The NRC is pulling out the stops to accelerate contested hearings. Here’s what to know.

Yesterday, the NRC published a proposed rule that will change how their contested licensing proceedings work. If you participate in NRC licensing proceedings, or if you plan to, this rule affects you.

The comment period is just 30 days, like we’re expecting for many of the upcoming rules. Mark your calendars for April 2, 2026. This post provides a summary of the rule to give you a jump-start. (Comment on my LinkedIn post about this blog to get a downloadable cheat-sheet.)

What the rule does

The NRC is proposing to compress contested adjudications to save time in its licensing process. For example, the evidentiary hearing phase (often 9+ months) would be reduced to approximately 3 to 3.5 months for most proceedings.

This is a structural overhaul of 10 CFR Part 2, the NRC's rules of practice and procedure, with conforming changes to Parts 51, 52, and 54. Two drivers are the ADVANCE Act of 2024 and Executive Order 14300. The ADVANCE Act required the NRC to complete public licensing hearings for certain combined license applications within 2 years of docketing. EO 14300 went further, directing fixed deadlines of 18 months for new reactor applications and 1 year for operating reactor renewals. The NRC's current hearing procedures, even on paper, would exceed those timelines in most cases. In practice, they have exceeded them by a significant margin.

The NRC has also released two useful supporting documents in the docket: an unofficial timeline flowchart comparing proposed vs. current hearing schedules across all proceeding types, and an unofficial redline of the proposed rule language showing all changes to the CFR in tracked-changes format. Both are worth reading before you comment.

The provisions that may generate comment

Mandatory deadlines. The rule would introduce a new concept called the "Standard Record Closure Date.” It’s a calculated date that anchors the entire hearing schedule. Contentions filed after that date must meet the heightened "reopening the record" standard, which requires a showing of a significant safety or environmental issue that could not have been raised earlier. This would be a meaningful tightening of the current rules.

Frontloaded merits briefing. Applicants would need to address the merits of proposed contentions — not just their admissibility — in their answers, including submission of evidence and affidavits. The NRC acknowledges that the majority of contentions are not admitted, which means applicants will bear this burden even when contentions never proceed to hearing. The NRC asks whether this requirement should be limited to certain proceedings.

No more hearing files. The rule would eliminate the NRC staff's hearing file (a compilation of application-related documents currently required by § 2.1203(a)-(c)) as well as the NRC staff's mandatory disclosure obligations under § 2.336(b) in most licensing proceedings. The NRC's rationale is that ADAMS already makes the relevant documents publicly available. Admittedly, keeping the hearing file was a big pain and an error trap when I was an NRC employee, so I get this. Applicant and petitioner mandatory disclosures under § 2.336 are retained, though accelerated and modified. The NRC is separately asking whether to also eliminate those — that is a specific request for comment, not a proposal.

Attorney-only representation. Currently, corporations, partnerships, and unincorporated associations can be represented in NRC proceedings by a duly authorized non-attorney officer or member. The proposed rule would eliminate that. The NRC's efficiency rationale is understandable: the accelerated schedules will make non-attorney navigation of the hearing process harder, not easier. Public interest organizations and community groups can currently participate in NRC proceedings without legal counsel. This change would effectively exclude them or make them pay for lawyers.

Discretionary intervention eliminated. Current § 2.309(e) allows a presiding officer to grant intervention to a petitioner who does not meet the standard requirements if their participation would contribute to a sound record. This provision would be eliminated. The NRC notes it has rarely been used in practice, which is true. Combined with the attorney-only requirement, its elimination narrows who can effectively participate.

What is not in this rule — and what is coming next

The rule explicitly acknowledges that it does not address two other EO 14300 directives: the expedited pathway for reactor designs tested by the Department of Defense or Department of Energy (Section 5(d)), and the high-volume licensing process for microreactors and modular reactors (Section 5(e)). Those are coming in separate rulemakings.

One change is worth consideration in context of the environmental rulemakings coming up. The proposed rule would revise § 51.104(a) to remove the current prohibition on NRC staff presenting a position on NEPA matters before the final EIS is available. This would allow environmental contentions to be litigated earlier in the process, potentially on the basis of a draft EIS. It is framed as a conforming change, but its practical effect on environmental hearings could be significant.

Who should think about commenting on what

Licensees and applicants: Look at on the frontloaded merits briefing requirement. The NRC is asking whether it should be limited to certain proceedings. Also consider the bifurcation of standing and contention admissibility — the NRC itself asks whether this could create additional delays and appeals.

Intervenors and public interest organizations: Look at the attorney-only requirement and the elimination of discretionary intervention. If you comment, be specific about the resources required to prepare adequate contentions under the proposed timelines. These are the provisions that most directly affect your ability to participate. Also consider the elimination of the staff hearing file and staff disclosures — did they help you prepare for your cases?

Advanced reactor developers: Look at the Nth-of-a-kind design question. The NRC is explicitly asking how to incorporate expedited processes for reactor designs that achieve Nth-of-a-kind deployment. This is your opportunity to shape that framework before the microreactor and modular reactor rulemaking arrives.

Parties in ongoing proceedings: Look at retroactivity. The NRC has left open whether the new rules will apply to ongoing proceedings. If you are a party to an active proceeding, you have a direct interest in how that question is answered.

The bottom line

This rulemaking is a serious attempt to do what Congress and the President have directed: make NRC licensing faster. The proposed timelines are ambitious. Some of the provisions go beyond what the ADVANCE Act and EO 14300 specifically required. Whether those additional steps are good policy is a question the NRC is asking the public to help answer.

The comment period closes April 2, 2026. Submit comments at regulations.gov — Docket ID NRC-2025-1501.**