Licensing Requirements for Microreactors and Other Reactors with Comparable Risk Profiles

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.

ClearPath, a nonprofit organization focused on clean energy policy, supports the proposed Part 57 rulemaking but argues that its scope should be expanded beyond microreactors to include all reactors meeting the safety criteria. They also recommend incorporating the rule's innovative licensing concepts into existing regulatory frameworks (Parts 50, 51, 52, and 53) to maximize their impact and efficiency.

The Albuquerque Chapter of Veterans For Peace opposes the proposed rule change to 10 C.F.R. Part 57, arguing that fast-tracking licenses for nuclear microreactors would weaken safety and environmental protections. They express concern that reduced oversight and the deployment of reactors near populated areas and AI data centers could lead to adverse lifelong consequences for the environment and public safety.

X Energy, LLC, a developer of pebble-bed, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, supports the NRC's proposed Part 57 rule to establish a risk-informed regulatory framework for low-risk reactors. They advocate for specific refinements to the rule, including more flexible dose criteria, the use of existing guidance for change evaluations, and consistent definitions for quality assurance and reactor states.

The United States Nuclear Industry Council (USNIC), a bipartisan membership organization for nuclear energy companies and institutions, supports the proposed rule for licensing microreactors and other low-consequence reactors. They advocate for a risk-informed, performance-based framework that includes streamlined pathways for high-volume deployment, factory fabrication, and remote operations.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) supports the proposed rule establishing a risk-informed licensing framework for microreactors but requests specific technical enhancements to the dose-based entry criterion. They argue for more rigorous requirements regarding source term methodology, atmospheric dispersion modeling, long-term stochastic risk assessment, and committed dose equivalent calculations to ensure public health protection.

A team of researchers from the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign argues that the proposed rule lacks a sufficient technical and legal basis for its safety determinations, specifically regarding the 1 rem TEDE threshold and the MHA/MCA methodologies. They contend that the rule fails to adequately demonstrate "reasonable assurance of adequate protection" and lacks a balanced cost-benefit analysis, making it vulnerable to judicial challenge.

The commenters strongly oppose the proposed rule, arguing that it creates a dangerous "fast track" for licensing microreactors by significantly reducing regulatory oversight and safety requirements. They express concerns regarding the lack of public comment periods, the risks of transporting nuclear waste, and the potential for security vulnerabilities in smaller reactor designs.

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.

The State of Nevada opposes the proposed rulemaking, arguing that the NRC should not relax existing dose rate limits for the transportation of microreactors to accommodate economic interests or technological advancement. The state emphasizes that any risk-informed approach must maintain conservative safety standards, comply with statutory requirements for plutonium transport, and remain harmonized with international IAEA standards.