The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued two new final rules under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) meant to streamline environmental review during its licensing processes.
The first rule, affirmed on Monday by the Commission, creates a new generic environmental impact statement framework for new reactor technology. NRC said the new setup uses “a technology-neutral framework and a set of plant and site parameters to determine which potential environmental impacts would be common to the construction, operation, and decommissioning of many new nuclear reactors.”
The final rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register by the end of the month, an NRC spokesperson told Exchange Monitor in a Tuesday emailed statement.
NRC said the new framework is intended to improve the efficiency of the environmental review bringing licensing predictability through regulatory criteria. .
Initially, the rule was planned to be only applicable to advanced reactors, such as small modular reactors and microreactors, but in April 2024, the commission directed NRC staff to change the title of the rule so that it can be applicable to any new reactors, according to the document.
The other final rule, published in the Federal Register March 30, updates NRC’s categorical exclusions list. Through this rule, NRC will eliminate the preparation of environmental assessments for particular administrative, licensing and regulatory actions that have no effect on the environment, the agency said.
These amendments in the rule will not add or change any new requirements for applicants or licensees, NRC said. The rule will become effective on April 29.
These two final rules were separate from the recent rulemaking that was called for by Executive Order 14300. The generic environmental impact statement rule was first explored in 2019 and proposed in October 2024. Updating categorical exclusions from the environmental review was first considered in 2021 and proposed in July 2024.
A few categorical exclusions that NRC added that would not have a significant effect on the environment were:
- Issuance of amendments to 10 CFR § 72.214 for amended, revised or renewed certificates of compliances for cask designs used for spent fuel storage.
- Changes to requirements for fire protection, emergency planning, physical security, cybersecurity or quality assurance
- Actions on changes to requirements for decommission funding
A nuclear industry group and citizen group critical of NRC and nuclear power offered striking differing views on the NRC action.
In a Thursday blog post by Nuclear Energy Institute’s (NEI) Luke Johnson, he said NRC’s efforts to modernize its processes have been a welcomed change. In a time where demand for nuclear energy is growing, NRC is making changes to address regulatory bottlenecks, Johnson said.
“The NRC is working now to meet the moment by eliminating unnecessary red tape and refining its focus on the most safety-significant issues,” Johnson said. “With a few recent rulemakings in the books, the NRC is going to be making or revising over 25 more in the next coming months. With the right changes, we can get more nuclear online sooner and safely.”
While some of the nuclear industry welcomes the recent NRC’s changes, environmental groups continue to oppose them.
Three Mile Island Alert’s Eric Epstein told the Monitor in a Thursday email that the updated categorical exclusions and generic environmental impact statement appear to remove many safety measures that were put in place following the Three Mile Island Unit 2 partial meltdown in 1979. Many nuclear power plants are older and require increased scrutiny, he added.
“These exclusions spell the demise of dedicated or updated Environmental Impact Statements,” Epstein said. “This codifies the NRC’s degrading and downgrading of “safety in depth.” The industry has been skating on thin ice and now the NRC has removed the life jackets.”