Democrats request information from NRC, Nieh over regulatory overhaul

Murray

While Murray and Kaptur said they support the NRC's efforts to reform its regulatory practices and become more efficient and risk-informed while maintaining safety and security, they wrote in the letter that the "breadth of the changes currently underway raises significant questions about whether the NRC has adequately evaluated the cumulative effects of these reforms on nuclear safety, security, independent oversight, and public confidence."

An NRC spokesperson had no comment for Nuclear News on the letter or the 15-day timeline.

ALARA concerns: Among the items listed in the letter were multiple requests for information related to the proposed removal of the long-standing "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) requirement from its radiation protection regulations and its replacement with a graded, threshold-based approach. NRC officials have argued that ALARA has become overly subjective and often has been interpreted as requiring dose minimization without a clear stopping point.

In the letter, the lawmakers said they were concerned about the proposed changes, such as permitting multiyear averaging of occupational doses through a planned dose-limit extension tied to a five-year assessment, revising monitoring and reporting requirements, and permitting higher effluent dose constraints under some circumstances.

"The scale of this regulatory revision effort also warrants greater transparency regarding its costs, benefits, and resource implications. Given the scope of these changes, Congress needs to understand the analytical basis for the NRC's determination that the proposed reforms will improve efficiency without compromising safety, security, or regulatory effectiveness. In particular, the NRC should be able to identify the specific requirements being eliminated or modified, explain the basis for each change, and demonstrate how the revised framework will continue to provide adequate protection," Murray and Kaptur wrote.

Other requests: Along with the ALARA-related requests, Murray and Kaptur requested the following information:

• A list of what will be "modified, eliminated, consolidated, or otherwise affected" by the NRC's regulatory reforms, as well as the justification for these changes.
• A description of the process used to "identify, develop, review, and approve" the rulemakings to date.
• Staffing and labor costs associated with the rulemaking work, as well as what portions are recovered through service fees and annual fees, and what portion is excluded from fee recovery.
• All non-concurrences filed under the NRC's non-concurrence process and all differing professional opinions submitted under the NRC's differing professional opinions program related to EO 14300.
• Any analyses conducted during the rulemaking process that address the impact changes have had on "nuclear safety, radiation protection, physical security, emergency preparedness, environmental protection, or the NRC's ability to conduct effective oversight."
• What criteria the NRC used to determine whether modified or eliminated requirements will provide protection greater than or equal to what is being replaced.
• Supporting documents like regulatory, cost-benefit, and legal analyses; safety evaluations; scientific and risk assessments; technical reports; and decision memoranda.
• The NRC's description of its approach to identifying and monitoring "unintended consequences" of the reform overhaul.
• Specific, outcomes-based goals and performance metrics that the NRC will use to gauge the implementation of EO 14300.
• How the NRC would "reconsider, modify, or restore" requirements changed or eliminated during the rulemakings process.
• The identification of any licensing review, inspection, or oversight activity that changed as a result of the overhaul work.
• Fiscal year 2026 appropriation and FY 2027 budget request amounts from the president that support the implementation of the executive order.

"Congress has a responsibility to understand how and why the nation's nuclear safety regulator is changing its regulatory framework and to ensure that those changes do not inadvertently weaken the protections that are required to maintain the safety of the U.S. nuclear fleet," Murray and Kaptur wrote.