and nrc. while section 7 b calls to establish stages in the advanced nuclear reactor process, we believe it is generally consistent with our white paper that the bill should be strengthened by incorporating specific language requiring the nrc to present prelicensing review to clearly and prop ptly articulate where advanced reactor designs do and do not need additional work, would enable investors to have a clearer picture in where they stand in meeting we support the elimination of the mandatory hearing requirements contained in section 8 and please discuss my views on this during the question and answer portion. we believe it's time to make appropriate reforms to the nrc overhead and reform process as well as modernize the agency's licensing program to spur innovation in advanced reactor technologies to achieve full promise. achieving that goal and we're committed to working with this committee to its passage. thank you for your allowing me to testify today. >> thank you. thank you all very m

cooperation between doe and nrc. i think we can revitalize our nuclear sector and secure additional power. i have concerns about the nuclear realization of keynote energy -- keystone is on my mind -- keynote energy. i would like to ask some questions. you may reference to the 26th a white rape it -- white paper release. implicit five recommendations for congress. it is designed and the review of the process and i'm guessing that means money which is encouraging nrc to meet the 36 month deadline for review and directing nrc to identify roadblocks and cementing annual updates. in your opinion, does it adequately address these recommendations? >> i think it does. we actually, on a couple of things we would ask for improvement in the two bills you are looking at. one is to be specific and requiring an application and review process. the other one was to provide an opportunity for engagement between the developers of technology and the nrc at no cost, early stages in the process, to really enhance the levels of understand

and nrc.ection 7 b calls to establish stages in the advanced nuclear reactor process, we believe it is generally consistent with our white paper that the bill should be strengthened by incorporating specific language requiring the nrc to present prelicensing review to clearly and promptly articulate where advanced reactor designs do and do not need additional work, would enable investors to have a clearer picture in where they stand in meeting nrc requirements. finally, we support the elimination of the mandatory hearing requirements contained in section 8 and please discuss my views on this during the question and answer portion. we believe it's time to make appropriate reforms to the nrc overhead and reform process as well as modernize the agency's licensing program to spur innovation in advanced reactor technologies to achieve full promise. achieving that goal and we're committed to working with this committee to its passage. thank you for your allowing me to testify today. >> thank you. th

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

i give credit to the nrc staff. i think they will throw themselves into making this work.i think and mr. mccree is a talented individual.y can come up with a i think the process isme predictable and transparent anda done in such a way to allow technologies to move forward. one point on the earlier issue i would like to mention having been on the commission -- commissioner think the oversight that this committee provides on the timing of various activities of the license renewals, news, license application those are important metrics to take a look at.i left the that is productivity that needs attention. >> thank you, thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you chairman fischer. mr. marquis. >> mr. mccree sequestration in the early closure of a number of nuclear plants have arguede already put the nrc in a declining budget environment. at the same time the revelation that isis recorded video of the belgian nuclear official underscores the need for additional resources for security and safety at u.s. nuclear power plants.ea

in keeping with the nrc's safety and security missions. the existing regulations were designed around one technology, and are not well suited for tib no vasions under way. this is clearly an issue my colleagues need to address. efficient and timely decision making at the nrc is crucial for our existing plants and emerging technologies. the bill modernizes the budget and fee structure. the existing industry needs to remain economically competitive and that will allow emerging technologies to grow. the nrc's safety and security mission is a vital one that must be accomplished efishtly nd with fiscal discipline. the american taxpayer, the rate paying customer and licensees are all entitled to the best possible management and administration of regulatory activities. this bill aligns with the principle. and i thank my colleagues for their hard work and bipartisanship to advance innovative new technologies, where our nation should lead the way not just for our energy security but also in the interest of our national security. only by leading can

that means money, encouraging nrc to meet 36-month deadline for review and directing nrc to identify roadblocks to expedite approvals and submitting annual updates. does the legislation for the subcommittee today adequately address these recommendations? >> in the meeting i think it does. we focused on a couple of things we would ask for improvement in the two bills that you're looking at today. one is to be specific in requiring a preapplication vendor design review process. the or one was to providi greater opportunity for engagement between the developers of advanced reactor technologies and the nrc at no cost early stages in the process to enhance level of understanding on the part of the agency and developer. >> during your service as commissioner, do you recall how many license reviews the nrc completed? >> i'd have to go back and do research. >> if you know, i'd appreciate it. with respect to reviews you have a sense of how many hearings did the commission grant upon request under section 189 of the atomic energy act? >> i would have to go back and review that one. >> under se

that's certainly nrc. is to manage cost reductions, reductions in staffing that you maintain your core capability to fulfill your mission. ours is the safety and security. we're working very closely as a leadership team using a strategic work force plan to make sure that the work that we have now, the work that we predict in the future will have the right people and the right place at the right time with the right skills. and, again, that's what our commitment is and we're working very closely to get that done, including nuclear engineers who are just one capability, one competence that we need within the nrc. >> all right. thanks. >> senator, can i make a comment about -- >> real short because we're out of time. >> 73 of the nuclear power plants in the united states have sought and received an extension to run for 60 years. that has allowed the utilities to invest large amounts of money to make sure that those plants are up to date and fully meet the safety requirements. like your mini van, they have been

evolve so much with the nrc. in closing, i believe that government in this country has a number of roles to play, i'm sure you agree, among them uses important in creating job creation and job preservation. that includes making sure that we have affordable, dependable energy and were producing it safely in this country. in ways that diminish the threat of climate change rather than increase it. advances in nuclear energy can help us attain that environment and provide more promising future for our nation, for its people and for our planet. i hope you learn today about the rules of the nrc and other agency needs to play. and and that needs to be realized. >> thank you. with that the chairman has requested. >> i put my statement in the record,. >> without objection. >> again, i would like to thank the the witnesses and welcome you to give a five-minute statement, your full testimony has been cemented for the record. then we'll go through a round of questioning. >> senator booker i understand you like to make a comm

so those tools remain with the nrc. the other point i would make, it's not as if these technologies are entirely new, indeed, most of the advanced reactor technologies that are being brought forward today were originally developed by the atomic commission in doe during the 1950s and 1960s, there's significant amount of research amount of available to demonstrate the safety of these reactors today and justify the nrc and making changes that will appropriately taylor their regulations for advanced reactor technology fully consistent with public safety. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> a couple of comments, clearly, the industry and the folks representing advanced reactors, none of us are interested in reducing safety margins. the conversation and the structure in this bill that provides a licensing process informs that licensing process that these safety margins might in fact be met in a new different way with this innovative technology and that needs to be acknowledged through the licensing process. we're not in a

if i'm a utility and paying 90% of the costs of rung nrc and i see the nrc have fewer reactors to monitor, we're not -- why does the united states need all this money? your budget is down $5 million. that not very much. maybe you can help me with this. in terms of costs, that's not cheap. you have closures, sometimes we think that -- like, if i were our ford explorer, we were going to decommission it and we took it to a place and in one minute they squashed my car, my explorer, and that was it. they gave me a check. doesn't work that way with these newer power plants and it's an expensive process to decommission them. so fukushima, all these recommendations that we're implementing and make something progress here but we're not there yet. we have advanced technology and people with brilliant ideas that are saying, look at my idea, and takes money to pay for all this. so after actually thinking about it, my sense is that what you're asking for in the budget is not unreasonable, not unreasonable, but i realize we're interested in how to get best results for less money. you guys have to sharp

that's why -- >> reporter: the nrc and plant's owner say the current size of the emergency planning zone is appropriate. 45,000 people evacuated after the disaster at the chernobyl plant. 30 years later, residents hope they never have to put their evacuation plans into practice. out to those outside the ten-mile range. even though they don't have specific plans, they are ready, have the training and resources to get people out of harm's way. that's the way they are looking at the situation now. we'll see whether or not that goes from ten miles to 50 miles. >> thank you. >>> coming up here as news 4 at 6:00 continues, a move to keep barges away from liberty island. >>> what happened when a police officer pulled over a tractor trailer. here is the dashcam video. >>> also ahead -- >> pulled over for being black? >> the i-team investigates allegations of racial profiling and how one man is fighting back. >>> we have new video from new jersey to show you. south brunswick police released video of a driver re r ending a police patrol car. it's blurry, but this happened yesterday afternoon on ro

. >> first, the nrc or the nato-russian council, i think it's important to underline to t the following and that is after the illegal annexation of crimea in 2014, nato decided to suspend all practical cooperation with russia, but we decided at the same time to maintain our political dialogue with russia or maintain channels for political communication. so the nato-russia council has never been suspended. actually went to meetings in the council after the annexation of crimea. so whole idea is that practical cooperation has been suspended, political dialogue has been in place. so the challenge now has been not to come how shall i say, have decision to nato russia council, because it's been all the time. but the challenge has been to agree on the agenda for new meeting. we are in process of discussing that with the russians, and hopefully we'll be able to agree on the agenda and then convened a meeting. let me underline that for me, dialogue is not an expression of weakness. it is an expression of strength. because, it is because we are strong. it is because we are confident, that we are

what obligations must be fulfilled for full resumption of nrc work? the second question is as for the realignment of nato efforts to increase the presence on the eastern flank with the american eri initiative. and the last 1 -- is there an appetite in nato to look in the arctic? mr. stoltenberg: first, the nato-russian council -- it is important to underline the following, and that is after the illegal annexation of crimea in 2014, nato decided to suspend all practical cooperation with russia, but it decided at the same time to maintain our political dialogue with russia or maintain channels for political communication, so the nato-russia council has never been suspended. actually, we had two meetings after the annexation of crimea. the idea that practical cooperation has been suspended, political dialogue has been in place, so the challenge has been not to have a decision to have the nato-russia council because it has been there all the time, but the challenge has been to agree on the agenda for a new meeting, and we are in the process of discussing

what obligations must be fulfilled for full resumption of nrc work? the second question is as for the realignment of nato efforts to increase the presence on the eastern flank with the american eri initiative. and the last one -- is there an appetite in nato to look in the arctic? mr. stoltenberg: first, the nato-russian council -- it is important to underline the following, and that is after the illegal annexation of crimea in 2014, nato decided to suspend all practical cooperation with russia, but it decided at the same time to maintain our political dialogue with russia or maintain channels for political communication, so the nato-russia council has never been suspended. actually, we had two meetings after the annexation of crimea. the idea that practical cooperation has been suspended, political dialogue has been in place, so the challenge has been not to have a decision to have the nato-russia council because it has been there all the time, but the challenge has been to agree on the agenda for a new meeting, and we are in t process of discussing

when we think of all the architectures, reorganizing the government, different nrc or a different point or different process there are things you could do that would mirror the kind of things in terms of what are the priorities, the trends, do we have ways of thinking about these transnational interme intermessic things and whether our plan surfaces those things and bring the right people to the table. for me the substance is more important than those. it is understanding the principals and the performance. the process will adapt. we have seen that over time. you can make changes but it's only when you get insights about the substance that you begin to make the adaptation and get the commitment that allows the organizations to adapt. >> let me -- you may know -- this is the 30th anniversary of the goldwater knickols act. and currently senator mccain and the armed services committee are undergoing a review of that and should that change in some way. and you know here i am as a military guy saying we need some more government involvement in this. one issue with respect to goldwater nickel

nrc has considerable expertise and experience in the reactor types. we think the concern that the nrc is not ready to license the reactors is somewhat he exaggerated for that reason. for the most part these are all technologies. >> if i may respond quickly. when i was on the commission we did create a -- 5 million in funding to better understand the bed reactors but the salt reactors and led and some of the others being proposed are sick cantlie different. they do need additional funding and resources to bridge that gap. >> thank you. i know that we've opened up some issues that everybody would like to jump into more and i would, too, but i believe we just had a vote called or will shortly have a vote called and so we're going to have to wrap this up. i do want to remind all of the witnesses that senator whitehead had asked you to each respond -- whitehouse asked you each to respond in writing to this question about the safety implications of the legislation on the nrc's capacity to protect safety in its regulatory structure, and i would encourage you