On March 5, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case, taking into account the authority of the nuclear regulatory commission under the federal law to grant licenses to private companies to build temporary nuclear fuel storage facilities away from the reactors where waste originated.
The case, Nrc vs texasIt was consolidated with another case that involves provisional storage members (ISP), a joint company of waste control specialists and Orano USA, in opposition to the state of Texas.
In September 2021, ISP received a NRC license to build and operate a storage installation in Andrews County, Texas, relatively close to the New Mexico border. In May 2023, the NRC also granted Holtec International a license for a storage installation south -east of New Mexico.
Texas governor, Greg Abbott (R), Midland, the Texas, Fasken Land and minerals based oil and gas, and others challenged the NRC actions and won the fifth Court of Appeal circuit. The court revoked the ISP’s license in 2023 and also dismissed the Holtec’s license in 2024. In both cases, the court found that the NRC was not authorized to grant licenses to companies. The NRC brought the case to the Supreme Court to appeal.
At the Supreme Court Court, Justice requested clarifications from the lawyers of the two parties on their interpretation of the meaning and intent of certain provisions of the Atomic Energy Law (AEA) and the Law on nuclear waste policies.
The Ministry of Justice’s prosecutor, Malcolm Stewart, argued that by virtue of the AEA, the Congress did not prevent the storage out of spent fuel site or promoted licensing provisions.
“Congress clearly stated that licenses will continue to be made under the pre -existing provisions of atomic energy, and these provisions do not distinguish between on -site storage,” Stewart said.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson pushed saying, “I don’t hear that this congress is disputed in [Nuclear Waste] The Policy Act expressed its preference for storage in situ. … It seems to me that the congress of this Statute made it encouraging in situ storage, which seems to be a different thing than banning storage out of place. “”
Stewart said, under a federal storage program “that did not get out of the ground”, one of the ways to encourage on -site storage would include the requirements that companies show when on -site storage was unavailable. However, he added, there was no similar requirement for storage outside the site.
Stewart also stated that, by virtue of Hobbs’ law, he establishes a 60 -day clock for the assaulted parts to challenge certain agency orders, Texas is not an assaulted part and, therefore, has no challenge.
Judge Samuel Alito asked the ISP counselor, Brad Fagg, if it is reasonable for the state of Texas and others who have interests in the Permian basin to be concerned about storage in this location.
Fagg replied that Texas initially supported the ISP project, but later invested the course, but did not do so within the appropriate period of time “as many states do and as the regulations specifically.”
David Frederick, representing Fasken, argued that “NRC efforts to obtain authority from AEA material licenses provisions do not work because storage is not used. As in 1982 [Nuclear Waste] The policy law defines it, storage is the retention “for the use, processing or subsequent elimination.”
Judges Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel Alito asked what “temporary” storage means in the context of this case.
“If it is decided that the material can be stored outside the place temporarily, and temporarily means more than 40 years, perhaps more than 80 years. Maybe it means 250 years … Where is the incentive to move forward, doing what the Congress wanted to do, which is to establish a permanent installation?” He asked Alito.
In a statement to Enr, a Holtec spokesman said that the fifth circuit decision to fight the two NRC licenses was wrong.
“The Supreme Court listened to oral arguments about the decision of the fifth circuit, which involved both the procedures used to request the review of a NRC license and the NRC authority to issue licenses for the storage of spent fuel,” said the spokesman. “Holtec believes that the fifth circuit applied incorrect procedures and that the NRC has a clear legal authority to issue these licenses.”
He added that Holtec is waiting for the Supreme Court “by correcting the procedural ruling of the fifth circuit and reinstalls the NRC License of Holtec”.
