Post comments here:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2025-0478-0001 (All quotes are from this proposed rule)
Note: This comment was submitted today; NRC tracking number: msw-mdrs-f9e6
Re: NRC-2025-0478-0001
August 16, 2026
We strongly oppose the proposed change to Part 51 of 10CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) as described in NRC-2025-0478-0001 because it would weaken enforcement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
NEPA can only be changed by Congress, and federal regulations must comply with NEPA. Specifically, NEPA requires all agencies to consider the full scope of environmental impacts when approving a project, and this requirement has been repeatedly upheld by the courts. In addition, any federal agency that proposes to modify regulations that impact NEPA enforcement must define how the revised regulations comply with NEPA.
The proposed modification to Part 51 would potentially allow the NRC to ignore NEPA violations that are not directly related to radiation exposures. However, it is impossible to regulate a process under NEPA by abdicating responsibility for some of the environmental impacts, and many non-radiological environmental impacts are the direct result of the processes that the NRC (and in many cases ONLY the NRC) is regulating. For example, any facility that produces reactor fuel or processes nuclear waste uses a witch's brew of chemicals which are hazardous to the environment and all living things.
In addition, many radioactive materials, such as uranium and plutonium, are heavy metals which are inherently damaging to living things, independent of their radioactivity. This means that every nuclear reactor the NRC licenses has the potential to violate non-radiological NEPA requirements. There is no indication that the NRC plans to consider the environmental and health damage caused by heavy metals.
NRC licensed facilities may also have significant impacts on related environmental factors such as air and water quality. Based on the historical record and the documentation provided, some of these factors will be considered some of the time (e.g., some impacts from uranium mining are explicitly included), but the NRC has not specified to what extent air and water quality and other environmental factors will be considered for future projects. For example, it states: "... the NRC's evaluation ... would focus on those radiological effects that the NRC has the substantive statutory authority to regulate (e.g., radiological impacts and, in some cases, the impact of chemical hazards of radiological materials), as described in the definition of 'effects' in § 51.4." (IV. Discussion, 1. Definitions (§ 51.4)). The proposed regulation relies on yet-to-be-written examples, which means the public cannot effectively comment on those parts of the regulation. For example, "The NRC is proposing to include in § 51.19 an illustrative list of the types of actions that are generally considered “major,” such as an application for a new license ... " (IV. Discussion, 2. Determining When NEPA Applies (§ 51.19)).
Finally, the NRC has released multiple overlapping proposed rule changes in 2026, but has not explained how these rules would interact. For example, how would proposed changes to Part 51 interact with proposed changes to Part 54 which would potentially allow 40-year license renewals? Would the radioactivity that could be released during a meltdown be considered under the proposed changes to Part 51? Would the increased likelihood of a meltdown after one or more 40-year license renewals be part of the environmental review for Part 51 or Part 54?
During a public meeting on one of the many recent proposed rule changes, the NRC stated that NEPA requirements from all federal agencies would be coordinated, but did not explain how the coordination would happen or which agency would be responsible for enforcing the requirements. Similarly, the NRC made it clear that order of finalization for the overlapping regulations matters -- as soon as any proposed rule is finalized (or removed), all subsequent rules have to incorporate (or disassociate) the provisions of that rule. The public is being asked to comment on proposed regulations that may change based on the timeline of other proposed regulations.
State Attorneys General from at least two states (Illinois and Massachusetts) have also raised concerns about overlapping comment periods, and have specifically requested an extension of the comment period for this proposed change to Part 51. We support this request, and further request an opportunity for public comment on the combined/coordinated regulations before they are finalized.
We incorporate by reference and adopt as our own the comments submitted by Lynda Williams,
Nuclear Free Hawaii (
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NRC-2025-0478-0002 tracking #: mrc-rvaa-hstx) and Fred Schofer (
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NRC-2025-0478-0027 tracking #: msp-1xfm-kpf8).
Sharon and Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA
Note: No Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Large Language Model (LLM) was used in the creation of these comments.
###
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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments should be in good taste and include the commentator's full name and affiliation.