Bill Overview
Title: INSPECT Act
Description: This bill requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to assign a resident inspector to each commercial nuclear power plant that has permanently ceased operation. The inspector must (1) conduct inspections of decommissioning activities and spent nuclear fuel transfer activities, and (2) remain at the plant until all fuel is transferred from its spent fuel pools.
Sponsors: Rep. Levin, Mike [D-CA-49]
Target Audience
Population: People living near or working at decommissioned nuclear power plants
Estimated Size: 400000
- There are currently 93 commercial nuclear reactors licensed to operate in the United States, but the number that have stopped operation and are being decommissioned is fewer, estimated at around 20.
- Each decommissioned reactor site is typically located near a community that includes workers, local families, and businesses potentially impacted by activities at the plant.
- The primary individuals directly at risk would be the workers responsible for decommissioning and fuel transfer activities due to increased safety inspection protocols.
- Surrounding communities are indirectly impacted due to safety concerns related to nuclear waste storage and transportation until removal is completed.
- Globally, there are approximately 450 nuclear reactors. Worldwide decommissioning efforts may benefit indirectly as best practices and outcomes from this U.S. legislation set precedence.
- A global estimate considers the social impact of nuclear safety in communities near decommissioned sites, though this act directly impacts U.S. facilities.
Reasoning
- The policy has direct impact on the communities and workers involved with the decommissioning activities at nuclear facilities. Therefore, the interviews will focus on individuals closely related to these environments.
- Consideration will be given to nearby local residents, workers at the decommissioned sites, and business owners in the area, as they will experience varying degrees of impact from increased safety regulations.
- Given the budget constraints, not all facilities may receive immediate inspection due to the phased scheduling based on priority and risk levels.
- Some individuals not directly tied to the facilities might also have opinions or slight concerns about nuclear safety, albeit with less impact.
- Global precedents may see minor indirect impact, not directly counted in these interviews, but such influence would contribute to long-term global standards improvements.
Simulated Interviews
nuclear plant decommissioning engineer (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I welcome the increased safety inspections, as they ensure our work is conducted safely. It gives me peace of mind.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
local small business owner (New York)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm a bit nervous about the nuclear site even after closure, so improved oversight is reassuring for local business stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
waste management worker (South Carolina)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy helps ensure that my job in waste transfer is safer. The extra inspections are a good thing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
community advocacy leader (Illinois)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm thrilled about this policy as it emphasizes safety for the community's long-term health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
scientific researcher (Florida)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The regulatory requirements will hopefully enhance the safety data we collect and influence future environmental protocols.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
nuclear safety inspector (Washington)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seeing the added federal support for inspections aligns well with our goals in state safety protocols.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
retired nuclear plant worker (Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad the current workers have more oversight and protection than we did. The policy makes me hopeful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
health safety officer (Arizona)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With more inspections, I feel our health protocols will be more effectively enforced, reducing accident risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
nuclear policy analyst (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act sets a strong precedent for nuclear safety globally, showing U.S. leadership in safety protocols.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
elementary school teacher (Michigan)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Parents often worry about the nuclear site, so increased inspections reassure the school community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Year 2: $31000000 (Low: $26000000, High: $36000000)
Year 3: $32000000 (Low: $27000000, High: $37000000)
Year 5: $34000000 (Low: $29000000, High: $39000000)
Year 10: $36000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $42000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring sufficient training and qualifications for inspectors to meet regulatory standards effectively.
- Managing potential resistance from plant decommissioning entities due to increased regulatory scrutiny.
- Balancing national standards with state-level regulations and policies related to nuclear safety and decommissioning.