ML26022A324
| ML26022A324 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000614 |
| Issue date: | 01/22/2026 |
| From: | Danni Smith, Nicholas Trikouros, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57583, LBP-26-02, 50-614-CP, ASLBP 25-991-01-CP-BD01 | |
| Download: ML26022A324 (0) | |
Text
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION AND/OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION -
SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA LBP-26-02 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL Before the Licensing Board:
Stefan R. Wolfe, Chair Dr. David A. Smith Nicholas G. Trikouros In the Matter of LONG MOTT ENERGY, LLC (Long Mott Generating Station)
Docket No. 50-614-CP ASLBP No. 25-991-01-CP-BD01 January 22, 2026 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) Contention)
This is a 10 C.F.R. Part 50 construction permit (CP) proceeding regarding the March 2025 application of Long Mott Energy, LLC (LME) for authorization to build the Long Mott Generating Station (LMGS) in Calhoun County, Texas, consisting of four Xe-100 high-temperature gas-cooled power reactor modules.1 In a separate decision issued today this Licensing Board ruled on the efficacy of the August 11, 2025 hearing request of petitioner San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper (Petitioner) challenging certain safety and environmental aspects of the LME CP Application.2 There, the Board determined that Petitioner had established its representational standing consistent with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d), and addressed 1 See Letter from Edward Stones, LME President, to Document Control Desk, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), at 2 (Mar. 31, 2025) (ADAMS Accession No. ML25090A058)
[hereinafter CP Application].
2 See LBP-26-01, 103 NRC __ (Jan. 22, 2026).
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION AND/OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION -
SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER the admissibility under section 2.309(f)(1) of the contentions that are not based on Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).3 In this decision, we address the admissibility of Petitioners fifth contention that poses a safety-related concern about LMEs aircraft impact assessment based on SUNSI in the CP Application.4 We conclude that Petitioners fifth contention must be dismissed as failing to meet the section 2.309(f)(1) admissibility standards.5 And we do so in a separate issuance to allow us to publicly release our ruling on Petitioners standing and the admissibility of its other, non-SUNSI contentions, while maintaining this decision as a nonpublic issuance pending review by the participants to ensure the decision does not contain any nonpublic SUNSI material.6 I. BACKGROUND Our decision in LBP-26-01 contains an extensive discussion of the background regarding this proceeding, which we will not repeat here.7 Instead, the focus of this decision is Petitioners SUNSI-related fifth contention.
Acting pursuant to the terms of the agencys June 10, 2025 hearing opportunity notice,8 Petitioner requested access to certain SUNSI in the LME application.9 Ten days later, the NRC 3 See id. at __ (slip op. at 2).
4 See [Petitioners] Second Corrected Supplement to Its Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing Based on [SUNSI] (Redacted) (Dec. 15, 2025) at 1 n.1 [hereinafter Hearing Petition SUNSI Supplement]. This December 15 corrected version of Petitioners hearing petition supplement is one of several, the circumstances surrounding which are outlined below. See infra note 14.
5 See Licensing Board Memorandum (Notice Regarding Issuance of Decision on Intervention Petition Supplement Containing [SUNSI]) (Jan. 22, 2026) at 2 (unpublished).
6 See id. at 2-3 (indicating LBP-26-02 will be treated as nonpublic pending participant review of the issuance for SUNSI and release of a publicly available version of the decision with any appropriate redactions).
7 See LBP-26-01, 103 NRC at __-__ (slip op. at 3-8).
8 See [LME]; [LMGS]; Construction Permit Application, 90 Fed. Reg. 24,428, 24,430-31 (June 10, 2025).
9 See Letter from Marisa Perales, Counsel for Petitioner, to Office of the Secretary, NRC, and
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION AND/OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION -
SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER Staff concluded there was an adequate basis for Petitioners access request,10 a determination that was not opposed by LME.11 Accordingly, the Chief Administrative Judge (CAJ) of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel on July 22, 2025, issued a protective order granting access to that SUNSI.12 A week later, LME filed a notice stating that on that date it had timely provided access to the SUNSI specified in the protective order.13 Thereafter, Petitioner submitted the hearing petition supplement containing the additional safety-related SUNSI-based contention now before the Board.14 LME and NRC Staff Deputy General Counsel for Licensing, Hearings, and Enforcement, Office of the General Counsel, NRC, at 1 (June 20, 2025).
10 See Letter from Richard Rivera, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, to Marisa Perales, Counsel for Petitioner, at 4 (June 30, 2025).
11 See Joint Motion for Proposed Protective Order Governing Disclosure of [SUNSI] and Non-Disclosure Agreement (July 21, 2025) at 1.
12 See CAJ Memorandum and Order (Protective Order Governing Specific [SUNSI]) (July 22, 2025) at 1 (unpublished). In addition to a Board-generated revision described below, see infra note 14, in an unopposed November 20, 2025 motion, LME and the NRC Staff asked that the protective order be amended to expand its coverage beyond security-related information to include proprietary information. See Unopposed Joint Motion by [LME] and [NRC Staff] for Amended Protective Order (Nov. 20, 2025) at 1-2. The Board approved this request on December 1, 2025. See Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Amended Protective Order Governing Specific [SUNSI]) (Dec. 1, 2025) at 1 (unpublished). Subsequently, when the Board became aware of a paragraph numbering issue with that amended protective order, it issued a corrected version that currently is the operative protective order for this proceeding. See Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Corrected Version of Amended Protective Order Governing Specific [SUNSI]) (Dec.18, 2025) at 1-2 (unpublished) [hereinafter Corrected Amended Protective Order].
13 See [LME]s Notice of Provision of Access to Specific [SUNSI] (July 29, 2025).
14 As is noted above, Petitioner filed several versions of its hearing petition supplement. See supra note 4. Accounting for these various versions requires some explanation.
In its initial August 25, 2025 hearing petition supplement, Petitioner apparently failed to properly mark SUNSI material in accordance with the terms of the protective order. Additionally an individual attorney affiliated with Petitioner who signed that pleading had not executed an affidavit of nondisclosure to obtain access to SUNSI as required by the protective order. See Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Regarding Protective Order Noncompliance)
(Sept. 4, 2025) at 1 (unpublished) [hereinafter Board Noncompliance Order]; see also
[Petitioners] Supplement to its Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing Based on [SUNSI]
(Aug. 25, 2025) (nonpublic). This, in turn, caused LME to notify the Board that Petitioner was in noncompliance with the protective order and to invoke a protective order provision requiring
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION AND/OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION -
SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER timely filed nonpublic and redacted (public) versions of their respective answers opposing the admission of that fifth contention on September 19 and September 30, 2025, respectively.15 Petitioners nonpublic reply to these answers was submitted on September 26, 2025, with a Petitioner to provide LME with required Petitioner-maintained SUNSI tracking logs. See Board Noncompliance Order at 3-4; see also [LME] Notification of Potential Availability of SUNSI to Unauthorized Persons, Protective Order Noncompliance, and Request for Waterkeeper to Provide SUNSI Logs (Aug. 26, 2025) at 1 (nonpublic). This then engendered a response from Petitioner in which it (1) conceded that it did not properly mark its supplement but would file an appropriately marked amended version that day; and (2) indicated that although the name of the counsel who had not executed a nondisclosure affidavit was placed on the pleading by error, no improper SUNSI disclosure had occurred. See Board Noncompliance Order at 4; see also
[Petitioner]s Response to [LME]s Notification of Potential Availability of SUNSI to Unauthorized Persons, Protective Order Noncompliance, and Request for [Petitioner] to Provide SUNSI Logs (Aug. 27, 2025) at 4. And while an amended version of the supplement delineating the SUNSI portions was filed that day, it did not include the protective order-required headers alerting the reader that the document contained SUNSI. See Board Noncompliance Order at 4; see also
[Petitioners] Corrected Supplement to its Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing Based on [SUNSI] (Aug. 27, 2025) (nonpublic). Petitioner corrected this oversight on August 29, 2025, by submitting another supplement version that included the proper header markings as required under the protective orders then-existing language. See Board Noncompliance Order at 4; see also [Petitioner]s Second Corrected Supplement to Its Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing Based on [SUNSI] (Aug. 29, 2025) at 1 (nonpublic).
In a September 4, 2025 issuance, after outlining the circumstances noted above, the Licensing Board indicated that (1) any future nonpublic filings by Petitioner must include a counsel certification that the submission is in compliance with the protective order; (2) the Board would accept the representations of Petitioners counsel that no SUNSI information had been shared with any unauthorized person; (3) Petitioner should provide the requested SUNSI access logs to LME and the participants should raise any further dispute regarding the logs to the Board only if it requires the Boards attention or resolution; and (4) the protective order was being amended to require that the first page of any nonpublic filing, as well as subsequent pages, contain an appropriate SUNSI header. See Board Noncompliance Order at 4-8 & n.27.
Finally, on December 15, 2025, Petitioner submitted a corrected version of its petition supplement that provided an updated security header marking for the document consistent with a December 1, 2025 protective order amendment that expanded the protective orders coverage beyond security-related information to include proprietary information. See supra note 12.
15 See [LMEs] Answer to [Petitioners] Hearing Request Supplement (Sept. 19, 2025)
(nonpublic); NRC Staffs Answer Opposing [Petitioners] Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing Based on [SUNSI] (Sept. 19, 2025) (nonpublic); [LMEs] Answer to [Petitioners]
Hearing Request Supplement (Sept. 30, 2025) (redacted public); NRC Staffs Answer Opposing
[Petitioners] Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing Based on [SUNSI] (Sept. 30, 2025)
(redacted public) [hereinafter Staff Answer].
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION AND/OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION -
SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER redacted version timely filed after the resumption of agency adjudicatory proceedings following the 2025 federal government-wide shutdown.16 At a rescheduled, post-shutdown virtual initial prehearing conference on December 8, 2025,17 to avoid the need to conduct a closed proceeding because of possible SUNSI information, the Board did not delve into the admissibility of Petitioners fifth contention, with one exception. During the prehearing conference, the Board explored with the participants its concerns about what appeared to be the over-redaction of information from the petition supplement, including the title and description of the contention as well as the language of a publicly available regulation.18 In establishing a protocol below for the participants review of this decision for the possible redaction of SUNSI, we address that concern as well.
II. ADMISSIBILITY OF PETITIONERS FIFTH CONTENTION In its fifth contention, LMEs Aircraft Impact Assessment fails to demonstrate compliance with 10 C.F.R. § 50.34(a)(13) and 10 C.F.R. § 50.150, Petitioner attempts to find fault with LMEs aircraft impact assessment.19 In its petition supplement, however, Petitioner misreads the regulations as requiring the CP application to include an actual assessment, and therefore incorrectly alleges that LMEs assessment was incomplete. As we explain below, 16 See [Petitioners] Reply in Support of Supplement to Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing Based on [SUNSI] (Sept. 26, 2025) (nonpublic); [Petitioners] Reply in Support of Supplement to Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing Based on [SUNSI] (Nov. 24, 2025)
(redacted public) [hereinafter Petitioner Reply]; see also Commission Notice of Resumption of Adjudications at 1-2 (Nov. 13, 2025) (unpublished).
17 See Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Rescheduling Initial Prehearing Conference)
(Nov. 19, 2025) at 1 (unpublished). In initially scheduling the prehearing conference for October 6, 2025, the Board indicated that it had not determined whether to hold oral argument on Petitioners fifth contention but asked the participants to maintain their availability for October 14, 2025, for a potential nonpublic prehearing conference. See Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Scheduling Initial Prehearing Conference) (Sept. 16, 2025) at 1-2 (unpublished).
18 Tr. at 225-32.
19 Hearing Petition SUNSI Supplement at 2-3.
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION AND/OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION -
SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER because a complete aircraft impact assessment is not a required part of a CP application, we find Petitioners contention does not meet the contention admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.309(f)(1)(iii) and (iv) because it seeks to litigate an issue that is beyond the scope of this proceeding and is not material to the findings the NRC must make in this proceeding.
Section 50.150(b) referenced in Petitioners fifth contention provides that a CP applications preliminary safety analysis report (PSAR) must include a description of:
(1) The design features and functional capabilities identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and (2) How the design features and functional capabilities identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section meet the assessment requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.20 In turn, 10 C.F.R. § 50.150(a)(1) requires that:
Each applicant [for a construction permit] shall perform a design-specific assessment of the effects on the facility of the impact of a large, commercial aircraft. Using realistic analyses, the applicant shall identify and incorporate into the design those design features and functional capabilities to show that, with reduced use of operator actions: (i) [t]he reactor core remains cooled, or the containment remains intact; and (ii) [s]pent fuel cooling or spent fuel pool integrity is maintained.21 Section 50.150(a)(1) thus requires a design-specific aircraft impact assessment, but as the Commission has made clear, when taken together with paragraph (b), all that is required in a construction permit application is a description of the design features and functional capabilities that will meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1). In implementing this regulation, the Commission has clearly stated that [t]he applicant is not required to submit the aircraft 20 10 C.F.R. § 50.150(b) (emphasis added); see also 10 C.F.R. 50.34(a)(13) (requiring, by cross reference, that the PSAR include the description of the aircraft impact assessment design features and functional capabilities).
21 Id. § 50.150(a)(1).
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION AND/OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION -
SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER impact assessment - as opposed to the description of the identified design features and functional capabilities required by 10 CFR 50.150(b)... to the NRC in its application.22 In other words, review of the aircraft impact assessment is not part of approving LMEs CP application. And lest there be any confusion, the Commission clarified that the adequacy of the [aircraft] impact assessment may not be the subject of a contention submitted as part of a petition to intervene....23 Thus, the Commission has closed the door on exactly the path the Petitioner seeks to take here. Moreover, Petitioner has not challenged the appropriateness of the application of this rule in this instance by seeking a rule waiver under section 2.335 and, as such, we lack the authority to consider such a challenge.24 Accordingly, this Board cannot entertain the aircraft impact assessment contention provided by Waterkeeper.
As the NRC Staff correctly states,25 at most, Petitioner may challenge the adequacy of the description of the design features and functional capabilities contained in the construction permit application. But that is not what Petitioner did. Instead, it alleged LME had conducted an 22 Consideration of Aircraft Impacts for New Nuclear Power Reactors, 74 Fed. Reg. 28,112, 28,120 (June 12, 2009).
23 Id.
24 See, e.g., Powertech (USA) Inc. (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility),
LBP-25-3, 101 NRC 56, 113 & n.161 (2025) (citing cases), affd in part on other grounds, CLI-25-5, 102 NRC __ (July 15, 2025), and appeal pending on other grounds. The NRC Staff explains the relevance of the aircraft impact assessment to the regulatory process as follows:
The NRC expects the Aircraft Impact Assessment to be rigorous and will confirm that the applicant performed the impact assessment consistently with applicable regulatory requirements.
Failure to perform the aircraft impact assessment will be deemed a violation of the rule and an assessment that is inadequate to reasonably assess the aircraft impact or to identify design features or functional capabilities could be considered a violation of the rule, for which the NRC may take appropriate enforcement action.
Staff Answer at 5 (footnotes omitted).
25 See Staff Answer at 6.
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION AND/OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION -
SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER insufficient aircraft impact assessment rather than contesting the adequacy of LMEs required design and functional capabilities description.26 To be fair, Petitioners misreading of the application was perhaps understandable. In LMEs application, rather than including a mere description of the required design features and functional capabilities, LME submitted a section that was labeled an Aircraft Impact Assessment.27 And this section went beyond a mere description of design features and functional capabilities and appeared to include detailed analysis.28 But while detailed in some areas, in other parts the analysis outlined areas where additional study was needed. These areas needing additional study, in turn, formed the crux of Petitioners claim that LME provided an incomplete assessment.29 As LME was not required to submit an aircraft impact assessment as part of its CP Application, alleged shortcomings in the assessment are not material to the issuance of a CP and are outside the scope of this proceeding.30 As such, Petitioners fifth contention cannot be admitted.31 26 See Hearing Petition SUNSI Supplement at 3-6.
27 See CP Application, encl. 2a, § 3.12 (LMGS, [CP] Application, Part II, [PSAR] (rev. 0 Mar. 31, 2025)) (ADAMS Accession No. ML25090A061).
28 See id., encl. 7, at Part VII-III to -X (LMGS, [CP] Application, Part VII, Security-Related Information to be Withheld per 10 CFR 2.390(d)(1) (rev. 0 Mar. 31, 2025)) (ADAMS Accession No. ML25090A068) (nonpublic). We note that for this and several other enclosures to its CP Application, LME uses the page numbering protocol Part #, which references the Roman numeral for the CP Application part, followed by a hyphen, followed by the Roman numeral designating the page number.
29 See Hearing Petition SUNSI Supplement at 4-6. In citing this publicly available version of Petitioners hearing request supplement, the Board recognizes that because of extensive redactions the reader will be unable to view Petitioners assertions regarding the incompleteness of the LME assessment.
30 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii), (iv).
31 We recognize that in its reply brief Petitioner seemingly acknowledged that its petition supplement was off-target and attempted to rehabilitate its argument. See Petitioner Reply at 2-5. As the Commission has recognized, however, procedural fairness dictates that this Board cannot address arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See Dewey-Burdock,
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION AND/OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION -
SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER III. DECISION REDACTION PROCESS Because a nonpublic review of this decision by the participants is required to identify and redact any SUNSI it may contain, this decision will be treated as a nonpublic issuance subject to the previously issued protective order in this proceeding. And because they have access to the nonpublic portion of the docket, Petitioner, LME, and the NRC Staff will be served with this decision upon issuance.
To determine whether redactions are necessary before this decision is made publicly available, the Board directs that on or before Monday, February 2, 2026, the participants provide the Board with a joint report outlining any proposed redactions and the basis under 10 C.F.R. § 2.390(a)(1) for such redactions.32 Pursuant to the protective order for this proceeding,33 that report should be filed in the protective order file for this proceeding, unless the joint report indicates that no redactions are required for this decision.
Additionally, and consistent with prior practice,34 in a separate issuance this date, the Board is providing a synopsis of this ruling so that the public will be aware of the general nature LBP-25-3, 101 NRC at 112 n.159 (citing cases). Consequently, we limit our consideration to the issues raised in Petitioners initial hearing request supplement. Yet, even if we were to consider the arguments raised for the first time in Petitioners rely, we would still not find the basis for an admissible contention because Petitioner failed to establish a genuine dispute on a material factual issue. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).
32 As was also noted earlier, see supra note 18 and accompanying text, during the December 8, 2025 initial prehearing conference, the Board raised concerns about apparent over-redaction in the participant pleadings. As the Board noted during the conference, the process established by paragraphs 7.a and 10.e of the July 22, 2025 protective order by which the Petitioner was responsible for initially designating and then obtaining LME approval for any redactions to its pleadings prior to placing a filing on this proceedings public docket appeared to result in excessive redaction. Consequently, any proposed redactions from this decision will be approved by the Board only upon a showing that the information in question is SUNSI subject to nondisclosure in accordance with section 2.390(a)(1).
33 See supra note 12.
34 See Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), LBP-25-1, 101 NRC 1, 50 n.90 (2025), appeal pending.
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION AND/OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION -
SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER of the Boards determination and the post-issuance conventions we establish for the participants SUNSI review and for service of this decision.35 IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Board finds that Petitioners fifth contention contesting the nonpublic aircraft impact assessment in LMEs PSAR is inadmissible under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii), (iv), as outside the scope of this proceeding and lacking materiality in that it seeks to go beyond the scope of the challenge allowed under 10 C.F.R. § 50.150(a)(1), (b).
For the foregoing reasons, and in furtherance of our obligations under the Commission's regulations, we determine that:
- 1. Petitioners fifth contention submitted in its August 25, 2025 hearing petition supplement, as corrected on August 27, September 8, and December 15, 2025, is rejected as inadmissible.
- 2. In accordance with section III above, the participants shall review this decision and provide a joint report on whether any portion of this opinion is subject to redaction as SUNSI.
- 3. In accordance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. § 2.311, as this memorandum and order rules upon a portion of an intervention petition, in conjunction with the Boards ruling today in LBP-26-01, 103 NRC __ (Jan. 22, 2026), any appeal to the Commission 35 See Licensing Board Memorandum (Notice Regarding Issuance of Decision on Intervention Petition Supplement Containing [SUNSI]) (Jan. 22, 2026) (unpublished).
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION AND/OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION -
SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER from this memorandum and order must be taken within twenty-five (25) days after this issuance is served.
It is so ORDERED.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD36 Stefan R. Wolfe, Chair ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE David A. Smith ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Nicholas G. Trikouros ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland January 22, 2026 36 Pursuant to the Board establishment notice in this proceeding and in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.322, Administrative Judge G. Paul Bollwerk, III, is serving as a special assistant to the Licensing Board. See [LME], Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, 90 Fed.
Reg. 40,398, 40,398 (Aug. 19, 2025).
/RA/
/RA/
/RA/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
LONG MOTT ENERGY, LLC.
)
Docket No. 50-614-CP
)
)
(Long Mott Generating Station)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) Contention) (LBP-26-02) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop: O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail.resource@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Stefan R. Wolfe, Chair, Administrative Judge Nicholas G. Trikouros, Administrative Judge Dr. David A. Smith, Administrative Judge Whitlee Dean, Law Clerk Georgia Rock, Law Clerk Email: stefan.wolfe@nrc.gov nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov david.smith@nrc.gov whitlee.dean@nrc.gov georgia.rock@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-14A44 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Susan Vrahoretis, Esq.
David Roth, Esq.
Julie Ezell, Esq.
Sam Stephens, Esq.
Stacy Schumann, Team Leader Anne Fream, Paralegal Georgia Hampton, Paralegal Email: susan.vrahoretis@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov julie.ezell@nrc.gov samuel.stephens@nrc.gov stacy.schumann@nrc.gov anne.fream@nrc.gov georgiann.hampton@nrc.gov Counsel for San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper Perales, Allmon, & Ice, P.C.
1206 San Antonio St.
Austin, Texas 78701 Marisa Perales, Esq.
Gweneth Lonergan, Lead Legal Asst.
Email: marisa@txenvirolaw.com gwyneth@txenvirolaw.com
Long Mott Energy, LLC., Docket No. 50-614-CP MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) Contention) (LBP-26-02) 2 Counsel for Long Mott Energy, LLC.
Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, LLP.
1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 Ryan K. Lighty, Esq.
Alex Polonsky, Esq.
Email: ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com alex.polonsky@morganlewis.com Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of January 2026.
CLARA SOLA Digitally signed by CLARA SOLA Date: 2026.01.22 15:15:57 -05'00'