Supreme Court Reviews Nuclear Waste Storage Plans Amid Safety Concerns
The Supreme Court delved into the complexities of nuclear waste storage in a session on Wednesday. The discussion centered around the potential resumption of plans to temporarily store nuclear waste at locations in rural Texas and New Mexico. Some justices expressed concerns about safety and the ongoing challenge of establishing a permanent waste storage solution.
The court examined a dispute involving the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and a private company, which holds a license for a Texas-based storage facility. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the commission lacked the authority to issue this license. The decision of this case could influence the future of a similar facility proposed in New Mexico, located approximately 40 miles away.
These licenses, if upheld, would permit the operation of the storage facilities for 40 years, with an option for renewal for another 40 years. Justice Neil Gorsuch highlighted potential issues, questioning the interim nature of such a long-term plan and the wisdom of storing spent nuclear fuel “on a concrete platform in the Permian Basin, where we get all our oil and gas from.”
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas appeared inclined to support the appellate court’s decision, aligning with Gorsuch’s concerns.
Currently, an estimated 100,000 tons (90,000 metric tons) of spent nuclear fuel are accumulating at nuclear plant sites across the nation, a quantity that increases by over 2,000 tons (1,800 metric tons) annually. The waste was intended for temporary site storage before relocating to a deep underground facility. However, the plan for a national repository at Yucca Mountain has been stalled due to opposition from Nevada residents and officials.
The NRC argues that temporary sites are essential as nuclear plants run out of storage space. The presence of spent fuel also complicates decommissioning efforts at some sites, according to the Justice Department’s documentation.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed hope for a long-term solution within the next 250 years, despite the temporary nature of the proposed storage plans. Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart concurred, emphasizing the necessity of keeping the waste somewhere, whether at current sites or new locations.
Stewart also noted that consolidating waste storage could reduce security costs, a point supported by Interim Storage Partners LLC, the company holding the Texas facility license. Justices Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh seemed more inclined to overturn the appellate court’s ruling.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not reveal their positions during the session. The NRC’s appeal, initiated during the Biden administration, is opposed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, who have bipartisan objections to the storage facilities in their states.
The justices are tasked with determining if the NRC and Interim Storage Partners’ arguments that states and private energy companies forfeited their rights to challenge the licensing decisions hold merit, given their absence from the commission’s proceedings. Two other federal appeals courts have ruled in favor of the agency, with only the 5th Circuit allowing the challenge to proceed.
Another key issue is whether federal law permits the NRC to issue licenses for temporary storage. Opponents reference a 2022 Supreme Court decision, emphasizing that Congress must explicitly authorize an agency to govern significant national matters. The 5th Circuit agreed, asserting that nuclear waste management is a “major question” requiring direct congressional action. However, the Justice Department maintains that the commission’s authority stems from the 1954 Atomic Energy Act.
The NRC granted a license to Interim Storage for a Texas facility capable of handling up to 5,000 metric tons of spent fuel rods and 231 million tons of other radioactive waste. This site would be adjacent to an existing low-level waste dump in Andrews County, approximately 350 miles west of Dallas. The proposed New Mexico facility, licensed to Holtec International, would be situated in Lea County near Carlsbad.
Justice Alito raised concerns that interim sites might reduce the incentive for a permanent solution, prompting Brad Fagg, a lawyer for Interim Storage Partners, to acknowledge the uncertainty, stating, “I would be kidding myself and this court if I said I had a date.”
A decision from the Supreme Court is anticipated by late June.
___
For more coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court, visit here.
