Actions to Address Executive Order 14300: Reforming the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Introduction and Summary of Executive Order 14300
Executive Order 14300, Reforming the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, represents a fundamental shift in how the federal government directs the licensing and regulation of civilian nuclear energy. The order is premised on the argument that abundant energy is a core component of national and economic security, and that nuclear power, in conjunction with domestic fossil fuels, is essential to U.S. resilience in the face of geopolitical competition. The Administration highlights the stark contrast between the nation’s past and present licensing trajectories: between 1954 and 1978, the United States authorized the construction of 133 reactors, while since 1978 only two have entered commercial operation. According to the order, the NRC’s reliance on protracted licensing timelines and its practice of charging applicants hourly fees has stifled the deployment of nuclear power and hindered innovation.
The Executive Order reframes the NRC’s mission. Rather than focusing exclusively on risk minimization, the Commission is directed to weigh the benefits of nuclear energy to economic and national security alongside traditional safety, health, and environmental considerations. This reorientation is closely tied to recent legislation, especially the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCED Act), which required NRC to regulate in a manner that does not unnecessarily limit nuclear deployment.
To implement this vision, the order mandates organizational and regulatory reforms across several fronts. Structurally, the NRC is directed to reorganize in consultation with the Administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team, reappropriating staff in areas deemed misaligned with the new mission while expanding capacity in new reactor licensing. A 20-member team must be established to lead the drafting of new regulations, while the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards is to be reduced to the statutory minimum necessary for its functions.
On the regulatory front, the order calls for a wholesale review and revision of NRC’s regulations and guidance. Proposed rules must be issued within nine months of the order, and final rules within eighteen months. These reforms include the establishment of binding licensing deadlines: no more than eighteen months for decisions on new reactor applications and no more than twelve months for license renewals. NRC fee recovery is capped to prevent prolonged processes from inflating costs. The order also directs reconsideration of the linear no-threshold model and the “as low as reasonably achievable” radiation standard, urging adoption of determinate, science-based limits in consultation with DOE, DOD, and EPA. Additional reforms include streamlined compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, expedited approval of DOE- and DOD-tested designs, high-volume licensing pathways for small modular and microreactors, longer license renewal periods, and restrictions on mid-construction design changes. Together, these measures are intended to increase the U.S. nuclear fleet from approximately 100 gigawatts today to 400 gigawatts by 2050.
Timeline of Executive Order 14300
The order establishes clear timelines for regulatory revision and implementation. Immediately upon issuance, the NRC is instructed to begin reorganization planning with the DOGE team, including staff adjustments and the establishment of a dedicated regulatory rewrite group. Within nine months (i.e., by February 2026), the NRC must issue notices of proposed rulemaking to begin the wholesale regulatory overhaul. Within eighteen months (i.e., by November 2026), the NRC is required to issue final rules and guidance to conclude the process. These reforms are not meant to be aspirational but binding: new licensing deadlines are to take effect once rules are finalized, and expedited licensing pathways are expected to operate continuously thereafter. Over the long term, the Administration set an expansion target of 400 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2050, with NRC reform identified as the necessary foundation for that growth.
Recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Related Legislative Actions
The directives in EO 14300 build upon and, in some cases, go beyond the requirements Congress has already imposed through recent legislation.
The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA), enacted in 2019, required the NRC to modernize its fee recovery and licensing processes. Among its provisions, NEIMA directed the Commission to develop performance metrics and milestone schedules to improve predictability in licensing. It also mandated greater reliance on risk-informed, performance-based regulation to accommodate advanced reactors. EO 14300 references this framework but criticizes the NRC for treating NEIMA’s milestone schedules as nonbinding guidance. In contrast, the order requires binding deadlines and fee caps to ensure accountability.
The Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (NEICA) of 2017 focused on enhancing the Department of Energy’s capabilities to support advanced nuclear technologies. It directed DOE to establish new testing infrastructure, including the versatile test reactor, and to improve collaboration with the NRC in order to provide technical validation for licensing. EO 14300 leverages this foundation by establishing an expedited NRC pathway for reactor designs already validated through DOE or DOD testing programs, limiting NRC review to risks that are unique to new commercial applications.
Most recently, the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act (ADVACNED), enacted in 2024, directly mandated that the NRC regulate in a manner that does not unduly restrict the civilian use of nuclear energy. It made explicit that the NRC’s mission includes facilitating deployment alongside its responsibility for safety. EO 14300 operationalizes this statutory mandate by embedding deployment facilitation into NRC’s culture, structure, and processes.
Executive Order 14300 may represent one of the most significant federal interventions in nuclear regulatory policy in decades. By restructuring the NRC’s mission, staff, and regulatory framework, the Administration intends to accelerate licensing timelines, reduce costs, and enable a fourfold expansion of U.S. nuclear capacity by mid-century. The order builds directly on NEIMA, NEICA, and the Advanced ACT, but moves further by mandating not just efficiency but a fundamental shift in regulatory philosophy. The practical implementation of these reforms, through the nine- and eighteen-month deadlines, through revised safety standards, and through new licensing pathways, will define whether the United States can regain global leadership in nuclear technology and deliver on its stated goals of energy security, economic growth, and climate resilience.
Acronyms
ACRS: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
ADR: Alternative Dispute Resolution
ALARA: As Low As Reasonably Achievable
CP: Construction Permit
COL: Combined Operating License
DOD: Department of Defense
DOE: Department of Energy
EA: Environmental Assessment
EDO: Executive Director for Operations
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement
EO: Executive order
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
GEIS: Generic Environmental Impact Statement
GW: Gigawatt
LNT: linear no-threshold
NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OI: Office of Investigations
Actions to Address the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Executive Order in the Short and Medium Term
EO Language: “[A] review and wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance documents, and issue notice(s) of proposed rulemaking effecting this revision within 9 months of the date of this order.”
Intended Goal: Use standardized and pre-approved exemptions to streamline Part 50/52 requirements for various advanced reactors.
| Suggested Action(s): 1) Enable creation and use of standardized exemption sets for particular advanced reactor designs or other standardized technologies. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| After approving one exemption request or set of exemptions requests for an advanced reactor design, issue Commission-initiated exemptions for similarly situated applicants or licensees. | Review existing advance reactor applications for common exemption requests and provide guidance summarizing sets of granted exemptions and the circumstances allowing those exemptions. |
| 2) Review the NRC exemption process to enable a streamlined process to automatically approve exemptions previously granted to other licensees in equivalent circumstances. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Assess if streamlined exemption process could be applied to Part 53 framework. |
| 3) Continue to pursue existing NRC Staff efforts at improving licensing efficiency like the increased use of Environmental Assessments (EA) over Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Commission should immediately adopt NRC Staff’s recommendations in SECY‑24‑0046 which already includes a well-developed rulemaking plan, as well as the additional efficiencies identified1 These documents identify significant efficiencies in modifying NRC environmental regulations2 eliminate the list of actions under 10 CFR § 51.20(b) requiring an EIS, and providing more opportunities for the use of EAs and Categorical Exclusions. This could be coupled with speeding up the codification of the NRC’s New Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement to be implemented prior to January 2026 and3 instances within the GEIS where EAs make more sense (for example, where impacted property is less than 100 acres). In the interim, the Staff can continue to use Commission-initiated exemptions for EAs where appropriate. | Pursue rulemaking in accordance with the Rulemaking Plan included with SECY‑24‑0046 to allow for use of EAs instead of EISs.4 |
EO Language: “Establish a process for high-volume licensing of microreactors and modular reactors, including by allowing for standardized applications and approvals,” “[f]acilitate increased deployment of new nuclear reactor technologies, such as Generation III+ and IV reactors, modular reactors, and microreactors, including by lowering regulatory and cost barriers to entry,” and “[f]acilitate the expansion of American nuclear energy capacity from approximately 100 GW in 2024 to 400 GW by 2050.”
Intended Goal: Simplify nth-of-a-kind licensing, provide for a transition between Part 50/52 licensing, and provide simplified way to navigate information on reactor licensing for new entrants into marketplace.
| Suggested Action(s): 1) Provide a process for licensees to use incorporate-by-reference rules (10 CFR § 52.8) to efficiently adapt Part 50 licensed reactor to a certified design or manufacturing license with minimal subsequent review. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Develop Commission position and staff guidance on how to adapt a reactor licensedd under Part 50 (Operating License [OL]) into a Part 52 standardized license application (Standard Design Approval [SDA], Standard Design Certification [SDC], Manufacturing License [ML], or a Combined License [COL]). |
| 2) Reduce or optimize scope of information needed for site permitting. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Allow use of alternative methods of obtaining site-specific data, including meteorological and seismic data in individual applications, and issue guidance to the fastest extent possible. Issue exemptions to seismic analysis requirements for facilities designed with seismic isolation. Issue exemptions to narrow alternatives analysis to truly feasible alternatives (eliminate alternative sites and narrow scope of alternative technologies fully equivalent to selected technology). |
| 3) Provide clear roadmaps for new licensees to understand the requirements for a submittal under Parts 50 and Part 52. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Revise the NRC website to clearly collect and point to the various NRC guidance documents and rules related to each submittal needed under Parts 50 and 52. | Develop new NRC guidance documents providing cross references and hyperlinks so that all the necessary regulatory standards are located in one place. (For example, Early Site Permit summary guidance addressing each section of the Environmental Report and Site Safety Analysis Report and providing hyperlinks to the technical guidance for each individual report section.) |
| 4) Provide information to new licensees on types of NRC interactions and the use of audits. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Revise the NRC website to clearly describe types of NRC interactions. |
| 5) Allow licensees greater flexibility to split applications into multiple parts and stagger submittals. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Revise the NRC website to clearly describe the existing processes and requirements that allow for the use of staggered regulatory submittals along with examples of how staggered submittals can be used. |
Intended Goal: Maximize the usefulness of existing Part 52 design and site licenses by extending license terms and extend the length of new licenses going forward.
| Suggested Action(s): 1) Consistent with AEA § 103(c), extend license term for Part 52 license tools (including manufacturing licenses) to a default initial term of 40 years unless otherwise requested by an applicant. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Commission initiated exemptions to extend any design certifications through 2035 to allow the Commission time to study and pursue rulemaking to alter the renewal rules. |
| 2) Allow licensees to defer renewing Early Site Permits until incorporation into a Construction Permit (CP) or Combined Operating License (COL), consistent with the Commission’s current policy of deferring Construction Permits. Licensees would be required to address new and significant information in the CP or COL proceeding. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Commission initiated exemptions to extend ESP renewals to 2035 to allow the Commission time to study and potentially pursue rulemaking to alter license renewal requirements in 10 CFR § 52.29(a) to allow deferral in lieu of renewal. |
EO: “Establish stringent thresholds for circumstances in which the NRC may demand changes to reactor design once construction is underway.”
Intended Goal: Give licensees a streamlined method to appeal NRC Staff decisions or seek opinions of high-level Staff.
| Suggested Action(s): 1) Provide process for licensees to formally seek resolution of post-license modification requests or disputes with Staff, with set timelines for NRC to resolve appeals. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Consult with reactor licensees and licensee representatives on application of backfit rule to construction disputes or use of a new process including a dedicated technically-focused licensing board panel with aggressive milestones. | If licensees prefer to use existing process, like backfit appeals, revise guidance to address any gaps in the existing process. |
| 2) Provide information to new licensees on process to seek official legal interpretations on licensing issues from NRC Office of General Council (OGC), and formalize process and deadlines, requiring OGC to issue interpretations within 60 days of licensee request. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Rules already exist allowing for OGC to issue interpretations. Formalize and publish internal NRC process and mandate 60-day turnaround from date of licensee request, without an acceptance review period. | Create guidance for licensees on the process to seek interpretations, if needed. |
| 3) Provide prompt feedback, within 2 business days of receipt of a license application, to applicant describing next steps and estimated timeline for acceptance review and docketing. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Formalize and publish internal NRC process providing prompt initial feedback on next steps to applicants. |
EO Language: “Adopt science-based radiation limits. In particular, the NRC shall reconsider reliance on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation exposure and the ‘as low as reasonably achievable’ standard, which is predicated on LNT.” “In reconsidering those limits, the NRC shall specifically consider adopting determinate radiation limits, and in doing so shall consult with the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Environmental Protection Agency.”
Intended Goal: Study and clarify the agency’s radiation limits.
| Suggested Action(s): 1) Perform cost-benefit analysis to better establish the bounds of the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirements. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Consult with industry on ALARA practices that may fail cost-benefit evaluation. | Perform cost-benefit analysis of ALARA practices identified by licensees and publish guidance on bounds of ALARA requirements. Include analysis of using background radiation as a cut-off point for ALARA in cost-benefit analysis. |
| 2) Consider adopting determinate radiation limits, and consult with the DOD, the DOE, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Within one year of the issuance of the EO, complete an internal study on NRC radiation limits; consult academic sources on exposure and complete outreach to other agencies, including EPA. |
EO Language: “Streamline the public hearings process.”
Intended Goal: Reduce licensee costs and time associated with mandatory and contested hearings.
| Suggested Action(s): 1) The mandatory hearing is an internal process for Commission review of Staff’s decision to approve a design, much like the contested hearing process is an opportunity for the public to challenge the agency’s ultimate decision. These hearing processes should have the same fee treatment, with mandatory hearing fees moving to overhead consistent with contested hearing fees. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Commission-initiated exemptions from fees for mandatory hearings pursuant to 10 CFR § 170.11(b). | Revise fee rule to provide an exemption for mandatory hearing fees under 10 CFR § 170.11(a)(4) in the same manner as contested hearing fees (i.e. no fees on contested hearings on a specific application or the authorizations and conditions of a specific NRC license, certificate, or other authorization, including those involving individual plant security modifications). |
| 2) Mandatory disclosures add significant time and cost to the hearing process, without any clear benefit. The disclosures should be narrowed to documents likely to weigh on the outcome of the proceeding. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Issue a Commission statement narrowing scope of documents “relevant to disputed issues alleged with particularity” to those documents that are likely weigh on the outcome of the hearing. |
EO: “The personnel and functions of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) shall be reduced to the minimum necessary to fulfill ACRS’s statutory obligations. Review by ACRS of permitting and licensing issues shall focus on issues that are truly novel or noteworthy.”
Intended Goal: Prioritize new and novel issue review by the ACRS and eliminate duplicate reviews of previously licensed designs and issues.
| Suggested Action(s): 1) Prioritize new and novel issue review by the ACRS and eliminate duplicate reviews of previously licensed designs and issues. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Commission direction to ACRS to focus most on new and novel issues during its reviews and to eliminate duplicative review of designs or issues that have already been approved. For a design to qualify for a second review it must include design changes that challenge adequate protection of public health and safety. The Executive Director for Operations (EDO) to consult with ACRS and provide a recommendation on areas for potential review as new and novel. The EDO should also consult with ACRS on the timeline and workload of reviews by ACRS to prioritize ACRS reviews on near-term applications as appropriate. |
EO Language: “Revise the Reactor Oversight Process and reactor security rules and requirements to reduce unnecessary burdens and be responsive to credible risks.”
Intended Goal: Refocus NRC inspection, investigation and enforcement activities on nuclear safety-significant issues and matters within the NRC’s clear statutory authority, alter the NRC’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process to allow licensees to defend their actions, and provide transparency in agency enforcement standards.
| Suggested Action(s): 1) Eliminate NRC inspection, investigation and enforcement actions where there is no actual nuclear safety significance or statutory violation. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Eliminate active inspection, investigation, and enforcement based solely on inter-personnel issues, the Commission’s policy statement on Safety Conscious Work Environment, or reporting delays for generally licensed activities. | Revise NRC guidance to eliminate inspection, investigation, and enforcement based solely on inter-personnel issues, the Commission’s policy statement on Safety Conscious Work Environment, or reporting delays for generally licensed activities. |
| 2) Change NRC ADR to allow licensees to present facts and dispute apparent violations and right-size penalties. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Revise NRC guidance and implementation of ADR to allow licensees to defend against the NRC’s claims and present a factual defense, with the possibility of overturning apparent violations in the ADR process. Allow the licensee’s factual defense to inform the corrective actions used to exit ADR. |
| 3) Provide greater transparency into the NRC’s enforcement process. |
|---|
| Short Term Action | Medium Term Action |
|---|---|
| Provide summaries of important NRC enforcement guides, including the Allegations manual. Make the Office of Inspections (OI) Investigations Manual publicly available. Require annual publication of the number of investigations undertaken, how many were referred for action by either NRC enforcement or by a U.S. Attorney, how many allegations were ultimately proven, and how many allegations contained insufficient information to be valid for pursuit. The Commission shall pursue an independent assessment of the results of the last 10 years of investigations to assess how many of them were frivolous. |
