Supreme Court weighs Texas challenge to proposed nuclear waste storage site

• The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) should be allowed to move forward with a temporary nuclear waste storage site in Texas. The state argues the NRC cannot legally approve the facility, while the federal government contends that its authority to approve such projects is well-established.
• The debate also revived discussions about the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada, which was intended to be a permanent solution but has been stalled since 2011.
• With more than 90,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste currently awaiting disposal in the U.S., a Supreme Court decision in the case is expected to come by mid-2025.

Full Story

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, March 5, heard arguments over a legal dispute between Texas and the federal government regarding the storage of nuclear waste. The state is looking to block a temporary storage facility near its border with New Mexico.

This case has also renewed discussions about the stalled Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada.

Why is Texas trying to stop this nuclear waste project?

Texas, along with an in-state-based oil and gas extraction group, argued that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) lacked the legal authority to approve a facility designed to store up to 5,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel for 40 years.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson contended that the facility would become a de facto permanent site and raised concerns about security risks to the state’s oil fields. Nielson added that a 1982 federal law mandating a permanent disposal site takes precedence over the NRC’s authority to approve interim facilities.

What is the federal government’s argument?

The federal government countered that the NRC’s authority to approve such facilities is well-established. It emphasized that the nuclear power industry, which supplies about one-fifth of the nation’s electricity, relies on both on-site and off-site storage solutions.

Malcolm Stewart, the Justice Department’s deputy solicitor general, argued that the existing system allows private companies to help address storage challenges safely.

How urgent is the problem?

With more than 90,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste awaiting disposal in the United States, several justices questioned how temporary the proposed Texas site would actually be.

The federal government maintained that the storage duration at the site would not exceed the time waste currently spends at decommissioned reactors.

Could the Yucca Mountain repository be a solution?

The arguments also touched on the long-standing issue of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, a project that was intended to serve as a permanent storage solution but has been effectively dormant since funding was halted in 2011.

Justice Neil Gorsuch highlighted the $15 billion already spent on the site, questioning the viability of so-called temporary storage solutions without a permanent alternative.

“Yucca Mountain was supposed to be the permanent solution,” Gorsuch said. “If that’s true and there’s no different permanent repository, how is this interim storage?”

U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, during his confirmation hearings in January, did not rule out reviving the Yucca Mountain project but emphasized that local support would be crucial.

Get up to speed on the stories leading the day every weekday morning. Sign up for the newsletter today!

Learn more about our emails. Unsubscribe anytime.

Enter your email for newsletter updates Subscribe

By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.

What happens next?

The case has broader implications for the nation’s nuclear waste management strategy, with two federal appeals courts previously upholding the facility’s approval.

However, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Texas, also blocking a similar site in New Mexico. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by mid-2025.