Bill Overview
Title: NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes an independent office within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to advocate for the public within NRC jurisdiction and otherwise support public participation in NRC proceedings and activities.
Sponsors: Rep. Levin, Mike [D-CA-49]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by nuclear regulatory policies globally
Estimated Size: 500000
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) primarily deals with nuclear safety, regulation, and licensing, which affects all residents living near nuclear facilities and stakeholders in the energy sector.
- Public participation in NRC proceedings would potentially impact anyone concerned with nuclear safety, environmental influences of nuclear power, or radiation protection.
- Specific communities near nuclear power plants or those affected by nuclear industry activities will have a higher engagement and impact from this legislation.
- Entities and individuals interested in advocacy, policy change, or oversight in the nuclear sector would be directly affected.
- The bill aims to enhance public engagement, which means any US citizen or international observer interested in US nuclear policy could be impacted.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to increase public engagement and transparency in nuclear regulation, which mainly affects individuals living near nuclear sites by giving them a stronger voice.
- It's crucial to sample a variety of individuals—from those directly living near nuclear facilities to experts in the sector and the general public who may have varying levels of concern about nuclear safety.
- The cost and program size limits suggest that it might not reach every potentially interested or affected person due to budgetary constraints.
- We consider people living near nuclear power plants, those involved in environmental advocacy, policy-makers, and the general public to understand the range of impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Engineer at a nuclear facility (Richland, Washington)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think having an office that advocates for public concerns could improve our procedures. It might slow down some processes due to increased scrutiny, but ultimately, transparency is beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Community Advocate (Oyster Creek, New Jersey)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems like a step in the right direction. It’s crucial that our voices are heard and that we can influence safety decisions that directly affect our community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Nuclear Policy Analyst (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having an office dedicated to ensuring public participation could enhance trust between the public and nuclear regulatory bodies.
- By giving a platform for public concerns, the NRC can align more closely with community needs.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Public health official (Dallas, Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The establishment of this office might not directly change day-to-day operations, but it could result in more research data being available for public health analyses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s absolutely critical to have checks and balances when it comes to nuclear energy. More public involvement could slow down some progress but ensures safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Lawyer specializing in environmental law (Sacramento, California)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy allows for better legal frameworks as more public perspectives can inform regulatory adjustments.
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 |
Retired Power Plant Worker (Augusta, Georgia)
Age: 66 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m skeptical about how much impact public voices will have, but it’s a good thing for the community to have a platform either way.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Nuclear Technician (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could make my job more focused on transparency. It’s good that the public has a better understanding and say in what we do.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Chemical Safety Officer (San Antonio, Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring that the public has a voice can only bolster our safety measures. Greater advocacy could mean improved protocols in the long run.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Graduate Student in Environmental Science (Charleston, South Carolina)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s exciting to see more opportunities for public involvement. Enhanced dialogue can mean more comprehensive environmental assessments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $14000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $19000000)
Year 3: $14200000 (Low: $11200000, High: $19200000)
Year 5: $14600000 (Low: $11600000, High: $19600000)
Year 10: $15500000 (Low: $12500000, High: $21000000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $40000000)
Key Considerations
- The initial setup cost for the office might be significant, but it is necessary for subsequent operational savings.
- The public's increased ability to participate could improve NRC decision-making processes, although exact savings are hard to quantify.
- There may be intangible benefits like increased public trust in nuclear regulation, which are not directly reflected in financial estimates.