dr. lyman. welcome. >> thank you chairman kapito and other ranking members of the subcommittee. a i'm a senior scientist at the organization of concerned scientists. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this subject of nuclear energy and innovation and effective regulation to secure nuclear safety and kmurt. we are a nuclear safety watch dog and we work to ensure that u.s. reactors are adequately safe both from accidents and secure from terrorist attacks. our position on nuclear power is not ideological but pragmatic. we believe nuclear power could have a role to play in helping to mitt grate the threat of climate change but it can only happen if nuclear power is sufficiently safe and secure. if nuclear power is to grow, there must be a corresponding increase in safety and security. otherwise the risk to public health and the environment will increase. and nuclear power could take sfl out of the running if there is another event like the march 20 fukushima disas

dr. lyman, i was just looking for points of agreement. we'll come back to the 20% some other hearing, all right? [ laughter ] commander mccree, navy captain -- navy commander, right? >> yes. thank you for the question. >> naval academy? my favorite rank in the navy. >> let me first agree with my fellow panel member, ms. korsnick, nrc remaining a strong, credible regulator is essential and we are committed to our efficiency principle of regulation and are making strides to become more efficient in this important area. again, the most important thing we do is assure the safety and security of the operating nuclear power plants and the materials license holders. but within that, i alluded to the three pronged strategy earlier, the multipart strategy. i believe that is in perfect alignment. the nrc needs to make the reviews of advanced nonlight water reactors more effective, more clear and predictable. we're committed to build that framework to have it in place by 2019 so if, and, or when an applic

dr. lymantestimony has two points he raised. one of them was we should not weaken the nrc structure, it's the gold standard and we need it to continue to be the gold standard. i don't view this as weakening the structure in any way. i view it as increasing transparency and efficiency and maybe i'll turn to you first, mr. merrifield. what is your view of that issue? >> thank you very much, senator. i fundamentally disagree with mr. lyman in that regard. what we are really asking for, and i think what this legislation will accomplish is risk informing the regulatory activities of the nrc and tailoring those activities to be appropriate for the licensing. this will in no way reduce the level of safety. in fact, arguably it will allow the agency to appropriately tailor resources to be regulated in the right way and hopefully will have the successful accomplishment of doing it at a lower cost which is important as well. >> the earlier the agency is involved in the development of the technologies and

dr. lyman if i iowa -- if i may. you read granting safe the -- could lead to a net reduction in overall safety? >> yes, just to elaborate on that concern, the industry is pressing for generic decisions to be made on certain policy issues including the size of emergency planning zones for fans reactors and modular reactors, the level of security that is needed, whether or not the containment needs to be robust against large pressure increases and whether the number of operators needed to staff a nuclear reactor complex should be reduced. they want these decisions to be made haste on the assertion that advanced reactors are so much safer than current were actors