The stakes will be high when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments soon on whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has authority to license private fuel storage facilities proposed in Texas and New Mexico, according to an analysis by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
“A ruling favoring the NRC would help the nuclear waste problem in the short term but might harm the long-term management situation, allowing the consolidation of spent nuclear fuel at interim storage facilities—a state of affairs that could place new constraints on the permanent solution of geological disposal,” the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists said in a Thursday analysis.
“Conversely, a ruling against the NRC would hurt the waste problem short-term by halting interim storage plans—including those of Interim Storage Partners in Texas and Holtec International in New Mexico—but it would leave future permanent storage options unconstrained,” the Bulletin piece went on to say.
According to its website, the Bulletin is a non-profit that “began as an emergency action, created by scientists who saw an immediate need for a public reckoning in the aftermath of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
Oral arguments are scheduled in Washington, D.C., on March 5 in NRC and Interim Storage Partners versus the state of Texas. The Supreme Court will issue its opinion before recess in late June, the Bulletin goes on to say.
“For more than 40 years, temporary, consolidated nuclear waste storage has been a hot-button issue,” the Bulletin said. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act charged the president and the Department of Energy with selecting and licensing a deep underground repository to disposal of used spent fuel from the nation’s commercial nuclear power reactors. However, the project was effectively cancelled and defunded during the Barack Obama administration.
In the meantime, spent fuel is being stored in dry cask storage at active and retired nuclear plants across the country.
“There are a variety of arguments both for and against temporary storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel,” the Bulletin said in the analysis. “Proponents cite that reactor host communities should not be subjected to living near radioactive waste for more time than they initially consented; interim storage, they say, would increase safety and economic efficiency through consolidation.”
“Critics, in contrast, argue that a community near an interim facility risks the same fate of non-consent in the event of further delay in creating a permanent waste repository and that the safety risks from additional transportation and shuffling outweigh the benefits of consolidation,” according to the analysis.
The nation’s highest court will weigh a couple of key legal issues. One is “whether Texas had the legal right to challenge the NRC in the first place,” the Bulletin for the Atomic Scientists said. “The second question is a matter of the function and authority of the NRC and is rooted in the language of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Texas argues that the NRC only has authority to grant temporary spent nuclear fuel storage licenses on the site of the reactor from which the waste originated.”
A decision favoring NRC “would undoubtedly be a win for the nuclear industry, the federal government, and reactor host communities,” the Bulletin said. “However, a ruling against the NRC may bring increased attention to the issue and compel Congress to act decisively” and ultimately “chart a new course.”
