1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

+ + + + + 

BRIEFING ON PROJECT AIM 2020 

+ + + + + 

THURSDAY, 

DECEMBER 17, 2015 

+ + + + + 

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 

+ + + + + 

The Commission convened in the 

Commissioners Hearing Room at the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, at 9:30 a.m., Stephen G. Burns, Chairman, 

presiding. 

COMMISSION MEMBERS: 

STEPHEN G. BURNS, Chairman 

KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, Commissioner 

WILLIAM G. OSTENDORFF, Commissioner 

JEFF BARAN, Commissioner 

ALSO PRESENT: 

ANNETTE VIETTI-COOK, Secretary of the 

Commission 

MARGARET DOANE, General Counsel 

NRC STAFF: 

DARREN ASH, Chief Information Officer 

FRED BROWN, Assistant for Operations, Office of the 
 2 

Executive Director for Operations 

MIRIAM COHEN, Chief Human Capital Officer 

MICHELE EVANS, Deputy Director for Reactor Safety 

Programs and Corporate Support, Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

VICTOR McCREE, Executive Director for Operations 

SCOTT MOORE, Acting Deputy Director, Office of 

Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards 

DAVID SKEEN, Deputy Director, Office of 

International Programs, and Executive Champion 

for Centers of Excellence 

JENNIFER UHLE, Director, Office of New Reactors 

MAUREEN WYLIE, Chief Financial Officer 

 
 3 

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

2 (9:31 a.m.) 

3 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Well, good morning, 

4 everyone, and we are here to have a briefing on progress 

5 on Project Aim 2020. 

6 Before we begin, I do want to acknowledge 

7 it was publically released that two of our executives 

8 received the Presidential Meritorious Executive Award, 

9 Scott Flanders and Kriss Kennedy. So I want to extend 

10 our congratulations to them for the fine work that they 

11 have done over the years for the agency. 

12 And with that, I am going to welcome the 

13 staff and those here in the audience, and who may be 

14 listening in on today's briefing. The purpose of 

15 today's meeting is to discuss the project on -- 

16 progress, excuse me, on Project Aim implementation. As 

17 many of you know, the implementation of Project Aim is 

18 intended to help the agency to better position itself 

19 with respect to the challenges in the coming years. 

20 And we look forward to hearing from staff 

21 on the implementation that is going on and, with that, 

22 I would ask my colleagues if they have any other remarks 

23 before we open. If not, I will turn it over to Vic 

24 McCree, the Executive Director for Operations. 
 4 

1 MR. McCREE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, 

2 Commissioners. Maureen and I and some of the members 

3 of the Project Aim team are pleased to be able to speak 

4 with you this morning about this period of change that 

5 we are going through and the opportunity that it 

6 presents to us. While our safety and security mission 

7 remains paramount, we are actively engaged in our 

8 efforts to implement the Commission's direction in the 

9 June 2015 Staff Requirements Memo on Project Aim 2020. 

10 Specifically, we are implementing the plan 

11 laid out in August and making progress towards the goal 

12 of becoming a more agile agency and one that is sized 

13 for current and future levels of work. All the Project 

14 Aim tasks have involved engagement and input from staff 

15 and have demonstrated close collaboration and 

16 coordination across organizational lines. 

17 There have been everyday examples of living 

18 the NRC values as we fulfill the agency's mission. And, 

19 of course, this is one of our priority focus areas, and 

20 it is encouraging to see our values reflected in the way 

21 we are engaging one another on a number of very 

22 significant issues. 

23 Our next major deliverable to the 

24 Commission will be our rebaselining recommendations on 

25 work that can be shed, deprioritized, or done with fewer 

26 resources. We have identified the initial proposed 

27 changes based on the common prioritization process. 
 5 

1 We now plan to send you two Commission 

2 papers. The first paper will be delivered in late 

3 January, and it will be a comprehensive list of the 

4 activities that can be shed or deferred. If adopted, 

5 some of these decisions might be implementable during 

6 the remainder of this fiscal year, fiscal year 2016. 

7 The second paper to be delivered in early March will 

8 include known significant workload changes through 

9 fiscal '20 and longer term efficiencies or scope 

10 changes. 

11 Next slide, please. 

12 We will start today's meeting by discussing 

13 the progress on Project Aim Implementation. Fred 

14 Brown, to my left, will describe the common 

15 prioritization process as well as an update on the 

16 rebaselining of work of the agency. 

17 Next, Darren Ash, to my right, will provide 

18 an update on our overhead consolidation efforts, and 

19 Dave Skeen will discuss the recommendations provided to 

20 you in a recent SECY paper on potential Centers of 

21 Expertise. 

22 Michele Evans will then describe how the 

23 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is implementing 

24 some of the Project Aim strategies and incorporating the 

25 additional direction we received from you in the Staff 

26 Requirements Memorandum for Project Aim. Miriam Cohen 

27 will provide an update on human capital and workforce 
 6 

1 planning. And, finally, Maureen Wylie will highlight 

2 some upcoming milestones between now and the end of May 

3 of 2016. 

4 I will now turn it over to Fred Brown. 

5 MR. BROWN: Thank you, Vic. Good morning. 

6 So as I start, I will remind the Commission, as you well 

7 know, common prioritization is about improving the 

8 agility of the agency; improving our ability, if we get 

9 unexpected work, to determine what resources should be 

10 moved to that work and what the impacts of doing that 

11 would be. And rebaselining is slightly different. 

12 Rebaselining is associated with sizing the agency for 

13 our workload. 

14 But the two go together, because they are 

15 both based on what work we have currently that needs to 

16 be done. So, on my first slide, I will talk a little 

17 bit about the common prioritization process. 

18 We started this process by asking 

19 ourselves, what work do we do? Why do we do it? And 

20 how can we do it more efficiently? And the first thing 

21 we did is went out to internal stakeholders and external 

22 stakeholders, as we discussed in September with you, and 

23 asked for suggestions on things that could be done 

24 better. 

25 All those suggestions were funneled to the 

26 offices that actually do the agency's work, and the 

27 subject matter experts and responsible line managers in 
 7 

1 each of those offices built on those suggestions and 

2 their knowledge to prioritize the work within their 

3 local unit, and then, at a business level, assemble all 

4 of that work on a business line or a corporate product 

5 line basis. 

6 Once that was done and the responsible 

7 office directors believed that it had been done with a 

8 high quality and effectiveness, the lists were brought 

9 together by a group of deputy office directors from 

10 across the agency with broad participation who merged 

11 those individual lists into a true common 

12 prioritization list of all of the agency's work. And 

13 in my next two slides I will describe the criteria that 

14 we used for doing that. 

15 So once we had that baseline of our existing 

16 workload, we went back to the existing agency procedure 

17 for adding, shedding, and deferring work when we get 

18 emergent needs, and we revised it so it now utilizes the 

19 same criteria that the common prioritization list is 

20 based on. So we now have a tool that, as emergent work 

21 comes in, we can make quick and effective decisions 

22 about what to work on based on its priority, and what 

23 work won't be done as a result of the new work. 

24 I am very confident in the products that we 

25 have developed, we completed in early December. And 

26 having said that, I think that they will continue to 

27 evolve. We have tabletops scheduled in the 
 8 

1 January/February timeframe to make sure that we can 

2 optimize around the common prioritization aspects of 

3 the work, because, as I mentioned, we were also looking 

4 at the end product rebaselining as we created the common 

5 prioritization list. 

6 So if we move to the next slide, I will talk 

7 a little bit about the criteria that we used to bin and 

8 rank the work of the agency across business lines and 

9 product lines. We concluded that the most important 

10 thing that we can do is to respond to current safety or 

11 security issues facing the agency, including emergency 

12 response. So we put all of those activities into the 

13 highest priority bin. And then, below that, you know, 

14 we went back to our core mission of rulemaking, of 

15 licensing, and inspection for existing facilities or 

16 facilities that will be operating in the near term. And 

17 when I say "facilities," I mean material licensees and 

18 our entire spectrum of licensees. 

19 We said those are our second highest bin by 

20 priority, followed closely behind by similar work for 

21 facilities or licensees that aren't going to be 

22 operating in the immediate future. And then, below 

23 that, in our fourth bin, we put all of the activities 

24 that are necessary to support, either directly or 

25 indirectly, the work in the first three bins. 

26 Just two things to say about the binning 

27 process, there are kind of indirect or support functions 
 9 

1 that when you look at them they are integral and required 

2 for work in the first three bins. So, for instance, an 

3 electronic IT system that is used for rulemaking, 

4 specifically indirectly, we bin that with the 

5 associated rulemaking. Similar concept with 

6 facilities. 

7 And then the final thing I would say is just 

8 because work is identified in the fourth bin doesn't 

9 mean that it is important. Personally, my favorite 

10 example is payroll. If we don't have payroll, the 

11 rulemaking, licensing, and inspection activities will 

12 grind to a halt. So things in the fourth bin are 

13 important, but relative to our core mission they are 

14 below those core activities. 

15 So if I could move to the next slide, 

16 please. 

17 So I have kind of tied the work of the agency 

18 to the four bins, but it doesn't really help us look for 

19 efficiency. So the next thing we asked is, well, why 

20 do we do this work? And how do we do it? And are there 

21 more efficient ways to do it? And in doing that, we 

22 ranked each block of work into essentially three 

23 rankings. 

24 What component of the work is required to 

25 meet legal minimums in the applicable area? And we call 

26 that the alpha rank of that work that needs to be done. 

27 Then, we asked, okay, well, there are many things that 
 10 

1 we do that aren't legally required, but they are tied 

2 to the principles of good regulation -- clarity, 

3 reliability, openness, independent of our function. 

4 And those are prudent to do and appropriate to do, and 

5 we don't want to lose those things. So we call those 

6 the bravo rank within each of the activities within each 

7 bin. 

8 And then, if there was residual work that 

9 either because of the way things have changed or because 

10 of a look for more efficient work, streamlining the 

11 work, that didn't fit into A or B, we called that the 

12 charlie rank within each bin, and we took all of the 

13 charlie activities that we found and moved them to the 

14 bottom of the common prioritization list en masse. 

15 So that is common prioritization. We have 

16 a procedure and a tool to use to look at incoming work. 

17 And if we could go to the next slide, we now transition 

18 into the rebaselining product, which Vic mentioned we 

19 now plan to give you two products the end of January and 

20 in March timeframe. 

21 So the January product will reflect things 

22 like these illustrative examples where we found, you 

23 know, essentially a low return on our investment for a 

24 level of activity. A level of activity and a 

25 diminishing return, an activity in an area where time 

26 has changed and we have learned more, and there is an 

27 opportunity for potential savings. 
 11 

1 So I think the first bullet on development 

2 of internal procedures is pretty self-explanatory. In 

3 individual rulemaking, I think that there are many 

4 rulemakings that we have more information now about than 

5 we did when we started the process. And as we looked 

6 at the criteria, we concluded that they would fall into 

7 a lower priority at this time, so we will make 

8 recommendations in that area. 

9 Development of correspondence is an 

10 example. There are things we can do in the near term, 

11 and you will see those in the January paper, and there 

12 are some longer term savings that we can't define what 

13 we would implement yet, and we can't qualify the savings 

14 and efficiency in a quantifiable way. So we will 

15 provide those to you in March with a request to continue 

16 to work on those. 

17 And then, finally, to talk about more of a 

18 program piece within the reactor oversight process. As 

19 you well know, we do continuous assessments of licensee 

20 performance. We have quarterly reviews. We have an 

21 end-of-cycle review. And when we built the ROP, we 

22 carved out some additional management attention at a 

23 mid-cycle review. 

24 The administrative burden of performing 

25 that has grown over the years. There have been repeated 

26 suggestions that we evaluate that. We actually had 

27 four separate staff suggestions in the September 
 12 

1 timeframe to evaluate the return on investment for the 

2 administrative burden in the mid-cycle review for the 

3 ROP, and so that fell to the bottom of the priority list. 

4 With that, I will turn the mic over to 

5 Darren. 

6 MR. ASH: Okay. Thank you, Fred. Good 

7 morning, Chairman, Commissioners. 

8 My remarks this morning focus on staff's 

9 efforts to effect changes in corporate support services 

10 in response to direction from the Congress, the 

11 Commission, and feedback from our own staff. More 

12 specifically, Project Aim, in a separate independent 

13 assessment by Ernst & Young, or EY, gave us clear 

14 direction for the need to change. 

15 The types of changes are far-reaching and, 

16 in many instances, may result in reduced costs or may 

17 improve service delivery or internal processes. 

18 Finally, others will enhance how our staff work can 

19 perform our mission. 

20 The next two slides will address specific 

21 recommendations stemming from Project Aim and the 

22 related EY report, as well as staff's actions. 

23 Next slide, please. 

24 In response to congressional direction, 

25 the NRC contracted for review of the agency's overhead 

26 functions in comparison to peer agencies and what 

27 options might be available to reduce costs. The 
 13 

1 resultant report was issued in April 2015, and we 

2 subsequently completed our assessment of the report and 

3 found merit in all of EY's recommendations. 

4 One of the most prominent recommendations 

5 from EY, and from Project Aim, was about IT security. 

6 There is no doubt that IT security is vitally important 

7 to ensure for the continuity of our mission, the 

8 protection of our assets, and our information. I say 

9 this in light of very significant breaches at OPM, as 

10 well as other agencies and private sector companies. 

11 Clearly, we must ensure that our networking 

12 systems are properly protected and, at the same time, 

13 we need to make sure that our processes and practices 

14 are effective, efficient, and risk-informed. We 

15 conducted research and benchmarked against peer 

16 agencies. The resultant report targeted six areas for 

17 improvement and proposed 15 recommendations. 

18 Based on my assessment of the report, I 

19 tiered the recommendations according to their impact on 

20 efficiencies, savings, and improved cyber security 

21 measures. We have completed four actions already, 

22 resulting in a savings of $350,000, and reducing burden 

23 to our staff. The Tier 1 recommendations will have 

24 implementation plans similar to Project Aim and will be 

25 tracked to completion by the EDO and the CFO. 

26 Similarly, the report recommended 

27 consolidating data centers. Our goal is to reduce down 
 14 

1 to two data centers, a primary and a backup. Progress 

2 has already been made in this area. In the last year, 

3 we have placed two data centers -- Church Street and One 

4 White Flint. Another data center, Two White Flint, 

5 will be closed later this year, later this fiscal year. 

6 The remaining ones in the regions and the technical 

7 training center will be closed in FY17 and 18. 

8 The EY report also made a number of 

9 recommendations concerning possible targets for 

10 centralization. The first recommendation related to 

11 the feasibility of further outsourcing certain 

12 financial processes. OCFO is developing plans to 

13 transfer accounts payable and accounts receivable to a 

14 federal shared service provider. OCFO is also planning 

15 to automate invoicing and license fee billing, which are 

16 currently manual processes. 

17 Once automated, NRC will be positioned to 

18 utilize the Department of Treasury's integrated payment 

19 platform, which is another federal shared service. The 

20 second recommendation emphasized centralization of 

21 standardization, and to those points OCFO will be 

22 centralizing regional budget formulation, as well as 

23 travel authorization and travel fund certification. 

24 These will be completed in FY17. 

25 In addition, OCFO has already completed a 

26 feasibility analysis of allowance and fund 

27 certification centralization. Further work in these 
 15 

1 areas will begin once formulation and travel 

2 centralization is completed. 

3 Finally, new policies and procedures to 

4 strengthen and centralize controls over cost activity 

5 codes, or CACs, are in place -- are now in place, and 

6 new non-fee billable CACs are now in use. Phase 2 of 

7 the CAC management program, which is a reform of does 

8 used for fee billing, is underway and will be completed 

9 by the end of the fiscal year. 

10 Next slide, please. 

11 An important item coming out of Project Aim 

12 work was a focus on process and workflow simplification. 

13 A common complaint is related -- conference room 

14 provisioning. Agency staff need to contact multiple 

15 people to request such things as a conference room, a 

16 projector, a laptop, et cetera. Staff wants a one-stop 

17 shop that can fulfill these requests. 

18 Making the requests for services at one 

19 place for all things, and having effective 

20 behind-the-scenes processes in place to fulfill those 

21 requests, will help improve staff satisfaction. The 

22 initial approach will be in place this spring, and over 

23 time we will expand our service catalog. 

24 Another recommendation from Project Aim 

25 targeted employee productivity. Mobility is integral 

26 to how our employees can work away from the office. We 

27 also know that mobility means more than just email, 
 16 

1 calendar, and contacts. In response to Commission 

2 direction, we are moving off of BlackBerry and have 

3 developed a core set of principles for enhancing mobile 

4 solutions -- provide more staff with better 

5 capabilities at a substantially lower cost. 

6 Our approach includes a blend of Apple and 

7 Android devices, both phones and tablets, and an 

8 increased use of our current "bring your own device," 

9 BYOD, software solution. The BYOD solution enables 

10 access to our intranet, share drives, and SharePoint. 

11 It also supports the use of commercial apps and, over 

12 time, homegrown apps. The transition activities have 

13 already commenced. 

14 As I described, many of the actions were 

15 taken in response to Project Aim and the EY report. I 

16 can't ignore the fact that some of the supporting work 

17 relies on contractors and the need to improve 

18 consistency and quality of contractor tasking and 

19 reporting. One of the critical positions in NRC and, 

20 for that matter, across government, are our contracting 

21 officer's representatives, or CORs. 

22 CORs make sure that NRC requirements under 

23 the terms of the contract or agreement are met, in 

24 quantity, quality, and cost. Numerous changes and new 

25 technology recently implemented in contracting and 

26 financial management has highlighted the need for CORs 

27 to perform their jobs consistently across the agency. 
 17 

1 The Office of Administration, with strong 

2 executive support from the CFO and NRR, led a 

3 cross-agency team to identify standardized sets of 

4 roles and responsibilities for a COR. Admin and their 

5 partner offices will have many of the tools in place by 

6 April 2016. Headquarter offices and regional offices 

7 are also developing implementation plans. Admin, NRR, 

8 and my own office, OCIO, will be the first to implement 

9 the team's recommendations. 

10 As for the near term, the buzz from the 

11 staff is that the work currently going on, with critical 

12 support from our business process improvement team, 

13 will improve processing time and efficiencies. 

14 Finally, EY recommended that NRC increase 

15 the use of cloud computing. Put simply, cloud 

16 computing emphasizes buying services from a third party 

17 instead of providing services on our own. The vendor 

18 would host us, along with other customers. They would 

19 also maintain the equipment, patch and upgrade 

20 software, as well as protect the data. 

21 Acquiring services or capabilities as 

22 opposed to running them on our own onsite is intrinsic 

23 to the recompetition of our current IT managed services 

24 contractor, ITISS, which comes to an end in FY17. 

25 Efforts are underway to develop the new contract 

26 requirements. 

27 With that, I would like to turn it over to 
 18 

1 Dave. 

2 MR. SKEEN: Well, thanks, Darren. And 

3 good morning, Chairman and Commissioners. I am happy 

4 to be here this morning to discuss the Centers of 

5 Expertise efforts with you. 

6 As part of Project Aim, the Commission 

7 directed the staff to evaluate existing Centers of 

8 Expertise within the agency and determine whether 

9 expansion of this model could lead to greater efficiency 

10 and effectiveness in accomplishing the agency's 

11 mission. We provided a notation vote paper to the 

12 Commission on November 9th, and we recommended pursuing 

13 four areas for Centers of Expertise as part of Project 

14 Aim. 

15 As described in the paper, the working 

16 group that developed this paper included senior 

17 managers and staff from NRC headquarters and the 

18 regions, as well as representatives from the National 

19 Treasury Employees Union. As part of our efforts, we 

20 engaged potentially affected staff to ensure we do not 

21 miss any significant issues before we made our final 

22 recommendations. 

23 The working group also considered lessons 

24 learned from previous NRC efforts to establish Centers 

25 for Expertise, and those lessons helped inform us as we 

26 developed our recommendations. 

27 The staff reviewed lessons learned from the 
 19 

1 Transforming Assets into Business Solutions, or TABS 

2 Project, as well as the recent merger of the Office of 

3 Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards and the Office 

4 of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

5 Management, as well as some currently existing Centers 

6 of Expertise such as allegations, vendor inspection, 

7 and electrical engineering. 

8 The most significant lesson that we learned 

9 was that the greatest benefit that you derive from 

10 putting in place the Center of Expertise comes from 

11 being more agile in shifting resources whenever 

12 responding to changing workloads. And if properly 

13 administered, a Center of Expertise can result in a more 

14 efficient and effective use of resources by 

15 streamlining the decision-making, standardizing the 

16 work processes, enhancing knowledge management, and 

17 maintaining critical skill sets. 

18 Next slide, please. 

19 The working group deliberated on a variety 

20 of potential candidates for Centers of Expertise before 

21 we recommended the four areas that are included on this 

22 slide. At this time, the staff is recommending the 

23 Commission approve Centers of Expertise for 

24 allegations, external hazard evaluations, technical 

25 specifications, and rulemaking. 

26 For allegations, the staff proposed that 

27 the allegation coordinator functions that support the 
 20 

1 program offices in headquarters be centralized within 

2 the Office of Enforcement. For the external hazard 

3 evaluations for the new and existing operating 

4 reactors, NRO currently houses the majority of the 

5 agency technical expertise to evaluate seismic and 

6 flooding hazards, and performs evaluations for both the 

7 existing reactors as well as new reactor issues. 

8 Moving the remaining NRR resources to NRO 

9 will make it easier to balance the work between the new 

10 and operating reactor projects as work on the 

11 post-Fukushima reviews and the combined license 

12 applications are being completed. And it has the added 

13 benefit of centralizing this function to support a 

14 potential merger of NRR and NRO, should the Commission 

15 subsequently approve such a measure. 

16 For technical specifications, the bulk of 

17 the tech specs work remains in NRR, with only a few FTE 

18 allocated within NRO for the tech spec reviews. So much 

19 of the external hazards proposal consolidating the tech 

20 spec reviewers within one organization, in this case 

21 NRR, will help balance the workload and also help 

22 support a subsequent merger of NRR and NRO. 

23 For rulemaking, the staff proposed that the 

24 project management and regulatory analysis staff for 

25 rulemakings that currently reside in three offices -- 

26 NRR, NRO, and NMSS -- be centralized all within NMSS. 

27 Of course, the technical experts that develop all the 
 21 

1 technical basis for the rulemakings would remain within 

2 each of the program offices. 

3 As we were developing these 

4 recommendations, we were aware that there are several 

5 ongoing parallel efforts that could impact the number 

6 of proposed rulemakings and the rulemaking process 

7 itself in the future. However, we believe that those 

8 efforts do not necessarily impact the consolidation of 

9 the project management and regulatory analysis 

10 functions. 

11 And as a result of those efforts, if they 

12 have any efforts -- any impact on rulemaking, 

13 consolidating all the rulemaking within one office will 

14 likely make it easier to shift resources to other areas, 

15 if that is necessary. 

16 So if the Commission approves the 

17 rulemaking Center of Expertise, as we move forward, the 

18 staff will take into consideration the Commission's 

19 yet-to-be-determined direction on a paper that you 

20 currently have before you on the Commission involvement 

21 in early stages of rulemaking, as well as the results 

22 of the other ongoing Project Aim efforts that Fred 

23 mentioned that have common prioritization and 

24 rebaselining, which may also result in additional 

25 improvements and savings to the rulemaking process. 

26 In our view, pursuing a rulemaking Center 

27 of Expertise at this time is a good first step to prepare 
 22 

1 for a more efficient rulemaking process, once the 

2 Commission provides direction on your involvement in 

3 the early stages of rulemaking and the other Project Aim 

4 efforts on prioritization and rebaselining efforts are 

5 completed. 

6 So, with that, I look forward to any 

7 questions you may have on the Centers of Expertise, and 

8 I will turn it over to Michele Evans. 

9 MS. EVANS: Okay. Thanks, Dave. Good 

10 morning, Chairman and Commissioners. I am here today 

11 to discuss Project Aim implementation in the Office of 

12 Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

13 I will provide an update on two specific 

14 Project Aim tasks related to operating reactor 

15 licensing process improvements and the transition plan 

16 for the merger of NRO and NRR. I will also provide 

17 insights into how NRR is considering additional 

18 opportunities to more broadly apply risk insights to 

19 enhance our decision-making as directed in the Staff 

20 Requirements Memorandum for the Project Aim report. 

21 Next slide? 

22 The Commission approved the recommendation 

23 to conduct a process improvement review of the operating 

24 reactor licensing process. You noted in the SRM that 

25 the review of the process should be done on a schedule 

26 that does not affect the staff's ability to reduce the 

27 backlog of licensing actions. 
 23 

1 As you are aware, NRR has been implementing 

2 a plan and is making progress to improve performance in 

3 the processing of licensing actions which has resulted 

4 in reducing the operating reactor licensing backlog. 

5 First, we initiated efforts in fiscal year 

6 2014 to stabilize and recover the licensing action 

7 backlog that was created by Fukushima-related work 

8 competing for the same critical skills. This involved 

9 providing the operating reactor licensing program with 

10 additional resources, hiring supplemental technical 

11 support, and implementing targeted process 

12 improvements. 

13 For example, since early in 2015, NRR 

14 management increased oversight on improving 

15 performance by routinely holding monthly meetings with 

16 the Director of NRR to identify bottlenecks and to 

17 allocate resources to monitor progress and stay abreast 

18 of issues. 

19 Management also clarified expectations to 

20 staff regarding NRR processes and guidance. These 

21 expectations include a more rigorous approach in 

22 seeking additional information related to license 

23 amendment applications. These efforts remain 

24 effective and are achieving desired outcomes. 

25 At the end of fiscal year 2015, overall 

26 performance on completing licensing actions in less 

27 than one year was 88 percent, a five percent improvement 
 24 

1 from the low point of 83 percent timeliness in May of 

2 2014. 

3 We expect further improvements in the 

4 coming fiscal year as the staff and management work 

5 toward our internal stretch goal for fiscal year 2016 

6 of three percent improvement over the fiscal year 2015 

7 result. 

8 Also, early in 2015, NRR management 

9 identified several efficiency initiatives to improve 

10 and enhance our existing processes. Initiatives 

11 related to the licensing process, acceptance reviews, 

12 risk-informed technical adequacy, and decision-making 

13 are currently in progress, and their results should 

14 contribute to overall operating reactor licensing 

15 process improvements. 

16 In addition, to further enhance to 

17 predictability, timeliness, and efficiency of 

18 operating reactor licensing reviews, NRR will conduct 

19 a process improvement effort that will be informed by 

20 both the current improvement initiatives as well as 

21 lessons learned on how the backlog originated and how 

22 it was resolved. 

23 Implementation of additional improvements 

24 and monitoring results from this process improvement 

25 effort will take effect during the second half of fiscal 

26 year 2018. 

27 Next slide. 
 25 

1 The Commission approved the recommendation 

2 for staff to develop a plan to conduct a merger of NRO 

3 and NRR at the appropriate time. A team has been formed 

4 by staff from NRO, NRR, and Region II, to assess the 

5 merits of various approaches for a merger of the 

6 offices. They are working to identify efficiency 

7 gains, challenges, and a potential timeline for the 

8 merger. 

9 Their focus is on the four broad areas for 

10 improving regulatory efficiency that are identified in 

11 the Project Aim report. These are right-sizing the 

12 agency, streamlining agency processes, timeliness in 

13 executing regulatory functions and making decisions, 

14 and unity; that is, establishing clear agency-wide 

15 priorities. 

16 The team is considering important drivers 

17 for the merger, such as the macro environment of the U.S. 

18 energy sector and the expected near-term reductions in 

19 workload as some activities are scaled back or 

20 completed. 

21 Specifically, changes in the economy and 

22 the domestic energy sector have changed the outlook for 

23 both operating and new reactors. Economic factors have 

24 influenced a declining interest in new reactors and has 

25 also led to several operating reactors beginning 

26 decommissioning early. 

27 This has resulted in reductions in both the 
 26 

1 new and operating reactor business line workloads. In 

2 addition, several resource-intensive activities 

3 conducted within the operating reactor business line 

4 are now nearing completion or are complete, such as 

5 initial license renewal from 40 to 60 years, reviews for 

6 the Watts Bar Unit 2 operating license, and the work 

7 activities associated with the Fukushima event. 

8 The team also developed key criteria for 

9 the merger, such as a target combined number of staff 

10 for NRO and NRR at the time of the merger, a flat or 

11 declining workload, the need for mature processes in 

12 place for licensing and oversight of new reactors, and 

13 a manageable number of policy issues under development. 

14 The work is on schedule. A draft business case for the 

15 potential merger is under development. The final 

16 Commission paper is on track for June of 2016. 

17 Next slide? 

18 While plans are being developed for the 

19 potential NRR/NRO merger, as I just discussed, within 

20 NRR we are actively focused on internal reorganization 

21 activities needed as a result of a reduction in workload 

22 expected in the near future. 

23 In our fiscal year 2016 staffing plan 

24 recently submitted to OCHCO, we identify near-term 

25 organizational changes involving the divisions of Japan 

26 Lessons Learned and License Renewal. The 

27 Fukushima-related workload is declining as we continue 
 27 

1 to implement actions to resolve Tier 1, 2, and 3 

2 activities. All activities are on or ahead of 

3 schedule. 

4 Management has developed and is 

5 implementing a plan to transition staff from the Japan 

6 Lessons Learned Division over the next several years. 

7 It is envisioned that by the beginning of fiscal year 

8 2019, one branch will remain to focus on the final 

9 closeout of the Fukushima-related work. 

10 License renewal workload reductions over 

11 the next few years are expected to result in a 

12 significant reduction in staffing needs by late 

13 calendar year 2017. Our projections do factor in the 

14 uncertainty of the number of plants that will submit 

15 applications for subsequent license renewal between 

16 2018 and 2020. 

17 We recognize the need to ensure we have core 

18 competencies available to complete the remaining first 

19 license renewals and to prepare guidance and plans for 

20 subsequent license renewal, to ensure we will be ready 

21 to review to first expected subsequent license renewal 

22 applications in the 2018 to 2019 timeframe. 

23 We are also factoring into our thinking the 

24 awareness of other agency initiatives, such as Centers 

25 of Expertise, and the potential merger of NRR and NRO. 

26 Therefore, we are currently considering a broad range 

27 of options that would likely result in organizational 
 28 

1 changes. 

2 It is important, for whichever option we 

3 pursue, that we ensure knowledge management in critical 

4 areas while also best utilizing staff to support a broad 

5 range of needs and functions. 

6 Next slide. 

7 So now I would like to transition to a topic 

8 directed by the Commission in the Staff Requirements 

9 Memorandum for the Project Aim report. You directed 

10 staff to more broadly apply risk insights to enhance our 

11 decision-making. In NRR, we have several initiatives 

12 ongoing within the operating reactor business line 

13 which focus on enhancing our ability to make 

14 risk-informed decisions. 

15 The goal of these initiatives is to 

16 increase the efficiency and the timeliness of our 

17 decision-making as well as help focus our activities on 

18 those issues of greatest safety significance. The 

19 first area I want to address is the development of a 

20 risk-informed approach for addressing low-risk, low 

21 safety significant compliance issues. 

22 NRR has formed a working group made up of 

23 headquarters and regional staff to develop a process to 

24 risk-inform our response to low-risk, low safety 

25 significant compliance issues. In recent years, a 

26 number of licensees have identified non-conformances 

27 with their licensing basis design requirements, such as 
 29 

1 tornado missile protection. 

2 In general, the issues have been determined 

3 by staff to be of low safety significance. Despite 

4 this, conducting and reviewing these operability 

5 determinations has been very resource-intensive for 

6 both the licensee and the staff. This has raised 

7 questions about how we address low-risk compliance 

8 issues that merit some discussion on how we can address 

9 these issues in a more efficient and effective manner. 

10 This could potentially reduce the level of 

11 resources that both the staff and the licensee apply to 

12 low safety significant issues. The working group has 

13 made progress in defining a framework for discussion, 

14 and we are in the process of engaging the industry. The 

15 next step will be to conduct a public meeting early in 

16 the new year. 

17 The second area I want to touch upon is 

18 risk-informed licensing actions. We in NRR, as well as 

19 licensees, have an increasing interest in pursuing 

20 risk-informed licensing actions. Many of the current 

21 risk-informed licensing applications include changes 

22 to the technical specifications, since they were 

23 originally defined without the benefit of risk 

24 insights. 

25 Incorporating risk insights into our 

26 decision-making can provide the justification for 

27 changes, such as allowing flexibility and allowed 
 30 

1 outage times by calculating a real-time risk-informed 

2 completion time or relocating certain surveillance 

3 frequencies out of the technical specifications, so 

4 that they can be changed in order to optimize the testing 

5 frequency. 

6 We are currently completing a pilot review 

7 of a license amendment for what is called Tech Spec 

8 Initiative 4B, which is the initiative that allows 

9 flexibility in allowed outage times. This initial 

10 pilot review has revealed the need to clarify 

11 ambiguities in the current guidance. Given that we 

12 have additional reviews in-house to complete, we are 

13 taking steps to provide clarity to the industry, so that 

14 these subsequent reviews can be completed in a more 

15 efficient and effective manner. 

16 In addition, within NRR, we are enhancing 

17 our ability to efficiently review these actions through 

18 staff training on the risk-informed initiative as well 

19 as additional management oversight throughout the 

20 review effort. 

21 And then the last example that I would like 

22 to touch upon is crediting and mitigating strategies in 

23 licensing and oversight activities. In response to 

24 Fukushima events, licensees have made various changes 

25 to their plants to address our requirements and have 

26 improved the safety of the plants over their 

27 pre-Fukushima levels. Because of the added safety 
 31 

1 defense-in-depth, Fukushima's safety enhancements may 

2 provide benefits to risk-informed decision-making 

3 initiatives to improve regulatory efficiency. 

4 Staff is working with the industry to 

5 determine how to appropriately credit mitigating 

6 strategies in licensing and oversight activities. 

7 Some potential areas for credit include risk-informed 

8 license amendments, notice of enforcement discretion, 

9 and reactor oversight program's significance 

10 determination process. 

11 We began meeting with the industry in 

12 October on this effort. The industry is actively 

13 engaged, recently submitting applicable position 

14 papers which are currently being reviewed by the staff. 

15 So, to summarize, in NRR we are actively 

16 pursuing and incorporating the use of risk insights into 

17 our regulatory decision-making activities. 

18 Now I will turn the presentation over to 

19 Miriam Cohen. Thank you. 

20 MS. COHEN: Good morning, Chairman and 

21 Commissioners. The last time the Commission was 

22 briefed on Project Aim we were just entering fiscal year 

23 '16 and beginning the major activities associated with 

24 strategic workforce planning. Since that time, we have 

25 made significant progress toward meeting those goals. 

26 Next slide. 

27 I would like to begin talking about where 
 32 

1 we currently are. As you know, there was Commission 

2 direction that set a target of 3,600 FTE by the end of 

3 the fiscal year. I am happy to report that we have 

4 achieved this target and are well-positioned for fiscal 

5 year '17. 

6 To achieve this success, we have targeted 

7 external hiring for only those critical skills not 

8 available within the NRC workforce and through the 

9 development of our pipeline positions or NSPDP as well 

10 as our summer program. 

11 We have also been facilitating internal 

12 staff movements based on workload shifts. For example, 

13 we use targeted solicitations, which will allow us to 

14 fill vacant positions -- I'm sorry, which allows us to 

15 fill vacant positions on a volunteer basis by seeking 

16 applicants from those pools of employees where we have 

17 extra capacity or overages within the agency. 

18 As we move through fiscal year '16, but with 

19 an eye on '17 and beyond, we anticipate a more 

20 accelerated attrition rate based on the early out 

21 buyout. Our normal attrition rate is around five 

22 percent, but with the early out buyout we are projecting 

23 an accelerated attrition rate this year of around six 

24 and a half percent. 

25 As you may know, the early out buyout 

26 included 49 individuals broken down into the following 

27 categories -- 10 GG-15 supervisors, 29 employees in 
 33 

1 corporate support, and 10 project managers at the GG-15 

2 level. 

3 The early out buyout strategy has indeed 

4 facilitated attrition in areas where we have or where 

5 we predict overages. These strategies will put us at 

6 an end-of-year target or fiscal year utilization of 

7 slightly under the 3,600 target. 

8 Next slide, please. 

9 We have focused on strategic workforce 

10 planning by analyzing office staffing plans to identify 

11 areas where there is extra capacity and potential 

12 vacancies based on current funding levels. Recently, 

13 we have met with all office directors and regional 

14 administrators to identify the impact of anticipated 

15 future work and how that will have an impact on position 

16 and skill needs. 

17 From this information, we have identified 

18 a few mission-critical skills where we are or will be 

19 doing focused work to mitigate the risk of not having 

20 these skills. Two specific areas are PRA and cyber 

21 security. 

22 We have also identified some skill and 

23 balances where we believe there is extra capacity and 

24 areas where we lack defense-in-depth. We believe these 

25 imbalances can be alleviated by redeploying staff 

26 within the agency. As I mentioned on the last slide, 

27 one way we have done this is through the targeted -- 
 34 

1 through use of targeted solicitations. 

2 As you know, these are uncertain times. 

3 One of the greatest challenges will be to understand the 

4 impact of other Aim initiatives such as rebaselining on 

5 our future workforce needs, and we need to be ensured 

6 we can be flexible in using all available tools to make 

7 sure we have the right people in the right place to meet 

8 our mission needs. 

9 As we move into the future, it is vitally 

10 important that we prepare supervisors and staff for this 

11 changing landscape. It means helping supervisors be 

12 comfortable, having those conversations to encourage 

13 staff to be flexible, and to take advantage of 

14 opportunities that may exist in the organization. It 

15 also means helping staff transition to areas where they 

16 may not have the same comfort level, but where we may 

17 need them to have because of the greater need. This 

18 piece will result in a more fungible and agile staff as 

19 we move into the future. 

20 With that, I would like to turn the 

21 presentation over to Maureen Wylie. 

22 MS. WYLIE: Thank you very much. If I 

23 could have the Next Steps slide. 

24 In addition to the topics we have discussed 

25 this morning, we are making great progress on a number 

26 of additional tasks, and so I would like to highlight 

27 those milestones. 
 35 

1 As Vic indicated at the start of the 

2 meeting, the rebaselining assessment is well ahead of 

3 schedule. You will be receiving a comprehensive list 

4 of activities that can be shed, deprioritized, or 

5 performed with fewer resources by the end of January, 

6 more than two months earlier than our original due date 

7 of April 6th. 

8 In addition, in early March, you will 

9 receive a list of longer term opportunities for 

10 efficient gains or scope changes, as well as the 

11 estimated projection of significant workload changes 

12 through 2020. 

13 The strategic workforce plan described by 

14 Miriam will be provided to you by February 8th. This 

15 plan will ensure that future organizational needs will 

16 be met without disruption. Based on the agency's 

17 priorities developed in the report, we will develop a 

18 plan for positional needs assessments of critical 

19 and/or safety-related positions to determine skill gaps 

20 or surpluses. 

21 The one-stop shop will be rolled out in 

22 April of 2016. This intranet-based solution, the NRC 

23 service catalog, will provide a streamlined method to 

24 make requests for services and is expected to reduce 

25 agency costs as well as provide more efficient and 

26 effective processes, eliminate multiple-ticket systems 

27 and paper forms, not to mention staff frustration. 
 36 

1 The materials program in Regions I and II 

2 were consolidated in 2003. NMSS is evaluating further 

3 consolidation of the regional materials program to 

4 determine whether further consolidation would be more 

5 efficient. The evaluated input will be used to provide 

6 a specific recommendation to the Commission for review 

7 in May of 2016. If potential changes or consolidation 

8 is recommended, the project team will include a 

9 high-level implementation plan with that submission. 

10 And, lastly, the staff is assessing the 

11 corporate support functions in the regions to identify 

12 whether they may be standardized or centralized, so as 

13 to reduce overhead costs and to promote delivery of 

14 consistent products and services across the regions and 

15 the agency. The result of that review and evaluation 

16 will be documented in an information paper and submitted 

17 to you by April 30, 2016. 

18 And now I would like to turn it back over 

19 to Vic. 

20 MR. McCREE: Thanks, Maureen. We are 

21 making progress in -- according to our overall plan and 

22 are committed to delivering high-quality results. 

23 each task discussed today has an effective project 

24 management plan or approach, and we are actively working 

25 them to completion. 

26 As Fred mentioned, we have completed the 

27 common prioritization process with the revised add/shed 
 37 

1 process. As Darren discussed, we are currently 

2 implementing the recommendations we received from the 

3 Ernst & Young overhead assessment report. And, as Dave 

4 presented, we have offered recommendations for gaining 

5 agility and some efficiencies using Centers of 

6 Expertise, which are currently under review by the 

7 Commission. 

8 The progress we have made is already 

9 bringing near-term benefit. For example, we have made 

10 significant progress in reducing the reactor licensing 

11 backlog. Our common prioritization efforts have 

12 identified efficiencies that we can implement now, such 

13 as delaying or canceling some rulemaking activities, as 

14 well as implementing printing and digital 

15 correspondence improvements to save resources. 

16 The progress we have made is also 

17 positioning us well for successful outcomes. As a 

18 result of greatly limiting the vacancies we post 

19 externally and offering certain eligible employees 

20 early outs and buyout opportunities, we are currently 

21 projected to meet our fiscal '16 FTE target. 

22 The business plan to support the potential 

23 merger of the Offices of New Reactor Operations and 

24 Nuclear Reactor Regulation is under development and on 

25 schedule, which will inform the Commission paper due to 

26 you in June. 

27 I am happy to see that our leadership team 
 38 

1 and our staff are working together to be more mindful 

2 of our costs and the need to be both effective and 

3 efficient at our work. As we honor the new 

4 opportunities to become more efficient and more agile, 

5 we will integrate those implementation plans to ensure 

6 that we can productively complete the work while 

7 maintaining focus on our safety and security mission. 

8 And, with that, we are ready for your 

9 questions. 

10 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Okay. Thank you all, 

11 again, for your presentations. We will begin the 

12 questioning this morning with Commissioner Baran. 

13 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thank you for your 

14 presentations and for the work all of you are doing to 

15 increase the agency's efficiency and agility through 

16 Project Aim. 

17 I want to start with a big picture question 

18 about how we are approaching rebaselining and searching 

19 for efficiencies. There are different ways we can do 

20 this. One approach is to take a close look at our 

21 processes and procedures to see if we can streamline 

22 them to do the same work with fewer resources. 

23 I think that is probably the hardest way to 

24 find savings, but it is also probably the most 

25 beneficial. It is hard work to really look at your 

26 process and figure out how it can be more efficient in 

27 what we are doing. 
 39 

1 Another approach is to just shed discrete 

2 tasks without changing the processes surrounding them. 

3 That produces some short-term savings, but it doesn't 

4 really make us a more efficient organization. It just 

5 makes us an organization that does fewer things. 

6 When we see the list of activities that the 

7 staff proposes to shed or modify, how much of each of 

8 these approaches are we going to see? I am looking at 

9 you, Fred, but if someone else wants to chime in, that 

10 is fine, too. 

11 MR. BROWN: Thank you, sir. I will start. 

12 I think it is interesting as I think through how we 

13 developed the guidance and criteria and the work that 

14 has been done, and as I go back and look at the low 

15 priority work that is identified, I would actually -- 

16 I think my view is that the two approaches actually end 

17 up being merged. 

18 The looking for efficiencies was 

19 definitely done, and we have process streamlining 

20 activities both in the near term that we will describe 

21 in January as well as some of the things it will take 

22 longer to work through to an executable end with a clear 

23 quantifiable savings that you will see in March. 

24 But as we went down that path, and we look 

25 at streamlining process, to ensure that we can define 

26 it and control it and measure it and quantify what our 

27 savings are, we end up becoming more discrete in the 
 40 

1 activity that is shed. 

2 So as I look at the list today, in the near 

3 term quite honestly -- I was surprised when I did this 

4 -- it looks much more discrete. But I don't think it 

5 is discrete in that we are stopping work that has high 

6 payback; I think it is discrete because we found 

7 inefficiencies, we found opportunities to streamline, 

8 and we are zeroing in on the specific actions and 

9 activities. 

10 I think in interacting with the Steering 

11 Committee early in this process, one thing we definitely 

12 wanted to avoid was coming back to the Commission with 

13 potential efficiencies that we couldn't hold ourselves 

14 accountable to having an implementation plan, to 

15 knowing when we were done, to having a specific savings. 

16 And I think we have avoided that largely in what you will 

17 see in January, but it does make it look more discrete. 

18 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Anyone want to add 

19 anything to that? Well, I am glad to hear that, because 

20 I think it really goes to the heart of the Project Aim 

21 effort. And I think it, obviously, makes sense to 

22 identify any unnecessary work that we are doing. But 

23 I think our focus really needs to stay on identifying 

24 true efficiencies, and it sounds like that is something 

25 that you are also focused on, so I appreciate that. 

26 Thanks. 

27 I also want to ask about the staff's 
 41 

1 recommendation to establish an agency-wide Center of 

2 Expertise for rulemaking to be housed in NMSS. Right 

3 now, NRR, NRO, and NMSS each have a rulemaking branch. 

4 And, as I understand it, the Center of Expertise, the 

5 proposed Center of Expertise, would pull all three 

6 branches together in NMSS. 

7 This is probably a question for Dave. Can 

8 you walk us through how a rulemaking would work in 

9 practice under this proposed approach of a Center for 

10 Expertise, and the kinds of kind of subquestions I have 

11 in mind is, who is making decisions about the 

12 rulemaking? Who is deciding what is in the regulatory 

13 -- the technical basis? Who is deciding what is in the 

14 draft proposed rule, the draft final rule? Who is 

15 accountable for the timeliness of the rulemaking? Who 

16 is supervising the rulemaking employees in NMSS who are 

17 working on rules that are kind of led by other offices 

18 or the technical basis that is coming from other 

19 offices? 

20 So can you kind of feel that out for us? 

21 What does it mean to have a Center of Expertise for 

22 rulemaking? How would it work? Where is the 

23 accountability? And the kind of lines of authority. 

24 MR. SKEEN: Yes. Well, thanks, 

25 Commissioner. That is a good question. In fact, that 

26 is many good questions. So let me take a shot at a high 

27 level at this, and then I may ask Scott Moore from NMSS 
 42 

1 to provide a little bit of details from the NMSS's point 

2 of view. 

3 We realized when we went down the path of 

4 trying to recommend Centers of Expertise that there is 

5 a lot of good questions like that that have to be 

6 answered as you implement. And, in fact, we even 

7 acknowledged in the paper that if we run into any 

8 showstoppers as we go through this that says, you know, 

9 this just really isn't going to work out, we will stop 

10 and come back to the Commission and say, "We identified 

11 something we didn't know before, and so maybe this isn't 

12 the best idea after all." 

13 But we feel like at least on an initial look 

14 we have done a pretty good job at scrubbing the pros and 

15 cons, and we think we can move forward with them. As 

16 far as where does the rulemaking project management and 

17 reg analysis piece live, it can really live in a lot of 

18 different places in the agency. 

19 If you will recall, back in the '90s, it was 

20 in -- our Office of Research did the rulemaking for us. 

21 And at that time the Commission decided that it really 

22 wasn't part of research's core mission to do rulemaking, 

23 so it was decided to put it back out into the program 

24 offices who have the technical expertise, more of the 

25 -- they have more skin in the game, if you will, on the 

26 regulations because they are closer to the regulations 

27 themselves. 
 43 

1 And so when we looked at, where would you 

2 consolidate it back together, there were a number of 

3 factors we considered. And part of it was we first 

4 looked at just combining NRO and NRR back together and 

5 have the reactor regulation group get back together. 

6 But we took a broader look and said, "Well, if you are 

7 going to make that move anyway, then is it worthwhile 

8 to look at the whole organization to see if it is 

9 worthwhile." 

10 There were a lot of organizations we 

11 considered within the agency, but we ended up with NMSS. 

12 The preponderance of the discussions we had with the 

13 different offices was they still wanted to live within 

14 a program office somewhere, a technical office, and so 

15 NMSS seemed to make sense. 

16 And so moving the -- I think there is a 

17 branch in each office now that does rulemaking. When 

18 you consolidate, you will move those folks to one office 

19 under NMSS. But because we have made so many strides 

20 with the Rulemaking Coordination Committee and the 

21 common prioritization of rulemakings, everyone across 

22 the agency pretty well agrees on what the rules are that 

23 are important and how you move forward. And so we have 

24 the prioritization here to do that. 

25 The technical expertise itself as far as if 

26 it is a reactor regulation or a new reactor regulation 

27 or a materials regulation that you are concerned with, 
 44 

1 that will still live within the program offices just as 

2 it does today. The way it works now is you have a 

3 working group gets together, and there is a project 

4 manager that runs the working group. But the technical 

5 folks live with whatever office that deals with that 

6 regulation. That is who does the technical basis 

7 development that goes on, and then the project 

8 management and the reg analysis piece happened, 

9 regardless of what the office is that has to do that. 

10 So moving all of that to NMSS we don't see 

11 changes the process all that much. What it does is give 

12 you an agility that says, "If rulemaking is going down 

13 in one area but up in another area, it is easier to change 

14 resources, program management resources, project 

15 management resources, to help do that in the reg 

16 analysis piece." The technical folks still live within 

17 each of the technical organizations. 

18 So that was the thinking. And the reason 

19 for moving it to NMSS, if you are going to do this now 

20 and move it, was we were thinking about if you are going 

21 to merge NRO and NRR, it is probably a good idea to pull 

22 some resources out of there to help make that merger more 

23 smooth as you go forward, because otherwise you would 

24 have a very large office if you keep all of it within 

25 that office. 

26 So that was the thinking that the staff came 

27 up with. And, Scott, if you want to talk a little bit 
 45 

1 about how would it work in NMSS, I will Scott give you 

2 a few words. 

3 MR. MOORE: Thank you, Commissioner. 

4 Scott Moore, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear 

5 Materials Safety and Safeguards. 

6 If the Commission chooses to move forward 

7 with the Center of Excellence in NMSS, I think we are 

8 well-positioned to take it and carry out the direction. 

9 As Dave mentioned, as the rulemaking 

10 office, we would have responsibility for project 

11 management, schedule, timeliness and milestones, and 

12 the reg analysis. We would work hand in hand with the 

13 technical offices and be dependent on the technical 

14 expertise of the various other technical offices for the 

15 technical basis and also the rule content, the technical 

16 aspects of the rule content. 

17 And, in effect, we are doing this now but 

18 at the division level within our office. NMSS is the 

19 division with rulemaking responsibilities, conducts 

20 rulemaking for a variety of other activities within 

21 NMSS, for instance transportation, spent fuel casks, 

22 fuel facilities, waste, and security. We work with 

23 NSIR on security rules that are outside of the division 

24 that does the rulemaking itself. 

25 So the rulemakers rely on the technical 

26 expertise of the individuals within those other 

27 divisions for all of the content and the input for the 
 46 

1 rule. We would just pick up operating reactors and new 

2 reactors in all of the other material that went with 

3 them. So the rulemakers understand that they need to 

4 rely on the other's expertise. 

5 Who is responsible for keeping the rule on 

6 schedule? The rulemakers are. We would be. Who is 

7 responsible for providing the technical basis and the 

8 technical input to it? The technical side is, and we 

9 would work hand in hand, and so far it has worked fairly 

10 well. 

11 Who is accountable for the rule? We are 

12 accountable for the rule, and the technical side is 

13 accountable for the input to it. Who supervises the 

14 rulemaking? We would supervise the rulemaking. 

15 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thanks. I 

16 appreciate that. I think having it -- it sounds like 

17 you are well on your way on this. If we proceeded with 

18 a Center for Expertise in this area, you are all kind 

19 of looking at the right issues on this and thinking it 

20 through. So that there is really a common 

21 understanding going in of who is going to be responsible 

22 for what and who is accountable for what. I think the 

23 success of this type of approach really is going to be 

24 dependent on that if we go forward with it. 

25 Vic, did you want to -- 

26 MR. McCREE: I agree with you 100 percent. 

27 It is certainly another opportunity. Should the 
 47 

1 Commission decide to support these recommended Centers 

2 of Expertise, it is another opportunity to display the 

3 interdependence, the collaboration across office, 

4 across business line even, that we have seen even in some 

5 other areas. 

6 I mean, there are certainly examples of 

7 where there is clarity on roles and responsibilities. 

8 Different offices can carry out their role on a larger 

9 effort. You know, I look at our efforts on license 

10 renewal where NRR, reactor license renewal, where the 

11 regions have responsibility for implementing an 

12 inspection program, but there is an important 

13 coordination that has to occur at that interface. All 

14 those interfaces are important. 

15 New construction, ITAAC management, it is 

16 all at the interfaces, but there needs to be clarity on 

17 processes and roles and responsibilities, and of course 

18 leaders have to make sure that it all works. And I could 

19 go on and on to describe the areas where this has 

20 happened in the past, we have learned lessons, and we 

21 will have the opportunity to implement them here, so -- 

22 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thank you. 

23 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Thank you, Commissioner. 

24 I have a few questions I tried to get the 

25 panel to address. But just sort of starting off, I 

26 appreciate the work that is going on, not only as 

27 reflected by the presentations given at this table, but 
 48 

1 the other participants from all offices and from all 

2 levels of the agency. 

3 And I hope, you know, for me to continue to 

4 encourage that involvement, I think is very important. 

5 In many ways, I think Project Aim gives us an opportunity 

6 for a reality check that says, "Where are we in this 

7 environment?" I can think over -- I have been here too 

8 long I guess, but I can think back over, you know, points 

9 in my career. And after -- you know, after Three Mile 

10 Island and at the point where TMI action plan items were 

11 being done, you know, the very early '90s where most 

12 reactor licensing was done, we also had some early 

13 decommissioning of some of the very early plants like 

14 some of the -- you know, like Yankee Rowe and Haddam Neck 

15 coming up, and then moving forward. 

16 So, again, I encourage the continued 

17 engagement. And I guess I will ask the first question, 

18 and maybe I will direct it to Fred, but others can chime 

19 in. Some of -- obviously, an effort like this, where 

20 it sort of focuses on what we are doing in an environment 

21 where we have, you know, some retraction which is not 

22 in itself the point of Aim, there are anxieties created 

23 about, what does this mean, and what does this mean, how 

24 do I contribute to it? 

25 So one of my questions would be, what are 

26 you doing as a project team to sort of manage that 

27 anxiety or address that and put the focus on where it 
 49 

1 needs to be with the project? And, Fred, I will turn 

2 to you first. 

3 MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So 

4 the managing the change process and communication I 

5 think has been recognized as critically important 

6 throughout the life of Project Aim. We have put a lot 

7 of effort into communication. We just had a town hall 

8 meeting with staff a week or so ago. Vic has been out 

9 to each of the offices, and the ones he couldn't cover 

10 either I or an office director filled in. We talked 

11 with all of the supervisors. He has had a steady stream 

12 of EDO updates going out. 

13 And in addition to all of that work, we 

14 still have opportunities to improve in this area. So 

15 one of the things that we are -- I am working on right 

16 now is to pull in the agency communication council and 

17 gain some additional resources with specialty skill in 

18 the communication area. It is actually an area -- we 

19 have a very strong partnership going on. It is an area 

20 we have worked with our partners on communication, 

21 messaging, and means and methods. We need to continue 

22 to do that. 

23 So critically important. We have put a lot 

24 of effort into it. We can and need to do better. It 

25 is high on the priority list to accelerate even further, 

26 and I think the rebaselining paper to the Commission, 

27 its availability will be a major milestone that we need 
 50 

1 to have a definite effective communication strategy 

2 around. 

3 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Okay. Thanks. One of 

4 the things -- other things you touched on, which struck 

5 me, because it is an area there are risks -- benefits, 

6 but there are also risks on, and it was with respect to 

7 the question of development and maintenance of internal 

8 procedures. 

9 And I can recall over the years in terms, 

10 if you get an IG audit, for example, a classic IG audit 

11 finding is you don't have sufficient controls, i.e. 

12 procedures, over a particular process. 

13 Michele talked about in terms of trying to 

14 address, you know, assuring sort of consistency in terms 

15 of the risk-informing process, in terms of evaluation 

16 of findings that come out of -- you know, in terms of 

17 findings that may be made from an inspection at 

18 particular plants. 

19 So tell me a little bit about how you are 

20 sort of, as they say, managing those risks and benefits 

21 of -- you know, on procedures, and where you really see 

22 that focused. 

23 MR. BROWN: So I would offer -- I think as 

24 we -- in where we are at, we started kind of with a plan 

25 for a plan where we have planned, we are in execution 

26 in many of the tasks now, and we clearly recognize the 

27 need, as Vic said, clear roles, and then it goes to 
 51 

1 Commissioner Baran's question, clear roles and 

2 responsibilities proceduralized prior to 

3 implementation. 

4 Again, we have had a really strong 

5 partnering -- a partnership relationship, and our labor 

6 partners have been very open and constructive in their 

7 feedback to us on the need to do this right. It is 

8 important to the offices. 

9 So in our integrated implementation plan 

10 that we provide updates to you monthly, as we have moved 

11 through the COR, the contract officer's representative 

12 task, for example, you will see that we have actions and 

13 milestones for proceduralizing the revised process. 

14 And it is our expectation that each task will have a 

15 similar level of detail, hitting that critically 

16 important part of change, and being able to sustain what 

17 we put in place. 

18 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Part of what I raised -- 

19 my question was that an example of lower priority was 

20 development and maintenance of internal procedures. 

21 MR. BROWN: I am sorry. 

22 CHAIRMAN BURNS: I may not have been clear. 

23 So that is what I am trying to understand, because, 

24 again, in the context I can -- as I say, I can think of 

25 IG audits, I can think of trying to improve consistency. 

26 I remember 10 years ago the effort to update management 

27 directives, some of which reflected, for example, 
 52 

1 organizations as they existed in 1985 instead of 2005. 

2 That is where my concern -- a concern is. 

3 Where is the risk and benefit in that -- in putting that 

4 as a lower priority? What do you do to, in effect, 

5 manage the risks of that? 

6 MR. BROWN: Right. Exactly. I am sorry. 

7 I -- 

8 CHAIRMAN BURNS: That is okay. 

9 MR. BROWN: Yeah. You actually, in your 

10 question, provided the answer as we see it. So as we 

11 look at improving the internal management directive 

12 process, which is a specific long-term project, the goal 

13 will be to make that process faster, more efficient, and 

14 easier to implement, so we actually stand in a better 

15 place with respect to current procedures and 

16 expectations, making sure that the policy part of the 

17 document, which should be a little more difficult to 

18 change, is separate from the details of how we do work, 

19 which is important, but it doesn't have this -- you know, 

20 it is a little different than the policy. 

21 And I think one of the things we find is we 

22 have merged those two in a way where it is incredibly 

23 inefficient to update things that need to be updated 

24 regularly. I don't know if -- 

25 MR. McCREE: And that is the point. And 

26 thank you. We got there slowly, or at least I got there 

27 slowly. 
 53 

1 One of the things we recognized is, as Fred 

2 alluded to, is that it is -- our management directive 

3 update process is very lengthy and time-consuming, and 

4 we believe that there must be some efficiencies in there 

5 that we can obtain. 

6 This is not to reduce the number of 

7 directives or in any way diminish the adequacy of our 

8 internal controls. It comes from having clear guidance 

9 to enable us to do our job in a way that is scrutable 

10 and appropriate, but it is the updating and the creation 

11 of guidance documents that we believe that are some 

12 efficiencies to be gained. 

13 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Okay. Great. Thanks. 

14 Maureen, could you describe for us the next 

15 steps in timing for incorporating the work we are doing 

16 in the rebaselining into basically the budget 

17 development process? And, related to that, 

18 ultimately, in the fee rule? 

19 MS. WYLIE: Certainly. So we have already 

20 been able to implement some of the opportunities to shed 

21 in the final stages of our FY17 budget submission. So 

22 we had included some at the early stage, some of the 

23 items that Darren described around centralization of 

24 travel and budget formulation for the regions. Done 

25 already. 

26 New elements have been included for the 

27 FY17 budget which we roll out in early February. And 
 54 

1 then, as the Commission votes on those elements that we 

2 believe can be shed, that have policy implications, it 

3 is our intent to do as we have done in previous years, 

4 to clearly articulate to our appropriations committees 

5 where there might be additional savings in our budget 

6 going forward for '17. 

7 We also begin the FY18 budget process in 

8 approximately March. So because the federal budget 

9 process is pretty much constant, we can then dovetail 

10 those savings in. And, of course, as we do the work on 

11 these longer term items, which '18 and out, we will feed 

12 them into the '18 and '19 budget processes as well. 

13 So we have to work with OMB about how we do 

14 that, but the feedback that we have had is that everybody 

15 wants us to succeed in Project Aim, and they want us to 

16 be able to take advantage of those savings when they are 

17 available. 

18 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Okay. Thanks. 

19 Commissioner Svinicki? 

20 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: Good morning, and 

21 thank you all for your presentations. I will offer some 

22 observations and reactions, because although I engage 

23 with a lot of you on these topics, it is a rare 

24 opportunity. Today's meeting is a rare opportunity to 

25 be able to speak broadly, to offer encouragement and 

26 praise where I can, to offer perhaps some cautions where 

27 I would like to add my observations about where we are 
 55 

1 headed and how we are approaching some of these issues. 

2 I want to begin by quoting very briefly. 

3 In the rebaselining instructions that were sent to 

4 program offices, the very first paragraph of the 

5 document, before it got to the procedural aspects, was 

6 a message from the EDO and CFO to all of the offices, 

7 and part of it reads, "This is a time of change, and it 

8 is not within our control to alter that reality. The 

9 agency will be smaller in the coming years than it is 

10 now. 

11 "As we work to become smaller, there is the 

12 unique opportunity to look inside of ourselves, our 

13 organizations, and our processes, to find the things 

14 that impede our ability to make quality decisions in a 

15 timely manner, and that frustrate us and our fellow 

16 employees. It is incumbent on us to fix the 

17 inefficiencies that are within our control. Please do 

18 not miss this opportunity." 

19 And I want to really align with that message 

20 and express that, you know, I hope that that was heard 

21 and internalized by the staff from the EDO and CFO. It 

22 is a much more eloquent statement of something that I 

23 tried to communicate at the agency's all-hands meeting 

24 in September when I expressed the view that I don't think 

25 Project Aim is about being less than we are now, although 

26 and as this acknowledges, we are right-sizing, which I 

27 don't like because it is not a direct term. 
 56 

1 And, in truth, we are downsizing, and there 

2 is an explicit acknowledgement in this message from the 

3 EDO and CFO that we will be smaller. So we will be 

4 fewer, but I don't think that we need to be less than 

5 we are. And I do see it as an opportunity, and I 

6 appreciate that our senior leadership is communicating 

7 that forward. 

8 How do we communicate that? Well, I am a 

9 believer -- it won't surprise people based on my conduct 

10 -- I am a believer that in times of change I think the 

11 way that we approach that with integrity is an 

12 almost-painful-at-times honesty with each other about 

13 things. 

14 And I want to acknowledge Miriam's message 

15 that she just gave us moments ago where she said it is 

16 vitally important that we prepare supervisors and staff 

17 for the future landscape. I think the early out buyout 

18 appeared to be well-communicated, and I want to commend 

19 OCHCO and its staff for that. I think it was well 

20 developed and well executed, and I think, you know, 

21 these types of smaller scale, successful implementation 

22 and execution of elements of Aim build a growing 

23 confidence. And that is good because this is a 

24 multi-year effort with many moving parts. 

25 And so, you know, not every aspect of it is 

26 likely to be successful, but another thing that 

27 encourages me is our commitment to apply an improvement 
 57 

1 process to our improvement process as we implement, so 

2 it can be called sharpening the saw or any number of 

3 terms of art that have been used in management and 

4 organizations over the years. 

5 I will offer some specific feedback. 

6 Michele, I appreciate your presentation. I think NRR 

7 is a very sizeable office within the agency, has things 

8 already underway. Candidly, had some initiatives in 

9 business process improvement underway prior to Aim's 

10 initiation, and in the Commission's action on the 

11 Project Aim recommendations, you know, we didn't seek 

12 to disturb that in any way. 

13 Your presentation indicates to me that 

14 there is a pretty full scale ahead momentum that 

15 continues in NRR. Congress is in the stages of 

16 completing their action on our budget for the current 

17 year, and accompanying that it appears likely that they 

18 will enact a set of reporting measures, some of which 

19 specifically address the licensing backlog. 

20 And so I know that as the Commission 

21 oversees your work, people will be overseeing all of our 

22 efforts on this front. So I think, as we predicted, we 

23 are going to have sustained and perhaps heightened 

24 external interest in our implementation on Project Aim. 

25 And so we move forward. I do want to maybe 

26 build off Commissioner Baran's questions about the 

27 Centers of Expertise. That paper is in front of us, and 
 58 

1 it is not the purpose of today's meeting to litigate or 

2 adjudicate the outcome on that. I don't always share 

3 the unbridled enthusiasm that may exist for centers. I 

4 see some things going on in the paper that I would ask 

5 you all to think about. 

6 You have looked to history, and you have 

7 talked about use of centers over the course of the 

8 agency's history. I might suggest to you that on 

9 occasions you are conflating a bit consolidation or 

10 transfer of a function with the creation of a center. 

11 They operate differently, and I think that there have 

12 been consolidation of construction, inspection in 

13 Region II, consolidation of aspects of materials 

14 programs. It is different -- and Commissioner Baran 

15 was exploring this -- it is different from needing to 

16 keep an element of a function in a program office and 

17 yet consolidating some other aspect. 

18 To be honest with you, when I look at 

19 rulemaking -- and I appreciate that Commissioner Baran 

20 selected those out of the four that you are 

21 recommending, because perhaps I would feel differently 

22 about allegations. Maybe intuitively that makes a bit 

23 more sense to me. 

24 Rulemaking is the clearest case and, to a 

25 degree, the external natural hazard center and the tech 

26 spec center are going to fall victim to the same concern 

27 I am about to articulate, which is that -- so people have 
 59 

1 to continue part of the function, so the technical part 

2 of rulemaking is done in NRR. 

3 Right now, if I am in NRR -- Dave Skeen did 

4 a good job of describing this -- I have to coordinate 

5 within there. You know, one interpretation of the 

6 rulemaking center is now I will have to go and coordinate 

7 with NMSS, and then NMSS is going to do the coordination 

8 that I would have done but will do it on my behalf with 

9 perhaps not the level of knowledge that I would have had 

10 about it. 

11 You know, is it the kind of efficiency that 

12 only a bureaucrat could love? Because now I have a 

13 whole new step. I do, in general, believe that 

14 efficiency comes from flattening, and that I reside such 

15 sincere confidence in the quality of people we have at 

16 NRC, which I have become a bit evangelical on, we are 

17 capable of so much, and that is why I am often hard on 

18 NRC, because when -- it is like a family. You know, when 

19 people are capable, you just really -- you want to see 

20 them perform at that level. 

21 I know we have to keep the potential merger 

22 of NRR and NRO as something we talk about like a 

23 hypothetical. It is true that I have not succeeded in 

24 persuading a majority of this Commission to explicitly 

25 direct that that merger will occur, but I would be very, 

26 very surprised if any informed NRC individual within the 

27 sound of my voice really believed that five years from 
 60 

1 now there will be -- what was the terminology that was 

2 used? 

3 I think that Michele had a statement about 

4 the changes in the domestic energy sector have changed 

5 the outlook. And they have. So I don't think anyone 

6 within the sound of my voice who follows the issues 

7 thinks that five years from now there will be a quantity 

8 of new reactors' work in front of this agency that would 

9 justify the sustainment of an entire office, which, for 

10 those who don't know it, NRC is a very large 

11 organization. Offices are not small. 

12 So we can treat it as hypothetical. The 

13 market has decided this matter for us, and many 

14 Americans wonder why it takes their government so long 

15 to concede to the obvious. But at some point we will 

16 move forward. Michele has talked about the mechanics 

17 of the staff's planning to bring those organizations 

18 together. 

19 But, you know, I would ask in the Centers 

20 of Expertise paper, when I read a statement that is 

21 saying centralizing external hazard center and NRO, 

22 centralizing the functions in NRO, normalizes the 

23 workload. 

24 Okay. I also have 20 years of continuous 

25 federal service, and there is a certain 

26 bureaucrat-speak. "Normalize the workload in NRO" -- 

27 in my view, you don't artificially inflate the workload 
 61 

1 of an organization whose workload is declining when it 

2 is inevitable that that organization will be merged with 

3 another organization. That simply prolongs the 

4 transition time. 

5 So I am being real honest with you, because 

6 I began at the beginning by saying, "Change isn't made 

7 any better by sugarcoating it and talking about it in 

8 ways that make it sound like I am going to shield people 

9 from reality." Everyone is an adult and is ready to -- 

10 and is probably watching the external landscape even 

11 more closely than we are. 

12 So I think we need to have an element of 

13 accepting the reality and moving forward on some of 

14 these things. 

15 I do want to ask one final point, and this 

16 might go to Michele. You talked about the fact that in 

17 business process improvement, we are looking at things 

18 like a more rigorous approach to seeking information on 

19 license amendment requests. I know we are looking at 

20 our licensing workload. 

21 Again, change is hard, and I think 

22 sometimes, as Commissioner Baran noted, the hardest 

23 type of change is really perfecting things and making 

24 them more efficient. Easy types of change are changes 

25 to wiring diagrams, which I worry that some aspects of 

26 the Centers of Expertise that's -- the wiring diagram, 

27 change in efficiency, much as whatever Commission sat 
 62 

1 and decided that the Office of Research shouldn't have 

2 it centralized and it was decentralized, here we sit 

3 long after Commissioner Svinicki is gone, there is 

4 another Commissioner going to sit in this very chair and 

5 go, "Oh, my gosh. Startlingly, we find that this ought 

6 to be moved back to the program offices." 

7 Funny thing about 25 years of federal 

8 service, we watch this pendulum go back and forth 

9 between centralization and decentralization. But I 

10 think on licensing, you know, and doing it differently 

11 is not the same as doing it better. 

12 I will note that I was troubled by -- I will 

13 close with this -- a letter that was recently sent 

14 regarding a licensing matter. It wasn't NRR, but 

15 preapplication readiness assessment observations on 

16 the draft early site permit application for the Clinch 

17 River Nuclear Site. 

18 NRC staff communicated to TVA, "In order to 

19 conduct reviews on a more predictable schedule, NRO is 

20 committed to a more rigorous acceptance review 

21 process." That rigorous acceptance review, Michele, 

22 you can say -- when you said "a rigorous process on 

23 getting additional information" that triggered this 

24 with me. It says, "As such, greater consideration is 

25 being given to aspects of an application that could 

26 result in a review extending beyond a projected 30-month 

27 schedule that NRC expects for ESP reviews, when 
 63 

1 extending beyond a projected 30-month schedule that NRC 

2 budgets for ESP reviews." So when extending beyond 

3 that, aspects -- and when those aspects are identified 

4 in an application, careful consideration will be given 

5 to whether an application should be docketed. 

6 Does that mean that if, like, a license 

7 amendment request or a new licensing review is 

8 considered to meet, it is going to exceed a model 

9 milestone schedule or a goal we have set for ourselves? 

10 We are not going to docket it? Is that part of what is 

11 being considered for Project Aim? Does that make -- is 

12 that familiar to you at all? So is that the direction 

13 we are going, that if we can't do a power uprate in 18 

14 months, we are not going to docket something? 

15 Dr. Jennifer Uhle has come to the 

16 microphone to illuminate this matter. Thank you. 

17 MS. UHLE: You're putting me on the spot. 

18 This is Jennifer Uhle, I'm the Director of the Office 

19 of New Reactors. And looking at the wording in that 

20 letter, it does appear to represent that we are only 

21 going to be accepting applications that we can complete 

22 in 30 months, and that is not what we meant by those 

23 words -- 

24 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: Okay. 

25 MS. UHLE: -- I would say. We've had some 

26 communication with the licensee via phone call about 

27 what we actually did mean by that. We are, of course, 
 64 

1 looking at being more efficient. And an inefficient 

2 review sometimes starts from an application that really 

3 shouldn't have been submitted, but -- 

4 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: And I'm all about 

5 having docketing standards -- 

6 MS. UHLE: Right. 

7 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: -- in acceptance 

8 reviews. And I didn't -- 

9 MS. UHLE: Right. 

10 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: -- mean to put you 

11 on the spot. 

12 MS. UHLE: No, that's okay. 

13 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: The troubling thing 

14 would be is if we just thought it was complex, we weren't 

15 going to start. 

16 MS. UHLE: Absolutely not. And so it was 

17 really trying to say that we didn't believe, based on 

18 our readiness review, that the technical justification 

19 for what they were looking to do in the case of the size 

20 of the Emergency Planning Zone or the technical 

21 justification for looking at the seismicity of the site 

22 and doing some natural phenomena work there, we didn't 

23 believe that, that was adequate. And so we were 

24 implying to them that, don't come in with this because 

25 we will not accept this because it's not adequate to 

26 represent the phenomena of interest. 

27 And it did highlight that we recognize that 
 65 

1 perhaps we're being more strict now in our acceptance 

2 reviews, in large part because it turns out to be a more 

3 efficient review process if you have a fully justified 

4 submittal, you don't have the Requests for Additional 

5 Information that gets unruly and is not efficient. So 

6 that was what we were meaning by those words and -- 

7 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: Okay. 

8 MS. UHLE: -- I see now they don't 

9 necessarily represent that meaning. 

10 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: Okay. I thank you 

11 for that clarification. I apologize. Thank you, Mr. 

12 Chairman. 

13 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Commissioner Ostendorff? 

14 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Thank you. 

15 Thank you for your presentations. I want to start out, 

16 Victor, with kind of maybe reinforcing a point made by 

17 Commissioner Svinicki, where I also applaud the message 

18 that you and Maureen put out and the message from the 

19 EDO and CFO to the Offices. I know, I had a chance to 

20 meet with Victor up in Region I just last week with an 

21 all-hands group and I've been to two other Regions this 

22 fall and I've been reading all the agency-wide EDO 

23 updates and other communications, including from Miriam 

24 and her team, on various aspects of the personnel side 

25 of Project Aim and so forth. The question I had and I'll 

26 ask it for Victor, maybe Miriam will also want to comment 

27 on it, what kind of feedback are you getting from the 
 66 

1 Staff as to how well Project Aim type issues are being 

2 communicated? 

3 MR. MCCREE: So, thanks for your question. 

4 I think there's a growing level of awareness. I do 

5 believe based on the meetings, the all-hands meetings, 

6 that I've participated in both here and at headquarters 

7 offices in the Regions, that the Office Directors and 

8 Regional Administrators have done a very good job making 

9 sure that folks are aware of the importance of what 

10 Project Aim is, what it isn't, what the Offices and the 

11 Regions can do, and individually what they ought to take 

12 advantage of in this time. So, there's a growing level 

13 of awareness. 

14 There has been some anxiety and some 

15 confusion, so we're being very sensitive to that, taking 

16 advantage of our colleagues in the NTEU to better 

17 understand what those issues are and we're taking them 

18 head on. The only other point I'd make, the sense of 

19 urgency that you've described in that first paragraph 

20 was intentional. We need to have, I believe, that sense 

21 of urgency to move forward in this Project. I'm 

22 reminded, when I was 17, I guess when we were both 17, 

23 18 years old after I first took the Oath of Office, 

24 everywhere you had to go, you had to run. There was a 

25 sense of urgency designed into your DNA. 

26 And I believe that's what I sense now, that 

27 everyone recognizes that we need to be more urgent about 
 67 

1 change. And I believe that, that change will be built 

2 into our fabric, our culture, even after re-baselining 

3 is completed, that we need to be mindful of areas where 

4 we can be more efficient and more effective and 

5 proactive in identifying those and building plants to 

6 include them in our process. So I do sense a growing 

7 awareness and appreciation for that opportunity. 

8 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Okay. Maureen? 

9 MS. WYLIE: So, I've also been out traveling 

10 and I think what's been important in the feedback that 

11 I've received is that they appreciate that we speak 

12 directly to their concerns. So, acknowledging 

13 uncertainty, inviting them to participate, giving them 

14 agency, and treating their concerns fully as best we 

15 can. I've had great feedback, obviously people talk to 

16 me much more about the corporate types of activities. 

17 But even in some of those areas where we touch on the 

18 work that's being done in our programmatic business 

19 offices, I think there is a recognition that we can do 

20 this together and that, while we can't take away 

21 everybody's anxiety, by participating and making it 

22 work, in the end it's better for everyone. 

23 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Okay. Thank 

24 you. I also note that I've had, and we'll hear from 

25 Maria later on and I appreciate and know that she'll tell 

26 us her perspective in a few moments, but the feedback 

27 I've gotten from my periodics with senior leadership at 
 68 

1 this table is appreciation for the active engagement of 

2 the NTEU organization throughout Project Aim. So I've 

3 been very encouraged to hear that. Not to say there's 

4 not some issues or problems, but engagement's been 

5 there, so I've been encouraged by that. 

6 Fred, I'm going to ask you a question and 

7 this goes to add/shed and re-baselining. And I'll be 

8 very blunt, sometimes the Commission receives papers, 

9 and I could give you a number of examples, where we see 

10 the collective input from the Staff, filtered through 

11 management, is trying to achieve a consensus approach. 

12 They're not trying to upset any Office Director or any 

13 part of the organization. So I've got to tell you, I'm 

14 a little bit worried on the, how do we ensure an 

15 institution-wide, consistent approach when 

16 re-baselining and add/shed? 

17 MR. BROWN: I think the Steering Committee 

18 would assure you that not offending Office Directors is 

19 not a problem with Fred Brown, I think I've offended 

20 everyone in the Agency probably six or seven times in 

21 the last five months. 

22 (Laughter.) 

23 MR. BROWN: That's probably true. So, 

24 under Vic's leadership and Maureen's, we actually had 

25 a meeting with all the Office Directors as recently as 

26 Tuesday afternoon of this week. And we all believe that 

27 to be successful, we need to do this together, this is 
 69 

1 all about one NRC and it's consistent with the message 

2 that was provided to the Offices back in, literally, 

3 August time frame, September time frame. 

4 And it's with a great deal of satisfaction 

5 that I can say that the commitment and the engagement 

6 throughout the Staff and the leadership team has 

7 accelerated to the point where, in Victor's words and 

8 the dialogue with the Office Directors this week, this 

9 is a product that is based on input from the Staff and 

10 the subject matter experts and line management. It's 

11 owned at the Office Director level. We continue to 

12 refine it and, literally at this point, the refinement 

13 is around making sure that we can deliver on the promises 

14 in the low priority portion a common prioritization. 

15 And we may find opportunities to add some 

16 things into low priority as we really scrub the list, 

17 but we're dealing more now, can we really do what we've 

18 said we want to do, than the other way around. It's not 

19 forcing stuff in. So it's very satisfying to me where 

20 we're at. And I don't think I can say more than that. 

21 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: That's fine. 

22 You know where I'm coming from. Okay. I'm going to 

23 speed up here. Miriam, I've got a question for you. 

24 And it's already been addressed by Commissioner 

25 Svinicki and citing the EDO/CFO statement about, we're 

26 in a very different place, things have radically 

27 changed. And we've seen some examples and I want to get 
 70 

1 into directed reassignments, is the thrust of my 

2 question here. We've had lots of success the last 

3 couple of years moving people from NRO to NRR to deal 

4 with Fukushima type issues. 

5 At the end of the day, we can't have people 

6 doing work in -- people have to work where the work is. 

7 And we can't afford to not to do that, we have a 

8 responsibility to the taxpayers, to our licensees that 

9 pay the fee basis, and so, certainly at some stage, I 

10 would expect that there would not be a voluntary type 

11 approach taken to how we approach or people working 

12 where the work is. Are there any barriers or challenges 

13 that you see in having people reassigned where they need 

14 to be to match the workload? 

15 MS. COHEN: I think the biggest issue is 

16 cultural, I mean, quite frankly, that we've been very 

17 good at moving people to where the work is. Sometimes 

18 it takes a little bit longer, but -- in fact yesterday, 

19 I actually had a conversation with Bill Dean in light 

20 of some of the organizational changes that Michele 

21 alluded to in terms of where NRR is going, where their 

22 work is going into 2017, and the need to start now to 

23 figure out how we can redeploy, reassign, staff to the 

24 areas where there's going to be work in the future. 

25 And so, I think what we really need to do 

26 is start having those conversations that I alluded to 

27 earlier with supervisors and staff so that if you've 
 71 

1 been doing X amount of work your whole career, well, the 

2 Agency might need you to kind of expand the aperture, 

3 right, a little bit and try to do something else. We're 

4 not very good at having those conversations as 

5 supervisors in the organization and one of the things 

6 that's very good about this organization, you and I have 

7 talked about this, is that we provide very good 

8 opportunities for staff to expand their knowledge and 

9 skill sets through, whether it's formal training, on the 

10 job training, and so those opportunities do exist. 

11 And I believe that, as we take the steps 

12 now, knowing where we're going in 2017 and beyond, that 

13 we can address those challenges. I think the biggest 

14 thing, as I alluded to earlier, is in providing the tools 

15 necessary for the supervisors and staff to understand 

16 that they have to be a little bit more flexible, on both 

17 ends, to be able to meet those needs for the Agency. 

18 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Okay. Well, I 

19 just -- in this particular, and I'm going to go a little 

20 bit over my time here -- 

21 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Yes, that's fine. 

22 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: -- so I 

23 apologize, but I feel so strong about this. Elsewhere 

24 in the private sector and other federal agencies in 

25 which I have served, there has been a clear policy, if 

26 the work isn't there, people don't stay where they were, 

27 they go to where the work is. And it's not an optional 
 72 

1 kind of decision -- 

2 MS. COHEN: Right, and I would -- 

3 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: -- it's a 

4 directed decision and -- 

5 MS. COHEN: Right. And I -- 

6 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: -- we cannot 

7 afford to do otherwise. This is my personal view. 

8 MS. COHEN: Right. And I think you used the 

9 right word, is afford. Because in the past when there 

10 was Agency surpluses in terms of cash available, you 

11 could afford to fund overages and we're not in that 

12 situation anymore. So people will need to be 

13 redeployed to where the funded work is. 

14 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Okay. And I'm 

15 going to make a couple of quick comments and then one 

16 last question for David. Michele, I want to applaud 

17 you, Bill Dean, and the entire NRR team on the progress 

18 that has been made on the licensing backlog. I think 

19 that is extremely significant. I will not ask you a 

20 question on this, I will just comment, I hope that we 

21 can move out of the JLLD earlier than your slide said 

22 in 2019. I think that's too late, just my personal 

23 view. I'm not asking you to comment, but I think that 

24 it's time to more quickly eliminate that organization, 

25 to roll things back on the regular line organization. 

26 Dave, I was not going to actually question 

27 this, but the thoughtful question that Commissioner 
 73 

1 Baran asked on the rulemaking, I've got ask this, 

2 because I think you teed up some really -- you 

3 categorized and bent it in a way that's helpful. So I'm 

4 going to use an actual example, and if you want to have 

5 Scott come to the table, that's fine, but this is my last 

6 question. I'm a contextual person, I can't think about 

7 abstractly how this might work, and so I'm going to go 

8 back and we have experience with two rules I'm going to 

9 bring to the table here. One of them is the mitigation 

10 for beyond design basis event rulemaking. The other is 

11 the Digital I&C IEEE 603, we'll have a meeting on that 

12 this afternoon. 

13 But I look at those two reactor centric 

14 significant efforts and, similar to Commissioner Baran 

15 on those accountability, who's in charge, who's driving 

16 this, I can't say, well, this is a Project Manager in 

17 this organization that is having the train run on time, 

18 but all the technical stuff is over here in a different 

19 organization. I'm struggling to figure out in the 

20 context of those two recent examples how this might 

21 work, because I can't draw a clear line of demarcation 

22 between project management process and substance. 

23 Help me out here. 

24 MR. SKEEN: Yes. So, again, let me take a 

25 shot at this and, then, Scott, if you want to weigh in, 

26 that's fine, or anyone else at the table. I go back to 

27 the process of rulemaking and how it works, right? You 
 74 

1 have working groups that do rulemaking and you have a 

2 Project Manager that gets usually a multi-discipline 

3 team of technical experts, and it could impact two 

4 different Offices. So, I may already have rules where 

5 I have an NRO and an NRR technical expert on the 

6 rulemaking team. So the project management, they lay 

7 out the schedule, they lay out, this is when we have to 

8 get things done, this is the public interactions we have 

9 to have, but the technical basis, the technical basis 

10 has to come from the technical -- 

11 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: No, I'm sorry. I 

12 understand that. That's not the question. 

13 MR. SKEEN: Yes. 

14 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: The question is, 

15 in the reality how the mitigation beyond, let's just use 

16 that one, you were heavily involved in that in your prior 

17 experience. There's tremendous numbers of public 

18 meetings with NGOs, with industry, with NEI, et cetera, 

19 that evolved that whole rulemaking over a long period 

20 of time. 

21 MR. SKEEN: Yes. 

22 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: So, I don't see 

23 how it's possible to separate out the process piece from 

24 the technical substance of the rule piece. 

25 MR. SKEEN: Yes. 

26 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: So how would that 

27 have worked in that one example? 
 75 

1 MR. SKEEN: Okay. 

2 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: That's the 

3 question. 

4 MR. SKEEN: I would go back to, even if you 

5 combine this into one Office, you will have Project 

6 Managers that have more experience in reactors or 

7 materials or new reactors, right? That's the 

8 backgrounds they have, that's the regulations they 

9 understand. And so as you look to fill that group, if 

10 people leave, if a reactor type person leaves, I would 

11 look to replace them with a reactor type person, a 

12 Project Manager that could help do reactor type 

13 rulemaking. 

14 But what you hope to do over time is 

15 cross-train some of the Project Managers to say, if the 

16 work is more in one area than another, can I have a 

17 Project Manager fill in and do a rulemaking that maybe 

18 that wasn't their original area of expertise, but 

19 they've learned over time or been cross-trained to do 

20 it? So that's what we're looking at as far as putting 

21 the groups together like that. It's not that I would 

22 just have all NMSS materials type Project Managers 

23 running all the rulemakings for reactors or whatever. 

24 You would have people with that background, that 

25 knowledge. 

26 Because basically what you're going to do 

27 is move the people into one Office that have that 
 76 

1 expertise now. That's not going to change any, right? 

2 There will always be some number of folks with their 

3 primary expertise in materials and some with existing 

4 reactors and some with new reactors, but if you could 

5 cross-train some so that if, in one particular area, the 

6 rulemakings increase, in an area they go down, then I've 

7 already got the project management group together and 

8 it's easier under one management chain to shift those 

9 resources back and forth. So that's the thinking. 

10 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Okay. 

11 MR. SKEEN: That's kind of what we're 

12 thinking about. 

13 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: I appreciate it. 

14 Scott, did you want to say something? 

15 MR. MOORE: Scott Moore. Dave is 

16 absolutely correct. And in the example you bring up, 

17 for things like public meetings, they would still 

18 involve some technical staff to answer the technical 

19 questions. The Project Managers that involved with the 

20 reactors themselves would be responsible for setting up 

21 the meetings, carrying out all the logistics, and going 

22 to the public meeting, but there would be some technical 

23 staff that would be involved in the presentations at the 

24 meeting as well. 

25 COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF: Okay. Thank 

26 you. Thank you all. 

27 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Could I -- Commissioner 
 77 

1 Baran, just to make sure we sort equalize time, is there 

2 another question you'd like to ask? 

3 COMMISSIONER BARAN: The answer to that is 

4 always, yes. 

5 (Laughter.) 

6 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Let me just follow up 

7 on this, on the Rulemaking Center for Expertise concept. 

8 So, I think Dave did a very good job just explaining the 

9 potential agility benefit of going this route. If you 

10 pool the three Branches together in a Directorate, or 

11 whatever it's going to be, and you have differing levels 

12 of work in those three areas you pointed out, you have 

13 a pool of people that can cover any area. So I get that. 

14 Can you talk a little bit about the potential downside? 

15 Because it seems to me, you get a benefit, 

16 I think, the Staff thinks is a benefit, not just in 

17 agility, but just in terms of having all the rulemaking 

18 folks together, learning from each other, talking to 

19 each other, maybe it helps with retaining them in the 

20 Agency, you could talk a little bit about that if you 

21 want to, that element, but the downside that would seem 

22 to exist, but I want you to talk about this and tell me 

23 if I'm right, is that while you're pulling those people 

24 together, you're pulling the rulemaking folks and NRR 

25 and NRO further away from the technical experts that, 

26 right now, they're working with in those organizations, 

27 in those Offices. So how do you weigh the pros and cons 
 78 

1 of that? There's a benefit from having the rulemaking 

2 folks together, there's probably a disadvantage from 

3 pulling them further away from the technical folks. Is 

4 that a real concern? How do you look at that? 

5 MR. SKEEN: Yes. So, again, I'll take a 

6 shot at this. You're right, there are downsides to 

7 doing this. There was a reason that they put it closer 

8 to all the Program Offices in the first place, because 

9 each Office felt that they could control their 

10 rulemakings easier. Because I have this certain 

11 closeness of the technical staff and the rulemaking 

12 project management folks. 

13 But in truth, I think back to my time in NRR, 

14 I was a rulemaking Branch Chief at one time many years 

15 ago, we had the project side of it, we controlled the 

16 process, but we didn't make any of the technical 

17 decisions on what would be done and on how you were going 

18 to do the rules. We had lots of processes in place that 

19 the Commission would direct what rules they wanted done, 

20 with the Proposed Rules and whatever, and then we would 

21 follow through on that. But it was always our Division 

22 of Engineering or our Division of Safety Systems 

23 Analysis, those are different Divisions already on 

24 different floors in the building anyway. 

25 So, while you work with those folks, to me, 

26 sitting in One White Flint or Two White Flint and having 

27 your working group meetings, I don't see all that much 
 79 

1 difference in it. Yes, you are right, there is a danger 

2 to that and that is a negative, that's a downside. And 

3 that's something we have to do, if the Commission 

4 decides we should move forward with the Rulemaking 

5 Center of Expertise. There's a whole implementation 

6 thing we have to go through. 

7 We are working on guidance that says, 

8 before you make any moves, the first thing is 

9 communicate, communicate, get stakeholders together, 

10 understand what's going to happen. You have to develop 

11 an implementation plan, a communication plan. You have 

12 to talk to the people that are going to be affected by 

13 this, does this really make sense to go down this path? 

14 And all we've done so far is have some preliminary 

15 discussions with potentially affected Staff to find 

16 out, where there any show-stoppers in their view of 

17 going forward with this? And we didn't hear any. 

18 We heard some concerns, as you always hear. 

19 If you're going to move staff from one group to another 

20 group, there are concerns about that and we have to work 

21 through those. But we didn't hear anything that said, 

22 absolutely not, this isn't going to work. So, if we run 

23 into that, and as we promised in the paper we sent you, 

24 if I run into that as we go through this process, we'll 

25 come back and say, you know what, we found something that 

26 is a show-stopper now, it wasn't as easy as we thought 

27 it was going to be to get this done. 
 80 

1 COMMISSIONER BARAN: In terms of the 

2 benefits of this proposal, as you see them, and anyone 

3 can answer this, but you're doing a good job, so you can 

4 keep going, what's the principle benefit of this? Is 

5 it agility? Is there some other -- why do this? So, 

6 I mean, what's the reason for doing this? 

7 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: Why is it superior? 

8 MR. SKEEN: I'm not saying it is superior, 

9 I'm saying it is -- it's a method you can do, right? 

10 This is a method that we can use. 

11 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: You can make it 

12 work, but it's not superior to what we have. That's 

13 very odd to me. 

14 MR. SKEEN: Okay. 

15 COMMISSIONER BARAN: But this goes to the 

16 heart of my question, right? 

17 MR. SKEEN: Yes. 

18 COMMISSIONER BARAN: It's set up a certain 

19 way now -- 

20 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: If it's a change and 

21 it costs $100k -- 

22 COMMISSIONER BARAN: -- and maybe there's a 

23 really good reason to change it, that's what I want to 

24 know. What's the reason? 

25 MR. SKEEN: Right. 

26 COMMISSIONER BARAN: What's the benefit? 

27 Why change it? 
 81 

1 MR. SKEEN: So, in my view, and others can 

2 weigh in if they think, the advantage of doing this, 

3 you're looking at rulemakings going down in general 

4 anyway. If they go down more in one area than another, 

5 you could end up with a Branch that had three or four 

6 people in it in one organization, which doesn't really 

7 make sense as a Branch to live. If you have a couple 

8 of Branches like that, it's better to combine the 

9 Branches. If those Branches are in one place rather 

10 than spread out in a couple of different Offices, it's 

11 easier to do that consolidation, if that's the case. 

12 The other thought of putting them together 

13 and moving them over to, in NMSS in this case, is that 

14 if the Commission decides you're going to merge NRR and 

15 NRO, you move more resources out of there that you could 

16 say is not the primary mission of NRR, which is licensing 

17 and oversight of the plants. So that's the added 

18 benefit you get out of doing this. And that's, in my 

19 view, that's what I saw as we went through this. 

20 MR. MOORE: I agree with Dave. He covered 

21 what I think the primary benefits are. It also 

22 standardizes service delivery. But I think, 

23 Commissioner Svinicki, in answer to your question, it 

24 remains to be seen if it's superior from the current. 

25 I'm not sure that we can say that right now. 

26 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: And it does cost 

27 money, right, to set up Centers? 
 82 

1 MR. MOORE: Yes, ma'am. 

2 COMMISSIONER BARAN: I think we should put 

3 her down for a definite maybe. 

4 (Laughter.) 

5 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Anything else? Well, 

6 thank you. We had some robust discussion. And at this 

7 point, I want to invite Maria Schwartz, Chapter 

8 Executive Vice President of the National Treasury 

9 Employees Union, for Union remarks. And I presume 

10 somebody's not calling in to add to the discussion. 

11 (Laughter.) 

12 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Anyway, welcome, Maria. 

13 MS. SCHWARTZ: Good morning. Good morning, 

14 Chairman Burns, Commissioners, EDO McCree, NRC 

15 Managers, and my fellow bargaining unit employees. I'm 

16 pleased to be able to be here this morning to speak on 

17 behalf of NTEU Chapter 208. And equally pleased that 

18 many of my comments have already been touched on today 

19 by the Commission and the Agency's Aim Team. NTEU 

20 established a Project Aim Working Group, composed of 

21 Chapter 208 Officers and Members. They have devoted a 

22 good deal of time during the development of the Project 

23 Aim Initiatives, some of which you discussed this 

24 morning, in an effort to make a meaningful contribution 

25 at the partnership table, particularly as these 

26 Initiatives are implemented. 

27 NTEU applauds the Agency Aim Team for their 
 83 

1 dedication and their mindfulness of the importance of 

2 being transparent in regular communications with our 

3 employees. NTEU feels that management has made a 

4 concerted effort to include NTEU during the Agency 

5 Working Group discussions as the Project Aim 2020 

6 Initiatives have progressed. In spite of this, and as 

7 Chairman Burns pointed out, Project Aim, while 

8 conceived of as a measured approach for the NRC that must 

9 fulfill its safety mission while operating in a changing 

10 environment, has weighed heavily on our employees. 

11 Why? Because of the uncertainties 

12 associated with it. It is a truism that one should 

13 never underestimate the power of purpose. Based on 

14 rigorous analysis of research conducted over 30 years, 

15 with 17 million employees, Gallop identified 12 core 

16 elements that best predict employee and workplace 

17 engagement and performance, which of course is critical 

18 to efficiency and effectiveness. Of those 12 core 

19 elements, I know what is expected of me at work ranks 

20 as Number One. Project Aim 2020 envisions a robust, 

21 agile, and strongly engaged workforce. This will not 

22 happen without dedicated and highly skilled employees 

23 and leaders that lead. 

24 As the Aim Team works with the Offices to 

25 develop recommendation on how the Agency should 

26 prioritize its work and the Commission makes decisions 

27 on how that work can be done most effectively and 
 84 

1 efficiently, or not at all, Project Aim 2020's statement 

2 that "employees are our greatest resource" must be the 

3 driver of those decisions. Employees must be able to 

4 see themselves as valued members of the Agency in the 

5 decisions that are implemented. This means ensuring 

6 that decisions are based on appropriate criteria and 

7 that the impact on our employees is accurately 

8 considered and reflected in those decisions. 

9 As the NRC's FTE decreases, it is important 

10 that our remaining workforce does not misinterpret the 

11 Agency's response to a changing environment, believing 

12 that the reduction in staff is hard evidence that people 

13 don't count. The message should be, in fact, quite the 

14 opposite, that our employees matter more than ever. 

15 This is why NTEU has focused on three areas as we have 

16 provided comments on the various Project Aim 

17 Initiatives we have partnered: roles and 

18 responsibilities, processes and procedures, and 

19 training. 

20 And Agency focus on these areas will 

21 provide an environment where employees know what is 

22 expected of them. They will also understand the 

23 processes and procedures that are available to support 

24 success. And, finally, they will be able to acquire the 

25 training necessary to develop the skills they need now 

26 and will need into the future. The Agency's decision 

27 must ensure that our employees get the right message. 
 85 

1 Our employees must know what is expected of them, how 

2 the work should be accomplished and how it will be 

3 evaluated, and, finally, are confident that they will 

4 have the necessary tools, including training, to be 

5 successful. This will ensure that our employees can 

6 see themselves as an engaged and productive part of the 

7 NRC workforce in 2020. Thank you. 

8 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Thanks very much, Maria. 

9 I would like, everyone, to thank you once again for the 

10 presentations today. I know a lot of hard work goes 

11 into this, as well as, more importantly, as you carry 

12 out the recommendations in the Project Aim Initiative 

13 itself. And I think you've provided a good overview of 

14 progress, you've come up and tried to answer some of the 

15 questions, particularly in areas that may be of more 

16 controversy or more debate on it, and I, again, 

17 appreciate the straightforward responses that you've 

18 been giving. 

19 And, in closing, I want to thank all Staff 

20 that have contributed to the Project Aim 2020 effort. 

21 Your dedication and the seriousness with which you 

22 undertake the work and ensure that the Agency 

23 effectively executes its Mission is greatly appreciated 

24 by the Commission. And, with that, we're adjourned. I 

25 wish everyone Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year. 

26 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 

27 off the record at 11:20 a.m.) 
 86 

1 

2 

3 

4