Well good morning again, and I welcome all of our smiling energetic NRC panelists here, and we gather this morning for the purpose of updating the commission and all Interested stakeholders in the room and tuning in on the progress of project aim implementation and related matters Project aim has been another journey yesterday. We were examining the the year six-year long journey since the accident named Fukushima and the agency's actions, but Project aim has been a multi-year endeavor where we're seeking to continue to achieve greater Organizational efficiency and effectiveness in our regulatory decision-making and activities while accomplishing our important safety and security mission So we look forward to hearing the update today, and we'll follow that with some Q&A Before we begin with this staff presentation do either of my colleagues have any comments Okay, well I will turn it over to mr. McCree to get started or Maureen Maureen's good. Okay. Great. Thank you. Good morning. Chairman's Vinicic Commissioner Barron and Commissioner Burns It's my pleasure to be here today with my colleagues to provide you with an update on the progress of project aim Implementation and to describe some of the activities the staff has taken toward fulfilling the goals and tasks set forth by project name First a little historical context We started project aim in June 2014 with the purpose of enhancing the NRC's ability to plan and execute the agency's Mission more efficiently while adapting in a timely and effective manner to a dynamic environment The first step was to understand our future workload and to do so we gathered perspectives from internal and external Stakeholders we identified gaps obstacles and areas needing improvements We evaluated the results of the gap analysis root causes and develop strategies to close the gaps from where we were in 2014 to a desired state for the agency Subsequently we provided the team's report with recommendations and a roadmap to improve the NRC's effectiveness efficiency and agility the commission approved 19 tasks focused largely upon Right sizing the agency while retaining the skill sets needed to accomplish our mission Streamlining our agency processes to use resources more efficiently and improving Timeliness in regulatory decision-making and responding quickly to changing conditions since your direction on the project name report and We have worked diligently to implement the 19 activities associated with project aim And we have done significant outreach it internally and externally to keep all stakeholders informed of our progress In our last briefing to you in July of 2016 Re-reported on the completion of 10 of the 19 tasks including our status implementing the 150 approved Baselining adjustments today. I'm glad to report that since then we've completed the nine additional Project aim tasks with the most recent delivery of the staff's assessment of the operating reactor licensing process business process improvements and a re-examination of a leadership model for the NRC We're now in a normal Implementation phase of many of the activities stemming out of the project aim tasks and while we've completed all of the discrete tasks We continue to seek efficiency within our corporate admission support functions with follow-up studies in those areas in the spirit of project aim We also continue to infuse the overarching goals of becoming more efficient effective and agile regulator into the additional efforts to further streamline our agency processes improve timeliness and regulatory decision-making and enhance our strategic workforce development planning as We implement your direction on fees transformation. We've made significant progress on our proposed changes for 2017 with six of the 14 actions completed and with additional budget transparency included When the 2018 congressional budget justification will be delivered to you and our successful public meeting on the 2017 proposed fee rule was the earliest ever with our proposed rule being two months earlier than ever published So next slide, please Today's discussion will set will highlight several of the completed tasks as well as various follow-on efforts We'll start today's presentations with Eric Benner the deputy director division of operating Reactor licensing in the office of nuclear reactor regulation Eric will discuss operating reactor licensing process improvements Then Scott Flanders director division of site safety and environmental analysis in the office of new reactors We'll provide an update on the implementation of centers of expertise Scott will be followed by Jennifer Golder associate director of human resource training and development in the office of the chief human capital officer Jennifer will provide an update on the agency learning transformation initiative Jennifer will be followed by Rob Lewis the assistant for operations in the office of EDO Rob will provide an update on several implementation activities including a more detailed overview of implementation of rebaselining and A summary of the recently completed tasks as well as ongoing initiatives that carry out the tenants of project name And then finally we'll hear we'll end with some closing remarks from Vic Thank you very much, and I'll now turn the presentation over to Eric. Benner Get my slides up next slide One of the congressional budget justification or CBJ metrics for reactor licensing is to complete at least 95% of licensing actions within one year Timeliness of completing licensing actions is it is important because it demonstrates a predictable Licensing process and allows licensees to effectively schedule when they need to submit requests After we redirected resources in 2013 to support Fukushima response We only completed 87% of our licensing actions within one year in 2014 and thus did not meet the CBJ metric The number of actions older than one year peaked at 112 in November 2014 At which point we undertook concerted efforts to reduce the number of older actions including reassignment of staff Use of contractors and a number of process improvements, which I'll discuss later in my presentation next slide, please As a result of these efforts we reduced the number of actions greater than one year old to 32 at the end of 2015 And to just 10 at the end of 2016 We'd like to recognize the efforts of our own staff and our partners in NRO and Sur and OGC for making this happen Consequently we met the CBJ metric for 2016 and are maintaining the number of actions greater than one year old low enough that we expect To meet it for 2017 and beyond Additionally in 2015 we implemented a goal to increase our performance by 2% per year until the CBJ metric was met So we anticipated that would have been completed by 2018, but we actually achieved it two years sooner The chart get the chart back up shows this progression graphically I note that prior to the increase in these older actions typical numbers Hovered in the the the high 20s. Whereas now we hover around 10. I Also note that from 2015 to 2016 we reduced the average time It takes to complete a licensing action by approximately two months next slide, please So going back to what we did to improve our performance in November 2014 We began holding executive team workload management meetings once a month and leadership team workload management meetings twice a month in these meetings we focused on progress of licensing performance restoration activities identification and resolution of obstacles and lessons learned from recent complex and challenging reviews in January 2015 we issued additional guidance to reinforce the expectations and existing procedures and emphasize several key items including Ensuring that our workload management system dates reflected realistic schedules to support workload forecasting Drafting safety evaluations early in the process with information needs correlating to requests for additional information or RAIs To ensure that the information we were requesting was necessary to make a regulatory determination Ensuring greater division management focus on our eyes particularly second round our eyes and Lastly initiating early division management Engagement on differing views or potential denials of licensing actions next slide, please In April 2016 we issued revised guidance based on lessons learned to improve efficiency of the licensing process regarding Considering other tools such as audits or public meetings in lieu of second round RAIs when those tools could support more efficient and timely resolution of outstanding technical issues Streamline processing of grouped or particularly complex submittals Enhancing communications to ensure timely identification of issues that could warrant non acceptance and Leveraging the license amendment denial process to hold licensees accountable in providing timely and complete responses to RAIs We started several initiatives specifically targeting areas where improvements could enhance the licensing process Specifically the initiatives were to one improve acceptance reviews and licensing procedures Resulting in us issuing revised procedures in January of this year Which adopted and expanded on the revised guidance. I just mentioned to improve regulatory decision-making and Three evaluate information needs for conducting licensing reviews I'll discuss items two and three on the next slide in October 2016 We deployed a new workload management platform called replacement RPS Which offers more flexibility and will aid in processing and managing licensing activities We also interacted with industry with the goal of improving licensing performance and consistency Specifically we issued regulatory issue summary 2015-16 seeking input from reactor licensees regarding licensing actions Predicted to be submitted over the next two years Industry provided feedback that they can't reliably predict Licensing workload beyond a year. So we do not intend to issue another risk However, we now have our project managers obtain updates through their routine interactions with licensees and have created a database of this Information which we can we use to plan resources for critical skill areas and for prioritizing licensing activities We also sent a letter to all operating power reactor licensees in August 2016 To communicate that licensing performance had returned to normal and what they should expect from their project managers Such as encouragement to have pre application meetings on complex or first of a kind reviews Next slide, please As I mentioned in the last slide we have two additional initiatives ongoing in this area The first is to improve regulatory decision-making which has resulted in development of a new timely Evaluation and resolution process or TURP Which was available for a draft use until the end of last year and which we're currently finalizing The second is to evaluate what information is necessary to demonstrate reasonable assurance and licensing reviews Which has resulted in development of concept of using structured multi-level guidance for large routine reviews We're piloting this concept this year before expanding its use We are also preparing to manage increased numbers of risk-informed license amendment requests such as submittals under 10 CFR 5069 By working with industry on amendment templates identifying dedicated review teams and Conducting periodic management status meetings We also plan to reassess on an ongoing basis the need for more diagnostic looks into the licensing process Individual licensing actions based on actual performance as an example We are currently conducting an audit of recent RAIs to validate whether they are following our revised guidance next slide, please To support sustained high licensing performance. We established the following additional internal metrics for 2017 one greater than or equal to 90% of actions completed within 125 percent of hours forecasted to greater than or equal to 90% of actions completed within the schedule forecasted plus one month and three Greater than or equal to 95% of acceptance reviews completed on time The purpose of the first metric resource estimate adherence is to ensure that Licensing actions are completed in accordance with the resource estimates that we develop at the beginning of our review and share with the licensee Regarding the second metric schedule adherence The CBJ timeliness metric reflects an overall timeliness goal for completion of licensing actions But does not adequately account for the many licensing actions that licensees request on an expedited schedule These licensing actions are typically of higher priority to the applicant because they are indicative of Situations that may impede a plant startup or necessitate a plant shutdown if not resolved We developed this metric to better assess our performance on these higher priority licensing actions and demonstrate Predictability to licensees requesting such expedited schedules Regarding the third metric acceptance review schedule adherence Acceptance reviews are performed to ensure that an application is of acceptable quality before we begin our detailed technical review For the 2017 CBJ metric we determined that the review duration Considered should start at the time we determine that an application is acceptable To more accurately capture our performance of our detailed technical review However, we identified that we are taking longer on acceptance reviews than expected And if this continued it could be perceived as we are allowing ourselves more time to review licensing actions To address this possible perception We identified the need to more closely monitor our performance in this area and develop this performance metric next slide, please Task number 19 in the project aim integrated implementation plan implemented recommendation 3-2 Enseki 15-0015 This recommendation was to quote improve licensing by conducting a business process improvement or BPI of the operating reactor Licensing process and make associated improvements to enhance the predictability timeliness and efficiency of the reviews While ensuring and measuring the effectiveness and quality of the reviews close quote We have concluded that the desired outcomes of the BPI have been achieved without the need for the additional time and cost of a formal BPI In reaching this conclusion. We considered many of the things discussed today Including our actions that restored licensing review performance within standards established in the CBJ as well as our Implemented ongoing and planned licensing process improvements Including enhanced performance monitoring and management oversight We documented this basis in Comsec e 17-004 issued last month, which is now before you for review We hope that this presentation and are answering any of your questions today will help support your evaluation of our recommendation Thank you. That concludes my presentation and now I'll turn it over to Scott Thank You Eric. Good morning chairman commissioners Have the next slide, please My presentation this morning will discuss five main items I will provide a brief review of the project aim recommendations leading to the formation of additional centers of expertise or COEs an overview of the subsequent guidance developed to identify evaluate and implement additional COEs a Status of COE implementation and a brief discussion of the near term and longer term Benefits from implementing implementing the COEs as well as a COE periodic assessment. Have a next slide, please The project game report recommended that the staff explored greater reliance is on COE On COEs with the expected outcome of improved workload distribution enhanced collaboration Improved knowledge transfer and enhanced agility The report recommended that additional or expanded COEs be evaluated in 11 areas The Commission approved the recommendations and directed the staff to provide an evaluation that one determined which were the additional COEs to create where they should be housed and the efficiencies that would be gained To to discuss how the centers would avoid stove piping and minimize organizational complexity and confusion and Three to implement the lessons learned from existing COEs office mergers in the tabs report In response, we formed a multi-office working group to conduct the evaluation directed by the Commission From this effort we recommended formation of three limited scope COEs in the areas of allegations External hazards and technical specifications as well as one agency-wide COE rulemaking We concluded that these specific actions would provide benefits similar to those gained from existing COEs and Also increased readiness for the potential merger of NRR and NRO Finally, we concluded that stove piping and Organizational complexity and confusion might be avoided through the development of a standardized process for the creation of a COE and Guidance on ground rules for COEs regarding prioritization reporting decision-making and communication The Commission approved the recommendation to pursue the COEs in the four specific areas Provide that we complete a number of tasks including creating agency-wide guidance on identifying evaluating and implementing COEs cabinet slide, please We completed an issued EDO procedure 940 guidance for identifying evaluating and implementing a Center of Expertise on April 28 2016 We use this procedure to guide the formation of the COEs approved by the Commission The procedure describes the process to identify and evaluate the benefits risk and costs of possible COEs and the basic steps to implement a new COE Stove piping and organization complexity and confusion are specific issues that are considered and the benefits risk and cost Evaluation the procedure also provides a change process to define and document Necessary activities that should be managed during the transition to ensure effective long-term and sustainable results The procedure details the type of documentation required to create centers of expertise the details of the required Documents are intended to communicate the business case for the COE How the COE will operate including the mission vision and roles and responsibilities? And how the COE will be implemented and communicated to assure organizational impacts are minimized Finally the procedure details the establishment of a periodic assessment Process which which results in the development of recommendations and corrective actions as well as methods to track actions to ensure a proper follow-up and completion You have the next slide, please To date we have successfully implemented three limit of scope COEs and areas of allegations External hazards and technical specifications Involving a total of 13 staff for each of these COEs We've managed the transition to ensure that implementation did not adversely affect ongoing and other work activities ongoing reviews and other work activities the rulemaking COE which will affect approximately 31 staff is expected to be stood up in October on October 1st 2017 significant progress has been made toward implementation of the rulemaking COE We formed a implementation team in July of 2016 that developed an outline of the goals of the rulemaking COE The implementation team has completed a number of additional activities such as holding a number of alignment meetings with impacted and partner offices Drafting the COE creation documents required by the EDO procedure Developing a change management plan using the NRC change management framework launched in the fall of 2016 and Actively engaging affected staff to collect and share information They've held monthly employee meetings and establish a SharePoint site to share information and provide opportunities to collaborate on documents Can I have the next slide, please and proposing the four COEs to the Commission We stated that the COEs would provide an opportunity to improve the agency's ability to respond to changing workload without an increase in resources increased readiness of the NRR, NRO merger and enhance effective knowledge management and agency-wide standardization The newly created COEs are still young and while the benefits of implementing them have not been fully realized We have seen some benefits Specifically near near-term example near-term benefits include for the allegation COE the integration of the NMSS and office-wide Excuse me in the Office of International Programs coordinator Into the headquarters office allegation team has allowed for timely and efficient Coordination of NMSS and Office of International Programs allegations and makes it more efficient in terms of the implementation and oversight functions For external hazards bringing all the meteorologists and NRR and NRO together has enhanced our capacity to review multiple operating reactor licensing amendments For some time only one staff member was trained to do these reviews now We have several which increases our agility reduces our risk of review delays and allows for standardization between reviews Likewise the NRR reviewer is being trained on new reactor reviews Which broadens the reviewer's abilities and facilitates effective knowledge management Bringing the external hazard technical experts together has enhanced knowledge sharing as well an Example that comes to mind actually predates the formal external had your COE implementation date and note in 2014 NRO and NRO agreed to detail to NRO the sole NRR hydrologist Who at the time was the lead reviewer for a watts bar one license amendment request The NRR reviewer was team with an NRO staff reviewer with complementary skills Which avoided the time and resources needed to contract for additional expertise The collaboration and knowledge sharing between the reviewers and other hydrologists in the branch resulted in the staff Completing the watts bar one license amendment request on an accelerated schedule The same team was then assigned to review the near-term task force Recommendation 2.1 flooding re-evaluations for the three TVA sites Leading to additional review efficiencies Now with the formation of the COE the same thing reviewers is assigned to review the Clinch River early-site permit In the longer term we anticipate more benefits from the COEs With the rulemaking COE we expect to gain increased agency-wide standardization of rulemaking activities also More staff as more staff becomes cross-strain. We expect to further increase our organizational capacity Next slide and working to realize the benefits from the COE. We are mindful of The importance of addressing challenges and costs that could reduce or offset any benefits As directed by the Commission each COE will perform periodic assessments to evaluate its performance The first self self assessments will be completed within one year of the COE's implementation The finding from these assessments and reports will result in the development of Recommendations and corrective actions that are translated into tangible actions to improve the COE's performance That concludes my remarks and now I'll turn it over to Jennifer Thanks Scott. Good morning. Chairman's finicky Commissioner Baron commissioner Burns It's my pleasure to present you an update on the NRC's learning transformation initiative as well as the competency modeling effort next slide and 2015 OChica briefed the Commission on an initiative to look at ways to improve learning in the agency We discussed why we train how transforming learning can lead to efficiencies including greater flexibility By making learning content available anytime from anywhere potential reductions in qualification times and reductions in costs related to travel for training Additionally, we proposed improvements in learning effectiveness by providing a variety of blended learning solutions Tools and a platform to conduct a more collaborative learning approach in 2016 we briefed the Commission on how the learning transformation initiative fit into developing the workforce The goal is to be able to modify or create new development activities as we identify specific development needs to close skill gaps Which will improve performance on the job? We also spoke of the need to adapt our learning environment to change with reductions in budget support and to leverage technological solutions where efficiency improvements could be gained Additionally, we developed a plan to map agency positions to competencies by developing models that outline the fundamental framework For how we learn to do the work we perform We conducted a pilot and the results suggested the importance of soft skills such as oral and written communications Conflict management and analysis and critical thinking regardless of the position Among the models created we identified consistencies of competency among technical Positions this could indicate that many of the technical positions are similar But with some specialty skill or knowledge if this continues to prove true as more models are developed This could help streamline Qualification programs and enable staff to move and qualify for positions more quickly Throughout 2016 we continue to seek opportunities to expand the transformation of learning and have begun to modernize more courses Both efforts show promise of efficiency improvements and cost reductions while continuing to ensure the NRC has a highly skilled and motivated workforce and now expand on our current status and Transforming learning and our development of a business case for competency modeling activities. Next slide, please We completed a number of modernization activities last year while also continuing to conduct and deliver a wide range of our traditional technical training Highlights include the completion of the series distance learning pilot Upgrades to the collaborative learning environment Expanding the fundamental health physics online program and beginning the movement of some of our technology related courses to a more blended approach Next slide, please The distance learning pilot involved taking what is traditionally been a face-to-face course and allowed a group of students to attend the same training remotely We collaborated with several offices including NRR research and NRO to develop a pilot where we conducted part of the seven week Westinghouse technology series remotely This began in late July and concluded in September and consists of a three week systems course a two week advanced technology course And a two week on-site simulator course from the multiple offices 14 students participated in the pilot There were also eight in-class students at the TTC All distance learners participated in the three week systems course and six distance learners attended the two week advanced technology course All attendees were in person for the two week simulator course at the technical training center The distance portions were broadcast live from the classroom with the online students attending either from their office or home using the go-to training application The exam pass rate was consistent with other in-class training Travel savings for the first two parts equated to approximately $109,000 We consider the pilot a success in that we provided an opportunity for students to attend the series who otherwise would have been delayed in taking it Or would not have been able to attend We also provide proved we can successfully administer the course in a distance learning approach with similar results as in-class courses There were a few challenges Including the technology used and the difficulty presenting the materials online and in classroom at the same time Resulted in us not being as efficient as we believe we could have been Post debriefs were held with the instructors and producers and interviews were held with students to obtain feedback on what went well and what improvements could be made As a whole the comments were positive and the technology performed well Areas for improvement included enhancing instructor to student and student to instructor communications We'll continue to find opportunities to test this again in the future And we do appreciate the office of chief information officer and our our NRO research and research for supporting and participating in the pilot Next slide please We continue to have success with the fundamental of health physics course of which a large portion of the students are agreement state employees We merged an additional week of in-class training into the online course And if we look at the overall picture the two courses were originally three weeks of in-person training equating to 120 hours And the course now requires a reduced time commitment It includes approximately 50 hours of self-paced effort spread over nine weeks and a five-day in-person lab at the TTC We have been able to reduce the amount to 90 hours Which and while that is only a reduction of 30 hours of training It does increase flexibility in that it is self-paced There is also an associated travel savings since employees only have to travel to the TTC for the five-day in-person lab And they don't have to be away from their jobs for a long periods of time Due to the success we're expanding this approach to additional health physics courses and other technology related topics Our focus has extended beyond technology related courses as well For example the rascal radiological assessment system for consequence analysis Software course has been moved online. It was two days and now is a two-hour interactive software tutorial And as you can tell we've been very busy in 2016 Next slide please Moving forward this year we're expanding the number of courses that we're reviewing and considering for transformation We're supporting professional development online courses We have traditionally been in person in person and given time limitations I'm only going to talk about a few We expect power plant engineering to be online in mid 2017 This was originally a three-week introductory course on power plant theory And a few years ago it was reduced to two weeks Over the last year we've updated the content and we're in the final stages of building the online course It will have a similar look and feel as the online health physics course And we'll provide test out capability Once online staff will be able to utilize this course whenever they need it for qualification or a knowledge asset We continue to expand the health physics courses online The introductory health physics course is one week long And part of what the agreement states use to prepare potential inspectors for the qualification programs It's a basic course and is widely attended We typically teach this three to four times a year The conversion will provide savings and efficiencies in travel and time spent by agreement state and their employees And it should be online by mid 2017 Next slide please I'm going to now shift to competency modeling And as discussed in the June EEO Commission, Human Capital Commission meeting Competency models can provide a variety of strategic capabilities for the agency It can support training and development Recruitment, performance management and workforce planning Last year we completed a pilot project laying the framework for a broader effort to reaffirm the competencies of critical positions in the agency Next slide please As mentioned in the June Human Capital Commission briefing As part of the pilot project we built models for reliability and risk analysts And health physics decommissioning inspectors And we purchased models in the area of cyber security and cloud computing Employees in these roles and their supervisors have been using the software to conduct skill gap assessments and create IDPs to close gaps In NRR, one supervisor used the model to help guide the development activities of an employee who was on rotation to his branch And in research, a supervisor is using the data from the model to assist in reassigning the workload across the branch of an employee who retired and has not been replaced We're continuing to seek feedback from users so we can continue to refine the tool While the model and tool show promise it does require time and resources to build and update the training curricula We've extended the pilot to develop a business case to help quantify the benefits these changes can deliver The project will entail building models for several more roles including resident inspectors in advanced reactor positions Expanding the number of users in the tool, gathering time and cost data for our traditional qualification programs And calculating time and cost to complete these new competency based development programs We believe the business case will demonstrate that the models will identify what should be trained Eliminating the need for some of the content currently required by existing qualification programs Resulting in increased effectiveness and the content that's required will be restructured and developed using learning transformation principles Resulting in increased efficiency I do appreciate the support we've received from managers and staff across the agency including people in NRR, NRO, MSS, research, CIO and the regions And you can tell we've been busy and we look forward to more improvements and I'll turn it over to Rob Thank you Thank you and good morning I'm grateful for the opportunity to be here this morning to summarize and share what I believe is a great set of work by many people across the NRC towards fulfilling The goals and strategies set forth in the Project AIM initiative In addition to the tasks that our previous presenters have mentioned There's substantial progress to report since the last Project AIM Commission briefing on July 21st, 2016 The Project AIM team and myself and OEDO have been coordinating and implementing the NRC's wide-ranging Project AIM efforts Many of our Project AIM activities, status updates and project documents are accessible from the NRC's public website Specifically, there's a link to Project AIM's web page in the spotlight section Slide 28, please As you know, Project AIM is the NRC's strategic initiative to enhance our ability to plan and execute our mission While adapting in a timely and effective manner to a dynamic regulatory environment In June 2015, the Commission approved 19 Project AIM recommendations from SECI 15-0015 That addressed NRC's need to improve efficiency and agility as well as right size While retaining employees with the appropriate skills to accomplish our mission and streamline our processes Project AIM has recently achieved a significant milestone in that we have now completed the major deliverables for each of the 19 Project AIM tasks Task 18 on development of an explicit leadership model for NRC was delivered to the Commission on February 6 And Vic will speak to that in a few moments Task 19 on operating reactor licensing process efficiencies was delivered for Commission consideration on January 25, 2017 as discussed by Eric We are not done Sustained effort, planning and leadership remain essential for future success While we recognize the success today to Project AIM, we also recognize we must continue to identify and further enhance the agency's effectiveness and efficiency Our long-standing principles of good regulation, specifically the principle of efficiency, compel us to adopt the alternative that minimizes the use of resources when choosing among several effective regulatory alternatives We'll continue to embrace efficiency beyond the 19 Project AIM tasks by encouraging innovation and new initiatives to improve the way we work Slide 29, please One of the centerpieces of Project AIM was Task 5 of the 19 to prioritize all the agency's work and implement a one-time rebaselining to identify work that could be shed deferred or perform with fewer resources In April 2016, the Commission approved 150 rebaselining recommendations, most of which to be implemented within six months, a few of which to be implemented within 12 or 18 months The rebaselining effort represents reductions of about 48 million dollars including 185 full-time equivalent staff for FTE for NRC As of today, we've implemented 138 rebaselining recommendations, saving 41 million dollars In addition, we are making progress evaluating and implementing the longer-term efficiencies identified in SECI 16-0035 additional rebaselining products We've implemented six of the 16 longer-term efficiencies identified in that paper For example, on December 2nd, we issued a major update to Management Director 3.57, which is the agency's main procedure on correspondence management That update includes many efficiencies that will help our administrative staff We'll continue to work on implementation of the remaining rebaselining approved recommendations and the longer-term efficiencies going forward Slide 30, please I'd like to end by sharing some initiatives and opportunities that supplement or complement the Project AIM tasks and their outcomes These initiatives serve as an indicator that the fundamental tenets of Project AIM are being embraced by NRC employees across the agency On this slide I have four examples, but there are others First, on September 15, 2016, Vic issued a change management strategy to improve the agency effectiveness, efficiency, and agility Which was communicated to all staff and presented at multiple opportunities, such as division and office all-hands meetings This strategy lays out specific actions and communicates expectations that are important to enable the people side of the Project AIM changes To complement the project management side that the team and I have been managing The three-tiered strategy includes activities to encourage employee growth and development, enable innovation, and foster a work environment where people are engaged and equipped to embrace change This strategy is now being employed to guide change at all levels of the agency, from business lines down to individual branches Second, in the spirit of continuous improvement through innovation, one of the projects of the Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program class of 2017 focused on developing an agency-level idea greenhouse program, building upon innovation programs already established in some of our regional offices Notably, this program is designed to be staff-driven, scalable, and transparent Agency-level adoption of the idea greenhouse will help foster cross-office sharing of best practices Third, on December 29, 2016, a task force provided a report to the EDL with recommendations to standardize and centralize support staff functions in NRC headquarters and in the regional offices This effort built upon the Project AIM Task 14, which reviewed and gave recommendations to consolidate regional corporate support functions The task force report contains several efficiencies, effectiveness, and efficiency recommendations Across functional areas of financial management, administrative services, and human resources Finally, as Maureen mentioned, when Project AIM started, we cast a wide net both internally and externally to collect efficiency ideas One idea that ultimately didn't make the final list of 19 tasks was to increase NRC's sharing of investigation information electronically Currently, long-standing practice is to share such investigation information in hard copy due to its sensitivity Recently, a task force was formed with the goal of putting in place secure electronics sharing procedures between the Office of Investigations The Office of Enforcement, the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, and the Regents Expected efficiencies include decreasing printing and mailing costs and enhanced stability to search and manipulate large volumes of information during our investigation work These examples show how Project AIM activities have encouraged a culture of seeking efficiencies throughout NRC I'll now turn the presentation over to Vic Thank you, Rob. Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners Barron, Commissioner Burns, and thanks again for your time As you've heard, we're sustaining the momentum brought by Project AIM since its inception almost three years ago We continue to demonstrate our ability to coordinate and collaborate across organizations to achieve and deliver the many milestones of this project This is a clear reflection of the commitment of our people to work to achieve a common goal in support of our important safety and security mission I'm proud of our progress thus far, and this is due in no small way to the dedication shown in accomplishing these tasks In some cases, delivering results sooner than anticipated We recognize many Project AIM activities also generated some level of anxiety within the staff as we worked and continue to work To shed lower priority work, to streamline and standardize our processes, to centralize functions towards reducing resources and costs We've seen this reflected in feedback survey results and from our outreach activities And we incorporated this feedback in our change management process as well as our ongoing efforts to foster a climate of trust within the NRC By first, communicating more clearly and regularly Secondly, clarifying our roles and responsibilities and the decision-making process Thirdly, promoting a common understanding of terms such as collaboration, consensus, agility, and empowerment Fourthly, supporting staff-driven efforts in the offices and regions to promote employee engagement, innovation, and open dialogue And fifthly, encouraging the use of change management tools We also recognize the potential benefits of implementing an explicit NRC leadership model to further enhance employee engagement As indicated in the recent Comsecchi 17006, which again was recently provided to you for consideration We believe that such a model would focus on important organizational characteristics such as empowerment and shared leadership, innovation, and risk tolerance Participative decision-making, diversity in thought, receptivity to new ideas and thinking, and collaboration and teamwork I see an explicit leadership model as a key enabler that will help us to instill the behaviors throughout the NRC that will allow us to more readily embrace change Our organizational values and principles will remain unchanged They've been effective pillars for NRC's organizational culture and performance for over 20 years and they remain so However, through the re-examination that you afforded us through the staff requirements memo on Project AIM, we've identified cultural gaps between those pillars That we have an opportunity to fill and to interconnect to ensure that the benefits of Project AIM are sustained We believe an explicit leadership model focused on the areas that just described will address those gaps and provide a means to institutionalize the behaviors that will further drive efficiency, effectiveness, and agility into the NRC culture As you know, one of the objectives of Project AIM is having the right people with the right skills and the right job at the right time We delivered a strategic workforce plan to the Commission last year and in it we acknowledged the need to update our approach to strategic workforce planning as circumstances warrant As you know, I recently directed the establishment of a working group to enhance strategic workforce planning The objective of the working group is to provide a clear, comprehensive, consistent, coherent approach to integrating the agency's workload, projection skills identification, human capital management, individual development, and workforce management activities The working group is actively carrying out its charge and has thus far evaluated strategic workforce planning practices across the agency Developed an early draft enhanced strategic workforce planning process and scheduled outreach efforts with external stakeholders to identify best practices They're on track to submit an implementation plan to me late in April I'm optimistic that the working group will recommend enhancements to our strategic workforce planning process that will improve our capacity and agility to meet emerging needs and workforce fluctuations to accomplish the agency's mission I want to emphasize that we're not moving forward in a vacuum We recognize that a best practice in high performance organizations is continuous learning So to ensure ongoing future activities are carried out, we will inform those activities with the results of an assessment of the tasks and efforts that have been completed to date We'll start by assessing the 19 project tasks to identify successes and areas for improvement This is just the first of such assessments to be performed We will periodically assess the efficacy of the project aim related efforts as they are implemented Slide 33 please Looking forward, project aim tasks are truly just the beginning of our transformation to become a more effective efficient and agile regulator Although we've now delivered on the 19 specific project aim tasks and are positioning for official closure of the project The cultural changes embodied in this effort will endure And from my perspective, that is the key success We will continue to identify and pursue opportunities to further enhance efficiency beyond those specifically directed by the commission And we're proud of what we've done and have underway I hope we've conveyed the extent to which we do embrace change and agility while keeping our focus on our important safety and security mission I'd like to conclude by thanking the numerous members of the project aim task force Both the members of the staff and management throughout the agency some of whom are here today For their efforts and continued support of project aim and the various ongoing efforts that stem from this project That completes our presentation and we're prepared for your questions and comments Thank you all for the presentations. We begin our Q&A today with Commissioner Barron. Please proceed Thanks. Well, thank you for your presentations and all of your efforts I want to start with some questions about how we're coping with the significant FTE reductions that have resulted from project aim And what effect those reductions are having on the agency's capabilities NRC has reduced its total FTEs by more than 11% in just two years bringing us to around our 2007 FTE level Although project aim has been valuable these steep reductions do create some challenges For the agency's long-term health we need a stable pipeline of new talent And we need to keep the talent we already have in the midst of all these changes With more people leaving the agency we need to make sure that we're capturing all of that knowledge Every organization has to manage these challenges but it's harder during a period of downsizing With that backdrop I want to ask about our ability to handle new unexpected work Do we have and are we going to be able to maintain a surge capacity for when significant unexpected work comes along Like say the potential construction of the Bellafont reactors Commissioner that's a great question. I think I'll start and perhaps let my colleagues comment as well I think that's an important question and it's one that I ask myself routinely I would offer first of all that as you know the focus of The rebase lining component of project aim was to identify lower priority work that we could shed And we've done so and we're doing so and that in many some cases has involved a reduction in the associated FTE And we're complimenting that or enabling that through the constrained hiring that we've had in place over the last few years I do recognize that we cannot continue to do that indefinitely that there will we will we need to identify a floor At which we can sustain our capacity to carry out our safety and security mission And that's something again that the senior leadership team is aware of and we plan to have more detailed discussions At our strategic leadership meeting in May to better understand where that floor is in terms of the work that we have on board now And that that we anticipate in the in the near future And to enable us to one of the reasons that the update to our approach to strategic workforce planning was also timely Is because it also has a role in in helping us to determine what that what that floor what that floor is as to anticipated work that May require skills that by that we don't have or don't have insufficient Numbers that's an area that we're looking at at currently because we are Considering the impact of some additional work whether it's in advanced reactors or or perhaps in in in in the area of materials where new fuels or new fuel design may Require a capacity that we don't have on board so we're identifying steps now that we can take to mitigate those those areas I appreciate that you're doing that and you kind of predicted that the next question I had which is about how do we Ensure that core capabilities are maintained In the staff and you you mentioned one of the examples I had in mind which is you know we're we're seeing growing interest in advanced technology fuel We're hearing about growing interest in submittals on 5069 and it raises the question for me about You know how do we make sure we retain the technical and regulatory expertise to handle complex areas of work like that It's it's makes a lot of sense to match our workload To to our staffing But when you have an exact match what room does that leave you for a surge capability and if the work we have today or we anticipate for tomorrow Doesn't include certain capabilities that we're going to need a year or two from now how do we handle that and it sounds like you're focused on those those issues That kind of challenges of the downsizing Well again, we are focused on it I'd like to say that we have all the answers today for all the areas that we anticipate but but we we're working on it I do recognize that we do have the capacity beyond the NRC to tap into other resources whether they're via contract or or from the labs We do have that capacity and to to seek additional support But again as part of our strategic workforce planning efforts, we're one of the assumptions is that we retain The capability and nurse that capability in-house though for for those critical skills that we need with them in our C So that's our that's our near-term focus is to make sure that we have and retain that capability in-house Let me ask one more kind of big picture question on FTE reductions and that's you know when I see the lists That come out weekly of NRC employees who are leaving the agency for one reason or another I see a lot of really talented individuals on that list who I think it's a real shame. We're losing for whatever reason How do we retain our next generation of agency leaders Who may be concerned that they won't have the same opportunities they may have had for advancement a few years ago How how are we addressing that so that we don't lose our kind of rising stars And in our talent that we have today So I think that's a multi-part answer part of which I spoke to in my remarks And that is one creating an environment where they can see themselves growing in within the NRC This isn't the first time in our history where we've gone through periods where we've had We've been reducing staff and and there's been a reduction in opportunities if you would In terms of promotion opportunities But there have always been and we're making sure that even now we're creating part opportunities for people to grow and develop Because at some point we I will anticipate again that there are more opportunities for promotion opportunities But meanwhile we have to create an environment where people can see themselves in and see themselves Grow and and and be with NRC for for a long time Let me ask about a couple of the papers that are before the Commission one That Eric talked about was the or is the operating reactor licensing business process improvement paper for one paper, but that's what it's about and You know, let me just start by saying I think the staff deserves a lot of credit For working through the licensing backlog that had built up in 2013 and 2014 You know as Eric talked about Over really about a two-year period the number of licensing actions pending for more than a year went from 112 to just 10 That's a pretty significant reduction Eric can you give us a flavor for the few actions that are taking longer than a year to resolve What kind of actions are they how complex are they are these the kinds of licensing actions We would actually expect would take longer than a year to resolve Well, I'll give sort of a multi-part answer because they all We assess complexity when an application first comes in and we try to create a schedule And apply the right resources to it from the the front end and and actually certain classes of applications such as extended power-up rates Are excluded from the one-year metric because they're on a different schedule, so it's not just complexity What I would call it is is something I would say is emerging complexity We get into a review and we typically do a schedule for nine to ten months nominally And that schedule is predicated on one round of RAIs because we almost always have one round of RAIs but if we get into the review and You know either the responses to the first round of RAIs aren't adequate or we find that this was More complex than we had originally anticipated Then in all likelihood there's going to be supplemental information needed from the licensee Or a second round of RAIs and almost by definition if you start with a nine to ten month review And you add another cycle of interaction with the licensee At that point you're pretty much pressing up against the twelve month metric So you know at that point we still try to achieve twelve months but some of those go over So I think the good thing about where we're at now is when you got a hundred and twelve of these things You're just you know trying to throw resources at it and get these things down Now that we only have most months we only have ten things that are over twelve months We look at those individually and really are able to keep management focused to say Do we need any more? Do we need to elevate this? Do we need to look at other activities? We actually about three months ago said hey we're going to look at all the ones that are over twelve months and look for any Thins or consistencies and we and we really found there there were none when you get down to that level Okay, and the the thrust of the staff's paper is that you know to get the backlog Down a lot of process improvements were made as part of that and the staff's Recommendation is well. We don't need a formal business process improvement effort at this point because we effectively accomplished that already is Are there any you know significant efficiencies you think we would get from having a formal business process improvement initiative or Not really I'll start with a short answer. No Obviously I'll expand the the business process improvement Would obviously be very structured in a detailed look and I would say there's two two parts of how it could look at efficiencies in the process First is the pure process efficiencies, you know Do you have unnecessary steps? Are you doing the steps in the most efficient manner? We feel like we've really squeezed down on that part to say this this process is lean and mean for example You know, we've moved a lot more to electronic communications. It used to be we did everything by letter now with the ability to capture Emails and atoms like when we transmit our eyes that is done via email and and we automatically capture that in Atoms so we're really trying to get rid of any work that we would perceive as not value-added The other piece is what what true technical work is necessary to make a regulatory Decision and that's where we're not done yet and I talked about our our you know technical adequacy initiative And that's where we are still looking hard at you know particularly for you know repeated large reviews And I'm going to use the 5069 example and in a moment that if we can really get down to what is truly the minimum Amount of review necessary to to approve an application like that That's where we're going to have resource savings moving forward So I I don't you know, we already are working on that issue So I don't think a BPI would would add much effort would add much efficiency. So going back to the example of 10 CFR 5069 one of the things we've seen in the past is you know, we'll get a new big thing And we'll start reviewing it and we'll kind of learn on the fly. So what are we doing now now? Now we know these are going to be coming in right? We have the new regulation in place industry has said there's going to be many of these coming And so we're working with industry to say okay, let's have a template so we have you know consistent applications come in Let's have the dialogue beforehand so we know what sort of information should be included in that application So we get a high quality application Let's plan to have you know the you know the right knowledgeable people review the first wave of those so that they you know really can hit those hard Let's capture their lessons learned in this you know detailed guidance so that as we get more and more of these in New reviewers assigned to those reviews aren't having to learn on the fly they now have A roadmap of how do you conduct this review in an efficient and effective manner? So that's that's what we see as the you know the future efficiencies to be gained in this process Okay, thanks. I was hoping to have a chance to talk about the leadership model We see maybe that comes up in the rest of the conversation. Thanks Thank you commissioner Burns Thanks, I may touch on it if I get a chance to the end I do want to express my appreciation of the staff for the work that has been done under project aim I am a little bit concerned about Vicks use of the words official closure And I'll say that because I think what we have seen and an extraordinary efforts and I think very important efforts as we move forward Is in effect building the house laying the foundation Putting in place the Processes and frameworks, but I think what we still have out there is the success of Application and the assessment of the application of those frameworks and those structures And and for example, I will take the strategic workforce plan We're actually in a reset of the strategic workforce plan initiative I think that's it. I think that's a good good thing, but the outcome ultimately is because one of the thing I can recall I think when we actually had a fuller commission when we when commissioner Ostendorf was here one of the Concerns I know commissioner Ostendorf was somewhat dismayed about for example reassignment into Or resistant of reassignment into positions for which persons are are qualified now we're We're working on that in terms of assuring and we should work on On things like Assuring that if you're asking a person to take a task that they're qualified to do that and Doing ways you if you're learning transformation or other types of things But that's why I say where where I'm coming from is where I think we're just at a start now Whether we call it project game in the future or not that to me that that makes no difference The the other piece of it. I would say is that there are still there are things we've talked about if we've made Efficiencies or strove Toured efficiencies and things like use of resources Making Touched on the question of being more electronic In this age in terms of how we Process certain things one of the things I've heard from licensees and actually, you know, this may be a longer term effort Is is that if you we look at some of the Reporting or record keeping requirements peppered through our regulations And again regulations That were promulgated when I was a boy and there weren't computers on the desk And I will note again that the lawyers were the first ones in this agency to have computers on their desk But the point being that the way you if you wanted that kind of record keeping or reporting It had to be done done by paper And so and whether some of that record keeping or reporting is really necessary in this day and age So I think those are that's for what I'm trying to say is those are the some of the challenges I see Moving forward In terms of taking the lessons from project aim Applying them and sustaining them because I think then we're able to focus on the things that Eric's talked about With respect to if we're going to get Within the context and I would expect to in the context of 50 69 and a risk-informed framework Again, I think it helps us focus on the important regulatory issues that that we face And that we have let me ask a couple specific questions. I think Jennifer One of the things I think particularly And I think we've heard compliments from the agreement states with respect to the initiative to do more online learning It costs them less it costs us less and You know, I think the assessment is it still is effective But I don't know if there's particular feedback that you've had from the agreement states on that because our ability to provide The training or undergird the training is really at the core of making I think the agreement state program successful So if there are any you know any insights or Comments you've gotten back from the from the state. Thank you. Yeah the feedback on from the agreement states for the Health physics course has definitely been positive We did have the instructional staff meet with the students during various portions to discuss how it's been going and I mean overall we've had Positive feedback and no big issues. We did we were able to make some minor adjustments Based on the feedback received, but it's been very positive from them. Okay good I guess Eric what one I one of the questions I would ask is in terms of And I I've supported the staff's initiative to Defer or not do the business process Initiative with respect to the licensing but What are you all thinking about within our In terms of the ability this ability or flexibility to adjust if you have You know the next on you know unexpected type event that affects The licensing Volume or the licensing flow I think one of the things you touched on which I think is good as I think is an anticipation of more in the way of 50 69 type requests, but Yeah, that I'll start there of just I mean that's the that's the focused example But I would say it's anticipation of Increased risk-informed type licensing action So, you know with that part of it is planning on our part Part of that is working with industry to see if they can meter their work because it used to be You know we would just take everything in but as we've talked about we had people doing lower priority work So if all of a sudden more licensing the higher priority work came in We had that surge volume Going back to what Commissioner Barron said We have less and less of that surge volume now We have mechanisms of contractors and whatnot, but on the 50 69's one of the things we're working with the industry right now Is is the metering just like we do with licensed renewals to say you know Here's how we can work these because an original estimate we got from the industry was we were going to get 22 of these in one quarter and then zero the next quarter and we said well that really isn't going to work in our system The other is We're doing more cross-training. I mean particularly across the NRL NRO boundary with the centers of expertise We have now in some of the technical organizations You know they have the ability to do both kinds of work so we can look at you know what's higher priority But I think it it goes back to I think there's two things now one We're probably better planning for the fact that okay something is going to tip the Apple cart and You know lessons learned from Fukushima's how are we better prepared and Two is you know, we're monitoring this a lot more closely now Like I said now with with where we are at any time a licensing action seems to be getting off base either on schedule or projected hours We're doing some looksie to say what's going on here and how can we turn it around so Hopefully between better, you know planning and better real-time monitoring We're just better equipped to deal with something like that happening in the future. Okay. Thanks. I appreciate that Scott I want to talk a little bit on on the centers of expertise We talked about the tech spec and the external hazards Working and basically at this point and it may be because this is as you go forward and You know we want to see you know That we can achieve success in it this this may explain where I'm going with this question right now It really focuses on NRO NRO Combination obviously within the NMSS area in both those areas there can you know there are issues of external hazards And and NMSS uses tech specs or the the equivalent some of those So what's the thinking about where that might go in the future if if you meet what what I would say is Start the success metrics for it because I know I know some there there's some concern potential Concerns about what the effectiveness of that and that we should be on top of that and be responsive to that So I like you right so When we were forming the COEs it was it was thought about in terms of including NMSS and the external hazard COE as well as tech specs And it was decided that at this point in time for external hazards because of the way in which they work It would be difficult for them to separate some of their project management skill sets from the folks who actually do some of the hazard work And so they thought that it may not be the best time to do it However, we have been supporting them on certain discreet technical areas for example for the WCS Waste Control Specialist application We're supporting them on some of their geotechnical engineering work activities as well as their Some of their siting population density background areas that we have expertise in that they don't have And we also plan to support them if they receive another application in those areas So there's some pockets where we're continuing to support them So as that continues to work we'll see how that develops over time to see if it makes more sense for a broader Expansion of a COE into those other areas, but we are providing some support for tech specs It was thought of that the diversity of the types of tech specs was maybe too much to consider The tech specs branch is new and we just formed And so we'll have to see with time whether or not that makes sense to potentially expand But right now it was thought it was too much diversity in terms of the types of tech specs Well I appreciate that I think it's wise to try to go smoothly but judiciously into it And I appreciate their assessment Last thing I'll may give Vic an opportunity to talk a little bit more about the leadership model You know I was one of those when it originally came to commission It did not basically did not support it at that time It recognized we allowed the opportunity and I still say you know I still have some skepticism reading the paper That's partly my personality I will first confess in terms of how I sort of look through and structure some of those organizational things But you know I respect the staff in terms of if this is something that it believes would help it But I'll give you a chance Vic to give maybe sort of more general defense of it But particularly one thing I would like to address is in these various models and we have various things We have principles of good regulation, organizational things, now this We have to draw a Venn diagram and I'm going to draw my undergraduate studies Because when I was a freshman in college I had to take philosophy and religion But I remember that as a famous story from the Talmud And this Talmud is a Gentile asked why should I convert to Judaism And the famous answer of Rabbi Hillel he says why should I And convinced me I should convert when you'd explain the entire Torah to me while I stand on one foot And the famous there's one famous Rabbi I just smacks him with a cane and moves on And the other one Rabbi Hillel is a very famous figure says He says all the Torah can be reduced to one thing do unto others as you would have them do to you All the rest is commentary and in our common in a way Torah for us is the Atomic Energy Act Perhaps we'll add the principles of good regulation but it does strike me a little bit like that And again I'm respectful of the effort But what I don't want to do is the create ever broadening circles And so I've spoke gone on I apologize to my colleagues for going on but I'll let you give a defense But the one thing I would ask you to do is address why to eliminate transparency Because particularly since I think that elimination could be confused Commissioner Burns thank you for that I have to admit I was initially skeptical as well I actually wrote the commission paper on the values 22 years ago and Mike Weber And I had the opportunity to sit with Commissioner Rogers and explain to explain why we need these values When we have these principles that are that are the Torah and we were successful I don't know if I'll be successful today but I will start with I understand your skepticism What edits core persuaded me that we have an opportunity to do more Is that we're fundamentally talking about leadership and we're all leaders from wherever we are we are leaders And there's some areas that we have been able to extract from our behavior matters campaign The federal employee viewpoint survey of 2015 as well as the IG safety culture and climate survey That point to areas where we're not doing as well as we used to Perhaps it's a temporal issue maybe it's a demographic issue maybe it's a leadership issue at its core But things are different there and maybe it's environmental but it's a different and we can continue to do the same thing We can tout our values and our principles and expect a different outcome But that there is a definition for doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome So I believe we have an opportunity to do something different that I believe All of us can see ourselves and and and relate to and it is those six areas Regarding the transparency characteristic which we spoke about as a senior leadership team quite extensively As you know the only value and principle that is the same as our openness value and principle And when you read those and extrude what it's at the core of it both from an external openness perspective From principles of good regulation and the internal openness that we derive from the language and our value It is essentially the the transparency theme that that's pointed to by what we're getting out of the survey So again I do I do believe there's an opportunity to to better connect and to to operationalize those behaviors That are described in those characteristics and that's that's the opportunity that we look forward to undertaking Okay, thank you Well, thank you for that I'll begin by aligning myself with where Commissioner Burns opened Which is the notion about closure of our aim efforts or anything that sounds like that it does have the optic of declaring victory I would observe that when whatever we want to term the official kickoff of project aim I kind of peg it to a time during Chairman McFarland's tenure Even though the Commission and the staff had begun to engage on something that became aim earlier than that But aim was launched as a five-year initiative that I think had a conclusion in 2020 So there is the perception that you would have have to have you know well exceeded and had a dazzling performance Beyond what you expected to declare that you know you're you're closing a task early I think of it as sustainment and I use as an analogy what we expect of our licensees and regulated entities Which is if they've had a declining performance vector and gotten themselves in a category of greater regulatory concern and oversight We require an awful lot in terms not only of corrective actions but then sustainment of those actions Inspection to raise our confidence of the sustainability of the corrective actions And so I wouldn't be surprised if external overseers of the work of this agency expected the same of us So I agree with Commissioner Burns that there is a substantial opportunity for assessment and then perhaps modifications Or adjustments to the actions that we've taken and in my mind in the cycle of improvement Again we require that of regulated entities I think it's part of our internal culture if we're honest about it of continuous improvement It's that checking and adjusting steps that go on so I think we see this in terms of the centers of expertise Where I was initially publicly skeptical but I do want to note that the Office of EDO has a procedure now For the eventual assessment of the effectiveness of those centers of expertise It's very systematic and rigorous so I really look forward to what will come out of that On the business process improvement initiative In addition to I think as Commissioner Barron had talked about NRR concluding that they had somewhat taken many of the steps of the improvement initiative in the process of addressing the backlog that had existed I understand another justification for re-looking at that particular task And undertaking a business process improvement initiative is having made those modifications to staff internal processes In order even if you wanted to do a process improvement look right now You have to have run time with established procedures I think anyone corporately would tell you that in order to come in and do an audit or assessment I can't audit you if you just made adjustments last month and you have a completely different system For tracking yourself or doing these processes So I get that but on those two points I would ask Eric Was a deferral or coming to the Commission and saying instead of not doing the business process improvement Did you think about proposing to the Commission that the action be deferred for I don't know Pick it five years or whatever was that part of your discussion and you ended up with closing the activity And if so why and I would ask Scott when do you expect to have initial assessments and results coming in on the effectiveness of the Centers so those two questions. I don't whoever would like to go first Eric Why don't you go go first we did consider deferral the pros and cons of deferral versus closure And it came back to some of the things I was saying to Commissioner Baron that we really in our hearts felt You know that from the pure process standpoint the BPI even after some mass stability was likely not going to get many resource savings How do you know that systematically though is it a process that you use to arrive at the improvement initiatives you already made Was there a systematic look is that how you decided upon the actions that you've already taken which reduce the backlog I think it came down to we did look at each of the piece parts of the licensing process the acceptance review You know safety evaluation development RAIs and and looked at It's curious to me because the staff is very very wise that if they had done that and documented it in any way You could come to the Commission and say you already did the business process improvement initiative was that I guess I'm saying that I feel like if you had done a systematic look you're likely to have documented that because that's also part of NRC culture is we're pretty thorough in documenting things and therefore in essence you would have done it If it were a comprehensive look and it were documented in some ways you would have done a business process improvement initiative Does that make any sense you know I understand where you're getting at but it was we were you know the environment we were in was We had too many old actions so we were at the time trying to work that down Yeah, I mean your imperative was very very clear because the Commission wanted you to get rid of that backlog So there there was a mix of dumping more resources on it to just do the work at the same time looking at how did we get here How can we avoid getting here in the future so But I'm not trying to pick on NRR but but you know it does leave the question It is reactor safety is the biggest part of our budget which is of course if we're going to do a business process improvement anywhere It's going to end up landing a lot of it on NRR shoulders But I it does leave the thought that you know the conclusion that There aren't other areas that we've addressed all the areas and look at and your argument might be We'll look at how we reduce the backlog in two years and you can't argue with the results But the point is if you didn't take a systematic look do you really know that You have an instinct that there aren't other things that you could harvest other efficiencies and changes But but how do you know and we're not done? I mean I go back to I think where we're at is for the process We've looked at these administrative piece parts and and and even with some independent reviews By different auditors those administrative processing pieces are are pretty tight Just from observation also if you look at the overall contribution to the hours of a licensing action say you have 100 hours You know when you look at the country there's not much benefit to be gained there What we have left and it goes back to nuclear safety is the true you know development of our regulatory findings And that's where we're saying we're not done We realize through this technical adequacy initiative that there are still opportunities there to be gained by saying You know how can we ensure that you know when a when an application comes in that we're really trying to focus on What is necessary for us to make a right and I you know I'm not trying to lead the witness and get an answer Or help you out on marketing of your pitch to the commission But I it occurs to me that you've done a lot you you intend to continue to do a lot You did it in a prioritized fashion of you know if a process is a 200 hour process You spent your time on the thing that's a hundred of those hours and not on the thing that's two hours of the 200 hours So I get that and that makes a lot of sense But there is something kind of conclusory and a kind of like a mission accomplished about your coming to the commission and saying You know let's just not take this look so maybe that is kind of a marketing piece I don't know or maybe it's just that I'm suggesting you kind of sold yourself short in the explanation of what you've done And what you intend to do and so I offer those cautions But I do want Scott Flanders to be able to answer his question So please go ahead so my answer hopefully will be short Each of the COEs are required to provide their assessment within one year of the implementation date So the first one would be in this coming July and the allegations group July 2017 And then the next one would be external hazards in October of this year That's the formal assessment of course we are always seeking feedback from our partners that we work with One of the things that we do and that we're planning to do as a part of our COE activities We meet periodically with the partners We want to have a meeting where we have them all together and to discuss where we are with our priorities Work activity schedules also provide them an opportunity to talk about how things are going in terms of Some of the rules of engagements that we spent a fair amount of time working on together with them And seeing if there's any things that we need to adjust as a part of that process So we'll try to do that in advance of October and then really start really working to try to gather additional information We actually included in the back of our documents when we put together the COE a survey that could be sent out I was checking with some of my branches I asked them if they actually sent the survey out They haven't sent it out yet but we're going to encourage them to send it out and start seeking some feedback in advance Okay and I mentioned this not just because I expressed concerns about the centers and their establishment Maybe obscuring two things one of which was kind of organizational line accountability You know how do you get work product out of a group you don't have supervisory authority over But also these assessments I think have strong tentacles into kind of competency modeling Strategic workforce planning and all of those elements coming together to get where I think Victor mentioned We wanted to have the right people with the right capabilities and be able to deploy them on the right work as work ebbs and flows So I think those assessment results are important I would just say on competency modeling really appreciate Jennifer your presentation In fact that there is sensitivity that I heard throughout your presentation about the utility of the modeling and its input And its interface with individual employees at times the agency has heard frustrations from employees about overly elaborate systems Within which they're supposed to track and report their competencies and qualifications That's in addition to other work they're doing so if it is overly complex and burdensome The likelihood that they're really going to be motivated to go in there weekly and keep it up to date is less So I heard in your presentation that we've heard that feedback and we're sensitive to that going forward that this is yet another And they also have to report time and attendance and other things because of the fee billable nature of our work So I appreciated that as well I'll just my last comment I think will be about the leadership model I appreciate that Commissioner Burns talked about that I'm really trying to lay aside some of the skepticism that I feel just I'll confess the same thing he did is that this isn't my area of expertise The whole knowledge of the community of research and practice on how do you lead and inspire and move people How do you have accountability and kind of old school You know you have good people you resource them you equip them you train them you express expectations and then you hold accountable Which is the really important piece there and so when I read about leadership models You know there's a good chance and more than half of it's going over my head because I don't really I'm not sensitized On a lot of that but the one obligation that I do feel in being a member of this commission so long Is this if the staff comes back to you a couple of times and says we've looked at this and looked at this and we think we need this Then one obligation to me that's very very clear is that as the as the commission we want to be providing you with what you say You need to do to do all the hard work that that we expect you to be doing so I will try to keep an open mind on that It's just it's hard to navigate through was there broader buy-in maybe you could help me hear like how did you was this kind of the senior executive class Who thought this did you do any kind of focus groups to know that kind of frontline employees also identified elements of this is something they needed Chairman thank you for your question The Genesis was of course back during the initial stages of project game and recognizing that there were gaps in in leadership philosophy That we had not closed in spite of our values and our principles and while their pockets of leadership and performance where these attributes these characteristics were reflected It's not common across the agency and even the terminology and what we mean and how it manifests itself and actions and decisions and behaviors was is inconsistent So the question was how do we drive alignment to gain a shared understanding of what it is we're talking about if it's not clearly in our values and principles and we've not animated it What is it can we agree on the definitions can we agree on the supporting again actions and behaviors we socialize them with the senior leadership team We have not embedded them yet fully with either the leadership team or the staff this would be the opportunity to do that should the commission support our effort to go in this direction Well you and I have sometimes talked about and I've talked to other senior leaders here about first line supervision is really one of the toughest jobs you know at the agency I think as you move up in responsibility the issues get larger there's more issues and they're more complex but I think in terms of managing you know that can be a very very difficult job We've talked about a culture where leaders at every level and managers at every level feel you know a good I'll use an Austin Dorf term forceful backup They feel a good level of support if they approach decision-making in the ways that they're expected to they're going to get the support of the next level and the next level and the next level Is it your sense that the leadership model you propose would support continuing to create that culture where you know branch chiefs and project managers leaders at every level feel supported Yes ma'am absolutely and yes and I we also view a leadership model as a living document I'm of a generation where I'm I do it that way because that's what you told me to do and that's what I've shown you I believe we have a across generational demographic where more want to know not only what you want me to do but why you want me to do it and how and that takes more time it takes more effort it takes more clear discreet articulation of what we mean and consistent follow up and in these areas we just have not taken the opportunity to articulate that yet and pull all the other pull the other pieces together so that it's harmonized Other organizations have done it and have created a lot of success and that's sustainable because people can see themselves in it they can identify the gaps and be held accountable Now it's accountability is another term of art that that has come up in our benchmarking and yet that's not clearly articulated and a principle or value but it is part of what we do it's part of what leaders should do even that self management and we again love the opportunity to to build that Okay thank you for that and it's clear that you bring you know a strong commitment to the leadership model and so I know the commission will think about that really deeply as we look at the proposal that you've laid in front of us I'm reflecting a little bit longer term on project AIM and I just want to say that this a lot about project AIM is about you know the workforce reductions and the budget constraints and other things but I don't personally I don't want to lose sight of the fact that there are really positive constructs around the origin of project AIM and I've used this kind of cheeky term of NRC 2.0 at other meetings but I thought you know very sincerely for me when I tried to think and bring creative energy to project AIM it was about we're always improving and evolving as organizations no matter our size and we have an opportunity to have an invitation to bring forward you know if you've worked at NRC for three years or for 30 years it's a solicitation for what kind of NRC do you want to be working at what does it look like and no one knows better the frustrations of an individual process or procedure in NRC better than NRC I mean we know the things that if we were king for a day and we could rewrite these processes so I think there's that aspect I continue to be really excited about the staff energy that they bring to this about this initiative going forward and I don't want to lose sight as we ask questions and have this dialogue of those aspects about NRC's future which I think are so exciting at bottom and so I had a weird idea that I was going to ask Victor for my Q&A and I'm way over time but I was going to ask you to either think about or respond to the question says at the next project AIM meeting it's a year from now and you're sitting across from the commission and whatever people are here on the commission at that time and it's a project AIM meeting you know what if you've been successful as the EDO in marshalling everything and having success on all these initiatives what are the kinds of things that you're presenting to the commission at that time what kind of success is what are the topics and what are you saying you don't have to give the answer because it's the kind of thing I should have told you in advance if I was really going to ask you but I think it's a great question I would start by saying I would have hoped before coming to this meeting that it wouldn't have been a project AIM meeting but it would have been an efficiency effectiveness and agility meeting which I believe is the core of AIM the core that we spoke about in a senior leadership meeting in November 2013 we conducted a SWAT analysis and said you know we need to do differently we need to do more effective more efficient and more agile I believe when we get there as an organization and have confidence that we're doing that routinely without a project label that would be the major success I believe we would have delivered on a leadership model and we would have integrated it in a way that everyone can see themselves in I believe we would have sustained the business process improvements we've seen in NR and all of the metrics including the three additional ones that NR created that Eric spoke to we'd be achieving on those in the context of the enterprise risk management which we didn't have an opportunity to speak to but we would have operationalized that within our culture so we're anticipating work and risks and mitigating them and that'll be folded into an enhanced strategic workforce planning framework where we'll be able to identify the resources that we need that we may not have in our initiating steps to bring them on board and get them fully trained and acculturated most importantly we will have be still fulfilling our safety and security mission because without that all of these other great things which are enablers are less important Thank you for that. I want to ask my colleagues if they had any additional questions. A couple of questions to follow up the leadership model. I feel badly doing it because that was just such a nice close but so one of the things that the paper contemplates is the establishment of a working group to develop the leadership model Can you just briefly talk Rick about kind of the level of effort you're envisioning for this process with the characteristics the leadership characteristics already drafted by the leadership team that was involved in this and presented in the paper what do you see is what the working group would be doing? Thank you for that question. I see those the characteristics and the definitions describing that the what those characteristics look like it doesn't have and doesn't describe the how those specific behaviors we would expect from one another as we demonstrate those characteristics it doesn't provide the measurables how we're going to incorporate them in our routine processes to make sure that they're understood and they're being embedded and again the connection with our values and our principles that work would be what the focus of the working group would that's principally what the working group would focus on. In just in terms of the timing of this obviously there's a lot of change going on right now. I think everyone knows that and feels that. Talk for a minute about whether this is the right time for this. I don't want folks to be overwhelmed with just another initiative when they're also trying to do their work. Is this the right time for this is a year from now the right time for this. Can you. And I think that's a great question as well as you know there are a number of activities on underway and the staff has great capacity to to carry out those that are ongoing including the strategic workforce planning initiative. We're moving forward with an implementation plan for the recent mission support tasking. Of course I'm optimistic about where we'll be on the leadership model but I believe that the time scale if you would for implementing that is something that we can implement later after completion of those first two deliverables which I would expect this spring so I believe we have the capacity to begin this early to mid summer and produce results before the end of the year so I do believe we have the capacity to get this done. I'd also mention that the recent projects of the SES Canada Development Program were are in line with the number of the characteristics that have been identified here so a lot of the leg work has already been done. Thank you. Thank you commission. Okay well with that I thank the staff for their presentation and I now invite Maria Schwartz vice president of the National Treasury Employees Union for her remarks on behalf of NTEU. Good morning chairmen Saviniki, commissioners, EDO McCree, NRC executives and managers and fellow bargaining unit employees. It's a pleasure to be able to be here to address you on behalf of NTEU in this forum. NTEU as we always stress at these meetings is the exclusive representative of our bargaining unit employees here at the NRC. And I'm joined this morning I think we have a bridge line by our chapter president Cheryl Burroughs and here are some of our officers and stewards. First of all on behalf of NTEU I want to congratulate chairmen Saviniki on her appointment. NTEU wishes you well as the agency enters 2017 with the many challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. Turning to today's commission briefing on project AIM I will begin with basic planning concepts that we've all heard of from our earliest school years. Who, what, when, where, how and why. As union leaders we are most interested in how decisions affect employees and the execution of their work. The what, the when, the where and the why must be accepted and are not in question. The mission of the NRC defines these questions. However the who and the how speak to where there is opportunity to work together. Thus my remarks this morning will be framed by the who and the how of our work. The who, who performs the work, who manages the work and who makes the decisions. The how, how the work is done including a consideration of the processes and procedures that are in place to support the performance and execution of the work. How is training handled to ensure that it is aligned with processes and competencies and how does training promote employee professional growth. Along with Cheryl Burroughs chapter president I have spoken here since the beginning of the project AIM initiative on behalf of our bargaining unit employees. Advocating the clarity of roles and responsibility, advocating the clarity of expectations, advocating for aligning our training and advocating for fairness. Steadily daily employees talk with us and other union representatives about their concerns about work expectations that are not clear. About managers who are not, who are inconsistent in their directions. About training that is not provided or rotational details or opportunities in spite of developing a suggested an IDP that are not available. It is with these conversations in mind that I reflect on the comments provided today and the reports on the progress of project AIM. Our agency leadership launched project AIM in 2014 in response to a changing external environment. A nuclear renaissance that did not come to fruition resulting in a reduction in work and a congress grown skeptical about the NRC budget. To address this the agency developed project AIM. An initiative containing 19 discrete tasks whose primary objective was to proactively ensure that as the agency downsized in response to a reduced workload. The NRC would continue to effectively accomplish its health and safety mission. Over the last year project AIM status has been reduced from an initiative to a project with its completion fast approaching as reflected in today's briefing. As well as of the January 2017 progress report that asserts that almost all of the 19 discrete tasks associated with project AIM have in fact been completed. A particular interest in looking at the who and the how is that the January update states that the strategic workforce plan is complete. NTEU is concerned about this assertion and it seems that Commissioner Burns and Chairman Saviniki are as well concerned about calling things completed that shouldn't be. In June 2015 the commission tasked the staff to quote develop a strategic workforce plan that ensures the NRC is positioned to have the right number of people with the right competencies at the right time. Many NRC employees that NTEU has spoken with including some upper level managers believe that the agency should have had a robust strategic workforce plan in place before the agency even began project AIM. Acknowledging that the agency did not there were many including the commission who believe that the development of a strategic workforce plan was critical to the agency's success as projects AIM proceeded. A year later when it appeared that the agency still had not developed a strategic workforce plan the commission inquired about this. At the commission briefing on project AIM in March 2016 Commissioner Barron asked a very simple question quote and where are you right now on the status of the streamlined strategic workforce planning tool. Is that something we is it ready to go end quote the response was quote we don't actually have that right now what we have is we have tribal knowledge about you know where people know that there's vacancies in the organization and where people have skill sets to match it end quote. To be fair it is important to note that finally in January of this year the EDO established a working group directed to enhance strategic workforce planning however recall that the January status for project AIM indicates the strategic workforce plan has been complete for quite a while. As an aside the recently published Comsecchi 170006 which you've talked about the regulatory commission's leadership model states quote upon commission approval the staff will begin drafting a written statement regarding the desired leadership beliefs and fundamental behaviors that support the noted characteristics. Although constructing the leadership model is an important first step to realizing a comprehensive set of behavioral expectations these behaviors will enable NRC to become an even stronger regulator as we operate in an environment of increasing change and complexity end quote. Well this begs the question what leadership model are we operating under now. This leadership question highlights the frustration employees have experienced throughout project AIM which includes the length of time it has taken the agency to undertake the development of a strategic workforce plan. Our employees expressed desire for transparency and their ongoing willingness to trust leadership is simply lost through NRC executive statements like we haven't developed a strategic workforce plan because we are too busy saving jobs right now. NTEU sees this as the most in the most recent OIG safety culture and climate survey which reports that employees quote do not have confidence in senior management and feel senior management does not provide a clear sense of direction end quote. At this point it is enough to say better late than never regarding the creation of a strategic workforce working group. While NTEU will most certainly work with the agency going forward is it reasonable to ask NTEU as we were asked last week by a senior executive to suspend judgment on what has already occurred and only focus on what the agency is planning to do going forward. And to put that request in context NTEU officials have spent much of their time in recent weeks attending meetings that address the potential for a RIF, how to avoid a RIF, how to communicate to our employees and our supervisors the potential for a RIF. And of course NTEU officials and stewards have also spent a great deal of time, a great deal of that time speaking directly with concerned employees who own houses and support families to provide as much information as we can so that our employees can better deal with the uncertainties of the current agency environment. So what are the consequences of not having a strategic workforce plan at this point? Be on the obvious. Until the recently issued memorandum enhancing strategic workforce planning the agency has been relying on a group of deputy office directors to determine and report their office's staffing needs and overages. These needs and overages finally defined over about the last year have apparently been developed by methods that have been described as we just heard by as tribal knowledge and word of mouth. So many of our employees see the ability to advance their careers you're wondering about where they're going to go and if they're going to stay. Because they see this as a subjective and unfair since two of the very few ways to do this now are solicitations of interest and lateral moves which are currently driven by tribal knowledge and are not subject to the merit selection procedures. NTEU is concerned that because SOIs and lateral moves are not governed by merit selection procedures that they are right for abuse and in some cases in fact are being abused. NTEU believes that developing internal procedures that address this should be part of a strategically of strategically developing the workforce. Additionally such procedures would create a more transparent and fair approach for those employees that remain after attrition buy out early outs and potentially a riff. The current assurances that our leadership are providing to our employees about their professional growth don't correspond with what our employees are telling NTEU. The current state of employee growth an issue which should be considered as part of a strategic workforce plan has damaged morale horribly. Likewise trust so easy to lose and so hard to build and yet so necessary to an engaged workforce is at an all time low as confirmed by the 2016 OIG safety culture and climate survey and the federal employees viewpoint survey results. NTEU is aware that plans and intentions can be overtaken by circumstances beyond the agency's control. However when this happens NRC leadership should be more concerned than ever that communications are honest and transparent and if recent communications aren't working it is critically important that agency leaders find ways to communicate that are effective. A strategic workforce plan is critical if NRC hopes to rebuild trust re-engage and re-energize an amazing workforce that seeks clarity regarding workload projections and their ability to develop and grow professionally. The NRC's organizational structures, processes, procedures and other internal controls cited in the strategic workforce working group document must not only support the accomplishment of the NRC's mission in an effective, efficient and agile manner. But these same structures, processes, procedures and internal controls found in a strategic workforce plan must support the growth of our employees, our agency's most important resource. During times of change it is more important than ever to adhere to our agency's core values, integrity, service, openness, commitment, cooperation, excellence and respect. NTEU sees great symbolism that the first of the NRC values is integrity and that respect completes the enumeration of these values. NTEU recognizes that work has been done and we do not want to negate the importance of that work but we ask you, our commissioners, to recognize also that while you have been briefed on the successes and the completion project aim tasks that you also recognize there is another side to the story, the side that I have attempted to describe to you in these comments. NTEU stands ready to help as it has over the last several years but such help cannot and never will include being silent. Nor does NTEU's continued support include the affirmation of metrics that indicate an activity is complete when all evidence shows that the activity is still a work in process. Nor does that support include the affirmation of information that does not address essential considerations of the who and the how over the work that is expected of our dedicated bargaining unit employees. Our bargaining unit employees continue to act with integrity and dedication. From their leadership our bargaining unit employees deserve accountability, honesty, transparency and respect. Thank you for this opportunity to provide our comments. Thank you, Maria. And again, I thank all of the participants for the perspective in the dialogue that we've had here today with that. We are adjourned.