Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Extension
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Energy Department wants to keep using a form for three more years that helps figure out how much money people owe when they use old nuclear stuff to make electricity. They also need help from others to make sure everything is clear before January 17, 2025.
Summary AI
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is asking the public for comments on its request to extend the use of a specific form, known as Form NWPA-830G, for three more years. This form is used by those who handle spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to determine the fees they must pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund, based on their electricity production. The DOE has reduced the number of reactors required to submit this form from 95 to 94, following the permanent shutdown of one reactor. Comments on this proposed collection must be submitted by January 17, 2025.
Abstract
DOE submitted an information collection request for extension as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension, with changes, to the Form NWPA-830G "Appendix G--Standard Remittance Advice for Payment of Fees", including annex A to appendix G, under OMB Control Number 1901- 0260. Form NWPA-830G is part of the Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste. Generators and owners of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste of domestic origin paid fees into the Nuclear Waste Fund based on net electricity generated and sold as defined in the Standard Contract.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document titled "Agency Information Collection Extension" issued by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking public comments on a proposal to extend the use of a standardized form. This form, identified as Form NWPA-830G, is employed by entities handling spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to calculate fees owed to the Nuclear Waste Fund. The request marks an important regulatory process that stems from the commitments outlined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
General Summary
This document outlines the DOE's intent to renew the forms used in assessing fees for nuclear waste disposal. Specifically, Form NWPA-830G is used under a contractual obligation between DOE and nuclear waste generators or owners to report electricity production figures, which ultimately determine their financial contributions to the Nuclear Waste Fund. This ensures that entities fairly pay for the disposal services based on their level of nuclear activity.
Significant Issues and Concerns
While the notice serves a crucial function in maintaining regulatory oversight, several specific issues can be highlighted:
Reduction in Reactor Numbers: The document mentions a decrease in the number of reactors required to submit this form—from 95 to 94—due to one reactor shutting down. However, it does not detail how this reduction specifically affects the overall cost and burden estimation.
Technical Language: The document uses highly technical terminology, which might be challenging for a layperson to understand. Terms such as "Standard Remittance Advice" and "Appendix G" are not thoroughly explained for a general audience, which can impede meaningful public engagement on the subject.
Cost Estimations: The cost analysis provided is narrowly focused on reporting and recordkeeping, potentially excluding other costs incurred by respondents. A more comprehensive breakdown could offer deeper insights into the economic implications of compliance.
Complexity of Submission Process: The multiple platforms and contacts provided for comments may be cumbersome for the public. This complexity could discourage public participation, which is crucial for a transparent rule-making process.
Statutory Unfamiliarity: References to many U.S.C. codes without a simple explanation of their relevance may distance those unfamiliar with legal jargon and legislative language.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broad Public Impact
For the general public, particularly those living near nuclear power facilities, understanding and having a say in the procedures governing nuclear waste management is important for safety and environmental reasons. Public feedback might indirectly influence policy adjustments that could benefit local communities in terms of safety and accountability.
Specific Stakeholder Impact
For stakeholders directly involved in the nuclear energy sector, such as power plants and waste management companies, the extension of this form represents an ongoing compliance requirement rather than an immediate change in policy. However, the reduction in respondents likely signals a slight decrease in administrative burden for the industry as a whole. Nevertheless, precise effects might vary significantly depending on the financial implications for each entity.
In conclusion, while the document is pivotal for regulatory continuity in nuclear waste fee management, improvements in clarity and public engagement might enhance its effectiveness and accessibility. Providing context for the statutory references and simplifying the comment submission process could facilitate better understanding and participation from the wider public.
Financial Assessment
The document discusses the financial aspects of an information collection request related to the management of nuclear waste by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration. A key element is the $171,381 annual estimated reporting and recordkeeping cost burden. This figure is derived from multiplying the estimated 1,880 burden hours by a current average loaded wage rate of $91.16 per hour.
Financial Summary
The document highlights that the cost burden is computed based on the time respondents will need to fulfill their reporting and recordkeeping duties. However, it places exclusive emphasis on the direct labor costs and does not account for other potential expenses that respondents might incur while completing these tasks. For instance, it does not address whether there are any additional administrative or material costs necessary when maintaining relevant documentation or submitting these reports.
Reduction in Burden Hours
The text mentions a reduction of 20 annual burden hours due to one reactor's permanent shutdown. However, the financial implications of this reduction are not specified in terms of monetary savings or how this reduction could affect the overall cost burden. This omission means that while the workload is somewhat decreased, the document does not quantify how this impacts the total cost, leaving readers without insight into the potential financial reprieve this might offer.
Financial Calculation Context
While the costs are clearly outlined in terms of burden hours, the document does not reference any potential savings or adjustments in the total budget or financial obligations resulting from the changed number of respondents—from 95 to 94 reactors. The absence of a breakdown or explanation might make it challenging for those outside the specialized field to grasp the full economic picture.
Conclusion
In summary, the document provides a clear cost burden aligned with the regulatory requirements but leaves potential ancillary costs or savings unexplored. A more detailed financial analysis, including the breakdown of how reductions in respondents affect overall costs, would aid in delivering a more comprehensive financial overview to stakeholders and the broader public.
Issues
• The document mentions a 'reduction of 20 annual burden hours' due to one reactor shutting down, but it does not specify what the cost implications of this reduction are or how much was saved as a result.
• The cost burden calculation appears to only consider reporting and recordkeeping costs based on burden hours, potentially overlooking any other ancillary costs that respondents might incur.
• The explanation of the purpose and changes to Form NWPA-830G could be perceived as somewhat technical, which might make it difficult for individuals without a background in energy policy or accounting to fully understand the implications.
• The document uses complex terms and acronyms such as 'Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste, Appendix G' and 'RA forms' without providing straightforward definitions or context for a general audience.
• The contact information for comments and further inquiries involves multiple URLs and a phone number, which might be cumbersome for users to navigate when submitting comments or seeking information.
• The document outlines statutory authorities but does not provide a brief explanation of how these authorities relate to the current information collection. This might be unclear for someone unfamiliar with these statutes.
• The publication date and the date signed do not align perfectly (publication on December 18, 2024, while signed on December 12, 2024), which can cause confusion regarding the timelines for action or comment submissions.