NRC Modernization Should Pair Procedural Flexibility With Clear Guardrails

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is making a set of procedural changes to Parts 2, 7, and 10 of its regulations as part of its broader modernization effort. When the NRC issues certain rules without first taking public comment, its regulations currently require a 30-day comment period after the rule is issued. The rule would make that post-issuance comment period optional. It would also align the NRC’s advisory committee procedures with government-wide rules under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), including shortening the notice period for advisory committee meetings from 15 to 7 days while expanding what each notice contains. Finally, it would replace NRC-specific criteria for security clearance decisions with government-wide guidelines (Security Executive Agent Directive 4, or SEAD 4).

The Breakthrough Institute generally supports the direction of these reforms. A mandatory 30-day comment period can delay routine corrections, such as typographical fixes, without improving the outcome. Aligning with current government-wide standards also removes outdated NRC-specific procedures. The rule makes post-issuance comment optional but sets no standard for when the NRC will still ask for it. The NRC says it will take comments “as appropriate,” but does not explain the definition of “appropriate.” As written, the NRC could skip comment even on a substantive change where public input might have caught a problem. That matters, especially with an unusually large number of NRC rulemakings underway at once, because comments can surface conflicts between related rules and implementation problems before they become part of the regulations. BTI recommends that the final rule call for comment when a rule is new or substantively changes policy and public input could affect the decision or public health and safety, while routine editorial, technical, and conforming changes proceed without it. 

The final rule should also fit the NRC’s broader framework. Parts 7 and 10 connect to advisory committee reviews of reactor applications and to security requirements that are themselves being revised, so the NRC should review the final text for inconsistent terminology, procedures, and cross-references. A clear threshold for public comment lets the NRC move quickly on routine corrections while keeping public input where it can change the outcome.