1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

+ + + + +

ALL HANDS MEETING

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

SEPTEMBER 15, 2014

+ + + + +

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

+ + + + +

The All Employees Meeting commenced at 1:30 

p.m., in the Marriott Bethesda North Hotel and 

Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Rockville, 

Maryland.

NRC COMMISSIONERS:

ALLISON M. MACFARLANE, Chairman

WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, Commissioner

KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, Commissioner 
2

P R O C E E D I N G S

1:33 p.m.

MR. SATORIUS: Good afternoon. If 

everybody could kind of move on in. Plenty of seats 

right up here in the front. Those of you that are kind 

of hanging in the back, why don't you come on down up 

front here or find a seat, please, so that we can get 

started? We're a few minutes into our appointed time.

I'm Mark Satorius. I'm the Executive 

Director for Operations. And it was good to take a few 

minutes to roam up and down the aisles and reacquaint 

myself with some familiar faces and some that I wish were 

more familiar, but I don't get out and around as much 

as I used to.

But welcome, everybody, to today's annual 

meeting. This meeting is public between the staff and 

the Commission. The way it's going to work, I'll just 

-- if everybody would make sure your phones are off so 

we don't get any interruptions as we go through the 

meeting. I'll be introducing the Chairman here in just 

a second. I think she's going to provide some comments 

from her seat, and then her colleagues will provide 

comments, as well, from the seats up here on the 

platform.

The way it's going to work is there should 

be cards on all the seats. And if you need cards, more 
3

cards, there's people walking up and down that will 

collect any questions that you have after the Chairman 

and her colleagues have had a chance to address the 

staff. They'll just move right into questions at that 

point in time.

So I'm going to introduce the Chairman and 

have a seat in the audience. So if you would all welcome 

Chairman MACFARLANE here, the Chairman of the NRC for 

about two years and three months. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Good afternoon. 

How is everybody today? I read this is the best week 

of weather of the year, so I hope you go outside at 

lunchtime and soak up some of those rays.

So it's great to see so many of you here in 

the audience, and there are lots of empty seats on this 

side if you guys want to fill in over there. So I'd like 

to welcome our staff, all of you here from headquarters. 

I'd also like to welcome our regional staff and staff 

at all the sites where we have resident inspectors and 

the TTC, who are joining us this afternoon. 

So let me first start by extending my 

deepest thanks to all of you for all your hard work in 

every aspect of our mission. I get to meet a number of 

you when you come to my office for briefings, and I 

recognize that each briefing that you do for me takes 

a substantial part of your time. And I just want you 
4

to know that I appreciate that very much, and I 

appreciate all your efforts. And I enjoy hearing from 

you. I enjoy our debates when we get a chance to 

discuss.

So, you know, after being here for now over 

two years, I have to say that I think the NRC's talented 

staff is our greatest resource. It's our greatest 

strength. And I think my colleagues and I continue to 

be impressed with the expertise and professionalism you 

all bring to your work. So thank you for all of that.

And speaking of my colleagues, let me thank 

Commissioner Svinicki and Commissioner Ostendorff for 

their work and their support of our mission and for our 

collaboration on many issues. And I think all three of 

us also gratefully acknowledge the contributions of 

Commissioners Apostolakis and Magwood.

So this was yet another busy year. I think 

I arrived at the NRC just at the right time. There's 

lots to do, and it's all really interesting. So I guess 

that's the norm around here, or at least it is now.

So I think we've had a number of important 

accomplishments over the past year. So let me take a 

few minutes and reflect on some of those 

accomplishments. I'll start by highlighting some 

numbers from this year's Information Digest -- thank 

you, Eliot and your staff -- that I found particularly 
5

impressive. 

The work that I'm going to highlight, this 

is work that makes up the bread and butter of our agency. 

And so in the last fiscal year, there were an average 

of 6,600 inspection hours per plant. We had oversight 

of 2,900 materials licenses and coordination on 

agreement states with an additional 21,000 licenses. 

There were 16,000 thousand hours of 

ensuring that security is appropriate at power plants 

and fuel fabrication facilities in terms of inspections 

and force-on-force activities. There were 600 

allegations investigations. There were 1,115 public 

meetings and 18 new International Research Agreements. 

So these are just a few, a very few examples 

of your work throughout the year. And in addition to 

our day-to-day work, we've tackled and continue to 

address some specific issues. So let me talk about 

those for a second.

Let me first acknowledge the Waste 

Confidence Directorate and everyone who worked to 

complete the continued storage rule and generic 

environmental impact statement. I think this was a 

substantial achievement. We truly appreciate all of 

your hard work to complete this effort. Even with the 

federal shutdown, you completed it in two years. I 

think that's very well done, so congratulations.
6

We also continue to make significant 

progress in our post-Fukushima work, and I know many of 

you are well aware of that. We're continuing to work 

to comply with the DC Circuit Court's direction to 

resume our Yucca Mountain licensing work. We're 

continuing construction oversight at Watts Bar 2, 

Vogtle, and Summer plants. And we're now overseeing 

decommissioning at SONGS, Kewaunee, Crystal River, and 

soon-to-be Vermont Yankee. 

We're continuing to work closely with our 

agreement state partners on a variety of issues, 

including radioactive source security. Last month, we 

announced that we were taking the State of Georgia off 

probation, which is a substantial accomplishment for 

the state and for our staff who assisted them.

I'd also like to thank you for your strength 

and efforts to demonstrate that we've placed a lot of 

value on external input from the public, from industry, 

government, non-governmental organizations, and 

international counterparts. I note that a range of 

improvements occurred in this area, from the staff's 

commitment to communicate in plain language -- always 

appreciated by me, personally -- and to the EDO 

convening a communications team charged with enhancing 

the effectiveness of public meetings. I think these 

perspectives are critical to the quality of our 
7

regulations and oversight, and effective engagement 

builds the public confidence in our important work. 

Closer to home, I'd also like to recognize 

the Two White Flint prospectus team whose tireless 

efforts have resulted in us being able to continue 

consolidating our headquarters staff into one campus. 

That's the goal: one campus. We look forward to 

Research's return to the White Flint campus in March 

2015, and then we will be complete again. 

In addition, we opened and then, of course, 

re-opened our new state-of-the-art Emergency 

Operations Center, and we've kept up the pace of 

emergency exercises and other important training events 

there. 

So now let me turn to the future. We've 

done a lot during the year. I think that's quite a list, 

and it's, by no means, comprehensive. But in the coming 

months we anticipate we'll have to continue a number of 

activities that I just mentioned, and we'll have more 

on our plate. But I think you're all aware that the NRC 

is now facing a different future than we imagined ten 

years ago, and we now know the future doesn't always 

materialize exactly the way we predicted. So we have 

to be ready for whatever lies ahead.

As a regulator, the NRC doesn't make energy 

or economic policy decisions. We ensure the facilities 
8

are safe and secure. For this reason, we need to remain 

agile and able to adapt when external policy or economic 

conditions change and impact the way we work or the 

industry had previously forecasted. Through its 

direction on Project Aim, the Commission has emphasized 

the importance of preparing our agency to handle any 

number of futures and to enhance our ability to plan and 

execute not only effectivel, but also efficiently in a 

dynamic environment. So we've directed the staff to 

anticipate a variety of scenarios, a variety of futures, 

and determine how to respond accordingly with 

appropriate resource levels and skill sets.

And this effort, I think you're all aware, 

is underway. We had Mike Weber, who is leading Project 

Aim, greeting you all as you walked in. For those of 

you who didn't get that opportunity, that's what 

happened. And so we've directed -- this effort is now 

underway, and we're looking forward to the results. 

The Commission is going to get a briefing on this this 

week. Tomorrow? Yes, okay. This is a very busy week.

Your involvement in input in this process 

in Project Aim will be critical to the project's 

success. So I thank all of you who are participating 

in focus groups and other activities. While the staff 

undertakes this project, the agency is already taking 

steps to identify and improve efficiencies. For 
9

example, in the next few weeks, I think you're all aware 

that FSME and NMSS will merge back into one office. The 

Commission believes this merger will be a positive 

change for the agency. It will enable the staff to more 

effectively organize and oversee materials and waste 

activities, and I think it will improve our 

manager-to-staff ratio.

So that's a bit about the future. And also 

I think we're going to be celebrating in the next couple 

of months the NRC's 40th anniversary. For the past four 

decades, we've effectively and independently overseen 

the safe and secure operation of civilian nuclear 

facilities in the United States. Our strength is in our 

independence, and I think we should all take pride in 

that. And throughout that time we've continued to 

reinvent ourselves, to build on our past successes, 

learn from past challenges, and continually strengthen 

our programs. 

Each of these changes that we've 

experienced has contributed to what the agency is today. 

It's a continual process. But I think it's important 

to emphasize this today as we reflect on what the future 

holds in the next five years and beyond. It may feel 

a bit uncertain, but we hope that the effort will result 

in an NRC that's strong, effective, and flexible for 

many years to come. That's what we're going through.
10

So I thought I'd take this time and this 

opportunity to share with you some of my own priorities 

as Chairman for the years ahead. So I have I think about 

eight priorities that I just want to highlight, and then 

I'll turn it over to my colleagues. 

So number one: obviously, the first and 

foremost should be continuing to perform our important 

safety and security missions. That's the top of the 

list, as ever. 

Number two: my colleagues and I look 

forward to welcoming two new commissioners. You're all 

aware of that. I remain committed to continuing to 

foster a collegial and collaborative relationship with 

each of my colleagues, so I think you'll see the 

Commission continue to operate in such a manner.

Number three: I believe we also need to look 

at whether the NRC's decommissioning regulations remain 

appropriate. I think you've heard some discussion 

about that in the Commission. 

Number four: we need to remain committed to 

public engagement and a strong internal and external 

communication focus. I believe the staff's efforts on 

the Continued Storage rulemaking set the stage for how 

the NRC should endeavor to conduct future high-profile 

rulemakings. You guys did a great job there. I know 

that all of you take pride in working for the NRC and 
11

believe strongly in our mission, so I'd like to ask 

something of you. I think it's important that, in all 

of our engagement, whether it's with licensees, with 

members of Congress or other government agencies, the 

public, international partners, that we represent our 

agency and our mission well. In particular, we have an 

important role to play in ensuring that everyone 

understands what the NRC does. 

All right. Number five: I'd also like to 

stress the importance of continuing the momentum on our 

post-Fukushima activities. This is no time to rest on 

our laurels. We've made steady progress and have 

already accomplished a great deal, but I think it's 

important that we and the industry remain committed to 

addressing the remaining tasks.

Number six: further, as I indicated last 

year, I think it's important that we ensure that we're 

cultivating a diverse group of future agency leaders and 

also that we work to continue to support a healthy 

work-life balance, something I know about quite 

personally. 

Number seven: I also want to emphasize the 

importance of continuing to cultivate a work 

environment where staff and management alike feel free 

to express their views openly. I believe our 

non-concurrence and differing professional opinion 
12

processes have great value, and I continue to encourage 

the staff to take advantage of these programs. As many 

of you know, I've tasked the EDO and OCHCO with 

identifying ways to make these tools more effective and 

encourage the staff to use them without fear of 

reprisal. In this context, I have also directed staff 

to describe how agency senior managers, managers, 

supervisors, and team leaders are held accountable for 

sustaining a positive work climate and safety culture. 

Enhancements to this process will be put in place for 

the upcoming fiscal year.

And number eight, finally: we should 

continue to strengthen our cooperation with 

international partners and cultivate and maintain 

effective working relationships with colleagues across 

the U.S. government. This is a great agency with an 

essential mission. It's important that peers, both 

inside and outside of our government, understand who we 

are and what we do. 

So let me conclude. I'm proud of each of 

you, each and every one of you. And I'm proud of our 

agency. I'm grateful to have had the opportunity to 

meet and work with more of you during the past year, and 

I look forward in the next year, in the next years to 

meeting more of you and working with more of you.

I have full confidence that our agency can tackle 
13

effectively all the tasks that are on our plate. 

I think this meeting is an opportunity for 

you to tell us what's on your mind, and I encourage you 

to do so. We're committed to being as responsive as 

possible, so if there's something that we don't know 

when you ask us a question I'll either ask one of the 

many senior managers in the front rows here to answer 

or we'll find that answer for you.

And I'd also like to encourage all of you 

to take advantage of the open-door policies that we and 

many senior NRC managers maintain. You should feel 

free to come to talk to us any time, not just today. 

So that's where I'm going to stop, and I'm 

going to turn it over to my colleagues. First, I'll 

turn it over to Commissioner Svinicki. 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: Thank you, 

Chairman Macfarlane. Is this right in front of my face? 

I think it probably is. Maybe I should -- I'm not as 

tall as other people. Is that better? It might be when 

they go to the close-up.

There's people standing in the back, and I 

think it's not fun to stand, unless there are people who 

are supposed to be standing because they're going to 

collect the comment cards. But, please, I do 

encourage, if any of the people on the right-hand side 

in the back want to come up here. There's chairs in the 
14

front, and there's reserved chairs really close to the 

front, which I think if this were a Hollywood awards 

program, at this point in the program we would 

un-reserve those chairs and we would have seat-fillers 

come up so that the front rows didn't look empty like 

they did. 

But it is a really good turnout, and I'm 

very encouraged by that because it's been a little bit 

sporadic in recent years. I don't think we're doing any 

crowd shots for the regions, but there's really a good 

turnout in the room. So I want to thank those of you 

who traveled here to be in the auditorium because when 

you're up on stage it's helpful, even though you know 

people are tuning in, it's nice to have a good crowd in 

the room. 

I don't have too much in terms of prepared 

remarks that I wanted to make. The Chairman has covered 

a lot of the terrain. There have been some really hard 

efforts put in by a lot of you this year, both on the 

initiatives that she mentioned and a number of them that 

she didn't. 

And I will just say that, as I keep adding 

to my data points here of years at NRC, I've observed 

that not every year at NRC takes as much out of you as 

every other year. But I think some years here, those 

of you have to put in extraordinary efforts. And I 
15

think we need to be, frankly, careful, as a Commission, 

because people can pour on that extra effort when it's 

called for and they can rally around that. But some of 

you have heard me complain about this: we have to do more 

with less. I really am not a big believer in that. I 

think that you can ask too much of people, and there is 

a point at which we need to acknowledge. And there 

might be some things that aren't adding a lot of value 

that we could think about maybe not doing or doing more 

efficiently, and that's a lot of what our lessons 

learned and Lean Six Sigma efforts are about in this 

agency.

So some of you have put in some, I'll call 

them extraordinary efforts this year, and I do join in 

thanking you for that. I also want to commend both of 

my Commission colleagues here on the dias with me. You 

know, what draws attention is the occasional 

differences in policy viewpoints that we have, but I'll 

join what Chairman Macfarlane said, that there is very 

much a collective spirit, and it was shared by the two 

members of the Commission who departed the Commission 

this year, to support you in your work at the end of the 

day. Now, we may have a different view of how we go 

about doing that, but there's definitely a collective 

drive here to support each one of you in the agency in 

the work you do. So I think what's amazing and doesn't 
16

get talked about is the unanimity on the Commission on 

so many matters that come before us for decision. 

The other thing that I was reflecting on 

between last year's meeting and this year's meeting is 

that we continue to see the departures of some very key 

senior leaders, of some folks that may not be managers 

but carry with them key expertise, really acknowledged 

agency efforts in various skill sets. And I think that 

that kind of went into the background for a while but 

is really in front of us again. And I think that's going 

to continue, that we're going to see, no matter how 

exquisite our agency's knowledge management efforts 

are, the truth is that these women and men take with them 

out the door the fact that they were involved in or they 

bore witness to some really, really significant agency 

activities and some historic events from our history. 

So I think, as we will continue to see that and maybe 

see that increase a bit in the coming years, and we'll 

lose another handful of key people, we need to, you know, 

redouble and renew our knowledge management efforts, 

look at mentoring relationships. And I know that we 

have initiatives going on in these areas, but it may be 

an appropriate time really to just renew our personal 

and collective commitment to those kinds of activities 

and, as Chairman Macfarlane said, really be feeding that 

pipeline for the agency's future leaders of tomorrow and 
17

those people who are going to take their places at the 

table. 

So with that, I will yield back. Thank 

you. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: All right. 

Commissioner Ostendorff? 

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: For those of you 

who may not recognize, Commissioner Svinicki was 

playing magician behind her back, as the NRC logo fell 

down towards completion. 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: That seems very 

ominous. You know, I'm very superstitious. I've 

admitted that many times. I know it's very 

unscientific, but I'm going to have to be a little 

weirded out by that. 

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: You should be. 

It was actually situational awareness. I was watching 

Mike and Jody and Darren kind of pop their heads up. 

It's really a pleasure to see so many people 

here. I agree with Commissioner Svinicki and the 

Chairman that the turnout is always of interest to the 

commissioners, and we're very gratified to see your 

interest and your engagement.

I have some very brief remarks I'll make. 

I want to first start off by thanking Chairman Allison 

Macfarlane for her stewardship and leadership of this 
18

agency. I also want to thank Commissioner Svinicki and 

the Chairman for their collegiality and ongoing 

relationship with me personally and professionally. I 

think that the discussions we have, as commissioners, 

with each other are rich, robust, not always in 

agreement but always helpful in helping us to get to what 

we believe to be the right decisions. And I've said 

this before, but I'll say it again: this Commission is 

functioning the way it should be. 

The Chairman has very capably gone through 

the accomplishments of you, the NRC staff, both here and 

those in the regions and at TTC. I'll not recap those. 

But I add my congratulations to those the Chairman and 

Commissioner Svinicki for those very significant 

accomplishments.

I do want to comment specifically on one 

attribute that is so important to this agency, and that 

is the technical competence and professionalism of you, 

the staff. And I know that my colleagues to my right 

also value this very highly, and none of us take it for 

granted. But I think it's helpful also from time to 

time for commissioners to share with you data points 

that we have externally.

So I have two just from the last month. I 

spoke in Vancouver at the Pacific Basin Nuclear 

Conference the last week of August. A number of Pacific 
19

Ocean-rimmed countries were there and universal 

accolades for the work that you, as the NRC staff, have 

accomplished. And this is from our international 

colleagues that the Chairman has been referring to.

Just last Friday, I was at the Hoover 

Institution at Stanford University in a small group of 

current and former Cabinet secretaries, folks from DOE, 

State, Department of Defense, looking at the future of 

nuclear energy. And time and again, those individuals 

who have significant experience in government were 

commenting on the professionalism, competence, and 

strong reputation of the NRC staff. You made me very 

proud to be hearing those accolades from people that are 

very knowledgeable and experienced in government.

One comment the Chairman made that I wanted 

to add my voice to, and that is the importance of us, 

as an agency, not being afraid to tell others how we 

regulate, what we're doing, and why. And I think this 

is important. From time to time, as commissioners, we 

see examples of where perhaps what we are doing towards 

our mission is not easily understood by people external 

to us. And so if it's another interagency group, if 

it's a state group, if it's public citizens, please do 

not be bashful, as I know you will not be, in saying 

here's what our mission is and here's how we go about 

it.
20

The Chairman also mentioned the open-door 

policy. I welcome the chance to have people come by and

chat. I've had a few more people this past year than 

the year before come by. I was pleased to see that. 

But there's still more room in the schedule. I would 

appreciate the opportunity. Please let us know. 

Linda Herr is very easy to reach and can schedule a 

meeting on very short notice.

My last comment on which I'll close is 

something that I share in common with you and with my 

two colleagues on my right, and that is we are all 

committed to public service. So in 38 and a half years 

now or so since I graduated from the Naval Academy, of 

those 38 years, I spent 26 in the military, a couple of 

years in the private sector, but 10 years working in the 

federal government between Congress, the Department of 

Energy, and the NRC. And I'll tell you that that public 

service mission that I have, that my colleagues here to 

my right have, and that you have makes me want to come 

to work every day. And I know and the thing that I think 

is really neat to think about is I know it makes you want 

to come to work every day. 

It's an honor and privilege to work 

alongside you. Thank you for your service. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Great. Thank you. 

All right. This is over to you all. So I think you all 
21

have yellow cards on your seats. If you've got 

questions, write your question down. Pass it to the end 

of the aisle, and there are people collecting them 

coming down the aisles right now. And then we can get 

some questions going. 

PARTICIPANT: With the merger of FSME and 

NMSS having been announced, are there plans to merge NRO 

and NRR? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: I like the sounds in 

the audience. Right now, I have no announcements to 

make. Again, you know, you all know that we are in the 

process of doing a five-year lookout at the agency, and 

we will see what we discover at the end of that process. 

So, you know, stay tuned. We'll see. No commitments 

to anything right now. 

PARTICIPANT: I applaud the Aim 2020 

project, but I am interested in what the agency is doing 

to address staffing shortages now. I have routinely 

covered up to ten operating reactor sites for weeks at 

a time as a project manager this summer and expect to 

continue to do so through the rest of the year. This 

is an unworkable situation. I am set up for failure.

For example, it is impossible to have 

detailed knowledge of so many plants to fulfill my 

Incident Response Function as a project manager for any 

particular plant during an event. I've had multiple 
22

crises. For example, exigent amendment requests, a 

notice of enforcement discretion, and verbal relief 

occur at the same time this year. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: That doesn’t sound 

good.

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: I'll just add a 

couple of thoughts there. I think it's important that 

we hear this. I'm glad the question or the comment or 

concern was raised in this public forum. Certainly, 

the situation that you have addressed in the question 

is one that would concern any of us as commissioners or 

our senior staff. And I would just comment that I think 

it's important for the organization chain of command to 

be aware of this and to take this concern seriously and 

to get into the facts -- the devil is in the details --

on any of these issues. And this certainly sounds like 

this merits a thoughtful reply by our front-row 

leadership here. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Yes. I see Mike 

Johnson taking notes. Yes? He's nodding yes. So 

duly noted. Thank you for bringing it up. 

PARTICIPANT: During the hearings in 

Congress for the new commissioners, there was a strong 

push by several senators to reduce the number of 

employees in the NRC. What are the Commission's views 

about reducing our staffing level, and is a reduction 
23

imminent? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: No, a reduction is 

not imminent. Let me put that out there front and 

center. You know, in the future, we'll see. I don't 

think we're looking at any RIFs any time soon, nothing 

like that. But I think we need to look at our staffing 

levels in different areas, and that's what Project Aim 

is doing. We're trying to, again, look at a variety of 

situations that may occur in the future and just make 

sure that we're prepared for that and we have the 

appropriate skill sets in the right places to address 

that.

So I appreciate the question, and I 

appreciate the concern. We do have a lot of work on our 

plate, contrary to the views of some in Congress. It's 

not just the reactors that, the number of reactors that 

we oversee, but it's also the Fukushima lessons-learned 

work has been enormous, waste confidence, Yucca 

Mountain. You know, the list is long. We have 

reactors under construction. We have reactors 

decommissioning. We're stretched in many ways, and we 

have to make sure that we address those issues as well 

as we possibly can.

PARTICIPANT: Is there a time line for NRC 

adopting or implementing the phased retirement program 

that becomes effective on November 6th for Federal 
24

workers? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: That one I'm going 

to turn over to Jody. 

MR. HUDSON: As you may know, the 

regulations were issued fairly recently with regard to 

phased retirement, and we are now working at identifying 

exactly how we're going to operationalize that here 

within NRC. Different offices or, rather, different 

agencies are on a slightly different time line. But now 

that we do have the implementing regulations available, 

it's now a matter of trying to operationalize that. 

We're in the course of planning out the time 

line for doing that. We don't have a specific time line 

to announce right now, but we are beginning to look at 

that and start the planning. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Thanks. Thanks, 

Jody. 

PARTICIPANT: How might the Commission 

change how it provides direction to the staff to elicit 

better information and a range of viewpoints while also 

decreasing the risk of retaliation to staff? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Sorry. Can you 

repeat that one again? 

PARTICIPANT: How might the Commission 

change how it provides direction to the staff to elicit 

better information and a range of viewpoints while also 
25

decreasing the risk of retaliation to staff? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Well, I'm not sure I 

want to presume exactly where they're looking for 

direction. I assume it's direction in SRMs, and we try, 

we have been trying to be as clear as possible in our 

direction to staff in the SRMs that we put out there. 

And I'm open to feedback and ideas on how to improve 

that. I'm sure my colleagues might want to weigh in on 

this, too. 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: I'm not sure I 

understand the question. It seemed to also be about the 

differing professional opinion and non-concurrence 

processes. I think the Commission has set a pretty 

consistent tone that any form of reprisal will not be 

tolerated.

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: I would add I 

think the Commission offices do a very credible job of 

carefully assessing the clarity of the direction 

provided back to the staff in an SRM. On our staff, we 

have some very experienced NRC staff career folks who 

have a lot of experience in, whether it be materials, 

security, reactors, in the legal arena. And I know that 

every office has taken a lot of time to ensure that what 

is said in the SRM makes sense. And at times, we have 

staff commenting on the SRMs to help us ensure that 

there's a give and take.
26

And so I would hope there's not a big 

problem in this area, but I think that there are 

opportunities to seek clarification if it does not 

already exist. 

PARTICIPANT: Yes, I have a question. 

Actually, it's a follow-up from a question I asked last 

year related to pay and retention of staff. My question 

last year related to the fact that we have a lot of pay 

compression between people who have been here three 

years compared to people who have been here for 30 years, 

SES. And the question related to exploration of, like, 

other similar agencies, like the Securities and 

Exchange Commission, FDIC, and others who have 

flexibility like the NRC does to change both pay scales, 

benefits, retirement calculation factors, things like 

that. And I wonder if there's been any thought to that 

in the Commission over the last year.

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Not at the 

Commission level, but I might invite Darren to come up 

and address it. No? Jody? No. Okay. There's no 

change in policies. So thank you. 

PARTICIPANT: What is the status of the 

expansion of the building 2 gym?

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: That's a very good 

question. The bilding 2 gym, the status of the 

extension on it. I know there have been discussions 
27

ever since I arrived at the agency about, oh, it was 

going to expand into the space where the credit union 

is, and I don't know what the status of that is. Does 

anybody in the front row there know? Yes? Go ahead, 

Darren. We gym users, we're interested. 

MR. ASH: The short answer is it is on track 

to be expanded this winter, I think by December -

January. January. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Excellent. All 

right. I hope that's good news. 

PARTICIPANT: I understand that the 

Commission is considering establishing an ombudsman 

position in the OEDO for members of the public to contact 

when they have concerns. Will the Commission consider 

an ombudsman position for staff members to contact if 

they have concerns? If not, why? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Well, this is an 

important issue. You know, I have to say I have 

experience with an internal ombudsman. When I was at 

MIT, there was an internal ombudsman there, and that was 

a very successful position. It was somebody you could 

go to no matter how big or how small you were. And I 

think that that can help an agency, and I think that's 

something that we are open to entertaining at the 

Commission level. I think my colleagues might want to 

jump in on that one, too.
28

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Certainly. I 

have seen ombudsmen also operate in my time in the 

military and the Department of Energy and believe --

there's a two-part piece to this. The external 

function is the current intent of establishing this new 

position in the office of the EDO to provide a one-stop 

calling place to help sort out organizational issues so 

that people external to the agency can understand where 

best to go.

With respect to the internal, I think it's 

a very different story. There are needs, at times, for 

that. But we think the existing -- these are my 

personal views -- the existing organization within 

offices, divisions, branch chiefs, etcetera, as well as 

other assets within OCHCO and elsewhere provide ample 

opportunities under our current structure to answer 

those questions for internal staff. 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: I would only add 

to that, speaking to the internal process, is that there 

are a number of different programs. While I 

acknowledge that maybe it's confusing to find your entre 

point, depending on what your concern is, it's been my 

observation that if you were to say go to SBCR and they 

were to think that maybe you should talk to your union 

representative, it's been my observation that people 

are pretty supportive and helpful to say that this maybe 
29

isn't the venue for your concern. But I think these 

programs do collaborate quite a bit to make sure that 

employees are connected with the right resource.

So while I appreciate that you might make 

a kind of a false start, it's just been my experience 

in working with the various programs that I think they 

really do try to reorient you towards the right program. 

And of course, the benefit of having multiple types of 

targeted programs is that you can get the most direct 

and relevant expertise on whatever your concern is. 

PARTICIPANT: What are the Commission's 

views on diversity and inclusion, and where do you see 

us heading in these areas in the future? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: I think I'll let 

everybody answer that separately. I think diversity 

and inclusion is exceptionally important. I mentioned 

that in my opening remarks. I continue to push for 

diversity at all levels, especially the senior manager 

level. And I will continue to do so. I think it 

strengthens any agency or any entity to have a diverse 

set of viewpoints. So I'm all supportive. 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: I would add to 

Chairman MACFARLANE's answer by noting that our 

Commission meets in public session twice a year to focus 

on just this very topic, and we hear from a number of 

staff offices, and not just the program offices that 
30

focus on this more exclusively. We hear from 

programmatic representatives and regional 

representatives about efforts across the agency, and I 

think that's a very, very visible demonstration of not 

just talking about it but demonstrating a strong agency 

focus on diversity and inclusion. 

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: I would also add 

that, in addition to the Commission meetings in public 

that Commission Svinicki referred to, all of us have, 

when our schedules have permitted, been very supportive 

of various advisory committees that exist in the agency. 

And I think those are important. It's a real positive 

attribute of the NRC, and I'd say this Commission could 

not be more committed to the aspects of diverse and 

inclusion.

PARTICIPANT: The reduction in 

administrative staff is hurting productivity. Senior 

engineers bill at $275 per hour. How can it possibly 

be effective and efficient for senior personnel to 

perform the jobs of, for example, technical editors or 

secretaries? A stable and professional administrative 

staff is vital to our mission. However, each budget 

cycle results in a decrease in this valuable talent.

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: I appreciate that 

point of view, and I think you've got the senior 

management here listening very carefully to that. And 
31

I know there have been bumps along the road with the TABS 

process and consolidating some of our areas, such as 

people who coordinate travel and that kind of thing. 

And I understand that one doesn't want to spend all of 

one's valuable time not working on your technical work 

but arranging travel for a trip, that kind of thing. So 

we do have to reach a balance there. So I'd say give 

us a little time to work that out. 

You guys might want to comment on that. 

Okay. 

PARTICIPANT: Has there been any 

consideration to establishing a ratio for staff to 

administrative assistants, especially since some 

offices have a ratio of 30 to 1. What about a 10 to 1 

staff to admin staff ratio, similar to that for 

management to staff? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Well, again, that 

question is exactly along the same lines. You know, 

we'll have to see what works, how we work things out. 

I don't know that a one-size-fit-all answer is what we 

need. 

PARTICIPANT: What do you see as the 

relative advantages and disadvantages of the alternate 

approaches taken to evaluate the NRC's program in 

response to Three Mile Island and Fukushima? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Well, that sounds 
32

like a thesis, like at least a master's thesis. But 

maybe Bill wants to jump in. 

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: I want to go 

back to July of 2011 when then the Executive Director 

for Operations, Bill Borchardt, was asked this question 

by myself at a Commission meeting as to what went well 

with Three Mile Island response by the NRC, what did not 

go so well? And I think Bill's caution but words of 

wisdom to us at that time were a lot of great things done 

after Three Mile Island that added safety value, a lot 

of things were done after Three Mile Island that did not 

add any value at all. 

And that led to his advice to the Commission 

to ensure that we took a prioritized approach to looking 

at the Near-Term Task Force recommendations. 

Commissioner Svinicki and I were here in the summer of 

2011, and we voted on that paper in the fall of 2011, 

SECY-11-0037. 

But I think the prioritized approach, 

recognizing there's some things that really do add 

safety quickly, others less so, that that approach is 

probably one of the strengths of this agency's response 

to Fukushima. So I'll stop right there. 

PARTICIPANT: Are there plans to enhance 

communications on consolidation? Was there any 

consideration for the poor morale created by poor 
33

communications on the move into White Flint on floors 

eight and nine? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Thanks for the 

question. You know, I've heard there's been some 

issues about the restacking that's going on. This is 

not to do with the FSME/NMSS merger. This is to do with 

the restacking that we're doing to accommodate 

everybody on one campus. 

First of all, let me be clear. It's very 

important that we all move to one campus, that we're all 

in one location. It will enhance our safety mission. 

It will make it easier for everybody to attend meetings 

with each other. It will enhance communication if 

we're all at the same place.

So that's the goal which will be achieved 

by next May. In the process, we are doing an amount of 

restacking, and that's to equalize space among the 

staff. And that's important, too, so I'm very 

supportive of that. 

I realize that there, at the same time, have 

been some problems with this. And I think this will be 

another opportunity for us to learn, as managers, how 

to roll out one of these restackings, and we'll make sure 

that all communication going forward will be much 

better. But, you know, one expects some bumps along the 

road. But I think this is all a positive move. 
34

PARTICIPANT: How are 240 research 

employees going to find parking in Two White Flint when 

they move back from Church Street? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Well, we're going to 

accommodate them as best we can. I understand that 

there are going to be 1,330 parking spaces between the 

three buildings once all is said and done. And there 

will be a prioritization of who gets parking first, but 

maybe Darren wants to add a little bit. 

MR. ASH: The Chairman is correct that, as 

the folks from Research move down to the White Flint 

complex, there will be a further compression in terms 

of the number of parking spaces that are going to be 

available. We've also given up and will have given up 

a number of parking spaces in Three White Flint to FDA 

who, of course, is going to be moving in in the spring.

The basis for deciding who gets parking is 

grounded in our collective bargaining agreement with

NTEU, and that will form the basis of who ultimately gets 

parking within the complex. We're going to continue to 

work with the offices, as well as NTEU, to make sure we 

communicate but communicate early and often in terms of 

those that are going to be impacted but also the process, 

as well. So a lot more to come over the coming months, 

but that is our commitment in terms of communications.

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Great. Thanks, 
35

Darren. 

PARTICIPANT: Please describe what a 

culture of safety looks like in day-to-day activities 

at the NRC. Many employees believe that the NRC culture 

is more likely to be described as a culture of 

complacency or a culture of conformity. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Thanks for the 

question. I think a culture of safety is a culture of 

mutual respect, a culture of debate, a culture where you 

feel comfortable to put your views forward even if your 

views don't align with your colleagues or your senior 

managers. I always say to my staff, I encourage them 

to argue with me. If they think I'm wrong, please tell 

me. And I think it's actually kind of fun to argue about 

things and debate about things, and I think that's how 

we advance knowledge, and I think that's how we be as 

protective as we possibly can. 

So I think we need to encourage that as much 

as possible. I was very serious in what I said about 

my remarks about the non-concurrence process and the 

differing opinion process, and we need to make sure that 

those processes are encouraged, that people feel 

comfortable to do that. You should feel comfortable to 

raise issues with your management, and I think that's 

what makes for a healthy safety culture. 

I think my colleagues might want to 
36

embellish a little more.

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: Well, I agree with 

the Chairman. I also do the same. I encourage push 

back, and I think I've done that in staff briefings with 

some of you where I've said, "Well, this is the 

conclusion I draw. You know, challenge me on that and 

tell me why I'm wrong." 

I respect the question and the feedback 

that the indication that some here might say it's a 

culture of complacency. I have to say I've been here 

a while, and I don't observe that as a broad theme. I 

really think that people bring their questioning 

attitude every day. But I respect that each of us here 

is having our individual experience, even though we're 

affiliated with the same organization. So I respect 

and appreciate the question, but that's not my 

experience at NRC.

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: And I have to 

piggyback on those comments. It's not my experience 

either. Now, again, I never worked as NRC staff. I 

have had technical positions elsewhere. I've got one 

of my staff members, Amy Cubbage, who's been with the 

agency I believe for 25 years. Amy, is that right? And 

I think it's the longest NRC --

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: I'm not sure, for 

the record, she appreciated that. Hey, we've got a lot 
37

of diversity up here. We tipped the gender scales here, 

at least for a few weeks, didn't we, Allison?

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: That's right, yes.

We got it here.

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Well, we just 

gave her her pen here two weeks ago, so that's kind of 

what was fresh on my mind. But I will tell you that I 

tremendously value the -- you really got me distracted 

here. No, I really value what my staff tells me about 

things, and they are pretty darn good at saying here's 

what's going on with the staff and here's the reality 

of what's happening at the deck plate level, if I can 

use that. I don't have that direct experience, but my 

team does, and so do the Chairman's and Commissioner 

Svinicki's staff. And so I'm not saying there might not 

be some pockets of complacency or conformity. I can't 

speak to that, but it's not been my overall impression 

of the agency. And, Amy, I apologize for the age marker 

there. 

PARTICIPANT: When will the NRC be ready to 

implement phased retirement? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: We just got that 

one, I think. And if I recall the answer from Jody, 

we're looking at it. Now that is a regulation, we're 

going to go forth and work it out. Every agency has 

their own schedule.
38

PARTICIPANT: In an open, transparent, and 

collaborative environment, why are some Project Aim 

2020 meetings closed? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: I think they're 

closed right now just for efficiency purposes to 

actually get this done, instead of having big open 

meetings. I don't know what the plans are, Mike, in 

terms of opening things up for broader comment. I think 

-- are you taking comments from folks? Yes. Do you 

want to come and say something real quick? 

MR. WEBER: Thanks for the opportunity. 

It's great to see all of you today. Thanks so much for 

your participation in our project. We do have an online 

survey right now. So if you feel compelled, we need 

your input. If you have not participated in a focus 

group session, please participate. Even if you have, 

please participate and give us your comments. And you 

don't even need to go through the online survey, which 

is anonymous. You can come talk to any of the team 

members.

As we go forward, we expect that we will be 

sharing with the staff in some way, working through 

NTEU, with preliminary recommendations, so we continue 

to build on your input and we provide the best 

recommendations we can to the Commission. So that's 

the intent.
39

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Great. Thanks. 

PARTICIPANT: Industry thinks that a flex 

approach can mitigate flood hazards and has stated that 

the NRC continues to use overly conservative and 

unrealistic flood and storm estimates. What are your 

thoughts? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Well, I think this 

is a fairly detailed question. I can't speak to every 

flood and storm analysis, but I think the staff is doing 

a very good job in their analyses of flood hazards and 

looking at doing the overall flood hazard reevaluation. 

We're trying to be complete. 

Interestingly enough, I was having a 

conversation this afternoon, or this morning actually. 

Kevin Crowley from the National Academy of Sciences, if 

you recall, just did a study on lessons learned from 

Fukushima, and one of their areas that they're really 

pushing on is being very, very complete with flood 

hazard re-analysis, other external hazards, tsunami, 

geomagnetic storms. They feel that we may have not gone 

far enough in some areas. So I think there's another 

point of view out there, and maybe you guys want to jump 

in on that. 

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: I just want to 

add that I think that we've all been, the Commission has 

been briefed repeatedly by our staff on the process and 
40

the progress being made to look at the flood hazard 

evaluations and re-evaluations. And I think the staff 

is working very diligently in a professional manner, and 

it's proceeding as it should.

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: To my mind, I 

react to it saying that this is not unknown territory 

for NRC. I think when we look at these very complex 

evaluations, we're going to have expert elicitation, 

expert judgment. We have to apply models to low 

probability events. This is the type of complexity 

that we've dealt with as an agency over and over again. 

There's always going to be a push and pull between 

experts, and I think what's manifesting here on seismic 

and flooding is really no different, and I think for 

NRC's experts, it's something very familiar to them. 

PARTICIPANT: Does the Commission plan to 

bring the NRC meritorious and distinguished service 

awards and, if so, when? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: It's not just the 

Commission meritorious and distinguished awards. I 

think these are -- yes, they're OPM. So it's not our 

decision so much as OPM's decision. And I think they 

are still doing them, but I don't think there's a 

monetary aspect to it. It's part of the whole 

belt-tightening going on in the entire government. 

Jody, did I get it right? Do you want to 
41

add to that? 

MR. HUDSON: We just got the guidance from 

OPM just last week around awards, so we're still 

digesting the awards to figure out exactly what it 

means. But our first take is that it's going to be very 

similar to last year. But until we go through it and 

really interpret what the guidance says, we don't have 

anything formal to announce.

PARTICIPANT: Commissioner Svinicki, 

recently, at a Commission meeting on the New Reactor 

Business Line, you made a comment about the overall time 

that it takes to certify a design. Do you think that 

the process takes too long? Do you believe that the 

staff's scope of review is appropriate? How would you 

address the main driver of reviews: the quality of 

applications? 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: I appreciate that 

someone was listening to me. I don't like easy labels 

like too long or too short. I actually think that does 

a disservice to the complexity of the work that we do 

here. 

I was commending those involved in the new 

reactor business line for a cycle of continuous 

improvement in learning that they've taken on since 

beginning in earnest to apply Part 52, which was really 

a sea change in the way the United States licensed new 
42

reactors. And I think we're reaching a stage, though, 

where it is time maybe to look at some of our early-on 

assumptions about how long reviews would take and just 

to true those up. And I didn't even take a position on 

that necessarily. I asked Glenn Tracy if he thought the 

metrics should be updated because I think we may be faced 

with a curious circumstance where we still assert it 

takes X number of months to complete a design 

certification review, and yet, in not a single case have 

we achieved that. 

So I was exploring with the staff at the 

table what is the defensibility of an estimate when 

you've never achieved that particular estimate? And 

Glenn made a commitment, and he said he didn't need staff 

requirements memorandum direction to do this, it's 

already part of their psychology and what they're 

thinking about in NRO, again, and have since the early 

stages. They've already done some Lean Six Sigma. 

They've done very expansive lessons learned reviews on 

the Part 52 process. 

And, overall, what I was trying to kind of 

get out into public view and my commentary in that 

meeting is the fact that we have this under pretty 

continuous evaluation. And when inevitable criticisms 

might come in, we're already looking at, you know, how 

have the first few gone. I think, though, that my 
43

specific point about the metrics just bears looking at 

because you really can't defend something if not a 

single data point came in at that metric. 

PARTICIPANT: Does the agency plan to 

replace its paper-based concurrence process with an 

electronic process more suitable for a 21st century 

organization? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Good question. I 

haven't heard discussion about it, but it's something 

that we could consider. I've been on Darren's case to 

reduce paper usage and ink usage and turn off lights and 

save electricity. You know, I think that helps us, as 

an agency, save money and helps the environment, too. 

So we'll take that under consideration. 

PARTICIPANT: With campus consolidation 

and restacking and parking compression, will increased 

telework be encouraged? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Again, at the 

moment, I don't know that that's what we're going to talk 

about. That's not on the plate. But maybe in 

discussions with looking at Project Aim and looking 

forward, we may take that under consideration. 

PARTICIPANT: The Chairman mentioned the 

NRC's 40th anniversary. Are there plans for a large 

celebration similar to the 35th anniversary with 

knowledge management fair and celebration?
44

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Well, I wasn't here 

for the 35th anniversary, but you were.

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: I was. But that 

was a little bit like being reminded that you've got 25 

years with NRC, right? Don't feel bad, Amy. 

Twenty-five next year for me, so that's why it cut a 

little deep when he did that to you. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: There are plans for 

a celebration definitely in the works. So you'll hear 

more about that in coming months. You know, you have 

to have an excuse to have a party, right? And this is 

a good one.

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: You know, what was 

really, I thought, a wonderful kind of sentimental 

moment of the 35th was having employees that have been 

here since the establishment of NRC. I know we honored 

them in the program, and that's something that sticks 

out in my mind that was very meaningful. Actually, in 

the agency's weekly information report, I may read some 

of the sections rather quickly, but I always look at the 

departures and arrivals because I think it's really 

interesting and also read agency announcements about 

people leaving here with, you know, over 40 years of 

federal service and things like that. 

It's much like the Chairman's discussion 

about a commitment to public service. It is a special 
45

thing, and I think it's something we want to honor in 

each other's service. So depending on the celebration, 

I would advocate that we acknowledge, I think we called 

them the plank holders, but I think that would be fun 

to do again.

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: I take your 

response as validation of my prior recognition of Amy 

Cubbage's service. 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: You just didn't 

have to give the number, okay? That's the part that you 

didn't need to do. You could have said she's an 

esteemed expert with long experience with NRC.

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Double digits.

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: Well, even that 

you didn't . . . 

PARTICIPANT: Other countries are 

currently expanding their nuclear power programs. 

And, consequently, U.S. leadership is waning. What is 

the Commission's view on expanding U.S. participation 

in international activities to promote safety, such as 

safety standards? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Well, we do a fair 

amount of work internationally, and I think it's very 

valuable work. I take it very seriously. I enjoy 

interacting with my international counterparts. Next 

week, I will spend the week, entire week, in Vienna, 
46

Austria at the General Conference of the International 

Atomic Energy Agency. And a number of folks from the 

agency will be there too, interacting with our 

international counterparts.

And we all interact. There are a variety 

of ways we interact. You might be aware we have a number 

of assistance programs for countries that don't have 

nuclear power but do have radioactive sources. We help 

them with source security and a number of other issues. 

We work with countries that are developing nuclear power 

programs or have small nuclear power programs and need 

our assistance, but we also have a number of cooperative 

programs where a member of the Multi-National Design 

Evaluation Project -- Program, Project? I can never 

figure out that "P." And, in fact, I chair it, and 

that's an area where opportunity for us to interact with 

our international counterparts looking at new reactor 

builds, and that's quite an active group.

There are a number of other areas where we 

interact. I know my colleagues and I travel a fair bit 

to other countries and go to conferences and other types 

of interactions. We have bilateral meetings on a 

variety of issues. So we take that work very seriously, 

and we do a fair amount of it. 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: I would just add 

that -- it sounds like I do nothing but read weekly 
47

reports, but the Office of International Programs 

weekly will delineate for the Commission all of the 

NRC's technical experts and staff who attend and present 

at conferences and represent the agency. And then 

there's also an annual information paper that is 

prepared that talks about the agency's technical 

involvement in all kinds of standard-setting 

committees, international groups, and it's really an 

extensive body of engagement that this agency has. As 

a matter of fact, as many times as I've read that annual 

compilation, I never fail to be a little overwhelmed 

with how much engagement we have. 

And some of these are committees or 

subcommittees that have a very narrow scope, so it's 

both broad and deep, I think, NRC's engagement 

internationally. And I would take exception to the 

part of the question that says that the U.S. influence 

is waning. I don't agree with that. 

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: I don't agree 

either. At the Pacific Basin conference I mentioned a 

couple of weeks ago, a significant reliance upon the 

NRC's standards in new construction activities around 

the world. Last week, we met with the Vice Chairman of 

India's Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, NRC equivalent, 

robust discussions with them. And I think the 

engagement with staff across the board and also from the 
48

Commission is extraordinarily robust. 

PARTICIPANT: Appraisals are coming up. 

Is it possible to have a system like the 360 survey to 

get feedback from staff regarding their management? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Interesting. 

Well, at this point, no. I don't know if anybody wants 

to address that. Jody? 

MR. HUDSON: We're not doing anything 

formal as far as 360s, incorporating that as a formal 

part of performance evaluation for supervisors. On the 

other hand, one thing that we did recently do was make 

360s available for branch chiefs, so at least they get 

the information from their staff, from their peers, and 

from up above so they can get a better sense of how others 

perceive them and give them opportunities to 

continuously improve. No connection, though, to the 

performance management process. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Thanks. 

PARTICIPANT: The Chairman's Task Memo of 

March 2014 asked the following, "In light of the 

Commission's policy directing that documentation of 

Category 3 meetings be generated and posted, I request 

that the staff develop guidance that addresses A) the 

expected quality and availability of meeting summaries 

of Category 3 public meetings; B) the criteria that 

staff will use to determine how a meeting will be 
49

documented, transcribed, or recorded; and C) the ease 

with which meaningful documentation can be found. 

Please confirm for me that this guidance is in place by 

July 2014.”

What was the result of this effort, and 

where can we find the guidance? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Where can you find 

the guidance? I will look to Mark to tell us. But the 

staff did get back to us on it, yes. Let me ask Mark 

to tell you where. 

MR. SATORIUS: The Chairman's right. I'm 

not sure I know exactly where it is. But at my next EDO 

update, which I usually provide, oh every three or four 

weeks when we collect three or four pieces of 

information that we think are going to be useful to the 

staff. We did respond to the Chairman's request and 

completed those activities that were just described. 

So we'll figure out where it's at because I know it's 

publicly or at least it's available to the staff. I'll 

give you an ADAMS number or whatever it takes so that 

everybody will have an idea of what we got underway.

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Yes, I think that 

will be very helpful because many of you are involved 

in those Category 3 meetings, and I think it would be 

helpful for you all to have an awareness of what we've 

come up with. 
50

PARTICIPANT: Can you please address how 

the NRC will deal with sequestration in fiscal year 2016 

and what preparations are being made for it? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: That's a good 

question. I don't know that we're making direct 

preparations right now for sequestration in 2016, but 

we did do, we've been doing a lessons learned from the 

last sequestration. I think, to be honest with you, I 

was really impressed with the way you all handled not 

just the sequestration but the government shutdown. 

And, again, this is something that, you know, we've 

taken lessons from. But I think, you know, rest assured 

that we'll be prepared. We have a good staff helping 

us, good management helping us. 

Did you want to say anything, Maureen? No? 

Yes? Okay. By the way, folks, this is Maureen Wylie, 

our new CFO. 

MS. WYLIE: So the Office of the Inspector 

General has done a review of how we handled 

sequestration, and we've been involved in comments on 

the draft. We are going to include processes for how 

to handle sequestration in our update to the management 

directive associated with budget execution for both in 

the CFO's office where we will handle the art of 

determining the actual number and the EDO's office which 

will handle how we decide what business operations will 
51

be included. So there's more work yet to come. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Great. Thank you. 

PARTICIPANT: The New Government-Wide 

Inclusion Quotient metric was discussed at the recent 

Commission human capital meeting. The IQ at the NRC is 

now down nearly 10 percent since 2010. What is the 

action plan to reverse this trend? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Well, I think a 

number of different offices have developed action 

plans, ones that felt more affected than others. So I 

don't know that there's one specific action plan going 

forward. It's office by office and region by region. 

PARTICIPANT: What is the Commission's 

plan or next steps for implementation of the Waste 

Confidence recommendations? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: I don't know that we 

have to implement -- what's happening is the Waste --

it's not Waste Confidence anymore. It's Continued 

Storage, so that's the first -- the first step is to 

change the name and change it in everybody's brain to 

Continued Storage. It will be posted in the Federal 

Register in a week or so, around the 20th, and then 

there's 30 days for it to come into -- what's the word? 

Into effect. Thank you. And then that's the lay of the 

land. They may have to take things on a case-by-case 

basis. 
52

PARTICIPANT: How do you reconcile the 

difference between an employee's unilateral rights to 

fully retire with the agency's authority to determine 

who and how many employees can use phased retirement? 

Might an employee leverage his or her right to get on 

the phased list? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Again, the phased 

retirement is something -- and now we know there's a lot 

of interest in the phased retirement program, so that's 

good. It's good feedback to get. But we are in the 

process of developing the implementation plan, and 

you'll be hearing more about it. 

PARTICIPANT: With the problems 

encountered by the U.S. Patent Office regarding 

telework, how do you expect, how will this impact the 

NRC telework program and are we going to tighten up our 

rules for telework? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Well, I think we all 

have to be mindful of the experience of the Patent Office 

and what was going on there, and we have to make sure 

that our telework programs are providing folks who do 

effective and efficient work. And that will come down 

to good management and continuous review.

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: If I can add, 

also, the Office of Inspector General under Hubert Bell 

has done an audit of telework here in the recent past. 
53

So I think the audit process is on top of looking at the 

program. 

PARTICIPANT: DPO and other processes are 

very important to foster a culture of open communication 

and bringing safety issues to adequate resolution or to 

any further actions. In this regard, what is the 

effectiveness of this process? How do we measure these 

programs? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Well, we're in the 

process of looking at that and trying to measure the 

effectiveness of these programs. It's essential that 

they exist, that there exists an opportunity to formally 

disagree with your colleagues on a technical issue. 

And so I applaud those who have taken advantage of the 

non-concurrence and DPO process, and we will continue 

to review it and ensure that there are no reprisals 

against folks who do take advantage of it. 

PARTICIPANT: Although the NRC has a 

program for employee suggestions, it is hard to discover 

that this program even exists or how to use it. Why is 

this program not publicized and made easier to use? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Good question. I 

didn't know there was an opportunity for employee 

suggestions. It's an excellent idea, and we'll take 

that back. 

PARTICIPANT: Do you think current 
54

protections are adequate against insider threats, and 

did the recent sabotage event in Belgium change your 

thinking on this? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Insider threats at 

power plants? Was that what that -- well, you probably 

don't know what that means. You're just reading the 

question. You know, this is something, the security 

area is something that we're continually looking at and 

proving. I think we do have a good, solid security 

program, security regulations for power plants. But we 

continue to look at it and reconsider and account for 

new experience and new knowledge. Again, operating 

experience is what's really important for us, and if 

there's new operating experience out there we will take 

account of it. I don't know if you guys want to comment. 

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: I'll just 

comment that I think Jim Wiggins is up in the front row. 

He and his folks in NSIR are heavily focused in this 

area. They spend a lot of time looking at it. I think 

the processes and the procedures that NSIR uses in this 

area are very well defined and thorough. As far as any 

particular assessment of threat posture, we really 

can't get into that in this forum. 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: I would just note 

that there is also a very routine and disciplined and 

structured look at events around the world, so this is 
55

not something that catches us off guard. We have 

routine addition to the routine monitoring that the 

Chairman talked about. We have an annual look and a 

paper from the staff on threat assessment. So we also 

have a very regimented program for making certain that 

we're staying on top of these events. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Yes. Thanks, guys.

PARTICIPANT: Does the NRC have plans to 

convert NUDOCS legacy documents in microfiche format or 

electronic format?

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: That's a good 

question. Does anybody know the answer? Come on, 

Darren. 

MR. ASH: The shorter answer is we're going 

to eventually have to convert the microfiche to 

electronic form. We do recognize that as a challenge. 

It's something that's incorporated as part of our 

information records management plan soon to be issued, 

which is meant to be a comprehensive strategy of how we 

look at electronic records but also how we disposition 

and make sure that it's accessible by our staff. So no 

definitive date, but it is clearly on our radar screen 

that we need to deal with. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Okay. Thank you. 

PARTICIPANT: Years ago, the Commission 

commissioned the iron structure in front of Two White 
56

Flint North Building. Today, it stands as an old 

rusting eyesore. Can the Commission please 

decommission it and replace it with something more 

aesthetically pleasing? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: I'm curious now 

because I don't know what you're talking about, but I'll 

look at it. It's an arch thing? Yes, okay. I'll look 

at it. We'll take that. Thanks for the, you know, 

suggestion. Darren is going to say something. All 

right. He's got an answer for everything. 

MR. ASH: We'll look at it. I think, I 

will double-check this, but I think that's probably part 

of GSA's public art program where they do assign -- we'll 

work with our partners at GSA to look into it. That's 

probably the best answer I can give. 

PARTICIPANT: In light of the changing 

workload and the need to be adaptable and all of your 

comments about efficiency and effectiveness, what are 

we doing to address an out-of-date training and 

development process? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: That's a very broad 

critique, which I think it would be helpful to have it 

more pointed. But we'll take it back. I don't know if 

there are any plans for addressing the training process. 

Mark or Jody? By God, between you and Darren, you've 

got everything covered. 
57

MR. HUDSON: As a matter of fact, we've 

assembled a small team. They've been working now for 

just a few months looking at what we call training 

transformation. Basically, it's a complete re-look 

about how we do training and development to just ensure 

that we do maintain our very strong technical skills 

that we have here at the agency, which we are known for 

and that we feel is critically important to our success 

as an agency. 

So some of the things that they are looking 

at are different forms of learning. Aside from just the 

standard computer-based learning and classroom-based 

learning, there would be more of a blended learning. 

Looking at a wide variety of things: incorporate social 

media as a way of connecting people to share knowledge 

with each other and a host of other things. And the team 

is still very much working on this, so we don't have a 

solid plan to lay out in front of you, other than to say 

that we're working on it, we have a lot of ideas that 

we're working on, and stay tuned because we will be 

sharing more information about what the world of 

training holds for us in the future here at NRC. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Great. Thank you. 

PARTICIPANT: Earlier in her address, the 

Chairman acknowledged the work and efforts of the Waste 

Confident Directorate and staff. I would ask that the 
58

Commission equally acknowledge the work and sacrifice 

of the other offices in the NRC and their employees, some 

of whom had to carry double or triple the workload due 

to the personnel lost to the Waste Confidence 

Directorate. Right now, many feel underappreciated 

and unrecognized for their contributions. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Well, thank you. I 

stand corrected. Thanks to all of you who made the 

Waste Confidence Directorate's work possible. Again, 

I think all of you deserve a great thanks from us on the 

Commission for all the hard work you do. We know that 

you're very dedicated to your jobs, and we appreciate 

it very much. 

PARTICIPANT: Would you please expand on 

your comments regarding decommissioning rule planning, 

including the major goals of the rulemaking? What 

goals do you see for emergency preparedness, security, 

and fuel storage? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: I'm not going to go 

into great detail. I think, in general, though, right 

now we have a situation where plants are 

decommissioning, but they're being regulated under 

their operating licenses. And things change when you 

de-fuel a reactor. Do you really need all the guards 

to be running around the now de-fueled reactor? You 

need to think about that, and we need to think about that 
59

as an agency. 

I know it's easier to go on and address 

other issues, but I think, at some point in time, we 

really need to just tackle this issue and have 

regulations that deal specifically with 

decommissioning plants. That's my view. My 

colleagues may have different views. 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: I would note that 

the Commission has asked the staff to come back with a 

recommendation on the need for specific rulemaking in 

this area. I've stated, at least in one vote, that I 

look forward to forming a view when I've received that 

input and recommendation about the pluses and minuses. 

There's a couple of things that will be 

important to me to hear what the staff thinks. The 

first is that I think it could be a very complex type 

of rule to write because I visited decommissioning 

reactors at all different phases of their 

decommissioning. Well, maybe I'm making it more 

complex than it is, and I sometimes over-think things, 

so I admit that. But to write something directly 

responsive to the hazard at each phase, I think it would 

be very difficult to structure our rules in that way. 

And I do think that it's not just that we've resisted 

doing rulemaking on this. I think that's why we have 

the exemption process we have now because we can receive 
60

requests for relief, and we can look at the hazard as 

it exists, and then we can make our independent safety 

determination as to whether or not relief of certain 

regulations is appropriate. 

So I think that getting something that 

could be graduated or escalated as the hazard is 

diminished over the years, I just think that that will 

be a little more complex to write than it might appear 

at first blush. So I think that's been a reason why 

we've not tackled this maybe vigorously in the past.

I think the other thought process, as a 

practical matter, as we've heard in any number of your 

questions, that there is some difficulty right now in 

having all the requisite skill sets that we need for all 

the high-priority agency work. The staff has input to 

the Commission that it may not be possible to complete 

a rulemaking on this topic at the time at which we would 

be dealing with a very heavy workload. So I've 

characterized it in past Commission meetings as do you 

keep running very fast on the treadmill to do the work 

in front of you now, or do you try to divert some 

resources to say if we could have this type of rule in 

place for the future -- you know, it's difficult to kind 

of divert the staff resources to do the rulemaking at 

the same time that those critical skill sets are needed 

to look at the decommissionings ongoing. 
61

So these are the kind of very, very 

pragmatic choices. And, often, you don't have great 

alternatives in front of you. But the leadership team 

here and the Commission, we confront this, and we do our 

best in terms of priority-setting and allocating 

critical skill sets across the Agency's work. 

PARTICIPANT: There appears to be waning 

momentum behind implementation of the NTTF 

recommendations. What are your thoughts on what 

absolutely must be implemented from the NTTF 

recommendations? What can be left behind, if anything? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: I think we need to 

press forward with all the recommendations and consider 

them each in their due. I think the task force really 

did an excellent job with their 12 recommendations, or 

however many there really were if you count all the sub 

ones and twos and threes. But I think we owe it to 

everyone to make sure that we do our due diligence and 

work through all of them, so I think that need to make 

sure that we keep the focus on that. 

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: If I may add, I 

don't think the Commission or the staff has lost 

interest at all. I think they're moving forward very 

productively. Take, for example, the Mitigating 

Strategies Directorate within NRR is working very hard 

to encapsulate some of the core issues in Tier 1 dealing 
62

with station blackout and the flex strategies, the 

flooding. The seismic re-evaluations are proceeding 

at pace and on and on and on. So I think there's a 

commitment by this Commission and the staff to move 

forward and disposition all these. 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: I would add that I 

also do not observe this, I think the term was reduced 

interest in moving forward on the near-term task force 

recommendations. I know that we don't have a 

breakdown, at least at hand, of the agency resources 

and, consistent with what I just said, more importantly, 

the critical skill sets that we have put on near-term 

task force implementation.

But consistent with Commissioner 

Ostendorff's answer earlier in the meeting, one of the 

key things we did is prioritize those activities that 

had the greatest potential to enhance safety, and we 

have proceeded very consistently in that fashion. I 

regret and have heard from some of the agency's critics 

that they interpret that to be a reduction in our 

commitment, and I just vigorously, vigorously disagree 

with that. 

PARTICIPANT: How does the Commission 

expect to grow future leaders to ensure that there is 

sufficient knowledge management and there are leaders 

with exceptional leadership skills? 
63

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: How do we expect to 

grow them? Well, we have a number of processes in place 

at the agency to grow future leaders. That was one of 

the things I was most impressed by when I came to this 

agency was its attention to growing people's careers. 

If they so chose to want to move up the ladder, there 

was a lot of attention and mentoring to making sure 

people got the training and the skill sets they needed 

to move forward. I think it's incumbent upon the agency 

to ensure that that continues, that we do it in a very 

even-handed manner so that we get a diverse set of folks 

coming through the pipeline, and I have been encouraging 

the senior management in that direction. You guys 

might want to say something. 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: I would add I 

don't offer this as a criticism but as a long-term 

federal employee who has moved about not only the 

government but the various branches of the federal 

government, something that I think is important as we 

move into the future is ways to perhaps better recognize 

and apply experiences that did not come up through the 

NRC system. So this is maybe -- I confess this could 

be my personal bias based on my own resume in the federal 

government where I've moved about quite a bit. But just 

as we hear in the corporate world the incoming 

generation of professionals is not going to go to one 
64

company and stay there. I think on the government side 

we should expect that employees are not, even if they're 

very committed to public service and federal government 

service, they're not just going to come to one federal 

government agency and stay there. I think the history 

of leaders at this agency is that they've come up very 

much within the system. And I think, of necessity that 

is already changing and will continue to change in the 

future.

So I think that there are many people who 

come here with very significant mid-career, you know, 

resumes and experiences that it's important that we push 

ourselves to recognize how we can translate those 

experiences and skill sets to the problems we face. It 

won't be a one-for-one correspondence, but I know that 

if we look at, hey, they solved this type of problem in 

another agency or department, I bet they could really 

apply some new thinking to the way that NRC is facing 

this same challenge.

So I'm encouraged. I know that Miriam 

Cohen and others are very focused on this, and I just 

offer my strong encouragement. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: I completely agree, 

Kristine. And I think that the degree to which it's 

possible for folks to get experiences outside the 

agency, I would encourage that. You know, consistent 
65

with what I said at the RIC in the spring, I think it's 

really important to really draw from a number of 

different resources and for us to experience as much as 

we can. So I think it makes us a better agency. 

PARTICIPANT: At a meeting with nuclear 

bloggers last week, the topic of linear no threshold 

(LNT) hypothesis was brought up. The LNT could be 

putting an unnecessary burden on use of nuclear material 

because it is so conservative. Is the Commission 

considering this far-reaching issue? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: At this point, not 

that I know of. 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: Well, we're not 

considering it in isolation, but something that 

encourages me a lot about NRC is the culture here of 

staying on top of new and emergent issues. And I think 

our experts are encouraged to look at issues and take 

new experiences, new data, new studies and apply them. 

This issue is, of course, very, very broad and the debate 

over this has been going on for years.

I am confident that as we look at elements 

and components of our regulations, the part of the 

regulatory analysis is to inform any updates to those 

regulations based on the most current research in the 

biological sciences. So although that's not my area of 

expertise, I know that it would be very contrary to our 
66

culture to be closing the door on new studies and new 

information. 

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: I would add at 

this conference I went to in Vancouver a couple of weeks 

ago, the one set of staff presentations that I sat in 

on dealt exactly with precise with LNT. I heard four 

presentations from different organizations, not from 

NRC, other scientific academic institutions: DOE, 

National Laboratories. And so there is a lot of work 

going on in this area, a lot of studies out there, and 

I'm confident the research is taking a good look at what 

those studies have to say what their import is for us. 

PARTICIPANT: What can be done to make it 

easier to acquire specialized software needed in our 

work and to get it approved and installed? The present 

process is very slow and opaque, even for simple and 

inexpensive programs. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Well, this may be 

something that -- I don't know. The question is about 

particular one-off items that will only affect some of 

the staff or not. But I'm going to look to Darren to 

speak to that one. 

MR. ASH: It's a good question and one that 

OIS, their leadership in terms of the governance 

structure, in terms of ensuring that we have a 

repeatable documented process that we know how software 
67

can be brought in. But I think the thing that we also 

have to pay attention to, we have to find the right 

balance in terms of being able to provide the right 

support to ensure that it's secure, in terms it meets 

the rights standards, that we also buy it efficiently, 

as well.

Clearly, if it's a one-off or a one type of 

just one piece of software, one license, that's very 

different than something that may be of benefit to the 

entire agency. So there's a variety of things that we 

have to look at.

But, clearly, the thing -- and I think the 

point of the question is clearly communicating what is 

our process, what process do you as employees make those 

requests. Part of that is grounded in how OIS is 

structured right now, their customer service division,

but also their governance structure they've 

established.

So I think the point that was made is we can 

do better in terms of communicating how you can acquire 

software, but also we have a responsibility to explain 

the process we use, the time line, but also ensure that 

we do it right, as well. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Great. Thanks, 

Darren. I think we have time for a couple more 

questions. 
68

PARTICIPANT: What is the relationship of 

Project Aim to the Strategic Plan, and how is Project 

Aim different from TABS? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: To the strategic 

fund? Is that -- plan? 

PARTICIPANT: To the Strategic Plan.

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Well, obviously, we 

want Project Aim to fit with and dovetail with the 

Strategic Plan that was just put out. So we don't want 

it to be crosswise with the Strategic Plan. 

And this is very different from TABS. TABS 

was a targeted effort looking at management. This is 

a broader effort looking at the entire agency, looking 

at how we need to be resourced and what kind of skill 

sets we need to face a number of different futures, 

looking at how we can operate efficiently and 

effectively with what we have. And by that, I don't 

mean, you know, belt-tightening in lots of places. I 

mean how can we carry out our mission, whether it's 

license amendments or other actions that we take, 

efficiently and effectively.

So it's a very different beast than TABS, 

but it does dovetail with the Strategic Plan. 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: I might -- just to 

say the same thing a little bit differently, I view the 

relationship between the Strategic Plan and Project Aim 
69

is that the Strategic Plan is kind of our contract of 

what we're looking at, mission, goals, and objectives 

to achieve for the American people. Project Aim is a 

set of recommendations that would position us to best 

achieve those things. 

PARTICIPANT: The TABS processes and 

budget environment have left many positions downgraded 

or posted as solicitations of interest, as opposed to 

vacancies open for promotion potential. Can employees 

impacted by these circumstances expect to see 

opportunities in the near future? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Can employees --

sorry. Can you repeat that last bit?

PARTICIPANT: Can employees impacted by 

these circumstances expect to see opportunities in the 

near future?

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Well, I mean, in 

general, I hope there are always opportunities. But, 

again, we have the reality that we needed to become more 

of a streamlined agency in terms of management-to-staff 

ratio, and we have to do that to get in line with the 

rest of the federal government. So it's our 

responsibility to be that way.

We are an agency, as it turns out, that has 

a lot of higher-level positions, GS-14 positions and 

GS-15 positions, compared with other agencies. So 
70

we're a little different from other parts of the 

government, and that's made this whole issue a little 

more difficult for us. But everybody in management is 

very well aware of this issue and of the fact that there 

aren't as many opportunities to move up as there were, 

and we are trying to address that as best we can. 

One more? Last question. 

PARTICIPANT: Currently, the NSPDP 

program only requires a dozen online classes and one 

rotation. Previously, it required several rotations 

and several weeks of technical training. Is this 

program still adequate to prepare recent college grads 

with minimal industry experience to the NRC's work? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Good question. I'm 

hopeful that it is still adequate, but I think we will 

take that back and consider it. I don't know if anybody 

else has other comments on that, any of the management? 

No? Okay. Yes, Mark, go ahead. 

MR. SATORIUS: Being an organization that 

values always seeking to improve, I think every time we 

stand up a program like that, whether it's NSPDP or the 

Leadership Development Program or the SES Candidate 

Development Program, we're always going to look for the 

way that we can do it most effectively, getting the most 

bang for our buck, and getting the most bang for our buck 

is some of the reasons why we head in that direction.
71

So we're always looking for ways to do 

things better and more efficiently. 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Great. Thank you. 

Thanks, Mark.

MR. SATORIUS: And thank you to the 

Commission for availing yourself for this opportunity 

for the staff to ask questions for a good part of an hour, 

an hour and fifteen minutes. And I tried to keep count 

for a certain period of time, and I lost track.

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: There was a lot of 

questions.

MR. SATORIUS: How many did you get?

COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Forty-four.

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: All right. 

Forty-four? Wow. Good for you guys. 

MR. SATORIUS: So now, Chairman, I'm going 

to go ahead and bring up the last speaker, Sheryl 

Burrows. If you would start your way up here, and I'll 

finish the introduction. Sheryl is the President of 

the local chapter of NTEU, and, Sheryl, we're looking 

forward to any insights you may be able to share with 

the staff. So welcome Sheryl Burrows. 

MS. BURROWS: Good afternoon, Chairman 

MACFARLANE, Mr. Satorius, executives, managers, all 

staff, and especially fellow bargaining unit employees. 

A lot has happened at the NRC since the 2013 employees' 
72

meeting. This includes the White Flint campus 

consolidation, the merger of NMSS and FSME, the start 

of Project Aim, and preparation for negotiating our 

entire collective bargaining agreement which will start 

in late 2014.

Our union chapter has been very busy, as 

well. In June, I was re-elected as President of Chapter 

208. Joining me on the Executive Committee are Maria 

Schwartz as Executive Vice President; Robert Heard, 

Secretary; and Darrin Butler as Treasurer. In 

addition, we have a full slate of vice presidents and 

stewards, some returning and some new faces. I'm 

excited about the energy that this amazing and dedicated 

team is bringing to the challenges we face. 

Since last year's all-employee meeting, 

NTEU has continued our support by advocating for 

individual employees, as well as the entire bargaining 

unit. For example, this year NTEU filed an individual 

grievance for an employee who was retaliated against for 

participating in the non-concurrence process. We're 

disappointed with the initial outcome, but we're ready 

to continue our fight to make this employee whole.

We've worked with management on various 

agency initiatives, including providing extensive 

comments on the draft strategic plan, TABS, merger and 

consolidation efforts, and, most recently, Project Aim. 
73

In one of the EDO Updates, it was stressed that the 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey results continue to 

demonstrate that the NRC has very hardworking and 

engaged employees. We are all proud of this fact and 

prouder still when we put it in the context of years 

without a decent pay raise, several years without 

reasonable performance awards, with some employees not 

receiving requested or required training, and others 

not being afforded flexible work schedules or telework.

In spite of this, you have not forgotten 

that one of the NRC's most important values is 

excellence. NTEU will strive to remind management that 

excellence should always be foremost in our thinking as 

the work is planned and schedules are established. Let 

me repeat that last part: excellence should always be 

foremost in our thinking as the work is planned and 

schedules are established.

The same must be stressed when we look at 

our commitment to a culture of safety, and that 

commitment cannot and should not be sacrificed to 

schedule. We should have enough evidence through our 

various lessons learned programs to know that schedule

is a dangerous driver. 

This lessons learned philosophy led us to 

report at the EDO briefing in July that we must be aware 

of and resist the dangers of the single story, the story 
74

that those in positions of authority tell to promote a 

specific point of view. NTEU recognizes that the 

single story is not necessarily untrue, but wants to 

remind management that there are other stories, other 

perspectives, and other viewpoints that our bargaining 

unit members are telling us, that our survey results are 

telling us, and that we are observing as we represent 

you. These stories must be heard and must be 

acknowledged by management. 

The only way our agency will be able to 

leverage effective change is to start with the complete 

story. The viewpoint, the experience, the day-to-day 

challenges faced by employees must be factored into 

plans and processes. 

The results of the 2014 FEVS will be 

available soon. These results are often described as 

a snapshot of where we were when you took the survey. 

For example, when results show lower scores in training, 

the agency explains that a drop is due to budgetary 

constraints and reduced opportunity for external 

training. This is true, but this is only part of the 

story. There are other reasons, as well, that are well 

within the control of the agency, and NTEU has pointed 

this out to management. There are cases where 

employees' training needs are not being met. 

Additionally, the survey results are more 
75

than a snapshot in time. Taken in a continuum, they 

identify trends. This year, NTEU will be meeting with 

management to bring the analysis of the FEVS results. 

We will be focusing especially on the results regarding 

communications, support, appraisals, and training. 

Turning from where we are now and where we 

hope to be, Project Aim and the Strategic Plan focus on 

what the future will look like, what resources the 

agency will need, and how we can build in the flexibility 

to deal with change, both expected and unexpected. 

Both look at critical skill gaps. The Strategic Plan 

was developed, in part, to close those gaps. Project 

Aim projects how that will be accomplished under various 

future scenarios.

NTEU will work with managers to identify 

ways to develop necessary skills and competencies. For 

example, NTEU continues to monitor training and skills 

development for contracting officer representatives. 

While doing this, NTEU heard that many of the CORs do 

not feel that the current training programs are adequate 

to support the proper performance of their duties, 

especially for large and complex projects.

NTEU was surprised and taken back a little 

to hear that in an agency of, roughly, 4,000 employees, 

there are some 900 CORs. There are technical employees 

that told us they spend more of their time with 
76

contracting responsibilities than in doing the 

technical jobs they were trained and hired to do.

On such a large scale, this is troubling in 

terms of accomplishing our safety mission. However, 

what may be even more troubling is that many supervisors 

who are supposed to provide support and resources do not 

have a good idea what their CORs need to properly manage 

their contracts. This is an example of why NTEU should 

be engaged at the beginning stages of initiatives that 

impact working conditions.

As I said earlier or I've said often, NTEU 

and the agency have similar goals. However, we have 

different roles. This could not be a more accurate 

statement than as it applies to our upcoming collective 

bargaining. NTEU's collective voice is essential in 

this process for it to be successful.

NTEU's objective is to provide a work 

environment that ensures our bargaining unit employees 

are treated fairly and with respect and dignity, that 

they have clarity in their roles and responsibilities, 

that they can expect performance appraisals that 

accurately reflect their work, and, finally, that the 

rights bargained for and included in the Collective 

Bargaining Agreement are available to them.

This next year promises to be challenging 

for all of us, and NTEU invites you to tell us about your 
77

experiences. Please stop by the union office or send 

an email to nteu@nrc.gov. If you ever have any 

questions, comments, or suggestions, we want to hear 

from you. 

Thank you for your attention. And could 

you all please return the umbrellas? 

CHAIRMAN MACFARLANE: Oh, bummer. Thank 

you very much, Sheryl. So thank you all for coming and 

listening and asking lots of questions. We really, 

really appreciate this opportunity to dialogue with 

you, and we look forward to many more in the future. 

Thank you. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 

off the record at 3:22 p.m.)