[Senate Hearing 112-957] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 112-957 REVIEW OF THE NRC'S NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCING REACTOR SAFETY IN THE 21ST CENTURY ======================================================================= JOINT HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAR AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ AUGUST 2, 2011 __________ Printed for the use of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 23-823 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 ____________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800 Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001 COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director ------ Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman MAX BAUCUS, Montana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama BENARD SANDERS, Vermont LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska BARBARA BOXER, California, (ex JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, (ex officio) officio) C O N T E N T S ---------- Page AUGUST 2, 2011 OPENING STATEMENTS Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1 Inhofe, Hon. James, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...... 3 Carper, Hon. Thomas, U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..... 10 Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 12 Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.... 14 Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee.. 15 Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico....... 16 Johanns, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska...... 17 Hon. Frank Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey. 18 Hon. John Boozman, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas....... 19 Hon. Jeff Sessions, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama....... 20 WITNESSES Jaczko, Hon. Gregory B., Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 21 Prepared statement........................................... 23 Responses to additional questions from: Senator Boxer............................................ 33 Senator Caper............................................ 47 Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin........ 52 Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 53 Svinicki, Hon. Kristine L., Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission..................................................... 65 Responses to additional questions from: Senator Boxer............................................ 66 Senator Carper........................................... 67 Senator Inhofe........................................... 69 Apostolakis, Hon. George, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission n................................................... 71 Responses to additional questions from: Senator Boxer............................................ 72 Senator Carper........................................... 73 Senator Inhofe........................................... 75 Magwood, Hon. William D., Iv, Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission..................................................... 76 Responses to additional questions from: Senator Boxer............................................ 77 Senator Carper........................................... 79 Senator Inhofe........................................... 81 Ostendorff, Hon. William C., Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission..................................................... 82 Responses to additional questions from: Senator Boxer............................................ 83 Senator Carper........................................... 86 Senator Inhofe........................................... 89 REVIEW OF THE NRC'S NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCING REACTOR SAFETY IN THE 21ST CENTURY ---------- TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2011 U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, Washington, DC. The committees met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the full committee) presiding. Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Sessions, Carper, Lautenberg, Alexander, Sanders, Barrasso, Udall, Johanns and Boozman. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Senator Boxer. Good morning. Senator Carper is the Chair of the Subcommittee. I am delighted that he is here, and, of course, we have a good turnout considering at noon we have a crucial vote. So we are going to move forward. Today is the fourth time the Members of this Committee have gathered in this room to discuss nuclear safety following the disaster in Japan. Since our first briefing on March 16th, I have asked the NRC to heed the wake-up call and reevaluate our current safety and security measures that are at our nuclear power plants. I especially wanted them to look at our power plants that are located in areas that face the possibility of natural disasters such as earthquakes and flooding. California's two nuclear power plants at Diablo and San Onofre are located in seismically active areas, and I want to repeat that any task force recommendations be implemented as soon as possible since millions of people live close to those plants, millions and millions of people. The NRC has begun to act. First, NRC ordered inspections on the 104 operating nuclear reactors and issued reports on their readiness to address power losses and damage following extreme events. More recently, NRC issued the results of its near-term 90-day task force review. I understand that the six-person task force that conducted the review was made up of senior NRC staff with more than 135 years of combined expertise, but they did not rely on their experience alone. The task force also had full access to all NRC staff and to all experts as they prepared their report. The task force found ``continued operation and continued licensing activities do not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety.'` That means that the task force found that no plants needed to be immediately shut down, but problems were identified. The task force has highlighted some issues that should be addressed right now as we speak, while further study and analysis is needed before other recommendations can be implemented. Last month, I sent a letter to Chairman Jaczko in which I urged the commission to act promptly on the near-term task force recommendations. Their near-term recommendations, they need to be implemented now in the near term. I support the Chairman's road map for action within 90 days and I will ask the commission to move forward expeditiously. It took 90 days for the task force to make their recommendations. It should not longer than 90 days for the NRC to accept or reject them and move toward implementation. Any stalling will not be viewed favorably by the American people I can assure you. Their confidence in nuclear power is waning. The task force concluded that the NRC ``The NRC's safety approach is incomplete without a strong program for dealing the unexpected, including severe accidents. Continued reliance on industry initiatives for a fundamental level of defense in depth similarly would leave gaps in the NRC regulatory approach.'` These findings are important. Although the task force stated that an accident like what happened in Japan is unlikely in the U.S., they did conclude changes should be made to our regulatory system to improve safety. They further concluded we cannot count on voluntary industry initiatives to provide the necessary level of safety. The Japanese were not prepared for the disaster that hit them on March 11 th. That is the lesson learned from Fukushima. We can't afford to make the same mistake. We should make improvements that will enhance safety and preparedness for unforeseen disasters. To that end, the NRC's 90-day review includes important recommendations. They should move quickly to implement the safety recommendations contained in the report or we are wasting taxpayer dollars and money. In addition, I believe more work should be done as part of the longer-term review to address moving spent fuel to dry cask storage and other issues that were not fully addressed. Today, I call on the commission to announce a plan for adopting the task force recommendations, and I am not alone in my call for action. A July 23d New York Times editorial stated, ``If nuclear power is to have a future in this Country, Americans have to have confidence that regulators and the industry are learning the lessons of Fukushima and taking all steps necessary to ensure safety. They went on to say, ``This month, NRC's near-term task force issued thoughtful and common sense recommendations. The five commissioners should quickly adopt them.'` A July 17th editorial in The Washington Post stated, ``The NRC should use this review not merely to respond to a single event, but to ensure that it is actively assessing low probability but high consequence risks.'` On July 19th, 15 nongovernmental organizations, including the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council, sent a letter to the NRC urging them to act to implement the recommendations. And more recently, on July 28th, my colleague, Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois was reported as saying, ``The bottom line is we cannot let the lessons learned from Fukushima become a forgotten story by dragging our feet on some of these critical short-and long-term improvements that can be made now.'` I couldn't agree with him more. For both the safety and confidence of the American public, the NRC must act without delay. It is not acceptable now that we have the results of the task force review to merely call for more study and further delay. And I look forward to hearing each of you make a commitment that you are ready to move on their recommendations. You must act now that you know what some of the problems are. It is your moral and your legal responsibility, and I consider it mine as well. I now call on Senator Inhofe. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman. First, I would like to put into the record the letter from Marvin Fertel, the President of the Nuclear Energy Institute, NEI. I will just read one sentence, the second paragraph. It says, ``The task force report lacks the rigorous analysis of issues that traditionally accompanies regulatory requirements proposed by the NRC.'` I would like to put it into the record. Senator Boxer. Absolutely, in the record. [The referenced document follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Inhofe. And I think on this report of the full commission, actually we have this as a joint Committee. It is the full Committee and the Nuclear Subcommittee, which I used to Chair a few years ago. Chairman Jaczko relayed in our June hearing how as a part of the review, and I am going to quote him at this time, he said, ``We always ask ourselves the question: Are the plants still safe? Is there anything we need to do today to address that? And the answer continues to be no, that we want to get good information. We have time to do that.'` And I agree. It might be a while until we have an adequate assessment of the event, but we have time. And frankly, we need to take time to ensure that we learn the right lessons; that any regulatory changes have the maximum benefit to safety. In that spirit, the task force describes how following the Three Mile Island event, the NRC took a number of actions which were not subjected to structured review and which were ``subsequently not found to be of substantial safety benefit and removed.'` I am pleased to see that a majority of the Commissioners are committed to ensuring that the task force recommendations proceed through a structured review process that incorporates the views of a wide range of agency staff, the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, industry and other stakeholders. Meanwhile, a full commission can take action at any time should new safety information warrant. There are many facts that we still don't know about the accident, not just about the technical aspects, but also emergency preparedness and the impact of external influences on decisionmaking. It is important to remember that the Japanese regulatory system is very different from our own. I believe it is crucial for the NRC to understand those differences in order to assess whether proposed regulatory changes will accurately and adequately address the actual problems highlighted by the Fukushima accident. Accordingly, I have sent a letter to each of you and look forward to receiving your responses. I was pleased to see Commissioner Svinicki endorse that concept. I was also disappointed to hear from the Chairman that he considers it too ``difficult and time-consuming.'` 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 lesson from Fukushima, but also the regulatory and policy lessons, and I hope the NRC will focus on solving specific safety weaknesses highlighted by the Fukushima event, rather than allowing itself to become distracted by redesigning a regulatory framework that has served our Country very well. The NRC's efficiency principle and good regulatory practice states, ``regulatory action should be consistent with the degree of risk reduction they achieve.'` A structured process akin to the comments of Commissioners Magwood, Svinicki and Ostendorff goes a long way toward doing that. Thank you, Madam Chairman. [The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the state of Oklahoma Thank you for holding this hearing today with the full Commission to review the Near-Term Task Force's report--this is a good first step toward understanding the implications of the Fukushima nuclear accident. The Commission directed the Task Force to identify near-term or immediate operational and regulatory issues, and their report concludes that the Fukushima scenario is unlikely to happen here and that continued nuclear power plant operation and licensing activities do not pose an imminent risk to the public. Chairman Jaczko relayed in our June hearing how, as part of the review, ``we've always asked ourselves the question: Are the plants still safe? Is there anything we need to do today to address that? And the answer continues to be no. That we want to get good information, we have time to do that.'' I agree. It may be a while until we have an adequate assessment of the event but we have the time, and frankly need to take the time, to ensure we learn the right lessons and that any regulatory changes have the maximum benefit to safety. In that spirit, the Task Force describes how, following the Three Mile Island event, the NRC took a number of actions which were not subjected to a structured review, and which ``were subsequently not found to be of substantial safety benefit and were removed.'' I am pleased to see that a majority of the commissioners are committed to ensuring that the Task Force's recommendations proceed through a structured review process that incorporates the views of a wide range of agency staff, the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, industry, and other stakeholders. Meanwhile, the full Commission can take actions at any time should new safety information warrant. There are many facts that we still don't know about the accident, not just about the technical aspects but also emergency preparedness and the impact of external influences on decisionmaking. It is important to remember that the Japanese regulatory system is very different from our own. I believe it is crucial for the NRC to understand those differences in order to assess whether proposed regulatory changes will accurately and adequately address actual problems highlighted by the Fukushima accident. Accordingly, I have sent a letter to each of you and look forward to receiving your responses. I was pleased to see Commissioner Svinicki endorse that concept. I was also disappointed to hear from the Chairman that he considers it too ``difficult and time-consuming''. 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 the time to learn, not just the technical lessons from Fukushima, but also the regulatory and policy lessons. I hope the NRC will focus on solving specific safety weaknesses highlighted by the Fukushima event rather than allowing itself to become distracted by redesigning a regulatory framework that has served this country well. As the NRC's Efficiency Principle of Good Regulation States: ``Regulatory actions should be consistent with the degree of risk reduction they achieve.'' A structured process akin to the comments of Commissioners Magwood, Svinicki, and Ostendorff goes a long way toward ensuring that. Senator Boxer. Thank you. I am going to call on the Subcommittee Chair and then the Ranking Member, and then the rest of our colleagues. Senator Carper, Subcommittee Chair. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE Senator Carper. Thanks, Madam Chair. Commissioners, welcome. Nice to see all of you today. This is a day that the economy could have melted down, and it looks we are going to be able to avoid that. And we want to make sure that the recommendations that these smart people at work at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that we can somehow seize the opportunity, seize the day and ensure that we don't have a meltdown in any our 104 nuclear power plants. But I am happy that you are here and look forward to this testimony. These are challenging times for the NRC. They have been, frankly, challenging times for my colleagues and me as well. And we are going to get through this day and hopefully we will get through to your recommendations and you will pick some that are the winners and the ones that we ought to implement sooner, rather than later, and we can get this show on the road. As many of you know, my interest in nuclear energy comes from a clean air and energy security perspective. It also comes from a perspective of 23 years as a Naval Flight Officer chasing nuclear submarines. And a lot of my buddies in the Navy lived on nuclear power plants on submarines and aircraft carriers and ships. So I have a lot of interest from that perspective as well. But nuclear power has helped this Nation curb our reliance on dirty fossil fuel. Nuclear power has also helped to reduce air pollution that damages our health and causes global warming. However, as we saw the crisis unfold at Fukushima facility, one wrong step at a nuclear power plant can have big and bad consequences. This crisis is a strong reminder that with nuclear energy, we never be complacent. Safety must always be our top priority. Today, I look forward to hearing an update from our Commissioners regarding their reviews of our Nation's nuclear power fleet in light of the crisis at Fukushima. I especially look forward to hearing more about the recent task force recommendations and hope to learn today how the Commissioners expect to move forward on them. I was relieved that the task force concluded that an accident like Fukushima is unlikely to happen in the United States and the nuclear fleet posed no imminent risk to public safety, which is due in part to the due diligence of the NRC to protect public safety. But as our colleagues have heard me say once or twice, I believe it is not perfect and we need to make it better. And I believe the task force took this thing to heart that we can do better. And I believe we can all agree some of the task force recommendations are common sense and should be implemented soon, maybe sooner than others. I would liken these recommendations to patching up a hole in a boat that is slowly leaking. There are easy no-brainers and it can be done with relative ease. Some of the recommendations are going to need more time, maybe much more time, and a fair amount of vetting. These recommendations are more like taking the boat apart and putting it back together. Definitely, more time is needed and more thought is needed on some of those and how we ought to go about doing them. I sincerely hope the commission will take time to talk to stakeholders and get public reaction from all sides of this issue before moving forward with these recommendations. However, I will be disappointed if we are 6 months or a year from now down the road and have not seen any action from the NRC on any of these recommendations. That would not sit well with me and I would urge you to keep that in mind. We need to all work together. I would like to say we are all in this together and we need to make sure that we incorporate the right lessons learned to keep our nuclear fleet safe into the future because, in the end, we are all in the same boat when it comes to nuclear safety. Thank you, Madam Chair, and again welcome. [The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] Statement of Hon. Thomas Carper, U.S. Senator from the state of Delaware ``Let me begin by welcoming back the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Commissioners to our Committee. I know these are trying times for the NRC, and I appreciate you taking the time to be before us today. ``As many of you know, my interest in nuclear energy comes from a clean air and energy security perspective. Nuclear power has helped this nation curb our reliance on dirty fossil fuels. Nuclear power has also helped reduce our air pollution that damages our health and causes global warming. ``However, as we saw the crisis unfold at the Fukushima Daiichi facility, one wrong step at a nuclear power plant could have big consequences. This crisis is a strong reminder that with nuclear energy, we can never be complacent. Safety must always be our top priority. ``Today, I look forward hearing an update from the NRC Commissioners regarding their review of our nation's nuclear power fleet in light of the crisis at Fukushima. I especially look forward to hearing more about the recent Task Force recommendations. I hope to learn today how the Commissioners expect to move forward on those recommendations. ``I was relieved that the task force concluded that an accident like Fukushima is unlikely to happen in the United States and that our nuclear fleet poses no imminent risk to public safety. This is due in part to the due diligence of the NRC to public safety. But as my colleagues have heard me say over and over, I believe if it is not perfect, make it better. And I believe the task force took this saying to heart. We can do better. ``I believe we can all agree that some of the task force recommendations are common sense and should be implemented soon. I liken these recommendations to patching up a hole in a boat that is slowly leaking--these are no brainers and can be done easily. And some of the recommendations are going to need much more time and vetting. These recommendations are more like taking the boat apart and building it back together. We definitely need more time and more thought on this issue. ``I sincerely hope the Commission will take time to talk to stakeholders and get public reaction--from all sides of this issue--before moving forward with any of the recommendations. However, I will be very disappointed if we are 6 months or a year down the road and have not seen any action from the NRC on any of the recommendations. ``We all need to work together to make sure we incorporate the right lessons learned to keep our nuclear fleet safe into the future, because in the end, we are all in the same boat when it comes to nuclear safety.'' Senator Boxer. Thank you. It is my pleasure to introduce John Barrasso, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I appreciate that. I thank you. I thank Chairman Carper as well for holding the hearing today on the near-term task force report entitled Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century. In reviewing the report, there are a couple of points that I believe need to be stated that come from the report itself. And first, our regulatory framework to protect our nuclear plants is working. It is working. As the task force concludes, although complex, the current regulatory approach has served the commission and the public well, and allows the task force to conclude that a sequence of events like those occurring in the Fukushima accident is unlikely to occur in the United States and could be mitigated, reducing the likelihood of core damage and radiological releases. As Commissioner Ostendorff, who is before us today, stated on July 19th, ``I do not believe that our existing regulatory framework is broken.'` I agree. I do not believe that our existing regulatory framework is broken. Second, our regulatory system is quite different than Japan's. I agree with Commissioner Ostendorff's opinion with regard to the conclusions in the task force report that the Fukushima tragedy occurred in another country whose regulatory structure is quite different from that found in the United States and that ``there is still a great deal that we do not know about Fukushima concerning the sequence of events, the failure of modes of equipment, functionality and execution procedures.'` Because of the reasons that I have just mentioned, with so much uncertainty still remaining, I find the report to be light on suggested recommendations directly tied to the events at Fukushima. Instead, this report appears to be loaded with recommendations to overhaul our entire system of oversight and safety. I agree with Commissioner Svinicki, who commented in her recent vote that the task force report recommendations are surprisingly specific and detailed for what was to be an initial 90-day review. In fact, the document is 82 pages long. I am not surprised, however, if you put six career regulators in a room for 90 days, that you are going to get a lot of suggestions for more Washington red tape, recommendations that appear to be based on old agendas. This is what I believe we have here before us today. Some of these recommendations may be good and worth pursuing. Some may not be. But as Commissioner Svinicki stated about the recommendations in the report, ``Lacking the NRC technical and programmatic staff's evaluation, beyond that of the six NRC staff members who produced the task force report, I do not have a sufficient basis to accept or reject the recommendations of the near-term task force. There is no immediate threat that needs to be addressed, according to the task force, so we do have time.'` There is no need to rush to regulate. Before we move forward with more red tape for America's nuclear industry, perhaps we need to look at these suggestions more closely. I am not advocating for a few NRC public meetings to simply check a box. I am talking about real NRC staff and stakeholder input through an open and transparent process where recommendations can be reviewed, prioritized and eventually either approved or rejected, which is essentially what Commissioner Magwood has said in his letter of July 29th to Congressman Markey. This is the type of review that I believe four of the NRC Commissioners before us today are advocating. So I thank you, Madam Chairman, and look forward to the testimony. Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. Senator Sanders. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding this important hearing, and thank you to the members of the NRC for being here. The first and I think most important point that I want to make is the function of the NRC is not to represent the nuclear power industry. That is not your job. Whether we have more nuclear power plants or fewer is not your job. Your job foremost is to make sure that the nuclear power plants that we have in this Country are as safe as humanly possible. My friend from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso, mentioned, he quoted the report and the report said it is unlikely that we are going to have a Fukushima disaster in this Country. Well, you know what? For the people of Vermont, and I think most people in this Country, unlikely is really not quite good enough. We want to make sure that everything humanly possible that can be done is done to make sure that nuclear power and the nuclear power plants in this Country are as safe as possible. Madam Chair, to the Commissioners here today, it seems to me we should take note of the Associated Press, this very disturbing report that recently found that the NRC and the nuclear industry have worked ``in tandem to weaken safety standards to keep aging reactors within the rules.'` In that regard, I have joined with the Chair of our Committee, Senator Boxer, to call for a GAO investigation of these allegations. Americans are concerned about nuclear safety not just because of the AP investigations, but because of what happened in Japan. We have 23 reactors in this Country that are Mark I models, the same as the Fukushima plant. The President asked the NRC for a safety review after Japan and the NRC's task force of senior staff did a 90-day review and laid our recommendations to improve safety. They did what they were asked to do. A New York Times editorial summarized, ``The group's most important finding is that our Nation's oversight of nuclear power plants is a less than rigorous patchwork of mandatory and voluntary provisions.'` The task force recommendations include no-brainer measures to test earthquake and flood resiliency and to install hardened vents to reduce the risk of hydrogen explosion. We are here today to find out what the NRC is going to do about these 12 common sense recommendations. Some people may think that this is ``government red tape.'` Some of us believe that in fact we have got to do everything we can to make sure that the impossible does not happen and that a major nuclear accident occurs in the United States. The answer, from what I am hearing up to this point, from a majority of the members of the NRC is that nothing is going to happen with regard to these recommendations. The Chairman has asked the NRC to begin to move forward on all 12 recommendations within 3 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, yet the media reports that this timeframe is apparently too ambitious for three of our Commissioners, and I hope they dispel what I read in the media, and that is Commissioners Svinicki, Magwood and Ostendorff apparently, as I understand it, they want more study and review and delay. And I happen to know, have been here long enough to know what happens in this town when we ``delay,'` when we want to postpone a study. It means that the issue is going to be swept under the rug, that nothing is going to happen. And to me, that is unacceptable. 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 today commit to start action on the safety recommendations within 3 months. Delay is not an acceptable option, and I look forward to hearing from the Commissioners. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. Senator Alexander. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for this hearing. Thanks to the Commissioners for their service. I think it is always useful since safety is our concern to begin with the safety records: no deaths at any commercial nuclear reactor; no deaths on any Navy reactor; and no one was even hurt at our most celebrated nuclear accident, Three Mile Island. That is an enviable record which we should always try to improve. And I would like to approach it a little differently today. I would like to ask this question: What if we didn't have nuclear power? What if we didn't have it at all in the United States? It is 20 percent of all of our electricity; 70 percent of all our clean electricity. We use about a quarter of all the electricity in the world to power this County. What if we didn't have nuclear power? Well, we can look at Japan, which is the third-largest economy, and get an idea of that. There were a couple of articles last week, one in The Wall Street Journal, one in Bloomberg, which gave us a picture of it. The Wall Street Journal article did say the Japanese are very patient people, so they have turned their air conditioners up to 82 degrees. The reason all this is true is because since the earthquake, most of their reactors are out. They have closed them down for maintenance and to check them. And so they have lost about 20 percent of all their electricity in Japan, about the same amount that nuclear power provides to us. So their air conditioners are at 82 degrees. The car-makers are operating on weekends to avoid sucking up electricity during the week. The Emperor and the Empress are wandering around the Imperial Palace at night with flashlights and candles. Emergency responders have brought 22,000 people to the hospitals with heat stroke. It is about the same weather over there as here. They are expecting electric bills to go up because as they use more renewable power, that is higher cost. Bloomberg was even more graphic. It quotes the Chairman of Sharp, a company that has a plant in Tennessee making solar panels, that the issue of the power supply could be the end of manufacturing in Japan, an exodus of Japanese manufacturers, he sees. ``If we don't keep these reactors operating,'` he said, ``Japan's economy will wither. Our young people will move abroad leaving the country with only grandpas and grandmas.'` The Japanese Chamber of Commerce, estimates that Japan's gross domestic product will fall by 3.6 percent, lose 200,000 jobs if all of the reactors close by next spring as scheduled maintenance takes them offline. So there is a little snapshot of what would happen if you lose 20 percent of your electricity, which is what nuclear power provides us. Why do I raise that? Because, as was said, we have an aging nuclear fleet. We haven't built a new reactor in 30 years; 25 or 30 years from now, this commission will have to decide whether to extend the life of a lot of the older reactors. I have advocated building 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years, 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 EIA, the Energy Information Administration, estimates that the increase in the need for electricity will be up by 31 percent. So we are going to need a lot of clean, reliable electricity in this Country. And we can't afford, if we want to have a high standard of living and good jobs, to lose 20 percent or 10 percent of our electricity. And if we don't have nuclear power, we will have to rely on coal that is dirtier; on gas that is dirtier; and who knows what the price of gas will be. And the idea of relying on windmills to power the United States of America is the energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats. So we are going to need lots of nuclear power. And as long as we are having eloquent testimony about delays here, which I just heard, I would like to recommend we have no delay in one of the other recommendations of the Committee, which is to complete without delay the design for the AP 1000 and the economically simplified boiling water reactor design. In other words, complete without delay this commission's approval of those two designs so that 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 experience the kind of exodus of manufacturing overseas that the Japanese are afraid might happen to them if they are not able to bring their reactors back online. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Senator Boxer. Thank you very much. Senator Udall. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for calling this hearing. I think many others have said it already that I think 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 unacceptable if we have the kind of thing happen 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. I mean, my understanding is that this is a task force with a 139 years of experience in this area. They are substantial. They are people that really know what they are talking about. We talk about recommendations that fall into five categories. These categories seem very common sense to me, clarifying the regulatory framework. You have to take a hard look every now and then at regulatory frameworks and how they work. Ensuring protection, the task force recommends under that category as part of a longer-term review, the NRC evaluate potential enhancements to the capability to prevent or mitigate seismically induced fires and floods. We have seen in New Mexico those kinds of fires and floods. I know 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 mitigation capability at all operating and new reactors for design basis and beyond design basis external events. I hope that we will have time to discuss that with you. I intend to ask a question about that. Strengthening emergency preparedness, the fourth category, seems very common sense to me and something we could move forward with on this front. And the fifth, improving the efficiency of NRC programs, I mean, we always want to be doing things like that. So I am not going to use all my time. I want to get to the questions, Madam Chair, and I yield back at this point. Senator Boxer. Next is Senator Johanns. Thank you so much for being here. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE JOHANNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA Senator Johanns. Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Commissioners, let me just start out and tell you we appreciate your being here with us today. So many things were said by Senator Alexander that I concur with 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 very anxious to hear about the safety concerns. We have nuclear power, as you know, in the State of Nebraska. It has been a good neighbor in our State. We feel it runs sufficiently smartly. We feel that the folks who are operating the facilities in our State are responsive to the community. I would be remiss if I didn't 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, as you know, for many months now we have been in the throes of a historic flooding event with the Missouri River in Nebraska, and that has implicated our nuclear facilities. We have found you folks to be responsive, the staff to be responsive, and it has been an experience that although difficult and trying, because so much land has been under water for so long, we feel in terms of the nuclear facility that people have responded and not overreacted, but worked with us. Therefore, I am very anxious to hear about the safety recommendations. I don't think there is any doubt, wherever you sit on this dais, we want to make sure that our facilities are safe. But 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. It is very difficult to get through the process. It is enormously expensive and there is no guarantee that you are going to get anything at the other end for that massive, massive investment. There seems to me a better way of doing this. Now, this is not an area of expertise for me. I have no nuclear background whatsoever in my life. But having said that, what I am anxious to hear about today is the economic of what you are recommending just because I want a full picture. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions, do the things that you need to do from a safety standpoint, even though you know that the cost is there, but there is just no other choice. But for me, I always like to weigh the decisions made against the cost that is incurred and try to get an understanding of whether we have benefited the situation in any significant way for the investment. This industry, I worry, is literally at a point where it could shut down over time if we can't somehow free up the ability to approve plants and approve construction and deal with the safety issues in a cost-marked sort of way. So those are the kinds of things I am interested in. But I don't say those things to criticize you. Like I said, our experience in working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been a good experience. People have worked with us and the staff has worked with us. I am just interested in how do we do this in a way that is safe, but economically viable. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. Senator Lautenberg. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And thank you, members of the NRC. I think you do a very good job, I will start off with that, and then I will get more critical, but we do thank you. Since Japan's nuclear crisis began unfolding 5 months ago, Americans have wondered, could it happen here? The NRC's task force studied the situation closely and determined our nuclear facilities pose no imminent threat to the American people. While this is reassuring news, our work is just beginning. The NRC task force issued 12 recommendations to strengthen nuclear safety and ensure reactors remain safe, including long- term steps to improve emergency preparedness and protect facilities when earthquakes or other natural disasters occur. Now, it is critically important for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to act on these recommendations quickly. The five Commissioners will hear today are from among our Country's most important guardians, and we are relying on you to keep our Country's nuclear facilities safe and secure. Prompt action on the recommendations to the NRC is particularly important to the people of my State of New Jersey, where four nuclear power reactors provide our State with half of its electricity. Just last month, the NRC renewed the license to operate the reactor at Hope Creek which shares the same design as the damaged reactors in Japan. Now, in its renewal, the NRC included conditions intended to make Hope Creek safer and we have to continue to take every precaution to make sure this facility and others like it are as safe as we can make them. The fact is, nuclear power plays a great role, a critical role in our Country and it is an emissions-free energy source that provides one-fifth of our Nation's electricity. So nuclear power can continue to be a 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 believed that Fukushima, the plant, was very strong, strong enough to withstand a worst-case scenario. But as we now know, it wasn't. Likewise, the Chernobyl tragedy 25 years ago taught us that the effects of a single nuclear accident can linger for generations and we have to pay attention to these questions and learn from others' mistakes. This means continually revisiting the laws intended to keep nuclear plants safe, strengthening the NRC's regulations, and ensuring plants are in compliance at all times. The NRC has got to ask the hard questions and make sure the American people get the answers that they deserve, and I urge you Commissioners to act quickly, to take the next steps to make sure that nuclear facilities are prepared and that the public is fully protected. Thank you. Senator Boxer. Thank you. Senator Boozman. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Inhofe for having this really important hearing on the task force review. The task force has produced a report that is a good first step to help make sure our nuclear industry continues to be the safest in the world. Nuclear energy provides an affordable, reliable, emissions-free supply of energy to power our economy and create jobs, especially industrial and manufacturing jobs that are power-intensive. We need to learn and implement both short-term and long- term lessons from the event in Japan. Safety must remain our highest priority, and I think that 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 truly 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 that continued operation and licensing activities do not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety. I would very much like to encourage the commission that as they move forward that they do so with speed, but more importantly, or as importantly that they do this very, very thoughtfully. We need a process that allows the commission, the NRC staff, the industry and other stakeholders to be fully engaged. With that, I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Boxer. Thank you so much. Now, Senator Sessions, you are our last, but certainly not least. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA Senator Sessions. Thank you. We spend a good deal of time on this Committee and other Committees in rightly considering the events at Fukushima. The report of the near-term task force provides a good starting point to thinking about potential improvements that can be made on our nuclear fleet. But I do think it is important to keep in mind, as Senator Alexander noted, that 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 is a significant thing that we need to remember since over 20 percent of our electricity is coming from nuclear power. It is a big part of our economy and it has been very safe. I really think we need to remember that. How many lives have been lost in the process of creating coal plants and providing the fuel? And how many problems have we had with natural gas and difficulties and lives have been lost? And most provide CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere. I am interested, as Senator Inhofe is, in looking at the Japanese system to see if theirs was less effective than ours. NEI, Nuclear Energy Institute, says that we have the gold standard for nuclear regulation and I hope that is true, and we would like it to be true. And we need to know if perhaps our regulations would have prevented this. Certainly, nuclear plants already must demonstrate to the satisfaction of you, the NRC, that the plants can continue to operate safely even during a blackout scenario. And I do believe, as Senator Alexander noted, the AP 1000, for example, would have gravity-fed fuel or water processes that would shut down a plant even if there was 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. Delays are costs. And you delay and create uncertainty, and pretty soon people are afraid to invest what would need to be invested for us to create a cleaner, more productive form of energy that is safer, in bottom line, than other forms of energy for the United States. 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 seems to me. It may not be the total solution, but it fits all of those policies and I hope and 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 need for increased electricity in the future by blocking a reasonable development of new sources of nuclear power. I notice in Alabama we had a shutdown of power. We had power failures to our nuclear plant at Brown's Ferry, the TVA plant. The backup systems responded just as expected, just as required, just as you have monitored and required, and there was no dangerous scenario that occurred. I also appreciate the fact that your committee has found that there is no reason to doubt the safety of our nuclear power facilities. Your task force report concludes that a sequence of events like the Fukushima accident is unlikely to occur in the United States. Continued operation and continued licensing activities do not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety. So Madam Chairman, thank you for having the hearing. I think it is something that we need to move forward with. Hopefully, we can be able to effectively allow a new generation of even more efficient, more safe nuclear power plants to come online, plants that produce tremendous amounts of baseload electricity without pollution of our atmosphere and that provide safety to all concerned. Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator. So under the agreement that we have reached, the Chairman will have 5 minutes and each of his colleagues will have three. Is that your understanding? OK, excellent. Chairman, go right ahead. I am going to ask everyone to stick with their time because we are so close to a vote and we want to conclude before then. So go right ahead. STATEMENT OF HON. GREGORY B. JACZKO, CHAIRMAN, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mr. Jaczko. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, Chairman Carper, and Ranking Member Barrasso and members of the Committee, on behalf of the commission I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the NRC's near-term task force recommendations and their potential implementation. In the aftermath of the Fukushima accident, the commission established the task force to spearhead our systematic and methodical review of the NRC's Nuclear Reactor Safety Program. Its members include some of the agency's most experienced and expert staff, collectively having more than 135 years of regulatory experience. In conducting their review, the task force's efforts were independent, but by no means isolated or solitary. In developing their report and recommendations, the task force had access to the entire NRC staff with more than 100 hours of briefings. They also spent thousands of hours reviewing agency products and information and consulted with the NRC site team in Japan. In its report, the task force outlined a comprehensive set of 12 recommendations, many with short-and long-term elements that touch on a broad range of important issues, including the loss of electrical power, earthquakes, flooding, spent fuel pools, venting and emergency preparedness. I provided a detailed overview of the recommendations in the written testimony I submitted on behalf of the commission. As their report makes clear, the task force has done an outstanding job of helping us better understand what nuclear safety requires in a post-Fukushima Dai-ichi world. Now that the task force has completed its review, it is up to the commission to decide how to move forward. A wide range of stakeholders have called upon the commission to act promptly. At this point, the commission has not yet reached a decision on how to proceed. And although my colleagues may hold differing viewpoints, I believe our goal remains for the commission to come to an agreement on an open and transparent way for us to make a merit-based decision on the 12 recommendations in a finite period of time. In considering the task force recommendations, the commission must move forward with the urgency called for by these real safety issues. Although the task force did not find imminent risk to public health and safety, they identified significant concerns with specific issues and they recommended improving the agency's regulatory framework. Fukushima clearly demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances can challenge plants in unexpected ways and we must commit to a strong and timely response. I believe that the American people expect no less. So to all the Members of the Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Jaczko follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Boxer. Thank you. Commissioner Svinicki. STATEMENT OF HON. KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ms. Svinicki. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Barrasso and other Members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. The members of NRC's near-term task force covered tremendous ground in the conduct of their 90-day review. After a more extensive examination than earlier NRC efforts were able to undertake, the task force concluded that a sequence of events like the Fukushima accident is unlikely to occur in the United States and that continued operation and continued licensing activities do not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety. In providing this safety reassurance to the commission and the public, the task force's work, conducted with some urgency given their mission of finding any near-term deficiencies or confirming the safety of continued operations, now allows the NRC the opportunity to proceed with the systematic and methodical review of lessons learned that the commission established early on. I believe that wise regulatory decisions depend on public participation and on careful analysis of the likely consequences of regulation. The NRC is now in a position to conduct activities that the task force's short timeframe did not allow them to undertake, namely a more extensive public stakeholder engagement on these issues and others that will likely emerge, and opportunities to consider a comprehensive set of facts regarding the events in Japan, and to receive the expert views of the commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. In that vein, I view the near-term task force report as an important first step in the process of learning from the events at Fukushima. The conclusions drawn by the six individual members of the near-term task force must now be open to challenge by our many public stakeholders and tested by the scrutiny of a wider body of experts, including the NRC's technical staff who would be responsible for carrying out the changes the commission might adopt prior to final commission decisionmaking on those changes. I support acting with the appropriate dispatch and urgency, but without short-changing the thoroughness, inclusiveness and deliberation of our response. Thank you again for this opportunity and I look forward to answering your questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Svinicki follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Boxer. Thank you. The Honorable George Apostolakis. How did I do on that one? We met in California so I had a chance to practice that. Go ahead. STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS, COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mr. Apostolakis. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Barrasso and members of the Committee, good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. My views regarding the way forward with the near-term task force recommendations are summarized as follows. First, it is important to bear in mind the significant task force conclusion that the current regulatory system has served the commission and the public well, and that a sequence of events like those that occurred in Fukushima is unlikely to occur in the United States. Second, many people have referred to the events at Fukushima as unthinkable or unforeseen and imply that we should focus on protecting nuclear plants from unimaginable events. However, there is growing evidence that the historical record of tsunamis had not been used properly to determine the design basis of Fukushima Dai-ichi and consequently the protection of the plant was not sufficient. In addition, the location of safety significant equipment was less than optimal with respect to protection against flooding. The accident was not of extremely low probability. That is, it was not unthinkable or unforeseen. These observations suggest that we should be mindful of striking a proper balance between confirming the correctness of the design basis and expanding the design basis of U.S. plants. Third, the timely disposition by the commission of the near-term task force recommendations is important. It is also important to do this in an open and transparent manner. Three months should be sufficient time to achieve these objectives. Fourth, our process for reaching decisions should be methodical and systematic. The Three Mile Island experience is relevant here. As the task force states, ``Some of the actions taken by the NRC after TMI were not subjected to a structured review. Subsequently, some of the resulting requirements were found not to be of substantial safety benefit and were removed.'` Fifth, with these recommendations in mind, I believe that the commission's deliberations would benefit from an evaluation of the task force recommendations by NRC management, the views of external stakeholders, and an independent evaluation by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. These reviews may in fact result in additional or different recommendations. I will be working with my fellow Commissioners to reach a timely resolution of the lessons learned from Fukushima. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Apostolakis follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Boxer. Thank you very much. And now we look to Commission member William Magwood. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD, IV, COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mr. Magwood. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Barrasso. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. Soon after the seriousness of the events at Fukushima became evident, the commission created a task force to study this and apply any lessons learned. After nearly 4 months of work, this task force has provided us with the recommendations we have discussed this morning. I congratulate the six-person team for its impressive work and I also want to just sort of point out that Dr. Charles Miller, who chaired the task force, is with us in the audience today somewhere back there, and I wanted to just make mention of the fact that I think tomorrow is his retirement date. So this is his opportunity to observe his work. Senator Carper. Can we ask him to raise his hand? Thanks for your service. Mr. Magwood. Thank you, Charlie. Nevertheless, while the task force found that U.S. plants are safe and they say that quite clearly. Their conclusion that the U.S. plants are safe is not a license for complacency. There are very clearly some important lessons learned from Fukushima that can be used to further improve our regulatory framework, and the task force has made the 12 recommendations we have spoken of this morning. Obviously, the task force was limited in its time and scope and its ability to reach out to stakeholders and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. Fortunately, since the task force found no imminent risk to public health or safety, we have the opportunity to apply our resources and processes to best effect and deal with issues such as the potassium iodide and other issues which were not covered by the task force in open and transparent manner. We must work quickly and effectively to engage our stakeholders in consideration of the task force's recommendations, as well as consideration of approaches which the task force did not have time or resources to analyze. I also believe that while there are many who believe that we should move very quickly on every recommendations, I think what Senator Carper said this morning is actually quite apropos. There are some recommendations which I believe can be implemented almost right away, and I think the votes of the commission so far have indicated that that is possible. There are others that may take some more time, and I think we should take that time to do this the right way and not repeat the mistakes of the post-Three Mile Island era. So with that, I look forward to your questions. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Magwood follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Boxer. Thank you. Mr. Ostendorff, welcome. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, COMMISSIONER, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mr. Ostendorff. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Barrasso, Members of the Committee, thank you for the chance to be before you today. I highly commend the NRC's near-term task force for its dedication, thoughtfulness and professionalism in conducting its review. Given a very short period of time, the task force has provided a very significant product that will serve us well. Before forming my position on the task force report, I carefully studied the report. I met with the task force in a public meeting. I sought input from NRC staff. And I listened to the views of my colleagues at this table. I cast my vote on the task force report last Wednesday and made that vote publicly available. Serving, in my view, as the anchor for this report are findings related to the safety of commercial reactors in the United States. The task force noted that the current regulatory approach has served the commission and the public well, and the continued operation and continued licensing activities do not pose imminent risk to public health and safety. As I stated at the commission's July 19th public meeting on the task force report, while I support thoughtful consideration of potential safety enhancements in a systematic and holistic manner, at the same time I do not believe that our existing regulatory framework is broken. My vote is centered on three key principles. First, the need to ensure that we have an integrated, prioritized approach based on recommendations by the NRC's Executive Director for Operations. The failure to have such an approach was a key lesson learned from NRC's response to the events at Three Mile Island and was stated by the EDO, Bill Borchardt, who is here today as a concern that he had going forward with Fukushima when we had our public meeting March 21st. Not all the 12 task force recommendations that have 35 subparts are equal, neither in safety enhancement or urgency perspective. Second, some actions should be taken sooner than others. My vote cast last week supports the EDO coming back within 30 days with a list of recommendations warranting short-term actions. I specifically called out in my vote from last week six discrete actions that I think should happen now. There are perhaps others. I look forward to hearing from the EDO as to what those recommendations might be from an integrated prioritization standpoint. Third and finally, I join with my colleagues at the table in supporting the full engagement by our stakeholders. That is absolutely critical. I appreciate the Committee's oversight and interest in this area and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Ostendorff follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Boxer. Thank you very much. Each of us will have 5 minutes. We are not dealing here with safety issues that are relatively straightforward like seatbelts. We know it is essential people buckle up. We know they save lives. What we are dealing with here is potentially fatal doses of radiation if you don't do your job right and we don't do our jobs right. And today, the New York Times had a story here, Fatal Radiation Level Found At Japanese Plant. They said the operator at Tokyo Electric Power said that workers on Monday afternoon found an area near reactors numbers one and two where radiation levels exceeded their measuring device's maximum reading of 10 sieverts per hour, a fatal dose for humans. So when I hear colleagues call, and this is my interpretation of what they said, not far off, recommendations for safety, more Washington red tape, I believe that is what the Ranking Member said, more Washington red tape. I can tell the people in Japan would have got down on their knees and prayed God that they had more safety measures in place. So I want to ask some questions here. The task force recommends requiring hardened vent designed in Mark I and Mark II reactors. Now, the reason is that what happened in Japan is the fuel in the reactors of units one, two and three became partially uncovered which led to a buildup of hydrogen gas. Japanese tried to vent the gas, but because the vents were not working, explosions occurred in all three units. Those units were Mark I reactors, and we know some of the Mark II reactors have made some safety improvements. But the task force recommends requiring hardened vent designs in Mark I and Mark II reactors. It is important to note only three reactors in America have installed hardened vents. There are five remaining reactors who have. Now, why do we have to wait before we implement that recommendation? So I am going to ask each of you: Do you think we ought to move on that recommendation to harden, to move forward with this recommendation of the hardened vent designs? I just want a yes or know or don't know. Mr. Jaczko. Yes, I think that is a fine recommendation. Senator Boxer. OK, I don't want any editorial comment, yes or no or don't know. Ms. Svinicki. I don't know at this time. Senator Boxer. OK. Next? Mr. Apostolakis. Sounds reasonable. Senator Boxer. Yes. Mr. Magwood. I can't answer at this point. Senator Boxer. OK. Mr. Ostendorff. I support assessing our venting capability and accessibility. The task force report noted that they did not have a clear understanding of whether the operators were able to actually operate the vents. So there is more information to be gleaned here. Senator Boxer. I take it as a no. It is not good news from this commission. Can I ask each of you, what is your purpose that when you became a commission, what was your highest duty, in a word? Mr. Jaczko. Public health and safety protection. Senator Boxer. Yes. Ms. Svinicki. The safety and security of nuclear material. Senator Boxer. Yes. Mr. Apostolakis. Public health and safety. Mr. Magwood. Protect health and safety. Mr. Ostendorff. Public health and safety. Senator Boxer. Good. Well, then I would like you to consider looking at what happened in Japan and looking at the similarities that we see in some of our plants and move on it. And let me tell you why I am concerned. After 9/11, the NRC took seemingly decisive action, I want you to listen to this. I hope the public is listening to this. You ordered U.S. nuclear power plants to take a series of improved security measures because we worried about a terrorist attack. And in my home State, they were handing out iodine pills. That is how worried they were about it because we had millions of people that live within 50 miles of power plants. The NRC later codified those orders in regulations. You know when? With compliance required by March 31st, 2010, from 2001 to 2010. Now, I want assurances from each of you that you will not allow that to happen. And I want to hear from you as to whether or not you believe we can move on these recommendations and put them in place within a year. Mr. Jaczko. Yes, I believe we can move on them within 90 days and have full implementation with potentially long-term recommendations in 5 years. Senator Boxer. OK. So let's ask 90 days if we can move on these, most of these recommendations and put them in place in 90 days. There is a yes from the Chairman. Yes. Ms. Svinicki. I don't believe that all can be acted on in 90 days. Senator Boxer. How many? How many do you think could? Ms. Svinicki. I am not certain. I have proposed that we receive an evaluation. Senator Boxer. So you don't know. Next. I am sorry. My time is over. Go ahead. Mr. Apostolakis. I agree with the Chairman that we should disposition all of them within 90 days. Senator Boxer. Excellent. Sir. Mr. Magwood. I certainly think some of them could be dispositioned within 90 days. It is hard to say that all of them could, but some of them certainly could. Senator Boxer. Thank you. Sir. Mr. Ostendorff. I agree with Commissioner Magwood. Senator Boxer. Thank you. OK. My time is up. Senator. Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You might recall when we had our June meeting, I had an Armed Services commitment that kept me from being here, so I asked Senator Barrasso if he would ask Chairman Jaczko to provide a full account of the actions he took while exercising his emergency authority as provided in Section 3 of the NRC's reorganization plan of 1980. To date, I have not received such a report. Section 3 states, ``Following the conclusion of the emergency, the Chairman shall render a complete and timely report to the commission on the actions taken during that emergency.'` Let me start by asking each one of you, except for Chairman Jaczko, the question: Has Chairman Jaczko provided such a report? Let's start with you. Ms. Svinicki. I have not received a report. Senator Inhofe. You have not. Mr. Apostolakis. I have not. Mr. Magwood. I have never seen a report. Mr. Ostendorff. I have not. Senator Inhofe. The second thing I would ask you is: Has he informed you that he has ceased using his emergency authority? Ms. Svinicki. He has not informed me of that. Mr. Apostolakis. He has not. Mr. Magwood. He has not. Mr. Ostendorff. He has not. Senator Inhofe. OK. Then I would have to assume that he is still using the emergency. You know, this is kind of very confusing. Mr. Jaczko. Senator Inhofe, would you like a response? Senator Inhofe. Not yet. Well, if you want to extend my time, that is fine. Go ahead. Senator Boxer. Sure, I will extend your time. Senator Inhofe. All right. Mr. Jaczko. My colleagues have all been informed. Senator Inhofe. It might be better if I finish then he can. Senator Boxer. Fair enough. Senator Inhofe. All right. So I have to assume that he is still using, I mean since they haven't received, and I do want to do this because I think it needs to be in the record. None of us were around at that time, but in 1980 when this emergency provision was passed by law, and it was Toby Moffett. He was a Democratic Congressman from Connecticut. And I am going to read this because I think it is important to have this in the record. This is from over 30 years ago: ``There will be two situations in the future, those where the Chairman is in basic agreement with the majority and those where he or she is not. In those cases where the Chairman has a majority of Commissioners with him or her, it is obvious that the Chairman will not need the extraordinary powers tucked away in this plan to work his or her will. The Chairman and the commission can move in unison toward their chosen regulatory policy.'` ``But what about the other situation, where the Chairman is in the minority, regardless of party affiliation, within the commission, when the majority of the commissioners oppose the Chairman? Isn't it equally obvious that if will be at that moment that these special powers will be most appealing to the Chairman? Isn't it clear that if these powers are ever to be needed and utilized at all, it is precisely by the Chairman bent on going against a majority of the commissioners. And if that be the case, is this plan not clearly constructed to gut the commission form of regulation and would it not be subject to the basest sort of partisan political manipulation?'` That was over 30 years ago. And I would just have to say, before you make your comments, Chairman Jaczko, I would like to get a commitment from you that you will respect the will of the commission majority on this report and all other issues and that you will not attempt to act unilaterally to implement any of these task force recommendations. Do you feel comfortable making that commitment here in this hearing? Mr. Jaczko. Of course, everything I do I do consistent with that. Senator Inhofe. All right. Mr. Jaczko. With regard to the emergency powers, the commissioners personally have been briefed by me on ths status of our situation. We no longer have our emergency operation center activated, which is a clear signal that there would be no emergency powers. Senator Inhofe. But Chairman Jaczko, that is not what they said. They said they have not been notified by you. Mr. Jaczko. Which is a true statement. But for one to infer that they are not aware of the status of the agency and whether or not, as I believe you indicated, you were therefore assuming that I am continuing to use emergency powers, I don't believe that that is a fair assumption. The commission is fully aware. Their staff is briefed on a weekly basis on our response activities related to Japan. They were provided situation reports throughout the entire activity of everything that was going on. Moreover, they have received a report that you have all received, the task force report which summarizes and looks at the actions that were taken following the Fukushima incident. So to somehow infer that the commission is being kept in the dark about what is going on at the agency is simply not true. They have been receiving multiple briefings, many briefings, including public commission meetings. Senator Inhofe. So all four of them were not telling the truth when they answered the question, have they received a report. Mr. Jaczko. I simply can't speak for them, but they certainly have received many reports about what we have done following Fukushima, including the report that you see in front of you. If that is not a report summarizing actions and recommendations going forward, I don't know what would be. And that is one of the clear requirements of the report in the statute. So their response I cannot explain. Senator Inhofe. Well, I think I can. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Senator Boxer. Thank you very much. OK. How about a smile from everybody here. Can you do that? Not quite. Senator. Senator Carper. We don't always smile either up here. Senator Boxer. We try to. The Chairman and I do. Senator Inhofe. We do. Senator Boxer. We do. Senator Carper. I am sitting here listening to this and I am reminded of something my mother used to say with respect to moving along expeditiously on these recommendations or not. My mother used to say, haste makes waste. My father, on the other hand, would say that work expands to fill the amount of time we allocate to a job. And so I had like one parent pushing on the accelerator and one parent tapping on the brakes, which is not a bad combination. It sounds to me like that is a little bit like what we want to do here, or what the commission thinks we ought to do here. In some cases, some of the recommendations we can push on the accelerator, and with some others we can tap on the brakes. I think one of the things I like to do around here is try to encourage consensus across the aisle, and I am going to try and see if we can get some consensus here with respect to some of these recommendations. Mr. Magwood, you mentioned that you thought there were some of these recommendations that could be implemented pretty much right away, and there are others that would take some time. Would you mention a couple of the ones that fall into the implement right away category for us please? Mr. Magwood. Well, I have generally tried not to point out specific recommendations because I would like to let the process work its way. But just to anticipate, a clear example I think are what we call the walk down inspections to confirm that the plants are prepared to deal with a flood and seismic events. I think that is an obvious one that can be done very quickly. Commissioner Ostendorff in his vote highlighted I think about a half dozen. I am in general agreement with what he recommended. There are others. I think ultimate action on events, for example, are ones we have to study and understand very carefully before those are implemented, but that doesn't mean it has to take years to do it. It simply may not be possible in a few weeks. So I think many of these could be implemented very quickly. And let me just share just personally because I have talked with other members of the commission. I have absolutely no sense that there is anyone on the commission that wants to delay this unnecessarily. I think everyone is looking at this very seriously and wants to move forward as quickly as practical, but we want to make sure the process is done correctly. Senator Carper. OK. Good. Well, that is encouraging. Mr. Ostendorff, did I hear Commissioner Magwood say the Ostendorff half dozen? Is that what he said? Mr. Ostendorff. Yes, sir. Senator Carper. All right. Mr. Ostendorff. Real quick, I will just summarize some of those. There are six things that I think could be done very quickly here and decided on in a matter of weeks. I put those in my vote from last week. The first is reevaluate the seismic and flooding hazards at all sites against current NRC requirements; second, perform, as Commissioner Magwood mentioned, seismic and flood protection walk-downs to look at any plant-specific vulnerabilities; third, issue an advance notice of rulemaking to address long loss of A.C. power, this is the station blackout rule we discussed at the last hearing. Fourth, review what is called B(5)(b), our fire and flooding protection equipment to ensure that they can withstand a seismic event or flooding, and also we have additional equipment in the event of a multi-unit accident; fifth, review the venting capability and accessibility of vents on Mark I and Mark II boiling water reactors; and sixth, maintain and train on severe accident management guidelines. Those are examples of things I think can be done right away. Senator Carper. What was the sixth one? Mr. Ostendorff. We have severe accident management guidelines that guide our licensees as to how to deal with a catastrophic event. Making sure that those are in good order and the people are fully trained in those is a high priority. Senator Carper. OK. All right. Let me just go right down the line here. We will start with you, Mr. Chairman, if you will. Would you want to kind of react to the Ostendorff half dozen please? Mr. Jaczko. Well, I certainly don't have any disagreement. I would note that I think beyond that, there really aren't that many recommendations that the task force recommended for near- term action. So I think some of this discussion is really about semantics. But four of the 12 recommendations themselves were long-term recommendations. Two of them were specifically targeted toward NRC action in and of itself. So there are actually only six recommendations that are actually directed toward licensees in the short term. Senator Carper. And were those six the ones that Commissioner Ostendorff mentioned? Mr. Jaczko. They were a subset of that. They are smaller. The ones that appear to be missing were recommendations related to spent fuel pools and the need to have reliable monitoring and capability to deal with spent fuel pools, which I think is one that most people would agree is an action that we would want to address in the near term. I don't think there are that many left once we take those particular issues that we can't get all this work done in 90 days. Senator Carper. OK. My time is expired. Just really quickly, Commissioner Svinicki and Commissioner Apostolakis, would you like to just give me some indication of whether you are pretty much in agreement that Commission Ostendorff's list of half dozen is easily on the money there or has he overstated the case? Ms. Svinicki. I would just add quickly that I did not have any negative reaction to the task force's recommendations. I agree that they are of varying complexity. And I think that my proposal was to hear from those NRC staff who would be responsible for carrying out such actions, and I think the recommendations when shaped through the NRC programmatic offices may come back to us slightly different. I would like to do it maybe once and do it right, as opposed to continually iterating. I think prolonged uncertainty about these recommendation is very undesirable. Senator Carper. OK. Dr. Apostolakis. Mr. Apostolakis. Well, all I am saying in my vote is that I would like to have the opinion and judgment of the senior management before we go ahead. That doesn't mean it is going to 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. Plus, senior management may come up with additional recommendations that can be implemented immediately. I don't think we should limit ourselves to what the task force said. Senator Carper. OK. Thanks very much. Senator Boxer. Senator Barrasso. Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman Jaczko, how involved were you in the selection of the six members of the six members of this near-term task force? Mr. Jaczko. I was not involved. Senator Barrasso. Not involved? Mr. Jaczko. I mean, I believe the EDO may have told me the list of people that would be on it and I think I OKed it. Senator Barrasso. Were you involved in any way or shape or form in the deliberations of the task force? Mr. Jaczko. No, not at all. I spoke to them before they began their work and told them they had a tremendous responsibility to do and they should do it the best they could. Senator Barrasso. The task force report talked about a patchwork of requirements flowing from the current regulatory program. Do you agree with the implication that our current regulatory program of nuclear safety in the United States is defective or not working? Mr. Jaczko. I don't believe that is what the task force said. The task force said we have a patchwork. I think the inference that it is defective therefore is not true. It is true that we have a patchwork of regulations. That is what the task force indicated. We have some things that, for instance if you just look at emergency procedures. We have emergency procedures that fall into three classes, the standard emergency procedures that we call emergency operating procedures. We then have procedures for severe accidents. And then we have procedures dealing with what we call essentially the September 11th actions. Each one of those has a different regulatory treatment, but all three of them are likely comparable in their importance and should be integrated into a whole process of procedures. So that was the patchwork that existed. Each of those came out of a particular incident. The severe accidents came out of the 1980's and when we recognized that there was a need to have a better preparation for severe accidents. The last, the extensive damage mitigation guidelines came out of September 11th. So there was never an effort to look at those in a holistic way as part of a unified set of procedures. That is simply what the task force is recommending. And in some cases, some would get greater regulatory treatment than they get right now, in particular the severe accident management guidelines. Senator Barrasso. Commissioner Ostendorff, you stated in your notation vote response sheet that the NRC is an agency that ``prides itself on openness and transparency.'` You also referenced that the NRC has principles of good regulation that you use in your decisionmaking. If the NRC simply has a couple of public meetings on these task force recommendations, would that suffice to meet the goals of openness and transparency and meet the standard of the NRC principles that you referenced? Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, thank you for the question. I think public meetings are a very key component of that effort. We had a public meeting just last Thursday at the NRC which I think is a very good start. I think all the Commissioners here support the Chairman's call for open and public meetings as being a very key component. There is also the discussions that will happen outside of public meetings that will help inform the prioritization that these individual recommendations should receive. Senator Barrasso. OK. And you said that you didn't believe that the existing regulatory framework is broken. Is this 82- page report larger in scope than maybe you expected, given that statement? Mr. Ostendorff. If I can, Senator, address that comment. I agree with all of what the Chairman said just a few minutes ago on his characterization of the patchwork comment. I think there has been a dynamic evolving buildup of regulations in response to events. And so I don't think that the patchwork is a fair characterization itself, but I think the Chairman's explanation is correct here. I think it is something that we ought to look at, but I don't think it is something that is an immediate concern that would suggest our existing regulations are not safe and proper. Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much. And then Commissioner Svinicki, if I could, you said in your vote ``lacking the NRC technical and programmatic staff's evaluation'` beyond that of the six NRC staff members. You said ``I do not have a sufficient basis to accept or reject the recommendations of the near-term task force.'` In your opinion, how can we achieve a sufficient basis of knowledge to then make that decision about accepting or rejecting these recommendations? Ms. Svinicki. I had made a proposal to my colleagues which is not yet decided upon, but it would be that the NRC programmatic staff would take these recommendations and within 45 days come back to the commission with a prioritization and a plan for how the agency might move forward to get that more complete evaluation. They could also at that time identify the more straightforward recommendations and how they would propose to move forward on those more quickly. So I did not think it needed to take an excessive amount of time. Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. Senator Sanders. Senator Sanders. I will just start again by telling you how I begin my thinking. I am going back to the AP article, June 20th, 2011. Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the Nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by the AP has found. Now, throughout this discussion, I probably a half dozen times Members of the Committee have quoted the statement in the task force which says that the task force which says that the task force concludes that a sequence of events like the Fukushima accident is unlikely to occur in the United States. We have heard that a half dozen times, but we haven't heard the paragraph before that. And the paragraph before that says, this regulatory approach established and supplemented piece by piece over the decades, has addressed many safety returns and issues using the best information and techniques available at the time. The result is a patchwork of regulatory requirements and other safety initiatives, all important, but not all given equivalent consideration and treatment by licensees or during NRC technical review and inspection. Consistent with the NRC's organizational value of excellence, the task force believes that improving the NRC's regulatory framework is an appropriate, realistic and achievable goal. Chairman Jaczko, what is the problem? I think again my friend from Wyoming talked about somebody saying that they were defective. I didn't hear the word defective, that the regulatory system is defective. What I hear here is they want to improve it. Do we have a problem of improving the regulatory framework? Second of all, let's be clear what we are talking about. You have highly knowledgeable people who have made 12 recommendations. They want you to go forward. No one is saying that you have to accept all 12 recommendations tomorrow. What they are saying is look at them, analyze them, tell us what you like. I think Mr. Ostendorff has said he likes some of them. He is ready to go on some of them. Some of them he has concerns about. Fine. What is the problem, Mr. Chairman, in your judgment, about taking these recommendations and starting an immediate discussion to see what we like or don't like? Mr. Jaczko. I think that is something that we can do. And as I said, I think it is something we should be able to get done in 90 days. Senator Sanders. Ms. Svinicki, what is the problem with starting this discussion? Ms. Svinicki. I voted within days of receiving the task force report to respectfully, I believe, begin that discussion. So I don't see that my proposal is to take an inordinate amount of time to evaluate them. Senator Sanders. So you are ready to get going, then, on taking a hard look at these 12 recommendations? Ms. Svinicki. Yes, I am. Mr. Apostolakis. Yes, the process has started, Senator. Senator Sanders. Mr. Magwood. Mr. Magwood. Yes, I think I was actually the first one to vote. Senator Sanders. So you are ready now to begin immediately to start a discussion on these 12 recommendations? Mr. Magwood. Absolutely. Senator Sanders. Mr. Ostendorff. Mr. Ostendorff. Senator Sanders, I think we are all ready. Senator Sanders. I am glad to hear that. Chairman Jaczko, is the process now ready to go? Where has the confusion been? What am I missing here? Mr. Jaczko. Well, I think there is a bit of, or we are kind of stuck I think in developing the process, rather than just moving forward to actually begin the discussion and the dialog on the recommendations. Right now, what we are talking about is the process to have that discussion. And unfortunately, certainly with the exception of Commissioner Ostendorff, most of my colleagues have weighed in about the process, not about specific recommendations. Senator Sanders. And what are the differences of opinion with regard to process? Mr. Jaczko. Well, I think they are not severe. They are minor, but I think a big difference is setting an expectation for when we can get completed. I have suggested that we work to get completed our decisions about all 12 recommendations in 90 days. I think that is a reasonable timeframe. I think that is perhaps what I hear is the biggest point. Senator Sanders. Ms. Svinicki, do you think we could do it in 90 days? Ms. Svinicki. I agree with the Chairman's characterization. Senator Sanders. Do you think we can? Well, do you agree with him that we can get these recommendations done in 90 days? Ms. Svinicki. No, I believe that some of them are complex enough that it would not be possible to make a final decision on all 12 in 90 days. Senator Sanders. Mr. Apostolakis. Mr. Apostolakis. I believe we can do it in 90 days. I think the major difference, Senator, process-wise is that the Chairman's original road map would go directly to public meetings of the commission. Some of the members feel that we should get senior management evaluation first of the recommendations. Senator Sanders. OK. Mr. Magwood. Mr. Magwood. As I see the votes being cast so far, I see a great deal of commonality. So I think there is actually a consensus coming here quite quickly on the commission to move forward with this. And as I stated earlier, I do think some of these recommendations can very likely be implemented very quickly. Senator Sanders. Do you agree with the Chairman that we can get moving on this? Mr. Magwood. I think we can launch some of them sooner than 90 days. Others may take longer. Senator Sanders. Mr. Ostendorff. Mr. Ostendorff. I believe that we can act on most of these recommendations within 90 days, perhaps not all. I think unfortunately in the press there has been a perception created there is great dissension among the commissioners on this topic, which I quite frankly don't think is there. I think there is a lot more consensus. Everybody is ready to move forward. I think there is a lot of agreement on the need for us to place this at the highest priority. And I think it clearly is. Senator Sanders. OK. Madam Chair, thank you. Senator Boxer. Thank you. Let's see, Senator Alexander. Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Jaczko, a traffic policeman's job would be to keep the traffic safe, and all five of you said public health and safety was your job. But if the traffic cop just stopped all the cars from going anywhere, his supervisor might come down and say, hey, wait a minute, that is not very creative of you. Is there anything within the charge of the commission to make it possible for a power plant to create an environment in which a nuclear power plant can actually operate and in which a new one could actually be built? Mr. Jaczko. I don't think there is a charge specifically for that motivation for what we do. Senator Alexander. That is not a part of your charge, to create an environment in which a power plant--if you only charge is public health and safety, you would shut them all down. Mr. Jaczko. No, I think our charge is reasonable assurance of public health and safety. So the charge is that we are providing an level of assurance that is reasonable. Senator Alexander. So there is no economic responsibility? No responsibility you have to make sure that a power plant can also be operated economically at the same time? Mr. Jaczko. No. Our requirements really fall into two categories, those things which are kind of the basic tenets of safety based on court decisions. The commission is required to make those safety decisions irrespective of the economic considerations of that decision. Certainly, when it goes to the implementation of requirements, we can consider the economic impact and look to see which is the most cost-beneficial. Senator Alexander. You can consider that? Mr. Jaczko. At that stage, but not at the basis of determining whether something is a fundamental safety requirement. At that point, we are bound by a court decision from considering economic matters. Senator Alexander. Well, is it your objective to create an environment in which nuclear power plants could be built? Mr. Jaczko. No, my goal is to continue to ensure that we have an environment in which nuclear power plants are safe, and if new plants are to be built that they will be as safe as our requirement dictate. Senator Alexander. So you don't have any--what about the recommendation of the commission that recommended that you complete without delay the design certification of the AP 1000 and the economically simplified boiling water reactor design? Mr. Jaczko. I think that was a recommendation not to encourage the commission to take action, but it was a recommendation indicating that there was no reason to specifically delay action as a result of these recommendations. Senator Alexander. Well, that sounds like action to me. Are you planning to do it without delay? Does that mean within 90 days? Mr. Jaczko. We are continuing to move forward. Senator Alexander. Can you do it within 90 days? Mr. Jaczko. We will be fairly close to receiving a final rule on the AP 1000 in October, which again is part of the reason for us to look at these recommendations in 90 days because when we go into the decision of looking at a final design for, for instance, the AP 1000, I think it is important that we have dispositioned the recommendation so we know what, if any, changes would impact those new reactors. Senator Alexander. Will considering all of the recommendations, all 12, delay your consideration of the design certification for the AP 1000 and the new boiling water reactor design? Mr. Jaczko. Not in my opinion. However, I believe if we don't consider the recommendations in a timely way, it could have the potential impact of delaying the action on the new reactor licensing. Senator Alexander. But there is a lot of talk here about delay. This report said you should do this without delay. I mean, why did they say that? Mr. Jaczko. I don't know. That is probably something better to task the task force. But again, I think the information that is relevant there is that it was useful information for the commission to know that there were no immediate issues with the design certification. Senator Alexander. But let me press you a little further. You said you think everything could be done in 90 days. Does that include these two designs? Mr. Jaczko. What I said is that it is important for the commission to disposition the 12 recommendations. I would note that the statements related to new reactors are not any of the 12 recommendations of the task force. Senator Alexander. But they are in the report. Mr. Jaczko. That is correct. Senator Alexander. Yes. And they say without delay, right? Mr. Jaczko. That is correct, and we are currently not delaying any of the new reactor work. However, as I said, if we don't promptly act on these recommendations, it will create uncertainty for what actions would be applicable to those new reactors, which in my opinion could actually lead to a potential delay in that work if we don't disposition these recommendations promptly. Senator Alexander. Well, as you can tell, my hope is that you if you are going to take the Committee's advice to do the task force recommendations within 90 days, that you will take the task force's advice to complete these design certifications without delay. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Senator Boxer. Thank you. Senator, I would just call your attention to the mission of the NRC, which is clearly stated. The U.S. NRC is an independent agency created by Congress. The mission of the NRC is to license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of byproduct source and special nuclear materials in order to protect public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment. Senator Alexander. Well, Madam Chair, I would think that it is still a legitimate question whether a traffic stop should stop all the traffic. That is one way to have safety. His supervisor still might ask him if he couldn't be a little more creative and at least people drive in a safe way. Senator Boxer. I don't think that is the right analogy, because there is really no analogy when you are dealing with nuclear energy. Senator Alexander. We have had a lot more death in traffic. We tolerate 38,000 traffic deaths every year. We have never had one with a nuclear reactor in the United States. Senator Boxer. That says a lot for the fact that we have an independent agency protecting the health and safety. They said the same thing in Japan until recently. But in any event, let's move on. Obviously, we have differences here just like you have differences there. But I want to make the point, and I really do want to make this point because I have made it to you before. As many differences as we have here, we are friends. And we differ. We argue. We debate. I am sensing with you that maybe there needs to be a little bit more friendship. Just a point spoken as a human being, not as a Senator. I think it is important that these differences not become personal. If Inhofe and I can do it, we are really good friends, then anybody could do it. Anyway, here we go. We are moving on and we are going now to Senator Lautenberg. Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is beginning to look like a glee club here, everybody happy faces. What you see isn't really what you get. Mr. Jaczko, the NRC recently renewed the operating license for Hope Creek nuclear plant in New Jersey through 2046. Now, what did we learn from the incidents in Japan that you would take into account when deciding to grant the extension? And which conditions would that influence you to place on it? Mr. Jaczko. Well, for any reactor, whether it is a reactor that has been operating for 35 years or 45 years, if we adopt any of these recommendations, they would likely apply to every reactor in the Country, with the exception of some of the recommendations like the hardened vent, which would only apply to boiling water reactor design. So the license renewal process is really about ensuring that they have a program in place to deal with the aging of components and systems. And nothing that came out of the task force specifically touched on those issues, but called, for instance, for a number of recommendations dealing with earthquakes and those kinds of things that we would expect that any plant, Hope Creek being one of them, would be required then to implement along with the others. Senator Lautenberg. So not too much specific information came from the Fukushima failure that influenced your granting of the extension of the license? Mr. Jaczko. Right. Not at this point, nothing that affected the extension, but ultimately if these recommendations are adopted, some of them would apply to Hope Creek as an operating plant, just like any other plant in the Country. Senator Lautenberg. The Mark I containment system that was used at Fukushima is also used at U.S. plants including two reactors in New Jersey. And you said in June that we didn't know what went wrong with the containment system at Fukushima. Now, what did this uncertainty factor bring into the recent NRC task force recommendations? When do you think we will know all we can about what went wrong at the Japanese plant? Mr. Jaczko. Well, that could take possibly years. What will need to happen is that they will have to decontaminate the facility, decontaminate the reactor itself to be able to get in and actually analyze and really look at the equipment and try and, almost like a criminologist, to try and recover and reconstruct what happened in the accident. But as the task force laid out, there are some things we can do in the short term, in particular with the hardened vents. This is an area where the task force recommended an NRC requirement. The Mark I containment system, which is similar to what they had in Japan, are containment designs that do have hardened vents, but they have never been done as a formal regulatory requirement. So the task force recommended that we do that. The advantage of that is that it brings it under our inspections and our oversight and all those kinds of things so we can monitor it and make sure it is being used effectively. So that is something specifically for the Mark I's that has been recommended that we take action on. Senator Lautenberg. But it would take years, you say, to fully understand what took place there? Mr. Jaczko. It may. Senator Lautenberg. It is hard to imagine because there were specific events. We are not talking about the influence on the people who were in the area, that kind of thing, but the specific trigger for this collapse is pretty much obvious. Mr. Jaczko. And that is certainly why you see a number of recommendations from the task force. They acknowledge that there were some things we don't yet know, and those things will need additional study. But clearly, there were at least six recommendations they believe we had sufficient information to take action on right now. Senator Lautenberg. Looking ahead a little bit, you said in a 2008 speech that ``I believe that the NRC should develop new regulations which require spent fuel to be moved to dry cask storage after it has been allowed to cool for 5 years.'` The task force recommended enhancements to spent fuel pools, but did not advocate requiring dry cask storage. Now, given that it falls short of your 2008 proposal, how can we be sure that the task force approach here will ensure the safest form of storage for spent fuel? Mr. Jaczko. I think the task force recommendation is really a short-term recommendation, which is precisely to ensure that if an event like Fukushima were to happen, the challenges we saw there, namely knowing how much water is in the pool and making sure that there is sufficient capability to put water into the pool to keep it cool, that those things would be addressed. That is what they have asked for in the short term. And then over the longer term, we can analyze this issue more importantly of whether we should have more fuel in pools versus in dry cask storage. But they really went at that short- term issue of making sure that the fuel that is in pools is going to be in an enhanced configuration and safer that way. Senator Lautenberg. I am being ruled out, so thank you. Mr. Jaczko. I answered a little long, I think. Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. Senator Sessions. Senator Sessions. Thank you. Mr. Jaczko, there have been some complaints about your leadership at the commission, as you are aware, in the media. I do believe it is important that you reflect the proper role of the Chairman, which has I am sure some administrative responsibilities. But we have a commission and the commission was established to decide as a commission important issues. With regard to this emergency power, did you file an official document assuming emergency powers of any kind? Mr. Jaczko. No, Senator. Senator Sessions. How did you announce that you were assuming emergency power? Mr. Jaczko. It is not something which we have procedures in which that is formally done. About three or 4 days into the incident, I was made aware that my colleagues on the commission had inquired about that. I spoke with the General Counsel. I actually asked members of the staff should I make a formal declaration of use of emergency powers. And in all honesty, I got one or two people who said no, that would just distract you from the work that we are doing. And frankly, I got distracted by dealing with the emergency response and didn't turn back to it until several weeks later. Senator Sessions. Well, did you seek 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 assume emergency powers that would in some ways diminish, obviously, the influence of the other members of the commission? Mr. Jaczko. I did seek that and the general counsel advised me that it was perfectly appropriate. Senator Sessions. Do you have a written opinion to that effect? Mr. Jaczko. I do have a written opinion. I believe that has been provided to the Committee. Senator Sessions. With regard to this Committee, well, are you still assuming those powers? Mr. Jaczko. No, I ceased that weeks or ago or perhaps months. Senator Sessions. Have you issued a report of what you did during the course of that time? Mr. Jaczko. As I indicated, we provided situation reports to the commission at the beginning of the incident. Those situation reports were issued multiple times a day. Senator Sessions. No, the Reorganization Act, the statute of 1980 said following the conclusion of the emergency, the Chairman or member of the commission delegated emergency functions under the subsection shall render a complete and timely report to the commission on the actions taken during the emergency. Have you done that? Mr. Jaczko. I believe that I have. Senator Sessions. Is that available to us? Mr. Jaczko. We can provide you with the boxes of situation reports which detail the---- Senator Sessions. Well, no, that is not what the statute requires, would you not agree, Mr. Jaczko? Why would you hesitate to do a complete and timely report of the actions taken during the emergency? Mr. Jaczko. I have conferred with the General Counsel and I believe that I have more than satisfied the requirements of that particular provision. Tremendous information was provided to the commission about actions that were taken during the response. Senator Sessions. Well, I am not arguing about that. Mr. Jaczko. In the form of reports. Senator Sessions. You have given a lot of information. I believe the statute under which you serve requires that the Chairman or the emergency official render a complete and timely report, not a series of situation reports in a box somewhere. Wouldn't you agree that that is what it seems to say plainly? Mr. Jaczko. As I read the statute, it is clear that they envision one piece of information. Senator Sessions. Well, why wouldn't you do that? Mr. Jaczko. Because I think we provided much of that information already to the commission and I have heard nothing from my colleagues on the commission that they have any interest in that particular report. Senator Sessions. Well, I have an interest in it. The people of the United States have an interest in the Chairman of the NRC following the plain statutory requirement. So I will ask you, what hesitation do you have to put a formal report together that says what you did while you assumed emergency powers? Mr. Jaczko. I will be happy to put that together, and I believe I have more provided information to the American people through testimony, through a variety of different reports that have provided significant information about the actions that were taken during this event. But I would be more than happy to summarize those in a single report. Senator Sessions. I think you should comply with the statute. Mr. Jaczko. Senator, I would just like to comment that I have conferred with the General Counsel and we believe that I have more than complied with the statute in that particular provision and we can provide you with analysis of that as well. Senator Sessions. I believe it requires a single report after the conclusion and it is pretty obvious you have not done that. With regard to this committee, the six members that were appointed, you said you didn't select them, but EDO did. Who is EDO? Mr. Jaczko. The Executive Director for Operations. Senator Sessions. And who does that person work for? Mr. Jaczko. Nominally to the Chairman. Senator Sessions. And so did you know who was being selected and were those members discussed with you before they were selected? Mr. Jaczko. I believe he gave the names to me and I said that they were appropriate and I thought they were good selections. Senator Sessions. Did you make any suggestions to him about names that might be on that list? Mr. Jaczko. I don't recall whether I did or I didn't. Senator Sessions. You don't recall? Mr. Jaczko. It was not something that was formally presented to me. It was presented to me verbally and I believe I signed off on it verbally. I believe that they were a good selection, the people that he selected were excellent people. And I don't recall if there was at a time a smaller group or a larger group. I could check my records, but it was not for me a significant decision for me and I trusted the EDO to appoint the appropriate people to that task force. Senator Sessions. My time is up. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will submit a written question concerning how it was that the mission plan that stakeholders would be invited to submit suggestions was eliminated from the staff effort. Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator. The last hearing we had here, we did ask the Chairman about this in depth about his taking over emergency powers. Do not start the clock yet because I have another thing to do. Senator Cardin, I am just going to put this out here. And he would like this in writing, this answer. If the commission delays action on task force recommendations on the grounds you don't have enough information yet about what happened at Fukushima to move forward, does that suggest the NRC also doesn't have enough information to move forward with relicensing existing reactors or licensing new reactors? So that is a question he wants answered. We are going to have a second round here. I think Senator Carper is coming back and we will have a second round. Senator Sanders. I just have one brief question. Senator Boxer. I go first. Senator Sanders. I am sorry. Senator Boxer. And you go after. Senator Sanders. You are the Chair. Senator Boxer. Thank you for noticing. [Laughter.] Senator Boxer. OK. Here is where we are. I want all of you to know we are going to have you back every 90 days until I know what you are doing. And we will take all the answers you gave, how much you are going to work to make this happen, a half dozen, a dozen, a baker's dozen, whatever it is, and we are going to stay on this. I will tell you why. After 9/11, we had all these great ideas. Everybody thought great, the NRC took decisive action. And 9 years later, some of these things went into effect. That is not going to happen. Of it is happens, the American people are going to know. And here is the point. Whether you love nuclear energy, don't like it or you are agnostic, it ain't going anywhere if it isn't safe. And it is not going anywhere if the public doesn't have faith in you. If the public thinks that you are somehow not independent, not doing their business, let me tell you they won't be happy. So I have a question for you Commissioner Svinicki, in your July 19th vote on the task force report, you stated, ``The NRC 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? Ms. Svinicki. I meant that term to reinforce the importance of having public meetings and stakeholder outreach, meaning that the commission ought to have the benefit of---- Senator Boxer. But you don't think that it is up to stakeholders to decide what we should approve? You are an independent commissioner, are you not? Ms. Svinicki. Yes, I meant that the process should be informed by those public---- Senator Boxer. OK. 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 NRC staff and external stakeholders and to have votes by October 7th, 2011. Do you agree with that? Ms. Svinicki. As I indicated in response to your earlier question---- Senator Boxer. I am not asking you an earlier question. I am asking you this question. Chairman Jaczko has proposed a process to move forward over the next 90 days to address your concerns, to receive broad input from NRC staff and external stakeholders and to have votes on specific recommendations by October 7th, 2011. Do you agree? It seems to match what you called for. Now he has put it out there. It echoes what you want. Do you agree? Ms. Svinicki. I support commission meetings. As I have indicated, I am not sure that all the task force recommendations could be decided in 90 days. Senator Boxer. How many do you think could be decided on in 90 days? Commissioner Ostendorff has pointed out six. Do you agree with him? Can they be decided in 90 days? Ms. Svinicki. I had proposed in my July 19th---- Senator Boxer. Yes or no? Yes or no? Do you agree with him, that six of these could be decided in 90 days? Ms. Svinicki. I don't have a specific count. Senator Boxer. OK. Well let me just say your responses disturb me. When you say that the commission isolated. Your role by statute is to be independent. Chairman Jaczko has laid this out. I want you to know I have 7 million people who live within 50 miles of San Onofre. I went there with the wonderful friend sitting next to you, Commissioner Apostolakis. And you know what they told me? I said, what is your plan if there is an emergency. They said, we have to go out on the highway. That is all we can do is escape that way. Do you ever go to those freeways? You probably may not have. You can't even move an inch on some of those freeways. And I have 7 million people there. And you are sitting here and basically saying you can't move forward. And I want to compliment the members of this special task force. It is not red tape at all. It is 12 recommendations. They make sense. And I am stunned to hear that you--is there one that you could say we can move forward before you hear from the industry? Anybody? Any one of these you can recommend? Ms. Svinicki. I agree that the task force identified the correct areas, but I would like the NRC staff that would be responsible for carrying out the recommendations, I would like to have, respectfully, their input prior to deciding on the final form. Senator Boxer. That is right. And Chairman Jaczko has laid out a path to do just that, but you say you won't be ready in October. What is the date you will be ready? What date do you think is good to be ready to vote on perhaps a half dozen simple ones that everyone else seems to think we could move on? What is the date? Give me a date? Ms. Svinicki. My objective would be, if some are less complex, to move on them before 90 days. Senator Boxer. Excellent. Which ones do you think those would be? What is less complex? I looked at all of these. Most of them don't seem too complex, especially the ones that deal with making sure that the plants undertake more safety precautions, emergency preparedness and all the rest. Which ones do you think are less complex than the others? Give me a couple out of the 12. Ms. Svinicki. I think that the re-looking at the flooding and seismic requirements to make sure that we are using state- of-the-art knowledge there is a very straightforward recommendation. Senator Boxer. So you like the recommendation that every 10 years, the operators of these plants have to come up with new assessments as to the safety. That is the recommendation. Ms. Svinicki. I was referring to the recommendation that tasked the staff to re-look at our basis on seismic. Senator Boxer. Well, how about that one? The one I just said. It is very clear. They say every 10 years, the operator of a plant that is located near flooding and seismic has to do a re-look at the problems. Because with science moving forward, Commissioner, we have new information all the time as to whether the seismic was worse, less harsh. Right now, we are very concerned because science shows us that it is moving in the wrong direction, more tsunamis, more earthquakes. Harder, deeper. What do you think about that? Every 10 years the operators there ought to look at that. That is one of the recommendations. Do you think that is complex? Is that complex? Ms. Svinicki. I think that we as a agency constantly look at our State of knowledge in those areas, as you suggest. Senator Boxer. Do you think it is complex to ask the operator who is operating a plant on or near an earthquake fault or near a possible tsunami zone to ask them every 10 years to reassess the safety of their plant? Is that a complex recommendation? Ms. Svinicki. I would assess that we actually require them to be looking at that constantly if there is any new information that comes forward as is the case in California with faultlines off the coast. We require it even in advance of a 10-year period we require it. Senator Boxer. Good. So you would support, then, a every time there is new science an overall new look at the safety of these plants. Is that correct? Ms. Svinicki. Yes, I believe we require that now. Senator Boxer. Excellent. Well, are you ready to vote on that in the next 90 days? What you say you support, are you ready to go for that in the next 90 days? Ms. Svinicki. Respectfully, my proposal asks that the NRC staff come back and provide us with the implementation on these recommendations. And I wanted, before I made a final decision, to be informed by that input from the NRC. Senator Boxer. Well, all I can say is if I am the people of California and I am watching this, right now I am not so sure about whether I want that plant to operate, because it is very simple. And we have our plants there coming in to get relicensed. And I urge them not to do that, not even to issue, not to move forward until they have studied it. You seem to be on my side, but then you have to hear from everybody else. I would submit to you it is common sense. There are certain things, you should have more belief in what you say because it is common sense. And I am just saying we have oversight over the work you do. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you. And I want to say to the commissioners who are ready and willing and able to act in a timeframe of 90 days, thank you. Because if we don't do that, we are not going to see people supporting nuclear power. I mean, I take an opposite view of my friends on the other side today. The more you convince the people that you are doing your job, the more they are going to be comfortable with nuclear power. If you give me answers like I have to wait and I can't tell, and then you have a situation where it took 9 years to put into place the last safety measures, that is ridiculous. So as long as I am sitting over here, and I have a voice, I am going to continue to call you before us. I mean, I really could get used to this because I think you need to know how important the work you do is to the safety of the people, first and foremost, and to the future of nuclear energy, second. Senator Sanders. Senator Sanders. Just a few questions. Chairman Jaczko, some of my Republican colleagues have kind of suggested that you have initiated a Bolshevik coup on the NRC. You are running a dictatorship to undermine American democratic values. So I just wanted to ask you once again, to be clear. Do you believe and does the nonpartisan General Counsel of the NRC believe that you have fulfilled the statute in terms of your utilization of the emergency powers? And in terms of emergency powers, as I understand it, quite appropriately after Fukushima, you wanted to make sure that, was it 13 plants that we have in this Country that are similar design to the Fukushima plants? You quite appropriately wanted to make sure that something similar to what happened in Japan does not happen in the United States. Is that correct? Mr. Jaczko. Well, it certainly was a piece of it. The primary focus was really on American citizens in Japan and ensuring that we were doing everything we could to protect them as they were there. And that was in many ways the prime focus. Most of the issues related to how we dealt with U.S. plants were really dealt with by the commission when it established this task force. So that was how we decided to go forward in that way. So I didn't really exercise any authorities with regard to domestic facilities. Senator Sanders. So it was just to protect the interests of American citizens in Japan? Mr. Jaczko. Correct. Senator Sanders. And does the nonpartisan General Counsel believe that you acted appropriately within the statute? Mr. Jaczko. I believe that is the case and he is somewhere he, so he can probably---- Senator Sanders. Madam Chair, can we ask the gentleman? Senator Boxer. I am sorry. I was distracted by my staff. Say again? Senator Sanders. May ask the General Counsel, did he act within the law? Senator Boxer. Yes, you can. Please, sir. Please join us. Mr. Burns. Senator, my name is Stephen Burns. I am General Counsel of the NRC, a career Federal employee. The simple answer to your question is I believe the Chairman's actions were consistent with the powers that he has under the statute. I received an inquiry from his office fairly early on in the event. And based on my view and actually an assessment of my predecessor's view of actions taken in response to 9/11, when there also was not a specific event at a U.S. facility, although a threat environment obviously to U.S. facilities, my view was that given the intentions of President Carter and congressional essentially endorsement under the reorganization plan, that his actions were consistent with those responsibilities. Senator Sanders. And you are, as I understand it, a nonpartisan official. Mr. Burns. Yes, I am a career official. I am appointed by the commission. Senator Sanders. Madam Chair, thank you very much. And I appreciate you coming up here. I would hope that puts an end to this consistent attack against the Chairman. Let me ask Mr. Ostendorff, if I could, a question. Mr. Ostendorff, my understanding is that you are prepared to move pretty quickly on a number of the recommendations of the task force. Let me ask you about their first recommendation, and that is that the task force recommends establishing a logical, systematic regulatory framework for adequate protection that appropriately balances defense in depth and risk considerations. That is an important recommendation. Are you prepared to move rapidly on that one? Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, thank you for the question. I addressed that specific recommendation in my vote in some detail. I think it needs to be looked at. I have some concerns that trying to embark upon that right now will distract us from taking other actions that can and should be taken in the short term. But I do support us taking a look at trying to improve the framework we currently have. Senator Sanders. I just don't quite get that answer. You see his as an important recommendation. No one is suggesting that you have to swallow hook, line and sinker what people recommend. What is the problem with beginning that discussion right now? Mr. Ostendorff. Senator, I have been around nuclear propulsion in the Navy for many, many years and I have seen a lot of different efforts taken in the Naval Sea Systems Command to improve reactor safety on our nuclear-powered submarines and carriers. I have seen how corrective actions are implemented. I think this is one that is going to take a few years to go, recommendation one. I support moving forward as a separate effort to look at recommendation one. But I don't think that should hold us up in trying to take shorter-term actions. Senator Sanders. OK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would yield the floor then. Senator Carper. [Presiding] All right. We are going to close it out and have a couple of questions to ask of our commissioners, and then I think we are going to vote here pretty soon. This is a question for Commissioner Magwood and Commissioner Ostendorff, if I could. It is my understanding that the majority of you have asked senior staff to take a second look at these recommendations. And you have asked the senior staff folks to provide suggestions to the commissions on how to proceed with these recommendations. Here is my question. And we have talked around this already, but I am going to ask you just directly. Since senior NRC staff made these recommendations in the first place and now you are asking other senior staff to come in and to provide suggestions, why is this next step needed? And just explain that to me. Why is it needed? Mr. Magwood. I will start. First, I think that, well, I will speak for myself here, certainly. My perspective is that it isn't simply another assessment by NRC staff, although I do look forward to seeing what the senior staff thinks about the recommendations. For me, the most important thing is to have the staff interact with stakeholders in a direct and comprehensive fashion to understand what stakeholders' responses are to the various recommendations and then see what their suggestions are. And then think about that and feed that information to the commission. So I don't look at it as simply the NRC staff looking at what the NRC staff has already said. I think of it as NRC staff using the mechanisms we have in place, public meetings, across- the-table discussions in public venue, of course, to hear details about the reaction to the recommendations, and then get that back to the commission. That is really the normal in large respect what we do every day. Senator Carper. Mr. Ostendorff? Mr. Ostendorff. Senator Carper, thank you. I would agree with Senator Magwood's comment. I will just make two points here in addition. One is when I asked our Executive Director for Operations, Bill Borchardt, how he thought we should proceed, he supported having his office, EDO's office and those that work for him, come back and give us an integrated prioritized list. As I said in my opening statement, that was a key lesson learned from Three Mile Island when the agency did not do that. I think we will get more bang for the buck implementing those safety enhancements that will make a real difference sooner by having this prioritized list. We have called for that within 30 days. The second piece is that not all these recommendations are equal. And there are some that should be done right now and there are some that require a little bit more information. Senator Carper. All right. Thank you. Chairman Jaczko, a question in orders versus regulatory process. Some of the regulatory tools at the commission's disposal are the rulemaking process and apparently the issuance of orders. Could you just describe or compare both processes for us? And for each, what kind of opportunities are there for public comment and for input from stakeholders? Mr. Jaczko. Well, generally, the orders have more limited opportunity for public involvement. They are usually activities that either we believe need to be taken in a very prompt period of time for safety reasons, or are responses to violations of our regulations. So they are not a preferred tool because they don't provide for the more in-depth public engagement that a regulation would. One of the activities that I have challenged the staff with since I have been Chairman is to better streamline our rulemaking process so that we can use that as a more viable tool and get things done in a more timely way, but still have that stakeholder input. So generally, the orders have less involvement, but it is usually a situation in which we feel there is a clear safety need that requires prompt action. In most cases when it is relating to a specific issue, we usually initiate a rulemaking process as well, so that eventually that same content of the order gets captured in a regulation. Senator Carper. All right. Let me just followup with that, if I could. Stakeholders in industry and the environmental community have shared and discussed concerns with my own staff about moving these recommendations through your order process. And what has been the NRC's experience with expedited rulemaking and might it have a role to play with some of the recommendations adopted by the commission? Mr. Jaczko. Well, I think everyone that comes in as Chairman of the NRC, and probably every commissioner that comes to the NRC, wants the rulemaking process to go forward faster. We have mixed success with that, and a lot of it, I think, comes down the usual challenges of resources and focus and prioritization. But we did recently complete a regulation from start to finish in about 4 months, having to do with an issue related to how we deal with fatigue and workers who may get tired at a nuclear power plant. So I think there are ways to do it. It would cause us to change how we do our regulations, but I think it is doable. In my mind, that would be the most preferable way for some of these things is to do them in expedited rulemaking that can be done in four or 5 months, or something like that, rather than the two to 3 years that it typically takes. Senator Carper. OK. Well, the vote hasn't started yet and so we have it looks like another hour or two. [Laughter.] Senator Carper. All right. Not that long. But what I would like to do is just do something--it is my mother calling in to say haste makes waste. Not really. What I want to do is, sometimes I like to at the close of a hearing ask, you know, we always ask for an opening statement. We ask you to respond to our questions. Sometimes, I find it is helpful to have a closing statement. I am not going ask for a lengthy closing statement, but just maybe something like given the conversation we have today or questions that have been asked and responses that have been given, this may be a closing thought as we prepare to go vote to save the Republic. Captain Ostendorff, Chairman Ostendorff, or Commissioner Ostendorff, why don't you go first? Mr. Ostendorff. Thank you, Senator. I would say that we talk all the time. We meet each week when we are in town. Senator Carper. How often are you all in town? Mr. Ostendorff. I would say we probably are all together to meet at least 3 weeks out of four. Senator Carper. OK. Mr. Ostendorff. In individual periods, consistent with the Government in the Sunshine Act. Senator Carper. OK. Mr. Ostendorff. And I would say that it is clearly my perception based on discussion with all my colleagues here that we all want to move forward quickly; that we all want to do the right thing. And I don't think we are as far apart as maybe some of the questioning might have suggested. I really think we want to do those things, but not all of these are longer-term actions. Some are short term. Some are intermediate. And some of those will require more information. I used the one example on the hardened vents that was asked about. I asked the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations on July 15th, a senior executive there, do you have sufficient information on the hardened vents in order right now to support the order recommended by the task force to install those. And he said no. The task force report itself said that we do not understand whether or not the operators at Fukushima actually operated these vents. I am using that just as a discrete example we can all understand. I think we need to explore this area. It could be a month from now we have sufficient information to make a disposition of that one in a smart manner. But that is just one example. There are some things that do require more information, more granularity. Senator Carper. OK. Thanks. Commissioner Magwood, a closing thought or two, please. Mr. Magwood. I think Commissioner Ostendorff actually covered it. I think he said it quite well. The only thing I would add is I believe that we will move forward quickly. There is a lot of willingness on the commission to get this done. We are taking this very seriously. I think we all were talking to each other during the event. I think almost immediately, we began to think about what lessons were being learned as were watching it unfold on television. So I see this as just the conclusion of what started back in March. And I feel very positive that we will get this done quickly and do the right thing. Senator Carper. All right. Good. Dr. Apostolakis. Mr. Apostolakis. I agree with my colleagues. I think the commission will act in a timely manner. It is just the details that we have to work out. So I don't see any problem at all. Senator Carper. All right. Commissioner Svinicki? Ms. Svinicki. I agree with what my colleagues have said thus far. In summary remarks, I think that there is a lot of overlap and commonality in the approach here. And I think that want to and can, I believe it is possible to strike the appropriate balance between urgency and moving forward, and also being thoughtful and getting it right. Thank you. Senator Carper. Thank you. The last word, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Jaczko. Well, I would say I appreciate all the comments of my colleagues and I think there are far more areas of agreement than disagreement. But I do believe strongly that it is important for us to disposition these recommendations in 90 days. And I think that is something that is doable and from what I have heard from my colleagues, I think there is perhaps more agreement than there is disagreement about that. Senator Carper. Good. In closing, one of my favorite people to work here with here in the Senate is a Republican from Wyoming. His name is Mike Enzi. A lot of people in other places don't know him. I knew him when I was Governor. We worked on a couple of things together then. Mike Enzi is the Senior Republican on the Health, Education, Labor, Pension Committee. And the Senior Democrat for many years was a guy named Kennedy, Ted Kennedy. And they were remarkably effective. The Committee was remarkably productive. And I would say to Mike Enzi, how does one of the most conservative Republicans around here work so productively with one of the most liberal Democrats? And you guys just get so much done, regardless of who is the Chairman, whether it is Kennedy or whether it is Enzi. And he said, Ted Kennedy and I subscribe to the 80/20 rule. I said: What is that? And he said, the 80/20 rule says we agree on about 80 percent of the stuff. We disagree on maybe 20 percent of the stuff. And what we have decided to do is focus on the 80 percent that we agree on. And as a result, we get a lot done. More times than I can count I call on my colleagues on this said of the dais in the Senate to subscribe to the 80/20 rule, and if we did that on a consistent basis, I think it would be not just a better place to work, but actually probably a better Country. And I would just urge as it seems like we have about, I don't know if it is 80 percent agreement on this stuff, but pretty broad agreement on what needs to be acted on more quickly, more promptly, and that which needs a little more scrubbing. And so in deference to my mother, haste does make waste, but remembering the words of my father, work does expand to fill the amount of time we allocate to a job. So I would ask that we move forward on the stuff that we can move forward on, and do it as a team. And the stuff that needs a little more time, let's take a little more time, but not more time than we really need. All right. With that having been said, I think we are going to wrap this up and you guys go have lunch maybe, and I am going to go vote. You all take care. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you all for coming. [Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the committees were adjourned.]