1 

1 

2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

4 + + + + + 

5 BRIEFING ON PROJECT AIM 2020 

6 PUBLIC MEETING 

7 + + + + + 

8 WEDNESDAY 

9 FEBRUARY 18, 2015 

10 + + + + + 

11 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 

12 + + + + + 

13 The meeting convened in the Commissioners' 

14 Conference Room, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

15 One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland, at 1:30 p.m. 

16 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: 

17 STEPHEN BURNS, Chairman 

18 KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, Commissioner 

19 WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, Commissioner 

20 JEFF BARAN, Commissioner 

21 NRC STAFF PRESENT: 

22 MARK SATORIUS, Executive Director for Operations 

23 MAUREEN WYLIE, Chief Financial Officer 

24 MICHAEL WEBER, DEDMRT, OEDO/Team Leader, Project Aim 

25 KAREN FITCH, Deputy Team Leader, Project Aim 

26 MARGARET DOANE, OGC 

27 ANNETTE VIETTI-COOK, SECY 

28 SHERYL BURROWS, President, NTEU 
 2 

1 P R O C E E D I N G S 

2 1:32 p.m. 

3 CHAIRMAN BURNS: I'll call our meeting to 

4 order. I want to welcome the NRC staff and members of 

5 the public and other stakeholders who are listening on 

6 computer or observing this from video. The purpose of 

7 today’s meeting is to provide the Commission with the 

8 report on the results of the Project Aim 2020 study which 

9 includes recommendations and a roadmap to enhance the 

10 NRC's ability to plan and execute its mission in an 

11 effective, efficient, and agile manner. 

12 The Project Aim 2020 report provides the 

13 Commission a starting point for its consideration on how 

14 to position the Agency for the future, continue 

15 achieving exemplary nuclear regulation in the service 

16 of the American people, and in a different environment 

17 and with potentially different challenges. 

18 Today's discussion will aide the 

19 Commission in its deliberation on the report, on the 

20 report's recommended strategies to right-size the 

21 Agency and streamline Agency processes, and improve 

22 timeliness in our decision making. I want to thank 

23 the staff for their hard work and the contributions of 

24 all internal and external stakeholders who gave their 

25 time, and effort, and insights towards the effort. 

26 I look forward to your presentations, I'll 
 3 

1 also note that the Agency has made the report available 

2 online via its website, and that was done this morning. 

3 So those who are interested, it will be available there 

4 for you to take a look at. And before we begin I would 

5 ask my fellow Commissioners if they have anything they'd 

6 like to say. Okay. I'll turn the meeting over then to 

7 the --- go ahead. 

8 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: No, it wasn't on. 

9 CHAIRMAN BURNS: It was not on. 

10 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: On the webcast line 

11 so that was --- 

12 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

13 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Again, for those who are on 

14 line the thing I'll mention is that the report, our 

15 report itself that we're going to discuss today, this 

16 Project Aim 2020 Report is available on the NRC website 

17 for you to look at, and download, and read as you desire. 

18 And with that, I'll turn over the meeting to the 

19 Executive Director for Operations, Mark Satorius, to 

20 proceed. 

21 MR. SATORIUS: Thank you, Chairman. Good 

22 afternoon, Commissioners. Before we move on to the 

23 Staff's presentation, I wanted to take just a moment to 

24 also thank the leadership and staff of all the business 

25 lines, all the offices, and the regions for their input 

26 into this project. Also, the Guiding Coalition who had 
 4 

1 spent doing dozens of meetings providing input so that 

2 we could get to this point today. And then lastly, I'd 

3 like to acknowledge that each of you Commissioners also 

4 provided us with an opportunity to sit down one on one 

5 and have some discussions, and to take away directions 

6 on how we should proceed. 

7 So, before we ask the Staff to get started, 

8 I'd like to see if the CFO had anything that she would 

9 want to add. I would just note that this is her first 

10 trip to the table as the CFO. 

11 MS. WYLIE: Well, thank you very much, Mark. 

12 I would simply add that this report has 

13 essentially overlapped my entire time here, so we have 

14 been focused on seeking efficiencies, understanding the 

15 future, understanding the workforce. And I've been 

16 impressed by the openness of the process, and the 

17 openness to feedback from both internal and external 

18 stakeholders. So, thank you very much for the support 

19 you've given to the project, and I would turn it over 

20 to Mike. 

21 MS. FITCH: Thank you. Good afternoon, 

22 Chairman, Commissioners. It is a pleasure to brief you 

23 today on Project Aim 2020. Next slide, please. 

24 In my presentation this afternoon I will be 

25 talking about the purpose of the project, why the NRC 

26 needs to change, the project's approach, what we might 
 5 

1 look like in 2020, the roadmap and strategies provided 

2 to the Commission for consideration, and what is 

3 required for success. Next slide, please. 

4 Consistent with the Commission-approved 

5 charter, the purpose of Project Aim is to provide 

6 recommendations for improving performance now and in 

7 the future, and to provide specific projections for 

8 workload and associated resource and staffing levels in 

9 2020. Next slide, please. 

10 Project Aim was initiated to improve the 

11 efficiency and to meet future change. We have been quite 

12 successful over the past 40 years in accomplishing our 

13 mission. To continue this high success, we need to 

14 operate more efficiently. To improve regulatory 

15 efficiency, we recommend the NRC change in four 

16 significant ways. First, right-sizing the Agency to 

17 retain the appropriate skill sets needed to achieve its 

18 mission. Second, streamlining Agency processes to use 

19 our resources more wisely. Third, enhancing in 

20 timeliness of regulatory decision making and responding 

21 quickly to changing in conditions. And, fourth, 

22 promoting unity of purpose with clear Agency-wide 

23 priorities and a culture of one NRC. Next slide, please. 

24 The flow chart on this slide shows the 

25 approach we used beginning with the internal and 

26 external outreach, conducting the gap analysis, and 
 6 

1 developing and aligning on a critical few strategies 

2 that we recommend to transform the Agency. Next slide, 

3 please. 

4 One of the essential objectives of Project 

5 Aim was to project the workforce and the workload in 2020 

6 under a variety of different scenarios. Based on the 

7 information collected and analyzed we can expect the 

8 workload in most of our programs to be about the same, 

9 or down slightly. Despite progress that we are seeing 

10 today in new nuclear power plants and the constructions 

11 and licensing of them, the largest reduction in Agency 

12 workload is expected to occur in the new reactors 

13 business line. Next slide. 

14 When considering NRC's future workforce 

15 needs we need to look not only at the numbers, but also 

16 at the grades and competencies of the employees and our 

17 supporting organizations, such as the National Labs, 

18 our Agency partners, universities, and contractors. 

19 Most workforce competencies are expected to be about the 

20 same in 2020 as we have now with the exception of the 

21 new reactors and corporate support business lines. Next 

22 slide, please. 

23 So, what might we look like in 2020 in terms 

24 of our workforce and total resources? We developed this 

25 graph based on the financial analysis conducted as part 

26 of Project Aim. It reflects the Agency budget and 
 7 

1 workload over 40 years. As you can see, both have grown 

2 and contracted in response to changes in the workload, 

3 such as the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, and 

4 following the terrorist attacks on 9/11. The largest 

5 growth occurred after the enactment of the Energy Policy 

6 Act in 2005 with relatively larger projections of new 

7 nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities. 

8 By considering the workforce trends and the 

9 workforce needs in 2020, we can expect the Agency to 

10 contract by about 10 percent. This will bring us back 

11 to where we were in the mid-2000s, and reflect workload 

12 reductions associated with new nuclear construction, 

13 the completion of actions related to the Fukushima 

14 Lessons Learned, and the elimination of the Operating 

15 Reactor Licensing backlog. 

16 This also reflects aspirations of improved 

17 efficiency and a reduction in corporate overhead based 

18 on the successful implementation of the strategies 

19 recommended in the report. 

20 I would like to emphasize that this is what 

21 the Agency could look like in 2020. We cannot predict 

22 the future. This estimate is a planning estimate to help 

23 drive the Agency. It is not meant to be a budget-quality 

24 forecast. 

25 As the Commission is well aware, we have a 

26 rigorous process to plan and formulate our budget 
 8 

1 subject to the careful oversight of the Commission, the 

2 Office of Management and Budget, and the Congress. It 

3 does, however, represent collective evaluation by the 

4 team and of our senior staff leaders. It provides a 

5 useful aim point and helps lead the Agency in the right 

6 direction. Next slide, please. 

7 Consistent with our charter, we recommend 

8 adoption of a series of strategies that together 

9 comprise the roadmap to enhance the efficiency, 

10 effectiveness, flexibility, and agility of the NRC. The 

11 strategies are grouped into three themes, people, 

12 planning, and process. Next slide. 

13 Our people are our most important assets. 

14 Their actions are essential for accomplishing the 

15 safety and security mission. Under the people theme, we 

16 recommend the Commission adopt actionable strategies 

17 including improving talent management to ensure we have 

18 the right people with the right skills at the right time, 

19 enhancing employee agility to reduce the amount of time 

20 it takes to shift resources to meet the demands of a 

21 changing environment, and increasing organizational 

22 agility and efficiency by improving the Agency's focus 

23 on one NRC. Next slide, please. 

24 Limitations of our planning in the past 

25 have landed us where we are today, so under the planning 

26 theme we are recommending a couple of strategies to 
 9 

1 improve the planning and budget formulation process, 

2 and re-baselining the work of the Agency. Next slide. 

3 As a well-established Agency, we operate 

4 under numerous regulatory and corporate processes. The 

5 efficiency and effectiveness, particularly those we use 

6 100 to 1,000 times help determine the overall 

7 performance of the Agency. Under the process theme, we 

8 recommend strategies to improve the transparency and 

9 predictability of the fee process, and to simplify how 

10 we calculate and account for fees, to improve the 

11 Operative Reactor Licensing process, and to clarify, 

12 streamline, and standardize the Agency processes, 

13 including the roles and responsibilities. Next slide, 

14 please. 

15 We look forward to the Commission review of 

16 our recommendations in implementing the Commission's 

17 direction. We recognize that successful implementation 

18 of that direction requires all of the elements listed 

19 on this slide consistent with the communication and 

20 implementation plan in the report. 

21 The Project Aim provides new opportunities 

22 to think differently to prepare for the future. Line 

23 office leadership and accountability is necessary to 

24 effect these changes along with frequent communication 

25 in various means with our employees and external 

26 stakeholders. Successful implementation will also 
 10 

1 require openness, transparency, and engagement of our 

2 employees in executing the strategies and careful 

3 monitoring of performance to drive success and achieve 

4 the desired outcomes. 

5 This concludes my presentation, and I turn 

6 it over to Mark Satorius for the conclusion. 

7 MR. SATORIUS: Just I think that that's a 

8 good encapsulation of the work we've done. The report 

9 goes into it in much more detail, but we thought a better 

10 use of time might be to work it at this level and then 

11 get directly into questions, so we are ready for any 

12 questions that the Commissioners may have at this point. 

13 MS. WYLIE: I don't have anything to add at 

14 this moment. 

15 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Okay. Well, this afternoon 

16 we'll begin our questioning with Commissioner 

17 Ostendorff. 

18 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Thank you, 

19 Chairman. Thank you for your presentations. Thank you 

20 to the team members for all your work on this. I know 

21 it's been an intense project in many respects. The 

22 Commission does appreciate -- 

23 My mic wasn't on. Testing. I got it now. I 

24 lost my place. As Chairman Burns mentioned in, I think, 

25 the NRC's press release this last 24 hours, this is the 

26 starting of a dialogue, and I think --- I really 
 11 

1 appreciated the way you phrased that, Chairman Burns. 

2 I think this is not a thumbs up/thumbs down, you know, 

3 Roman gladiator confrontation Coliseum. Some more 

4 thoughtful subjugation needs to occur as we look at this 

5 in a pretty in depth manner. 

6 We're fortunate as an Agency to have the 

7 opportunity to do this. Many agencies do not. Sometimes 

8 it's thrust upon agencies. I did this twice in the 

9 Department of Interior, Department of Defense in the 

10 1990s, once after Gulf War I when I was a personnel 

11 planner back at the Bureau of Naval Personnel, and then 

12 there was a time in the submarine force in the Cold War 

13 and significant impact, went from 100 attack submarines 

14 to 50 over the space of about 10 years, with a 

15 significant impact on personnel. So, I've seen this in 

16 different contexts and it's far harder to get smaller 

17 than it is to get bigger. So, for those who are involved 

18 in trying to ramp up this Agency back 2005-2009, that's 

19 a piece of cake compared to what this will be going 

20 forward to implement. 

21 So let me start off a couple of questions. 

22 I'll address them to Karen. If you all want to address 

23 them, that's fine. I really resonate with the notion of 

24 re-baselining the work of the Agency. That is --- that 

25 by itself is a monumental task, just that one item. Can 

26 somebody talk a bit more about how that might be done, 
 12 

1 and how might it be directed, how might one achieve 

2 consistency across the Agency. 

3 I'll note as a sidebar, Glenn Tracy in NRO 

4 has already kind of done some of that with the new 

5 reactor work line. Cathy Haney, Brian Holian and the 

6 NMSS-FSME merger have already addressed this to a 

7 certain extent. They've tried to address some of the 

8 corporate support issues, so I'm looking at a little 

9 more detail how might re-baselining this Agency be 

10 accomplished? 

11 MR. WEBER: Thanks, Commissioner. When we 

12 did this for the first time in the mid-90s, we did it 

13 across the Agency at the branch level, and that's when 

14 branches were at the Senior Executive Service Manager 

15 level. And for each branch there was an analysis done 

16 identifying what was the work, and on what basis was the 

17 work conducted, and what was the relative degree or size 

18 of that work in terms of full time equivalence or in 

19 terms of dollars. And then the results of those reviews 

20 were then rolled up at the Agency level and we reviewed 

21 at the Agency level to ensure that there was some 

22 consistency in how those reviews were done. 

23 And having personally experienced the 

24 process, I think it was valuable. It gave us insights. 

25 And, particularly, we honed in on this strategy because 

26 the Agency has grown considerably over the last decade, 
 13 

1 and so it's time to take a fresh look at why are we doing 

2 what we're doing, and are we clear on why we're doing 

3 what we're doing? Is there a clear statutory basis, 

4 Commission direction basis, or other directive that 

5 we're trying to be responsive to? 

6 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Okay. Let me 

7 explore that just a little bit. 

8 MR. WEBER: Okay. 

9 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Am I hearing that 

10 it was more of a bottoms-up approach? 

11 MR. WEBER: It was a bottoms-up supporting 

12 the Commission's development of the strategic plan. 

13 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Yes. I guess I'm 

14 struggling with it. Do a bottoms-up approach in every 

15 stovepipe part of an organization, how do you get a 

16 consistent philosophical approach to rightsizing the 

17 Agency? 

18 MR. WEBER: That guidance was provided at 

19 the Agency level. There was a Deputy EDO at the time who 

20 led that effort, Mal Knapp. And there was a panel that 

21 he chaired to look across the Agency as all those results 

22 were fed up --- to ensure that there was some 

23 consistency in how that review was done. And the 

24 Commission was well integrated into that process. 

25 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Would a 

26 re-baseline review --- let me back up a second. We spent 
 14 

1 a lot of time, this group of individuals, with you, Mike, 

2 and with others on the team discussing concerns and the 

3 efficiency of the NRR licensing process in the context 

4 of a fairly significant licensing backlog. To what 

5 extent does the re-baseline effort look at or not look 

6 at what efficiencies should be achieved by how we do 

7 business, whether it be the concurrence process or 

8 getting to a final decision, or how we're currently 

9 doing business. Can you talk about that just a moment? 

10 MR. WEBER: Sure. Re-baselining as we 

11 proposed it in the report is really not going to get to 

12 that efficiency component. And that's why separate from 

13 re-baselining, we've recommended that we specifically 

14 look at the reactor licensing process. 

15 Now, you're probably aware the Office of 

16 Nuclear Reactor Regulation has already commenced some 

17 of those review efforts, and is looking internally at 

18 its own licensing process. Baselining or re-baselining 

19 would tell us what --- we're doing reactor licensing, 

20 why are we doing reactor licensing? Is it mandated by 

21 the statute, is it directed by the Commission, what have 

22 you. 

23 The specific efficiency of the process 

24 would have to come from a more intrusive process review, 

25 such as what's conducted through our Business Process 

26 Improvement. 
 15 

1 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Okay, thank you. 

2 I'm going to shift to a different topic now to Centers 

3 of Expertise, which has also generated quite a bit of 

4 discussion. And I think it's very helpful to have that 

5 in the recommendations. 

6 Is there any Agency experience where we 

7 have actually stood up a Center of Expertise within one 

8 office director's purview for he or she to direct 

9 allocation of those resources across the entire Agency? 

10 I know we have seismic hydrologists over there, Scott 

11 Flanders in NRO, we have digital I&C folks under Glen 

12 Tracey and under Bill Dean, and under Brian Sheron, but 

13 has there ever been an effort with complete reliance 

14 upon a Center of Expertise? 

15 MR. SATORIUS: I'm not sure if it's going to 

16 go directly to what you're thinking of, but we do have 

17 a Center of Excellence as far as fuel cycle inspection 

18 and oversight in Region II. Irrespective of where the 

19 locations are, that is the center there. 

20 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: I'm thinking 

21 more about those technical disciplines that are 

22 required for various office directors to do their jobs, 

23 whether it be licensing new reactors, or oversight of 

24 existing reactors. Digital I&C is an example, hydrology 

25 is another. Was there a thought in your preparation of 

26 this report as to how the Agency might approach 
 16 

1 identifying who would be the host organization? 

2 MR. WEBER: Yes. As time has gone on, we've 

3 had various experiences with Centers of Expertise. For 

4 example, one of those centers is the High Level Waste 

5 Program which was consolidated within Nuclear Material 

6 Safety and Safeguards. However, even in that situation 

7 while the bulk of the work was conducted there, you also 

8 had other components of the Agency that had to share in 

9 the resources associated with the Commission-directed 

10 work; for example, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

11 which is under the Commission's supervision rather than 

12 the EDO's supervision. 

13 So, the thought here was to build on the 

14 progress that we've had to date and further expand the 

15 application of those Centers of Expertise. So, it's a 

16 crawl, walk, run strategy. There have been instances 

17 where we've attempted to do this and it hasn't worked 

18 as well. In the extreme, you would go towards a matrix 

19 management organization, and the Agency has had some 

20 less than positive experiences with going that route 

21 over the years. 

22 Now, some of that information, those 

23 insights are dated because it's historical, and may not 

24 work in today's environment with today's needs, and 

25 today's capabilities. 

26 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Staying with the 
 17 

1 Center of Expertise notion, did the teams interviews or 

2 focus groups discern any different application of 

3 technical standards because we have multiple groups 

4 right now across the organization that are doing say 

5 digital I&C one way in one organization, and maybe a 

6 little different focus in other organizations? 

7 MR. WEBER: Yes, we did. And that's one of 

8 the challenges associated with --- and opportunities 

9 associated with creating Centers of Expertise. 

10 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: I’m out of time. 

11 Thank you all. Thank you again for your work. 

12 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Commissioner Baran. 

13 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thank you. I just want 

14 to add my thanks to those of Commissioner Ostendorff for 

15 all your hard work on this. I know this was a lot to do 

16 in a relatively short period of time, and thanks to the 

17 team and those who have assisted them. 

18 The Project Aim Report contemplates the NRC 

19 workforce and budget being about 10 percent smaller in 

20 2020, as Karen mentioned. Can you take a couple of 

21 minutes and just walk us through how the team came up 

22 with this, I think you called it a planning estimate? 

23 MS. FITCH: We looked at what was causing 

24 the increases over the years. Obviously, the 

25 Renaissance was the biggest increase, but we also looked 

26 at security increasing, cyber security. There was also 
 18 

1 some fixed costs that was hit with some federal 

2 mandates, those types of things that are not going to 

3 go away. So, when we balanced what work was going to 

4 reduce, such as new reactors, and Fukushima being over, 

5 and eliminating the backlog for licensing, we balanced 

6 that with some of the increases that are not going to 

7 go away, and that was how we got to that 3,400, about 

8 $900 million. 

9 COMMISSIONER BARAN: And following up on - 

10 MR. SATORIUS: I think Maureen wanted --- 

11 COMMISSIONER BARAN: I'm sorry, Maureen. Go 

12 ahead. 

13 MS. WYLIE: If you don't mind, if I could 

14 just expand on that a little bit. You know, when you look 

15 at our budget requests over a long period of time you 

16 can see very discrete chunks of workload. One of the 

17 things that's harder to see is the increasing complexity 

18 of government. 

19 We tried to take into account that the 

20 regulatory environment in which we operate as a federal 

21 agency has also changed over the period, and so that was 

22 part of our analysis to try to get away from what's our 

23 40-year average going forward? Government today 

24 requires different things than government 10, 20, or 30 

25 years ago. 

26 Of particular importance to us as an Agency 
 19 

1 is the growth of security-based requirements after 

2 9/11. When you look at the chart that we've provided, 

3 Slide 8, and you see the ramp-up, the first big chunk 

4 of that ramp is associated with 9/11. The second chunk 

5 is the environmental, Energy Policy Act. So, there are 

6 chunks of work that are subject to change based on the 

7 industry environment, and then chunks that are subject 

8 to change based on the government environment. 

9 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Does anyone else have 

10 anything you want to add on that one? So, just to kind 

11 of summarize that. So, it's --- this isn't a number you 

12 all pulled out of the air, and it's not just based on 

13 kind of trends from --- trends over the decades. What 

14 you tried to do is --- this is super loud now. What you 

15 tried to do is look at in a thoughtful way what are the 

16 pieces of workload that we're going to have in the 

17 future, and if there are pieces of workload that we have 

18 now but we'll have less of them, or vice versa, account 

19 for that and come up with the appropriate workforce and 

20 resources to match that workload. 

21 MR. SATORIUS: That's exactly what we are 

22 proposing. And I'll just put it another way, too, is that 

23 this is --- Aim Point 2020 is not a one-shot deal because 

24 next October and November we're going to be analyzing 

25 where do we think based on what we know the Agency is 

26 going to be, what's its workforce going to look like, 
 20 

1 and what's the work we're going to have to do in 2021? 

2 So, you'll have iterations as you cycle through the 

3 years where you're headed off in the right direction, 

4 and I'm --- 3,400 could be plus or minus 50 or 60. So, 

5 as long as we're heading in the right direction we're 

6 moving towards where we need to be, and that will refine 

7 itself in 2021, 2022. That's the idea. 

8 COMMISSIONER BARAN: And I wanted to ask a 

9 question to follow-up on Commissioner Ostendorff's 

10 question about re-baselining, just to try to, again, 

11 kind of get our arms around what this would look like 

12 in practice. 

13 Is the idea here that the inquiry is focused 

14 exclusively on, is an activity that's being conducted 

15 right now one that is required by statute or required 

16 by Commission direction, or is the idea to take a broader 

17 look at what are the efforts that would have the most 

18 value for our mission which should be the highest 

19 priority, and also understand, you know, what 

20 direction, if any, that that's being pursued under it? 

21 Can you give a sense of the kind of breadth of the inquiry 

22 here? 

23 MR. WEBER: Well, I like your latter 

24 description better than your former description. I 

25 would say when we did it in the mid-90s, it was more the 

26 former. I think in light of the set of strategies that 
 21 

1 are recommended in Project Aim today, it would be more 

2 of the latter. 

3 I think --- and when we had our Senior 

4 Leadership meeting in early January, we discussed how 

5 a lot of what we do may not be explicitly established 

6 by law, and so there's always going to be a judgment call 

7 that has to be made at the highest levels of the Agency 

8 on how do we best implement our legislative mandate as 

9 reflected in the law? So, it can't just be a plug and 

10 chug review of, is everything we're doing tied to 

11 legislation somewhere? It's got to be more wholesome 

12 than that, more fulsome by looking at is this the best 

13 return on the investment in terms of our mission. 

14 COMMISSIONER BARAN: One could imagine, or 

15 would imagine, I would imagine that there would be some 

16 efforts underway at this Agency right now that are 

17 pursuant to Commission direction from five years ago, 

18 where if you looked at it today you'd say well, that's 

19 maybe not really the highest priority. We were told to 

20 do it, but maybe we should revisit that. And there may 

21 be efforts that the Commission never explicitly said you 

22 should do this, but it's really a very valuable 

23 activity, and it should have the priority it has, or even 

24 higher priority. So, I think just kind of repeating what 

25 Mike said, but that would be my only thought about that 

26 kind of --- as I read that recommendation. 
 22 

1 You know, one concept that's pretty 

2 prominent is this one NRC concept. And as I understand 

3 it, the idea here is to encourage Staff to think 

4 Agency-wide about our overall mission and not have a 

5 kind of siloed thinking. Can you briefly share some of 

6 the team's thoughts about how you actually implement 

7 this type of cultural change, and particularly how you 

8 do it without detracting from the elements of the NRC 

9 culture that are really positive right now? 

10 MR. SATORIUS: Well, it starts with me, and 

11 our Senior Leadership team, and it --- and the tentacles 

12 then work out into the office directors, the business 

13 line leads. It's got to be everybody's on board that when 

14 we do our quarterly reviews of our performance and 

15 compare it to the strategies within the strategic plan, 

16 what are those areas, irrespective of what organization 

17 that you're associated with, that meet the needs of the 

18 most important for the Agency? And what it means is it 

19 means some selfish, or unselfishness, and that my 

20 business line needs to opt to and agree that the 

21 resources need to be over in this other business line 

22 because that's where we're going to get the most bang 

23 for the safety buck. 

24 MR. WEBER: If I could just add, when I 

25 became an Office Director the then EDO took me aside and 

26 said, "Now, Mike, we want NMSS to succeed, but more 
 23 

1 importantly we need the NRC to succeed. So, this is not 

2 about your office being better or worse than anybody 

3 else. The entire Agency needs to accomplish its mission, 

4 or else we as an organization fail in accomplishing that 

5 mission." And that resonated with me, and I think if we 

6 look across the Agency we've seen instances where we 

7 have risen to that. For example, in the continued 

8 storage effort a number of offices across the Agency 

9 gave up some of their strongest performers to meet a very 

10 high priority Agency need. 

11 I think we're seeing it today in the Office 

12 of New Reactors as that office cooperates, collaborates 

13 with Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and working 

14 together to accomplish the highest priorities of the 

15 Agency with respect to implementation of the Fukushima 

16 enhancements. 

17 Those are two examples, but I think it's 

18 inculcating that mind set and reinforcing that set of 

19 expectations, and all the way down the line if we find 

20 ourselves in a situation where it's I'm putting my 

21 interests above the Agency's needs, that's a warning 

22 sign that we've got to respond to. 

23 COMMISSIONER BARAN: And on the broader 

24 implementation question, I want to make sure I 

25 understand what the proposal is there. Is the idea that 

26 implementation would occur only through line 
 24 

1 management, or would there be --- is there a proposal 

2 for like a dedicated implementation committee for any 

3 of this work? I know that was one of the suggestions that 

4 outside folks had, and I just wanted to get your thoughts 

5 on that. 

6 MR. SATORIUS: It's the --- we don't really 

7 see a committee so much as we see the line organization 

8 that will be tasked with the deliverables. And if you 

9 look at Appendix A where it walks through the various 

10 recommendations and facets, they've got a timeline. 

11 When are we going to start? When are we going to know 

12 when we're there? How long do we see it's going to take? 

13 So, we lay back those, we see more or a line type of a 

14 --- but still that being said, there's got to be an 

15 overall --- 

16 MR. WEBER: And it's --- 

17 MR. SATORIUS: And I see it sitting at this 

18 table. 

19 MR. WEBER: And just to build on that, it's 

20 really cross-cutting so, for example, during our 

21 Strategic Workforce Planning it's identifying where are 

22 those future opportunities so that our Staff who is on 

23 board today who aspire to continue to grow and develop, 

24 and broaden their programmatic experience have that 

25 reinforcement, if you will, that it's okay and 

26 encouraged actually to broaden your set of skills so 
 25 

1 that you can better contribute across the organization. 

2 We've been doing that in our Leadership Development 

3 programs, but less so in the technical programs. 

4 Another example is in the quarterly 

5 performance reviews, and how we can work together to 

6 tackle Agency-level needs rather than continue to focus 

7 more on a business line by business line focus. 

8 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thank you. I wish I 

9 could go on for another hour, but I should let the 

10 Chairman ask questions, too. Thanks. 

11 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Thanks, Commissioner. 

12 I'll pull back. Thanks, Commissioner. 

13 One of the observations I have in some of 

14 the discussion is that whether we would be at the size 

15 suggested in the report or not, that there might be merit 

16 to some of the things that are done here. And, of course, 

17 Mike alluded to some experiences in the past. I also went 

18 --- lived through the re-baselining effort in the 

19 1990s, but some of the --- a number of these things go 

20 to what I would call how the Agency carries out its work, 

21 and whether it's become, one word we say, more baroque, 

22 or complicated over the years sometimes. I understand 

23 the reason for that, as is my word, I wish I were in the 

24 '50s and look at those Federal Register Notices that had 

25 about a five-paragraph justification and then a rule, 

26 but we know that won't work in today's environment, and 
 26 

1 we have other requirements. We have NEPA, we have Reg 

2 Flex, we have --- I can --- somebody else can --- I'll 

3 make the General Counsel go down through the list and 

4 tell me all the additional requirements since I don't 

5 remember them. 

6 So, I appreciate, as Maureen said, that 

7 there's a level of complexity that's introduced, and 

8 those are for a good reason. It's because in some cases 

9 the perception that agencies, at least in the eye of the 

10 Congress, that agencies have failed to carry out their 

11 mandates in an effective way. So, that's always I think 

12 a cautionary tone, or a cautionary note for us. 

13 I guess my first question might be, though, 

14 is when we --- again, looking at some of the 

15 recommendations that are there which seem to me have 

16 merit in themselves even if we projected ourselves as 

17 the current work, or the workload projected in 2006 or 

18 '7 with respect to new reactors and other activities, 

19 to what extent is the number that you've provided in the 

20 report really a reflection primarily of the reduction 

21 in workload, as opposed to efficiencies that might be 

22 gained? 

23 Again, perhaps at a rough level, can you 

24 tell me how you would allocate, if that's the right word, 

25 or how you would parse what you're seeing as the future, 

26 and what's attributable to the reduction in work, and 
 27 

1 what might be attributable to efficiencies or better 

2 ways of doing our work? 

3 MS. WYLIE: So, I can't really give you a 

4 complete approximation, but certainly if you look at the 

5 recommendations associated with the plan to merge NRO 

6 and NRR, those types of activities will lead you to 

7 explicit savings. But from our perspective, part of the 

8 desire was to create an estimate that was real enough 

9 to pressurize the process. So, when you go through a 

10 re-baselining and you don't have a resource constraint 

11 associated with it, you could end up with greater 

12 requirements rather than streamlining your needs based 

13 on a very comprehensive reading of underlying law and 

14 regulation. So, rather than try to estimate at this very 

15 early stage a detailed number on each of our 

16 recommendations, we have some things that will give us 

17 subjective savings. You can see it. A recommendation to 

18 expand centralization to the regions as related to their 

19 corporate support. But in other areas we're trying to 

20 essentially energize the process to get people to 

21 actually seek savings. 

22 MR. WEBER: So, I would add there's not an 

23 explicit coupling between the strategies and that 3,400 

24 or the $900 million. I think the real drivers for the 

25 strategies are the recognition that we do need to 

26 operate more efficiently, and so by setting a target for 
 28 

1 ourselves, in part a reflection of the workload, but 

2 also as Maureen has pointed out, as a driver for us to 

3 push because sometimes the things that we do, we do 

4 because we can do them, and that's not the right driver. 

5 We really need to be focused on the outcomes that we seek 

6 to achieve, and then right-size those processes so we 

7 can do that in a timely, and in an efficient way. 

8 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Okay. In the 

9 recommendation, I guess it's 1-2, talking about 

10 enhancing employee agility, what I'm trying to 

11 understand is what the barriers are to that now, I 

12 understand, for example, that you're hired under a 

13 particular position description and you don't reassign 

14 as a seismic reviewer, someone who basically is a 

15 biologist unless they have that type of capability. I 

16 understand those types of things, but I'm trying to 

17 understand, again from my own experience at the Agency, 

18 what are the barriers to that agility that sort of call 

19 out this as a recommendation? 

20 MR. WEBER: Some of those barriers are 

21 self-inflicted with people coming in saying I want to 

22 be the world's expert on X, and we need world experts 

23 on X. But we don't need too many world experts on X. 

24 Right? So, we've had success with this over the years 

25 where people have come in, they've sought early advice 

26 from their supervisor and their line organization, and 
 29 

1 from the Office of Human Capital, and identified that 

2 while they may today be well qualified in a particular 

3 area, as they aspire to move forward in their careers 

4 they will have more opportunity should they broaden 

5 themselves not just from a regulatory program 

6 perspective, but also from perhaps a technical 

7 perspective, picking up additional breadth of 

8 expertise. Not everybody, but some people, and so the 

9 more people we have that are cross-trained like that, 

10 the more fungible, the more agile, more adaptive the 

11 workforce becomes. 

12 And this isn't just an NRC thought, this is 

13 a thought that's being worked in the Office of Personnel 

14 Management as they try to help agencies develop more 

15 agile workforces. 

16 MR. SATORIUS: Just to add to that, an 

17 aspect of that is also involves recessions in the 

18 economy. We find it more difficult to entice people to 

19 move out and take jobs in the regions to where they 

20 become what I think is the keystone of agility and 

21 resilience. Those jobs out there you have to be able to 

22 do, especially Resident Inspector jobs. It requires a 

23 lot of the type of agility and the flexibility that we're 

24 looking for, so the challenges that we have in getting 

25 people to migrate back and forth from headquarters to 

26 the regions, and bring in some of that diversity of 
 30 

1 experience that you get when you're able to do different 

2 jobs. 

3 MS. FITCH: If I can add, we're also trying 

4 to look at how we train people to go from position to 

5 position, for lack of a better word. Being trained in 

6 one area and going through all the qualifications and 

7 then going through a whole series to be trained in a 

8 second one isn't the most efficient way. You could look 

9 and see where there's a lot of overlap and then just 

10 supplement the needed training that's needed so that you 

11 can be qualified in multiple disciplines. 

12 MR. WEBER: That would be an example of an 

13 institutional barrier, and I think we've heard it from 

14 the Commission when project managers transfer from one 

15 office to another office, how much requalification is 

16 really warranted and necessary, or if you are a 

17 qualified project manager in one program, maybe you 

18 ought to start as a qualified project manager in a 

19 different program. Gain the additional insights you 

20 need, but don't go back to zero in terms of resetting 

21 your clock. 

22 CHAIRMAN BURNS: One of the major people 

23 strategies is to develop a strategic workforce plan. How 

24 is that different from --- or new from what's done 

25 today, and different from the workforce planning tool 

26 that was adopted when I was here in an earlier life, I 
 31 

1 think around 2009. Are we starting from scratch, are we 

2 tweaking the workforce planning tool? What are we trying 

3 to do there? 

4 MR. WEBER: I could start, and maybe Miriam 

5 wants to add to this. I think she's here, or Jody. But 

6 the Office, the Chief Human Capital Officer sunset our 

7 use of the strategic workforce planning tool some years 

8 ago because they recognized it wasn't delivering what 

9 was needed for the cost that it was requiring of the 

10 Agency, and since has been looking at alternative tools 

11 that would be useful, and would support our needs as an 

12 Agency. 

13 Today we really rely on supervisory 

14 knowledge of the capabilities and strengths, and word 

15 of mouth from person to person in terms of who's 

16 available to serve what need should that need arise. 

17 We're trying to do this more strategically, so we look 

18 at the longer term staffing needs of the Agency and 

19 identify okay, well, who's in the pipeline to fill those 

20 needs? That's not being done as systematically today as 

21 it should be, and as recommended in our strategy. So, 

22 it's intended to look at the workforce, look at where 

23 we're going to evolve to, or at least where we project 

24 we'll evolve to, and then insure that we're taking 

25 concrete action today and in the interim to make certain 

26 we have the workforce we need in the future. Miriam, do 
 32 

1 you want to add to that? Our Chief Human Capital Officer, 

2 Miriam Cohen. 

3 MS. COHEN: Thanks. So, Mike has basically 

4 the story down. I think the finer point I would just add 

5 to what he mentioned is that this is actually not that 

6 complicated. And when I look at sort of where the growth 

7 came in, especially new reactors. A lot of those people 

8 came from NRR. If those people are still here, many of 

9 those people have a lot of those same skill sets. So, 

10 I think a very practical approach to the potential, what 

11 I will call in this room overages that we see based on 

12 the workforce, changes in competencies that are 

13 required, is going to be to have some frank discussions 

14 between the people that run those two offices along with 

15 my office to figure out what we can do to make sure that 

16 the new positions that might be available in NRR can be 

17 filled by people that might be in new reactors. 

18 And, again, I believe that many of these 

19 people came from NRR. They should have many of the same 

20 fungible skill sets. And I think one of the things that 

21 we can be doing now, and we don't need a fancy tool like 

22 a lot of these other agencies that have 20-30,000 

23 employees. We just need to identify the areas where we 

24 can see the overages now and say okay, what could we do 

25 to start making sure that they do actually have the skill 

26 sets needed so that they can fill those positions in 
 33 

1 those other offices when that becomes available. So, I 

2 think we can do some of those things very quickly and 

3 easily. Some of the things that we can do also include 

4 maybe having like a database of skill sets where people 

5 can quickly put in what they can do, and validate it in 

6 a way that's not painful like it was on the old system 

7 that you remember that had Op Plan measures associated 

8 with it. But I think it's a very, very actual simple 

9 problem, and our approach is going to be to keep it 

10 simple and not over-complicate the situation. 

11 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Okay. Thanks, Miriam. 

12 Commissioner Svinicki. 

13 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: I'm almost afraid 

14 to turn this on because someone is having fun with us 

15 on the microphones and turning like the speakers up and 

16 down, but I think mine is working okay. 

17 Well, I want to add my thanks to the hard 

18 effort of all of the NRC Staff who participated. I spent 

19 a lot of time with this document, with your work product. 

20 I learned about the fact that you ambush people in the 

21 lobbies to get feedback and input. 

22 The Agency has supporters, we have critics, 

23 and I think, though, in fairness, we've released this 

24 publicly today so we can all expect the trade press and 

25 others to find some interesting thing that we 

26 overlooked, that taken out of context will make for the 
 34 

1 interesting trade press of tomorrow. But if we take the 

2 work, the effort, this work product as a whole, I think 

3 you could criticize us on a number of things. You could 

4 say it's too ambitious, it's not ambitious enough, but 

5 I think the thing that you can't fairly criticize is our 

6 sincerity. 

7 I just --- I was really struck by --- I 

8 don't know a lot of organizations of this size that I 

9 think could demonstrate the measure of honesty that's 

10 measured here. Human beings by their nature, it's very 

11 difficult to challenge our own thinking to be truly and 

12 sincerely critical of ourselves, but I think that this 

13 is very refreshing in terms of an Agency self-analysis. 

14 Now, we did get the National Academy of 

15 Public Administration to do a review of the methodology 

16 and approach, and as I was spending more time with this 

17 yesterday I thought the ghost of former Chairman, 

18 Allison Macfarlane was hovering in the background. She 

19 kept warning us about some of the analytical techniques, 

20 and getting the cohorts of people to be surveyed, the 

21 survey instruments. And NAPA talked about some of that, 

22 so in all fairness I think it's very useful feedback for 

23 us if we move forward on trying to use some of these same 

24 instruments to implement some of these actions, or to 

25 design the ways that we might go about doing this. 

26 So, I think what will happen now is the 
 35 

1 Commission will analyze this. We will hear from external 

2 critics about what they think is not ambitious enough, 

3 and then we may hear internally from people who maybe 

4 don't --- and I have to admit it wasn't always apparent 

5 to me as I read this, when you went from problem to saying 

6 well, we need to do this. We need more mobile computing 

7 platforms. I thought the how you got, what the necessity 

8 and need was between the one and the other wasn't always 

9 documented here. That doesn't mean that you didn't have 

10 it, wasn't always as clear to me. 

11 The culture piece is very interesting. 

12 Commissioner Baran was talking about that a little bit. 

13 We had an interesting panel of luminaries here a month 

14 or so ago to talk about foreign ownership control and 

15 domination, and they talked about the fact that if you 

16 want to start framing an issue through a different 

17 prism, what you have to do is really convince people that 

18 there is a need to do that, and then get that change in 

19 thinking moving forward. 

20 Very interesting to me that when you looked 

21 at our organization, looked at tendency for very 

22 conservative decision making, but then said truly 

23 high-performing organizations have innovation and a 

24 tolerance for some level of --- of accepting some level 

25 of risk. So, I think that the changes that you want to 

26 make, this culture piece will ride alongside. It isn't 
 36 

1 in and of itself the implementation, and it isn't the 

2 end state in and of itself, but I think it will be 

3 difficult. To go to Commissioner Ostendorff's point 

4 about it's a lot harder to contract an organization, I 

5 think that if you haven't made the case and you haven't 

6 inspired people to follow your leadership into this 

7 change process, I think that a lot of things become 

8 orders of magnitude more difficult as you move along. 

9 So, I would ask a question about that. You 

10 talked to many hundreds of employees, some much more in 

11 depth than others. So, you're recommending some 

12 changes. If the Commission agrees that some of these 

13 changes are needed, if I'm riding the elevator three 

14 months from now and there's a random collection of NRC 

15 employees in there, how many of them believe that change 

16 is needed? Am I going to find that there is a general 

17 view, or do we have yet to communicate that message that 

18 change is needed, that change is coming, and that it 

19 really is needed? 

20 MR. SATORIUS: I think Mike and his team 

21 when they first talked to the senior leaders in 

22 November, that was one of the biggest focuses, that not 

23 why change, but we have to change. And he also --- we 

24 sent the senior leaders back to their offices, and 

25 regions, and business lines with the tasking to --- you 

26 need to talk to your leadership teams and --- 
 37 

1 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: But do you think 

2 the message is getting through, though? When I think 

3 about, reflect on my time at NRC and think about, you 

4 know, where we were, where we are now, and where we're 

5 going, I think a really important thing to remember so 

6 that you don't become defensive about making change, is 

7 that change isn't about whether you were doing some 

8 things really well, or some things less well, and maybe 

9 some things you were kind of on auto pilot. It's about 

10 the need to do some things differently. And what's 

11 interesting and spread throughout your report is the 

12 fact that we build a lot of our resourcing, 

13 organization, and budgets based on these estimates and 

14 forecasts we get from the regulated community outside 

15 the building, and yet somehow over time we find that 

16 we've become really less able to adjust. So, on the one 

17 hand we build everything around these external forces 

18 that we don't have any control over, and you would think 

19 that would lead us to be a high-performing organization 

20 when it comes to agility and nimbleness, and yet we find 

21 that we're not as agile and nimble as we need to be. 

22 That was the other thing I didn't clearly 

23 find documented in your report. It doesn't mean you 

24 didn't talk about it, but how do we find ourselves, you 

25 know, where we are? Kind of a root cause analysis, and 

26 I know on some of the budgeting and finance pieces, 
 38 

1 Maureen, you tried to get there. You looked a lot at 

2 overhead. And while indicating there's no standard 

3 government approach, we also conclude in the report that 

4 NRC's overhead is, we say artificially elevated, so if 

5 there's no standard and yet we feel that we've backed 

6 ourselves into a corner on that, I mean, that's what 

7 makes all of these issues I think really difficult, is 

8 that it's not like oh, there's some standard to go be 

9 adopted and we'll just do that. 

10 And on the point that Commissioner Baran 

11 was asking about of the re-baselining, also 

12 Commissioner Ostendorff talked about this quite a bit, 

13 I think it would be fundamental core knowledge for us 

14 to engage in that re-baselining. I think it's a 

15 tremendous undertaking. It's a lot of work. I'm not sure 

16 by what's reflected here that I even saw an 

17 acknowledgment of how much work and effort it could be 

18 to conduct the re-baselining, but I think in addition 

19 to looking at whether things are required by statute or 

20 Commission direction, the Commission will need to be 

21 part of leading this change, as well. 

22 Not everything --- I'm sorry, my 

23 colleagues are all going to faint dead away here. Not 

24 everything that we think of as a Commission is 

25 necessarily the highest priority, is not necessarily 

26 something that needs to be acted on right now. And I've 
 39 

1 talked to my colleagues about how our annual vote on the 

2 budget and a few other votes that we take on 

3 reprogramming and other things are the only time as 

4 individual decision makers or as a group, a small group 

5 of decision makers we have to look across activities and 

6 say if I want X, then maybe Y is going to take two years 

7 longer to get done. And when we vote on issues and issue 

8 these taskings, we generally look only within the four 

9 corners, so we say oh, do we want that? Well, of course 

10 we want that because we're not looking at any tradeoffs. 

11 So, I would encourage the Commission, and 

12 I've talked to my colleagues about my proclivity to say 

13 no to a number of new ideas. It's not just because I enjoy 

14 it, but it's because I know that in a fixed budget, or 

15 maybe even a tightening budget arena something else 

16 won't get done. And once you've been here for, you know, 

17 well, I'll be starting my eighth year next month, then 

18 I know that a lot of those old taskings are things that 

19 I thought were great ideas because I was part of the 

20 Commission direction that said go off and do that. So, 

21 I don't have maybe such an arm's length connection to 

22 some of the standing Commission direction that you have, 

23 so we need to be a part of that. 

24 And on budget formulation, I don't know if 

25 Maureen --- if she's smart she won't wade into this and 

26 say anything, but speaking of old, old things, the whole 
 40 

1 time that I've been here, when I first came, Chairman 

2 Kline asked me if I'd be willing to take a fresh eyes 

3 look and lead a small staff team looking at the budget 

4 formulation process. So, we looked closely at 

5 Management Directive 4.7, at the management directive 

6 structure, and I was told at the time, although I've not 

7 verified it lately, that an Inspector General finding 

8 related to Management Directive 4.7 and the lack of 

9 documents which enshrine our budgeting process is one 

10 of the oldest, unclosed IG findings. Now, the Agency 

11 doesn't dispute the finding, we just have never been 

12 able to produce the things to close it. So, I know that 

13 this doesn't seem like the greatest moment in this 

14 dynamic moment to finally have perhaps some directives 

15 and instructions that would enshrine hey, how do we 

16 create a budget, and how do we implement a budget? But 

17 I think maybe it's needed now more than ever, and if you 

18 walked into something, Maureen, that seemed kind of 

19 murky to you, people almost a decade ago already 

20 identified that it was murky. 

21 MS. WYLIE: It doesn't make me feel any 

22 better that it's still murky, I have to say. We do have 

23 a plan to update all of the 4.XX Management Directives. 

24 We had a formulation draft in work. We needed to get it 

25 realigned with our strategic planning and performance 

26 process, so they're all on my desk in some form or 
 41 

1 fashion with the exception of strategic planning. We're 

2 working on that together with the EDO, so I hear you 

3 about documentation. It's close to my heart. 

4 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: Well, and for me, 

5 so when I read in here, you know, a finding or outcome 

6 that our budget formulation process needs to be 

7 improved, and you've probably encountered this in your 

8 own OCFO. People who say well, you know, yes, of course, 

9 that's a longstanding thing. So, I'm sure there was a 

10 lot of, you know, head nodding and people who viewed Aim 

11 as an opportunity to maybe get these issues in front of 

12 us again. That doesn't make them any less meritorious, 

13 though. It's just things we know that we need to work 

14 on. But, again, we just know, I think, that we can do 

15 some things better. And I hope that if the Commission 

16 embraces some, or all, or many of these recommendations, 

17 that I would hope that the Agency Staff as a whole 

18 wouldn't view that as some kind of repudiation. It 

19 doesn't mean --- and, again, I think that NRC often 

20 acknowledges that this is a very high-performing 

21 organization. We wouldn't have the kind of reputation 

22 as a regulator around the world that we have if that 

23 weren't true, but everyone can improve and do things 

24 better. And I think we know that, so as we look at 

25 licensing processes, I hope we'll look at things about 

26 why does a design certification, you know, take 10 years 
 42 

1 when Part 52 was going to fix all that. So, I think we 

2 do need maybe to do a little bit more looking. 

3 As you move on individual recommendations, 

4 I hope you'll be doing a little bit of root cause, so 

5 that way you'll be testing the voracity of your fixes. 

6 And I think that that will be a more --- I know you didn't 

7 have time to do all that now as you propose these things, 

8 but I hope that would be an element of implementing 

9 anything that the Commission approves. And with that I 

10 think I'll conclude. Thank you. 

11 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Anything else? Just for a 

12 matter of clarification for our audience, we do expect 

13 another --- you might just explain what we do expect 

14 from the National Academy for Public Administration. 

15 We're getting an additional report I think at the end 

16 of March, but just so our audience who may be listening 

17 understands what that is, could you explain that? 

18 MS. FITCH: Yes. We've asked NAPA to review 

19 the actual report and all of the appendices and give us 

20 some reaction and some recommendations of how we could 

21 better implement some of the strategies that we have 

22 planned. 

23 We've also asked them to look at what our 

24 challenges are in our operations. So, very specifically 

25 to get at the heart of, you know, what's in our way? 

26 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Okay, thank you. 
 43 

1 MS. WYLIE: So, we're also embarked upon a 

2 separate contract with EY to look specifically at our 

3 corporate support and overhead. 

4 (Off microphone comment.) 

5 MS. WYLIE: Well, they're EY now. Everybody 

6 is known by their initials, yes. It's easier to text, 

7 I think. So that we can get at the specific Congressional 

8 requirement to look at our overhead definition and our 

9 --- for opportunities to reduce our corporate support. 

10 So, we have our entrance meeting with them today, I 

11 think. We were affected by the snow day. And that will 

12 marry up with the work that NAPA will be doing for us 

13 for the Congressionally required report. 

14 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Okay, thank you. Anything 

15 else? I'd like to invite Sheryl Burrows, the President 

16 of the NRC Chapter of the National Treasury Employees 

17 Union. Sheryl. 

18 MS.BURROWS: Chairman Burns, 

19 Commissioners, Mr. Satorius, executives, managers, and 

20 fellow bargaining unit employees, I'm Sheryl Burrows, 

21 President of NTEU Chapter 208, the exclusive 

22 representative of our bargaining unit employees at 

23 headquarters, the regions, and the technical training 

24 center. Joined by several of our union officers and 

25 stewards, I am here to comment on Project Aim 2020. 

26 We are heartened that Project Aim team 
 44 

1 reached outside the Agency to identify best practices 

2 and recommendations. However, we do not believe that the 

3 Agency has reached out to the union or our employees to 

4 the same degree. The Project Aim team briefed union 

5 officers a few times about what it has been doing. This 

6 included setting up focus groups which employees could 

7 participate in in order to provide raw data to the team 

8 on futuristic scenarios. These interactions, however, 

9 do not equate to an exchange of ideas on the team's 

10 proposals, or partnering with NTEU. 

11 Please consider my comments in light of the 

12 letter I sent to you last month. In it, I addressed 

13 ongoing concerns related to the implementation of TABS, 

14 the Agency-wide initiative, Transforming Assets into 

15 Business Solutions that was conceived to improve 

16 efficiencies and effectiveness of many support 

17 functions across the NRC. 

18 Many of the lessons learned in the EDO's 

19 Report to the Commission are attributed to the concerns 

20 that NTEU repeatedly brought to management's attention 

21 throughout the implementation of TABS based on our 

22 observations and analysis, as well as input from our 

23 employees. NTEU recognizes that change is inevitable. 

24 We also recognize that change is painful even when 

25 ultimately it makes things better. 

26 NTEU was given access to the Project Aim 
 45 

1 report last week prior to our last briefing. This report 

2 contains a tremendous amount of information, a lot which 

3 focuses on change. We do know that this document is now 

4 publicly available, and we applaud the Agency's 

5 openness and transparency. 

6 In the interest of time, my comments today 

7 will consider two of the recommendations contained in 

8 Appendix A, people and planning. First I will address 

9 the people recommendation. Engagement is critical to 

10 the success of this initiative. To that end, the GALLUP 

11 organization has conducted polling for more than 30 

12 years on this issue. The number one aspect of engagement 

13 is knowing what is expected. The White House, OMB, and 

14 OPM recently issued a memorandum directed at employee 

15 engagement. 

16 To build engagement, this memorandum 

17 points out the importance of clarity with respect to 

18 roles and responsibilities. NRC FEVS results indicate 

19 that there are several opportunities for the NRC to 

20 improve in this area, as well. 

21 Training is another key aspect of the 

22 people recommendation. The FEVS result showed that 

23 there's been a declining trend regarding the questions 

24 addressing adequate training for the job. Additionally 

25 troubling is that there's a marked difference between 

26 the responses of senior leaders and non-supervisory 
 46 

1 staff. 

2 We suggest that in order to effectively 

3 lead the Staff, our managers need to focus more on the 

4 areas where there's a large disparity, and not simply 

5 explain them away by noting that there will always be 

6 differences in the way that management and staff view 

7 any given area. 

8 Now I will address the planning 

9 recommendation. In too many cases, planning at the NRC 

10 seems to be little more than the identification of a task 

11 and a due date, and the expectation that Staff will do 

12 whatever it takes to meet the due date. A bargaining unit 

13 employee commented to us that in response to his 

14 question about how to prioritize his work, his Senior 

15 Executive Service Division Director answered, "It's all 

16 priority." 

17 Last September at the All Employees 

18 Commission meeting, a project manager asked about his 

19 excessive workload. A Commissioner stated that senior 

20 executives were taking notes. One Commissioner said, 

21 "It certainly sounds like this merits a thoughtful reply 

22 by our front row leadership here." Based on the nodding 

23 heads in the audience, the question resonated with Staff 

24 across the Agency. While the specifics may vary from 

25 business line to business line, many employees could 

26 identify with that project manager. 
 47 

1 To this date, the union is not aware of any 

2 communications with the Staff at large regarding this 

3 question. This is a widespread issue presented to 

4 Commissioners, yet employees remain wondering where is 

5 the thoughtful reply by our front row leaders? This is 

6 particularly important when we read in the Project Aim 

7 Report not just about add and shed, but add, shed, and 

8 squeeze? 

9 I will close with the proverb that says, "A 

10 shipwreck on the beach is a lighthouse to the sea." Many 

11 think of TABS as the shipwreck. Let's learn from it. 

12 Project Aim is potentially so much bigger. If the NRC 

13 hopes to have more engaged employees in the changing 

14 environment that lies ahead, these employees must 

15 believe that they are part of an important change. They 

16 must believe that their leaders value their service and 

17 expertise. They must believe that they have a voice, and 

18 that management respects and will listen to their 

19 comments and concerns through NTEU or as individual 

20 employees as this initiative is rolled out. 

21 To encourage employees to be more engaged 

22 the Agency must provide better clarity of roles and 

23 responsibilities. It must provide appropriate 

24 training. It must provide more transparent 

25 communication which includes better two-way 

26 communication and effective partnership with the union. 
 48 

1 The Agency's values should not be revised 

2 to support new recommendations, as suggested in the 

3 Project Aim Report. Instead, Project Aim must be 

4 implemented to underscore the Agency's values. Our 

5 safety mission requires it, the American people expect 

6 it, and in order to develop and sustain a more engaged 

7 workforce, our employees deserve nothing less. Thank 

8 you. 

9 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Thank you, Sheryl. I 

10 appreciate, as well as my colleagues have, the 

11 thoughtful presentation from the Staff today and the 

12 comments that Sheryl Burrows just made on behalf of the 

13 union. 

14 This meeting, as I said, was a first 

15 opportunity to discuss the people, planning, and 

16 process recommendations of the Project Aim 2020 Report. 

17 And in the coming weeks, the Commission will consider 

18 the report, and as I indicated I hope engage in a 

19 dialogue in terms of moving the Agency forward in the 

20 context of the recommendations of the report. 

21 I'm very proud of the Staff and the work 

22 that the Agency does to insure public health and safety. 

23 I want to be clear that in determining the size and 

24 organizational structure of the Agency in the future we 

25 won't take any steps that compromise our mission and our 

26 ability to achieve our strategic objectives of 
 49 

1 protecting the public health and safety, and the common 

2 defense and security. 

3 I strongly encourage the management team to 

4 engage the Staff on a regular basis on the changes that 

5 are envisioned, and provide opportunities to contribute 

6 to the implementation of the strategies. With that, I 

7 think we are adjourned. 

8 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 

9 off the record at 2:40 p.m.) 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20