood? >> yes, i think i was the first to vote. >> so you aren't ready to immediately begin a discussion on the 12 discussions -- recommendations.

>> senator, i think we are already. >> i'm glad to hear that. chairman jaczko, is the process ready to go? what am i missing here? >> we are stock in developing the process, rather than moving forward to actually begin the discussion and dialogue on the recommendations. right now, what we're talking about is the process to have that discussion. unfortunately, -- with the exception of commissioner ostendorff -- most of my colleagues have waited about the process -- >> and what about that specific process? >> they are not severe. they are minor. the difference is setting an expectation on when we can get completed. i have suggested that we were to get completed. our decisions within 90 days. i think that is what i hear as

the biggest point. >> and miss svinicki? >> i agree with the chairman's statement. >> do you agree we can get this done within 90 days? >> i believe some are complex enough that it would not be possible to make a final decision within 90 days. >> i believe we can do it in 90 days. the major difference in the process is that the chairman's original road map would go directly to public meetings. some of the members think we should get senior manager evaluation, recommendation first. >> mr. magwood? >> as i see the boat so far, i see a great deal of commonality -- votes so far, i see a

great deal of commonality. i think we can launch up some of them sooner than 90 days. others may take longer. >> mr. ostendorff? >> i believe we can act on most of these recommendations within 90 days. perhaps not all. unfortunately, in the press, there has been a perception greeted that there is great dissension amongst the commissioners on this topic, and frankly, i do not believe it is there. there is agreement on the need to place this as a highest priority. >> madam chair, thank you. >> senator alexander? >> thank you. sons sczko, a traffic tha job is to keep the best and safe.

if he just stopped everyone, his supervisor would say that that is not very creative for you. would it be possible to create an environment in which a nuclear environment -- plant can operate, and which anyone can be built? -- a new one can be built? >> i do not think there is a chart that would be the motivation -- >> that is not part of your charge? if you're only card was public health and safety, you would shut them down. >> i think our charge is reasonable public safety. we are providing a level of assurance that is reasonable. >> so there is no responsibility you have to make sure that power plant can also be operated economically? >> our requirements fall into two categories. those which are the basic tenets

of safety, based on court decisions. the commission is required to make those safety decisions, the respective of the economic decisions. certainly, when it goes to the implementation of requirements, we can consider the economic impact and see which is the most cost beneficial. not at the stage of determining whether something is a fundamental safety requirement. at that point, we are barred by a court decision -- >> is it your objective to create an environment where new nuclear power plants can be built? >> no, my goal is to ensure we have an environment where nuclear power plants are safe. this new power plants are built, that they are safe as regulations dictate. >> what about the recommendations of the commission, that you complete without delay the the line to

0 andion of the ap-100 and the water design? >> there was no reason to specifically delay action as a result of this action. >> that sounds like action to me. are you planning to do it without delay? >> we are continuing to move forward. >> can you do it within 90 days? >> we will be close to receiving a final ruling on that in october. that is part of the reason for us to look at these recommendations within 90 days. when the look of final design, i think it is important we disposition all these recommendations so that we know what, if any, changes affect the reactor. >> will considering all of the 12 recommendations delay your consideration of the design certification for the ap-1000

and the new boiling water reactor design? >> i do not. however, we could have delays on the new reactor in terms of licensing. >> there is a lot of talk here about delay. this report says that you should do this without delay. why do they say that? >> that is something you will have to ask the task force. information that is relevant there is, it was useful for the commission to know there were no committed issues with the design certification -- >> let me press you further. you said you thought everything could get done in 90 days. does that include these two designs? >> i said it is important for the commission to disposition the 12 recommendations. the statement related to the 12 reactors are not related to the task force. >> but they are in the report, and they say without delay? >> that is right. we are not delaying any current

work. however, if we get to act on these recommendations, it will create uncertainty for what will be applicable to those new reactors, which could lead to a potential delay in that work, if we do not disposition these recommendations promptly. >> as you can tell, my hope is that you will take -- if you are going to take the task force's -- if you are going to take the committee process devised to do the task force recommendations, that you will take the task force's advice to complete these design certifications without delay. thank you, madam chairman. >> senator, i would call your mission -- call your attention to the mission of the nrc which is clearly stated. the nrc is an independently created organization credit by congress. their charges to license a civilian use of products sourced by nuclear materials in order to

protect public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, protect the environment. >> madam chair, i would think that it is still a legitimate question, whether a traffic cop should stop all traffic. that is one way to have safety. his supervisor may have asked him to be more creative to allow people to drive -- >> that is not really the right analogy. no analogy when know a you are talking about nuclear safety. >> we have had 30 traffic deaths the past year. we have not had one in nuclear plants. >> they said the same thing in japan until recently. in any event, let us move on. obviously, we have differences

here, just like you have differences there. and i want to make this point. i made it to you before. as many differences as we have here, we are friends. we argue, we debate. i am just sensing with you may be there needs to be all a little bit more friendship? speaking as a human being, not a senator. it is important of these differences not become personal. if inhofe and i can do it -- we are really good friends -- and anyone can do it. moving on. we are now going on to senator lautenberg. >> thank you, madam chairman. this is beginning to look like a glee club here. happy faces. what you see is not really what

you get. mr. jaczko, the nrc recently renewed the operating license for oak creek nuclear plant in new jersey through 2046. what did we learn from the incidents in japan that you would take into account when deciding to grant the extension? what conditions would influence to to do that? >> for any reactor, whether reacting for 35 years or 45 years, if we adopt these recommendations, they will likely apply to every reactor in the country, with exception to some of those pardoned vent designs, which would only be applicable for boiling water plants. nothing that can of the task

force of elite touched on those issues. for instance, it called for a number recommendation dealing with earthquakes. we would expect any plant, oak creek being one of them, to withre implementing along the others. >> not much specific information came from the fukushima failure -- >> ultimately, if the recommendations are adopted, some would apply to hope creek. >> the containment system that was used at fukushima is also used at u.s. plants, including two reactors in new jersey. mr. chairman, you said you did not know what went wrong with the containment system at

fukushima. what does this uncertainty factor bring into the nrc task force recommendations? when will we know what went wrong at the japanese plant? >> possibly years. but money to happen is they will have to decontaminate the facility, the reactor itself, to be able to analyze and look at the equipment. almost like a criminologist. recover and reconstruct what happened in the accident. as the task force laid out, there are something we can do in the short term. particularly, with the heart and vents. the mark 1 containments, similar to what they had in japan, our containment design that have hardened vents, but had never been required as a regulatory requirement. the advantage of that is it bring that under our oversight,

so we can monitor it and make sure it is being used effectively. that is something specifically for the mark 1's that we take action. >> but you say it would take years to fully understand what took place? it is hard to imagine. there were specific events. we are not talking about the influence on the people in the area. the specific trigger for this is pretty much obvious. >> that is certainly why you see a number of recommendations from the task force. there are some things that we do not know that need additional study, but clearly, there were at least six recommendation they made that they believe we have sufficient information to take action on now. >> you said in a 2008 speech,

talking about storage, i believe the nrc should develop new regulations which would require spent fuel to be moved to dry cask storage after it has been allowed to cool for five years. the task force recommended enhancements to spent fuel polls, but did not advocate requiring dry cask storage. -- cast storage. how can we be sure that the task force approach here will ensure the safest form of spent fuel storage? >> the recommendation is to ensure that if an event like for pushing the happen, knowing how much water is in the pool, making sure there is sufficient capability to put water into the pool to keep it cool, that those things would be addressed. then over the longer term, we can analyze this issue more

importantly over whether we should have more fuels and in polls rather than in dry cast storage. >> i am being rolled out. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator sessions. >> mr. jaczko, there had been some complaints about your leadership of the commission, as you are aware. i do believe it is important that your plug the proper role of the chairman, which i am sure, has some administrative responsibilities. we have a commission, and they are established to decide important issues. with regard to these emergency powers, did you file an official document assuming emergency powers of any kind? how did you announce that you were assuming emergency power?

>> it is not something in which we have procedures or is formally done. three days into the the incident, i was asked by my colleagues to require. i spoke with the general counsel and spoke with members of the staff, should i make a formal declaration of usage of power? i got one or two people that said no, that would distract us. frankly, i got distracted by dealing with the emergency response and did not turn back to it until several weeks later. >> did you take a formal opinion from counsel as to whether an event on the other side of the world would give the american nuclear regulatory commission, the commission chairman, the power to emergency powers that would, in some ways, diminished and influence the other members of the commission? >> the general counsel did advise me that it was completely inappropriate. >> do you have a written opinion

to that effect? >> i do. i believe it has been provided to the committee. >> are you still assuming those powers? >> no, i seized about a month ago. >> you have a report when you did during the course of time? >> we provided commission reports. at the beginning, those situation reports were beginning -- were issued multiple times. >> the reorganization act statute of 1980 said following the conclusion of the emergency, the chairman or member delegating the functions shall render a complete and timely report to the commission on the actions taken during the emergency. have you done that? >> i believe that i have. >> can you provide that to us? >> we can give you some of the detailed reports. >> that is not what the statute

requires. why would you hesitate to do a complete and timely report of the actions taken during the emergency? >> i have conferred with the general counsel and i believe i am -- i have more than does find the requirements of that provision. >> i believe the statute under which you serve requires the chairman order emergency official render a complete and timely report. not a series of reports in a box somewhere. would you not agree that is what it says plainly? >> it is clear they envision one piece of information. >> well, why wouldn't you do that? >> because we've provided much

of that information to the commission already. i have heard no interest in that report. >> well, i have an interest in it. the people of the united states have been interest in the chairman of the nrc following the plane statute requirements. so what hesitation do you have to put a formal report together that states what you did while you assumed emergency powers? >> i would be happy to put that together. i believe i have more than provided information to the american people through testimony, a variety of different reports, that have provided significant information about the actions taken during this event. i would be happy to summarize them in a single report. senator, i would just like to comment i have conferred with the general counsel and we believe that i have more than comply with the statute in that provision. we can provide analysis of that as well. >> i believe it requires a

single report after the conclusion. it is obvious you have not done that. with regard to this committee, the six members that were appointed, you said you did not let them did notedo did. who is that? >> the executive director of operations. they work under the direction of the chairman. >> did you know who was being selected? members were discussed with you before they were selected? >> i believe he gave the names to me and i said they were appropriate. >> did you make any suggestions to him about names on that list? >> i do not recall. it was not something that was formally presented to me. i believe i sign off on it verbally. i believe the people he's elected were excellent people. i do not recall if there was a

time, a smaller groups, but for me, it was done a significant decision for me and i trusted o to recommend the corporate people for that task force. >> stakeholders would be invited to submit suggestions. >> thank you. the last hearing we had here, we did ask the chairman about this in depth. so i will also get to you about taking emergency powers. could you not start the clock it? i have something to do. senator cardin, i _ to put this out here. he would like this in writing. if the commission delayed action on task force recommendation on the ground you do not have not been permission yet about what happened at fukushima to move forward, does that suggest the

nrc also does not have enough information to move forward in every licensing existing reactors, or licensing new reactors? that is a question he wants answered. we are gonna do have a second round here. i think senator carper and senator sanders -- the judges have one brief -- >> well -- >> i have one brief -- >> well, i go first. here is where we are. i want you to know that we are going to have you back every 90 days until i know what your doing. we will take all of your answers, what it takes to make this happen, what ever it is, and we are going to stay on this. after 9/11, we had all of these great ideas. everyone thought, great. the nrc took decisive action.

nine years later, some of these things went into effect. that is not going to happen. here is the point. whether you love nuclear energy, do not like it, or are agnostic. is not going anywhere if it is not safe, and it will not go anywhere if the public does not have faith in you. if the public thinks that you are somehow not independent, not doing their business, they will not be happy. so i have a question for you commissioner svinicki. in your july 19 vote on the task force report, you stated the nsa finds itself at the brokerage time to move away from small group packings, including the commission itself attempting to labor in isolation. this is very disturbing to me. the commission itself attempting

to labor in isolation. you were an independent entity. what were you talking about, isolated from home? >> that term was meant to reinforce the importance of having stakeholder meetings and public meetings. the chairman should have the benefit -- >> but you cannot believe it is up to stakeholders to decide which a reader what we should approve. you are an independent commissioner. >> the process should be informed by the public -- >> the chairman has laid out a plan. it proposes a process to receive broad input over the next 90 days from nrc staff and external stakeholders and to have votes by october 2011. do you agree with that? >> as i indicated in response to your earlier question -- >> i am not asking you an earlier question. i'm asking you this question. chairman jaczko has recommended to move forward in 90 days on

your concerns to inform nrc staff and stakeholders on specific recommendation by october 2011. do you agree? it seems to match what you called for. now he has put it out there. do you agree? >> i support commission meetings. i am not sure that all the commission -- a task force recommendations could be decided on 90 days. >> how many do you think could be decided within 90 days? commissioner ostendorff has pointed out six. >> i have proposed -- >> yes or no? do you agree with him? and these could be decided within 90 days? >> i do not have a specific -- ok, well let me say, your responses disturb me. when you say that the commission is isolated, your role, by statute is to be independent.

chairman jaczko has played this out. i have 7 million people who live within 50 miles of sand and not free. i went there with a wonderful friend sitting next to you. -- of san onofre. they told me they would have to go out onto the highway if there was an emergency. that is all they could do. have you ever gone to those freeways? probably not. you cannot move an inch on some of those. and i have 7 million people there. and you are basically saying that we cannot move forward? and i want to compliment the members of this special task force. it is not red tape at all. 12 recommendation that make sense. i am stunned to hear -- is there one that you could say we could move forward on before we hear from the industry?

any one of these that you could recommend? >> agree the task force identified the correct areas, but i would like nrc staff responsible for caring about the recommendations, respectfully, i would like to have their input prior to deciding -- >> and the chairman has played out a path to do that, but you say you will not be ready in october. what date will you be ready? what date will be good to vote on perhaps half a dozen simple one that everyone else thinks that we can move on? >> my objective would be, if some are less complex, to move on them within 90 days. >> which one would those be? less complex. i looked at all these. most of them do not seem too complex. especially the ones that deal with making sure the plants undertake more safety precautions, emergency precautions, emergency