Skip to main content

NRC's Project AIM 2020

Last week, the NRC commissioners responded to staff recommendations for improving the agency's agility, effectiveness and efficiency.  In a June 8, 2015 Staff Requirements Memo (SRM)*, the commissioners approved most of the staff's recommendations received in a report called Project AIM 2020.**  The recommendations approved last week included: (a) developing a strategic workforce plan; (b) reducing the time it takes to shift employees between areas as workloads change; (c) evaluating the Centers of Excellence concept; (d) evaluating the merger of the operating reactors office with the new reactors office; (e) developing a common prioritization process that integrates all work activities across the agency; (f) re-baselining the agency's work; (g) improving the transparency and timeliness of NRC's fee-setting process; (h) streamlining other processes where feasible.

Project AIM 2020 is the agency's attempt to re-balance agency resources bulked up in anticipation of a renaissance of new-plant applications in the early 2000s that has fallen short of expectations (see graph below). 
We applaud this first step in identifying what can be done to reassess the NRC's needs and redeploy its resources in a manner that best serves its mission of protecting the public health, safety and the environment.  In the main, we are very pleased the commissioners have now given their direction and support to the Project AIM recommendations.  We note, however, that the SRM [page 1] directs the Executive Director of Operations to develop an overall plan for implementation of the approved recommendations.  It is essential for the Commission to ensure this "plan for a plan" is completed in a timely and prudent way.

Much work lies ahead to fulfill the approved recommendations.  As stakeholders in NRC's effectiveness, efficiency and credibility, we will follow this work with great interest and lend our support to aligning NRC's capabilities and capacity with its true needs.  Our above-noted trepidation notwithstanding, we celebrate issuance of the SRM as the "end of the beginning" of Project AIM 2020.

Notes
*SRM-SECY-15-0015, Staff Requirements Memo SECY-15-0015 – Project AIM 2020 Report and Recommendations. ADAMS Accession Number ML15159A234.  **Project AIM 2020 Report and Recommendations, SECY-15-0015, January 30, 2015, ADAMS Accession Number ML15023A558.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…