ML25237A315

Constellations Answer Opposing Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Clubs Hearing Request, Petition for Leave to Intervene, and Request to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance

ML25237A315
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	08/25/2025
From:	Ferraro D, Leidich A, Zorn J Constellation Energy Generation, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 57460, ASLBP 25-989-01-SLR-BD01, 50-277-SLR-2, 50-278-SLR-2
Download: ML25237A315 (0)

Text

August 25, 2025 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

Constellation Energy Generation, LLC

)

Docket Nos. 50-277-SLR

)

50-278-SLR

)

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,

)

Units 2 and 3

)

CONSTELLATIONS ANSWER OPPOSING BEYOND NUCLEAR AND SIERRA CLUBS HEARING REQUEST, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE, AND REQUEST TO HOLD PROCEEDING IN ABEYANCE I.

Introduction Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i)(1), Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (Constellation, previously Exelon Generation Company, LLC) submits this answer opposing Beyond Nuclear, Inc. and Sierra Club, Inc.s (Joint Petitioners) July 29, 2025 Hearing Request, Petition to Intervene, and Request to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance (the Petition).

The Petition should be denied because Joint Petitioners are not challenging the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) subsequent license renewal of Peach Bottom. Instead, Joint Petitioners openly admit that their sole purpose in filing the Petition is to hold this proceeding hostage to their ongoing D.C. Circuit proceedings challenging the NRCs 2024 License Renewal Rule and 2024 Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), despite NRCs clear rules and direction circumscribing the scope of this matter. Joint Petitioners pathway to challenge the 2024 rule and the GEIS lies with a petition to the Court of Appealsa process that is already well underway. This separate Petition is an abuse of the NRCs adjudicatory process, and it should be rejected out of hand.

2 In fact, Joint Petitioners have not even attempted to meet the requirements for a proper petition to intervene or admissible contention. Joint Petitioners fail to propose a contention specific to the Peach Bottom proceeding, thus failing to meet the NRCs standards for contention admissibility. Instead, Joint Petitioners openly engage in an improper collateral attack on NRC rule, contrary to the NRCs rules of practice. As Joint Petitioners are awarebecause they are already pursuing this course of actionthe correct procedural path to challenge a new NRC rule is via appeal to the courts, and this matter is already properly before the D.C. Circuit. The singular contention proposed by Joint Petitioners also fails to comply with the Commissions instructions limiting contentions in this unusual circumstance to those based on new information in the draft supplement, and, having failed to meet that standard, Joint Petitioners fail to meet the motion to reopen or late-filed contention standards that would govern in the alternative.

Joint Petitioners seemingly know that they have failed to set forth an admissible contention because they plainly state the purpose of the Petition is actually to hold the proceeding in abeyance rather than proceed with a hearing. The Commission has rejected similar attempts to derail individual licensing proceedings during Circuit Court rulemaking reviews, and this nearly identical attempt should be similarly rejected. There is nothing in the NRC rules that allows a petitioner to hold a proceeding in abeyance or to stay a licensing action without at least setting forth an adequate petition to intervene. On the contrary, Petitioners must meet an even higher standard to hold a proceeding in abeyance or to support a stay, and Joint Petitioners fail to even address, and cannot meet, these heightened criteria.

In light of these many failings, the Petition should be dismissed in its entirety without oral argument.

3 II.

Background

On May 30, 2025, the NRC issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (the Draft Supplement)1 for the Subsequent License Renewal of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3 (PBAPS or Peach Bottom), and published a notice of opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene in the Federal Register (Notice).2 That Draft Supplement and Notice gave rise to the current Petition; however, Constellations (then, Exelons) effort to renew the Peach Bottom licenses to cover the subsequent period of extended operations has now been going on for over seven years.

The origin of this proceeding involves Constellations application dated July 10, 2018,3 requesting the subsequent (i.e., second) license renewal (SLR) of the renewed facility operating licenses for Peach Bottom.4 Beyond Nuclear sought to intervene in the 2018 SLR proceeding, requesting a hearing on two contentions in November 2018,5 and both Constellation and the NRC Staff answered opposing Beyond Nuclears hearing request for failure to plead an 1 NRC, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, 4 Supplement 10, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Peach Bottom 5 Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3, Supplement 1, Draft Report for Comment (NUREG-1437) (May 2025) (ADAMS Accession No. ML25111A147).

2 Constellation Energy Generation, LLC; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3; Draft Supplement to Environmental Impact Statement, 90 Fed. Reg. 23,076 (May 30, 2025).

3 The original application included an Environmental Report (ER), Applicants Environmental Report -

Operating License Renewal Stage - Subsequent License Renewal, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (July 2018) (ADAMS Accession No. ML18201A219), that analyzed applicable issues that had been determined to require further site-specific analysis (termed Category 2 issues) by the NRCs June 2013 Generic Environmental Impact Statement on license renewal. NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Rev. 1 (June 2013) (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML13106A241, ML13106A242, and ML13106A244) (2013 GEIS).

4 On February 1, 2022, Exelon Generation Company, LLC completed a license transfer and corporate reorganization. Exelon Generation Company was spun-off from Exelon Corporation and renamed Constellation Energy Generation, LLC in 2022. See NRC, Order Approving Indirect Transfer of Licenses and Draft Conforming License Amendments (Nov. 16, 2021) (ADAMS Accession No. ML21277A192). Constellation Energy Generation, LLC remains the same legal entity as Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and has continued to be a licensed owner and the licensed operator of Peach Bottom Units 2 & 3.

5 Beyond Nuclear Inc.s Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene (Nov. 19, 2018) (ADAMS Accession No. ML18323A750) (BN Hearing Request).

4 admissible contention.6 An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) found that Beyond Nuclear had standing, but that neither of its proffered contentions were admissible, and thus denied the petition and terminated the proceeding.7 Beyond Nuclear appealed to the Commission,8 seeking reversal of the ASLBs decision on Contention 2 regarding the adequacy of the ER. Then, only a month later, Beyond Nuclear moved to file Contention 39 (and belatedly to reopen the record)10 directing their previously existing arguments to the new NRC Staff Draft Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement11 for Peach Bottom (DSGEIS) and alleging, once again, that the discussion of design-basis accidents violated NEPA and 10 C.F.R. § 51.71, and that the environmental implications of reactor aging issues identified by the NRC Staff in SECY-14-0016 and knowledge deficiencies in the Expanded Materials Degradation Assessment (EMDA)12 must be addressed.13 Beyond Nuclear also added a new, untimely, argument challenging the 6 Exelons Answer Opposing Beyond Nuclear Inc.s Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene (Dec. 14, 2018)

(Exelon Answer) (ADAMS Accession No. ML18348B049); NRC Staff Answer to Beyond Nuclear Inc.s Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene (Dec. 14, 2018) (ADAMS Accession No. ML18355B014) (NRC Staff Answer).

7 Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-19-5, 89 N.R.C.

483, 506 (2019).

8 See, e.g., Beyond Nuclears Notice of Appeal of LBP-19-05 (July 15, 2019) (ADAMS Accession No. ML19196A371); Beyond Nuclears Brief on Appeal of LBP-19-05 (July 15, 2019) (ADAMS Accession No. ML19196A372); Beyond Nuclear, Inc.s Reply Brief on Appeal of LBP-19-05 (Aug. 19, 2019) (ADAMS Accession No. ML19231A477).

9 Beyond Nuclear, Inc.s Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Based on Draft Supplement 10 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Subsequent License Renewal of Peach Bottom Operating License (Sept. 3, 2019) (ADAMS Accession No. ML19248D095) (Motion).

10 Beyond Nuclear Inc.s Motion to Reopen the Record for Purposes of Considering and Admitting a New Contention Based on 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. 23, 2019) (ADAMS Accession No. ML19265A006) (Motion to Reopen).

11 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 (NUREG-1437, Supp. 10, Second Renewal, Draft Report for Comment) (July 2019) (ADAMS Accession No. ML19210D453).

12 NUREG/CR-7153, Expanded Material Degradation Analysis (Oct. 2014).

13 Motion at 4-5.

5 1996 GEIS14 and 2013 GEISs15 consideration of regulatory requirements in concluding that design-basis impacts would be small.16 The Commission affirmed the ASLBs decision on all aspects of Contention 2 in CLI 11,17 and specifically rejected Contention 2B because Beyond Nuclear [did] not show why the studies it cites [including SECY-14-0016] would be material to the analysis of the environmental impacts of subsequent license renewal, has not explained the relevance of the asserted missing information to design-basis accident risk or the environmental consequences of such accidents, and therefore fail[ed] to raise a genuine dispute with the application.18 However, the Commission failed to address Beyond Nuclears pending motion to reopen the record for Contention 3.

The pending motion to reopen created the opportunity for the Commission to upend the Peach Bottom licensing decision two years later in CLI-22-04 and reverse the portion of CLI-20-11 related to Contention 2A, applying 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3) to subsequent license renewals.19 The Commission, however, did not alter its previous decision in CLI-20-11 related to Contention 2B.20 Nonetheless, after reversing Contention 2A, the Commission directed the Staff to cure any deficiencies in the 2013 GEIS by rulemaking, and to perform additional site-specific reviews.21 The Commission further required that [a]fter each site-specific review is 14 NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (May 1996) at 5-11 to 5-12 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040690705) (1996 GEIS).

15 2013 GEIS at E-5 to E-6.

16 Motion at 5-7 (challenging the DSGEIS conclusion that [s]ince the licensee is required to maintain the plant within acceptable design and performance criteria... the NRC staff would not expect environmental impacts to change significantly).

17 CLI-20-11, 92 N.R.C. 335.

18 CLI-20-11, 92 N.R.C. 335, 346 (2020).

19 CLI-22-04, 95 N.R.C. 44, 44, n.6 (2022) (emphasis added).

20 See generally id. (including no discussion of Contention 2B and reversing only Contention 2A).

21 CLI-22-3, 95 N.R.C. 40, 41-42.

6 complete, a new notice of opportunity for hearinglimited to contentions based on new information in the site-specific environmental impact statementwill be issued, and, under this approach, intervenors would not be required to meet heightened pleading standards in 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(c) for newly filed or refiled contentions.22 While the Commission agreed to maintain the Subsequent Renewed Licenses, it declined to maintain the full period of extended operations and instead modified the licenses to shorten the terms to match the end dates of the previous licenses (August 8, 2033 for Unit 2 and July 2, 2034 for Unit 3), pending further NEPA analysis.23 The NRC updated the GEIS and issued a new license renewal rule in August 2024.24 The NRC Staff then issued the Peach Bottom Draft Supplement in May 2025, along with publication of the Noticeto which Joint Petitioners purportedly respondedresulting in the present matter.

Joint Petitioners acknowledge that their sole purpose in submitting this hearing request and petition to intervene is to clearly establish that any decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that might impact the 2024 License Renewal Rule would be applied to the Peach Bottom SLR proceeding despite the fact that the NRC approved Constellations SLR application in 2020.25 In service of that goal, Joint Petitioners manufacture a single Contention alleging that the Draft Supplement is inadequate under NEPA for having relied on the NRCs 2024 License Renewal Rule and GEIS. In particular, Joint Petitioners allege 22 Id. at 42.

23 CLI-22-4, 95 N.R.C. 44, 46 (2022); CLI-22-7, 95 N.R.C. 116, 119, 122 (2022) (As Constellations licenses were still subject to modification due to pending agency litigation, it is within the NRCs authority to maintain the shortened end dates of the subsequently renewed licenses.).

24 Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses-Environmental Review, 89 Fed. Reg. 64,166 (Aug. 6, 2024)

(2024 License Renewal Rule); Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Rev. 2 (August 2024) (2024 License Renewal GEIS).

25 Petition at 1 (emphasis added).

7 the 2024 License Renewal Rule and GEIS violate NEPA for (1) allegedly failing to assess how the deterioration of safety components may influence the likelihood and consequences of nuclear reactor accidents during subsequent operating license renewal terms, (2) allegedly failing to assess how climate change effects may influence the likelihood and consequences of nuclear reactor accidents, including site-specific impacts, and (3) categorizing climate change as a Category 1 impact for generic analysis rather than a site-specific environmental impact.26 At no point in the Petition or Contention do the Joint Petitioners address any specific portion of the Draft Supplement or Peach Bottom licensing proceeding. Nor do Joint Petitioners set forth any reason to believe that particular safety components at Peach Bottom may deteriorate and increase the frequency or consequences of an accident, or that a particular climate change risk at Peach Bottom would impact reactor accident analysis sufficient to alter the conclusions of the Draft Supplement.

III.

Legal Standards A.

Substantive Requirements for an Admissible Contention (10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1))

Contentions must meet the Commissions admissibility requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1). Specifically, contentions must:

1) Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted;

2) Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; 26 Petition at 4-5. Joint Petitioners Contention is purportedly derived from the statement of Issues Presented for Review at pages 1-2 of Petitioners Final Opening Brief in Beyond Nuclear (June 13, 2025) (Attachment 3).

However, the third portion of the Contention appears to be a misstatement of the arguments in the Opening Brief.

The third argument in the Opening Brief is actually that severe accident mitigation alternatives (and not climate change) were allegedly improperly made into a Category 1 issue in 2024 License Renewal Rule. That argument is completely inapplicable here since the Peach Bottom licensing analysis was created when severe accident mitigation alternatives were still a Category 2 issue.

8

3) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding;

4) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding;

5) Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requestors/petitioners position on the issue and on which the petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together with references to the specific sources and documents on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue;

6) In a proceeding other than one under 10 CFR 52.103, provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application (including the applicants environmental report and safety report) that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the petitioner believes that the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the petitioners belief.27 These standards are enforced rigorously. A licensing board is not to overlook a deficiency in a contention or assume the existence of missing information.28 If any one of the admissibility standards is not met, a contention must be rejected.29 B.

Requirements to Reopen the Record (10 C.F.R. § 2.326) and Standards for Late-filed Contentions (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1))

In general, once a proceeding is closed, a Petitioner must file a motion to reopen the record and address the standards for such a motion under 10 C.F.R. § 2.326. The Commission considers reopening the record for any reason to be an extraordinary action,30 and places 27 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i)-(vi).

28 See, e.g., Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-91-12, 34 N.R.C. 149, 155 (1991); AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-09-7, 69 N.R.C. 235, 260 (2009) (noting that the contention admissibility rules require the petitioner (not the board) to supply all of the required elements for a valid intervention petition (footnote omitted)).

29 Palo Verde, CLI-91-12, 34 N.R.C. at 155 (1991) (citation omitted); USEC, Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant),

CLI-06-9, 63 N.R.C. 433, 437 (2006) (These requirements are deliberately strict, and we will reject any contention that does not satisfy the requirements. (footnotes omitted)).

30 Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2), CLI-15-19, 82 N.R.C. 151, 156 (2015).

9 an intentionally heavy burden on parties seeking to reopen the record.31 Indeed, a party seeking to reopen a closed record to raise a new matter faces an elevated burden to lay a proper foundation for its claim. Commission practice holds that the standard for admitting a new contention after the record is closed is higher than for an ordinary late-filed contention.32 Obviously, there would be little hope of completing administrative proceedings if each newly arising allegation required an agency to reopen its hearings.33 A party seeking to reopen the record must include a motion that:

1) is timely. However, an exceptionally grave issue may be considered in the discretion of the presiding officer even if untimely presented;

2) addresses a significant safety or environmental issue; and

3) demonstrates that a materially different result would be or would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered initially.34 A motion to reopen that relates to a new contention must also satisfy the 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(c) standards for a new or amended contention, particularly including the good cause demonstration that:

1) The information upon which the filing is based was not previously available;

2) The information upon which the filing is based is materially different from information previously available; and

3) The filing has been submitted in a timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.35 31 Id. at 155.

32 Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-05-12, 61 N.R.C. 345, 350 (2005)

(citing Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 523-24 (1973)).

33 PFS, CLI-05-12, 61 N.R.C. at 350, n.18 (quoting Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 555 (1978)).

34 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a).

35 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).

10 The good cause standard, in essence, requires that petitioners raise their contentions at the earliest possible time. After all, [t]here simply would be no end to NRC licensing proceedings if petitioners could disregard [the Commissions] timeliness requirements and add new contentions at their convenience during the course of a proceeding based on information that could have formed the basis for a timely contention at the outset of the proceeding.36 IV.

The Petition Should Be Denied.

To be admitted to a proceeding, Joint Petitioners must demonstrate standing and plead at least one admissible contention.37 Constellation agrees with the NRC Staffs assertion that the ASLB should apply judicial standing requirements, and that the Joint Petitioners have not met those requirements.38 Constellation also submits that Joint Petitioners have not proffered an admissible contention and have not met the Commissions timeliness requirements. Therefore, the Petition should be denied.

A.

Joint Petitioners Contention Should Be Rejected as Failing to Meet the NRCs Admissibility Criteria and as a General Challenge to an NRC Rule.

This opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene was limited to contentions based on new information in the draft supplement.39 Joint Petitioners disregard this limited scope and propose a Contention that is not based on new information in the Draft Supplement. In fact, the Contention does not refer to any information specific to the Draft Supplements analysis for Peach Bottom at all. The Petition instead attempts to hijack the Peach 36 Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-10-27, 72 N.R.C. 481, 496 (2010) (quoting AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-09-7, 69 N.R.C.

235, 271-72 (2009) (footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted)).

37 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a).

38 See NRC Staff Answer Opposing the Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club Hearing Request, Petition to Intervene, and Request to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance at 11-14 (Aug. 22, 2025).

39 Constellation Energy Generation, LLC; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3; Draft Supplement to Environmental Impact Statement, 90 Fed. Reg. 23,076 (May 30, 2025).

11 Bottom licensing proceeding for the sole purpose of attacking the NRCs 2024 License Renewal Rule and GEIS.

Contentions must dispute the licensing documents and cannot simply attack an NRC rule.

Indeed, contentions are required under the NRCs admissibility criteria to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of fact or law including references to specific portions of the [Draft Supplement] that the petitioner disputes.40 A general challenge to an NRC rule is inadequate to meet that requirement, and the NRC does not allow petitioners to take over individual licensing proceedings to engage on a collateral attack on an agency rule,41 regardless of whether the rule is being challenged in court.42 Yet, this Contention only challenges the NRCs 2024 License Renewal Rule, not the Draft Supplement, in direct contravention of the NRCs rules of practice and precedent, without petitioning for a waiver of the rule, or demonstrating by affidavit that special circumstances exist such that the application of the rule... would not serve the purposes for which the rule or regulation was adopted.43 This failure to meet the contention admissibility criteria and Joint Petitioners attempts to improperly challenge an NRC rule provides sufficient basis to dismiss the Petition.

40 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

41 10 C.F.R. § 2.335(a).

42 See, e.g., Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit 1), CLI-15-11, 81 N.R.C. 546 (2015) (rejecting a similar placeholder contention by petitioners and finding that the challenges to NRC rules were appropriately brought before the court of appeals); Amergen Energy Company, LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-08-13, 67 N.R.C. 396, 400-401 (2008).

43 10 C.F.R. § 2.335(b).

12 B.

Joint Petitioners Request to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance Should Be Rejected as Unsupported.

Despite not having filed anything approaching a viable contention to justify the continued existence of this proceeding, Joint Petitioners nonetheless ask the Secretary to hold this proceeding in abeyance, pending their challenge to the 2024 License Renewal Rule in the D.C.

Circuit. This is inappropriate. The Commission does not hold proceedings in abeyance or stay licensing actions solely because a petitioner is challenging a related rule in federal court.44 Otherwise, petitioners could grind any number of adjudicatory proceedings to a halt simply by filing an appellate challenge.

On the contrary, [t]he Commission considers suspension of licensing proceedings a drastic action that is not warranted absent immediate threats to public health and safety, 45 and any request to hold a proceeding in abeyance must demonstrate that moving forward with

[an] adjudication [would] jeopardize the public health and safety, prove an obstacle to fair and efficient decision-making, or prevent appropriate implementation of any pertinent rule or policy changes.46 The Petition does not address these factors to hold the proceeding in abeyance.

Joint Petitioners also fail to address the factors required to stay issuance of the license pending judicial review, including threat of immediate and irreparable harm and likelihood of 44 See Oyster Creek, CLI-08-13, 67 N.R.C. at 400-401 (requiring petitioner to demonstrate a threat of immediate and irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits to stay a proceeding during a rulemaking challenge in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals).

45 AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-08-23, 68 N.R.C. 461, 484-85 (2008) (quoting Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-00-20, 52 N.R.C. 151, 173-74 (2000) (declining to hold four license renewal proceedings in abeyance where petitioners requested a comprehensive overhaul of the license renewal process after an NRC Office of the Inspector General audit report of the same); see also Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation),

CLI-01-26, 54 N.R.C. 376, 383 (2001) (denial of motion for abeyance to postpone licensing proceedings to await ongoing review of the Commissions terrorism-related policies in the wake of the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001).

46 PFS, CLI-01-26, 54 N.R.C. at 380 (2001).

13 success on the merits.47 Joint Petitioners failure to address the stay criteria is reason enough to reject any implied request for a stay.48 However, there is also no reason to believe that Joint Petitioners could ever meet the criteria for a stay even if they had attempted to do so. Through its continuing oversight authority, the NRC retains the ability to impose conditions on the Peach Bottom subsequently renewed license if an issue is ever discoveredas a license renewal may be set aside (or appropriately conditioned) even after it has been issued, upon subsequent administrative or judicial review.49 Also, because Peach Bottom is already operating under the subsequently renewed licenses, and this proceeding is intended only to modify the existing licenses to restore the end dates for the subsequent periods of extended operations, there is little argument that restoring the end dates could cause immediate or irreparable harm sufficient to justify a stay.

Because Joint Petitioners have not, and cannot, meet the criteria to hold this proceeding in abeyance or to stay the licensing action, their request should be denied.

C.

Joint Petitioners Contention Also Fails to Meet the Timeliness Requirement Set Forth in the Federal Register Notice and the Traditional Standards for a Motion to Reopen or a Late-Filed Contention.

When the Commission required the NRC Staff to update the 2013 GEIS for subsequent license renewal, it noted that [a]fter each site-specific review is complete, a new notice of opportunity for hearinglimited to contentions based on new information in the site-specific environmental impact statement[would] be issued, and taking [t]his approach [would] not require intervenors to meet heightened pleading standards in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) for newly filed 47 10 C.F.R. § 2.342; Oyster Creek, CLI-08-13, 67 N.R.C. at 399 (2008).

48 Oyster Creek, CLI-08-13, 67 N.R.C. at 399 ([Petitioners] do not address the four stay factors in their Motion, which is reason enough to deny it.).

49 Id. at 400.

14 or refiled contentions.50 Joint Petitioners, however, did not comply with Commissions proposed approach, since the Petition fails to challenge any information in the Draft Supplement for Peach Bottom (or to include any claims specific to the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant at all). Having failed to meet the singular timeliness requirement that the Commission set forth for a newly filed contention in this unusual circumstance, Joint Petitioners should not receive the benefit of the Commissions proposed approach and should instead be held to the heightened pleading standards in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) and the reopening standards in 10 C.F.R. § 2.326 that would otherwise govern. Joint Petitioners neither address nor meet those standards, and for that additional reason their Contention should be denied.

The Contention should also be denied because Joint Petitioners could have raised these claims at the outset of the adjudicatory proceeding on Peach Bottom. In fact, Beyond Nuclear did raise the same claims regarding the NRCs purported failure to assess the deterioration of safety components and the impact on nuclear reactor accidents during subsequent license renewal in its original Contention 2B. That contention was rejected by both the Board and the Commission for failing to show a genuine dispute with the application, failing to establish a connection between the documents supporting its contention and a change to the environmental consequences or impacts related to design-basis accidents, failing to link the missing information to any environmental consequences during the subsequent license renewal term, failing to show why the studies it cites would be material to the analysis of the environmental impacts of subsequent license renewal, and failing to explain[] the relevance of the asserted missing information to design-basis accident risk or the environmental consequences of such 50 CLI-22-3, 95 N.R.C. 40, 42 (emphasis added).

15 accidents.51 Joint Petitioners continue to ignore the Peach Bottom licensing analysis, and the Commission determination on Contention 2B should control the outcome here as the law of the case.

Joint Petitioners could have also attempted to raise any particular concerns about climate change effects at Peach Bottom at the outset of this proceeding. The 2018 Peach Bottom ER specifically stated that [i]n response to the recommendations of the NRCs Fukushima Task Force, Exelon Generation reevaluated the flood causing mechanisms for PBAPS, and that reevaluation verified that flooding would have no effect on safety-related systems, structures, and components.52 Constellation further evaluated whether new and significant information would impact its severe accident analysis through (1) interviews with Exelon Generation subject matter experts on the validity of the conclusions in the 1996 and 2013 GEISs as they relate to PBAPS, and [a] (2) review of documents related to predicted impacts of severe accidents at PBAPS.53 This included an analysis of external events and other considerations such as the Fukushima Daiichi Near Term Task Force findings and recommendations which ultimately led to a finding of no new and significant information that would alter the prior conclusions regarding the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents.54 Joint Petitioners failed to dispute this analysis at the outset of this proceeding, and still fail to address any particular climate change-related concerns at Peach Bottom.

For these reasons, the Petition should be rejected as untimely.

51 CLI-20-11, 92 N.R.C. 335, 346 (2020).

52 ER at 3-28 (citing Letter to NRC regarding Response to March 12, 2012 Request for Information Enclosure 2, Recommendation 2.1, Flooding, Required Response 2, Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report. RS-1 5-1 63, August 12, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15233A067)).

53 ER at 4-70.

54 Id.

16 D.

The Board Should Reject the Petition Without Requiring Oral Argument.

While Boards often hold oral argument on contention admissibility, it is not required under NRC rules of practice.55 Oral argument is primarily intended for the Board to ensure that its members fully understand the participants positions set forth in the petition to intervene, answer, and reply.56 It is not an opportunity to offer additional evidence or arguments beyond those set forth on the papers.57 As addressed previously, this Petition and the stated Contention are facially inadequate.

Joint Petitioners fail to contravene or dispute anything in the Draft Supplement, fail to file a claim specific to the Peach Bottom proceeding, and instead engage wholly in a collateral attack on an NRC rule. Joint Petitioners also fail to address the criteria to hold this proceeding in abeyance or for a stay of the licensing action. Joint Petitioners did not even follow the Commissions timeliness requirement to address new information in the Draft Supplement, and their filing does not address or meet the motion to reopen requirements or late-filed contention requirements in the alternative.

This filing is wholly inadequate and could have been dismissed outright under the Secretarys authority under 10 C.F.R. § 2.346(h) to [d]eny a request for hearings, where the request fails to comply with the Commission's pleading requirements set forth in this part, and fails to set forth an arguable basis for further proceedings.58 Because it is so fundamentally inadequate, the Petition does not warrant oral argument and should be rejected by the Board out of hand.

55 10 C.F.R. § 2.331.

56 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units, Nos. 2 and 3), CLI-08-7, 67 N.R.C.

187, 191.

57 Id.

58 10 C.F.R. § 2.346(h).

17 V.

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Joint Petitioners Petition should be denied.

Jason C. Zorn Associate General Counsel Constellation Energy Generation, LLC 250 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 760 Washington DC 20001 Telephone: 240.645.3443 E-mail: jason.zorn@constellation.com Donald P. Ferraro Assistant General Counsel Constellation Energy Generation, LLC 200 Exelon Way, Suite 305 Kennett Square, PA 19348 Telephone: 610.765.5381 E-mail: donald.ferraro@constellation.com August 25, 2025 Respectfully submitted,

/signed electronically by Anne Leidich/

Anne Leidich PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 1200 Seventeenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202-663-8707 Facsimile: 202-663-8007 E-mail: anne.leidich@pillsburylaw.com Counsel for Constellation Energy Generation, LLC

18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of

)

)

Constellation Energy Generation, LLC

)

Docket Nos. 50-277-SLR

)

50-278-SLR

)

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,

)

Units 2 and 3

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Answer Opposing Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Clubs Hearing Request, Petition for Leave to Intervene, and Request to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance has been served through the E-Filing system on the participants in the above-captioned proceeding this 25th day of August, 2025.

/signed electronically by Anne Leidich/

Anne Leidich