FR 2020-29053

The document in question is a notice from the Department of Energy (DOE) indicating their intent to extend an existing information collection requirement for three additional years. This initiative is part of the DOE’s ongoing efforts to gather data necessary for reducing worker exposure to beryllium at specific sites managed by the DOE. The collected information aims to not only minimize exposure levels but also facilitate medical monitoring to detect chronic beryllium disease at an early stage, thus protecting affected workers.

General Summary

According to the document, this extension complies with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, reflecting the continued requirement for oversight and data collection on beryllium exposure. Comments from the public on this proposal need to be submitted by March 5, 2021, allowing stakeholders to voice their perspectives on the practicality and impact of the information collection efforts.

Significant Issues or Concerns

A few issues arise from the document. Firstly, it lacks detail on exactly how the DOE intends to minimize the levels and potential exposure to beryllium. This absence might result in ambiguity around the concrete measures the DOE plans to implement. Furthermore, the outlined cost burden of $1,867,465 for reporting and recordkeeping seems high, particularly as the document doesn't provide a detailed breakdown of these costs, potentially leading to questions regarding financial justification.

The document also states a mandatory response obligation without specifying consequences or measures for non-compliance, leaving room for confusion regarding enforcement. Additionally, the technical nature of the statutory authority described could limit the accessibility of the information to a wider audience who may not possess specialized legal or governmental knowledge.

Public Impact

The broad impact on the public primarily revolves around workplace safety for those employed at DOE-managed sites. Enhanced data collection can lead to better health outcomes by reducing exposure risks. It informs policies and practices that safeguard workers, arguably resulting in a healthier workforce. However, the potential increase in administrative costs might indirectly affect public funds and resource allocation.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For workers directly involved with the materials or processes related to beryllium, this extension is likely to have a positive impact by ensuring ongoing monitoring and exposure reduction efforts. Labor organizations and employees in affected sectors might see this as an essential step towards promoting workplace safety and health.

Conversely, contractors and businesses associated with DOE sites might be concerned about the financial and operational burdens tied to compliance with these information collection mandates. They may argue about the need for more clarity on procedures and cost implications to better assess their roles and responsibilities within these frameworks.

In conclusion, the notice by the DOE underscores a significant commitment to worker safety, albeit with some areas needing further clarity to ensure effectiveness and stakeholder engagement. The impact of the document lies in its potential to foster a safer working environment while imposing certain compliance challenges on associated organizations.

The document from the Department of Energy (DOE) discusses an information collection request related to the Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program. Within this request, several financial aspects are highlighted, which require further examination to understand their impact and implications.

Summary of Financial References

The document outlines that there is an Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden of $1,867,465. This cost is tied to the necessary activities involved in reducing the exposure of workers to beryllium at DOE-managed sites. It also includes measures for medical surveillance and other associated responsibilities under the regulations of the Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program.

Relationship to Identified Issues

The identified issues within the document point to a few concerns regarding this financial burden:

1. High Cost Burden: The $1,867,465 cost may appear substantial, and the document does not provide a detailed breakdown or justification for this amount. Without clear insights into how this money is being allocated and spent, stakeholders and the general public may find it challenging to assess whether the costs are reasonable or whether they provide valuable returns in terms of worker safety and health benefits.

2. Implementation and Justification: There are no explicit details on how the DOE intends to minimize exposure to beryllium, making it difficult to evaluate if the financial allocations are effectively addressing the problem. Information on specific measures or projects funded by this amount could help clarify the DOE’s strategy and allow for better assessment of the resources involved.

3. Mandatory Compliance and Costs: Although it is stated that the response obligation is mandatory, ambiguity remains regarding what happens should entities fail to comply, especially given the significant cost burden. Understanding this dynamic is necessary to ensure that funds are used efficiently and that compliance is possible for all involved parties without undue financial pressure.

In conclusion, the financial references within the document are critical to understanding the scope and potential impact of the DOE's intended actions. However, lacking detailed financial breakdowns and clearer plans on implementation might impede stakeholders’ comprehension and support for these initiatives. It is essential for the DOE to consider providing more transparent information on how funds will be used to maximize safety and minimize costs.