some may not be, but as commissioner svinicki stated about the recommendations in the report, lacking the staff evaluation, beyond that of the six and r c staff members to predict -- nrc staff members who produced the report, i did not have basis to accept or reject the recommendations. there is no immediate to be addressed, so we do have time. there is no need to rush to regulate. before we move forward with more red tape, perhaps we need to let these suggestions more closely. i am not advocating for a few nrc public meetings to simply check a box. i am talking about real staff and stakeholder input to an open and transparent process, where recommendations can be improved, prioritize, and eventually either approved or rejected, which is essentially what commissioner magwood has said in his letter of july 29 to congressman merkley. this is the type of review that i believe four of the commissioners before us today are advocating. thank you. i look forward to the testimony. >> thank you. senator sanders. >> thank you for holding this hearing. thank you to the members of the nrc for bei

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 earli

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 fukushi

. >> explain quickly, commissioner svinicki, commissioner apostolakis, could you give me some indication if you are in agreement with commissioner ostendorff's half- dozen? >> i would just add quickly, i did not have any negative reaction to the task force's recommendations. i agree there are varying complexity is. my proposal was to hear from those nrc staff who would be responsible for carrying out such actions. the recommendations, when shaped through the nrc programmatic offices, may come back to us tightly differently. i would like to do it once and right, as opposed to continually interesting prolonged uncertainty. >> dr. apostolakis? >> all i am saying in my boat is i would like to have the opinion and judgment of senior management. that does not mean that it will take forever to get that, but this sounds like a reasonable list. but i would like to have this additional input before we make a decision. and senior management may come up with additional recommendation that we need to implement immediately. i do not think we should limit ourselves to what the task force said. >> thank

i have a question for you, commissioner svinicki. i cannot say your name. forgive me. svinicki. on the july 19th you stated and i quote the nfc finds itself to move away from small group tasking including the commission itself attempting to labor in isolation. this is very disturbing to me. very disturbing. the commission itself attempting to labor in isolation. you are an independent entity. what are you talking about? isolated from who? >> i meant that term to reinforce the importance of having public meetings and stakeholders outreach, meaning that the commission ought to have the benefit of -- >> you don't think that's up to stakeholders to decide what we should approve? you are an independent commissioner, are you not? >> yes, i meant that the process should be informed by those public. >> and chairman jaczko has laid out a plan. he proposes a process to move forward over the next 90 days to receive broad input from the staff and external stakeholders and have votes by october 7th, 2011. do you agree with that? >> as i indicated in response to your earlier question. >> i'm

i was pleased to see commissioner svinicki endorse that concept. i was also disappointed to hear from the chairman that he considers it to, quote, difficult and time-consuming, unquote. i don't believe that an accident in a country with different regulatory systems and practices means that ours are broken. i think the nrc must take time to learn not just the technical lessons from fukushima but also the regulatory and policy lessons and hope the nrc will focus on solving specific safety weaknesses highlighted by the fukushima event rather than allowing itself to become distracted by resigning a regulatory framework that has served our country very well. the nrc's efficiency principle and good regulatory states, quote, regulatory action should be consistent with the degree of risk reduction they achieve, unquote. structured process akin to the comments of commissioner making making and ostendorff goes a long way toward enduring that. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. i'm going to call on the subcommittee chair and then the restroom and then t

svinicki. the n.r.c. finds itself at the appropriate point now to move away from small group taskings including the commission itself attempting to labor in isolation. this is very disturbing to me. very disturbing. the commission itself attempting to labor in isolation? you were an independent entity. what are you talking about? isolated from who? >> i meant that term to reinforce the importancor having public meetings and stake holder outreach meaning that the commission ought to have the benefit. >> you don't think that is up to stake holders to decide what we should approve. you're an independent commissioner, are you not? >> yes, i meant that the process should be informed by the public. >> and chairman jazz co has laid jaczko laid out a plan. to have votes by october 7, 2011. do you agree with that? >> i -- as i indicated in response to your earlier question. >> i'm not asking you an earlier question. i'm asking you this question. chairman jacks jaczko has proposed a process to address your concern.

so i have a question for you, commissioner svinicki, in your july 19 vote on the task force report, you stated, and i quote, the n.r.c. finds itself at the appropriate point now to move away from small group taskings, including the commission itself attempting to labor in isolation. this is very disturbing to me. very disturbing. the commission itself attempting to labor in isolation. you are an independent entity. what are you talking about, isolated from who? >> i meant that term to reinforce the importance of having public meetings and stakeholder outreach meetings that the commission ought to have the benefit of -- >> you don't think that's up to stakeholders to decide what we should approve on -- you're an independent commissioner, are you not? >> yes, i meant that the process should be informed by the public view. >> and chairman jaczko has laid out a plan and proposes a process to move forward over the next 90 days to receive broad input from n.r.c. staff and external stakeholders and to have votes by october 7, 2011. do you agree with that? >> as i indicated in response to your