Overview
Title
Information Collection: Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is asking people to share their thoughts about a very big and difficult task they have to check on places like power plants to keep everyone safe. They also want to know if this task can be done in easier or faster ways to save time and money.
Summary AI
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has announced a request for public comments on the renewal of an existing information collection titled "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities." This request is in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and the NRC is seeking comments by April 20, 2021. The information collected is essential for the NRC to evaluate applications and amendments related to nuclear power plants and other facilities to ensure public health and safety. The NRC encourages electronic submission of comments and provides detailed information on how to access documents and submit feedback.
Abstract
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities."
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The recent notice from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) focuses on the renewal of an existing information collection titled "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities." This information collection is crucial for the NRC's ability to assess various applications and amendments associated with nuclear power plants and related facilities. Such evaluations ensure that operations align with health and safety standards essential for public protection. The notice is issued in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and public comments are invited by April 20, 2021.
Summary of Key Issues
One primary concern with the document is the significant burden associated with the collection of information, estimated at 3.6 million hours annually. This suggests there may be inefficiencies or overly complex processes that could result in unnecessary expenditure. By revisiting these processes, there might be opportunities to streamline operations and thus reduce costs.
Furthermore, the language describing the frequency of required reports is somewhat convoluted. The phrase indicating that reports are submitted "daily, monthly, quarterly, annually, semi-annually, and on occasion" could be simplified to improve clarity and ensure better understanding among the general public.
The document includes technical references, such as ADAMS (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System), OMB approval numbers, and specific NRC regulations, that might be challenging for laypersons to comprehend. This could impede public engagement as the intended audience might not have the technical background to fully understand these terms without additional context.
Additionally, privacy concerns arise from the comment submission process indicated in the document. The NRC advises commenters not to include contact information they do not wish to be publicly disclosed. This points to a lack of protective measures to ensure privacy in submissions, highlighting a potential area for improvement in safeguarding information.
Public and Stakeholder Impact
Broadly, this document could impact the public by shaping how nuclear facilities operate in terms of compliance and safety. By collecting and analyzing information effectively, the NRC plays a vital role in maintaining public health standards related to nuclear energy.
For specific stakeholders, such as nuclear facility operators and license applicants, the renewal of this information collection represents an ongoing obligation to provide detailed information to the NRC. While fulfilling these requirements supports safety and regulatory compliance, the considerable time and resources involved could be burdensome. Improvements in data collection processes and technology could mitigate this impact, fostering a more efficient system that benefits all parties involved.
At the same time, increased transparency and efforts to simplify the public's understanding of such regulatory processes could enhance stakeholder participation in NRC rulemaking. Ensuring that terms and procedures are easily comprehensible would help to engage a wider audience in discussions surrounding nuclear facility licensing and regulation.
Issues
• The document contains a large estimated burden for the information collection: 3.6 million hours annually, which could be considered excessive. This might suggest potential inefficiencies or unnecessary complexities in the process that could lead to wasteful spending if not addressed.
• The language used in some sections, such as the description of how often the collection is required, could be seen as complex and might benefit from simplification to enhance clarity: 'Reports are submitted daily, monthly, quarterly, annually, semi-annually, and on occasion.'
• The document contains terms and references (e.g., ADAMS, OMB approval number, specific NRC regulations) that could be difficult for laypersons to understand without additional context, potentially limiting public engagement and transparency.
• There is a potential issue with privacy concerns in the comment submission process: 'The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed', indicating that better privacy protections could be in place.
• There is no mention of efforts or methodologies for reducing the large burden of data collection, such as adopting new technologies or streamlining procedures, which could otherwise improve efficiency and reduce cost.