ML25087A230

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLCs Responsive Views on the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards Referred Questions as Requested by the Commissions February 13, 2025 Order

ML25087A230
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	03/28/2025
From:	Bessette P, Leroy T, Lighty R, Mattison M Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Corp, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
RAS 57330, 50-287-SLR-2, 50-269-SLR-2, 50-270-SLR-2
Download: ML25087A230 (0)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of:

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3)

Docket Nos. 50-269-SLR-2 50-270-SLR-2 50-287-SLR-2 March 28, 2025 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLCS RESPONSIVE VIEWS ON THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS REFERRED QUESTIONS AS REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSIONS FEBRUARY 13, 2025 ORDER RYAN K. LIGHTY, ESQ.

PAUL M. BESSETTE, ESQ.

MOLLY R. MATTISON, ESQ.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP TRACEY M. LEROY, ESQ.

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION Counsel for Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS I.

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 II.

DUKES RESPONSIVE VIEWS ON PRESIDING OFFICER AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE CHALLENGES TO CEII REDACTION DETERMINATIONS........ 1 A.

Fairness Does Not Require That Presiding Officers Have Authority to Adjudicate Requests for Public Disclosure of CEII.............................................. 2 B.

Petitioners Previously Agreed That Challenges to CEII Redaction Determinations Are Appropriately Lodged Through the FOIA Process............... 3 III.

DUKES RESPONSIVE VIEWS ON APPLICABILITY OF THE OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DOCTRINE TO THE CEII AT ISSUE IN THIS PROCEEDING.................................................................................................................. 4 A.

Petitioners Do Not Confront the Statutory Text Prohibiting the Public Release of CEII Pursuant to Any Law............................................................... 4 B.

Petitioners Official Acknowledgement Arguments Are Unavailing................ 5

1.

Petitioners Assertion That Mere Public Availability Demonstrates an Official and Documented Disclosure Is Legally Erroneous.............. 5

2.

Petitioners Disregard the Materially Different Posture of CEII Following Passage of the FAST Act.......................................................... 6

3.

Petitioners Admission That the NRC Historically Has Endeavored to Protect the Subject Information Reinforces the Inadvertence of Any Public Disclosure Thereof.................................................................. 8 IV.

THE COMMISSION SHOULD DISREGARD OR REJECT PETITIONERS UNSOLICITED DEMAND FOR A DISCLOSURE ORDER.......................................... 9 V.

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 10

iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Statutes and Acts of Congress 16 U.S.C. § 824o-1................................................................................................................. 4, 6, 7 Fixing Americas Surface Transportation Act, Pub. L. No. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (Dec. 4, 2015)........................................................ 6, 7 Agency Cases Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-196, 7 AEC 457 (1974)........ 2, 3 Hous. Lighting & Power Co. (S. Tex. Project, Units 1 & 2), CLI-92-10, 36 NRC 1 (1992)......... 2 Regulations 10 C.F.R. § 2.323............................................................................................................................ 9 10 C.F.R. § 2.341............................................................................................................................ 9 10 C.F.R. § 9.29.............................................................................................................................. 3 10 C.F.R. Part 9............................................................................................................................... 3 Unpublished NRC Orders Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3),

Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Denying Petitioners Document Disclosure Motion and Referring Ruling to the Commission) (Jan. 17, 2025) (unpublished)

(ML25017A345)........................................................................................................ passim Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3),

Order of the Secretary (Feb. 13, 2025) (unpublished) (ML25044A034)....................... 1, 9 Federal Register Notices Critical Energy Infrastructure Information; Final rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 9,857 (Mar. 3, 2003)........... 6 Other Authorities Blacks Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024)......................................................................................... 9 SECY-04-0191, Withholding Sensitive Unclassified Information Concerning Nuclear Power Reactors from Public Disclosure (Oct. 19, 2004) (ML042310663).................................. 7 SECY-05-0091, Task Force Report on Public Disclosure of Security-Related Information (May 18, 2005) (ML051400108)........................................................................................ 7 William N. Eskridge, Jr., Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions, 101 YALE L.J. 331 (1991-1992)......................................................................................... 5

iv Federal Court Cases ACLU v. DOJ, 640 F. Appx 9 (D.C. Cir. 2016)............................................................................ 5 Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1990)......................................................................... 5 Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564 (1982)............................................................ 5 Leopold v. CIA, 380 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.D.C. 2019)........................................................................ 5 Mobley v. CIA, 806 F.3d 568 (D.C. Cir. 2015)............................................................................... 6

1 I.

INTRODUCTION On February 13, 2025, the Secretary of the Commission issued an order inviting Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff, and Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club (the Petitioners) (collectively, the Participants) to provide initial and responsive views on two questions.1 Those questions were referred to the Commission via order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) in the above-captioned proceeding (Referred Order).2 The Participants each filed briefs providing their respective initial views on March 3, 2025.3 Duke hereby provides its responsive views.

II.

DUKES RESPONSIVE VIEWS ON PRESIDING OFFICER AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE CHALLENGES TO CEII REDACTION DETERMINATIONS In Referred Question # 1, the Board invited the Commission to consider whether presiding officers have authority to adjudicate challenges to Critical Electric Infrastructure Information (CEII) or Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEnII) redaction determinations.4 In its Initial Brief, Duke explained its view that NRC presiding officers lack the authority to adjudicate challenges to the designation of such information because the NRC, itself, lacks statutory designation authority.5 Duke also highlighted the apparent lack of express delegation to presiding officers to adjudicate requests to publicly disclose (as opposed to 1

See Order of the Secretary (Feb. 13, 2025) (unpublished) (ML25044A034) (Secretarys Order).

2 Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Denying Petitioners Document Disclosure Motion and Referring Ruling to the Commission) (Jan. 17, 2025) (unpublished) (ML25017A345) (Referred Order).

3

[Duke]s Initial Views on the [Board]s Referred Questions as Requested by the [Secretarys Order] (Mar. 3, 2025) (ML25062A299) (Dukes Initial Brief); NRC Staff Initial Briefing on Board Jurisdiction Over CEII Disclosure (Mar. 3, 2025) (ML25062A294) (NRC Staffs Initial Brief); Initial Brief by [Petitioners] on Referred Questions Regarding Official Acknowledgement Doctrine (Mar. 3, 2025) (ML25062A298); see also

[Corrected] Initial Brief by [Petitioners] on Referred Questions Regarding Official Acknowledgement Doctrine (Mar. 11, 2025) (ML25070A315) (Petitioners Initial Brief); Errata to Initial Brief by [Petitioners] on Referred Questions Regarding Official Acknowledgement Doctrine (Mar. 11, 2025) (ML25070A316).

4 Referred Order at 25-26. The Board and Participants occasionally have used CEII as a collective abbreviation for both terms, and indeed CEII now encompasses CEnII as a definitional matter. But the instant distinction is relevant to the discussion of the historical context of these terms in Section III.B.2, below.

5 Dukes Initial Brief at 7-8.

2 adjudicating a request for limited dissemination under a protective order) such information in the NRCs possession.6 As Duke noted, the absence of such a delegation was imminently reasonable and likely reflected a purposeful choice by the Commission to avoid the inefficiencies and inconsistent results that may flow from competing delegations of the same authority to two different agency components.7 In their respective Initial Briefs, neither the NRC Staff nor Petitioners expressed differing views on these issues.8 A.

Fairness Does Not Require That Presiding Officers Have Authority to Adjudicate Requests for Public Disclosure of CEII In the Referred Order, the Board suggested that it would be troubling as a matter of fairness, equity, and open government if presiding officers lacked the authority to order the public disclosure of CEII.9 In the NRC Staffs Initial Brief, it suggested that the Boards concern about fairness in this proceeding is unwarranted.10 Duke agrees with that assessment.

To be clear, presiding officers have broad authority to grant adjudicatory participants access to non-public information under a protective order. This enables participants to become fully apprised as to the bases for and effects of proposed licensing actions, allowing them to fully participate in the hearing process.11 As such, the lack of additional presiding officer authority to grant unrestricted access of Congressionally-protected information to the public-at-large has no bearing on the fairness or equity of the adjudicatory proceeding.12 6

Id. at 8-14.

7 Id. at 9.

8 See NRC Staffs Initial Brief at 4-12; see generally Petitioners Initial Brief (not discussing this issue).

9 See Referred Order at 21.

10 NRC Staffs Initial Brief at 10.

11 Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-196, 7 AEC 457, 469 (1974). Petitioners had, but declined, that opportunity here. See Referred Order at 5, 21 n.36.

12 See generally Hous. Lighting & Power Co. (S. Tex. Project, Units 1 & 2), CLI-92-10, 36 NRC 1, 13 (1992)

(Intervenor, in being unwilling to participate in the process that could result in the disclosure of the information it seeks, has effectively waived its right [to access that information]... It cannot claim prejudice.).

3 Likewise, the general interests of open government do not require NRC presiding officers to have public disclosure authority (especially as to information designated by other federal agencies as involving protected national security interests). The NRC has an established FOIA process through which anyone may seek public disclosure of agency records.13 Agency actions on such requests are reviewable,14 both before the agency and in the federal courts.15 In sum, the agencys document disclosure protocols have long differentiate[d] between the release of information to the public and to interested parties.16 Whereas, the interests of fairness, equity, and open government are not contingent on empowering presiding officers (instead of the NRCs FOIA program) to adjudicate public disclosure requests.

B.

Petitioners Previously Agreed That Challenges to CEII Redaction Determinations Are Appropriately Lodged Through the FOIA Process Duke notes that Petitioners Initial Brief did not include any discussion addressing Referred Question # 1.17 However, in the proceedings before the Board, Petitioners indicated that they agreed with the NRC Staff and Duke that the appropriate forum for seeking public disclosure of information designated as CEII was through the FOIA process.18 Dukes view on Referred Question # 1 remains unchanged. Presiding officers appear to lack authority to adjudicate challenges to CEII withholding determinations.

13 See generally 10 C.F.R. Part 9, Subpart A.

14 Cf. Referred Order at 21 (expressing concern about potential unreviewability).

15 See, e.g., 10 C.F.R. § 9.29.

16 Zion, ALAB-196, 7 AEC at 469.

17 To the extent Petitioners may seek to provide views on this question for the first time in their responsive brief, the Commission may wish to allow Duke and the NRC Staff an opportunity to respond.

18 See, e.g., Response by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club to Joint Motion for Protective Order at 8 (July 29, 2024)

(ML24211A183) (Petitioners stating they will use the NRCs procedures in 10 C.F.R. Part 9 and may appeal to Federal District Court as permitted by the FOIA.).

4 III.

DUKES RESPONSIVE VIEWS ON APPLICABILITY OF THE OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DOCTRINE TO THE CEII AT ISSUE IN THIS PROCEEDING In Referred Question # 2, the Board invited the Commission to consider whether the official acknowledgment doctrine compels the disclosure of CEII in this proceeding.19 In its Initial Brief, Duke explained its view that the Commission should answer this question in the negative because: (1) the NRC is prohibited by statute from making CEII public, even under the judicially-created official acknowledgement doctrine, and (2) even if the official acknowledgement doctrine applied to CEII, it would not compel public disclosure here because the NRC has never officially acknowledged the subject information.20 The NRC Staff agrees that this question should be answered in the negative.21 Petitioners argue the opposite.22 As explained below, Petitioners arguments are unpersuasive.

A.

Petitioners Do Not Confront the Statutory Text Prohibiting the Public Release of CEII Pursuant to Any Law As noted in Dukes Initial Brief, Congress exempted CEII from public disclosure through two separate mechanisms. First, it specified that CEII was exempt from disclosure under FOIA pursuant to FOIA Exemption 3.23 Second, Congress codified a separate provision mandating that CEII also shall not be made available by any Federal, State, political subdivision or tribal authority pursuant to any Federal, State, political subdivision or tribal law requiring public disclosure of information or records.24 Given that the official acknowledgement doctrine is a 19 Referred Order at 24-26.

20 Dukes Initial Brief at 14-19.

21 NRC Staffs Initial Brief at 12-18.

22 Petitioners Initial Brief at 8-16.

23 16 U.S.C. § 824o-1(d)(1)(A).

24 Id. § 824o-1(d)(1)(B) (emphasis added).

5 public-disclosure law, the plain text of the statute appears to override circuit-court doctrine.25 As the Supreme Court has explained, its charge is to give effect to the will of Congress, and where its will has been expressed in reasonably plain terms, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.26 Petitioners Initial Brief is conspicuously silent about this important statutory text.

B.

Petitioners Official Acknowledgement Arguments Are Unavailing As noted in Dukes Initial Brief, even if the official acknowledgement doctrine applies here (it does not), the question of whether the NRC has waived its right to withhold the subject information turns on whether the third prong of the Fitzgibbon test is satisfied, i.e., whether the information was made public through an official and documented disclosure.27

1.

Petitioners Assertion That Mere Public Availability Demonstrates an Official and Documented Disclosure Is Legally Erroneous In Petitioners Initial Brief, they allege that there can be no doubt that posting information on ADAMS constitutes official acknowledgement.28 They also claim that information publicly disclosed by the NRC in response to a FOIA request or as part of a court settlement constitutes, per se, official acknowledgement.29 But, as a matter of law, it is not enough merely to show that the information was, at one time, publicly available.30 That is because an inadvertent or mistaken release of information is not automatically an official and 25 Although Congress cannot override Constitutional rulings with simple legislation, it certainly has authority which it has frequently exercisedto override judicial interpretations of statutes. See generally, e.g., William N. Eskridge, Jr., Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions, 101 YALE L.J. 331 (1991-1992).

26 Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 570 (1982) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

27 Dukes Initial Brief at 16 (citing Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).

28 Petitioners Initial Brief at 10.

29 Id.

30 See ACLU v. DOJ, 640 F. Appx 9, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Leopold v. CIA, 380 F. Supp. 3d 14, 24 (D.D.C. 2019).

6 documented disclosure.31 If a disclosure results from agency carelessness or mistake, and the agency takes prompt remedial action upon discovery, such a disclosure is not, in fact, an official and documented disclosure and does not operate as a waiver.32 To the extent Petitioners skip over these inadvertence and prompt clawback considerations, their claim is legally erroneous.

2.

Petitioners Disregard the Materially Different Posture of CEII Following Passage of the FAST Act According to Petitioners, the subject information was allegedly made publicly available between 2009 and 2014.33 In contrast, the law creating CEII and mandating its withholding was not enacted by Congress until the passage of the FAST Act on December 4, 2015.34 Thus, when the subject information was first made publicly available, the statutory disclosure prohibition simply did not exist. Accordingly, the Board agreed that the public release in 2015 and prior years of now-redacted CEII material should not be considered as constituting a waiver of the agencys right to claim that the information is exempt from public release.35 In Petitioners Initial Brief, they attempt to undermine that conclusion by pointing to a different type of information, CEnII, which was first defined in 2003.36 Petitioners argued that pre-2015 CEnII is essentially the same as post-2015 CEII; therefore, according to Petitioners, the non-existence of CEII before 2015 did not render inadvertent the NRCs release, between 2003 and 2015, of information now-designated as CEII.37 But that logic is fundamentally 31 See, e.g., Mobley v. CIA, 806 F.3d 568, 583, 583 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

32 See, e.g., id.

33 Motion by [Petitioners] for Document Disclosures Required by the Official Acknowledgement Doctrine at 4 (Dec. 16, 2024) (ML24351A248) (Disclosure Motion).

34 Fixing Americas Surface Transportation Act, Pub. L. No. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 § 61003 (Dec. 4, 2015)

(codified at 16 U.S.C. § 824o-1) (FAST Act).

35 Referred Order at 23.

36 Critical Energy Infrastructure Information; Final rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 9,857 (Mar. 3, 2003) (CEnII Final Rule).

37 Petitioners Initial Brief at 11-16.

7 flawed. As explained below, the withholding obligations associated with pre-2015 CEnII and post-2015 CEII are materially different.

In 2003, the FERC determined, as a matter of agency policy, that CEnII in its possession should be withheld from public disclosure under FOIAs law enforcement exemption (Exemption 7), but also might need to be accessed by those with a legitimate purpose.38 Accordingly, the FERC promulgated a procedure for such access.39 Notably, those FERC-specific regulations imposed no obligations on the NRC at all. Although the NRC made a non-binding statement that it would endeavor to follow the guidance40 of FERC on withholding CEnII under Exemption 7, that position came with a major caveat: that the NRC would nevertheless need to make public any CEnII that was integral to its licensing decisions.41 In 2015, that paradigm was upended by the FAST Act. In that legislation, Congress codified a new class of information, CEII. Notably, the statutory definition of CEII is broader than the prior FERC definition of CEnII.42 And perhaps more importantly, Congress mandated its absolute protection from public disclosure by all Federal, State, political subdivision[s] or tribal authorit[ies].43 In other words, the NRC (versus FERC) first became subject to a requirement (versus a vague aspirational statement) to withhold CEII (versus CEnII) in 2015.

As such, the NRCs historical treatment of CEnII does not support Petitioners theory that pre-2015 disclosure of (information now designated as) CEII constitutes a waiver. The Board 38 See CEnII Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. at 9,859, 9,873, 9,863.

39 See generally id. at 9,857.

40 SECY-05-0091, Task Force Report on Public Disclosure of Security-Related Information at [PDF p. 18]

(May 18, 2005) (ML051400108) (SECY-05-0091).

41 SECY-04-0191, Withholding Sensitive Unclassified Information Concerning Nuclear Power Reactors from Public Disclosure at 6 (Oct. 19, 2004) (ML042310663); accord SECY-05-0091 at [PDF p. 18] (stating the agencys intent to withhold CEnII only if it is beyond what the NRC needs to support major licensing).

42 16 U.S.C. § 824o-1(a)(3) (defining CEII to include[] CEnII).

43 Id. § 824o-1(d)(1)(B).

8 was imminently reasonable in concluding that the pre-2015 public release of information now designated as CEII provides no basis for a waiver determination.44 And Petitioners attempt to conflate pre-2015 CEnII with post-2015 CEII does not, in any way, undermine that conclusion.

3.

Petitioners Admission That the NRC Historically Has Endeavored to Protect the Subject Information Reinforces the Inadvertence of Any Public Disclosure Thereof In Petitioners Initial Brief, they acknowledge that the NRC historically has attempted to withhold information that is now designated as CEII. Petitioners also assert that the NRCs redaction of such information has been inconsistent. But, contrary to Petitioners claims, those admissions weigh in favor of a finding of inadvertent disclosure here.

For example, Petitioners state that, in the past, the NRC has reviewed and released a great deal of information, and that portions thereof that now fall within the definition of CEII were redacted under Exemption 7(f).45 Petitioners claim that the NRC has been doing that for at least twenty years.46 Petitioners also acknowledge that the NRC has clearly attempted to withhold CEII, but they fault the NRC for having done so inconsistently.47 Individually and collectively, these observations indicate the NRCs intent to withhold the subject information from public disclosureeven if it has done so imperfectly. The facts show that the NRC has taken prompt action to protect CEII upon being alerted to those imperfections.48 And Petitioners neither claim nor demonstrate otherwise. Ultimately, the agencys demonstrated intent, together with its clawback actions, precludes a finding of waiver here.

44 Referred Order at 23.

45 Petitioners Initial Brief at 14-15.

46 Id. at 11 n.40.

47 Id. at 15-16.

48 For example, the documents purportedly containing CEII that are mentioned in Attach. 1 to Attach. A to the Disclosure Motion have been redacted or are no longer publicly available.

9 Dukes view on Referred Question # 2 remains unchanged. The official acknowledgment doctrine does not compel the disclosure of CEII in this proceeding.

IV.

THE COMMISSION SHOULD DISREGARD OR REJECT PETITIONERS UNSOLICITED DEMAND FOR A DISCLOSURE ORDER In Petitioners Initial Brief, they propound a request for the Commission to issue an order granting the public release of source documents cited in their Petition.49 This demand should be disregarded or rejected for multiple reasons. First, it far exceeds the scope of the Commissions invitation for Petitioners to provide their views on the two questions referred by the Board.50 Neither question asks whether the Commission should issue such an order. For that reason, the Commission should disregard this out-of-scope portion of the pleading. Second, this request for issuance of an order is effectively a motion.51 Yet, Petitioners fail to explain how or why this motion complies with the applicable motion timeliness requirements.52 And Petitioners did not consult with the other Participants regarding this motion before filinga defect which requires that the motion must be rejected.53 Finally, this request appears to seek review (and reversal) of the Boards decision rejecting a similar request.54 But, even if this briefing opportunity were the appropriate forum to petition for such review (it is not), Petitioners neither address the standards for such petitions nor identify any substantial question warranting review.55 Thus, the Commission should disregard Section III.B of Petitioners Initial Brief.

49 Petitioners Initial Brief at 16-17.

50 See Secretarys Order at 1.

51 See Motion, Blacks Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (A written or oral application requesting a court to make a specified ruling or order.).

52 See 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a)(2).

53 See id. § 2.323(b).

54 Referred Order at 16.

55 See generally 10 C.F.R. § 2.341.

10 V.

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated in Dukes Initial Brief and above, Duke respectfully suggests the Commission should find that: (1) the NRC lacks authority to adjudicate CEII designations; (2) the Commission has not delegated to presiding officers any authority to adjudicate requests for public disclosure of CEII, which are appropriately directed to the NRCs FOIA process; and (3) the official acknowledgement doctrine provides no basis in this proceeding to publicly disclose CEII because that result is prohibited by statute and, alternatively, because the Fitzgibbon test is not satisfied here.

Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Ryan K. Lighty RYAN K. LIGHTY, ESQ.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 739-5274 ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)

PAUL M. BESSETTE, ESQ.

MOLLY R. MATTISON, ESQ.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 739-5796 (202) 739-5540 paul.bessette@morganlewis.com molly.mattison@morganlewis.com Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)

TRACEY M. LEROY, Esq.

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 4720 Piedmont Row Drive Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 (704) 382-8317 Tracey.LeRoy@duke-energy.com Counsel for Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Dated in Washington, DC this 28th day of March 2025

DB1/ 156210847.2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of:

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3)

Docket Nos. 50-269-SLR-2 50-270-SLR-2 50-287-SLR-2 March 28, 2025 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I certify that, on this date, a copy of the foregoing DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLCS RESPONSIVE VIEWS ON THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS REFERRED QUESTIONS AS REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSIONS FEBRUARY 13, 2025 ORDER was served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System), in the above-captioned docket.

Signed (electronically) by RYAN K. LIGHTY RYAN K. LIGHTY, Esq.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 739-5274 ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com Counsel for Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC