Modernizing NRC Regulations for Byproduct Material Use

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), Citizens Awareness Network (CAN), and Don’t Waste Michigan (DWM) oppose the proposed rule change, arguing that it relaxes safety standards and increases public risk without sufficient scientific analysis or justification. They specifically oppose increasing allowable radiation exposure levels for decommissioning and the creation of a new "Standard General License" class, which they claim would reduce transparency and public safety.

EnergySolutions, LLC, a nuclear waste management and services provider, supports the proposed rule to modernize NRC regulations by shifting toward risk-informed, isotope-specific thresholds. They further advocate for harmonizing critical mass definitions between 10 CFR Part 70 and Part 150 and reducing reporting burdens for special nuclear material (SNM) found in low-level radioactive waste.

The American College of Radiology (ACR) supports the proposed Standard General License (SGL) to reduce administrative burdens for medical licensees, provided it does not expand access beyond current qualifications. They express concern over the unclear scope of certain uses and emphasize that the SGL should be contingent on maintaining rigorous training and experience requirements for Authorized Users.

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum’s Disused Sources Working Group opposes the proposed rulemaking because it creates a fragmented regulatory framework for financial assurance and introduces security vulnerabilities by eliminating pre-licensing reviews for a new "Standard General License." They argue that financial assurance changes should be consolidated into an existing rulemaking and that the new license class lacks essential safeguards to verify facility legitimacy and personnel qualifications.

The Breakthrough Institute (BTI), a research center advocating for nuclear energy, supports the NRC's proposed modernization of byproduct material regulations to reduce duplicative compliance. They recommend specific clarifications regarding the statutory basis for certain deletions, the establishment of enforceable inspection baselines for standard general licenses, and the preservation of source-accountability mechanisms.

The State of New York supports the NRC's proposed rule to modernize byproduct material regulations, particularly praising the resolution of specific isotope issues and the harmonization of frequencies. However, the State requests clarifications on the implementation timeline, the standard general license (SGL) framework, reciprocity verification, and the elimination of distribution reporting to ensure safe and consistent adoption by Agreement States.

An independent researcher and environmental policy consultant with a background from the Harvard Kennedy School expresses concern that the proposed rule's cumulative regulatory relaxations will result in insufficient oversight. They specifically argue that these changes could negatively impact the safety profile of emerging technologies like commercial fusion energy by locking in weakened protections.

The Attorneys General of New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, and Vermont are requesting a 60-day extension of the comment period to allow for a thorough analysis of the proposed rule's interactions with other pending regulatory changes. They also express concerns regarding the insufficient implementation timeframe for Agreement States and the potential for unintended costs and consequences.

The Office of the Attorney General of Washington is requesting a 60-day extension to the public comment period for the proposed rule. They argue that the rule's extensive scope and its interaction with other concurrent NRC regulatory changes require more time for state agencies to properly review and analyze the potential impacts.

The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) opposes the proposed Standard General License framework, arguing it will cause significant revenue losses for Agreement States and create confusion for the regulated community. They recommend a streamlined specific licensing pathway instead, citing concerns over inspection costs, safety oversight, and inaccurate cost-benefit analyses in the NRC's proposal.