WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is set to enter a high-stakes legal battle concerning the storage of nuclear waste, as they prepare to hear a case surrounding the federal government’s approval of a nuclear storage facility in Texas. The nine justices will deliberate on whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission made the correct decision in permitting a company known as Interim Storage Partners to house spent nuclear fuel in Andrews County, Texas, for a period of up to 40 years.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, had previously criticized the NRC’s 2021 ruling, leading to an appeal by the Biden administration. The case has since been taken up by the Trump administration, which is now defending the commission’s power to authorize private nuclear waste storage facilities. Opposition to the approval has been voiced by various state officials, with Texas Governor Greg Abbott among those who have raised concerns.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, representing the Trump administration, argued in court documents that Texas’ legal stance, if accepted by the court, could potentially undermine the NRC’s ability to approve private spent nuclear fuel storage locations anywhere. She emphasized the critical role of these storage sites in supporting the continuous operation of nuclear reactors by providing a means to store generated spent fuel.
Governor Abbott and other opponents, including prominent landowner Fasken Land and Minerals, contested the NRC’s decision in court, with the appeals court ruling in their favor by acknowledging their right to challenge the decision. Additionally, the court found that the NRC lacked the authority to issue the storage license. Texas officials have expressed concerns over the proposed storage of up to 40,000 metric tons of waste above ground in the Permian Basin, an area crucial for both oil production and water supply to neighboring communities.
The NRC contends that, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act, it possesses the jurisdiction to mandate the transportation of spent nuclear fuel to alternative privately owned sites for temporary storage. Furthermore, the agency argues that Texas was not entitled to directly challenge the NRC’s decision in the appeals court, citing the state’s lack of involvement in the initial proceedings that commenced during the prior Trump administration.
This legal dispute in Texas represents the latest episode in the ongoing debate over the appropriate location for nuclear waste storage. A parallel conflict unfolded over several decades surrounding the proposed construction of a storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, which was ultimately abandoned during the Obama administration in part due to opposition from the late Senator Harry Reid. According to federal law, Yucca Mountain remains the sole authorized site for permanent storage of spent nuclear waste, a fact underscored by Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson in court filings.
The Trump administration’s stance on potentially resurrecting the Yucca Mountain project remains uncertain at present, adding a layer of complexity to the evolving landscape of nuclear waste management in the United States.
