Submit comments here:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2025-1138-0001
Re: Docket ID NRC-2025-1138
November 7, 2026
We oppose the proposed rulemaking covered by NRC-2025-1138, Regulatory Enhancements for Reactor Licensing, Decommissioning, and Operational Oversight. This level of regulatory change should require public hearings and Congressional approval, because the NRC is effectively rewriting many of its regulations.
The document describing the proposed changes is more than 200 pages long, and twenty supporting documents (including one that was withdrawn and replaced four days into the comment period) are also part of the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
The summary of the proposed changes begins: "Over the decades ..." and includes a list of sections in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) that will be modified. The list has 15 entries, many of which reference multiple sections of 10 CFR. For example item "c" covers: "10 CFR Parts 20, 50, 52, and 53—Decommissioning Licensing Enhancements".
The "plain language description" of the proposed rulemaking includes the following phrase: "The goal of this rulemaking is to enhance regulatory efficiency ..." and goes on to say that: "The scope includes revisions to Parts 20, 21, 40, 50, 52, 55, 70, and 76 [of 10 CFR]; updates to definitions and reporting criteria; rescission of certain design certification."
The suggested changes are not merely administrative. They could have important impacts on public health and safety. For example, the rulemaking explains that: " ... power reactors licensed under 10 CFR parts 50, 52, and 53 will include various reactor technologies, types, and sizes ..." and that the NRC plans to " ... proactively amend the decommissioning licensing process ...". The NRC describes the result as " ... flexibility in the decommissioning and subsequent license termination of all potential reactors."
Instead of an enforceable regulation, the NRC is proposing a vague guideline that will accommodate any reactor design and any decommissioning plan. Such a rule cannot ensure public health and safety, because even the narrowest regulation for decommissioning has never solved the problem of spent reactor fuel and other nuclear waste, not to mention sabotage, war, malfeasance, abandonment, bankruptcy, etc... Weakening regulations and allowing the production of even more nuclear waste is not a trivial change and it is just one of the many changes covered by this proposed rulemaking.
It is not reasonable to ask for public comments on the massive changes the proposed rulemaking covers within the allowed 45-day comment period.
Making matters even worse, in 2026 there have already been multiple other NRC proposed rules that could impact 10 CFR. The NRC has acknowledged that the proposed regulations will need to be coordinated, which would potentially change regulations again after the public comment periods close.
Any such coordination should include public meetings and allow enough time for citizens, tribal organizations, and local and state agencies to understand and comment on the impact of ALL of the changes.
Sharon and 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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments should be in good taste and include the commentator's full name and affiliation.