By Redaccion
[email protected]
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to intervene in a legal battle over plans to store nuclear waste in rural areas of Texas and New Mexico.
The justices announced they will review a ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) overstepped its authority under federal law by granting a license to a private company to store spent nuclear fuel at a facility in West Texas for 40 years. The outcome of the case will impact plans for a similar facility in New Mexico.
Political leaders in both states have expressed opposition to the proposed storage facilities. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, has stated that his state “will not become America’s nuclear waste dumping ground.”
The push for interim storage facilities is part of the complex and, so far, unsuccessful effort to establish a permanent underground repository for nuclear waste. Currently, about 100,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel—some dating back to the 1980s—are accumulating at active and former nuclear plant sites across the country, with more than 2,000 metric tons being added each year. These waste materials were originally intended to be stored temporarily before being transferred to a permanent underground site.
A plan to construct a national repository at Yucca Mountain, northwest of Las Vegas, has been halted due to strong opposition from most Nevada residents and officials.
The fight over nuclear waste storage is one of 13 cases the justices have added to their docket for the term that begins Monday. Other significant cases include a request by gun manufacturers to dismiss a lawsuit in which Mexico seeks to hold them accountable for gun violence south of the border and the appeal of a Texas death row inmate whose execution was halted at the last minute by the Supreme Court.
The NRC case presents two key questions for the justices, which will be argued early next year. One central issue is whether the NRC had the authority to grant a license to a private company for temporary nuclear waste storage without the explicit approval of the states involved.
The NRC maintains that Texas and New Mexico forfeited their right to challenge the licensing decisions because they refused to participate in the commission’s proceedings. According to the agency, the states had opportunities to voice their concerns and objections during the regulatory process but chose not to do so.
Two other federal appeals courts, in Denver and Washington, D.C., have considered the same issue and ruled in favor of the NRC, determining that the commission acted within its authority. Only the 5th Circuit has sided with the states, creating a split in federal appellate courts, which often prompts Supreme Court intervention to provide a definitive resolution.
The proposed storage site in Texas is located near the town of Andrews, in a region already home to several other waste disposal facilities. The private company, Interim Storage Partners, argues that the site is well-suited for holding spent nuclear fuel temporarily while a long-term solution is sought. The company insists that its facility meets all safety and environmental standards set by federal regulations.
In New Mexico, the proposed storage site is near Carlsbad, a location familiar with nuclear waste handling, as it is close to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, a deep geological repository for defense-related radioactive waste. However, New Mexico’s political leaders, including Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, have voiced strong opposition to the plan, citing concerns about the state’s long-term economic and environmental health.
The broader issue of nuclear waste disposal has remained unresolved for decades. The Yucca Mountain project, once seen as the nation’s best option for a permanent repository, has faced persistent resistance from Nevadans, who argue that the risks associated with storing highly radioactive material far outweigh any potential benefits. As a result, nuclear waste continues to accumulate at dozens of reactor sites nationwide, with no permanent solution in sight.
Advocates for interim storage argue that centralized facilities in Texas and New Mexico could alleviate some of the immediate challenges posed by the growing stockpiles at reactor sites, many of which are not designed for long-term storage. However, critics counter that without a clear path to a permanent repository, the interim facilities could effectively become permanent, leaving host communities with long-term environmental and safety risks.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case, stakeholders on all sides will be watching closely. The decision could have far-reaching implications for the future of nuclear energy in the United States, as well as for the communities currently grappling with the burden of storing radioactive waste.
The legal and political battles surrounding nuclear waste storage underscore the complexities involved in managing the byproducts of nuclear power, a technology that remains a significant part of the nation’s energy landscape. With the lack of a permanent disposal solution, the question of where—and how—nuclear waste should be stored remains one of the most pressing challenges facing policymakers, regulators, and communities across the country.
The upcoming Supreme Court decision could determine whether Texas and New Mexico will have to bear the burden of storing the nation’s nuclear waste for the foreseeable future, or if the federal government will be forced to reconsider its approach to solving this long-standing problem.
