The NRC describes this proposed rulemaking as non-controversial and plans to move directly to a final rule unless it receives " ... significant adverse comments ... ". (The final version of the rule has specific changes to 10 CFR, and is available here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2025-1139-0002.) It is generous to presume most of these changes are merely administrative. However, the wording of the rule doesn't make it clear what the actual impact of the changes will be, since, for example, "substantive" is an ambiguous term. The final version of the rule has a long and detailed section devoted to "advisory committees" which is aimed at reducing the number and cost of such committees. What will the practical impact of such a change be for society, or the public, and for impacted individuals? The rulemaking does not make any of that clear, and leaves us with vague statements such as: " ... changes are administrative and procedural in nature and do not introduce new substantive obligations for NRC licensees or other stakeholders ..." " ... revisions affect terminology, chartering requirements, membership appointment processes, and reporting obligations ... " Which advisory committees and advisors will be eliminated? Will the NRC be getting less input from industry organizations, such as the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), or from companies seeking nuclear licenses, or from experts in the field who do not have a vested interest? Numerous scientific studies support more-restrictive radiation standards — not less. Will support for that position be the first to be eliminated? Similarly, the rulemaking changes the requirements for additional public comment periods after a rule is announced, because such comment periods were not actually required in some cases. (The NRC had made the requirement for these additional comment periods explicit in an 1985 amendment to 10 CFR, part 2.) The NRC explains the proposed reversal of that amendment by quoting the 1985 final rule which says: "The Commission normally provides for ... comment on policy statements and interpretive rules, and will continue to do so in the future." However, it is not clear whether the entire 1985 amendment is being eliminated and therefore whether this vague reassurance has any weight. In addition, the underlying reasons for additional public comment periods are ignored in the new rule. How will making the extra comment period optional allow for exposing: " ... any errors or oversights that occurred in the formulation of the rule ... ” which was the intent or the 1985 change to 10 CFR part 2? There is no discussion in the proposed rule changes for what might be lost by making current requirements for public comment periods discretionary. If the public had the opportunity to comment prior to this new rule — why shouldn't the rule specify that the NRC should give the public at least as much opportunity to comment as is currently available? This change should be completely discarded. Ace & Sharon Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA
Contact information for the author of this newsletter:
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.