Valar Watch · Fact dir-017

Fact dir-017

newrecordconfirmed The NRC suit is State of Texas et al. v. NRC, No. 6:24-cv-00507 (E.D. Tex., Tyler Division); it asks the court to set aside the 'utilization facility' rule, at least for small reactors

2025-04-07 · dir-017 · State of Texas, State of Utah, State of Louisiana, State of Florida, Arizona State Legislature, Last Energy, Deep Fission, Valar Atomics

The First Amended Complaint (Document 10, filed 7 April 2025, 97 pages) is captioned State of Texas; State of Utah; State of Louisiana; State of Florida; Arizona State Legislature (through Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro); Last Energy, Inc.; Deep Fission, Inc.; and Valar Atomics Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, No. 6:24-cv-00507, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Arizona's party is its Legislature, not its Attorney General. The NRC's Office of the General Counsel cites the case as Texas v. NRC, No. 6:24-cv-00507-JDK (E.D. Tex.). The Prayer for Relief asks the court to vacate the Utilization Facility Rule (the definition of 'utilization facility') 'at least as applied to certain small, non-hazardous reactors', to remand for further rulemaking, and to declare the universities' reactors and each company's reactors exempt from NRC utilization-facility licensing while still subject to state radioactive-materials rules. The complaint (paras 17 and 233) says NRC licensing hurdles led Valar to launch its initial reactor projects overseas, in the Philippines. It also describes Valar's reactor as using 'low-enriched uranium, with a runtime of only one month' (para 232). These are the plaintiffs' assertions in a court filing, not findings. (Updates safe-028.)

In plain termsThe lawsuit's official name is State of Texas and others v. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, case 6:24-cv-00507 in federal court in Tyler, Texas. Four states, Arizona's Legislature and three reactor companies, Valar among them, asked the judge to strike down the rule that says every nuclear reactor needs an NRC license, at least for small reactors like theirs. They also asked the judge to declare their reactors exempt from NRC licensing, with state radiation rules still applying.

First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Vacatur, Case 6:24-cv-00507-JDK, Document 10 (U.S. District Court, E.D. Tex. filing (posted by the Arizona House of Representatives), 2025-04-07) primary filing “Hold unlawful and set aside (i.e., vacate) the Utilization Facility Rule”
Litigation Status Report (As of January 27, 2026), enclosure to SECY-26-0013 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the General Counsel, 2026-01-27) primary government “Texas v. NRC, No. 6:24-cv-00507-JDK (E.D. Tex.).”

verified 2026-09-30: Skeptic pass 2026-09-30: re-downloaded the 97-page complaint from azleg.gov (robots allows /press/; court header stamp 'Filed 04/07/25', PDF dated 7 Apr 2025) and re-read the caption, paras 16-17 and 231-233, and the full Prayer for Relief (A-G); quote exact. Re-read the NRC OGC entry. Fixed: 'five states' became four states plus the Arizona Legislature; the plain now carries the 'at least as applied to small reactors' limit; added para 232's 'low-enriched uranium' line, which bears on disc-001. New to the record: the KB had the case number only in a records request.

In tabs: safety, government, timeline · file claude_direct