 Thanks, Bill. One of the things I recognized coming back, and now I'm supposed to follow that legal advice I gave for so many years here. That's a tough thing to do sometimes. Well, good morning, and again, I thank Bill for the introduction, and I would like to take this opportunity to say good morning to all of you, particularly my fellow commissioners, the NRC staff, our distinguished international guests who've joined us, representatives of industry, NGOs, and everyone else who is interested in our program. And I thank you for attending this 27th Annual Regulatory Information Conference. I actually happened to be down at the Mayflower Hotel where the first conference was held 27 years ago. It was a little bit different event. I was there following my wife around, gathering information with my daughters, wedding, you know, wedding cakes, wedding dresses, vendors, things like this. But I actually remember accompanying, well, then I think Commissioner Carr to the first rick down in the Mayflower, and I think looking at our website, it was something we had about 500 participants that year. We've grown to over 3,000, so this really is quite an event. And it's actually my first one that I've been back to since 2011, right before the Fukushima Daiichi accident. So I'm interested in, particularly in our program, and to reflect on where we have gone. As Bill indicated, I retired from the NRC in 2012, and I spent three years of retirement in Paris working for the OECD in the NEA, which was a great experience, and I'm happy to see actually a number of faces I recognize from both NEA, from the CSNI and the CNRA, and others in the international community who I was able to serve and get to know a little bit during my sojourn in Paris. But I want to reflect a little bit today on where we've been, but more importantly where we're going as NRC. This year we commemorate our 40th anniversary of our creation as an agency. Many of us can recall, and some of us have lived through some of the seminal moments in the history of at least the NRC, the Browns Ferry Fire in 1975, the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, the terrorist attacks and the response to them that occurred in September 2001, and more recently our response to the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Also significant over that time, and not just events, but changes in the agency's processes and the efforts to strengthen and make more coherent the regulatory paradigm. The evaluation, for example, of operating experience, the backfit rule, development of the framework for emergency planning and preparedness, particularly after Three Mile Island, the adoption of safety goals, the maintenance rule, security enhancements, the establishment of the principles of good regulation, which guide our work here at the NRC. These events and efforts all maintain special importance today. Despite these many changes and challenges, I think it's worth noting that the basic organizational structure and institutional framework of the NRC has been relatively constant over this time since our creation 40 years ago. We've had high points, we've had a few turning points, we've had a few moments of reflection in our history, but on the whole I think the Commission's structure has served the public well over the years and has contributed to a record of effective regulation. I think we've learned from experience, not only for our own, but from our international partners, and we've adapted to the challenges put before us. And as we look to the future, there are certain aspects of the NRC that I think will remain unchanged, namely our commitment to assuring that the civilian uses of nuclear energy and radioactive material do not pose a threat to the public health and safety or the common defense and security. So the NRC is now 40. What does that mean? Some might consider this a time for a midlife crisis, but I see it as an opportunity for the agency to not only reflect on where we've been, but to look forward to where we're going. As many of you know, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, sets the initial licensing period for a nuclear reactor in the United States at 40 years, but allows for renewals of those licenses. Perhaps it's apropos then to think of the NRC as it reaches its 40th year as reaching its own timely renewal period. Surely the environment in which we find ourselves today suggests not only that we reflect on the journey of the last 40 years, but also that we refresh and renew in a timely and purposeful way our perspective on the road ahead. Over the last decade and a half, we have seen the NRC go from an agency of about 2,700 employees in the year 2000 to one with approximately 4,000 in 2010 to just about 3,700 employees today. Going forward, it's incumbent on the commission to ensure that the NRC's organizational structure is right-sized so that the agency has the personnel it needs to perform its mission and to be an infective regulator while still being accountable and prudent in our expenditure of resources. So how might we do that? In June 2014, before I return to the NRC, the staff embarked with commission support on an effort called Project AIM 2020. The project, which had, as I said, a charter established by the commission was initiated as a collaboration between the NRC's executive director for operations and the chief financial officer. The purpose of the project is to identify ways to enhance the NRC's ability to plan and execute our mission more efficiently while adapting in a timely and an effective manner to a dynamic environment. The Project AIM 2020 report represents a serious effort by the agency's senior management to address transformational and organizational challenges that lie ahead. The report, which is currently under review by the commission, contains a number of potentially impactful recommendations, and the copy of the report, if you're interested, is available through the NRC website. In the first decade of this century, the agency grew significantly. Primary drivers for the growth included the need to enhance security and incident response in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 2001, but also prepare for what was expected to be growth in the use of nuclear energy in the United States. As all of you know, the economy suffered a significant crisis in 2008 that had a lingering impact. Greater competition in the energy markets, due in part to the drop in the price of natural gas, also changed the focus of many utilities. The previous forecast in growth that led to the NRC's increase in staffing has now been adjusted downward in response to the changes in the nuclear industry that have resulted in fewer nuclear power plants and earlier decommissioning of some plants. These adjustments, in turn, are prompting the NRC to adapt its structure, its workforce, and regulatory processes to achieve our safety and security mission in an era of more constrained resources. Now perhaps more than ever, the NRC is being scrutinized by its stakeholders for its responsible use of resources, as well as for the regulatory requirements it imposes. The NRC must position itself and reposition itself to function as an even more effective and efficient regulator in this environment while retaining the capability to respond in an agile manner to a range of possible futures. However, this repositioning cannot be characterized as merely something that means across the board reduction in staffing or resources or regulations. Although the forecasted wave of new reactor licensing did not happen as anticipated a few years ago, our workload has increased in other areas. For example, we've seen the agencies, as well as the industry's response to the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the unexpected decommissioning of several reactor units earlier than the end of their expected life, as well as other areas of workload increase, such as cybersecurity, preparing and renewing license applications for medical isotope production and the potential for small modular reactors. Additionally, the NRC is readying itself to receive and renew reactor renewal applications that could propose an extension of an existing reactor's life beyond 60 years. The NRC has also initiated an effort to stabilize and improve the agency's existing reactor amendment licensing backlog through the reallocation of resources from lower priority work and an expanded use of contractor support. And although we do not anticipate complete resolution of the backlog this fiscal year, the agency is making progress. Accordingly, 40 years since its creation, the NRC's adjustment in its organization, while necessary to remain an effective and efficient regulator, also needs to be well thought out and carefully implemented. Now for a moment, let's just step back and consider how we get to where we need to be. The goals of the Project Game 2020 are to improve efficiency in accomplishing our safety, security, and safeguards mission by retaining, attracting, and developing a diverse group of people with the right skills to accomplish our mission efficiently and effectively. Streamlining NRC processes were appropriate to be leaner, using resources wisely, limiting overhead costs in both mission and support functions, and executing our regulatory functions and making decisions in a more timely and effective manner. That's a tall order. Commission must consider a lot of factors, many factors, as part of its final decision-making process about how we move forward, and we're doing that. We're sensitive to the potential effects on the morale and on the decisions that such decisions may have on agency staff. We're a world-class organization. We're made up of a lot of dedicated people committed to this critical mission. And it's imperative then on our implementation of these decisions that we effectively communicate the basis for our decisions, and perhaps more importantly, make sure that the staff understand and embrace the need for change, but the right kind of change. However, although important, the commission's deliberations that come out of Project Game 2020 represent only one aspect of addressing our future. Focusing on the here and now, we recently proposed our 2016 budget to the Congress the proposal shows that the NRC anticipates some leaner resource requirements. Our budget for the next fiscal year reflects our efforts to respond to the new context in which we find ourselves. Our budget demonstrates our commitment to operate more effectively, but to ensure that we carry out our mission of safety and security. Because we are largely a fee-based agency, I expect the upcoming fee rule for 2015, which will be published in the next couple of weeks, to reflect an overall reduction in licensee annual and hourly fees. Industry projections of planned activities have been and will continue to be an important input to our resource needs and planning and a driver of NRC costs. NRC relies in large part on the industry's projection of future licensing workload in order to inform our own strategic planning and budget information to ensure that we're not an impediment to enabling the safe and secure use of nuclear materials and facilities as permitted under the Atomic Energy Act. We need the industry's help to provide accurate and timely projections so that the NRC can properly budget for its future work. Although the agency's workload is changing in some areas getting smaller, I'd be remiss if I did not mention the agencies and the industry's efforts to expend a significant amount of time and attention and resources to address the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Tomorrow, of course, March 11 marks the four-year anniversary of these events. Both the NRC and the industry in the U.S. as well as elsewhere have taken swift and decisive action to address many of the key lessons learned from that event. Due to the extraordinary effort of the staff and of the industry, a number of significant enhancements to safety have already been implemented at power plants and the vast majority of those most safety significant actions are targeted for completion by the end of 2016. It's one of my priorities to see that we do what we can, all that we can, to meet that goal. One of the NRC lessons learned initiatives have and will continue to result in significant safety improvements at U.S. nuclear power plants. NRC is committed to bringing the remaining enhancements to timely closure. The accident also underscored the importance of international cooperation in promoting nuclear safety around the world in countries with well-established nuclear power programs as well as in newcomer countries. My recent experience at the OECD NEA demonstrated the benefits of cooperation through joint research agreements and developing consensus standards as well as through commitment to the effective implementation of international agreements in the field of nuclear energy. The NRC engages frequently with our international counterparts to aid us in carrying out our safety mission as well. As many of you know, our diplomatic conference was held last month in February at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and it related to the Convention on Nuclear Safety to which the United States is contracting party. Although there were different approaches initially to how best reflect the contracting party's commitment to nuclear safety, the parties ultimately adopted unanimously the Vienna Declaration on Nuclear Safety. The Vienna Declaration is intended to strengthen each contracting party's commitment to nuclear safety in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi accident through principles for implementation that are intended to prevent accidents, to mitigate the radiological consequences if an accident occurs. Under the three principles of the Vienna Declaration, new power plants are to be designed, cited, and constructed consistent with the objective of preventing accidents during commissioning and operation. Comprehensive and systematic safety assessments are to be carried out periodically and regularly for existing facilities during their lifetime. And national requirements and regulations to address these principles are to take into account the relevant IEA safety standards and other good practices. The NRC will continue to work with our counterparts across the world to ensure that these principles are given meaning, as we already have done through the safety enhancements adopted in this country following the accident. As we now stand at the beginning of NRC's next decade, we do expect to see small modular reactors and potentially advanced reactor technologies come before us for evaluation and licensing consideration. The NRC is willing and able to work with the industry, the public, and the international community to develop a framework for more appropriate for new reactor technologies. The Office of New Reactors at the NRC is making progress on several fronts and is staying abreast of industry's commitment to advanced reactor designs. For example, we have undertaken a recent report developed in cooperation with the Department of Energy on general design criteria for non-lightwater reactors. Because the most small modular reactors being considered are based on lightwater technologies, the agency is well-postured to accept and evaluate these applications based on these technologies. With respect to non-lightwater reactor technology, although I'm confident that the NRC can effectively manage an application, I do recognize that vendors interested in developing such technologies may be interested in greater clarity regarding the application requirements and the standards for review. The NRC is taking a hard look at this area, however, without a specific applicant, and with intense pressure on budget and resources. It is challenging for us to be too forward-leaning and expend significant resources on the development of an entirely new regulatory framework. To come full circle in looking backward and looking forward, I'd like to close by observing for the last 40 years, the NRC has accomplished a great deal by working with the industry, by working with the public and other stakeholders. And I've been fortunate to be here for more than 34 of those years with a slight interruption and now I begin again. And I've had the privilege of working with many dedicated colleagues and have seen the agency achieve success in often difficult times. The one constant is that we have committed professionals here at the NRC that make up the agency, and they've always endeavored to ensure that the NRC fulfills its mission to protect people and the environment. That said, and looking forward, I'm equally fortunate to be here at the beginning of the next 40 years. I promise not to be here at the end of those 40 years. But the agency is poised, I think, to meet the challenges of our future, whatever it may bring, and to assure the continuity of our important mission to protect public health and safety and to ensure the common defense and security. But we will need all of your help along the way, every one of you. For the job of ensuring the continued safe use of nuclear energy, nuclear material, radioactive material is a responsibility that belongs to us all. Thank you, and I wish you a very successful rig. So Chairman Burns, we have a handful of questions we've received so far. The audience has actually taken it pretty easy on you. Not that I'm encouraging others. These are all the ones I've planned. That's right, okay. So a lot of the questions deal with project aim, budget, what's driving us. One question that's related to that is, given that much of the expected new build in the U.S. has been put off, new reactors, several other countries are seriously considering building nuclear plants. How is the NRC aiding these countries? Well, we have cooperative arrangements with a number of countries, and I think that's the basic, the simplest terms, that's what we do. As I say, we provide resources, obviously in some circumstances where there might be a U.S. design that's been certified, we can provide them information. Sometimes we have teams that go to those countries and look at what's underway. And I think we also try to learn from others. I think the benefits that has been from the multinational design evaluation program, which I know former Chairman Diaz was a big advocate for, and the French and the Finns together found it. So that's a big area for cooperation as well through MDEP in terms of getting consistency or looking how standards are developed and applied in different countries to different designs. The next question, actually I'm going to combine a couple questions. It's kind of the ying-yang of budget. One is, given the decline in new reactor work, is a 10% reduction in the NRC budget adequate combined with the question that efficiency with resources is an important goal, but isn't there a point at which you can only do less with less? I didn't hear the answer. Less with less. In other words, when you start cutting too far, you're making yourself too lean. I think starting with the first part of it is we look at the budget from the standpoint of what we anticipate the work in the various areas. Obviously in the new reactor area it has declined, but I also recall the commission just held the so-called mandatory hearing for the Fermi-3 project, which, again, that's not our decision, that's the decision of the applicant if it receives the license, whether it will ultimately build it. They've talked about, in effect, banking that. There are one or two other applications like that. So there is still work for us to do. We still have the ongoing oversight with respect to the construction at summer and Vogel and the conclusions at Watts Bar too. There is work in that area. We have scaled that work down where we have applications that we know at this point are coming in. On the other end, I agree. I think that the issue of when you say resources, this is not really a game of saying how low can you go in terms of merely cutting resources. We have to do this smartly. We have to look at how we're structured. Are we focused on the important things for safety and for security that are at the key at the heart of our mission? And what we're committed to do is basically assure that we have the resources that help us carry out our inspection program, which, of course, has oversight not only in the reactor area, power reactors, research reactors, but also materials facilities. We have responsibility, even though many of those materials licensees are licensed by individual states. We are required and responsible for assuring consistency across the board. So there's a lot of work there, and I am concerned. And one of the things what we will do is make the case for where we need resources, we will ask for them. We want to be responsible about it. But this is not merely about cuts. This is about doing our job in an effective manner. A related question relative to Project AIM is, in view of the resource challenges that we foresee for the NRC, is moving away from independent verification of safety analyses, calculations, and instead putting more effort towards spot-checking licensee and applicant submissions in the future. Moving away from independent verification of safety analyses and calculations, and instead putting more effort towards just spot-checking licensees and applicant submissions. I'm not quite sure how to answer that, but I think that's actually within the staff that the staff needs to recommend to the commission what's the appropriate balance. I mean, since I was here as a young attorney and working with the staff, for example, on construction oversight in the late 70s and early 80s on operational oversight, we've always had a mix where we're doing spot-checks, we do an audit type inspection. I don't think anyone or no one should be under the illusion that we re-verify everything that every licensee does. We don't have those kinds of resources. That's not the expectation of the regulator. The balance is something I think the commission tries to achieve with the insights, particularly your office bill for operating reactors as well as our regional administrators who are responsible on the line in the field for oversight. Chairman, the next series of questions deal with various challenges that the NRC and industry are facing. The first one is what will be the biggest challenge for the NRC in handling subsequent license renewal? Well, again, I think what the commission decided last year is that the basic framework we have is sound, that it allows for consideration. And again, what the challenge I would say always in licensing is good quality submittals that address the issues that are required to be addressed as part of the license application or renewal process. I think those are the things. And again, the technical staff we have is capable of looking at those things and making, I think, sound decisions on them. So I think the answer you just gave is probably applicable to this question as well. What is the nuclear industry's largest challenge in expediting review and approval of SMR designs? Well, again, what we all, I think what we usually will say is what you need is a high quality application, an application that addresses the criteria that are required for the review process. And I think openness with the staff as it asks its questions about the review and reaches that goes through the technical process of review. The next question is really a two-part question. What do you believe is the greatest challenge facing the NRC over the next decade and what do you believe is the greatest challenge facing the commercial nuclear industry over the next decade? Well, I think for the NRC, I think we've outlined it is, again, we're trying to maintain the heart and core of our mission, which I think we do very well. And it's really adapting, being able to adapt to circumstances as they arise. Again, I think what I tried to outline in my presentation was that we see, we can't easily predict the future, but we have to be able to try to adapt to it as it comes while it would maintain our core, the core values and the core mission that we have. For the industry itself, I think that's better answered by the industry in many ways. Do you believe there is an opportunity to enhance the relationship of the NRC with congressional leaders? Well, I think there's always work that we can do. I've been trying to do some, I reached just to introduce myself or reintroduce myself. Now that I've come back, I know other commissioners do as well. I think what we want to do with the Congress is, in effect, tell our story. Is that we have an important mission here. You've entrusted us. After all, it's the Congress is responsible for passing the legislation that created us to understand how we carry out that mission. And I think communicating that is important. And being responsive in the sense of the legitimate questions that congressional oversight and congressional appropriators have about how do you use your resources? What did you learn from this experience? Those types of things are things I think we can do for them. Chairman, what is your view of the cumulative effects of regulation initiative in a period of finite resources? Well, the commission initiated this, the cumulative effects initiative. Right before I left the agency for the NEA late 2011-2012. And it is not something that is done in a vacuum with respect to other, for example, with respect to other federal agencies. Remember the administration issued a memorandum with respect to looking at cumulative effects. I think it's a good initiative from the standpoint that it helps us think about the significance of what we're doing and its necessity ultimately to safety or to security, whatever the requirement is. And again, I view it as a way of trying. Again, I focus on this being us being effective, being efficient, being agile. In a way, I think in a real way, I think it helps us do that because it can help us focus on the most significant things from a safety or security standpoint. And so understanding what the impact is. I know one of the commissioners has said, I think very wisely, say we often, sometimes we will get up at the top of the agency papers, vote on them, and sometimes we may miss that, how we do. Because everything comes up, you know, it's sort of like the, sometimes, for those of you who remember the old Lucy show, it reminds me of Lucy in Ethel. The candy on the candy machine and the candy things keep going fast. Well, that's what it seems like with the second paper sometimes. You know, you got to get them out and sign them out and all that. But sometimes that doesn't allow us always, if we look at it that way, it doesn't allow us to step back, think about what's the significance of what we do? What's the impact on the resources within the agency? For things that have an external impact, what are the real benefits that come about? And we have process, I think this is another way of enhancing our decision making process. Just like in the 1980s, the back foot rule, which is still in play and still applied, also helps us in that regard. The next question is centered around public meetings. One of Chairman McFarland's initiatives was associated with enhancing public participation, including public meetings and some of which have had some degree of histrionics. How can we improve the public meetings that take place out into the field in terms of their content and structure? And then the second piece of that is, should the NRC do more to involve and engage members of the public in the RIC? Well, I'll take the second part of the question first. With respect to the RIC, obviously it's an open forum. Anybody, it's cost free from the terms of attendance, other than if you're not, you have to transport yourself here. From that standpoint, I think it's already a very open forum. And I also think from the standpoint of your office and the research office in terms of developing program, we take suggestions and work on the content of the program. With the first part is public discourse in some areas can be very difficult, particularly where there's a particular controversy over a particular plant or a particular issue that the NRC might be out there in a public meeting. I've been to some of those meetings across my career that have been what I would call not the most pleasant, maybe not the most polite. We have to do what we can, we can't guarantee that, but we do have to do what we can to enhance the circumstances and the environment to work with local officials, whether that's the local police force, what if they're sure that there's a safe environment for people. For the most part, our meetings, I think, go well. I think people respect what's going on and respect the people who are giving presentations. But there are times, I think we have to learn some lessons if we have some particular difficult ones. I know, I think this is an issue not only for us here in the U.S. I know in some other environments, other places, the public meetings can also be very hot. Chairman, having spent time in France, do you have any thoughts on recycling used nuclear fuel? Well, obviously in France, that is a policy. The United States, since President Reagan lifted the bar that was imposed by President Carter, it's permissible, but basically we've gone on it as a commercial, as I recall, a commercially based program if those want to go in it. I don't have any particular views on it with respect to, you know, we would be prepared, obviously the agency, to the extent we would have a regulatory role over a certain facility, we would be prepared or prepare ourselves to deal with that. In a similar vein, how can the commission deal expeditiously with, I think it's entrepreneurial, non-lightwater advanced reactors, likely without a traditional utility buyer? Well, I think that I alluded to. I think we are in a position, the staff's in a position to speak with those who might be interested in it, to understand what some of the issues are with respect to where the NRC has a role to play in terms of licensing, in terms of understanding what the acceptance criteria are. But again, because we are a fee based agency, those who come in generally will have to have, be able to pay for the application, be willing to pay for the application review. There has been some work I know in the Department of Energy in terms of working with some of those who might be interested in the newer technologies. But development side, that's where that's going to have to be. What we can do, and as I alluded to in my speech, we have been, are engaged, I should say, in a project that looks at general design criteria for advanced reactor or non-lightwater reactor designs. And that's the type of work we can do to assure that our processes are as transparent as they can be and that they also, and again this is consistent with our principles of good regulation, that they're repeatable, they're predictable in terms of what the criteria are and what the necessary hurdles are to obtain acceptance or licensing in those circumstances. The next question is a budget-related question and it deals with the funding of Yucca Mountain Licensing. Could you explain how Yucca Mountain was incorporated or not incorporated into the budget process? Well, those of you who have followed Yucca Mountain, well, no, what the court, I guess it was in 2013. And the mandamus decision order is that the money that the agency had left over, which was then on the order of $11 to $13 million, needed to be expended, the agency needed to expend it. What we've done is over that period of time and we're continuing, although that's a dwindling pot of money, if you will, we've completed the safety evaluation report. We are embarking on the supplemental environmental statement because the Department of Energy indicated that it would not be preparing that supplemental statement. And then there are some other work related to the assurance that we have the archives of the documentary archives and the record and assuring that our SERs are properly spaced. Then that's it. There is no money in the President's budget for Yucca Mountain, either at the NRC or at the Department of Energy. And so the question of whether other money would be appropriated is really a question for the Congress. Okay. We have time for maybe two more questions. Okay. Due to the future challenges at NRC, how much emphasis will the NRC place on revising regulations for the sake of international harmonization? Well, I think you have to look at that in the context of what the particular regulations are. I think it's important from our standpoint to understand what types of consensus standards there are in the international community. In some circumstances, the agency, because the United States under its has committed to do that. For example, the IAEA Transport Regulations, which are adopted and affects what we call, going off into a legal thing. We call soft law because they are basically, they are suggestions by the IAEA because it doesn't have that kind of legislative or regulatory power, but countries across the world adopt the Transport Regulations because they are the international consensus. That's important. That's important not only for consistency within our country, but for things like international commerce and to assure that there is a uniform scheme. I recognize in some other areas that that may be more controversial perhaps, but I think we always need to be looking at the developments in the international community and to see where it fits from us because not only is there a benefit in the consistency and transferability, if you will. There's also a selfish national interest sometimes if, for example, things that in terms of exports, or as I said in the transport example, it just makes things easier to do. We keep in touch with the international community through IAEA-type standards, sometimes what NEA may develop, and I think that's important to do so. I saved the hardest question for last. Do you have any specific goals related to visiting U.S. plants? Yes, I need to get out of Region 2 because the first three plants I've gone to are all out in Region 2, but actually it's been a very good experience there because I got to see the flex equipment in North Ana. I saw Watts Bar, which of course at Watts Bar 2 and Watts Bar 1, which is an interesting, for a quote, new build, is an interesting posture, and then of course I was down at a Vogel a couple weeks ago. I do want to get around to other plants, some of you may or may not know in my earlier life. I actually went to a fair number of U.S. power plants, but I think from my standpoint, I would like to get out to a variety of them and we'll be doing so over the next couple of years. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks. Thank you.