Overview
Title
To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act to limit the type of applications reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and to exclude reviews by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s annual assessment and collection of fees and charges.
ELI5 AI
Imagine there is a group that checks if new toys are safe. This bill says the group will only check special toys or toys that might be dangerous, and they won't have to pay as much money to look at them each year.
Summary AI
H. R. 9199 aims to change the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act by restricting the types of applications that can be reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. The bill specifies that the Committee can only review applications involving novel issues or significant safety concerns, determined through a risk-informed process. Additionally, it seeks to remove the Committee's reviews from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s annual evaluation and collection of fees. This means that not all applications will automatically be reviewed, and some financial assessments may be eliminated.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 9199 is a proposed amendment to two existing laws: the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. This bill introduces changes to limit the types of license applications that the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) can review. Specifically, it intends to confine the ACRS to only examine applications that bring up novel issues or raise significant safety concerns. Additionally, the bill proposes to exclude these reviews from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) annual fees and charges.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill presents several issues-worth noting:
Subjective Interpretation: By restricting ACRS reviews to 'novel issues' or those of 'significant safety concern,' the bill relies on terms that lack clear definitions. This ambiguity may lead to subjective interpretations, potentially affecting the consistency and integrity of the review process. What qualifies as a significant or novel issue can vary, leading to possible oversight in safety evaluations.
Risk-Informed Determination: The bill mandates that the ACRS conduct a 'risk-informed determination,' yet it does not specify the criteria for these assessments. The absence of a standardized methodology could result in inconsistent decision-making, impacting the reliability of the review outcomes.
Financial Implications: By excluding ACRS reviews from NRC's fee assessments, the bill fails to detail the fiscal impacts. This could pose budgetary challenges for the NRC, perhaps leading to resource allocation issues that might impact nuclear safety.
Limitation on Transparency and Thoroughness: Restricting the review to select applications may reduce overall transparency and thoroughness of the oversight process. This limitation risks significant safety concerns being overlooked if they don't meet the undefined criteria of being novel or of considerable concern.
Complex Language: The bill employs technical language and references specific legal codes, which may hinder understanding and engagement by the general public, potentially affecting public trust and comprehension.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broad Public Impact: For the general public, the bill's impact hinges on its influence on nuclear safety oversight. By potentially narrowing the scope of safety reviews, the bill could raise concerns about the adequacy of regulation and oversight of nuclear reactors, which are of public interest given the potential risks associated with nuclear energy.
Specific Stakeholders:
Nuclear Industry: The industry might welcome reduced fees and faster application processing, as the reduced oversight can streamline processes and reduce costs. However, this could also lead to questions about the sufficiency of safety checks, which could have long-term reputational risks.
Regulatory Bodies: For regulatory agencies like the NRC, the bill could mean adjusting operations and procedures, possibly affecting resources and staff allocations. The exclusion from financial assessments may require finding alternative funding to ensure thorough oversight.
Public Safety Advocates: These groups may express concern over any perceived weakening of nuclear safety oversight, arguing that such changes could compromise public and environmental safety if risks are not adequately managed due to narrow oversight criteria.
The bill presents a balance between streamlining regulatory practices and maintaining rigorous safety standards, a tension that will require careful consideration to ensure public safety is not compromised for efficiency or cost-saving measures.
Issues
The lack of clarity on what constitutes a 'novel issue' or 'an issue of significant safety concern' for the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards in Section 1 could lead to subjective interpretations and inconsistent application of the review process, potentially affecting nuclear safety and regulatory oversight.
The absence of defined criteria for how the 'risk-informed determination' should be conducted by the Advisory Committee in Section 1 could result in variability in decision-making and affect the integrity and reliability of the review process.
The amendment regarding the exclusion of reviews by the Advisory Committee from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s annual assessment and collection of fees and charges in Section 1(b) does not provide sufficient detail on the financial impact, which could lead to budgetary concerns and affect funding and resource allocation for nuclear safety oversight.
Limiting the types of applications reviewed by the Advisory Committee, as stipulated in Section 1, may reduce the transparency and thoroughness of the review process, potentially allowing significant safety concerns to be overlooked if they are not deemed 'novel' or significant by the cumulative risk-informed judgment of the Committee.
The highly technical language and references to specific legal codes (such as the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act) may be difficult for non-experts to understand, reducing public accessibility and engagement with the legislative process.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Reviews by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section discusses changes to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, limiting the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to reviewing only license applications that involve new or major safety issues. It also mentions adding a provision about fees and charges for these reviews to the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act.