and the massive investment needed to commercialize a single single one of those, both private and public investment of nuclear development should be focused on concepts that have the greatest chance of meeting goals for safety and security. in cutting to the-i'd identifying best prospects as a major challenge. for this reason we do need a thorough technical peer-reviewed process to be part of any government program that is going to provide support of nuclear projects whether it's national or private sector. now, i would like to focus my remarks on s2795. fundamentally we believe that nrc's regulations are not strong enough today to achieve the level of safety and security we need in a post fukushima era. so we do not agree that the licensing process or advance reactors are too stringent somehow need to be weekend to facilitate deployment.

some argue that nrc's regulations are impeding u.s. competitiveness allowing other countries like china to get ahead of us. we think the opposite is true. the. the reputation of the nrc for being a gold standard as senator has pointed out is a good brand and so the undersea reputation for regular safety review only and enhances that brand. we do not think we should be engaged with china and other countries on a regulatory race to the bottom just to secure -- we believe the focus of the bill and nrc licensee is misplaced and will do little to facilitate the deployment of advance reactors in the us. licensing process may be a convenient target but we think the nrc is being scapegoated for more formidable institutional barriers. these. these include a lack of support for government-funded energy, the enormously high cost for commercializing any. >> reporter: reactor, and the lack of interest in making those investments and the failure of the so-called nuclear power entrepreneurs to put any significant money into the projects that they talk about.

we we don't think the licensing process is a significant process factor. as as a result, we don't think the prescriptions in 2795 are the problem, the problem is the cost and difficulty of obtaining analyses and experimental data sufficient to satisfy the regulatory compliance ensuring that they can be operated safely. this is the fundamental issue that congress needs to address. so in summary, we think legislation is premature, we would offer that the national academy of sciences first review the systemic obstacles to licensing advance reactors including all the issues mentioned and whether the prescription changing undersea regulation would be efficient and effective in these goals. in conclusion, the future of nuclear power depends on and or sees credibility and regulator.

we think. we think congress should reject any attempt to short-circuit the safety reviews and help ensure oversight licensing will result in safe and secure operations. thank you for your time. >> thank you. our next witnesses mr. victor mccree. the executive director of operations and nuclear regulatory commission. welcome. >> thank you and good morning. ranking members, chairman and members of the subcommittee i push it up or to need to testify this morning ip before you today representing the technical staff of the u.s. nuclear regulatory commission. to briefly discuss the undersea's current and planned activities to prepare to review an application for an advanced non-light water reactor design and to offer nrc staff on senate bill 279 five, the nuclear energy and modernization act. a number advanced, non- light water reactor design that employee innovative design feature are under development. they have the authority over

commercial advance reactors and is ready to work with applicants and to prepare for and review applications for these reactors. however, the undersea is also considering the extent to which enhancements to the existing licensing framework could increase the efficiency, timeliness and, timeliness and predictability of our safety and environmental reviews. our objectives for the activities i'll discuss with you today is to strategically prepare for non- light water reactor applications. commensurate with the industry plans. however, our overall goal is again to create a more effective, efficient, clear and predictable licensing process that we advance safety use. with this in mind, and within available resources the undersea staff within available resources the undersea staff is pursuing a multipart strategy to prepare for our review of non-light water reactive technologies. the presidents of fiscal year 2017 budget request includes

$5 million in not the recoverable activities to execute the strategy. if congress appropriates this fund it will be used to facilitate the undersea's preparations and to undertake efficient and effective safety reviews of advance reactor technology. we plan to pursue activities in three primary areas, licensee infrastructure, technical preparation, and stakeholder outreach. first, within license and infrastructure activities we'll optimize the regulatory framework and licensing process for advance reactor safety reviews. second, advance reactor safety reviews. second, our technical preparation activities will evaluate clarify and resolve critical, technical and policy issues that need to be addressed very patient reactor safety. finally, we'll expand upon our outreach activities to proactively engage key stakeholders to ensure all parties will be ready to proceed in the development and review of new reactor designs.

a strategy insights that we have game for many years of with the department of energy, we believe this strategy will enable the resolution of novel policy issues and lead to the development of design criteria, precatory guidance, and industry standards from non-light water reactive designs. by enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of non-light water reactive reviews, the strategy water reactive reviews, the strategy will reduce uncertainty and business risk. that or sees advance reactor program is one of several addressed in senate bill 279 five. consistent with my role of the undersea executive director for operations my comments represent the undersea staff assessment of factual issues associated with the draft version of the bill. based on our preliminary review, the bill would require the nrc to undertake a number of activities related to developing

plans, strategies and rulemaking's associated rulemaking's associated with licensing advance reactors and every resource reactors and report on those to congress. significant time and resources will be required over several years to implement the full range of additional activities described in the bill. particularly with regard to the rulemaking by the bill. another area covered by the bill's performance and reporting. these provisions. these provisions would require the nrc to develop performance metrics for any activity requested by a licensee or applicant and report to congress for certain delays. this would require to develop metrics and milestone for many activities beyond those for which they are currently prepared. we believe we currently have metrics for the desired outcome. these measures recognize the adapt for applicant or licensee and account for emergent safety or security issues, changes in licensing plans and so forth.

as written the proposed requirement may limit nrc flexibility in this area. in closing, i welcomed the commission's interest in and ideas for enhancing the nrc performance and success of our mission. this concludes my formal remarks. i think you for the opportunity to appear before you and would be pleased to respond to your questions. >> thank you, final witnesses the honorable jeffrey s merrifield chairman u.s. nic, advance advance reactor task force, welcome. >> chairman, thank you very much, it's indeed a pleasure to be here for the committee in which i used to work as a council and one in which i testify in many occasions as an nrc commissioner. today i'm. today i'm appearing my role as chair of the u.s. nuclear counsel and advance reactor task

force. my full-time occupation is attorney with pillsbury law firm. in addition to my full testimony i would ask that letters from seven advance reactor developers supporting this legislator be included in the record. my testimony will focus on how the undersea conducts its business as well as its use regarding advance reactor portion of the bill. we applied the overhead and caps within 2795 as well as the element supporting the development and deployment of advance reactor technology. on february 22 of this year, they issued a framework for advance reactor white paper which outline many of the advance reactor can provisions in the bill. while we will suggest a few additional areas for improvement not included in the legislation, we are committed to working with the committee and staff to properly move this legislation forward. when i first became a commissioner 1998, and the chairman of this committee, senator in in half lead the way to oversee the nrc. consistent with maintaining and protecting environment, the commission with full support of

the committee work to right size the agency, consistent the level of activities with the nrc. at that time they had approximately 3400 employees and with the next few years we are able to reduce it down to about 2800. principally through attrition yet not with any sacrifice to the safety mission of the agency. today, the, the agency faces the same challenge. i understand and sympathize with the currents voiced by this committee regarding the size of the agency, the increase in licensing review time and the growth and overhead activities at the agency. this is inconsistent with the current number of nrc. while they they have made great strides in rightsizing the agency, i believe further reduction can be accomplished while at the same time effectively maintaining safety and inspection activities and improving the timeliness of licensing actions. i support the provision of s2495

which would limit the overhead of the nrc in place appropriate caps on the agency. as was the case when a before the committee over 15 years ago, i believe the amount of fees placed on individual licensees is not appropriate and should not cover inherently government functions and overhead. i believe the fee provision of s2795 appropriately balance the important nonlicensed the activities which should be bored by general revenues and those license should be borne by user fees. during the past decade the u.s. has maintained its technology leadership to progressive white water reactive design including passive generation three plus reactors currently being deployed in georgia and south carolina. as well as small module light water reactors now heading toward deployment. if the u.s. is to be successful in maintaining its lead in developing and employing a new fleet in the late 2020s or thirties, congress congress must consider significant new policy

changes. in addition to funding infrastructure a new framework is needed to enable development and deployment of advance reactor technologies. currently the licensing process of the agency is perceived as one of the largest risk factors confronting private developers of advance reactors. if proposed changes will help address this gap. additionally, congress should provide additional resources to both nrc and do you week, as well as direct focused mobilize resources and expertise to enable the deployment of advance reactors. we believe section seven will allow the agency to create a modern, risk and form technology neutral framework to enable the development of appropriate advance reactor without passing costs onto existing utilities.

advance reactor technical performance are also critically required to finalize advance generic design criteria as well as source term emergency plan with similar requests. we believe there are two areas where further enhancements are warranted. while the undersea is not a promoter of technology it is appropriate to engage in early enhanced dialogue with advanced reactor dialogue. currently the nrc has limited communication and when it doesn't must charge hourly fees, $260 per hour per nrc staff member who attends these meetings. as members of the advance reactor committee they lack the resources necessary to finance these activities. they support the bill regarding to the licensing cost share program. we believe this is an appropriate development. we would say we think it could be further enhanced by allowing

for early-stage engagement with the engagement reactor community at no cost but perhaps a 5050/50 share. collectively we believe -- section 7b calls for the undersea to establish a reactor process we believe and generally consistent with our white paper that the bill should be strengthened by incorporating specific language requiring nrc to provide pre-licensed design review. the process requires the nrc to clearly and promptly articulate where advance reactor designs do into not need additional work. it would enable developers and investors to have a clear picture of where they stand in meeting requirements. finally, we support the elimination of the mandatory hearing requirement contained in section eight and would be pleased to discuss my views on this during the question and answer portion. we believe it's time to make

appropriate reforms for the nrc overhead and process as well as modernize the program to spur innovation and enable advance reactor technologies to achieve their full process. we believe is 2795 make significant progress toward achieving that cold and we are committed to working with this committee toward prompt and successful passage. thank you for allowing me to testify today. >> thank you. thank you all all very much. i will begin the questioning with asking. a lot of what we heard and the testimonies really what's in the bill has to do with rightsizing the agency. in terms of license and support. in 2006, the nrc spent 208,000,000 dollars on corporate support spending which amounts to 28 percent, you can sit on the chart of the undersea's budgetary authority. this was nrc's budgetary authority. this was at a time of the nrc was regulating more reactors and

materials, licensees with fewer people and resources. so i would say, do you recall any impairment of the nrc safety and security mission in 2006 as a result of result of this level of corporate support? >> .. more work and licenses in 2006, do you have any reason to believe this amount of corporate spending,

30 million less than what we expect could impair the nrc ability on safety and security. >> comparing nic now the -- nrc now ted 2006, there is additional work that we have now that we did not have been. overseeing the completion of oversight. the workload is different than 2006. certainly our staff sizes different. >> are you saying you think there could be some concerns over safety and security? >> that is not what i am saying, senator. i am simply saying, we are

comparing different agencies now in 2016 to 2006. we are taking significant steps to right size the agency for the work we have and the work we anticipate in the future. and that includes our corporate support area where we have taken significant reductions and additionally the commission just acted on the number of recommendations under a project taking a baseline that will result in additional reductions in 2017. several weeks ago the chief financial officer and i assigned the task for several of our largest corporate support offices to look at additional reductions we plan to submit to the commission and planning for the fiscal budget. as the chairman noted

yesterday, we are not done in the project to right size continues. i do believe the corporate support portion of our budget will continue to do that. >> you have a reaction? >> i think i included in my testimony, in, in fact, when we looked at your agencies, regulatory positions, they would like even more, quite frankly, attention paid to the period hebecause it appears to be even less than 28 percent. the other thing we are interested in is the fee structure, the way that the current bill is structured, it not only asks for the nrc , but that the money needs to be spent on that whereas right now there is

the ability to move the money around and move it to corporate support. we would like a stronger fiscal responsibility on that. >> thank you. your testimony mentioned cost competitiveness, safety , less waste, and reducing a proliferation as your four corners of developing an advanced reactor. what i think i am hearing is , is the nrc would get its front end, raise red flags at the beginning of the licensing procedure rather than the backend where they can incur more expense. would that be more helpful to you. was that a correct assumption? >> yes, although not at the point where the reactor is not performing correctly. they are looking for an evaluation metrics.

the reactors are different. >> at this point in your development you have had no internal conversations with the nrc? >> we have had one conversation because we are allowed one before the hourly rates come. and in our development of the reactor it is not well-suited for our particular technology. so investing research dollars versus funds to try to get input from the nrc, there has been the history of many white papers about a clear decision. there is an uncertainty that is very difficult to manage at this early, early stage. that is why a very small investment from nrc funds in the beginning would be very helpful. thank you.

>> thank you, madam. i am happy to yield to others who may have urgent business to attend to, that would be my stipulation. is anyone in a tight squeeze? senator crapo. >> thank you very much. i would like to ask unanimous consent that we proceed -- we have received at this point 19 letters of support and that has to be included in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you very much.much. i would like to direct my 1st question to you. as you know, we have been working hard to understand the budget of the nrc and its inner workings. and there is consensus that the budget process was very opaque.

in addition to concerns about fee structure, i am deeply concerned about lack of clarity on how the nrc budgets for overhead functions. when you commit to working with my staff and the staff of other members to provide timely and clear responses to your questions about overhead functions in your budget request. >> absolutely. >> i appreciate that. we really need that commitment to provide more detail. that way we can understand how the budget works more effectively. i want to use the rest of my time to talk to the whole panel, and i know that will be hard in four minutes, but the point i want to get at is, there has been testimony that raised more than two points, but one was that we should not we can the nrc regulatory structure. it is the gold standard. i do not view this legislation is weakening the regulatory structure in any way. increasing transparency and

efficiency. end frankly, maybe i turn to you 1st. what is your view of that? >> thank you very much, senator. i firmly disagree in that regard. what we are really asking for with this legislation is risk informing the regulatory activities of the nrc and tailoring those activities to be appropriate for the licensing out advanced reactor technologies. this will in no way reduce the level of safety. in fact arguably it will allow the agency to appropriately tailored resources to make sure they are regulated in the right way.

>> the understanding the more efficient and effective >> that is exactly right. >> i think the staff really needs to elevate as quickly as possible many of the generic policymaking decisions reduce the uncertainty for advanced reactor technology. secondly, it is very important to provide relief in the early stages of the program to allow active discussion between the developers and the nrc, as was discussed by one of the other witnesses. there is a concern right now, lack of engagement. $268 amended in our fee will start triggering, and that is not good.

we should be encouraging active discussion right now. >> thank you, and iyou, and i probably only have time for one of the other witnesses. the other issue is that the problem really is in the regulatory system but the fact that we cannot get investment at the early stages of the development of new technologies, but to me that seems to be exactly the point, because of our regulatory structure, a big part of the issue is if you don't have the stage development or something that this bill contemplates comeau situation in which it is hard to get early investment and expensive technologies. >> thank you. that is right. i think there are a lot of other challenges to deploy an advanced reactor. our other energy options, but the investors and innovators have made it

clear that their most immediate and pressing concern is regulatory uncertainty. there have been many studies on this, and i am happy to provide references, but the changes urgent. the private sector is engaged command the time to fix this is now. >> my time has expired, and it looks like i am sharing the hearing. >> then i would turn senator brooker, to you next. >> i want to thank you for that, mr. chairman. we were just talking about how incredible your staff has been. it is a testimony to the kind of inclusion. thank you very much. i just love your power. >> i will gladly reveal. >> moving on.

>> duly noted. >> in your testimony you make the point that a reduction in the number of existing all licensees increases the fever. that would be bad for the overall energy picture. under current law that would impact the reactors that remain and whether this bill would alleviate the scenario. >> the current bill is structured to alleviate that very concerned. as the current structure is in place, the obligation to collect 90 percent of the budget it is 90 percent of whoever's they're. no longer part of that fee structure, the plants that are remaining, in fact, have

to pay that 90 percent bill. our experience has been based upon the chart you just saw. >> besides the fact you mentioned those two words kemal forgive you for that. >> innovators. , the patent office. we do a lot to restrict innovation. critically important, and so you and the gal to this incredible report that looked of the challenges facing companies to apply new reactor concepts. in this report they noted the 1st of a kind technologies of the design review costs can be exceptionally higher than for subsequent projects.

do you believe this is a real problem, as is noted in the report? do you think the matching grant program can help solve the problem? >> thank you, senator, and i agree. there is really a need not only to make sure the cost is under control but to make them more predictable so investors and innovators can plan accordingly. i think the matching program could certainly assist in that. >> that is great. these are innovators are critical for advancing nuclear in terms of safety as well as dealing with problems including proliferation of the material, is that correct?

>> but today's innovators are putting a priority. >> new designers and animators will bring that to the table. >> the regulatory climate where these folks can flourish. >> absolutely. >> can you expand on your testimony? why the existing user framework is really problematic for reactors, a littlea little bit more about specifically what is so problematic about the framework. >> as an analogy, those are very performance-based. so they set maximum mission levels. if instead they were prescriptive and require particular catalytic converter technologies they would have to come in and seek exemptions to technology requirements.

for a nuclear reactor it is much more complex and has more regulation, exemptions would be multiplied and there are issues where you need to come in and seek different treatment. that is something that is a barrier for new technologies it isit is an uncertain process that has not been done before. a great problem for investors and innovators. >> one thing i have left, obviously different directions that we do. senator whitehouse and i come at this with concerns about the overall climate change. massively expanding demand for energy globally. at a rate that people have visions for solar and wind. there's no way that will keep up with the demands.

60%60 percent of clean energy is being produced by nuclear. and so do you believe this is a place we have to expand innovation and deal with the overall problem of climate change? >> that is important because this is not just a political issue, not even just about climate change your energy security but it's a humanitarian issue. we need to provide that energy. that has to include nuclear. >> thank you very much. >> it looks like i still have it. [laughter] >> well, i confess use aa much better job of putting out something and i did. but interesting thing about

this is those on your side and those on the side knows on the side who are realists. we still agree on this bill and know that it will serve everyone's best interest. i'm not sure with all this coverage. we have nine members. somehow i've never been able to convince john mccain where it is leading to. >> they are going to want you to look at this. they the annual fee for operating reactors. based on the recent recovery

role, the level is very near the all-time highest amount. that workload is now declining. we also provide for inflation adjustment. i do believe this amount is an appropriate ceiling to ensure the nrc is adequately resourced execute. safety and security mission. >> thank you, senator. in fact,fact, as you just described, fiscal year 2015 is a high watermark, quite frankly, for the agency and we feel it should not need to approach the ceiling as you describe some of that workload, in fact, is declining and we feel that a more efficient agency should, in fact, be able to operate with the corporate spending more in line with their peer agencies.

>> whether or not you want to reach that, it is adequate. under the 2795, the amount of annual fees would collect with increase over decrease in reactors close. you believe that is an appropriate way to account for increases and decreases? >> yes, senator, we do. they work directly with workload. >> i would agree with that. when they decide to close nuclear reactors to they give adequate notice such that the nrc can account for the decrease in fees in their budget process? >> we believe so, senator. they need to go through a planning process. typically a 12 to 18 month timeframe that you are making these types of announcements. >> that's good.

well, i think back when you 1st started, actually when i 1st chair of this committee you within the attorney on here. you're notyou're not a commissioning and at that time. >> owes a council on the committee. >> you might remember at that time this committee had had no oversight for four years. >> that's true. he did a very good job of correcting the problem. >> we got busy, set goals and priorities as to when we would be coming in and what we are supposed to be doing. >> new licensing. one of your recommendations was to eliminate the mandatory hearing. >> that is true. >> explain what that is all about? >> the mandatory hearing process dates back to the early days of the atomic

energy commission, and when you look at the legislative history the reason was because the agency approved several reactors with no public involvement whatsoever, and the outcry caused congress to impose aa mandatory hearing requirement which was appropriate over the time. over the years, changes in the act and the wide number of opportunities for the public to be involved in many steps of the licensing process, in my view then as now is, that is an antiquated notion that is no longer necessary. if there are specific issues , they can be brought up in a contested proceeding that the commission can go over, but i believe it is not necessary and the requirement right now causes significant staff resources ultimately which could be borne by combination of the

federal government and licensees to deal with the mandatory hearing. a significant reduction in fees, if that was eliminated >> one last question, my time has expired. >> describe the situation that was there. oversight is important. since that time we slipped a little bit back and need to become more forceful? >> overseeing the nrc. >> i welcome involvement. >> i know. >> and it was helpful have our feet held to the fire. the commissioners have the responsibility to oversee. i think further reductions of the staffing are appropriate, and the involvement of this committee is welcome. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> senator whitehouse. >> let me say how happy i am the chairman had a twinkle

in his eye. let me 2nd to say that it is very much not our intention to short-circuit the safety review of any nuclear facility. the concern that i have is that the review process has become so light water reactor specific that another technology looking at getting through an obstacle course is facing hazards that have nothing to do with short-circuited or long circuited ms. but simply not being appropriate to technology in the same way that if you had to pass a test for how solid the canvas was on the wings of your opposed aircraft when you're actually proposing an aluminum winged aircraft were aware of the pilots gardens needed to be and

what they needed to be made of when you are proposing a closed cockpit aircraft, it is an issue of relevancy, not shortcuts. what i would invite you and any other member of the panel who wishes to do is to put in writing some benchmarks for us that you think would indicate the departure from moving the regulatory process more toward relevance to new technologies and into simply short-circuiting safety. helpful and a more specific way. red flags rather than speaking generally. i worry that we have technology that effectively is smothered in the crib because they cannot figure out what the regulatory

process is going to look like and therefore they cannot raise capitol or proceed, and there is a big x factor, big ?-question-mark around the process if you are not a traditional light water reactor. that is how i think of the problem, and i am interested in not only yours but everyone's response in writing, if you would care to do so. the last point i will make is that, i think it is a tragedy. a carbon constrained environment to have nuclear plants closing that are producing carbon free power for no other reason than that nobody has figured out how to pay them for what we all agree, almost all agree is the value of the carbon freeness of their power. we have an administration that has an office of

management and budget, $42.50, but on social cost of carbon if somebody has a suggestion as to how we can figure out a way to pay the existing nuclear fleet $42.50 per equivalent avoided ton of carbon, i am down for that. we need to find the revenues i don't think it is a good thing to run up the deficit, but they're ought to be a way to provide that revenue stream to these facilities so that artificially driven economic decisions that are in fact wrong from both on environmental and economic perspective are not being driven across this industry by this market failure. so, my know that is a little bit beyond the scope of this particular bill, but i would encourage if any of you have ideas to please go ahead and

offer them and i will offer the solicitation to my colleagues as well. again, thank you very much. >> senator, if i may, on the 1st point you made -- >> the one about the chairman? >> not that. >> actually, i would like the opportunity to respond. >> if i may finish my thought 1st. it relates to the 1st point. >> you will have the opportunity to respond. you will have the opportunity to give that in writing. i want a continuing conversation make sure we stay on the right track. >> i think you are entirely correct. thecorrect. the process needs to be tailored for advanced reactor technologies. as a country we have had a leadership role historically in the nuclear energy field. it is a different world today.

there are a lot of opportunities for advanced reactor directors to work with regulators around the world. if we don't maintain our lead they may well decide there are other countries to which they are better suited. >> i heard the reports on the facilities that were designed in the united states and being constructed over there. >> i tell you what, senator fisher needs to go next. i don't know if anyone else wants a 2nd round, but i have one more question. >> and i do look forward to working with you.you. i'm trying to open a conversation that separates what i think is a good weight point that you have indicated. >> no, i appreciate that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. nebraska hosts two nuclear reactors, and this important

legislation we are discussing today will provide our nuclear innovators the transparent framework that is necessary to launch this nuclear fleet into the future. it will enable our utilities to continue to provide affordable and reliable energy, so i am appreciative of the discussion we are having today and also that we are recognizing the outstanding job our nuclear reactor utilities perform every day. the legislation we are considering today creates an advanced nuclear energy cost share grant program that enables the department of energy to establish a grant program. i understand that there has been criticisms regarding the doe grant program shared cost of nrc licensing as picking winners and losers. in your experience, do you believe it will be

appropriate for the nrc to manage such a grant program to reduce, or would the nrc consider that promotional and in conflict with its role as a regulator? >> thank you for the question. as we, again, reiterate that the commission has not expressed his view on the bill, but i would note that has written nrc would not manage the grant program, but that the doe void. and in that sense, it is not too dissimilar from a grant that the doe made available for the combined operating license holders for the ap one thousands in georgia and south carolina. and to that extent, it has worked well and not impacted our fundamental safety and security mission, our independence principle which the chairman referred to

earlier. >> you would not be supported of the nrc becoming involved in the grant program in any kind of promotional way, and recognize there is conflict? >> i do. although the commission has not weighed in, it would appear, i believe, to represent a conflict. again, i would feel confident the commission would away on that with a similar review. >> thank you. you stated in your testimony that the cost and duration of reviews for license renewal for new plants have dramatically increased? rather than decreased as the nrc and industry gains experience with processes. s 2795 directs to ensure funds are available to complete reviews at the industry needs, and the bill has provisions requiring performance metrics and reporting.

.. absolutely in concept having metrics and reporting is absolutely helpful and demonstrating the success quite frankly that the nrc is so successful and an opportunity to share that. how important is it that we have

all the stakeholders at the table as he said it's very important and the devil is in the details. can you give me an example may be where you would be representing ideas that might not be available that other stakeholders would present? >> i think stachelberg each month would be very helpful in that way as with any performance metric you get what you measure. so he can perform in a way that makes the metric look at good but it's not satisfying if you well, the greater good in a way to avoid that is to get stakeholder engagement and review what the metrics would be to make sure that all of the stakeholders concerns would be reflected. >> thank you and mr. mayfield during your service as a commissioner you helped prepare the nrc to review new planned applications and this bill direct the nrc survived to be to develop a regulatory framework

to review the applications. is the scope of this work, do you think it's too ambitious or do you think it's feasible? >> i think it's absolutely feasible. a credit to the nrc staff. i think they will make this work. there are talented people. i think he is very achievable for the agency to do this. if they can come up with a process that is risk informed, predictable transparent and done in a way to allow technologies to move forward. i think this bill encourages that. one point that i would like to mention having been on the commission i do think the oversight that this can provide on the timing of various activities of the agencies, license renewals, new license applications, those are important metrics to take a look at. the timing of those has increased since i left the commission.

that is productivity that needs attention. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator fischer. senator markey. >> sequestration and the early closure of a number of nuclear plants have already put the nrc and a declining budget environment. at the same time the revelation that isis recorded video and belgium underscores the need or additional resources for security and safety at u.s. nuclear power plants. it's at the top of the terrorist list prices. instead the bill under consideration in this committee i ie test test. test test. test test. test test. test test test test. test test. test test. test test for operating reactor licensees. you agree that there's a possibility that such a cadet her sleeves pack safety and

security by reducing resources and support for nrc staff, working to protect the actors against insider threats or physical attacks? >> thank you for your question. i would reiterate the commission has not weighed in on the proposed bill including the that are described in the bill. if they would become law of course the nrc would abide. >> your resources are not good for the agency in protecting against a potential terrorist attack. is that true? >> quite frankly senator where the declining budgetary environment and we are doing are due diligence to assure that our resources are appropriately allocated. >> i appreciate that now you're pulling it away from other new or air safety issues in order to deal with a terrorist attack and both are very real in our country. i just think we have to be real stake that belgium warning that

they were looking at the powerplant that they were trying to attack it is clearly clearly something that could take into account united states. we are talking about then nuclear regulatory commission's budget. we might want to do a favor for the utilities and reduce their fees but where's the money going to come from in order to produce the level of safety which we are going to need in our country. now the findings and this bill states nuclear energy provides just short of 20% of electrical generation and the united states there are currently 99 reactors producing electricity in our country. at least we are closing very soon. fitzpatrick oyster creek and pilgrim. owing to the department of energy data for nuclear energy to stay at 20% of total energy generation by 2025 we need to bring 13 large reactors on line in the next nine years. we are currently building for and one more thoughts part two

is scheduled to produce electricity this year for that leaves us at least eight are short of what the goal is. do any of you disagree that there is little or no possibility in additional new reactors that we have not even begun to build both come on line by 2025? do any of you disagree with that there won't be any new plants operating between now and 2025? do any of you disagree with that? >> no sir. >> let the record reflect that no one disagrees with that and remember a new nuclear reactors are what we need to maintain nuclear share of electricity generation our country. there would be a need to replace even more of that, to replace fossil fuel generation as coal plants go off-line so we need even more electrical generation capacity. it's reactors on the

construction have experienced a years long delays, billions of dollars in cost overruns and it took 43 years to complete construction of watts bar two. do any of you disagree that the problems that caused the cost and schedule overruns of vocal would need to be solved before any significant number of new reactors could be built at the next 10, 15 or 20 years? do any of you disagree with that? let the record record that no one disagrees. in recent years the price of renewable energy sources has declined considerably. here is the big number. since 2010 the price of solar panels has declined by 80%. we are talking five years, 80%. by contrast the cost of constructing nuclear plants has remained stubbornly high. in light of these facts it simply is not realistic to expect nuclear power will continue to provide the majority

of emissions free electricity in the united states let alone be part of a solution for climate change. in 2005 in the united states there were 79 total megawatts sold. this year its 16,000 new megawatts of solar in one year so you can see where the trend lines are. increased solar deployment at the price of vote declining radically and total cost where stubborn regulatory issues in terms of safety and design still plague the nuclear industry. this bill would scrap the requirements that the nuclear regulatory commission holds a mandatory hearing on each application for a construction permit while operating a license. instead such hearings would only occur if they are requested by a person whose interests might be objective. is there any evidence at mandatory hearings would recover

weaknesses in the nrc staff of valuations of construction permits while operating license applications that otherwise would never have come into the public view? >> senator markey thank you for the question. in our view the mandatory hearing does establish a unique and important role in filling a gap in the event a contested hearing does not occur any benefit contested hearing does occur the mandatory hearing examines other issues including the adequacy of the nrc staff's review and a colleague of mine has compiled a number of instances where a mandatory hearing have covered -- uncover significant -- and i would offer that list for your inspection. we believe the mandatory hearing process is important is also important for transparency.

we need to maintain transparency in the nrc review process and the fact of the public is nice of the resources to be able to contest a hearing, even if there are important safety issues that need adjudication soap for those reasons we think a mandatory hearing should be preserved. >> i agree with you. there are mandatory hearings if you want to build a new house next to someone else's house. they are building a nuclear power plant and mandatory hearings for construction permit would no longer be mandatory? i mean that just makes no sense whatsoever. that's an inherently dangerous to elegy that needs all kinds of tough questions to be asked about it. understand the wish list of industry. no more public input and no more questions asked like -- by concerned scientists questioning the underlying premise of building power plants with i don't think the public is going to be happy there are told no hearings on this dangerous technology.

again it still needs insura . again, it still needs insurance protection from the federal government, that's how inherently dangerous it is. the private sector isn't willing to provide the insurance, okay. you need the government with -- to intervene to provide that insurance coverage. >> mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. i would like to recognize, if i were the chair you never would have gotten those extra three minutes and six seconds. it's probably to safe to assume not going to cosponsor this legislation and -- >> i got that figured out. >> any time soon. >> one of our colleagues is not here today, mike -- he use to lead the committee on health education labor pensions for a number of years as he break concern for republican. and somehow or another they managed to get a huge amount done. i use to say