On March 5, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in a case considering the Nuclear Commission of the United States Nuclear Commission by virtue of federal legislation to grant licenses to private companies for the creation of temporary nuclear fuel storage facilities away from the reactors where waste originated.
The case, Nrc vs texasIt was consolidated with another case that involved temporary storage members, a joint company of waste control specialists and Orano USA, in opposition to the state of Texas.
The signing in September 2021 received a NRC license to build and operate a storage facility in Andrews County, Texas, relatively close to the New Mexico border. The agency in May 2023 also granted Holtec International a license for a storage facility in the south -East Mexico.
The actions were challenged by the Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott (R), Midland, the petroleum firm and Gas based on Texas, Fasken Land and minerals in the Federal Court of Appeal of New Orleans. He revoked the license for temporary storage members in 2023 and left Holtec’s license in 2024. In both cases, the court found that the NRC was not authorized to grant licenses. The agency appealed to the Supreme Court.
The high court justice asked the lawyers of the two parties to clarify about their interpretation of the meaning and intent of certain provisions of the Law of Nuclear Waste Policy.
U.S. Justice Prosecutor Malcolm Stewart argued that according to the first law, Congress did not prevent the storage out of spent fuel site or promoted license 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 and the place,” he said.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson again stated, “I don’t feel you play this congress in the [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 that by virtue of a federal storage program “that did not leave the ground”, in situ storage was encouraged under the law in certain cases when required. 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 has no position to cause a challenge.
Judge Samuel Alito asked the provisional storage members in Brad Fagg if it is reasonable for the state of Texas and others with interests in the oil field of the Permian basin to be concerned about storage in this location.
Fagg replied that Texas initially supported the provisional storage partners project, but invested the course. This reversal, however, was not done within the appropriate period of time “as many states do and how specifically regulations allow it.”
David Frederick, representing Fasken, argued that NRC “efforts to obtain authority from provisions of material licenses that are not included in the atomic energy law 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 [and up to] 250 years … Where is the incentive to move forward, doing what the Congress wanted to do, which is to establish a permanent installation? “Alito asked.
In a statement to Enr, a Holtec spokesman said the [New Orleans court’s] The decision to combat the two NRC licenses was wrong.
“The Supreme Court listened to oral arguments [that court’s] decision, involving the two procedures used to seek the review of a NRC license and [its] Authority to issue licenses for storage of spent fuel, “said the spokesman.” Holtec believes that the [appeals court] It applied incorrect procedures and that the NRC has a clear legal authority to issue these licenses. “”
Holtec said that the Supreme Court “corrects the procedure ruling and reintegrating Holtec’s NRC license.”
