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, 2026The Healthy Environment Alliance of UtahOpposeAdvocacy📎 Attachment
HEAL Utah, an organization dedicated to public health and environmental protection, opposes the proposed rule because it prioritizes rapid nuclear deployment over rigorous safety reviews and public participation. They argue that streamlining the licensing process for microreactors risks replicating design flaws on a large scale and fails to account for the cumulative environmental and health impacts of the full nuclear fuel cycle.
Read comment → - Jun 15, 2026The Healthy Environment Alliance of UtahOpposeAdvocacy📎 Attachment
HEAL Utah, an organization dedicated to public health and environmental protection, opposes the proposed rule because it prioritizes rapid nuclear deployment over rigorous safety reviews and public participation. They argue that streamlining the licensing process for microreactors risks replicating design flaws on a large scale and fails to account for the cumulative environmental and health impacts of the full nuclear fuel cycle.
Read comment → - Jun 15, 2026Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08550, NRC-2025-0379-0011, from Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian ReservationOpposeAdvocacy📎 Attachment
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) opposes the proposed rule because it streamlines licensing and increases the use of categorical exclusions, which they argue compromises their treaty-reserved rights and the NRC's federal trust responsibility. They argue that the "reduced regulatory burden" actually shifts the burden onto tribes and demand mandatory government-to-government tribal consultation before any construction permitting or deployment.
Read comment → - Jun 15, 2026LaShell ThomasOpposeIndividual📎 Attachment
LaShell Thomas, a concerned citizen, opposes the proposed rulemaking because it prioritizes rapid, scalable deployment of microreactors over adequate analysis of cumulative risks, multi-unit accidents, and environmental impacts. The commenter argues that the NRC should maintain robust site-specific oversight, tribal consultation, and public participation requirements rather than moving toward a high-volume, fleet-based licensing model before operational experience is established.
Read comment → - May 11, 2026Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08550, NRC-2025-0379-0011, from Native Village of Dot LakeOpposeGovernment📎 Attachment
The Native Village of Dot Lake opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it prioritizes rapid nuclear deployment over environmental stewardship, Tribal sovereignty, and the safety of rural Alaska Native communities. They specifically request the elimination of categorical exclusions, mandatory government-to-government Tribal consultation, and full site-specific NEPA reviews for all reactor deployments in Alaska.
Read comment → - May 8, 2026Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08550, NRC-2025-0379-0011, from Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Historic Preservation OfficeOpposeAdvocacy📎 Attachment
The Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation opposes the proposed rule in its current form, arguing that it lacks sufficient guardrails to protect tribal cultural resources and environmental interests. They request specific revisions to ensure that streamlined licensing does not bypass mandatory tribal consultations, environmental reviews, or protections for archaeological and religious sites.
Read comment →