 Good morning. What follows is a purported transcript of an at-sea radio conversation between the United States Naval Ship and Canadian authorities off the coast of New Zealand in 1995. Now, for any sailors here, feel free to bring out your maneuvering boards, your compass, and your parallel rulers to calculate the closest point of approach or CPA. What here follows the transcript of that radio communication? United States ship, please divert your course 15 degrees to the south to avoid a collision. Canadian reply, recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the south to avoid a collision. United States ship, this is the captain of the United States Navy ship. I say again divert your course. Canadian reply, no. I say again, you divert your course. United States ship, this is the aircraft carrier USS Coral Sea. We are a large warship, the United States Navy. Divert your course now. Canadian reply, this is a lighthouse. Your call, captain. Now, although this joke or sea story everyone look at has been around for many years, I think its message is relevant to all of us today. We must all maintain awareness of the situation around us and we must always be open to correcting our course based on new information. This message will resurface throughout my remarks from addressing the NRC's use of operating experience. During my first RIC in 2010, excuse me, 2011, I provided my initial impressions as a new commissioner. Last year I taught my risk communications. This year I wanted to take on a broader and some might suggest a more ambitious task. This year I want to give the audience a 50,000 look at one commissioner's decision making post Fukushima. These are my personal opinions only. This will be a fly by through some of the topics but I think it will give you some insights as to what one person's thinking is and these important decisions that other colleagues have addressed over the past two years. Not since the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 has the NRC been confronted with as many important issues so essential to the core of our mission as have arisen in these past two years. While much of the attention has rightfully been on the technical merits of the near term task force report recommendations, now applaud Dr. Charlie Miller and his teammates for that effort. It is just as important that we consider the long term regulatory impacts of our post Fukushima actions. Today I want to walk you through my view of our Attica Protection Framework, how that has shaped my decision making, and the factors that I take into account when I make decisions as a commissioner here at the NRC. I hope that this will demonstrate not only one commissioner's views but also demonstrate that the post Fukushima votes are not a series of disparate decisions but rather are practical applications of a larger regulatory framework.