ML26054A243
| ML26054A243 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000614 |
| Issue date: | 02/23/2026 |
| From: | Lighty R, Polonsky A Long Mott Energy, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57623, 50-614-CP, ASLBP 25-991-01-CP-BD01, LBP-26-1 | |
| Download: ML26054A243 (0) | |
Text
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of:
LONG MOTT ENERGY, LLC (Long Mott Generating Station)
Docket No. 50-614-CP February 23, 2026 LONG MOTT ENERGY, LLCS MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF ITS APPEAL OF LBP-26-1 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323, Long Mott Energy, LLC (LME) respectfully requests the Commission to expedite its ruling on LMEs Appeal (Appeal) of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (Board) January 22, 2026, Memorandum and Order, issuance number LBP-26-1.1 In LBP-26-1, the Board granted petitioners hearing request, admitting two financial qualifications-related contentions challenging LMEs construction permit application (CPA) for the Long Mott Generating Station (LMGS). LMGS is being deployed through the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) under a shared cost arrangement with the U.S.
Department of Energy.
An expedited ruling is not merely a matter of convenience. To meet the NRCs 18-month target for new reactor licensing decisions, speedy issuance of appellate rulings is a regulatory necessity. To ensure this proceeding remains a model of efficiency, LME urges the Commission to issue its ruling promptly. Specifically, LME respectfully moves the Commission to rule on the Appeal (or take other prompt action as the Commission may deem necessary to promote timeliness 1
Long Mott Energy, LLC (Long Mott Generating Station), LBP-26-1, 103 NRC __ (Jan. 22, 2026) (slip op.); [LME]s Notice of Appeal of LBP-26-1 (Feb. 17, 2026); Brief in Support of [LME]s Appeal of LBP-26-1 (Feb. 17, 2026)
(ML26048A655) (Appeal).
2 and efficiency in the resolution of this proceeding)2 within thirty (30) calendar days after briefing on the Appeal is complete.3 Expedited Consideration Is Consistent with Recent Executive and Legislative Mandates Expedited consideration aligns with the statutory and administrative framework governing NRC licensing. First, passage of the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act of 2024 (on a broadly bipartisan and nearly unanimous basis) signaled Congress direction for the Commissions licensing processesparticularly for advanced and new reactorsto proceed in a timely, predictable, and efficient manner. More specifically, Congress directed the Commission to provide for efficient and timely reviews and proceedings for the grantingof [a] construction permit.4 Allowing a construction permit proceeding either to be delayed by the standard appellate timeline or to move forward with a burdensome hearing process that ultimately proves unnecessary would be neither efficient nor timely, contrary to this statutory mandate.
Second, Executive Order 14300 reinforces this federal policy of streamlining and accelerating reviews of new reactor applications. President Trump has directed agencies to reduce unnecessary procedural delays and to ensure timely adjudicatory and permitting decisions. As to the NRC in particular, the Executive Order stresses the importance of expeditious processing of licensing applications via fixed 18-month deadlines for final decisions on CPAs, and it explicitly directs the Commission to streamline the public hearing process.5 A prompt ruling on the Appeal 2
If issuance of a fulsome decision on the appeal is not feasible on this timeline, the Commission could consider other options, such as issuing a simple-but-expedited order declaring the outcome of the appeal followed by a detailed explanatory memorandum at a later date.
3 Any opposition briefs are due on March 16, 2026. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.311(b).
4
[ADVANCE] Act of 2024, Pub. L. No. 118-67, § 505(b)(1), 138 Stat. 1448, 1478 (amending Section 181 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. § 2231)) (emphasis added).
5 Executive Order 14300, Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission § 4(a), 5(a), and (5)(j),
90 Fed. Reg. 22,587, 22,588-89 (May 29, 2025).
3 would facilitate the NRCs satisfaction of these objectives. In contrast, allowing litigation to proceed on contentions that should not have been admitted undermines these directives.
Expedited Consideration Is Consistent with Agency Policy and Modernization Efforts Expedited consideration of the Appeal would be consistent with the Commissions longstanding Principles of Good Regulation.6 In particular, the Efficiency principle encourages the NRC to issue decisions without undue delay. It also stands for the proposition that
[r]egulatory activities should be consistent with the degree of risk reduction they achieve, and that, [w]here several effective alternatives are available, the option which minimizes the use of resources should be adopted. In contrast, requiring litigation to proceed on contentions that were improperly admitted would not minimize the use of resourcesfor applicants, intervenors, or the NRCand would not serve any risk-reduction objective.
Additionally, expedited consideration would be consistent with other recent and soon-to-be-completed adjudicatory modernization efforts. For example, in Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) SECY-24-0032, the Commission approved reforms to the mandatory hearing process, specifically aimed at increasing efficiency.7 And the NRC anticipates publication of a proposed rule intended to streamline contested hearings, such as this one, within the next few weeks.8 Although adjudicatory reforms are ongoing at this time, the Commission should take steps in this case-specific adjudication to ensure efficient and timely resolution.
6 Values, NRC.gov, https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/values.
7 SRM-SECY-24-0032, Revisiting the Mandatory Hearing Process at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (July 18, 2024) (ML24200A044).
8 See Planned Rulemaking Activities; Streamlining Contested Adjudications in Licensing Proceedings; Docket ID NRC-2025-1501; RIN 3150-AL58 (estimated proposed rule publication date: 3/6/2026),
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/rulemaking-ruleforum/active/ruledetails?id=2243.
4 Expedited Consideration Is Reasonably Achievable In This Case The issues on appeal do not involve complex safety matters and their resolution should not require specialized technical review. The Appeal involves procedural mechanics regarding financial qualifications for a reactor construction permit applicant. These circumstances should allow the Commission to swiftly reach a bottom-line decision on the Appeal (or take other appropriate actions) without undue delay.
LMEs Appeal also encourages the Commission to clarify agency policy on allowing petitioners to rely on the proximity-based presumption of standing, rather than requiring petitioners to address the traditional elements of judicial standing, in proceedings involving non-large light water reactors. However, LME recognizes that this question may not be suitable for expedited review because it implicates broader policy issues that may benefit from further (or generic) analysis or solicitation of amicus briefs. If resolution of this issue would delay a ruling on the Appeal, LME respectfully requests that the Commission decouple its consideration of the standing issue from the contention admissibility issues raised in the Appeal.
In sum, expedited consideration here would be consistent with legislative mandates and the NRCs existing and forthcoming regulatory frameworks. LMEs Appeal presents threshold legal questions regarding contention admissibility that are susceptible to swift and straightforward resolution. Resolving these questions nowbefore the litigants exhaust resources on potentially unnecessary litigationpromotes efficiency and ensures that the proceeding remains aligned with the Commissions requirements and statutory obligations. Accordingly, the Commission should GRANT this Motion.9 9
Counsel for LME certifies that LME made a sincere effort to contact the NRC Staff and Waterkeeper to consult on this motion pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.323(b). Waterkeeper take[s] no position on this motion. The NRC Staff does not oppose this motion and declines to join it.
5 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)
ALEX S. POLONSKY, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 739-5830 alex.polonsky@morganlewis.com Counsel for Long Mott Energy, LLC Dated in Washington, DC this 23rd day of February 2026
DB3/ 205239994.3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of:
LONG MOTT ENERGY, LLC (Long Mott Generating Station)
Docket No. 50-614-CP February 23, 2026 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I certify that, on this date, a copy of the foregoing Long Mott Energy, LLCs Motion for Expedited Consideration of Its Appeal of LBP-26-1 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 Long Mott Energy, LLC