Studies. I want to make sure i understand. Yes, on your on the studies. The Commission Decision has been to not require further work to require any look at transfer. Weve closed that issue. Okay. On the in 2012 the Districts Court remanded nrcs waste confidence rule. When will the revised rule become final . The revised theres a draft rule thats supposed to come to the commission this summer, and we expect the completion of that waste confidence rulemaking in the fall of this year. Okay. Given that spent fuel integrity was an issue raised by the d. C. Circuit in their remand of your waste confidence rule, how do you plan to satisfy the court if the seismic safety or the spent fuel pools remains an open question under the review . Senator, i understand the question. I would just comment that since this involves an adjudication. Yeah. . N response to the d. C. Circuit there are certain things we cant address, but would i just tell you we have a i personally believe in the Commission Decision on the transfer of spent fuel from the pools has been very clear, that we have confidence in the existing spent fuel integrity and that i think ill just leave it at that. Okay, thats fine. Chairman macfarlane, im a little concerned about your vote on the expedited transfer on spent fuel vote. The other four commissioners, as well as the staff, they agreed with their assessment, that the risk to the public is so low that a 3 billion cost of expediting transfer would not be warranted. However, you didnt agree and cited a paper that you wrote in 2003, lets see, with ed layman and bob alvarez, that held a position contrary to the nrc staff. Do you agree now that the spent fuel pools at fukushima survived a massive earthquake, a 45foot tsunami and hydrogen explosives, isnt that correct . Apparently they have. I think were still collecting information, but apparently. Its also my understanding that the staff has studied the safety of the pools ten times now and has consistently concluded that the fuel pools are safe. Can you tell me how much money and how many fulltime employees have been working on this issue . At this moment i cant, but i can certainly take lets do that for the record. It would be very interesting to me to see what kind of resources are used because i know its going to be its quite a bit. Should your vote against the nrc cause me to question your openminded about things like Yucca Mountain . I know you had positions in the past, statements that were made in the past. You had the paper that we just now referred to. Are you openminded . Absolutely. In fact, my vote is based, if you have a close look at it, its based entirely on the analysis the two reports provided by the staff. Okay. Now you werent able to answer completely the question that the chairman was asking. She was asking for a specific answer. Is there anything you would like to add to elaborate on that that question . The question of exemption . Mmhmm. For decommissioning reactors . Thanks for the opportunity. Just to say that when we do consider exemptions, they are certainly done on a sitespecific basis. We dont grant the same kind of exemption for every plant, and they follow an established process thats based on a detailed technical analysis. There is no exemption from safety, and the plants themselves have to show that safety is maintained. We take our Safety Mission very, very seriously at the nrc, and the staff takes that mission very seriously as well. The staff has and the commission has, for the past several years i mentioned my First Experience was back in 1977, and i know its a very thoughtful commission, and i were very pleased that we have this commission and let me just reinforce remarks made by others saying that we want to make sure that we encourage the administration to keep this at full staff so that we can continue, and then when i mentioned the the odds, you know, 1 in 4 million years, you all just think about that a little bit when youre making these considerations. Thank you, madam chairman. Thanks. Senator, thank you for bringing up the evacuation issue so thats what im going to talk about now again, so thank you. It is my understanding that the commission has never in its history turned down a request for an exemption from having to have evacuation plants. Do any of you think im wrong on that, tell me, an evacuation plan, and if so which one did you turn down . Ill have to take that for the record, chairman. Just know that weve exhausted the record, and there isnt any, but you go ahead and let us know if im wrong. Anybody else have anything that knows okay. So lets be clear about this, folks. This commission has a very easy record to access on that question, and there has never been a time when an operator was told that they had to keep an evacuation plan in place, and let me tell you again thats your job is to ensure safety, and let me say this to the chairman. Is this not your question when asked whether or not a shutdown plant could be dangerous. This is what you said. The five could well spread to older spent fuel. The longterm land contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly worse than those from chernobyl. Do you remember saying that or writing that . Thats from the 2003 paper . Yes. It was a collaborative effort, that paper. Did you sign that statement . I am one of the authors, that is correct. Thank you. And is it not true that the nrc said in 01 spent fuel fires could have Health Effects comparable to those of a severe reactor accident . Does anyone think that thats a misstatement by myself . Okay. So lets just be clear. Anyone who says its not its not serious because youve shut down if theres a fire doesnt know what they are talking about. Lets just be clear. Lets just be clear. Now, senator vitter, who interrupted me several times doesnt know that my operator there for san onofre submitted these many pages of exemption questions. Now let me just tell you what they are asking for. The proposed exemption will allow the operator to discontinue offsite Emergency Planning activities senator markey, would you join me right up here. I know you were presiding, and we appreciate you being here. Let me say again. This is what they are asking for. The operator is asking to discontinue offsite Emergency Planning activities and reduce the scope of onsite Emergency Planning. Examples of requirements subject to the proposed exemption that are related to discontinuing offsite Emergency Planning activities include but are not limited to requirements for offsite Agency Emergency plans, Emergency Planning zones and ingestion pathway zones. The Emergency Operations facility, evacuation time estimates, offsite notification time limits, offsite dose projections, protective action recommendations, examples of requirements subject to the proposed exemption that are realated to reducing the scope of onsite Emergency Planning activity. Now, look, they are basically asking to be let off the hook, and if you grant this exemption, and youve never turned one down before and you wont answer my question, none of you will, im going to show again the picture. I want senator markey to see this, of how close a fire in california came to that decommissioned plant. Now, do any of you know how many hot fuel, spent fuel rods are in in that plant . I do not have an exact number. I can take that for the record. Anybody else know how many . Just for the record, 2,600. Do you know what it was designed for . The original design . Yeah. Or after the reracking had been done. If it was the original design and the open racks, probably about a quarter of that. 1,300. So this doesnt even go into other decommissioned plants, so anyone who says that a shutdown plant is not as dangerous has to just read what the chairman herself said, read what the nrc said. The consequences of an event could be significantly worse than those from chernobyl, and ive got to tell you i represent those people, just like senator vitter represents his people and worries night and day about their safety from hurricanes and the rest. I worry about my people, and im not going to stop because i cant get any one of you to commit to me that you will turn down this request, this request for everything that they want to waive, and youve never turned it down before, and you wont answer the question. Yes, would you like to answer. Just point of clarification. Yeah. This commission has not received any document or request for Commission Decisionmaking on this topic. Then you dont know your work. No, im sorry. This was sent to you on march 31st, so what happened to your Record Keeping here . People didnt give you this information . Madam chairman, why doesnt the commissioner know about this . Its sent to the staff. It has not been brought up to the commission. How long does the staff sit on it before they let you know about it . As i said before, the staff we have an established process, and the staff does detailed technical analysis. We do not take these decisions lightly. We take them very seriously. When are you going to have the staff report, madam chair . I do not know. You do not know. But i can get it for you. Let me tell you better know because ive got 8 Million People that live within 50 miles of that site. I had a fire that came within half a mile of that site, and the operator had to evacuate the people inside, and now they dont want to have evacuation plan. This is a nobrainer. Im sorry. You can sit there and say we take it seriously, really . Well, then let me just tell you this facility sits on an earthquake zone, on a tsunami zone. You know it happens. You yourself wrote in the collaboration with other people that an accident here could be worse than chernobyl, so all im saying is march 31st, i got this. I think it would be nice if the commissioners got this, and as a matter of fact, im going to make sure that before the staff goes through it the commissioners get this. Yes, sir. Just, senator, thanks for giving me a chance. Of course. I think weve all been aware that our staff has received the documents youre referring, to but as the chairman not its in a staff process. Ill tell you that i had a discussion within the last week with mike johnson, when i think is here, who has briefed me on the status of this and the fact that hes working in discussions with fema on these issues, so i want to assure you that this is working through our process and we owe you a response as to when a decision could be expected. I will await that response, but i want to say, again, to me theres an urgency, and to you there should be an this isnt just any power plant. This is a Nuclear Power plant that has many of these spent fuel rods, okay . In an earthquake zone, a tsunami zone and a fire came within half a mile. So i hope the staff will work overtime, just like my staff does, when theres an emergency, because thats what i consider it. Yes. Chairman, can i just i just want to be clear that there Emergency Preparedness will not be eliminated at the site. Okay. I do want to be clear about that. Well not eliminate Emergency Preparedness. So now youre agreeing that you will not allow them this exemption that they are asking for all of this . We will not eliminate Emergency Preparedness. Sometimes its reduced in scope after weve considered requests. Thank you. Let me ask you then. So will you not waive the requirement for offsite evacuation plans . I do not know the details of this. And you will not waive their request to be exempted from having warning sirens . I do not know the details of this request. They have to prove to us that they can maintain the safe level of operation and under decommissioning that they and you dont know right now if you youll eliminate offsite evacuation plans, warning sirens, what about Relocation Centers . We will ensure that the site will be safe, and we will ensure that there are adequate measures in place to respond to any kind of radiologic emergency. Fair enough. That is our mission. Let me ask you this. Do you think offsite evacuation plans are a necessary part of that facility being safe . Do you believe personally . You cant answer for anyone else. Do you believe that having offsite evacuation plans are a necessary part of having that facility safe . An operating facility, of course, always requires evacuation plans. So you will not waive that requirement . I will have to consider it, as i said, we consider the sitespecific requirements. You have never said no to exemption s of all offsite emergency plans so thats why im drilling down on this. Because the nrc who cares a lot about safety, thats your job, has never ever turned down such a plan. So let me just tell you this. I am deeply troubled that commissioners havent seen this, commissioners maybe they knew about the fire. If i were one of you, i would certainly would have said whats happening. This could have been i dont even want to say the type of disaster. All i have to do is quote the chairman in her 2003 paper in which she said the fire could well spread to older spent fuels, longterm land contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly worse than those from chernobyl. Senator vitter. Now a couple things on this topic for the record. First of all, i want to restate what i said. The chairman was sort of suggesting that i was saying that a decommissioned site is a run of the mill industrial site, doesnt need concern, doesnt need a lot of careful regulation. As i explicitly said, i dont think that. Nothing could be further from the truth, but clearly an operating Nuclear Facility is a pretty different animal than a decommissioned site, and i was simply making the point that under your rules the only way to account for that are these socalled exemptions. Now, maybe people would feel better if we have a different rule book rather than talk about exemptions, but thats semantics. Thats not substance, so thats my first point. My second point is i find it ironic and confusing that the chair is now disappointed that your staff is actually reading the stack of paper very carefully and taking it very seriously. I mean, if you all are a rubber stamp, as she has been suggesting, for any suggested exemptions, then the staff could whip through it in a week, give it to you and you all would have voted by now. That is not happening. I assume because you and your staff actually take this seriously, actually read it line by line and go through a thorough process. I dont think it shouldnt drag on forever. We deserve to know what a reasonable timetable is, and and commissioner ostendorff has said youll get back to us on that but i dont think we should be complaining about a thorough careful process. Senator, thank you. What i did say was in light of this near disaster i am very disappointed that the commissioners havent gotten more involved at this point. Senator marky. Thank you, madam chair. And thank you for calling this very important hearing today. Fukushima reminded us of the devastating effects of a Nuclear Reactor meltdown, radiation from the accident was detected over 1,000 miles away. Land contamination continues to keep tens of thousand of people from returning to their homes and cleanup cost estimates continue to rise and industry admitted that it will cost well over 100 billion. Meanwhile in the United States, we have packed so much radioactive waste into spent fuel pools that even nrc studies conclude that spent fuel fires could spread as much contamination as a meltdown of an operating reactor. Throughout the United States, many pools, including the one at the pilgrim Nuclear Power plant are dangerously overcrowded. The conclusion to this is simple. Take the waste out of the pools and put it into safer dry cast storage. Thats why i recently introduced the dry cast storage act which gives plants seven years to remove all the waste that can be removed from the pool and put it into safer dry cast storage, provides funding to help offset the cost and increases the size of Emergency Planning zones around plants that choose not to remove the waste from their pools. Madam chair, is it true that removing waste from the pool and putting it into dry cast storage reduces the amount of radioactivity that could potentially be released if a spent fuel fire were to occur . Operating reactors need both pools well, they need let me just say operating reactors need pools because when they discharge their fuel, its very hot, and it needs the water circulation to keep it cool, so you need a spent fuel pool. When the spent fuel is aged at least five years, right now in the United States, it can be then transferred to a dry cast, and those dry casks are safe, they are passive systems. The spent fuel pools are active systems and require active circulation of water. Okay. So didnt the nrc studies show that even at decommissioned reactors it was never possible to rule out the possibility of a spent fuel fire . I think theres a variety of studies out there, and could i take that for the record because i myself would like to see more analysis of a number of these issues. Are any of you familiar with any nrc studies that show that there could in fact be a fire . Are any of you familiar with that at all . Yes, senator. There could be a fire. The question is how likely is it. The nrc studies have shown its extremely unlikely. Thats what the studies say. So the commission recently voted to allow plants to continue to overfill these pools for as long as they wish to do so, so each of you is saying is that its highly unlikely that there will be a fire, and, therefore, there is no need to move towards dry cask storage, is that correct . Is that what youre saying, mr. Apostolakis . Well, there were four main inputs that i considered in my vote. The detailed stop analysis which argued that way, the Advisory Committee reactor safeguards, independent experts agreed with the staff. The historical record that showed that the spent fuel pools withstood very severe earthquakes, beyond designed basis. There was a statement by dr. Thompson w