Continuing its deregulatory sprint under Executive Order (EO) 14300, the NRC recently issued a Policy Statement revising the mandatory hearing process for reactor licensing, emphasizing early public participation and streamlined procedures. The policy follows a companion final rule, effective May 15, 2026, in which the NRC rescinded regulations calling for specific environmental findings in light of the agency’s determination that mandatory hearings do not call for specific detailed findings.
Mandatory hearings are required for certain licenses by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), however, the statute does not prescribe their format or purpose. Historically, the Commission has used these hearings, conducted under semiformal procedures at the tail-end of licensing proceedings, to verify the adequacy of the NRC staff’s review without public participation.
In the decades following the AEA’s passage, these hearings have declined in importance. In turn, the Commission has revisited the mandatory hearing process and concluded that a formal confirmation of the staff’s review is no longer needed. It therefore has delegated the mandatory hearing for a new reactor construction permit (CP), early site permit (ESP), and combined construction and operating license (COL) to the NRC staff and significantly simplified the process.
The mandatory hearing will take the form of a public meeting (akin to a “town hall” comment session) held at the beginning of the review—shortly after an application is accepted for staff review—instead of at the end and following the completion of the staff’s review. The process is intended to benefit stakeholders by providing for public participation in the mandatory hearing while reducing the resource burden of the hearing on both the NRC and the applicant.
Background
Sections 185b. and 189a. of the AEA require the NRC to hold a hearing after 30 days’ notice on an application for a CP, an ESP (considered a partial CP), and a COL. The “mandatory hearing” provision, originally promulgated in 1957 to apply to all Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) applications and narrowed in 1962 to apply to CP applications only, was intended to promote transparency in light of the AEC’s dual roles as both regulator and promoter of nuclear technology.
The preamble to the Policy Statement recognizes the Energy Reorganization Act (which in 1975 established the NRC as an independent regulatory agency with no promotional responsibility), the maturity of the nuclear industry, and improvements in the transparency of the NRC’s licensing and oversight processes as developments that have diminished the importance of the mandatory hearing.
As the agency acknowledges, the NRC has exercised broad discretion in conducting these hearings and revised the hearing process over the years. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (the Boards) conducted early mandatory hearings and considered a wide range of issues in detail. Many of these proceedings spanned years for a variety of reasons, including significant revisions to the underlying application. See, e.g., Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4), LBP-78-4, 7 NRC 92 (1978); Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project, Nos. 3 and 5), LBP-78-14, 7 NRC 599 (1978).
The CPs for the current operating fleet (not counting COLs) were issued in the 1970s; the NRC held only a few mandatory hearings over the next 30 years. The agency’s experience with the licensing renaissance in the mid-2000s, including mandatory hearings for the initial ESPs and two uranium enrichment facilities conducted by the Boards, led to the Commission’s 2010 decision to conduct the COL mandatory hearings itself, subject to a set of prescriptive procedures that were subsequently commemorated in the Internal Commission Procedures.
The agency made modest process improvements over the years to reduce resources and improve efficiency. In 2024, then-Chair Hanson directed the General Counsel to reconsider and streamline the mandatory hearing still further. OGC’s recommendations were approved by the Commission later that year, shortly after the passage of the ADVANCE Act in July.
The ADVANCE Act included provisions to improve reactor licensing efficiency, including a direction that hearings be completed not later than two years after an application is accepted for review. And Section 5(j) of EO 14300 directed the NRC to streamline its public hearing processes. The mandatory hearings for the recently issued Kemmerer Unit 1 (power reactor) and Hermes 2 (test reactor) construction permits followed the 2024 revised process.
Revisions to Part 51 Pave the Way for Greater Flexibility
To pave the way for the informal meeting format set out in the Policy Statement, regulatory revisions were necessary. To that end, the final rule removed 10 CFR § 51.105, “Public hearings in proceedings for issuance of construction permits or early site permits; limited work authorizations,” and § 51.107, “Public hearings in proceedings for issuance of combined licenses; limited work authorizations,” as well as related cross-references in other regulations.
These provisions contained specific findings to be made by presiding officers conducting reactor licensing mandatory hearings to confirm compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Those findings stem from Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. AEC, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
In that case, the court invalidated portions of the AEC’s regulations because they treated NEPA review—still new at the time—as peripheral and failed to integrate the consideration of environmental matters into licensing reviews as the statute required. In response, the AEC added the specific environmental issues to be considered in the mandatory hearing, which remained substantively unchanged until their rescission.
Acknowledging that the NRC has broad discretion to shape its administrative processes and that neither AEA Section 189a. nor NEPA prescribes specific findings that must be made in a mandatory hearing, the NRC removed the findings from the rules on the ground that they are not legally required. Removing those findings significantly increases the NRC’s flexibility to structure the mandatory hearing.
Key Provisions of the Policy Statement
The Policy Statement recognizes the need for greater efficiency in the mandatory hearing process to meet the timeliness and efficiency directives of EO 14300 and observes that the public interest is therefore best served by holding the hearing early in the review process and opening it to public participation.
The Policy Statement includes the following key features:
- Timing: The mandatory hearing will be held early in the review process—approximately 30 days after the staff accepts a complete application for review as opposed to after the NRC staff’s technical review is complete. This change is intended to “fulfill the statutory requirement while supporting an efficient, timely and predictable regulatory review and enhancing public participation.” The staff may therefore issue a single combined notice of application docketing, notice of mandatory hearing, and notice of opportunity to request a contested hearing.
- Public Meeting Format: The mandatory hearing will take the form of an in-person (or hybrid in-person and virtual) facilitated public meeting that is expected to be held in the vicinity of the applicant’s or licensee’s proposed site. The hearing, which the Commission has delegated to the Executive Director for Operations (who may further redelegate the hearing to other members of the staff), will be attended, in addition to an in-house meeting facilitator, by at least one senior agency manager.
- Structured Public Engagement: The hearing will include a transcribed session in which the NRC staff presents an overview of the review process and application, followed by a public comment period of up to three hours. The applicant will have an opportunity to make a presentation. Members of the public will be permitted to speak for up to five minutes each, and NRC staff will respond in real time to questions where possible. The NRC will accept written comments for two weeks following the session. Staff will then be expected to prepare a meeting summary that will also respond to questions that cannot be answered at the session, subject to information known to the staff at the time.
The Bottom Line
By moving the mandatory hearing forward in the licensing process, the NRC aims to align with congressional and executive mandates to expedite reactor licensing. We expect that, overall, less time and fewer resources will be required for these sessions. Applicants should be prepared for public engagement early in the process, and may wish to adjust their communications and outreach strategies accordingly.
Applicants should anticipate increased scrutiny and questions from the public since historically the public has not had the opportunity to participate in these mandatory hearings. While it is the staff’s responsibility to answer questions that are raised during the session, the applicant should closely monitor responses as public input could influence the staff’s technical review and may necessitate prompt follow-up. We stand ready to consult with applicants as they structure their participation in mandatory hearings for maximum effectiveness.
The contested hearing process, which is also undergoing revision pursuant to EO 14300, is unaffected by the Policy Statement. Further, the Policy Statement does not apply to mandatory hearings for enrichment facilities arising under AEA Section 193(b); those proceedings are required to be “on the record” and are subject to greater formality pursuant to Section 554 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
We also continue to monitor legislation. The statutory hearing requirement has long been a candidate for rescission. Legislation has been introduced in the current Congress (H.R. 5549 in the House of Representatives and S. 1757 in the Senate) to eliminate the mandatory hearing provisions in both AEA Sections 189a. and 193(b).
How We Can Help
Our team stands ready to counsel companies on NRC hearing issues as well as continued changes to the NRC’s regulatory regime. Please visit our Power & Pipes and Up & Atom energy blogs and our subscriptions page for updates on the US administration’s energy policies, or contact Juliana Israel to be added to our energy and infrastructure distribution list.