ML25065A051

Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-25-01)

ML25065A051
Person / Time
Site:	06300001
Issue date:	03/06/2025
From:	Carrie Safford NRC/SECY
To:	State of NV
SECY RAS
References
ASLBP 09-892-HLW-CAB04, RAS 57312, HLW License App 63-001 CAB04, CLI-25-01
Download: ML25065A051 (0)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:

David A. Wright, Chairman Annie Caputo Christopher T. Hanson Bradley R. Crowell Matthew J. Marzano In the Matter of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (High Level Waste Repository)

Docket No.

-HLW CLI-MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Today we address the State of Nevada¶s request to lift the current suspension of the Yucca Mountain adjudicatory proceeding for the limited purpose of considering three summary disposition motions Nevada proposes to file challenging the U.S. Department of Energy¶s (DOE¶s) application for the Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive waste repository.1 Nevada states that lifting the suspension of this proceeding for this limited purpose is required by governing law, fundamental fairness, and Commission precedent.2 Nevada¶s request is opposed 1 Nevada Request to Lift the Suspension of the Adjudicatory Proceeding for Limited Purposes (Sept.

) (Nevada Request).

2 Id. at.

by the Joint Opposing Parties,3 the State of Washington, and the NRC Staff.4 For the reasons discussed below, we deny Nevada¶s request and continue to hold this adjudication in abeyance.

BACKGROUND The history of the Yucca Mountain proceeding is extensive and described fully in previous Commission and licensing board decisions.5 As relevant to our decision today, the Staff accepted DOE¶s construction authorization application for review in

, and the related litigation in the adjudicatory proceeding resulted in the admission of fourteen parties and contentions challenging DOE¶s application and the environmental review.6 In March

, DOE filed a motion to withdraw its construction authorization application with prejudice, which the Board denied.7 During this time period, Congress stopped appropriating funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the NRC¶s review of the application, and in we announced that the Commission was evenly divided on whether to take affirmative action to overturn or uphold the 3 The Joint Opposing Parties are the Nuclear Energy Institute; Nye County, Nevada; the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; and the State of South Carolina. See The Joint Opposition of the Nuclear Energy Institute; Nye County, Nevada; The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; and the State of South Carolina to the State of Nevada¶s Motion to Lift the Suspension of the Adjudicatory Proceeding for the Yucca Mountain Construction Authorization (Sept.

) (Joint Opposing Parties¶ Answer).

4 See The State of Washington¶s Answer Opposing Nevada¶s Motion to Lift the Suspension of the Adjudicatory Proceeding for the Yucca Mountain Construction Authorization (Sept.

)

(State of Washington¶s Answer); NRC Staff Answer in Opposition to Nevada¶s Request to Lift the Suspension of the Adjudicatory Proceeding for Limited Purposes (Sept.

) (Staff¶s Answer). DOE, a regulatorily designated party in the adjudicatory proceeding, did not file an answer to Nevada¶s request.

5 See, e.g., CLI-NRC

(

), reconsideration denied, CLI-NRC,

- (

); LBP- -

NRC

(

); LBP-NRC

n. (

) (listing relevant decisions).

6 In addition, at the time the proceeding was suspended, two Nevada counties were participating as interested governmental participants and the Florida Public Service Commission was participating as amicus curiae. See LBP- -

NRC at

. Six licensing boards oversaw the adjudicatory proceeding in its seven-year active history. Id. All references hereafter to the ³Board' are to the fourth Construction Authorization Board, or CAB-7 LBP-NRC at

Board¶s denial of DOE¶s motion to withdraw its application.8 Therefore, we directed the Board to

³complete all necessary and appropriate case management activities, including disposal of all matters currently pending before it.'9 Consistent with our direction, the Board suspended the adjudicatory proceeding.10 In August

, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a writ of mandamus ordering the NRC to ³promptly continue with the legally mandated licensing process' of a high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain, ³unless and until Congress authoritatively says otherwise or there are no appropriated funds remaining.'11 In response to the writ of mandamus, we requested the views of the participants on the course of action the NRC should undertake to continue with the Yucca Mountain licensing process.12 After considering the participants¶ views, we issued a decision and companion Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) setting forth the licensing actions we approved.13 As we explained in CLI-

- and the companion SRM, these actions²completing the safety evaluation report (SER), entering the Licensing Support Network (LSN) documents in the possession of the Secretary of the Commission into the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), and preparing the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS)²constituted the ³next logical steps' in the licensing process and were ³intended to advance the process µin a manner that is constructive and consistent with the court¶s decision and the resources 8 See CLI-NRC at

CLI- -,

NRC

(

).

9 CLI- -,

NRC at 10 See LBP- -

NRC at 11 In re Aiken County, F. d (D.C. Cir.

).

12 Order of the Secretary (Soliciting Views from Participants) (Aug.

) (unpublished).

13 CLI-NRC

Staff Requirements²SECY-

²Memorandum and Order Concerning Resumption of Yucca Mountain Licensing Process (Nov.

).

available.¶'14 Our decision not to resume the adjudicatory proceeding or to address the question of reconstituting the LSN was informed by the NRC¶s inability to make meaningful progress on those fronts given the limited funds available.15 Accordingly, we continued to hold the adjudicatory proceeding in abeyance and deferred ruling on various requests relating to the adjudication.16 DISCUSSION A.

Nevada¶s Request to Lift the Suspension of the Adjudicatory Proceeding Nevada requests that we lift our suspension of the proceeding for the limited purpose of ruling on three summary disposition motions Nevada is prepared to file challenging aspects of DOE¶s application.17 For the reasons discussed below, we deny Nevada¶s request.

First, we address Nevada¶s claim that lifting the suspension of the proceeding to consider its summary disposition motions is required by the mandamus order issued in Aiken County.18 Nevada argues that the mandamus order requires lifting the suspension of the proceeding to consider its motions because the SER and SEIS have been completed, and that the adjudicatory proceeding is the only significant part of the Yucca Mountain licensing process 14 CLI-NRC at - (quoting CLI-NRC at

). The LSN is the electronic system established by the NRC to provide the participants in the adjudication and the public with online access to documents that may be used to support the NRC¶s review of the Yucca Mountain construction authorization application and as evidence in the associated adjudicatory proceeding.

C.F.R. §.

(defining ³Licensing Support Network'). The LSN was discontinued in due to lack of budgeted funds. CLI- -

NRC

n. (

).

15 CLI-NRC at 16 Id. at

see also CLI-NRC at.

17 Nevada states that these summary disposition motions would relate to human-induced climate change, land ownership and controls, and military aircraft crashes. Nevada Request at -

& Ex.. Nevada also requests that our reinstatement of the adjudicatory proceeding to consider its summary disposition motions encompass a potential subsequent Nevada motion to disapprove the issuance of the construction authorization. Id. at.

18 Id. at.

where no progress has been made under the order.19 Therefore, Nevada states, because ³there is little else in the µlegally mandated licensing process¶ to spend money on... the [Aiken County court¶s] mandate to continue with the legally mandated licensing process requires the Commission to spend its remaining resources to make some significant progress in the adjudicatory proceeding.'20 Consistent with our previous decisions addressing the mandamus order, we disagree with Nevada¶s interpretation of the order. In CLI-

-, we addressed Nevada¶s argument that Aiken County mandates resumption of the adjudicatory proceeding in addition to the safety and environmental licensing activities.21 We found that reinstitution of the adjudicatory proceeding was neither compelled by federal law nor a wise use of limited resources.22 As we explained in both CLI-

- and CLI-

-, ³we 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).'23 Therefore, consistent 19 Id. at -.

20 Id. at.

21 See CLI-NRC at n.

(citing State of Nevada¶s Comments in Response to the Secretary¶s August Order (Sept.

) at - ).

22 See id. (citing City of Los Angeles v. Adams, F. d (D.C. Cir.

) (³If Congress does not appropriate enough money to meet the needs of a class of beneficiaries prescribed by Congress, and if Congress is silent on how to handle this predicament, the law sensibly allows the administering agency to establish reasonable priorities and classifications.')). The Aiken County court cited Adams for the conclusion that an underfunded agency is required to

³effectuate the original statutory scheme as much as possible, within the limits of the [budgetary]

constraint.' See Aiken County, F. d at (quoting Adams, F. d at

).

23 CLI-NRC at

with our previously stated views, we find that the court¶s direction in Aiken County allows us

³broad discretion in choosing a pragmatic course of action to resume the licensing process.'24 When we approved a course of action under Aiken County in

, approximately

$ million remained appropriated to the NRC from the Nuclear Waste Fund, and we made a prudential decision to commit the remaining Nuclear Waste Fund resources to discrete tasks, such as completing the SER, that could be fully accomplished with the limited funds available and would meaningfully advance the licensing process.25 Our chosen course of action was informed by the adjudicatory participants¶ views that the SER should be completed and the Staff¶s assurance that the remaining funds were sufficient to carry out the directed tasks in full.26 Conversely, we elected not to resume the adjudicatory proceeding because of the limited funding remaining and the likelihood that doing so ³would result in resuspension of the case in the near term without completion of meaningful²or substantial²adjudicatory activities.'27 In addition to unresolved considerations presented by whether and how to reconstitute the LSN, our decision was based in part upon the mid-discovery posture of the paused adjudication and information that some of the participants did not, at that time, have the resources to fully 24 CLI-NRC at (quoting CLI-NRC at

). Moreover, we note that the Aiken County court¶s decision to grant mandamus was based in part on ³the significant amount of money available for the Commission to continue the licensing process,' a condition that no longer exists. See Aiken County, F. d at n.

25 See CLI-NRC at - ; CLI-NRC at

. Currently, the agency has less than $

remaining in the Nuclear Waste Fund appropriation. Letter from Eugene Dacus, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, NRC, to The Honorable Brett Guthrie, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, United States House of Representatives (Jan.

),

Encl. at (ADAMS accession nos. ML A

, ML A

) (January NWF Report).

26 See CLI-NRC at

& n.

. In approving this course of action, we also noted that

³[t]he next significant milestone in the Appendix D schedule is issuance of the SER; to conform to our regulatory scheme to the extent practicable, it makes sense to proceed with the SER as the next step in this licensing process.' Id. at 27 Id. at

participate in the adjudication.28 Nevada does not assert that these circumstances have changed.29 Instead, Nevada points to the resource burdens it has incurred by maintaining its readiness to participate in the suspended proceeding and asserts that our decision in Hydro Resources and ³fundamental fairness' require granting its request because, in Nevada¶s view, its motions would facilitate a merits-based resolution of the proceeding.30 Nevada¶s argument that Commission precedent and ³fundamental fairness' compel granting its request rests on two premises: first, that its motions would resolve key issues and have ³the potential to conclude the adjudicatory proceeding with a dispositive decision on the merits'; and second, that the amount of funds remaining is sufficient to fully consider its motions and all responses thereto, as well as its anticipated follow-on motion to dismiss the proceeding.31 With respect to Nevada¶s first premise, even assuming Nevada is correct that its summary disposition motions would resolve ³key issues' in the proceeding, the NRC would need to take additional actions before rendering a final decision on the construction authorization application. To begin, our regulations exclude the use of summary disposition as the means for determining whether the construction authorization should be issued.32 And as we 28 Id. at 29 Nevada acknowledges that recommencing the proceeding at the deposition discovery phase would not be prudent ³because no meaningful progress could be made given the limited resources that are available.' Nevada Request at & n. (also noting that a new LSN rulemaking would be required if the proceeding were to resume with discovery).

30 Id. at - (citing Hydro Resources, Inc. (P.O. Box

, Rio Rancho, NM

), CLI-NRC

(

)).

31 See id. at -.

32 Compare Nevada Request at (³If successful, Nevada¶s summary disposition motions would provide the basis for a final decision on the merits disapproving the issuance of the construction authorization....') with C.F.R. §.

(c) (³[I]n any proceeding involving a construction authorization for a geologic repository operations area, the [summary disposition] procedure described in this section 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.').

stated in CLI-

-, ³before 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.'33 Second, Nevada¶s claim that the remaining funds would be sufficient to fully consider its proposed motions is disputed by the Staff and other respondents to Nevada¶s request.34 As we noted above, our chosen course of action to address the Aiken County mandamus order was predicated on the Staff¶s and DOE¶s assurances that available funds were sufficient to complete the directed tasks. No such assurances exist here. Nevada claims that with approximately remaining in the NRC¶s resources appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund, ³the NRC could spend hours reviewing, responding, and ruling on Nevada¶s filings without exceeding it[s] budget.'35 The Staff counters that it ³cannot predict how long remaining Nuclear Waste Funds will last if the Commission grants Nevada¶s motion,' but ³it is likely that [such funds] will be insufficient to support full and fair consideration of Nevada¶s proposed motions...

.'36 As noted above, less than $

currently remains available from the NRC¶s Nuclear Waste Fund appropriation.37 Lifting the suspension of this proceeding to consider Nevada¶s 33 CLI-NRC at (citing C.F.R. §§.

(e)( ),.

(a),.

) (emphasis added);

see also C.F.R. Part, Appendix D.

34 See Staff¶s Answer at

Joint Opposing Parties¶ Answer at -

see also State of Washington¶s Answer at (³The Yucca Mountain license adjudication has been stayed for more than a decade and cannot be resumed in any orderly manner until Congress again funds the adjudication.').

35 Nevada Request at n.. Nevada bases its estimate on a $

professional hourly rate for the NRC¶s review, response, and ruling on its filings.

36 Staff¶s Answer at

. The Joint Opposing Parties also challenge Nevada¶s assessment of the adequacy of remaining funds. See Joint Opposing Parties¶ Answer at,

37 See January NWF Report, Encl. at.

summary disposition motions would require the involvement of numerous agency staff, including from the Commission, Atomic Safety Licensing Board, legal, and technical staff offices.38 Although Nevada asserts that its proposed motions are ³simple, straightforward, and based on clearly uncontested facts,' the Staff and Joint Opposing Parties challenge Nevada¶s characterization of the issues in its proposed motions as undisputed and appropriate for resolution without the aid of further discovery.39 While we have previously acknowledged that summary disposition may be appropriate for certain legal contentions, our rules afford every participant in the adjudicatory proceeding the opportunity to address Nevada¶s motions and have their evidence and arguments fairly considered in the adjudicatory process, and we expect the disposition of these contentions will involve ³a thorough and meaningful discussion of the legal issues and the bases for resolving them.'40 It would be unfair to the other parties to this adjudication to assume at the outset that no discovery is necessary to resolve these issues.41 Moreover, given the length of time that the adjudicatory proceeding has been held in abeyance, there is significant uncertainty surrounding the full scope of litigation that any new dispositive 38 Even if Nevada is correct that the professional hourly rate is a suitable proxy for the calculation of the costs that the agency would incur, granting Nevada¶s request would likely quickly deplete the remaining NRC resources appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund.

39 See Nevada Request at, n. ; Staff¶s Answer at n.

Joint Opposing Parties¶ Answer at

. As the Joint Opposing Parties preview, any resumption in adjudicatory activities would likely involve contending with participants¶ views on the need for public access to the LSN document collection. See Joint Opposing Parties¶ Answer at

see also CLI-NRC at

(³To be sure... publicly availability of the LSN collection would be a central consideration in the event additional funding is provided and the adjudication goes forward.').

40 CLI-NRC

& n.

(

); see C.F.R. §.

(a)-(c); cf. §.

(a).

Nevada¶s candidate issues for summary disposition are the subject of several admitted legal issue contentions and one factual safety contention. See Nevada Request at n. ; LBP-NRC

(

).

41 We are also mindful of the burden that lifting the suspension of the proceeding would place on under-resourced participants. See CLI-NRC at n.

& n.

(noting that some participants would not have the resources to participate fully in the adjudication in the absence of additional funding being provided through appropriations or other sources).

filings would prompt. Therefore, Nevada¶s claim that full consideration of its summary disposition and related motions can be realized with available resources is unsubstantiated.42 In CLI-

-, we concluded that we would likely be unable to make meaningful progress on activities other than those outlined in our decision unless Congress appropriates additional funds for the agency¶s review of the Yucca Mountain application.43 Unlike the adjudicatory proceeding, none of those activities required the expenditure of funds for ³orderly closure.'

However, we committed to reevaluating our conclusion ³in the event that circumstances materially change.'44 We do not view the current circumstances as materially changed from those of

. Indeed, Congress has not appropriated any additional funds for the agency¶s Yucca Mountain review for over fifteen years. In addition, as anticipated, completion of the SER and the SEIS expended nearly all of the remaining resources appropriated to the NRC from the Nuclear Waste Fund, with a marginal amount remaining to satisfy the agency¶s Congressional reporting responsibilities, recordkeeping, administrative support functions, knowledge management, and litigation-related expenses.45 We are sensitive to the burdens that all the participants to the adjudicatory proceeding, including Nevada, may have sustained while the proceeding is held in abeyance. However, we do not find a compelling reason for elevating Nevada¶s claims above those of the other participants in this proceeding.46 Our chosen course of action in response to the mandamus order took into consideration all the participants¶ stated views, including those advocating 42 See Nevada Request at.

43 CLI-NRC at 44 Id.; see also CLI-NRC at.

45 See, e.g., January NWF Report, Encl. at.

46 See CLI-NRC at

see also CLI- -

NRC

(

) (declining to decide Timbisha Shoshone Tribal Council¶s petition due to suspension of the proceeding).

procedures for resuming the adjudication. In place of addressing the various motions and adjudicatory matters raised at that time, we committed to allowing participants the opportunity to resubmit their motions and requests associated with the conduct of the proceeding should the suspension be lifted in the future.47 Restarting this adjudication to only consider Nevada¶s motions, while not allowing other participants the opportunity to raise their deferred concerns, would not be an equitable course of action.

Our decision in Hydro Resources is fully consistent with these equitable considerations.

In Hydro Resources, we reversed the presiding officer¶s decision to indefinitely hold the proceeding in abeyance until the licensee determined whether it intended to proceed with operations at certain project sites.48 Our decision in Hydro Resources to lift the abeyance order was based on our determination that the presiding officer¶s deferral to the objectives of one party, the licensee, imposed an unacceptable and unfair burden on other parties in the proceeding.49 Absent extraordinary circumstances, it is the Commission¶s policy to promote the

³expeditious completion of adjudicatory proceedings.'50 The circumstances underlying our 47 See CLI-NRC at ; CLI-NRC at

. For example, we declined to consider the Timbisha Shoshone Tribal Council¶s renewed motion for recognition as the appropriate entity to represent the Tribe in this proceeding but advised that the Tribal Council may renew its filing should the adjudication be resumed in the future. See CLI-NRC at

CLI- -

NRC at 48 See Hydro Resources, CLI-NRC at

. The licensee, Hydro Resources, Inc. (HRI),

was granted a license that authorized in situ uranium recovery operations at four sites in New Mexico. HRI decided to initiate operations at only one site (Section ) and informed the presiding officer that it intended to defer its decision on whether to proceed with the other project sites to a later time. At HRI¶s request, the presiding officer bifurcated the proceeding to resolve only those issues concerning Section and held in abeyance all issues relating to the other project sites. Id. at 49 See id. at 50 Id. at (quoting Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CLI-NRC

(

)).

decision to hold the Yucca Mountain proceeding in abeyance are significantly different from those in Hydro Resources. Unlike the general case management concerns that prompted our reversal of the presiding officer¶s decision to indefinitely suspend the Hydro Resources proceeding, the current posture of this proceeding is a direct consequence of appropriations constraints.51 As Nevada acknowledges, the relief provided in Hydro Resources²resumption of the adjudicatory proceeding in full²cannot be granted here.52 Because we lack assurance that existing funds would be sufficient to allow us to fairly address all participants¶ concerns in the adjudicatory context, we deny Nevada¶s request.

B.

Timeliness of Nevada¶s Request The foregoing reasons are a sufficient basis to deny Nevada¶s request. However, we find that Nevada¶s request is also untimely. Nevada argues that C.F.R. §.

(a)( ), which requires that motions be made no later than ten days after the circumstance from which the motion arises, does not apply here because its request is ³inextricably connected' to its contemplated motions for summary disposition, which are subject to different timeliness standards.53 Specifically, the standards governing motions for summary disposition under subpart J provide that these motions may be filed at any time prior to the last date set forth in 51 Our decision to reverse the presiding officer and reinstitute the Hydro Resources proceeding was also influenced by the fact that the Staff had already granted the license and it would have remained in effect while the presiding officer held the proceeding in abeyance indefinitely, risking a ³scenario in which a hearing on the issued license is unlikely to be resumed, let alone completed, prior to the end of the original license term.'). Id. at

see also id. at

(³[A]s a matter of sound case management, we cannot abide a situation where a license is issued but contested issues lie fallow without resolution for years.'). In the present case, the agency has not yet acted on DOE¶s construction authorization application, and the construction authorization may not be issued until the Commission issues its final decision. See C.F.R.

§.

52 Nevada Request at.

53 Id. at -.

the hearing schedule in appendix D.54 But Nevada¶s request to lift the suspension of the proceeding is separate from the filing of motions for summary disposition. As such, Nevada¶s request is subject to the general requirements for motions set forth in C.F.R. §.

.55 Nevada does not point to any circumstance within ten days of filing to support the timeliness of its request. Instead, Nevada claims that the suspension should be lifted to allow consideration of its summary disposition motions because the indefinite suspension of the proceeding has caused an increasing ³unacceptable and undue burden' on Nevada, which

³cannot be decided solely by reference to some point in time, after which some ten-day clock would begin to run, or some excuse for not filing earlier would be needed.'56 Nevada also expresses concern that ³waiting until still another appropriation is denied creates the risk that the NRC would have insufficient money left in its Nuclear Waste Fund appropriation to consider Nevada¶s motions.'57 Neither rationale justifies finding Nevada¶s request timely under C.F.R.

§.

(a)( ).

54 See C.F.R. §.

(a); id. Part, Appendix D.

55 We note that Nevada considered its request to fall within the scope of C.F.R. §.

for the purpose of satisfying that provision¶s consultation requirements. See, e.g., Nevada Request at 56 Id. at.

57 Id. Nevada states that it could not have used the passage of the relevant appropriations legislation in March as the trigger for the ten-day deadline because of its concern that filing its request at that time ³could constitute a waiver of Nevada¶s objection to Commissioner Wright¶s participation on Yucca Mountain issues.' Id. at n.

. However, it is not apparent why Nevada could not have sought to preserve its recusal concerns alongside submitting its request, or why Nevada did not seek consideration of its motions any of the times during the last several years in which the membership of the Commission would obviate its quorum and recusal concerns.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Nevada¶s request to lift the suspension of the Yucca Mountain adjudicatory proceeding is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

For the Commission Carrie M. Safford Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this th day of March

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

)

Docket No. 63-001-HLW (High-Level Waste Repository)

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-25-01) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange and by email.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLBP)

Mail Stop T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Construction Authorization Board 04 (CAB04)

G. Paul Bollwerk, Presiding Officer Administrative Judge Paul.Bollwerk@nrc.gov Whitlee Dean, Law Clerk Whitlle.Dean@nrc.gov Georgia Rock, Law Clerk Georgia.Rock@nrc.gov U.S. Department of Energy Office of General Counsel 1000 Independence Avenue S.W.

Washington, DC 20585 Martha S. Crosland, Esq.

martha.crosland@hq.doe.gov James Bennett McRae ben.mcrae@hq.doe.gov Cyrus Nezhad, Esq.

cyrus.nezhad@hq.doe.gov Charles Sherrill, Esq.

charles.sherrill@hq.doe.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 hearingdocket@nrc.gov Office of Counsel, Naval Sea Systems Command Nuclear Propulsion Program 1333 Isaac Hull Avenue, SE, Building 197 Washington, DC 20376 Frank A. Putzu, Esq.

frank.putzu@navy.mil U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 ocaamail@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop O-14A44 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Tison Campbell, Esq.

Adam Gendelman, Esq.

Carol Lazar, Esq.

Kevin Roach, Esq.

Tracey Stokes, Esq.

tison.campbell@nrc.gov adam.gendelman@nrc.gov Carol.Lazar@nrc.gov kevin.roach@nrc.gov tracey.stokes@nrc.gov Marta Adams, Esq.

Special Deputy Attorney General Nevada Attorney General Bureau of Government Affairs 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701 madams@ag.nv.gov Adams Natural Resources Consulting Services, LLC.

1238 Buzzys Ranch Road Carson City, NV 89701 adamsnaturalresourcesllc@gmail.com Counsel for State of Nevada Egan, Fitzpatrick, Malsch & Lawrence, PLLC 1776 K Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006 Martin G. Malsch, Esq.

mmalsch@nuclearlawyer.com Susan Montesi:

smontesi@nuclearlawyer.com

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (High Level Waste Repository) Docket No. 63-001-HLW COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-25-01) 2 Counsel for State of Nevada Egan, Fitzpatrick, Malsch & Lawrence, PLLC 7500 Rialto Boulevard Building 1, Suite 250 Austin, TX 78735 Charles J. Fitzpatrick, Esq.

cfitzpatrick@nuclearlawyer.com John W. Lawrence, Esq.

jlawrence@nuclearlawyer.com Laurie Borski, Paralegal lborski@nuclearlawyer.com Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects Nuclear Waste Project Office 1761 East College Parkway, Suite 118 Carson City, NV 89706 Steve Frishman, Tech. Policy Coordinator steve.frishman@gmail.com Nye Co. Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office 2101 E. Calvada Boulevard, Suite 100 Pahrump, NV 89048 Celeste Sandoval, Quality Assurance Records Spec.

csandoval@co.nye.nv.us Counsel for Lincoln County, Nevada Whipple Law Firm 1100 S. Tenth Street Las Vegas, NV 89017 Annie Bailey, Legal Assistant baileys@lcturbonet.com Eric Hinckley, Law Clerk erichinckley@yahoo.com Bret Whipple, Esq.

bretwhipple@nomademail.com Counsel for Nye, County, Nevada 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 1300 South Washington, DC 20004 Christopher Clare, Esq.

cclare@clarkhill.com Clark County, Nevada 500 S. Grand Central Parkway Las Vegas, NV 89155 Timothy Allen, Deputy District Attorney Timothy.Allen@clarkcountydanv.gov Phil Klevorick, Sr. Mgmt Analyst klevorick@clarkcountynv.gov Eureka County, Nevada P.O. Box 540 Eureka, NV 89316 Richard McKay bocc@eurekacountynv.gov Nuclear Waste Advisory for Eureka County, Nevada 1983 Maison Way Carson City, NV 89703 Abigail Johnson, Consultant eurekanrc@gmail.com For White Pine County, Nevada James Beecher, District Attorney 801 Clark Street, Suite 3 Ely, NV 89301 jbeecher@whitepinecountynv.gov For Eureka County, Nevada NWOP Consulting, Inc.

1705 Wildcat Lane Ogden, UT 84403 Loreen Pitchford, Consultant nwop@comcast.net Counsel for Churchill, Esmeralda, Lander, and Mineral Counties, Nevada Armstrong Teasdale, LLP 3770 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Tara Baugh tbaugh@armstrongteasdale.com Esmeralda County Repository Oversight Program-Yucca Mountain Project PO Box 490 Goldfield, NV 89013 Edwin Mueller, Director muellered@msn.com Counsel for Inyo County, California Gregory L. James, Attorney at Law 712 Owens Gorge Road HC 79, Box Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 gljames@earthlink.net

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (High Level Waste Repository) Docket No. 63-001-HLW COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-25-01) 3 Inyo Co Yucca Mtn Repository Assessment Ofc P. O. Box 367 Independence, CA 93526-0367 Cathreen Richards, Associate Planner crichards@inyocounty.us Counsel for State of Washington Office of the Attorney General P. O. Box 40117 Olympia, WA 98504-0117 Todd R. Bowers, Esq.

toddb@atg.wa.gov Andrew A. Fitz, Esq.

andyf@atg.wa.gov Teresa Trippel, Esq.

teresat@atg.wa.gov Florida Public Service Commission Office of the General Counsel 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32303 Samantha M. Cibula, Esq.

scibula@psc.state.fl.us California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Kirk C. Oliver, Esq.

Senior Staff Counsel kirk.oliver@energy.ca.gov California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 1515 Clay Street, 20th Fl, PO Box 70550 Oakland, CA 94612-0550 Timothy E. Sullivan, Deputy Attorney General timothy.sullivan@doj.ca.gov California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 300 S. Spring Street, Suite 1702 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Megan Hey, Esq.

megan.hey@doj.ca.gov Counsel for State of South Carolina Davidson & Lindemann, P.A.

1611 Devonshire Drive P.O. Box 8568 Columbia, SC 29202 Kenneth P. Woodington, Esq.

kwoodington@dml-law.com Counsel for Aiken County, SC Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, PA 1201 Main Street, Suite 2200 P. O. Box 11889 Columbia, SC 29211-1889 Ross Shealy, Esq.

rshealy@hsblawfirm.com Nuclear Energy Institute Office of the General Counsel 1201 F Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004 Jerry Bonanno, Esq.

jxb@nei.org Ellen C. Ginsberg, Esq.

ecg@nei.org Counsel for Native Community Action Council Alexander, Berkey, Williams & Weathers LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 410 Berkeley, CA 94704 Curtis G. Berkey, Esq.

cberkey@abwwlaw.com Rovianne A. Leigh, Esq.

rleigh@berkeywilliams.com Scott W. Williams, Esq.

swilliams@abwwlaw.com Native Community Action Council P.O. Box 140 Baker, NV 89311 Ian Zabarte, Member of Board of Directors mrizabarte@gmail.com Counsel for Prairie Island Indian Community Public Law Resource Center PLLC 505 N. Capitol Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 Don L. Keskey, Esq.

donkeskey@publiclawresourcecenter.com Counsel for Nuclear Energy Institute Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 1200 Seventeenth Street NW Washington, DC 20036 Jay E. Silberg, Esq.

jay.silberg@pillsburylaw.com Timothy J.V. Walsh, Esq.

timothy.walsh@pillsburylaw.com

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (High Level Waste Repository) Docket No. 63-001-HLW COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-25-01) 4 Counsel for National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) 1101 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 James Ramsay, Esq.

jramsay@naruc.org Counsel for Joint Timbisha Shoshone Tribal Group Levitan Law P.O. Box 5475 Sonora, CA 95370 Mark Levitan, Esq.

mark@levitanlaw.net Paige Oku, Esq.

paigeoku@levitanlaw.net Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 6th day of March 2025 Office of The Secretary of the Commission