As multiple advanced reactor vendors enter the licensing process to build first-of-a-kind demonstration projects, the Nuclear Innovation Alliance (NIA)—a nonprofit “think-and-do tank” that supports the nuclear power industry—has said issues with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) current user fee cost-recovery model could slow innovation.

In a report released on May 19, the NIA identified how the NRC’s fee model can inhibit advanced nuclear innovation, compared the current model to structures used in other industries and countries, and recommended changes to improve the system. Importantly, the group says reliance on applicant fees limits the ability of the NRC to hire and train staff ahead of expected applications, reducing regulatory efficiency.

Smaller Firms with Less Resources
“We’re at an inflection point with the nuclear industry in the U.S., as well as nuclear regulation,” Alex Gilbert, project manager with NIA, said during an online panel session held to roll out the report. “We’re really moving away from the large, conventional light-water reactors that dominated our initial 40, 50 years of the nuclear industry in the U.S. We’re looking at advanced reactor technologies. We’re looking at new advanced light-water technologies—other non-light-water technologies, and we have a regulatory framework that we’re currently in the process of transforming to adapt to these new technologies.”

According to Gilbert, nuclear reactor development has historically been dominated by a handful of large, multinational corporations. For them, the cost of regulatory fees may not have been a significant financial barrier. But today, many smaller, less-established companies are working to develop new designs, and money is sometimes scarce.

“When we’re looking at the industry that we’re trying to develop, we’re trying to look towards a very vibrant, very competitive future. And so, we need to think about how our regulatory system is impacting new entrants,” Gilbert said. //

Gilbert explained that there are basically two elements to the NRC’s current fee structure. The first is 10 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 170 fees. These are hourly fees that are charged to applicants when they’re getting a specific item or regulatory engagement of value.

“The easiest way to think about that—and the thing that we focused on—is if you’re trying to get a license at the NRC to build and operate a nuclear facility, that’s something that there’s a discrete value and you’re charged hourly fees. Those hourly fees are actually just under $300 per hour, so that can add up pretty quickly,” said Gilbert.

The second element of the current fee structure is 10 CFR Part 171 fees. These are annual fees paid by existing licensees. These fees actually provide the majority of the funding for the NRC. Although these fees are obviously very important, Gilbert said NIA focused on the Part 170 fees because the group was most interested in understanding how fees affect innovation.

Notably, the report says the NRC’s budget has declined by more than 30% since the mid-2010s due to plant retirements and reduced application activity. This has been accompanied by a 25% reduction in NRC staff. While the existing fleet may be shrinking, indicating a lesser need for NRC staff, the growing pipeline of advanced reactors and the potential obligation for NRC design reviews would signal more staff may be required.

“What we’re concerned about with that kind of efficiency question is getting the right resources for the right project at the right time,” Gilbert said. //

The NIA reviewed fee structures for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to better understand how they were funded. Gilbert felt the FAA and FDA were particularly noteworthy. “These are really interesting regulatory agencies, because they’re very similar to the NRC in that they’re regulating innovative activities,” he said.

In the case of the FAA, even though most of the agency is funded by user fees, those user fees are collected exclusively from economic activities, such as ticket sales. “They’re not charging fees for their review of what’s called a type certification, which is similar to what the NRC does for a reactor license. So, you’re not having that disincentive to innovation,” said Gilbert.

The FDA operates a little bit differently. “They’ve had to actually substantially grow their overall budget over time,” Gilbert explained. “In implementing user fees there, it was really effective when combined with public investment by being able to balance both public and private interests in the funding of the agency. And that’s one of the reasons, among several others, that FDA is considered to have a relatively efficient and effective regulatory review system.”

Meanwhile, the EPA, which regulates many of the nuclear power industry’s competitors, such as coal, gas, and biomass power plants, only requires a small portion of its costs to be covered by fees. “They’re really minor compared to nuclear license fees,” said Gilbert. “So, the way that this fee system has worked out across the federal agency is actually disincentivizing the nuclear industry and kind of raising a roadblock that our competitors are not facing.” //

In its report, the NIA recommended a number of changes to the NRC fee structure, which it felt would spur innovation. For example, it proposed excluding or substantially reducing fees for new license applicants. The report says: “Multiple aspects of U.S. nuclear regulation bring benefits to the public and entities rather than just the applicant. Reduced fees, especially for new designs and innovative technologies, can reflect these broad benefits. Increasing the fraction of the NRC’s budget that is funded from general revenues can incentivize more innovation, improve regulatory efficiency, and ensure the American regulatory environment remains competitive.” Alternatively, NIA said if licensing fees could not be completely replaced, then excluding fees for items such as pre-application, topical reports, and environmental reviews could still bring substantial benefits. //

Peter Hastings, vice president of Regulatory Affairs and Quality with Kairos Power, agreed. “I think some amount of fee could be an effective barrier to that kind of frivolity. She used the term ‘skin in the game,’ and that certainly makes sense—to not necessarily reduce the hourly fee to nothing, but perhaps put in some sort of cost-share that would reduce the overall cost but still require the applicant to demonstrate that they’re serious, even if it’s only through a financial obligation,” he said.

“Any time that you put a cost on something, like a carbon tax, you discourage it,” said Gilbert. “In the case of these hourly fees, you’re essentially charging for innovation. And so, if we’re trying to build a new generation of safer, more economic reactors that can really help restore American competitiveness, we’re kind of creating a regulatory barrier right now to that innovation.”

What Jan. 6 showed us is that democracy really is delicate and bringing it to the brink has consequences.

Cable news anchors and other journalists in Washington act like that’s a truism only one side needs to hear and it’s not theirs, but the opposite is true.

History didn’t start on Jan. 6. The riot did not happen in a vacuum. And what preceded it wasn’t just Donald Trump telling his supporters that the election was rigged. It was months of discord and discontent instigated and inflamed by the very media who now swear that they’re the ones who understand just how sensitive our self-governance can be. //

Yeah, the riot in the Capitol building was disgusting and inexcusable. But in American democracy, recognizing the disgusting and inexcusable is supposed to go both ways. When it doesn’t, there are consequences.

Everyone has their breaking point. That’s not something that’s going to be only afforded to one side. Unfortunately, the media don’t want to learn that lesson of Jan. 6.

As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s January 6 Select Committee plans its colonoscopy-like partisan investigation, few have been held to account for the violent riots that laid waste to a once vibrant, dynamic Minneapolis and many other cities. According to the Major Cities Chiefs Association report in 2020, an estimated 574 violent riots took place in the weeks after Minneapolis burned, resulting in damage of up to $2 billion.

Pelosi made sure the capital was locked down and surrounded by the National Guard and coils of concertina wire, city leaders and governors left citizens at the mercy of thugs hurling Molotov cocktails, helpless as their homes and businesses burned to the ground.

America’s preeminent revisionist historian Nikole Hannah-Jones perfectly encapsulated the elitist mentality in a June 2020 CBS interview: “Violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man’s neck until all of the life is leached out of his body. Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.” //

In his Tuesday op-ed, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson wrote, “What happened last Jan. 6 was much bigger and more important than politics.” Of course it was, because it was about the elitist political and corporate media establishment. They continue to inflate the severity and lasting effects of the Jan. 6 riot because they have an outsized idea of their own influence and importance. The disparity of concern and reaction is telling: when their lives are inconvenienced, it’s a national disaster; when our lives are destroyed, they hand us a shovel.

Any suggestion of a threat to America’s credentialed class is presented as an affront to democracy and a sin equal to the worst treason in our nation’s history. Meanwhile, the destruction of dozens of cities and thousands of lives in middle America has been accepted as a necessary airing of grievances, a reactionary event in the name of social justice that inflicted pain on those who probably deserved it anyway.

It is an iteration of the divide between those who see themselves as rulers and the people over which they rule. It extends from the leftist media that needs to perpetuate democracy’s threat to fight off the ratings implosion since President Trump left office, to sanctimonious politicians who view the public as nothing more than the masked, faceless unwashed who should be grateful that the 2020 riots exposed their racist ways and now can correct them.

Our national elite is united enough to have the vices of a ruling class, but not the virtues. In particular, they are cohesive enough to be perceived as oppressive by much of the populace, but they are rarely gracious and conciliatory when needed. They know how to make enemies, but not friends.

Culturally and ideologically, America’s elites have consolidated into a regime, with Big Tech, the legacy media, academia, Big Business, the entertainment industry, and, of course, the leaders of the Democratic Party, all singing from the same hymnal, even if they sometimes squabble over the key. But many citizens refuse to join in. //

The American ruling class thus faces an ancient problem: how do political, cultural, and economic winners convince everyone else to accept the system; how do elites secure the consent of non-elites? Members of our ruling class cannot appeal to religion or immemorial custom to justify their place. Indeed, they cannot appeal to much of anything beyond their own supposed merits, both personal (they earned their place) and as a class (they believe themselves to be wise and leading us well).

But the superlative merits of our ruling class are less obvious to the rest of us. Thus, hardly a day goes by without The New York Times, Washington Post, and other legacy media outlets warning that some villain or other — Donald Trump, Fox News, Facebook misinformation, the Senate, the Supreme Court, even local leaders and parents — is a Threat to Our Democracy! By democracy, they mostly mean the wishes of the ruling class. //

But the superlative merits of our ruling class are less obvious to the rest of us. Thus, hardly a day goes by without The New York Times, Washington Post, and other legacy media outlets warning that some villain or other — Donald Trump, Fox News, Facebook misinformation, the Senate, the Supreme Court, even local leaders and parents — is a Threat to Our Democracy! By democracy, they mostly mean the wishes of the ruling class. //

The regime has similarly decreed that racists — by which they mean anyone who won’t repeat the dogmas of critical race theory and “anti-racist” hucksters like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo — should be suppressed throughout public education, academia, and even the business world. Similar trends abound throughout the centers of entertainment, finance, culture, and even the newly woke military.

There is nothing democratic about this. Indeed, it is the elites who threaten our democracy, such as when corporate media colluded with Big Tech to censor accurate reporting about Biden family scandals, or Big Business imposes economic sanctions on red states over everything from election laws to LGBT issues. The hypocrisy of it all rankles.

Woke capital’s CEOs wave rainbow flags and Black Lives Matter banners at home while using slave labor abroad. Democrats and supposed policy experts pushing to ban misinformation are often leading disseminators of it, from the Russian collusion hoax to the dismissal of the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin. //

Elites are inevitable; their legitimacy and continuity is not. Ours lack the virtue and wisdom needed for good governance and leadership. Instead of expertise, they offer incompetence, malice, and herd-like conformity to self-serving ideological fads. Hopefully, political defeat and cultural failure will force a reckoning.

Here’s a Fun Number of the Day. I just ran a Web search for “how many federal agencies are there” — and the Internet extruded the number FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY-SIX (456).

Which may or may not be even close to enough. Behold Wikipedia’s “list of federal agencies in the United States.” Which offers the following hilarious explanation of government’s explanation:

“Legislative definitions of a federal agency are varied, and even contradictory. The official United States Government Manual offers no definition.

“While the Administrative Procedure Act definition of ‘agency’ applies to most executive branch agencies, Congress may define an agency however it chooses in enabling legislation, and subsequent litigation, often involving the Freedom of Information Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.

“These further cloud attempts to enumerate a list of agencies.”

So government bureaucrats are incapable of defining what they’re building and expanding. But they’re building and expanding all of it anyway. //

“In 1900, there (were) 11 million Americans employed on farms – and 2,900 employed by the USDA. A century later there are 3 million employed on farms – and 105,000 employed by the USDA.” //

Because government does nothing better than redundancy and waste.

Levied on wealthy Americans with phones in 1898 to help fund Spanish-American War, tax was discontinued Tuesday.

Aug. 2, 2006 6:01 a.m. PT

The Spanish-American War has been over for more than 100 years, and now so is the tax imposed in 1898 to help fund it.

As of Tuesday, all phone companies selling long-distance phone service are legally required to eliminate the 3 percent federal excise tax on long-distance service, which had been established in 1898 as a luxury tax on wealthy Americans who owned telephones.

93.6% of Americans Agree:

“In general, parents have the constitutional right to
make decisions for their children without government interference
unless there is proof of abuse or neglect.” - 2010 Zogby Poll

Children need to be raised and represented by parents who love them, not by disconnected government officials.

the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published a paper demonstrating what would happen if a sustained increase in federal spending were coupled with big tax increases to pay for the spending.

While the analysis points to different long-term effects from different types of taxes, any tax-and-spend approach would lead to reductions in economic growth and personal income that are larger than the size of the tax hikes.

For example, the analysis found that having 10% more federal government would mean a 12% to 19% reduction in personal consumption.

And that’s a conservative estimate. Most estimates show tax hikes shrink the economy by two to three times more than the revenues they raise. //

While the Biden administration has repeatedly claimed that it will only seek to raise taxes on the wealthy, a government of the size that they’re seeking would require amounts of money that can only be generated through steep across-the-board tax increases on middle-class Americans.

Regardless of whether those taxes are levied tomorrow or in a few years, they would be an inevitable part of expanding the size and scope of the federal government.

Rather than continuing down the path of centralized power and socialism, lawmakers should recognize the costs associated with endless federal spending and chart a course towards financial responsibility and prosperity.

Where do things go from here? They go nowhere. There is no massive “right-wing” threat. There will be no redux of January 6th. Democrats are going to have to compete in 2022 on their own merits, and boy, do their merits suck. The feds can keep poking and prodding, hoping to stoke a reaction that provides fodder, but it seems no one is up for taking the bait. Thus, you end up with today’s laughable scene.

This country has real problems. People gathering to protest is not one of them. And let’s not forget that while the feds were wasting masses of men and resources to stand around at a non-violent rally, the Southern border is quite literally being invaded due to a lack of law enforcement personnel. That’s the idiocy of our government perfectly illustrated.

Rush
@exRAF_Al
This is a seminal moment. The police hold power through illusion, they are only bestowed moral authority. Once it’s gone it’s gone - and it has gone, openly now. The issue now for Australian coppers is where do they go from here? #Australia #Melbourne //

What happens when the government has pushed normally law-abiding people much too far, completely abridging their basic freedoms? This is what happens, and it’s likely just the start. It’s likely to get even crazier there, as people let the government know that they’ve had enough.

As the driving force behind the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), “the granddaddy of libertarian think tanks,” Leonard Read faced decades of “what would markets do to solve this problem” challenges when pointing out any of the many inadequacies of government’s coercive organization of society. Since those challenges still haunt believers in liberty, it is worth considering his answer, which runs from what we don’t know to what we do. And his justifiably famous “I, Pencil,” is right in the middle of things.

The beginning of Read’s answer came in “I Don’t Know,” in his The Free Market and Its Enemy (1965), which deals with how to successfully advocate for “the free market and its miraculous performances” in the face of such challenges:

Skeptics of the free market are forever asking, “Well, how would the free market attend to mail delivery? Education? Or, whatever?”

[Unfortunately] a person can no more explain how the free market would attend to mail delivery than his great-grandfather could have explained how television could ever emerge from free market forces!

Answer honestly: I don’t know; I never will know; no one will ever know.

In other words, Read recognized that the attempt to answer the inherently unanswerable was futile. But there was a better way, using what is, in fact, knowable. And that is where “I, pencil,” which reveals the large number of market miracles that go into even something as simple as a pencil, comes in: //

However, the innumerable market miracles all around us, none of which any of us could have correctly predicted in advance, provide us with overwhelming proof of the power of liberty. Free men and women can do not only great but unimaginable things when they own themselves and can make whatever peaceful arrangements they voluntarily choose.

There is also a useful contrast between freedom, challenged to prove itself in advance before many will even consider it, and government, unable to prove itself in action despite the power to force us to follow its lead. No government representative or bureaucrat can meet the burden of proof demanded of freedom.

And unlike defenders of self-ownership and the market behavior that arises from it, which has produced uncountable successes without theft, there is no massive list of dramatic life-improving “success stories” created by government. But that is unsurprising. As Read put it, “How can frustration be manipulated into harmony and increased production? Can any interference with peaceful, willing exchange, regardless of who does the interfering, do other than wreak havoc?”

Jill Lawrence
@JillDLawrence
My new column is probably the only #CaliforniaRecall piece today (or ever?) that quotes Patrick Henry: Telling the truth about Republicans and #COVID19 is a winner https://usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/09/15/california-recall-covid-truths-fueled-democratic-win/8338737002/
via @usatoday @usatodayopinion #CaliforniaRecallElection #California

Timothy Sandefur
@TimothySandefur
This article begins with an untrue statement. It is not the constitutional role of politicians to “promote the general welfare.” It is the Constitution itself that “promotes the general welfare.” Politicians’ job is to obey the Constitution.
9:56 AM · Sep 15, 2021

Timothy Sandefur
@TimothySandefur
Replying to @TimothySandefur
Politicians ALWAYS say that what they’re doing—no matter how dumb, corrupt, futile, or illegal—will “promote the general welfare.” If that’s the limit on their power then there is NO limit to their power.

Thus the Constitution limits the ability of politicians to do things to you in the service of what they consider to be “the general welfare.”

“To provide for the general welfare, is an abstract proposition, which mankind differ in the explanation of, as much as they do on any political or moral proposition that can be proposed; the most opposite measures may be pursued by different parties, & both may profess that they

have in view the general welfare; & both sides may be honest in their professions, or both may have sinister views… It is as absurd to say, that the power of Congress is limited by these general expressions, "to provide for the common safety, & general welfare," as it would be

to say that it wd be limited, had the Constn said they should have power to lay taxes &c at will & pleasure. Were this authority given, it might be said that under it the legislature could not do injustice, or pursue any measures, but such as were calculated to promote the public

good & happiness. For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God & reason always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people shd provide for the common defence & general welfare; every govt, therefore,

good & happiness. For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God & reason always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people shd provide for the common defence & general welfare; every govt, therefore,

in the world, even the greatest despot, is limited in the exercise of his power. But however just this reasoning may be, it wd be found in practice a most pitiful restriction. The govt would always say their measures were designed & calculated to promote the public good, & there

being no judge between them and the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always, judge for themselves.”
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s8.html

Learn more:
The Conscience of the Constitution
https://www.cato.org/books/conscience-constitution

Hurricane Ida will go down as one of the most powerful storms to make landfall in the United States. On the 16th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, the city of New Orleans was struck by this storm and left broken yet again. //

Bobby Jindal came in and, to his credit, it appears he did fight to get the levee systems of New Orleans in working order, and some improvements were made. But the city itself had made very few changes to allow for the residents to be ready to move in the event of another disaster. Even after sixteen years, it appears the only thing that changed was the levee systems. Everything else failed again.

But the biggest failure of all seems to be a lack of an evacuation plan. //

Gabe Hoffman
@GabeHoff
Contraflow = both sides of major highways in same direction, for storm evacuations

Louisiana 2021:

didn't implement contraflow before Hurricane Ida, many people are stuck in traffic jams trying to evacuate RN

20 years ago in Florida:

@JebBush pioneered a contraflow system
5:59 PM · Aug 28, 2021

Jesse Kelly
@JesseKellyDC
Tried to warn everyone drastic measures should have been taken back when that pipeline got hacked. We paid a ransom and the administration basically said, “not much problem”.

We just DRIP weakness under Biden. They’re all coming for us now.
Jacqui Heinrich
@JacquiHeinrich
🚨BREAKING, thread:

The State Department has been hit by a cyber attack, and notifications of a possible serious breach were made by the Department of Defense Cyber Command.
7:52 PM · Aug 21, 2021

Sebastian Gorka DrG
@SebGorka
“America is Back”

#BidensBetaBoys

We are ruled by buffoons who embellish their incompetence with a disdain for Americans and Constitutional freedoms. They are protected by a deeply corrupt and highly partisan civil service that will deceive the American people to protect a Democrat and engage in the ruthless character assassination of any Republican. Top cover for both is flown by the fearless firefighters in our media who will never do anything beyond acting as stenographers for any Democrat administration. We are at the point where virtually any foreign government should be considered more reliable than our own. //

Genna
an hour ago
Every member of the Biden administration who spoke to us this week about the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan withdrawal lied to us, contradicted one another and dodged uncomfortable questions. While telling us the evacuation is going well, people on the ground in Kabul and videos shot in real time tell a very different story. Why should we believe the infrastructure bill is an important piece of legislation that will benefit the American people, the COVID vaccines are safe and effective and the southern border is secure

(2)Activities described in paragraph (1) include—
(A)the evacuation when their lives are endangered by war, civil unrest, or natural disaster of—
(i)United States Government employees and their dependents; and
(ii)private United States citizens or third-country nationals, on a reimbursable basis to the maximum extent practicable, with such reimbursements to be credited to the applicable Department of State appropriation and to remain available until expended, except that no reimbursement under this clause shall be paid that is greater than the amount the person evacuated would have been charged for a reasonable commercial air fare immediately prior to the events giving rise to the evacuation;

Generally, individuals evacuated on a U.S. government-coordinated transport, including charter and military flights or ships, even if those transports are provided by another country’s government, must sign an Evacuee Manifest and Promissory Note (Form DS-5528) note prior to departure. The Department of State uses the Form DS-5528 to document who got on which transport, and it lets us know how to contact evacuees for billing purposes.

U.S. law requires that departure assistance to private U.S. citizens or third country nationals be provided “on a reimbursable basis to the maximum extent practicable.” By taking a U.S. government coordinated transport, evacuees are obligated to repay the cost of their transportation. The amount billed to evacuees is based on the cost of a full fare economy flight, or comparable alternate transportation, to the designated destination(s) that would have been charged immediately prior to the events giving rise to the evacuation.

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2017-title22/USCODE-2017-title22-chap38-sec2671

The bill also gives the secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT) significant powers to direct funds. It all but eliminates the current formula for distribution of funds and puts almost all funding into competitive grants for the current DOT secretary, choo-choo-train-lover Pete Buttiegeg, to dole out. How does Graham think this will work out for his home state of South Carolina or any other red state?

What conditions will get rammed down the throats of voters in these states to get the funds required to maintain their infrastructure? Could it be the elimination of single-family zoning, which the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulation seeks? How about a gas-powered vehicle ban like California’s? What other green policies could be forced on states in order to receive their highway funds? The list of progressive with-list items is endless.

The bill centralizes power in D.C. under the ever-growing bureaucracy in an agency that has presided over the complete degradation of our infrastructure through central planning. Much like the Department of Education has presided over the decline in the performance of America’s public schools, the DOT has failed to maintain America’s infrastructure. Congress should scale back the agency and give control back to states and local communities. Yet it looks like 17 Republicans, including Graham, still believe in the bipartisan project that does nothing but enlarges the central government.

The class-action lawsuit alleges that Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and AstraZeneca colluded in the summer of 2020 to restrict offering discounted products to 340B contract pharmacies.

The drugmakers should compete against each other, but instead “they worked together to boost their profits by coordinating to retract a long-standing discount for safety-net hospitals and clinics,” the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York said.

Mosaic argues that last summer the four drugmakers spent millions lobbying the federal government to limit 340B drug discounts for diabetes medicines such as insulin.

However, former President Donald Trump in July 2020 issued an executive order that aimed to ensure 1,000 community health centers would get insulin and injectable epinephrine at the 340B discounted rate.

While 340b is in effect, multiple drugmakers are allegedly moving to restrict the sale of insulin to healthcare providers at the reduced rate under the 340b program.

Arthur Schwartz
@ArthurSchwartz
Remember when @brianstelter dismissed Tucker’s claims as conspiracy theory nonsense? Does Stelter ever get anything right?

Tucker Carlson’s Spying Allegations Being Investigated by National Security Agency Watchdog
wsj.com //

WASHINGTON—The National Security Agency’s internal watchdog is conducting a review of recent allegations made by Fox News host Tucker Carlson that the spy agency had improperly targeted his communications for surveillance, the agency and an official said.

The announcement of the review by the NSA’s inspector general doesn’t mention Mr. Carlson by name, but instead refers to a member of the U.S. news media. A person familiar with the matter said the review concerns Mr. Carlson.