ML25209A422
| ML25209A422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/28/2025 |
| From: | Bessette P, Lighty R, Matthews T Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Pacific Gas & Electric Co |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57422, CLI-25-4, 50-323-LR-2, 50-275-LR-2 | |
| Download: ML25209A422 (0) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the matter of:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-275-LR-2 and 50-323-LR-2 July 28, 2025 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANYS ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION BY SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE AND FRIENDS OF THE EARTH FOR CLARIFICATION OF CLI-25-4 AND THE STATUS OF THIS PROCEEDING I.
INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) files this answer in opposition to the motion filed by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace and Friends of the Earth (together, Movants)1 on July 25, 2025, purporting to seek clarification of the Commissions July 15, 2025 Memorandum and Order, CLI-25-4,2 and the status of this proceeding (Motion).3 Notwithstanding its caption, the Motion does not actually seek a genuine clarification. Instead, Movants ask the Commission to provide legal advice regarding speculative future events. In contrast, the Commission strongly disfavors the issuance of advisory opinions, which is essentially what Movants seek here. Accordingly, the Commission should DENY the Motion.
1 The abbreviation Movants, as used herein, is distinguished from the abbreviation Petitioners, as used in other pleadings in the above-captioned proceeding, because one of the Petitioners, Environmental Working Group, is not one of the Movants here.
2 Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-25-04, 102 NRC __
(July 15, 2025) (slip op.) (ML25196A349) (CLI-25-4).
3 Motion by [Movants] for Clarification of CLI-25-4 and the Status of This Proceeding (July 25, 2025).
2 II.
ARGUMENT The first paragraph of the Motion purports to seek clarification of CLI-25-4.4 But the Motion identifies no ambiguity or uncertainty in the text of CLI-25-4. That order speaks for itself. And Movants identify nothing therein requiring further precision or clarification.
The second paragraph of the Motion seeks clarification that... an administrative and judicial proceeding remains open regarding Revision 2 of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (Feb. 2024) (2024 License Renewal GEIS),
specifically referring to a pending judicial appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit in Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club v. NRC, No. 24-1318.5 But the status of that judicial proceeding is public informationindeed, the Motion includes a footnote providing the current status.6 The Commission has no ability to resolve doubt regarding the official status of that judicial proceeding.
The third paragraph of the Motion references the Commissions authority to set aside or condition a renewed license, even after it is issued, upon subsequent administrative or judicial review.7 That authority is codified in 10 C.F.R. § 54.31(c). Movants suggest that the Commission appeared to qualify (i.e., limit) that authority, via an order issued in 2022 in a different proceeding.8 There, the Commission explained that it could set aside or condition the 4
Id. at 1.
5 Id. at 1-2.
6 Id. at 2 n.3.
7 Id. at 2 (citing AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-08-13, 67 NRC 396, 400 (2008)).
8 Id. at 2 & n.4 (citing Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4), CLI-22-[2],
95 NRC 26, 30 (2022)). To the extent the Motion seeks clarification of CLI-22-2, it is inexcusably late. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a)(2) (requiring the presentation of motions within ten (10) days after the occurrence or circumstance from which the motion arises).
3 already-issued renewed license at issue because that proceeding was still open.9 But Movants suggestion of an implied limitation misapprehends the 2022 order. A straightforward reading shows that the Commissions reference to that proceeding being still open was merely shorthand for acknowledging that the case was at the stage of subsequent administrative review (consistent with the text of 10 C.F.R. § 54.31(c)) because administrative appeals of certain adjudicatory orders in that proceeding remained pending before the Commission.10 Movants conclusory suggestion of an implied scope limitation fails to explain any actual or purported conflict between 10 C.F.R. § 54.31(c) and the 2022 order; does not reveal any intent by the Commission to alter the codified standard; and otherwise fails to identify any need for a clarification of CLI-25-4.
The fourth paragraph of the Motion reveals the crux of Movants request. In essence, they seek a declaratory order from the Commission promising that any decision in the aforementioned Beyond Nuclear case pending before the D.C. Circuit will be applied in this proceeding.11 But any such blanket declaration would be improper. Effectively, Movants are seeking prospective legal advicei.e., an advisory opinionon the potential collateral effect of a hypothetical future judicial ruling from a case to which PG&E is not a party. Historically, the Commission has declined to issue orders providing regulatory interpretations of hypothetical scenarios in contested adjudicatory proceedings, noting that it disfavor[s] the issuance of 9
Turkey Point, CLI-22-2, 95 NRC at 30.
10 Id. at 36 (Administrative litigation before our agency has been pending in the Turkey Point proceeding since the application for subsequent license renewal was filed.).
11 Motion at 2.
4 advisory opinions and prefer[s] instead to address issues in the context of a concrete dispute.12 The Commission should do the same here, for the same reason.
III.
CONCLUSION Because Movants have not identified a genuine need for clarification of any aspect of CLI-25-4, and their request for an advisory opinion is disfavored and improper, the Commission should DENY the Motion.
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)
TIMOTHY P. MATTHEWS, ESQ.
PAUL M. BESSETTE, ESQ.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 739-5527 (202) 739-5796 Timothy.Matthews@morganlewis.com Paul.Bessette@morganlewis.com Counsel for Pacific Gas and Electric Company Dated in Washington, D.C.
This 28th day of July 2025 12 Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-16-6, 83 NRC 147, 157 (2016).
DB1/ 161066070.2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the matter of:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-275-LR-2 and 50-323-LR-2 July 28, 2025 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I certify that, on this date, a copy of the foregoing PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANYS ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION BY SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE AND FRIENDS OF THE EARTH FOR CLARIFICATION OF CLI-25-4 AND THE STATUS OF THIS PROCEEDING 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 Pacific Gas and Electric Company