Regulatory Reform Arrives at the NRC: Agency, Congress Act on Licensing Shortcuts

The drive for "regulatory reform" is now in its ascendency as a dominant influence on federal regulatory policy. At the Environmental Protection Agency in particular, regulators have become increasingly sensitive to the adverse economic impacts of its rules, and a similar trend is evident throughout the executive branch.¹ Currently pending before Congress are a number of bills designed to afford "regulatory relief."² And the courts, though less subject to shifting political winds, have been brought directly into the fray.³

Among the most dramatic reforms in government are the recently completed or pending alterations in the process of licensing nuclear power reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has, within the last year, made relatively major modification to its rules of practice and has proposed even more sweeping changes. Of equal if not greater significance are several pieces of legislation now under active consideration by Congress. These proposals include various means of expediting the licensing process, usually at the expense of citizen intervenors. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court recently granted the government's request that it review a controversial decision by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals,⁴ which had the effect of requiring the NRC to hold adjudicatory hearings on a large number of minor license amendments which formerly would only have been noticed in the Federal Register. By this time next year the NRC's licensing rules should be far more streamlined than is the case today.

Background

It requires roughly 10 to 15 years to plan, license, and construct a nuclear power plant. With interest rates now skyrocketing in the range of 15-20 percent per year, the cost of financing has become one of the most expensive elements of such a multi-billion dollar endeavor. Delays in the process can cost as much as half a million dollars per day. Many efforts have been made to shorten nuclear power plant "leadtimes," typically by restricting the privileges of intervenors in licensing proceedings and cutting back on judicial review. The most notable of these was the Carter Administration's proposed Nuclear Siting and Licensing Act of 1978.⁵ But these initiatives have gone down to defeat, in part because they failed to address many of the central causes of the delay problem, such as construction problems, supply shortages, and internal bureaucratic inefficiency.

The NRC's review of applications to build and operate power plants was severely interrupted when, following the Three Mile Island accident, it imposed a moratorium on licensing pending a thorough reevaluation of its safety program.⁶ Even after the moratorium was lifted, the Commission continued to divert much of its staff resources from licensing to safety review. As a result, license applications became backlogged to the point where some 11 plants now stand nearly complete but remain unlicensed.⁷

Recent Cases

Two recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decisions provide for fuller public participation in NRC licensing procedures and thereby serve to exascerbate the licensing logjam. In Sholly v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,⁸ petitioners, who reside near the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, had sought from the NRC a hearing prior to the issuance of a license amendment authorizing the licensee to discharge radioactive gas into the atmosphere.The NRC denied the request based on its earlier determination that the proposed action did not involve "significant hazards" to human health or safety. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, however, that § 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA)⁹ requires the NRC to [11 ELR 10177] hold a public hearing, if requested, prior to issuing any amendment to a construction permit (CP) or operating license (OL). The court found that even if the agency has properly determined that the amendment involves "no significant hazards consideration" the fourth sentence of § 189a allows the agency to dispense only with 30 days' notice and publication prior to the action. The Act does not allow the NRC to dispense with a before-the-fact hearing if requested. The court noted that while the third and fourth sentences of § 189a, when read together, cast some doubt on this conclusion, the legislative history supports the court's view.

Although the Sholly decision was written by a unanimous court, the NRC's motion for rehearing en banc elicited a spirited dissent to the full court's decision not to reconsider the ruling.¹⁰ The four-judge dissent, though failing to develop a strong rebuttal of the original panel's reading of the Act, pointed out that the decision had the potential of lowering the NRC's process into a quagmire. The agency approves some 400 license amendments per year which, but for Sholly, would not be subjected to full-scale hearings.¹¹ The dissenters, harking back to the Supreme Court's admonition not to overburden nuclear licensing with unessential procedural requirements,¹² could not join in an opinion having such a great effect on the already overworked agency.¹³

More recently, the D.C. Circuit issued a memorandum opinion in Illinois v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission¹⁴ that augurs no better for proponents of a licensing speed-up. The State of Illinois had appealed from an NRC order denying its request for a hearing on a proposal to change the construction design of the Bailly nuclear power plant on Lake Michigan's southern shore.The change would have allowed the licensee to use shorter foundation pilings in place of long pilings driven into bedrock. The NRC based its hearing denial on a determination that the proposal did not amount to an amendment to the CP subject to the terms of § 189a and thus under the NRC's rules¹⁵ did not require a hearing. Without squarely ruling on whether the proposed change constituted an amendment, the court stated that the appellant had "brought to light several facts that are simply too weighty to be ignored" and remanded the case to the Commission with directions to consider the piling depth issue in an ongoing hearing on a proposed amendment of the CP to extend the completion date of the plant.¹⁶

Legislative action

The licensing backlog and the implications of Sholly have precipitated a number of proposed legislative remedies. There are currently two bills before Congress which, while differing in particulars, have two major thrusts: (1) to override Sholly and authorize the NRC to issue license amendments before holding requested public hearings when it determines there are no significant hazards considerations, and (2) to give the NRC authority to issue "interim" or "temporary" OLs for new power plants before public hearings have been held or completed on the final OL applications. The Senate bill proposes to effect these changes by amending the AEA: the authority in the House bill is tied to the NRC appropriation for fiscal years 1982 and 1983.

Overriding Sholly

On March 11, 1981 the NRC submitted to both the Senate and the House a draft bill to override Sholly by amending § 189a of the AEA.¹⁷ After considering the NRC's draft, which had been designated S. 912, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported S. 1207 to the full Senate in mid-May. Like the NRC bill, § 202 of S. 1207 would amend § 189a of the Act to authorize the NRC to issue license amendments in advance of hearings under certain circumstances.¹⁸ The [11 ELR 10178] Committee bill would require the agency, prior to issuing any license amendment, to promulgate standards and consult with the host state for the purpose of determining whether the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration. Although the text of S. 1207 is silent on the issue, the Committee report accompanying the bill states that the NRC would still be required to hold a hearing, if requested, after the license amendment took effect.¹⁹

The House NRC appropriations bill for fiscal years 1982 and 1983, H.R. 2330, adopts a somewhat different means of overriding Sholly. Rather than amending § 189a of the Act, H.R. 2330 provides that the agency may use such sums authorized to be appropriated as are necessary to issue "immediately effective" amendments to power plant licenses in advance of required hearings and without prior notice and publication if the Commission determines that no significant hazards considerations are involved.²⁰ Since this authority is tied to using funds appropriated for fiscal years 1982 and 1983, it expires at the end of fiscal year 1983.²¹ The Committee report on H.R. 2330 states, as does the Senate bill report, that a hearing must be held, if requested, either before or after an amendment is issued.²²

Interim and Temporary Operating Licenses

Both the House and Senate appropriations bills contain provisions authorizing the NRC to issue "interim" or "temporary" OLs for power plants before public hearings have been held or completed on contested applications for final OLs. Like the reverse Sholly legislation, the interim operating license (IOL) proposal was initiated by the NRC, which in mid-March 1981 submitted to both houses of Congress a draft bill to amend § 189a of the AEA.²³ Unlike the Senate and House versions that ultimately emerged from the Committees, the NRC draft proposed a statutory limit for IOL testing and operating power levels of five percent of a plant's generating capacity. The bill predicated the grant of an IOL upon a finding by the Commission that the action is necessary to avoid delay in the plant's operation and on the circumstance that issuance of the IOL meets all requirements of the Act other than the hearing requirements. The bill reduced public participation to notice and comment prior to issuing the IOL but preserved the opportunity for a hearing on the final OL subsequent to the IOL's issuance. Authority to issue IOLs was to expire December 31, 1983 under the NRC draft.

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works submitted to the full Senate a revised proposal on IOLs as part of the NRC appropriations bill, S. 1207. The Committee's bill proposes to amend § 192 of the AEA rather than § 189.²⁴ Section 201 of S. 1207 resembles [11 ELR 10179] the NRC draft in several respects. First, before issuing an IOL, the Commission would be required to make a finding that denial of the IOL would result in delay between completion of construction and commencement of operation. Second, any required public hearing on the final OL would have to be held after the IOL is issued. The bill also provides that interim licensing authority shall expire on December 31, 1983. S. 1207 differs from the NRC draft, however, in the following respects: (1) It would not limit IOL power levels to five percent of the facility's capacity but would allow step-by-step power increases in five percent increments.Each increase after the initial five-percent-of-capacity IOL would require a separate petition by the utility, a notice and comment period, and a separate determination by the Commission. (2) The bill explicitly sets out the steps that must be taken by the NRC prior to issuing an IOL.²⁵ (3) It requires the Commission to make a finding for each IOL and subsequent amendment that all statutory requirements except the public hearing have been met and that the public health, safety, and environment will be adequately protected during interim operation. (4) It directs the Commission to adopt administrative remedies to minimize the need for issuing IOLs.

The House appropriations bill, H.R. 2330, would similarly authorize the Commission to issue temporary operation licenses (TOLs) in advance of public hearings. As with the House's reverse Sholly provision, H.R. 2330²⁶ ties the NRC's authority to issue TOLs to the appropriation of funds rather than proposing an amendment to the AEA; thus the NRC's authority to issue TOLs would expire with the appropriations at the end of fiscal year 1983. The House version would reinstate the authority to issue TOLs provided in § 192 of the Act²⁷ but departs from that section by providing that any hearing required by §§ 189 or 192 would not be required prior to granting a TOL. The bill does not limit TOL power levels to five percent of full capacity but leaves the establishment of the appropriate level to the Commission's discretion, to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Finally, the House bill directs the NRC to recomend legislation and regulations to reduce by one-half the time required to license nuclear reactors.²⁸

NRC Rule Changes

In the past few months the NRC has made some sweeping changes in its power plant licensing process and has proposed others which could expedite the licensing process even further. Late in May the Commission adopted an "Immediate Effectiveness Rule" which eliminates review by the agency's Atomic Licensing and Safety Appeal Board of a decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to issue an OL.²⁹ Licensing board decisions now become effective following expedited review by the Commission. On the same day that the Commission issued this rule it amended its rules governing reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act³⁰ to remove siting as an issue in OL proceedings.³¹ Siting may now be addressed only in the earlier CP proceeding. OL applicants are no longer required to address alternative sites in the environmental reports submitted at the OL stage and contentions pertaining to alternative siting are no longer admissible in OL hearings.

Following on the heels of these changes the Commission in June amended its rules of practice³² to (1) allow licensing boards to make bench (oral) rulings on written motions during pre-trial conferences and hearings as long as prompt notice is given to parties not present; (2) prohibit parties from filing responses to objections to or motions for reconsideration of pre-hearing orders;³³ (3) revise the schedule for filing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (4) allow parties to file motions for summary disposition at any time during a proceeding.³⁴

The NRC has recently proposed³⁵ further amendments to its rules of practice to expedite licensing. It has proposed requiring petitions to intervene in licensing proceedings of any kind to state the sources and documents and portions thereof on which each of the party's factual contentions is based.³⁶ It would substantially restrict the discovery process by prohibiting parties from filing more than 50 interrogatories (i.e., 50 questions, counting subquestions) on any other party unless granted leave by the licensing board,³⁷ and would empower the board to order [11 ELR 10180] a party to respond orally rather than in writing to a motion to compel.³⁸ In addition, the board could require service of pleadings by express mail.³⁹

Most recently the NRC has published a proposed rule to remove the need for power as an issue in OL proceedings.⁴⁰ The agency has also proposed to remove the applicant's financial qualifications as an issue in OL proceedings.⁴¹

Observations

Predictably, the range of changes and proposed changes in the NRC's licensing practices presents a mixed bag. Some seem to be reasonable attempts to cut red tape which may be long overdue. In particular, the question of where to site a planned reactor seems best suited for the construction permit proceeding. The new prohibition against raising this issue at the OL stage, when the plant may be half completed, should do no injustice to anyone if the issue was fully resolved years earlier. Similarly, the idea of authorizing licensing boards to make bench rulings on non-substantive matters is one whose merit has been established after years of judicial and administrative reliance on it. In this vein it may be noteworthy that the President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee recently recommended broad legislative and regulatory restructuring of the licensing process that implicitly, and on some points explicitly, supports the expediting moves of the NRC.⁴²

Among the most significant of the regulatory changes the NRC has adopted or proposed is the proposal to require intervenors to set forth sources and documents in support of their contentions at the beginning of the intervention process, well in advance of discovery where much of this information is first obtained. As a general rule, intervenors in NRC proceedings rely heavily on agency-produced documents (impact statements, safety reports, and the like) and often direct legal challenges against portions of those very documents. Similarly, materials obtained through discovery are a key source of technical information. If intervenors are required to factually support their arguments at the threshold, many will prove unable to meet that burden. For related reasons the limit of 50 interrogatories may have a great impact on intervenors. In a proceeding of the size and complexity of a nuclear licensing proceeding, 50 interrogatories would have to be extremely well targeted in order to retrieve anything beyond basic information.

While the bills before Congress would preserve the public's statutory right to a hearing on the issuance of an IOL or a license amendment, they would grant the NRC authority to postpone such a hearing until after it has made a final decision on the matter. Legitimate questions might be raised concerning how substantive or meaningful such a hearing can be. There is, for example, bound to be an important, if implicit, shift in the burden of proof. Although a license applicant nominally carries that burden,⁴³ once a plant has been built and commenced producing power, it will be very difficult to demonstrate the need for a possibly very expensive change in the status quo.

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Commission itself have characterized the IOL and TOL provisions as "temporary" and "extraordinary" solutions to an "extraordinary" situation.⁴⁴ Thus both bills place significant limits on the agency's authority to issue interim licenses, such as setting an expiration date for the authority, preserving the right to a post facto hearing, and directing the Commission to adopt procedures that will minimize the need for IOLs.⁴⁵ Yet the bills fail to limit the NRC's authority in several significant ways. Although each has a sunset provision for the authority to issue IOLs, there is nothing in the language of either bill that would limit the duration of individual IOLs. Second, the House bill does not set an initial low power level limit on TOLs nor subsequently constrain them to incremental power increases accompanied by separate review processes. Nothing in the House bill would prohibit the Commission from issuing an "immediately effective" full power TOL, bypassing the traditional "trial and error" low power testing period of a reactor.⁴⁶ The House bill has no analog to the Senate provision that requires a finding that denial of an interim license will result in delay between a plant's completion date and authorization to operate.⁴⁷ Nor does it have an analog to the provision in S. 1207 that an order authorizing an interim license set forth reasons justifying the required findings and be transmitted to the relevant congressional committees.⁴⁸

Conclusion

A recent parable tells of the boy who, after dropping a coin on a dark street, begins looking for it under a street-light rather than where he dropped it. When asked by a friend why he does not search at the place where the coin was lost, he replies that "this is where the light is." This story is brought to mind b some of the procedural amendments under consideration because most of the blame for nuclear licensing delays falls at the feet of the NRC staff rather than intervenors.

Nevertheless, if the judgment of Congress is that expedition is needed even at the loss of some procedural safeguards, the question is not who is to blame but how to solve the problem. That solution, at least over the short run, does appear to be promised by the pending legislative proposals.

1. Federal regulations must now, "to the extent permitted by law," be subjected to cost-benefit analysis pursuant to Exec. Order No. 12291, 42 Fed. Reg. 1319 (Feb. 9, 1981), ELR STAT. & REG. 45035. See generally Comment, Reagan Orders Cost-Benefit Analysis of Regulations, Confers Broad Powers on OMB and Regulatory Task Force, 11 ELR 10044 (Feb. 1981).

2. See, e.g., S. 1080, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981) (amending Administrative Procedure Act to require federal agencies to perform cost-benefit analyses of major rules and to select the least costly alternative); H.R. 4291, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981) (permitting congressional review of major rules to determine cost-reasonableness).

3. See, e.g., American Textile Manufacturers Institute v. Donovan, 49 U.S.L.W. 4720, 11 ELR 20736 (June 17, 1979) (holding that the use of cost-benefit analysis is inconsistent with the mandate of the Occupational Safety and Health Act); Comment, Supreme Court Upholds OSHA's Cotton Dust Standard, Deals Setback to Cost-Benefit Analysis, 11 ELR 10163 (Aug. 1981). See also American Paper Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency, 11 ELR 20865 (4th Cir. July 28, 1981) (EPA improperly failed to consider cost-reasonableness of new effluent limitations.)

4. Sholly v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, __ F.2d __, 11 ELR 20329 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 19, 1980) cert. granted, 49 U.S.L.W. 3877 (May 26, 1981).

5. S. 2775, H.R. 11704, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978). See Comment, Facilitating theNuclear Alternative: Administration Submits Licensing Reform Proposal, 8 ELR 10087 (1978).

6. For roughly 18 months following the March 1979 accident the NRC issued no new operating licenses. Sequoya 1 and North Anna 2 became the first plants to receive operating licenses after the moratorium was lifted in late summer 1980.

7. See S. REP. NO. 113, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 9-11 (May 15, 1981) (discussion of current and projected licensing delays).

8. __ F.2d __, 11 ELR 20329 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

9. 42 U.S.C. § 2239, ELR STAT. & REG. 41238 provides in part:

(a) In any proceeding under this chapter, for the granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of any license or construction permit, or application to transfer control, and in any proceeding for the issuance or modification of rules and regulations dealing with the activities of licensees, and in any proceeding for the payment of compensation, an award or royalties under sections 2183, 2187, 2236(c) or 2238 of this title, the Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding. The Commission shall hold a hearing after thirty days' notice and publication once in the Federal Register, on each application under section 2133 or 2134(b) of this title for a construction permit for a facility, and on any application under section 2134(c) of this title for a construction permit for a testing facility. In cases where such a construction permit has been issued following the holding of such a hearing, the Commission may, in the absence of a request therefore by any person whose interest may be affected, issue an operating license or an amendment to a construction permit or an amendment to an operating license without a hearing, but upon thirty days' notice and publication once in the Federal Register of its intent to do so. The Commission may dispense with such thirty days' notice and publication with respect to any application for an amendment to a construction permit or an amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.

10. 11 ELR 20336 (Mar. 4, 1981).

11. Id. at 20337.

12. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 8 ELR 20288 (1978).

13. In testimony given June 18, 1981 before the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources of the House Committee on Government Operations, Commission Chairman Hendrie stated that the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari stayed the Circuit Court's ruling and that the agency therefore intended not to comply with Sholly pending a decision by the High Court.

14. Illinois v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, __ F.2d __, 11 ELR __ (D.C. Cir. July 1, 1981).

15. 19 C.F.R. § 50.35(a).

16. The Bailly plant was cancelled in August 1981.

17. The text of the NRC's draft bill is as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended by adding the following new sentences at the end of paragraph (a) thereof:

"The Commission is authorized to issue and to make immediately effective an amendment to a license upon a determination by the Commission that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person. The Commission is authorized to issue and to make immediately effective any amendment to a license, or any order to govern any activity subject to this Act, as it may deem necessary upon a determination that immediate effectiveness is required to protect the public health and safety, and [interest, or] the common defense and security."

See note 9, supra, for the text of § 189.

18. The relevant text of S. 1207 is as follows:

Sec. 202. Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended by adding the following at the end of subsection a. thereof: "The Commission is authorized to issue and to make immediately effective an amendment to a license upon a determination by the Commission that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person. In determining under this subsection whether an amendmentinvolves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission shall consult with the State in which the facility is licated. The authority under this subsection to issue and to make immediately effective an amendment to a license shall take effect upon the promulgation by the Commission of standards for determining whether an amendment to a license involves no significant hazards consideration."

Sec. 301. For the purpose of implementing the amendment to section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 contained in section 202 of this Act, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within ninety days of enactment of this Act, shall promulgate regulations establishing standards for determining whether an amendment to a license involves no significant hazards consideration, criteria for providing or dispensing with prior notice and public comment on such determinations, and procedures for consultation on such determinations with the State in which the facility is located.

The NRC has published for comment standards for determining whether an amendment involves no significant hazards consideration at 45 Fed. Reg. 20491 (Mar. 28, 1980).

19. S. REP. NO. 113, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 14 (1981).

20. H.R. 2330 provides in relevant part:

Sec. 7. Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 1, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may use such sums as may be necessary to issue and make immediately effective amendments to licenses for nuclear power reactors where the Commission determines that an amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. Such an amendment may be issued and made immediately effective —

(1) in advance of the conduct and completion of any required hearing, and

(2) without providing the prior notice and publication in the Federal Register referred to in section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

In all other aspects the amendment shall meet the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

21. See H.R. REP. NO. 22, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. Part 2 at 26 (1981).

22. Id.

23. The NRC draft provides in relevant part:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That subsection 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended by adding after the final sentence in the subsection: "Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, the Commission may, upon determination that such action is necessary in the public interest in order to avoid the consequences of unnecessary delay in the operation of a nuclear power reactor, issue for such a facility an interim operating license authorizing fuel loading, and operation and testing at power levels not to exceed five percent of rated full thermal power, in advance of the conduct or completion of any required hearing: Provided, That any operating license so issued shall be subject to an subsequent findings and orders of the Commission after the conduct of any required hearing: and provided further, That in all other respects the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, shall be met. Prior to the issuance of any such interim license, the Commission shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of its intent to issue the license, and shall provide an opportunity for parties to the proceeding to comment on whether such action is necessary in the public interest. The authority to issue such an interim license for a nuclear power reactor in advance of the conduct or completion of a hearing shall expire on December 31, 1983."

24. The present § 192 of the AEA was enacted in response to the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling in Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.2d 1109, 1 ELR 20346 (D.C. Cir. 1971), invalidating the AEC's environmental review process. Section 192 granted the agency authority from 1972 to 1973 to issue temporary operating licenses before public hearings were completed.

25. These requirements include (1) filing of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) report pursuant to § 182b of the Act, (2) filing of the final safety evaluation report (SER) by the NRC staff, (3) filing of the final environmental impact statement, and (4) filing of a state, local, or utility emergency preparedness plan for the facility.

26. Section 6 of H.R. 2330, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981) provides in part:

Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 1, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may use such sums as may be necessary to issue temporary operating licenses for nuclear power reactors as provided in section 192 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, except that such temporary operating licenses may be issued —

(1) in advance of the conduct or completion of any hearing required by section 192 or by section 189 of such Act, and

(2) without regard to subsection (d) of such section 192 and the finding required by subsection (b)(3) of that section.

27. See note 24, supra.

28. H.R. 2330 § 8.

29. 46 Fed. Reg. 28627 (May 28, 1981) (amending 10 C.F.R. § 2.764).

30. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4361, ELR STAT. & REG. 41009.

31. 46 Fed. Reg. 28630 (May 28, 1981) (amending 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.21, 51.53).

32. 46 Fed. Reg. 30328 (June 8, 1981) (amending 10 C.F.R. Part 2).

33. Under amended 10 C.F.R. § 2.751a the filing of objections does not stay the order unless the board so orders.

34. Under amended 10 C.F.R. § 2.749, however, licensing boards may reject such motions filed shortly before or during a hearing if they would "divert substantial resources" of other parties in preparing responses.

35. 46 Fed. Reg. 30349 (June 8, 1981).

36. 46 Fed. Reg. at 30351 (proposed amendment of 10 C.F.R. § 2.714).

37. 46 Fed. Reg. at 30352 (proposed amendment of 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.740b, 2.720).

38. 46 Fed. Reg. at 30352 (proposed amendment of 10 C.F.R. § 2.730).

39. 46 Fed. Reg. at 30352-30352 (proposed amendment of 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.712, 2.710).

40. 46 Fed. Reg. 39573 (Aug. 4, 1981).

41. 46 Fed. Reg. 41786 (Aug. 18, 1981).

42. In a July 23, 1981 letter to the President, the Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee expressed, inter alia, these recommendations:

(1) remove the need for power and alternative energy sources as issues in a plant's NEPA review; (2) concentrate the review process in the CP stage and limit the OL hearing to consideration of whether the plant has been built as promised and safety issues that have arisen since the CP was issued; and (3) eliminate the mandatory license review authority of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards in favor of a discretionary power.

43. 10 C.F.R. § 2.732.

44. See S. REP. NO. 113, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 13 (May 15, 1981); see also H.R. REP. NO. 22, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. Part 2 at 44 (June 9, 181).

45. See text accompanying notes 24-28, supra.

46. See H.R. REP. NO. 22, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. Part 2 at 59-60 (1981).

47. S. 1207 § 201.

48. Id.