Here is what my wife and I are sending in:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed regulation here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOE-HQ-2025-0405-0002
Post comments here: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/DOE-HQ-2025-0405-0002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOE proposes to apply a categorical exclusion to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for "advanced nuclear reactors". This proposed regulation should be rejected. It is a blatant attempt to further reduce environmental oversight of nuclear reactor designs, and to avoid the DOE's obligations to comply with existing regulations for environmental review.
To understand what this means, it's important to define the terms.
According to NEPA: "Categorical exclusions provide a mechanism to identify types of Federal actions that normally do not have significant environmental effects and for which neither an environmental assessment nor environmental impact statement is normally required." (source: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/DOE-NEPA-Implementing-Procedures-2026-02-02.pdf)
The proposed DOE regulation was written in response to Executive Order 14301 which defines advanced reactors as "... including microreactors, small modular reactors, and Generation IV and Generation III+ reactors ...".
DOE is proposing that advanced reactors can be excluded from NEPA review because their potential environmental impacts are not significant without ever defining what they mean by significant or what the impacts are for a particular project. We have to assume that approvals could include both existing designs for reactors that have never been built, as well as designs that have yet to be proposed.
It is clear that DOE is attempting to set a precedent for allowing future undefined experiments that endanger citizens' health and safety. New reactor designs would not even require DOE environmental review, and would proceed without giving the public an opportunity to comment or regulators an obligation to protect the public, the environment, or future generations.
The DOE justifies its abandonment of environmental review by citing eight NEPA reviews of reactor projects since 2021. In some of these examples, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed, but no significant environmental impacts were ever found. And somehow, the DOE wants us to believe that this brief and selective history proves that future nuclear reactor projects do not need environmental review! There is not even any evidence that these prior decisions were correct, they are simply anecdotal reports of the outcome of the environmental review.
The DOE should also clarify whether all reactors falling under this regulation will be sited on U.S. federal property. The summary for the proposed regulation implies that it only applies to reactors on federal property, but there is no supporting detail. This is relevant, because there is already a plan for a DOE-sponsored experimental reactor in an industrial park in Parsons Kansas.
The Parsons project is being steamrolled without oversight, environmental review, or community comment. The company proposing the project has no proof that their idea will even work, and yet the administration is pushing for the reactor to be designed, built, installed (a mile underground!), fueled, and to have reached criticality by July of 2026!
If the proposed regulation to create a permanent NEPA categorical exclusion for all DOE reactor projects is allowed, there will effectively be no environmental review for any future reactor design.
Sharon and Ace Hoffman Carlsbad, California USA
###
On 2/22/2026 6:38 AM, 'Ellen Thomas' via NucNews wrote:
Helpful article out in NPR on this with a map and comparison of current and new rules of 458.1 https://www.npr.org/2026/02/02/nx-s1-5696525/trump-nuclear-safety-regulations-environmental-review
From this map, Idaho (ofc), Utah, Texas, Kansas, and Tennesee would be involved.
sophia@nukewatch.org
---
The Trump administration exempts new nuclear reactors from environmental review
The Trump administration has created an exclusion for new experimental reactors being built at sites around the U.S. from a major environmental law. The law would have required them to disclose how their construction and operation might harm the environment, and it also typically required a written, public assessment of the possible consequences of a nuclear accident.
The exclusion announcement comes just days after NPR revealed that officials at the Department of Energy had secretly rewritten environmental, safety and security rules to make it easier for the reactors to be built.
The Department of Energy announced the change Monday in a notice in the Federal Register. It said the department would begin excluding advanced nuclear reactors from major requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The act calls on federal agencies to consider the environment when undertaking new projects and programs.
The law also requires extensive reporting on how proposed programs might impact local ecosystems. That documentation, known as an environmental impact statement, and a second lesser type of analysis, known as an environmental assessment, provide an opportunity for the public to review and comment on potential projects in their community.
In its notice, the Energy Department cited the inherent safety of the advanced reactor designs as the reason they could be excluded from environmental reviews. "Advanced reactor projects in this category typically employ inherent safety features and passive safety systems," it said.
The exemption had been expected, according to Adam Stein, the director of nuclear energy innovation at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental think tank that studies nuclear power and the tech sector. President Trump explicitly required it in an executive order on nuclear power he signed last May.
In a statement, the Department of Energy said that its reactors would still undergo environmental reviews.
"The U.S. Department of Energy is establishing the potential option to obtain a streamlined approach for advanced nuclear reactors as part of the environmental review performed under NEPA," it said. "The analysis on each reactor being considered will be informed by previously completed environmental reviews for similar advanced nuclear technologies."
Stein says he thinks the exclusion "is appropriate" for some reactors in the program, and agrees that previous reactors built by the Energy Department have not been found to have significant environmental impacts.
But critics of the possible exemption questioned whether the new reactors, whose designs differ from earlier ones, really are as safe as claimed.
Until now, the test reactor designs currently under construction have primarily existed on paper, according to Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group. He believes the lack of real world experience with the reactors means that they should be subject to more rigorous safety and environmental reviews before they're built.
"The fact is that any nuclear reactor, no matter how small, no matter how safe it looks on paper, is potentially subject to severe accidents," Lyman said.
Seeking swift approval
The move to exclude advanced reactors from environmental reviews comes amid a push to build multiple such reactors by the summer.
The Energy Department's Reactor Pilot Program is seeking to begin operations of at least three advanced test reactors by July 4 of this year. The program was initiated in response to the executive order signed by President Trump, which was designed to help jump-start the nuclear industry.
The reactors are being built by around 10 nuclear startups, which are being financed with billions in private capital, much of it from Silicon Valley. The goal, supporters say, is to develop new sources of electricity for power-hungry AI data centers.
Last week, NPR disclosed that officials at the Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory had extensively rewritten internal rules for the new test reactors. The new rules softened protections for groundwater and the environment. For example, rules that once said the environment "must" be protected, now say consideration "may be given to avoiding or minimizing, if practical, potential adverse impacts."
Experts were critical of the changes, which were shared with the companies but not disclosed to the public. The new rules constitute "very clearly a loosening that I would have wanted to see exposed to public discussion," Kathryn Huff, a professor of plasma and nuclear engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who served as head of the DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy from 2022 to 2024, told NPR after reviewing the documents.
In a statement to NPR, the Energy Department said the new rules continue "to protect the public and the environment from any undue risks."
"DOE follows applicable U.S. EPA requirements in these areas," it said.
Environmental review not needed
The decision to allow the reactors to avoid conducting environmental reviews means there will be less of an opportunity for the public to comment. But the environmental review process may not be an appropriate forum for such discussion anyway, Stein noted.
"I think that there's a need for public participation, particularly for public acceptance," he said. But he added, "the public just writing comments on an [environmental impact statement] that ultimately would get rejected doesn't help the public have a voice in any way that would shape any outcome."
The Energy Department said in its Federal Register notice and an accompanying written record of support that such reviews were unnecessary. The new reactors have "key attributes such as safety features, fuel type, and fission product inventory that limit adverse consequences from releases of radioactive or hazardous material from construction, operation, and decommissioning," according to the notice.
Lyman said he vehemently disagreed with that assessment.
"I think the DOE's attempts to cut corners on safety, security and environmental protections are posing a grave risk to public health, safety and our natural environment here in the United States," he said.
Clarification: The article has been updated to reflect the creation of a new exclusion category for the reactors. Individual reactor companies will still need to ask for the exclusion.
Contact information for the author of this newsletter:
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company
Ace Hoffman's Nuclear Failures Reports
Ace has studied nuclear issues since the 1960s. This site was NOT written with AI! (A January 2025 conversation with a chatbot is the ONLY exception.)
Wednesday, February 25, 2026
Monday, February 9, 2026
Palisades Relief Request 5-14 (Pressurizer Spray Nozzle Safe End and Safety Nozzles Flange Welds)
I was unable to speak during the public comment portion of the Public Pre-Submittal Meeting which was held today by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Discuss Palisades Relief Request 5-14 (Pressurizer Spray Nozzle Safe End and Safety Nozzles Flange Welds). However, participants could also submit comments in writing, so this was what I submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission earlier today (images added):
I am in strong agreement with Michael Keegan's comment about the unanswerable risks due to loss of operating data (specifically, documents relating to the operating history of the plant that had been kept since the plant opened but have already been destroyed by staff, thinking the plant would never open again). There is no way to rely on data that no longer exists. Yes, the plant was "operational" (but not profitably) when it was shut down. But since that time essentially nothing was maintained, and prior to shutdown, there were numerous problems over the years, resulting in steam generator tube plugging, planned replacement of same, and reactor pressure vessel head wear, along with pipe, pump and valve wear throughout the plant. Numerous records relating to THIS particular topic have been willfully destroyed. It is reasonable to assume the same is true regarding records for other critical parts throughout the plant. What valves (if any) tended to leak? Which air filters tended to clog with rust? (The Davis-Besse reactor had an unnoticed problem with that, which was caused by the slow growth of their infamous reactor pressure vessel "hole in its head". Had an employee not leaned against the control rod during a reactor shutdown, it would almost surely have caused a meltdown the next time the reactor was operated.) Most importantly at Palisades: Were any specific records purposefully destroyed first? Perhaps a whole filing cabinet or two of "industry secrets"? Why were the records destroyed at all, if the physical plant was still largely in operational or near-operational condition? That's a RED FLAG right there that "dirty secrets" were contained in those records which were destroyed! Lastly, it is a "given" that an operating reactor is for more likely to have a catastrophic accident than spent fuel, especially spent fuel that has been out of the reactor for a few years or more. What is the comparative risk for the public, and the taxpayer, from restarting this particular reactor and creating additional spent fuel with nowhere to put it? The last major nuclear accident in the United States (Three Mile Island) practically killed the nuclear industry. The whole industry will take an enormous public-relations "hit" if the plan to restart Palisades fails in any way. If it fails in a not-catastrophic way, such the way San Onofre failed, that would actually be a good thing! The more reactors that shut down permanently without a catastrophic accident, the better for America. But that is a side issue to the reputational damage a failure at Palisades would do to the rest of the nuclear industry, which is hanging by a thread as it is, because its electricity is so much more expensive (and far less reliable) than numerous alternatives, such as (at the high-tech end) deep geological thermal energy, to (at the low-tech end) household heat pumps and solar rooftops. Behemoth power plants with a catastrophic risk requiring immoral immunity from full responsibility for catastrophic industrial accidents makes no sense in a democracy. In a democracy, the entity causing the damage pays. If nuclear can't get insurance, it's because it's far too dangerous. Offer to let Holtec restart Palisades ONLY without the exemption of Price-Anderson and see what happens... Thank you in advance for sharing these comments with the rest of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission team. Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA Note: The author has been studying nuclear safety independently since his teen years, including discussing safety issues with nuclear reactor designers and operators, three top Manhattan Project scientists, numerous health professionals, engineers, statisticians, economists, and many other experts in related fields. This writer actually believed, when it happened (and he was already concerned with reactor safety issues), that merely the separation of the Atomic Energy Commission into the Department of Energy (who would promote and develop nuclear power) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (which would be solely responsible for nuclear safety at commercial nuclear power reactors, since the AEC wasn't doing that part of its job very well) would result in shutting the entire industry down, because if you (the NRC) are NOT responsible for making sure the industry MAKES A PROFIT, there's NO WAY you can endorse the CHEAP-SKATE way the nuclear industry operates and has always operated. Too cheap to find insurance for themselves. Too cheap to restart Palisades without billions of dollars from the federal government and hundreds of millions more from the state. Too cheap to replace the worn-out steam generators and half a gazillion other parts that undoubtedly ought to be replaced but the combined cost and time loss would make it all look far too ridiculous for anyone to endorse. Too cheap to find a solution to storing the waste, other than to sue the government to pay Holtec to continue to store the waste on-site forevermore. Too cheap to cut their losses before a catastrophic accident happens (again) that's far worse than Three Mile Island, which was practically a nothing on a log scale where Chernobyl is a seven and Fukushima's triple meltdowns only a six. But one thing nuclear was never too cheap about was this: It was never too cheap to meter, as originally promised. Nuclear power never was and never will be cheap, or competitive with cleaner alternatives. Currently the claim by the nuclear industry is that it is "green." But with all the mining, milling, transport, shutdown, repairs, concrete and steel (than can never be recycled), nuclear never was and ever will be the least bit "green". And despite Holtec's claims that a Palisades restart can be done safely, the reality is that nobody can be sure that restarting Palisades won't result in a catastrophic American meltdown. And if that happens, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the members of this committee specifically, will be as much to blame as Holtec will be. But it will be the public and the taxpayer who suffers and pays. ###
Contact information for the author of this newsletter:
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company
I am in strong agreement with Michael Keegan's comment about the unanswerable risks due to loss of operating data (specifically, documents relating to the operating history of the plant that had been kept since the plant opened but have already been destroyed by staff, thinking the plant would never open again). There is no way to rely on data that no longer exists. Yes, the plant was "operational" (but not profitably) when it was shut down. But since that time essentially nothing was maintained, and prior to shutdown, there were numerous problems over the years, resulting in steam generator tube plugging, planned replacement of same, and reactor pressure vessel head wear, along with pipe, pump and valve wear throughout the plant. Numerous records relating to THIS particular topic have been willfully destroyed. It is reasonable to assume the same is true regarding records for other critical parts throughout the plant. What valves (if any) tended to leak? Which air filters tended to clog with rust? (The Davis-Besse reactor had an unnoticed problem with that, which was caused by the slow growth of their infamous reactor pressure vessel "hole in its head". Had an employee not leaned against the control rod during a reactor shutdown, it would almost surely have caused a meltdown the next time the reactor was operated.) Most importantly at Palisades: Were any specific records purposefully destroyed first? Perhaps a whole filing cabinet or two of "industry secrets"? Why were the records destroyed at all, if the physical plant was still largely in operational or near-operational condition? That's a RED FLAG right there that "dirty secrets" were contained in those records which were destroyed! Lastly, it is a "given" that an operating reactor is for more likely to have a catastrophic accident than spent fuel, especially spent fuel that has been out of the reactor for a few years or more. What is the comparative risk for the public, and the taxpayer, from restarting this particular reactor and creating additional spent fuel with nowhere to put it? The last major nuclear accident in the United States (Three Mile Island) practically killed the nuclear industry. The whole industry will take an enormous public-relations "hit" if the plan to restart Palisades fails in any way. If it fails in a not-catastrophic way, such the way San Onofre failed, that would actually be a good thing! The more reactors that shut down permanently without a catastrophic accident, the better for America. But that is a side issue to the reputational damage a failure at Palisades would do to the rest of the nuclear industry, which is hanging by a thread as it is, because its electricity is so much more expensive (and far less reliable) than numerous alternatives, such as (at the high-tech end) deep geological thermal energy, to (at the low-tech end) household heat pumps and solar rooftops. Behemoth power plants with a catastrophic risk requiring immoral immunity from full responsibility for catastrophic industrial accidents makes no sense in a democracy. In a democracy, the entity causing the damage pays. If nuclear can't get insurance, it's because it's far too dangerous. Offer to let Holtec restart Palisades ONLY without the exemption of Price-Anderson and see what happens... Thank you in advance for sharing these comments with the rest of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission team. Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA Note: The author has been studying nuclear safety independently since his teen years, including discussing safety issues with nuclear reactor designers and operators, three top Manhattan Project scientists, numerous health professionals, engineers, statisticians, economists, and many other experts in related fields. This writer actually believed, when it happened (and he was already concerned with reactor safety issues), that merely the separation of the Atomic Energy Commission into the Department of Energy (who would promote and develop nuclear power) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (which would be solely responsible for nuclear safety at commercial nuclear power reactors, since the AEC wasn't doing that part of its job very well) would result in shutting the entire industry down, because if you (the NRC) are NOT responsible for making sure the industry MAKES A PROFIT, there's NO WAY you can endorse the CHEAP-SKATE way the nuclear industry operates and has always operated. Too cheap to find insurance for themselves. Too cheap to restart Palisades without billions of dollars from the federal government and hundreds of millions more from the state. Too cheap to replace the worn-out steam generators and half a gazillion other parts that undoubtedly ought to be replaced but the combined cost and time loss would make it all look far too ridiculous for anyone to endorse. Too cheap to find a solution to storing the waste, other than to sue the government to pay Holtec to continue to store the waste on-site forevermore. Too cheap to cut their losses before a catastrophic accident happens (again) that's far worse than Three Mile Island, which was practically a nothing on a log scale where Chernobyl is a seven and Fukushima's triple meltdowns only a six. But one thing nuclear was never too cheap about was this: It was never too cheap to meter, as originally promised. Nuclear power never was and never will be cheap, or competitive with cleaner alternatives. Currently the claim by the nuclear industry is that it is "green." But with all the mining, milling, transport, shutdown, repairs, concrete and steel (than can never be recycled), nuclear never was and ever will be the least bit "green". And despite Holtec's claims that a Palisades restart can be done safely, the reality is that nobody can be sure that restarting Palisades won't result in a catastrophic American meltdown. And if that happens, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the members of this committee specifically, will be as much to blame as Holtec will be. But it will be the public and the taxpayer who suffers and pays. ###
Contact information for the author of this newsletter:
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company
Monday, February 2, 2026
NuCorp: A piece of propaganda masquerading as a solution to nuclear waste
February 2, 2026 [link to pdf corrected Feb. 3, 2026]
By Ace Hoffman
On January 15, 2026 a group of so-called "experts" released an extraordinary work of propaganda called the Path Forward for short, its full name being:
THE PATH FORWARD FOR NUCLEAR WASTE IN THE U.S.
A Bipartisan Solution To The Nuclear Waste Problem. Bipartisan it may be, but it actually offers NOTHING as a solution. Which, admittedly, is fair because there is no (safe, affordable, assured) solution, and never will be. Nuclear Physics has made that VERY clear (to those who care to pay attention). But if that isn't enough, they can consider all the OTHER hazards of nuclear waste, from earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and asteroids to transportation accidents, mishandling accidents (dropped canisters come to mind), bridge collapses and other human errors (including airplanes falling out of the sky), to war, sabotage, corruption (bad welds and thin walled containment systems come to mind), and terrorism — which can range from satchel charges dropped into nuclear waste silos by infiltrated saboteurs masquerading as diligent and humble workers (who might have passed dozens of background checks) to drone swarms launched suddenly, by the hundreds, from a nearby tractor-trailer being driven by an innocent long-haul trucker (a similar attack mode was used by Ukraine in the Russian war of aggression against their nation). Many of these potential vectors to tragic releases of massive quantities of nuclear waste are absolutely unpredictable as to WHEN or IF they will happen today or tomorrow — but one way or another, tragic and massive releases are all but inevitable over time unless we stop making more nuclear waste. So what is the Path Forward presented by the "experts" last month? Please read it yourself, but with my (snide but dare I say very appropriate!) comments, in color around the document. Here's the [CORRECTED!] link: https://www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/no_nukes/2026/PathForward2026WithCommentsByAce20260201B.pdf At least read it through page eight. My comments end there, although I did skim the rest of course. Beyond page eight it's just total minutia unrelated to the reality of the problem, it's basically just how to steal money from the public in order to set up a corporation with the sole purpose of bribing a small community to harm itself forevermore. And for those who absolutely NEED a better solution: The better solution — the only possible solution — starts by admitting there are no safe, affordable, assured solutions to the problem of nuclear waste, and we need to stop manufacturing nuclear waste in nuclear reactors. They all need to be shut down forever. Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA
Contact information for the author of this newsletter:
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company
A Bipartisan Solution To The Nuclear Waste Problem. Bipartisan it may be, but it actually offers NOTHING as a solution. Which, admittedly, is fair because there is no (safe, affordable, assured) solution, and never will be. Nuclear Physics has made that VERY clear (to those who care to pay attention). But if that isn't enough, they can consider all the OTHER hazards of nuclear waste, from earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and asteroids to transportation accidents, mishandling accidents (dropped canisters come to mind), bridge collapses and other human errors (including airplanes falling out of the sky), to war, sabotage, corruption (bad welds and thin walled containment systems come to mind), and terrorism — which can range from satchel charges dropped into nuclear waste silos by infiltrated saboteurs masquerading as diligent and humble workers (who might have passed dozens of background checks) to drone swarms launched suddenly, by the hundreds, from a nearby tractor-trailer being driven by an innocent long-haul trucker (a similar attack mode was used by Ukraine in the Russian war of aggression against their nation). Many of these potential vectors to tragic releases of massive quantities of nuclear waste are absolutely unpredictable as to WHEN or IF they will happen today or tomorrow — but one way or another, tragic and massive releases are all but inevitable over time unless we stop making more nuclear waste. So what is the Path Forward presented by the "experts" last month? Please read it yourself, but with my (snide but dare I say very appropriate!) comments, in color around the document. Here's the [CORRECTED!] link: https://www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/no_nukes/2026/PathForward2026WithCommentsByAce20260201B.pdf At least read it through page eight. My comments end there, although I did skim the rest of course. Beyond page eight it's just total minutia unrelated to the reality of the problem, it's basically just how to steal money from the public in order to set up a corporation with the sole purpose of bribing a small community to harm itself forevermore. And for those who absolutely NEED a better solution: The better solution — the only possible solution — starts by admitting there are no safe, affordable, assured solutions to the problem of nuclear waste, and we need to stop manufacturing nuclear waste in nuclear reactors. They all need to be shut down forever. Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA
Contact information for the author of this newsletter:
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)





