Amentum
BusinessSupport
Physical protection program requirements
Environmental impact
Licensing Requirements for Microreactors and Other Reactors with Comparable Risk Profiles
NRC-2025-0379-0011Proposed Rule
Comments
114
Awaiting comments
Deadline
Closed on Jun 16, 2026
Closed Jun 16, 2026
Net supportiSupport minus oppose · campaigns included
+8%
+8% excluding campaigns
Document
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Licensing Requirements for Microreactors and Other Reactors with Comparable Risk Profiles
- Posted
- May 1, 2026
- Comment period
- May 1, 2026 – Jun 16, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-08550
- CFR
- 10 CFR Parts 1 2 10 11 19 20 21 25 26 30 40 50
- Topics
Analysis
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Include campaigns
Stance breakdown
+8%
Net support
Support57Oppose48Other9
Aggregates include form-letter campaigns. Excluding them, net support is +8% across organic comments.
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Union
1
Government
9
Individual
46
Trade association
1
Advocacy
26
Academic
1
Business
27
Other
3
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Posted May 1, 2026Deadline Jun 16, 2026
Apr 27May 11May 25Jun 8Jun 15
Support57Oppose48Other9
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Support
Oppose
Other
Individual
26%
61%
13%
Business
100%
0%
0%
Advocacy
46%
46%
8%
Government
33%
67%
0%
Other
33%
33%
33%
Academic
0%
100%
0%
Trade association
100%
0%
0%
Union
100%
0%
0%
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Regulatory framework adequacy48
Regulatory consistency and clarity20
Environmental impact16
Qa program compatibility14
Nuclear safety performance11
Physical protection program requirements10
Operator role and terminology8
Decommissioning plan applicability7
Request for comment period extension6
Tribal consultation and sovereignty6
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Uncheck an issue to choose another.
| Organization | Regulatory framework adequacy | Physical protection program requirements | Environmental impact | Qa program compatibility | Regulatory consistency and clarity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Amentum BusinessSupport Amentum, a global engineering and operations services prime contractor, strongly supports the proposed Part 57 rulemakin | · | · | · | ||
Antares Nuclear BusinessSupport Antares Nuclear, a company focused on microreactors, supports the NRC's proposed Part 57 licensing pathway for low-conse | · | · | · | · | |
ASME AdvocacySupport The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) NQA Standards Committee supports the proposed rule to establish a ri | · | · | · | ||
Chapter 063-Albuquerque, Veterans For Peace AdvocacyOppose The Albuquerque Chapter of Veterans For Peace opposes the proposed rule change to 10 C.F.R. | · | · | · | · | |
Core Power (US) Inc. BusinessSupport Core Power (US) Inc. | · | · | · | ||
Geenex BusinessSupport Geenex, a developer of large-scale energy infrastructure projects, supports the NRC's proposed rule to modernize reactor | · | · | · | ||
Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law AdvocacySupport The Institute for Policy Integrity, a nonpartisan think tank, supports the NRC's proposal to maintain its longstanding r | · | · | · | · | · |
Kairos Power LLC BusinessSupport Kairos Power LLC supports the NRC's effort to create a scaled licensing framework for microreactors and other low-risk r | · | · | · | · | |
Lockheed Martin Corporation BusinessSupport Lockheed Martin Corporation supports the NRC's proposed risk-informed and performance-based licensing framework for micr | · | · | |||
Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS) AdvocacyOppose The Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS), a nuclear power watchdog and environmental organization, opposes the prop | · | · | · | ||
Nuclear Information and Resource Service AdvocacyOppose The Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it illegally expedites the l | · | · | · | · | |
Nuclear Innovation Alliance AdvocacyOther The Nuclear Innovation Alliance is requesting a 45-day extension of the public comment period for the proposed Part 57 r | · | · | · | · | · |
REPLOY Power Inc. BusinessSupport REPLOY Power, Inc. | · | · | · | · | · |
Rocinante Fieldworks AdvocacySupport Rocinante Fieldworks, an independent venture and advisory platform, supports the proposed action but recommends specific | · | · | · | · | · |
Standard Nuclear BusinessSupport Standard Nuclear, Inc, an advanced nuclear fuel fabricator, expresses strong support for the proposed Part 57 rulemaking | · | · | · | · | · |
Stephens Insurance LLC BusinessSupport Stephens Insurance, LLC supports the proposed risk-informed licensing framework for microreactors but urges the NRC to e | · | · | · | · | · |
Tam Fortis Solutions, Inc. BusinessSupport Tam Fortis Solutions, a nuclear energy company, expresses strong support for the proposed 10 CFR Part 57 rulemaking, not | · | · | · | · | |
The Abundance Institute, Last Energy, and Valar Atomics AdvocacySupport The Abundance Institute, Last Energy, and Valar Atomics support the NRC's proposed rule to modernize nuclear licensing f | · | · | · | · | |
The Samuel Lawrence Foundation AdvocacyOppose The Samuel Lawrence Foundation opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it moves too quickly and lacks sufficient oversig | · | · | · | · | |
Westinghouse Electric Company LLC BusinessSupport Westinghouse Electric Company, in conjunction with Pennsylvania State University, supports the proposed rulemaking but r | · | · | · | · | · |
Antares Nuclear
BusinessSupport
Regulatory framework adequacy
ASME
AdvocacySupport
Regulatory framework adequacy
Qa program compatibility
Chapter 063-Albuquerque, Veterans For Peace
AdvocacyOppose
Environmental impact
Core Power (US) Inc.
BusinessSupport
Regulatory framework adequacy
Physical protection program requirements
Geenex
BusinessSupport
Regulatory framework adequacy
Environmental impact
Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law
AdvocacySupport
Kairos Power LLC
BusinessSupport
Regulatory consistency and clarity
Lockheed Martin Corporation
BusinessSupport
Regulatory framework adequacy
Qa program compatibility
Regulatory consistency and clarity
Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS)
AdvocacyOppose
Regulatory framework adequacy
Physical protection program requirements
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
AdvocacyOppose
Regulatory framework adequacy
Nuclear Innovation Alliance
AdvocacyOther
REPLOY Power Inc.
BusinessSupport
Rocinante Fieldworks
AdvocacySupport
Standard Nuclear
BusinessSupport
Stephens Insurance LLC
BusinessSupport
Tam Fortis Solutions, Inc.
BusinessSupport
Regulatory consistency and clarity
The Abundance Institute, Last Energy, and Valar Atomics
AdvocacySupport
Physical protection program requirements
The Samuel Lawrence Foundation
AdvocacyOppose
Qa program compatibility
Westinghouse Electric Company LLC
BusinessSupport
3 organization-typed comments could not be identified.
Comments
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
Filter:
- Jun 15, 2026Antares NuclearSupportBusiness📎 Attachment
Antares Nuclear, a company focused on microreactors, supports the NRC's proposed Part 57 licensing pathway for low-consequence reactors. They argue that the rule should maintain strict, objective entry criteria to preserve its streamlined nature and should not be expanded to include reactors that require more comprehensive safety mitigations.
Read comment → - Jun 15, 2026REPLOY Power Inc.SupportBusiness📎 Attachment
REPLOY Power, Inc. supports the proposed rulemaking for microreactors but advocates for a performance-based entry criterion rather than a rigid heavy-metal inventory limit. They also recommend streamlining licensing for factory-manufactured reactors, including general licenses for specific pre-operational activities and right-sized site permit processes.
Read comment → - Jun 15, 2026Tam Fortis Solutions, Inc.SupportBusiness📎 Attachment
Tam Fortis Solutions, a nuclear energy company, expresses strong support for the proposed 10 CFR Part 57 rulemaking, noting that their helicopter-portable microreactor aligns with the rule's risk profile and safety philosophy. They recommend that the final rule prioritize a physics-grounded assurance framework for autonomous operations, adopt a risk-informed approach to failures, and ensure technology-neutral guidance for passive, non-water-cooled designs.
Read comment → - Jun 15, 2026Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08550, NRC-2025-0379-0011, from Oregon Department of EnergyOpposeGovernment📎 Attachment
The Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) opposes the proposed rule because it prioritizes speed and scale over transparency and safety, specifically criticizing the use of blanket NEPA categorical exclusions. They argue that the rule creates safety gaps regarding operator licensing, conflicts with state siting authority, and uses insufficiently conservative public health dose limits.
Read comment → - Jun 15, 2026Alexander Adams JrSupportIndividual📎 Attachment
Alexander Adams Jr supports the proposed rule but suggests expanding its scope to include non-power reactors to reduce regulatory burdens and improve consistency. The commenter also provides several specific technical clarifications and requests for clearer definitions within the proposed rule.
Read comment → - Jun 11, 2026Philip KoopmanOtherIndividual📎 Attachment
The commenter provides a link to an external article regarding the complexities of remote robotaxi operation to inform the discussion on remote monitoring of reactors. They do not take a specific position for or against the proposed licensing requirements, but rather offer a suggestion for broader consideration of safety roles.
Read comment → - Jun 3, 2026Anonymous AnonymousSupportIndividual📎 Attachment
The commenter supports the proposed licensing requirements for microreactors but requests specific revisions to the definitions of "operator-dependent" and "operator-independent" facilities. They argue that the current terminology could be misconstrued as implying unmanned facilities and suggest using "operator action-dependent" to clarify that human operators remain responsible for safety even if their actions are not required to maintain dose criteria.
Read comment → - Jun 1, 2026Anonymous AnonymousSupportOther📎 Attachment
The commenter supports the proposed licensing requirements for microreactors but requests specific revisions to the terminology regarding "operator-independent" facilities. They argue that the current language could be misconstrued as "unmanned" and suggest using "operator action-independent" to clarify that human operators are still present and responsible for safety.
Read comment →