ML22273A087
| ML22273A087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 06300001 |
| Issue date: | 09/30/2022 |
| From: | Adam Gendelman, Kevin Roach, Silva A NRC/OGC |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| ASLBP 09-892-HLW-CAB04, HLW License App 63-001 CAB04, RAS 56462 | |
| Download: ML22273A087 (15) | |
Text
September,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (High-Level Waste Repository)
Docket No. --HLW NRC STAFF ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO NEVADAS REQUEST TO LIFT THE SUSPENSION OF THE ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDING FOR LIMITED PURPOSES INTRODUCTION On September,, eleven years after this proceeding was suspended, the State of Nevada moved to lift the suspension of this proceeding. Nevada argues that resuming this proceeding is now required by Aiken County,1 fundamental fairness, and Commission precedent.2 Nevada further argues that its contemplated motions for summary disposition would resolve key issues and have the potential to conclude the adjudicatory proceeding with a dispositive decision on the merits.3 As discussed below, Nevadas motion should be denied. As a threshold matter, the motion is untimely. Further, consideration of Nevadas proposed motions for summary disposition are not required by Aiken County, fairness, or Hydro Resources. Instead, Nevadas motions would rapidly consume extremely limited remaining funds, would not make meaningful progress in the proceeding, and would preclude consideration of other parties views on the 1 In re Aiken County, F.d (D.C. Cir. ).
2 Nevada Request to Lift the Suspension of the Adjudicatory Proceeding for Limited Purposes, at (Sept., ) (Motion).
3 Id. at.
direction of the proceeding. Following Aiken County, the Commission declined to resume this adjudicatory proceeding because available funds, then in excess of $ million, were grossly insufficient to make meaningful progress in the adjudicatory proceeding, let alone resolve it.4 That rationale applies here even more strongly, with less than $, available.5 BACKGROUND On September,, the Commission announced that it was evenly divided as to whether the Commission should review, and reverse or uphold, the fourth Construction Authorization Boards (CAB-or the Board) denial of the U.S. Department of Energys (DOE) motion to withdraw its construction authorization application.6 The Commission directed the Board to complete all necessary and appropriate case management activities, including disposal of all matters currently pending before it and comprehensively documenting the full history of the adjudicatory proceeding.7 Consistent with the Commissions direction, the Board suspended the adjudicatory proceeding on September,, documenting the proceedings history and citing fiscal constraints.8 At the time the proceeding was suspended, fifteen parties had been granted intervention in the proceeding, two counties had been admitted as interested governmental participants, and one organization had been permitted to participate as amicus curiae.9 In addition, the Board noted that contentions were pending and would be ripe for adjudication at evidentiary hearings after the completion of discovery, issuance of the four remaining safety evaluation 4 CLI--, NRC,, (); see also Aiken County, F.d at (No one disputes that
$ million is wholly insufficient to complete the processing of the application.) (Garland, C.J., dissenting).
5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Waste Fund Expenditures (July ) (ADAMS accession no. MLA).
6 CLI--, NRC, ().
7 Id.
8 LBP--, NRC, - ().
9 Id. at. The Florida Public Service Commission was participating as amicus curiae. See LBP--,
NRC, ().
report (SER) volumes, which were then in various states of completion, and any needed supplementation of the DOE environmental impact statement (EIS).10 Discovery was in progress although no depositions had been held.11 Due to the lack of budgeted funds, the Licensing Support Network (LSN)12 was shut down, and consistent with Board orders, all participants other than the NRC staff (whose LSN collection resided in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)), delivered electronic copies of their LSN collections to the Secretary.13 On August 13, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted a writ of mandamus, directing the NRC to resume the licensing process.14 On August 30, 2013, the Commission invited participants in the proceeding to provide their views as to how the agency should continue with the licensing process.15 On November 18, 2013, the Commission ordered that the adjudicatory proceeding remain suspended and that the NRC staff should work to complete the remaining SER volumes and monitor the status of DOE developing a supplemental EIS for NRC consideration and adoption.16 In a subsequent order, the Commission reiterated that the adjudicatory proceeding remain suspended, and that limited agency resources should be focused instead on activities that are intended to advance the process in a manner that is constructive and consistent with the courts decision and the resources available.17 In addition, the Commission noted that, because the adjudication would remain suspended, it did not consider various adjudication-10 See LBP--, NRC at.
11 See CAB Case Management Order #, at, (Sept., ) (unpublished).
12 See C.F.R. §. (defining Licensing Support Network).
13 CLI-11-13, 74 NRC 635, 637-38 (2011).
14 Aiken County, 725 F.3d at 267.
15 Order of the Secretary, at 1 (Aug. 30, 2013) (unpublished).
16 CLI--, NRC at.
17 CLI--, NRC, ().
related requests from the parties.18 Instead, the Commission stated that participants will have the opportunity to resubmit requests associated with the conduct of the proceeding if the proceeding resumes.19 Since the suspension of the adjudicatory proceeding in 2011, the NRC staff has issued the remaining volumes of its SER20 and published a supplement to DOEs EIS.21 On September 20, 2022, Nevada filed the instant motion before the Commission.
Nevada asks that the Commission lift the current suspension of the Yucca Mountain adjudicatory proceeding for the limited purpose of considering three Nevada motions for summary disposition, and depending on how the Commission rules on the summary disposition motions, a motion to disapprove the issuance of the construction authorization.22 Nevada states that the summary disposition motions would relate to land ownership and controls, military aircraft flight restrictions, and human-induced climate change.23 Nevada claims that both DOE and the NRC Staff have conceded that the [license application] fails to comply with NRC regulations applicable to these three safety matters.24 DISCUSSION As described below, Nevadas motion is untimely, consideration of its proposed motions for summary disposition is not compelled by the authorities it cites, would not make meaningful 18 Id. at.
19 Id. (citing CLI--, NRC at -).
20 See Safety Evaluation Report Related to Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, NUREG-, vol. (Aug. ) (ML), vol.
(Jan. ) (MLA), vol. (Oct. ) (MLA), vol. (Dec. ) (MLA), vol.
(Jan. ) (MLA).
21 See Supplement to the U.S. Department of Energys Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (Final Report), NUREG- (May ) (MLA).
22 Motion at. While Nevada filed this motion before the Commission, CAB-issued the order suspending the proceeding. See LBP--, NRC at.
23 Motion at -.
24 Id. at.
progress in or resolve this proceeding, and would be an imprudent use of extremely limited remaining resources.
I.
Nevadas Motion Is Not Timely After Aiken County and consideration of the many parties views on how to proceed, the Commission opted not to resume the adjudicatory proceeding, noting that available funds (then in excess of $ million) were not nearly sufficient to make significant progress in the hearing.25 Now that the proceeding has been suspended for eleven years, Nevada argues that the NRC regulations governing the timeliness of motions do not apply here.26 In the alternative, Nevada argues that Congress decision not to appropriate resources from the Nuclear Waste Fund to the NRC in the current fiscal year (or in the last ten) gives rise to the current motion, and that the passage of time without change makes its motion timely, especially given the risk that the NRC would have insufficient money left in its Nuclear Waste Fund appropriation to consider Nevadas motions.27 These arguments fail to meet the NRCs pleading requirements, as discussed below.
First, Nevada argues that C.F.R. §., which requires that motions be made no later than ten days after the circumstance from which the motion arises, does not apply here.28 Specifically, Nevada claims that this motion is inextricably connected to its contemplated motions for summary disposition, which are not governed by C.F.R. §..29 But to file a motion for summary disposition, Nevada properly identified the need to first move to lift the suspension in this proceeding. Nevada makes this precise point in its message to the parties appended to its motion: At this time, your views should focus on the motion to lift the 25 CLI--, NRC at.
26 Motion at.
27 Id. at.
28 Id. at.
29 Id. at. Under subpart J, C.F.R. §. governs motions for summary disposition.
suspension because the other motions cannot be filed unless and until the Commission allows Nevada to file them.30 In the same message, Nevada makes clear that it is consulting with the parties pursuant to C.F.R. §.: The Commission's Rules of Practice at 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.323(b) provide that, before any motion such as this is filed, the moving party must make a sincere effort to contact other parties in the proceeding and resolve the issues raised in the motion.31 The present motion is likewise not captioned as a motion for summary disposition (nor is it one), but as a request to lift the suspension of the adjudicatory proceeding. Thus, as Nevada has explicitly acknowledged in the consultation process, C.F.R. §. applies here by straightforward application of the NRCs rules of practice.
Nevada claims in the alternative that an increasing burden over time makes its motion timely. Nevada states that because of this burden, it cannot be held to the ten-day clock of C.F.R. §.,32 and that the increasing risk that the NRC may not have sufficient Nuclear Waste Funds33 to consider its proposed summary disposition motions justifies their consideration now.34 But this argument ignores NRC requirements. As Nevada notes, approximately eleven years has elapsed since the proceeding was suspended and [since]
Congress appropriated money for the proceeding.35 Thus, it is not clear to the NRC staff why Nevadas motion would be timely now, versus earlier or later, because there is no change in circumstances.
30 Motion, Ex. at (emphasis added).
31 Id.
32 Motion at.
33 As the Commission previously noted, the existence of a specific appropriation for Yucca Mountain-related licensing activities (i.e., appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund) prevents the NRC, under well-settled principles of appropriations law, from using its general appropriations for Yucca-related activities. CLI--, NRC at.
34 Motion at.
35 Id.
In addition, Nevada argues that insufficient Nuclear Waste Funds present a risk that the Commission will have insufficient resources to consider its summary disposition motions in the future. But the Commission is aware of the potential burden on all parties when it suspends a proceeding.36 As discussed further in Section II.A below, Nevadas argument also erroneously elevates Nevadas claims above those of other parties.37 II. Aiken County and Hydro Resources Do Not Compel Granting Nevadas Request Nevada argues that granting its motion to lift the suspension in this proceeding, but only for the purpose of considering its motions for summary disposition, is required [by Aiken County], fundamental fairness, and Commission precedent.38 As discussed below, Nevada is incorrect on each point. The suspension of this proceeding reflects the reality of the matter: the NRCs Nuclear Waste Fund resources are ever-dwindling, while significant issuesincluding issues implicated by the proposed summary disposition motionsare far from resolved.
Nevada is not entitled to resolution of its claims any more than any other party, especially where, as here, its proposal would not meaningfully move the proceeding forward.
A. Aiken County In the first paragraph of its argument, Nevada asserts that the Commission is required to spend its remaining resources to resume the adjudicatory proceeding, arguing that Aiken County requires nothing less where it directs that unless and until Congress authoritatively says otherwise or there are no appropriated funds remaining, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must promptly continue with the legally mandated licensing process.39 But in the next 36 See NRC Staff Response to August Commission Order, at - (Sept., ); Hydro Resources, Inc. (P.O. Box 15910, Rio Rancho, N.M. 87174), CLI-01-4, 53 NRC 31, 38-40 (2001)).
37 Indeed, the rationale for maintaining the suspension in this proceeding was that remaining resources were insufficient to make any meaningful progress in the proceeding. See CLI--, NRC at (In view of funding constraints, discovery activities likely would draw to an abrupt halt before significant progress can be made.).
38 Motion at.
39 Id. at (quoting Aiken County, 725 F.3d at 267).
paragraph of its argument, Nevada concedes that this would serve little purpose, stating that merely restarting the adjudicatory proceeding from the point where it stoppedbeginning deposition discoverywould not be prudent at this time because no meaningful progress could be made given the limited resources that are available.40 Nevada attempts to reconcile this tension by limiting its motion to lift the suspension as solely for the purpose of considering its contemplated motions for summary disposition. But such a limitation ignores past Commission decisions in this matter and conflates two distinct considerations: ) whether to lift the suspension, and ) if lifted, and with an opportunity for input from all parties, how to proceed.
Nevada seeks to deprive other parties of this opportunity with its approach, contrary to previous Commission statements on this matter.
In CLI--, the Commission concluded that completion of the SER and supplemental EIS were the most reasonable use of available funds, given that remaining resources were far short of what would be needed for the NRC to complete its consideration of the application.41 In that decision, the Commission explicitly considered and rejected proposals to resume the adjudicatory proceeding, noting that
[r]esuming the adjudication now likely would result in resuspension of the case in the near term without completion of meaningfulor substantialadjudicatory activities.... In addition, the record reflects that some of the less well-funded participants do not have the resources to participate fully in the adjudication at this time.... Because we have decided not to restart the adjudication, we decline to consider the participants various adjudicatory requests today. Should we lift the suspension in the future, participants will have the opportunity to resubmit requests associated with the conduct of the proceeding at that time.42 Nevada seeks to circumvent this opportunity and consume the limited remaining resources of the NRC (and other parties) only for the purpose of considering its contemplated motions for summary disposition. But Nevada is no more entitled to the consideration of its claims than any 40 Id. at.
41 CLI--, NRC at -.
42 Id. at (emphasis added). In fact, multiple parties with admitted contentions in this proceeding did not even respond to Nevadas consultation request. Motion at.
other party.43 Indeed, in the same decision, the Commission critically observed that given limited resources, prudence requires that the NRC consider the amount of funding available not as a means of determining whether to proceed on the license application (an inquiry that the mandamus order forecloses), but in determining how to proceed (an inquiry that the mandamus order does not address and that prudent fiscal management requires us to consider).44 This is why the Commission chose not to resume the adjudicatory proceeding when only $13 million were available,45 and why the Commission should likewise choose not to do so here, where only a small fraction of that amountless than $300,000remains.
B. Hydro Resources, Burden, and Fairness Nevada next claims that fundamental fairness requires that the NRC grant its request and consider its motions for summary disposition. Noting the costs associated with retaining experts, document preservation, and retention of counsel, Nevada cites the Commissions decision in Hydro Resources as requiring this outcome.46 The NRC staff does not doubt that Nevada has expended significant resources associated with this proceeding and that holding any proceeding in suspension for such a long period of time burdens all parties. But the current posture of this proceeding is a consequence of budgetary limitations, not traditional case management considerations.47In the Staffs submission to the Commission providing its views on how to proceed after Aiken County, the Staff discussed the potential resumption of the 43 For example, the Commission deferred consideration of the Timbisha Shoshone Tribal Councils request for recognition, stating that should this adjudicatory proceeding recommence in the future, the Tribal Council may renew its request. CLI--, NRC at.
44 CLI--, NRC at.
45 The apparent discrepancy in remaining Nuclear Waste Funds discussed in CLI-- is because, at the time, approximately $ million were available in unobligated carryover funds, with an additional $2.5 million in obligated, unexpended funds that would become available if these funds were found eligible for subsequent deobligation. See CLI-13-8, 78 NRC at 228 & n.35.
46 Motion at (citing Hydro Resources, CLI-01-4, 53 NRC 31).
47 CLI--, NRC at ; CLI--, NRC at & n..
proceeding at length, including a discussion of Hydro Resources.48 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Commissions policy is that licensing proceedings should be conducted as promptly as practicable.49 The Commissions adjudicatory policies and procedures are intended to () provide a fair hearing process to avoid unnecessary delays in the NRCs review and hearing process, and () to produce an informed adjudicatory record that supports agency decision making.50 To this end, the Commissions longstanding practice is to limit orders delaying proceedings to the duration and scope necessary to promote the Commissions dual goals of public safety and timely adjudication,51 and the Commission endeavors to complete hearings and reach a final decision within a reasonable time.52 Critically, however, the Commission has drawn a distinction when going forward would be a waste of resources,53 which is the case here.
Nevada claims that Hydro Resources requires the Commission to grant its request, asserting that the circumstances that give rise to its claims here are even more egregious than in Hydro Resources.54 But then Nevada concedes that the relief provided in Hydro Resources, a prompt and thorough hearing, cannot be granted because of the insufficiency of funds.55 But 48 NRC Staff Response to August Commission Order, at - (Sept., ).
49 See Hydro Resources, Inc. (P.O. Box 15910, Rio Rancho, N.M. 87174), CLI-04-14, 59 NRC 250, 254 (2004); see also Hydro Resources, CLI-01-4, 53 NRC at 38 (the Commission has a long-standing commitment to the expeditious completion of adjudicatory proceedings) (quoting Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18, 24 (1998)).
50 Hydro Resources, CLI-01-4, 53 NRC at 38-43 (postponing the conclusion of a hearing for the convenience of the applicant (to save resources) is not warranted given that a delay of years (due to project indecision based on market conditions) to resume proceeding on a voluminous record would require parties to have to begin virtually from scratch to reacquaint themselves with case details; fairness to the parties, including intervenors concern that expert affidavits could grow stale and previously retained experts could become unavailable, dictate resumption of delayed portion of litigation).
51 Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-01-26, 54 NRC 376, 381 (2001).
52 Id. (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 558(c)).
53 Id. at 383 (where delay was warranted because of a state ruling blocking construction of a facility).
54 Motion at.
55 Id. at.
the Commission was aware of its own precedent in Hydro Resources when, ten years later, the Commission first directed that this proceeding be suspended,56 as well as when it later chose not to resume the adjudicatory proceeding after Aiken County based upon the presence of special circumstances (that is, insufficient resources).57 Those same circumstances are present now, only far more acutely, with less than $, available,58 compared to over $ million in
,59 and an estimate of over $ million for the NRC to complete the licensing process.60 Therefore, neither Aiken County, fundamental fairness, nor Hydro Resources require or even suggest the granting of Nevadas motion to lift the suspension or consider its motions for summary disposition. Instead, and as discussed in detail in Section III below, consideration of Nevadas motions would rapidly consume limited funds without purpose or prospect of progress.
III. Nevadas Motions Would Not Resolve Major Issues or Conclude This Proceeding Coupled to Nevadas procedural claims for resuming this adjudication are its claims that its motions would resolve key issues and have the potential to conclude the adjudicatory proceeding with a dispositive decision on the merits.61 But Nevada is incorrect. Nevada misreads applicable requirements and makes incorrect assertions about the necessary steps in the NRCs decision making process in this matter.
NRC regulations do not allow the Commission to reach a decision on the DOE application until completion of () the NRC staffs safety and environmental reviews, () formal discovery (including depositions, interrogatories, and requests for admissions), () litigation, 56 See CLI--, NRC at.
57 See CLI--, NRC at -.
58 As of July,, the NRC had $, in Nuclear Waste Funds remaining. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Waste Fund Expenditures (July ) (MLA).
59 CLI--, NRC at.
60 See, e.g., U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO--, Commercial Nuclear Waste: Resuming Licensing of the Yucca Mountain Repository Would Require Rebuilding Capacity at DOE and NRC, Among Other Key Steps, at - (April ) (https://www.gao.gov/products/gao--).
61 Motion at.
including a hearing, on admitted contentions and any new contentions, and () Commission review of contested and uncontested issues.62 Or as the Commission noted in CLI--,
[c]onsistent with our rules, before a final decision approving or disapproving a construction authorization application may be reached, not only must the Staff complete its safety and environmental reviews but a formal hearing must be conducted, and our own review of both contested and uncontested issues must take place.63 Thus, Nevadas claim that consideration of these motions even has the potential to resolve the pending matter is incorrect.64 IV. The NRC Does Not Have Sufficient Resources to Resume the Adjudication Consideration of available resources has featured prominently in the Commissions past decision making in this matter and the NRC staffs arguments in this response. The Commissions guiding principle in steering the Yucca Mountain review and adjudicatory activities to their current posture has been to prioritize the prudent stewardship of the NRCs remaining 62 See C.F.R. Part, Appendix D; C.F.R. §§.;.; see also C.F.R. §.(c) ([I]n any proceeding involving a construction authorization for a geologic repository operations area, the procedure described in this section [for disposing of certain issues on the pleadings] may be used only for the determination of specific subordinate issues and may not be used to determine the ultimate issue as to whether the authorization must be issued.) (providing that motions for summary disposition cannot be used to determine the ultimate issueauthorization of construction).
63 CLI -, NRC at (emphasis added).
64 While such motions would not result in meaningful progress in or resolution of this proceeding even if Nevadas descriptions prove accurate (see infra Section IV), the topics Nevada identified for its proposed motions for summary disposition are disputed, as Nevada seems to concede at least in part. See Motion at, nn.-. Nevada states that its motions for summary disposition will be simple, straightforward, and based on clearly uncontested facts, and that no discovery is needed because, as the motions will demonstrate, the facts are indisputable and supported by unambiguous admissions by both DOE and NRC Staff. Motion at,. While the NRC staff appreciates Nevadas sensitivity to agency and party resources in not submitting its proposed motions for summary disposition with its motion to lift the suspension, the NRC staff does not agree with Nevadas characterizations. Indeed, while Nevada asserts its motions will be simple and straightforward, it also previews its serious problems with the evaluation and conclusions in the NRCs staffs SER, as well as with the legal sufficiency of aspects of the NRC staffs proposed regulatory approach. Motion at, nn.-.
Whether any of the nearly pending contentions (from Nevada or other parties) could be appropriate for summary disposition with little additional discovery is unknown. Given extremely limited resources, the Commission should not grant Nevadas motion to lift the suspension because it likely would result in resuspension of the case in the near term without completion of meaningfulor substantialadjudicatory activities, (CLI--, NRC at ), and would, in essence, be directing the parties to expend resources on a useless thing. See Aiken County, F.d at - (Garland, C.J, dissenting) (citing United States ex rel. Sierra Land & Water Co. v. Ickes, 84 F.2d 228, 232 (D.C. Cir. 1936)).
Nuclear Waste Fund resources, ensuring that they are used to accomplish the completion of meaningful activities.65 In advancing its proposal to lift the suspension in this unprecedented, complex, multi-party litigation, Nevada attempts to minimize any concerns regarding the scarcity of remaining Nuclear Waste Fund resources by asserting that the NRC could spend 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> reviewing, responding, and ruling on Nevadas filings without exceeding it[s] budget.66 But while Nevada presumes its own successful prospects, its calculus is unfounded and discounts the burdens that would ultimately fall upon the NRC and the parties.
The NRC staff cannot predict how long remaining Nuclear Waste Funds will last if the Commission grants Nevadas motion. However, it is likely that they will be insufficient to support full and fair consideration of Nevadas proposed motions, nor would consideration of those motions be a productive use of resources, as discussed at length above. The consequences of exhausting the agencys Nuclear Waste Fund resources during litigation, however, are predictable. Sudden stoppage of the proceeding during active litigation would create complications for preserving a record of party positions, result in even more significant burden on the parties, and would have wasted the parties and the NRCs resources on a process that led to no resolution (that is, a useless thing). With no resources available to it, the NRC would also be challenged to perform appropriate recordkeeping and administrative support functions going forward.
CONCLUSION After over a decade without a significant change in circumstances, the State of Nevada moved to lift the suspension in this proceeding. Nevadas motion is untimely, and neither Aiken County, Hydro Resources, nor fundamental fairness support granting Nevadas request.
65 See, e.g., CLI--, NRC at -.
66 Motion at n.. Nevada is correct, however, that the NRCs remaining Nuclear Waste Fund resources must support all agency Nuclear Waste Fund activities, not just NRC staff. This includes the Commission, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, and many other offices. See CLI--, NRC at &
n.; Nuclear Waste Policy Act § (d), U.S.C. § (d).
Further, consideration of Nevadas proposed motions for summary disposition would rapidly consume agency and party resources for no meaningful purpose. Therefore, Nevadas motion should be denied.
/Signed (electronically) by/
Kevin C. Roach Counsel for NRC Staff Mail Stop: O--A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC -
Telephone: () -
E-mail: Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov Executed in Accord with CFR.(d)
Adam S. Gendelman Counsel for NRC Staff Mail Stop: O--A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC -
Telephone: () -
E-mail: Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov Executed in Accord with CFR.(d)
Andrea L. Silvia Counsel for NRC Staff Mail Stop: O--A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC -
Telephone: () -
E-mail: Andrea.Silvia@nrc.gov Dated in Atlanta, GA this th day of September
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of U.S. Department of Energy (High-Level Waste Repository)
Docket No. --HLW Certificate of Service Pursuant to C.F.R §., I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC STAFF ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO NEVADAS REQUEST TO LIFT THE SUSPENSION OF THE ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDING FOR LIMITED PURPOSES, dated September,, have been served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System), in the captioned proceeding, this th day of September.
/Signed (electronically) by/
Kevin C. Roach Counsel for NRC Staff Mail Stop: O--A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC -
Telephone: () -
E-mail: Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov Dated in Atlanta, GA this th day of September