Skip to main content

NRC's Project AIM 2020

Image
By
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.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more