Bill Overview
Title: Advancing Nuclear Regulatory Oversight Act
Description: This bill requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to report to Congress about changes to its regulation of nuclear reactors and materials during the COVID-19 public health emergency and actions (e.g., the use of risk-informed, performance-based procedures) that may be implemented to enhance the efficiency of oversight and inspection programs. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office must conduct a review of the commission's office and other facility space requirements and recommend ways to reduce office and facility costs.
Sponsors: Rep. Lesko, Debbie [R-AZ-8]
Target Audience
Population: People living within 50 miles of nuclear power plants
Estimated Size: 120000000
- The bill pertains to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations, indicating it primarily impacts countries with active nuclear programs.
- Global energy policies and safety standards can affect international nuclear industry norms.
- The bill may guide future practices in nuclear energy management that other countries may observe or adopt.
Reasoning
- The policy affects a large number of people estimated at 120 million within the US who live near nuclear facilities.
- Budget constraints imply the policy could primarily address procedural efficiency and cost savings rather than direct physical infrastructure changes.
- As the policy involves oversight and inspection rather than direct changes to nuclear plant operations, it is unlikely to massively change individual wellbeing scores, but might improve safety perceptions over time.
- Interviewees are likely to include individuals living near nuclear facilities who might feel more reassured by improved regulations.
- Some individuals may not perceive an immediate impact but might feel indirectly benefited through improved safety protocols.
Simulated Interviews
nuclear engineer (Oak Ridge, TN)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think stricter regulations can help improve safety and public perception, which benefits everyone in the long run.
- The policy seems reasonable, focusing on efficiency and cost-saving in the regulatory process, especially considering recent budget constraints.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
school teacher (San Clemente, CA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial that our community feels safe about the nuclear plant nearby.
- I hope these policy changes lead to more effective regulations and transparency, improving trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
freelancer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think much about the nuclear plant on a daily basis, but knowing there's more oversight sounds good.
- While it may not directly impact me, improved safety measures are always welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
retired scientist (New York, NY)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Oversight has always been key to our nuclear programs' success.
- This policy seems like a step towards maintaining high safety standards despite economic challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
stay-at-home parent (Harrisburg, PA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved regulation is crucial given past incidents at nuclear plants.
- I hope the policy makes emergency prep more comprehensive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
software developer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I guess more regulation can't hurt, but it's not something I think about often.
- Seems like a lot of bureaucracy, let's hope it's useful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
nurse (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More oversight is good if it maintains or enhances safety standards.
- I trust that these reviews will be thorough and beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
small business owner (Burlington, VT)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It would be good if this could save costs in operations, but my main concern is business stability.
- Appreciate efforts to streamline and maintain accountability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
environmental scientist (Seabrook, NH)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This kind of measure should help ensure nuclear safety and protect our environment.
- Anything that strengthens oversight is welcome. It could aid in my research on ecological impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
government worker (Richland, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will aid in maintaining high transparency and safety standards.
- Greater efficiency in regulation might make our community more resilient.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $7500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $7500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Key Considerations
- The analysis assumes that the NRC will be able to fulfill the reporting requirements efficiently without major disruptions.
- The GAO audit is anticipated to be a one-time cost, heavily dependent on the current NRC infrastructure and available data.
- Over time, new procedures may standardize and decrease an unpredictable cost initially anticipated for procedure changes.