ML25234A079

NRC Staff Answer Opposing the Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club Hearing Request, Petition to Intervene, and Request to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance

ML25234A079
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	08/22/2025
From:	Leatherman A NRC/OGC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 57458, 50-278-SLR-2, 50-277-SLR-2, ASLBP 25-989-01-SLR-BD01
Download: ML25234A079 (0)

Text

August 22, 2025 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of CONSTELLATION ENERGY GENERATION, LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3)

Docket Nos. 50-277-SLR-2 50-278-SLR-2 NRC STAFF ANSWER OPPOSING THE BEYOND NUCLEAR AND SIERRA CLUB HEARING REQUEST, PETITION TO INTERVENE, AND REQUEST TO HOLD PROCEEDING IN ABEYANCE INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff files this answer opposing the Hearing Request, Petition to Intervene, and Request to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance (Hearing Request) filed by Beyond Nuclear, Inc. and the Sierra Club, Inc.

(together, the Petitioners). As directed by the Commission in Oconee, CLI-22-3, the scope of the hearing opportunity for this proceeding was limited to challenging new information in draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 10, Second Renewal, Supplement 1 (the 2025 draft supplement) for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 subsequent license renewal, which was published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2025. The Petitioners do not, however, challenge any of the new information in the 2025 draft supplement. Instead, similar to the approach petitioners took in Callaway, CLI-15-11, the Petitioners here seek a hearing solely to hold this proceeding open until the completion of their separate challenge before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to an NRC rulemaking that revised the NRCs regulations related to the environmental review of nuclear power plant license renewals (the 2024 LR rule) and included the issuance of a revised license renewal generic environmental impact statement (the 2024 LR GEIS) as the rulemakings technical basis. The Petitioners attempt to conflate their federal court challenge to the generic 2024 LR rule and 2024 LR GEIS, on which, in part, the 2025 draft supplement is based, with this limited scope hearing opportunity on new, site-specific information in the 2025 draft supplement, without a waiver under 10 C.F.R. § 2.335, is contrary to NRC regulations and precedent. Under these circumstances, and as explained by the Commission in Callaway, CLI-15-11, the Petitioners Hearing Request does not satisfy the contention admissibility criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f) and amounts to a challenge in an individual licensing proceeding to the NRCs regulations without a waiver of those regulations, which is prohibited by 10 C.F.R. § 2.335. The Petitioners have also not demonstrated standing because they have not stated an effect on their interests from any decision that may be issued in this proceeding. Due to these failures and omissions, and consistent with binding Commission precedent, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should deny the Petitioners Hearing Request and their related request to hold this proceeding in abeyance.

BACKGROUND In July 2018, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (now Constellation Energy Generation, LLC) submitted an application to the NRC requesting subsequent renewal of the Peach Bottom renewed licenses for an additional 20 years (i.e., from 60 to 80 years).1 Beyond Nuclear timely filed a hearing request to challenge this application and the Board denied that hearing request.2 1 Letter from Michael P. Gallegher, Exelon, to NRC Document Control Desk, Application for Subsequent Renewed Operating Licenses (Jul. 10, 2018) (ML18193A697).

2 See Exelon Generation Co., LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-19-5, 89 NRC 483 (2019).

Beyond Nuclear appealed and the Commission affirmed the Boards decision.3 Thereafter, Beyond Nuclear filed motions for leave to file a new contention and to reopen the record.4 Consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), as implemented by the NRCs regulations at 10 C.F.R. Part 51, the Staff prepared an environmental impact statement for the proposed action as a supplement to the then-current 2013 version of NUREG-1437, which is the NRCs generic environmental impact statement for license renewal (LR GEIS).5 The final draft of this supplement to the 2013 LR GEIS, referred to as the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), was issued in January 2020, and represents the Staffs NEPA-required environmental review of the Peach Bottom subsequent license renewal.6 The Staff separately performed a safety review of the Peach Bottom subsequent license renewal, as is required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), as implemented by the NRCs regulations at 10 C.F.R. Part 54.7 Upon completion of its safety and environmental reviews of the application, the Staff issued the requested Peach Bottom subsequent renewed 3 See Exelon Generation Co., LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-20-11, 92 NRC 335 (2020).

4 See Beyond Nuclear, Inc.s Motion for Leave to File New Contention Based on Draft Supplement 10 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Subsequent License Renewal of Peach Bottom Operating License (Sept. 3, 2019; corrected Sept. 5, 2019) (ML19246C301, ML19248D095); Beyond Nuclear, Inc.s Motion to Reopen the Record for Purposes of Considering and Admitting a New Contention Based on Draft Supplement 10 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Subsequent License Renewal of Peach Bottom Operating License and Request for Consideration of Some Elements of the Motion Out of Time (Sept. 22, 2019) (ML19265A006).

5 See 10 C.F.R. § 51.95(c); Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Final Report, NUREG-1437, Revision 1 (Jun. 2013) (ML13106A241).

6 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 10, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3, Final Report, NUREG-1437, Supplement 10, Second Renewal (Jan. 2020) (ML20023A937).

7 See Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Subsequent License Renewal of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Final Report (Feb. 2020) (ML20044D902) (concluding that the applicant met the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

§ 54.29(a)).

licenses in March 2020.8 The Beyond Nuclear motions remained pending before the Commission at that time.

In February 2022, the Commission determined that the 2013 LR GEIS only applied to the initial license renewal period (i.e., from 40 to 60 years) and did not cover the subsequent license renewal period.9 The Commission concluded that, therefore, the Staffs environmental review in the Peach Bottom 2020 FSEIS (and other similarly situated subsequent license renewals) was incomplete because it partially relied on the 2013 LR GEIS.10 As a result of this decision, the Commission directed the Staff to update the 2013 LR GEIS to address environmental impacts during the subsequent license renewal period and to complete the Peach Bottom subsequent license renewal environmental review.11 The Commission also directed that the already-issued Peach Bottom subsequent renewed licenses be maintained but with expiration dates modified to match the expiration dates of the previous licenses until completion of the NEPA analysis.12 With respect to the Peach Bottom subsequent license renewal safety review, the Commission stated that it had not been disturbed.13 Consistent with Commission direction, the Staff kept the Peach Bottom subsequent renewed licenses in place but modified their expiration dates to reflect the expiration dates of the previous licenses.14 Finally, the Commission required the Staff 8 Letter from Bennett M. Brady, NRC, to Michael Gallagher, Exelon, Issuance of Subsequent Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56 for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (Mar. 5, 2020) (ML20010F285).

9 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4), CLI-22-2, 95 NRC 26, 31 (2022); Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-22-3, 95 NRC 40, 42 (2022); Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3),

CLI-22-4, 95 NRC 44, 45 (2022).

10 Id.

11 Oconee, CLI-22-3, 95 NRC at 42; Peach Bottom, CLI-22-4, 95 NRC at 46.

12 Peach Bottom, CLI-22-4, 95 NRC at 46.

13 Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-22-7, 95 NRC 116, 122 (2022).

14 Letter from Andrea Veil, NRC, to David P. Rhoades, Constellation, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3Modification to Subsequent Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56 in Conjunction with Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-22-04 (Mar. 25, 2022)

(ML22073A207).

to issue a new notice of opportunity for hearinglimited to contentions based on new information regarding the remaining Peach Bottom subsequent license renewal environmental review.15 The Commission explained that this hearing opportunity may be provided with respect to the draft of the Staffs remaining environmental review.16 Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the pending Beyond Nuclear motions.17 In August 2024, the NRC published a final rule revising its regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 51 related to the environmental review of nuclear power plant license renewals (the 2024 LR rule).18 The 2024 LR rule updated the potential environmental impacts associated with such renewals for up to an additional 20 years and explained that these additional 20 years could be the result of either an initial license renewal authorizing operation from 40 to 60 years or a first subsequent license renewal authorizing operation from 60 to 80 years.19 The Staff also issued a new revision of NUREG-1437 (the 2024 LR GEIS) that provided the technical basis for the final rule.20 The Petitioners challenged the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS before the D.C.

Circuit in Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club v. NRC.21 In May 2025, to complete the Peach Bottom subsequent license renewal environmental review, the Staff prepared a draft supplement to the previously issued 2020 FSEIS.22 Upon the issuance of this 2025 draft supplement, as directed by the Commission, the Staff published a 15 Oconee, CLI-22-3, 95 NRC at 42.

16 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4), CLI-24-1, 99 NRC 33, 36-37 (2024).

17 Oconee, CLI-22-3, 95 NRC at 42-43.

18 Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating LicensesEnvironmental Review; Final rule and guidance, 89 Fed. Reg. 64,166 (Aug. 6, 2024).

19 Id.

20 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Final Report, NUREG-1437, Revision 2 (Aug. 2024) (ML24086A526).

21 See Hearing Request, Petition to Intervene, and Request to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance by Beyond Nuclear, Inc. and the Sierra Club, Inc., at attach. 3 (Jul. 29, 2025) (ML25210A563) (Hearing Request).

22 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3, Draft Report for Comment, NUREG-1437, Supplement 10, Second Renewal, Supplement 1 (May 2025) (ML25111A147).

notice of opportunity to request a hearing specifically with respect to new information in the 2025 draft supplement.23 The Petitioners filed their Hearing Request in response to this notice,24 but did not challenge any of the new, site-specific information in the 2025 draft supplement, nor did the Petitioners demonstrate that their interests would be affected by the remaining Peach Bottom environmental review or the reinstatement of the Peach Bottom subsequent license renewal expiration dates.

DISCUSSION I. The Petitioners Have Not Proposed at Least One Admissible Contention and Have Not Demonstrated Standing Under the Commissions rules of practice in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, any person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding and who desires to participate as a party must file a written request for a hearing, which must include the contention or contentions that the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing.25 The presiding officer will grant a hearing request if they determine that the petitioner has proposed at least one admissible contention that meets all the requirements in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f) and has also demonstrated standing under 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(d).26 As discussed further below, with respect to the instant Hearing Request, the Petitioners sole contention does not meet all the contention admissibility requirements and the Petitioners do not demonstrate standing. Therefore, for these independent reasons, the Hearing Request should be denied.

23 Constellation Energy Generation, LLC; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3; Draft Supplement to Environmental Impact Statement, 90 Fed. Reg. 23,075 (May 30, 2025).

24 See Hearing Request at 1.

25 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a).

26 Id. The contention admissibility criteria are strict by design and the failure to fulfill any one of them renders a contention inadmissible. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Unit 2), CLI-16-5, 83 NRC 131, 136 (2016) (citing Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349, 358 (2001); South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-10-1, 71 NRC 1, 7 (2010)).

A. The Petitioners Contention is Not Admissible because it is Not within Scope, it is Not Material, it Does Not Reference Specific Portions of the 2025 Draft Supplement, and it Challenges NRC Regulations without a Waiver of those Regulations In the one and only contention within their Hearing Request, the Petitioners argue that the 2025 draft supplement is inadequate to satisfy NEPA because the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS on which [it] relies violate NEPA.27 By their own terms, the Petitioners challenge the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS, and not the 2025 draft supplement.

Therefore, this contention does not satisfy all the admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f) because it is not within the scope of this proceeding, it is not material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in this proceeding, and it does not include references to specific portions of the 2025 draft supplement. Moreover, the contention must be denied under 10 C.F.R. § 2.335 because the Petitioners challenge the NRCs 2024 LR rule and 2024 LR GEIS without seeking and obtaining the Commissions approval to challenge that generic rulemaking within this individual licensing proceeding.

First, the Petitioners explicitly acknowledge that their sole contention is outside the scope of this proceeding and therefore it fails to meet 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii). The scope of a proceeding is defined by the issues set forth in the Federal Register Notice giving rise to that proceeding.28 In the instant matter, and consistent with CLI-22-3, the issue set forth for a hearing opportunity in the NRCs May 30, 2025 Federal Register Notice was new information in the [2025] draft supplement.29 However, by their own admission, the Petitioners only challenge the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS underlying the 2025 draft supplement, and not any new Peach Bottom-specific information in the 2025 draft supplement itself.30 By further 27 Hearing Request at 4.

28 See Public Serv. Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167, 170-71 (1976).

29 Oconee, CLI-22-3, 95 NRC at 42; 90 Fed. Reg. at 23,078.

30 Hearing Request at 4-5.

stating that their challenges to the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS have already been submitted to the NRC and disposed of by the NRC, the Petitioners apparently agree that their contention, which is based on these same challenges, is separate and distinct from the hearing opportunity in the instant proceeding.31 Therefore, the contention is not within the scope of this proceeding and, for this reason alone, the Board should reject it.

Second, the Petitioners implicitly acknowledge that their sole contention is immaterial to the required findings for Peach Bottom subsequent license renewal and therefore it fails to meet 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv). In order for an issue to be material, the resolution of the issue would have to make a difference in the outcome of the action.32 Here, the action is the Staffs completion of its environmental review of Peach Bottom subsequent license renewal and the restoration of the subsequent license renewal expiration dates. By requesting that the Board admit their contention to hold this proceeding open until a federal court completes its review of the Petitioners challenges to the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS instead of adjudicating the contention,33 the Petitioners demonstrate that their contention is immaterial to the Staffs required findings. The Staff has completed its environmental review of Peach Bottom subsequent license renewal, consistent with the existing license renewal environmental review regulations.34 The Petitioners are separately challenging those regulations before the court of appeals.35 As the Petitioners concede, because the claims in their contention have already been raised in a separate action now pending before the court of appeals, [n]o further administrative 31 Id. at 6.

32 Holtec International (Hi-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility), CLI-20-4, 91 NRC 167, 190 (2020).

33 Hearing Request at 2, 6-7.

34 See 10 C.F.R. § 51.95(c) (In connection with the renewal of an operating license for a nuclear power plant, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact statement, which is a supplement to the

[LR GEIS].); 10 C.F.R. Pt. 51, Subpt. A, App. B (providing the generic findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants).

35 See Hearing Request at attach. 3.

proceedings are necessary or appropriate.36 Thus the Board should deny this contention because it is wholly unrelated to the Staffs findings at issue in this proceeding and because the Commission does not expend resources to support the hearing process unless there is an issue that is appropriate for, and susceptible to, resolution in an NRC hearing.37 Moreover, the NRCs regulations do not provide for and the Commission disfavors such a contention that merely anticipate[s] a future deficiency, rather than pointing to a present defect.38 Therefore, the contention is not material to this proceeding and, for this reason alone, the Board should reject it.

Third, the Petitioners do not challenge any specific portion of the 2025 draft supplement, which renders their contention inadmissible. Here, given the limited scope of the instant hearing opportunity, the document at issue is the 2025 draft supplement.39 Therefore, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi), the Petitioners must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the 2025 draft supplement on a material issue of law or fact by, at a minimum, including references to specific portions of that document that the Petitioners dispute as well as the supporting reasons for each dispute. The Petitioners, however, do not refer to a single specific portion of the 2025 draft supplement, let alone provide supporting reasons for why they may dispute those portions. Instead, the Petitioners only discuss the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS underlying the 2025 draft supplement, nothing more.40 The Petitioners make clear in their Hearing Request that their sole concern is with this separate rulemaking activity that is the subject of a separate proceeding before the court of appeals and not anything 36 Hearing Request at 6.

37 Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. 2182, 2202 (Feb. 13, 2004).

38 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-25-4, 102 NRC __,

__ (Jul. 15, 2025) (slip op. at 22 n.106).

39 See 90 Fed. Reg. at 23,078.

40 Hearing Request at 4-6.

unique to the Peach Bottom subsequent license renewal action.41 Notably, whereas the Hearing Request at least provides some discussion on the other contention admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f), nowhere does it even acknowledge the 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi) criterion.42 Therefore, the contention does not show that a genuine dispute exists on a material issue of law or fact and, for this reason alone, the Board should reject it.

Finally, even though the NRC has already incorporated into its regulations the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS, the Petitioners contention is entirely a challenge to both of these aspects of the NRCs regulations without first obtaining the required Commission approval to bring such a challenge in this individual licensing proceeding.43 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.335, Commission regulations may not be challenged in an individual licensing proceeding unless a petitioner affirmatively petitions the Commission for a waiver of the application of the regulations for the specific proceeding, and the Commission subsequently approves said petition. Here, rather than challenge the 2025 draft supplement, the Petitioners effectively challenge 10 C.F.R. Part 51, as amended by the 2024 LR rule.44 Moreover, the Petitioners challenge to the 2024 LR GEIS and, by extension, the Staffs use of that document, as directed by the Commission, to complete the environmental review for Peach Bottom subsequent license renewal, is also a challenge to the NRCs regulations at 10 C.F.R. § 51.95(c), which require a license renewal environmental review to be a supplement to the 2024 LR GEIS. Since their contention consists only of collateral attacks against the NRCs regulations, a waiver is required under 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.335, but the Petitioners have neither requested nor received approval of such a waiver from the Commission. And in addition to being expressly prohibited by 10 C.F.R. § 2.335, a contention 41 Id. at 1-2.

42 See id. at 4-6 (including a section each for the contention admissibility criteria 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i),

(ii), (iii), (iv), and (v), but not for 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi)).

43 Hearing Request at 4, 7.

44 See id. at 1-2.

that challenges the NRCs regulations without a waiver is also deemed to be out of the scope of the proceeding.45 Therefore, the Board should reject the contention on this basis alone.

B. The Petitioners Have Not Demonstrated Standing The hearing opportunity for this proceeding is limited to challenging new information regarding the Staffs Peach Bottom subsequent license renewal environmental review in the 2025 draft supplement. In their Hearing Request, the Petitioners demonstrate that they are concerned with the effects on their interests of a possible decision by the court of appeals regarding what they argue are deficiencies in the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS. The Petitioners identify that the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS underl[ie] the 2025 draft supplement.46 But as explained by the Commission in Callaway, CLI-15-11, regardless of any decision in this individual licensing proceeding on the 2025 draft supplement, the Commission would take appropriate action consistent with any court of appeals direction.47 Therefore, the Petitioners have not demonstrated that any decision in this proceeding on the 2025 draft supplement, as opposed to a separate federal court proceeding on the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS, may affect their interests and, accordingly, have not demonstrated standing.

The Commissions regulations specify that the presiding officer must determine, among other things, whether the petitioner has an interest affected by the proceeding considering the factors enumerated in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d)(1) when ruling on a hearing request.48 These factors include that the petitioner must state [t]he possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the [petitioners] interest.49 In complying with these regulations, the NRC has long applied contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing which require an 45 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-15-21, 82 NRC 295, 302 (2015).

46 Hearing Request at 4, 7.

47 Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit 1), CLI-15-11, 81 NRC 546, 550 (2015).

48 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d)(2).

49 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d)(1).

actual or threatened injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action, is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, and arguably falls within the zone of interests protected by the AEA.50 The injury must be both concrete and particularized, not conjectural, or hypothetical.51 The Petitioners state that the sole purpose for their Hearing Request is to hold this proceeding open because the Petitioners believe that this course of action is necessary to ensure that a future decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club v. NRC is applied to this proceeding.52 The Petitioners then go on to state that their petition currently pending before the court of appeals is limited to their claim that the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS are deficient.53 The Petitioners recite the standing requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d) and quote a Licensing Board order explaining that the Commission has traditionally applied contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing and what those concepts are.54 The Petitioners conclude that they have standing because they are seeking to ensure full compliance with NEPAs requirements for protection of public health and the environment.55 The Petitioners do not demonstrate standing because they do not, as is required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d)(iv) and contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing, state a possible effect on their interests as a result of any decision in this proceeding on the 2025 draft supplement.

The Petitioners are, instead, concerned with the possible effect on their interests from a 50 El Paso Electric Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-20-7, 92 NRC 225, 230 (2020) (quoting Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Servs., LLC (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), CLI-09-20, 70 NRC 911, 915 (2009)).

51 Palo Verde, CLI-20-7, 92 NRC at 230 (quoting Sequoyah Fuels Corp. and General Atomics (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64, 72 (1994)).

52 Hearing Request at 1-2.

53 Id. at 2.

54 Id. at 2-3 (citing Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-02-23, 56 NRC 413, 426 (2002)).

55 Hearing Request at 3.

decision in separate litigation that they are pursuing in federal court regarding the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS.

The Petitioners interests appear to have to do with the sufficiency of the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS, but no decision in this proceeding would affect those interests. And, to the extent that the Petitioners interests have to do with the sufficiency of the environmental review in the 2025 draft supplement based on its reliance on the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS, those interests could also not be affected by a decision in this proceeding because this proceeding only concerns new information in the 2025 draft supplement. Because the Petitioners have neither requested nor received a waiver from the Commission under 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.335 to challenge the 2024 LR rule or the 2024 GEIS in this individual licensing proceeding, and because the Commissions regulations specifically exclude challenges to generic rules in individual licensing proceedings without such a waiver, the Petitioners fail to demonstrate any impact to their interests here. Moreover, there is no need to hold this proceeding open to ensure compliance with NEPA because, as the Commission has stated, [s]hould the D.C. Circuit find any infirmities in the GEIS, [the Commission] would take appropriate action consistent with the courts direction.56 Thus, regardless of whether this proceeding is open or closed, the injuries the Petitioners seek to avoid will not come about. Finally, any injury to the Petitioners, including from an alleged failure to compl[y] with NEPAs requirements with respect to the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS,57 is necessarily conjectural and hypothetical at this time because it would depend on the outcome of an ongoing proceeding before the court of appeals.58 56 Callaway, CLI-15-11, 81 NRC at 549-550.

57 Hearing Request at 2-3.

58 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Order of the Secretary (denying motion for clarification), at 2 (Aug. 12, 2025) (unpublished) (ML25224A235) ([T]he outcome of any D.C. Circuit decision in the [2024 LR] GEIS proceeding is only conjectural at this stage.).

Taken together, although the Petitioners recite 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d) and the contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing, the Petitioners have not satisfied their burden of demonstrating their compliance with these requirements because they have not identified that a decision in this proceeding may have an effect on their interests and they have not asserted an injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action, is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, and is concrete and particularized.59 Therefore, the Petitioners have not demonstrated standing and, accordingly, the Board should deny the Hearing Request on this basis alone.

II. The Petitioners Request to Hold this Proceeding in Abeyance is Moot, Precluded by a Prior Commission Ruling, and Inconsistent with Commission Orders In their Hearing Request, the Petitioners ask that upon the admission of their contention, the Board hold the proceeding in abeyance rather than proceed with a hearing on the contention.60 As an initial matter, because the contention is inadmissible, the Board need not even reach this abeyance request. Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that the Petitioners contention is admissible, the Petitioners arguments in support of their abeyance request are not persuasive because they are wholly precluded by a previous Commission decision denying substantively identical arguments under substantively identical circumstances and because they are inconsistent with Commission orders. Therefore, the Board should not grant the abeyance request.

The Petitioners have modeled their abeyance request after a substantively identical request that the Commission rejected in Callaway, CLI-15-11.61 The circumstances of Callaway 59 Palo Verde, CLI-20-7, 92 NRC at 230.

60 Hearing Request at 6.

61 Compare Callaway, CLI-15-11, 81 NRC at 548-549 ([The petitioners] stated reason for filing its petition is to ensure that any court decision resulting from its federal court challenge to the Continued Storage Rule and GEIS will also be applied to the individual Callaway proceeding.) with Hearing Request at 1-2 (Petitioners sole purpose in submitting this petition is to clearly establish that any decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals that may reverse, vacate or otherwise modify the conclusions of the 2024 [LR]

Rule and the [2024 LR GEIS] will be applied to the Peach Bottom [subsequent license renewal]

proceeding.).

were also substantively identical to the instant circumstances for Peach Bottom. As was the case for Peach Bottom, Callaway was a license renewal proceeding in which a petitioner requested a hearing and that request was denied by a Licensing Board.62 Also like Peach Bottom, the Callaway license renewal environmental review was based, in part, on a recent rulemaking, which in that case was the Continued Storage Rule and its companion GEIS.63 As the Petitioners did here, the Callaway petitioner both challenged the rulemaking and GEIS before the court of appeals and filed a hearing request in the individual Callaway licensing proceeding requesting the admission of a contention to ensure that any court decision resulting from [the petitioners] federal court challenge will also be applied to the individual Callaway proceeding.64 In Callaway, the Commission rejected that contention, ruling that an individual licensing proceeding is not to be used for the purpose of challenging environmental impacts that the Commission has addressed generically through the rulemaking process.65 The Commission also noted that the Callaway petitioner, just like the Petitioners in the instant Peach Bottom proceeding, hadand had taken advantage ofthe opportunity to provide comments on the proposed rule and draft GEIS, and had sought judicial review of both in the appropriate forum:

the court of appeals.66 The Commission concluded that [s]hould the [court of appeals] find any infirmities in the Continued Storage Rule or GEIS, [the Commission] would take appropriate action consistent with the courts direction and that, therefore, the admission of a placeholder contention is not necessary to ensure that [the petitioners] challenges to the Continued Storage Rule and GEIS receive a full and fair airing.67 Because the contention and circumstances of the instant Peach Bottom proceeding are virtually identical to those of Callaway, the Board should 62 Callaway, CLI-15-11, 81 NRC at 547.

63 Id. at 547-548.

64 Id. at 548-549.

65 Id. at 549.

66 Id. at 549-550.

67 Id. at 550.

reach the same conclusion as the Commission in Callaway and deny the Petitioners abeyance request.

The Petitioners final argument that admitting their contention and holding this proceeding open is necessary to allow completion of the administrative and judicial process begun with the Commissions 2022 decisions is not persuasive because, first, despite the Petitioners suggestions to the contrary, holding this proceeding open is not consistent with any Commission direction in any of those decisions.68 In those decisions, the Commission only directed the Staff to update the 2013 LR GEIS, complete the affected subsequent license renewal environmental reviews, and provide hearing opportunities on the new, site-specific information related to the completed environmental reviews.69 These limited, additional hearing opportunities do not include the opportunity to challenge the 2024 LR rule and the 2024 LR GEIS; on the contrary, the Commission specified that that rulemaking would be subject to a separate administrative process, one which the Petitioners have already taken advantage of.70 Accordingly, rather than await a ruling in Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club v. NRC, the Staff, with appropriate notice to the Commission, has completed three other subsequent license renewal proceedings affected by the Commissions 2022 decisions, including one completed since the Petitioners initiated their federal court proceeding.71 Second, the Petitioners are 68 Hearing Request at 6-7.

69 Oconee, CLI-22-3, 95 NRC at 42; Peach Bottom, CLI-22-4, 95 NRC at 46; Turkey Point, CLI-24-1, 99 NRC at 36-37.

70 Oconee, CLI-22-3, 95 NRC at 42 (The public, including the intervenors and petitioners in the above-captioned proceedings, and applicants will be afforded an opportunity to comment on the upcoming revision to the GEIS and the associated rulemaking through the normal agency processes.). See Hearing Request at attach. 3.

71 Letter from Michele Sampson, NRC, to Steven M. Snider, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Issuance of Subsequent Renewed Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Mar. 31, 2025) (ML25058A002); Letter from Andrea D. Veil, NRC, to Robert Coffey, Florida Power & Light Company, Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4 Completion of Subsequent License Renewal Site-Specific Environmental Review and Modification of Subsequent Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41 in Accordance with Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-22-02 (Sept. 17, 2024) (ML24158A005); Letter from Michele Sampson, NRC, to Eric S. Carr, Virginia Electric and Power Company, Issuance of Subsequent incorrect in stating that the Commission suggested that after an operating license has been issued or re-issued, it would not necessarily revisit the decision unless a related adjudicatory or other administrative proceeding remained open.72 The Commission already addressed this very concern in Callaway where it explained that holding an individual licensing proceeding open is not necessary to effectuate a court of appeals direction because the Commission would take appropriate action consistent with such direction regardless of whether an individual licensing proceeding is open or closed.73 The circumstances of Callaway mirror the instant circumstances, the Commissions ruling in Callaway is binding precedent, and the Petitioners provide no reason for diverging from that precedent. Therefore, the Board should deny the Petitioners abeyance request.

CONCLUSION As supported above, the Petitioners do not propose at least one admissible contention and do not demonstrate standing. Moreover, their request to hold this proceeding in abeyance is moot, precluded by a prior Commission ruling, and inconsistent with Commission orders. For these reasons, all aspects of the Petitioners Hearing Request, Petition to Intervene, and Request to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

/Signed (electronically) by/

Amanda Leatherman Counsel for NRC Staff Mail Stop: O-14-A44 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 287-0544 Email: Amanda.Leatherman@nrc.gov Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7 for North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (Aug. 28, 2024) (ML24215A262).

72 Hearing Request at 7.

73 Callaway, CLI-15-11, 81 NRC at 550.

Executed in Accord with 10 CFR 2.304(d)

Jeremy L. Wachutka Counsel for NRC Staff Mail Stop: O-14-A44 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 287-9188 Email: Jeremy.Wachutka@nrc.gov Dated August 22, 2025

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of CONSTELLATION ENERGY GENERATION, LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3)

Docket Nos. 50-277-SLR-2 50-278-SLR-2 Certificate of Service Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC STAFF ANSWER OPPOSING THE BEYOND NUCLEAR AND SIERRA CLUB HEARING REQUEST, PETITION TO INTERVENE, AND REQUEST TO HOLD PROCEEDING IN ABEYANCE, dated August 22, 2025, have been served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System), in the captioned proceeding, this 22nd day of August 2025.

/Signed (electronically) by/

Amanda Leatherman Counsel for NRC Staff Mail Stop: O-14-A44 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 287-0544 Email: Amanda.Leatherman@nrc.gov