20-03-2025
The Supreme Court Will Decide The American Nuclear Industry's Future
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier this month regarding the legality of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) intent to license a high-level nuclear waste storage site in West Texas. This is a case with potentially seismic consequences. The suit, initiated by the state of Texas and Fasken Oil, a local company, alleges that the NRC is overstepping its authority by licensing the new facility. The storage of nuclear waste has been a controversial topic in the United States for decades. This court case may decide the future of America's civilian nuclear program and its green ambitions.
Created during an era of rapid nuclear expansion, the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) outlined a process for assessing nuclear waste sites and established how the government would regulate waste disposal. The legislation tasked the Department of Energy (DOE) with building and operating such facilities, making the NRC responsible for licensing all sites.
After an investigative period, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was selected as the site for an American nuclear waste storage facility. During the search period, the Chornobyl disaster occurred in Ukraine, triggering fear in the public, timidity in the industry, and souring national views on nuclear power. Despite this development, the Yucca Mountain project pressed on. In 2002, Congress overruled objections to the plant brought by the state of Nevada.
Eight years later, with construction at Yucca incomplete, President Obama's Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that the administration was abandoning its plans to finish the waste storage facility. The DOE withdrew its licensing application for the site, declaring its intentions to find a more viable location and officially shutting down the project with haste and lack of documentation, which was subsequently criticized by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). US Government spent over 19 billion dollars on Yucca Mountain with zero results for the taxpayer.
Since then, American nuclear waste storage has remained in limbo. Nuclear reactor operators in the U.S. are forced to store all waste on-site using one of two methods. Waste is either cooled in water and stored underwater long-term or moved into barrels after initial cooling. Neither of these is a permanent solution. The lack of long-term storage options will inevitably create both practical and financial issues throughout the industry, driving up the cost of nuclear energy for all.
After being nearly off the table for the better part of two decades, big tech and the advent of artificial intelligence have revived the dialogue around nuclear power production and its associated waste. Many companies require abundant energy to power data centers, a phenomenon intensified by AI. In trying to meet climate-related goals, the search for large-scale clean power has led companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google to invest in nuclear projects as a reliable, yet environmentally friendly option.
The proliferation of fast breeder recycling of spent fuel, already the norm in France and Russia, provides an opportunity to address these problems and make storage easier by reducing the quantities of leftover material. These reactors, recently endorsed by the Argonne National Laboratory, utilize nuclear waste from reactors as recycled fuel, bombarding them again to generate more energy. This reduces supply constraints from uranium, whose enrichment Russia dominates, and reduces the volume of materials that need long-term storage at facilities like Yucca Mountain. The downside is they produce plutonium – which, unlike conventional nuclear waste, can be weaponized.
Nuclear reactor production has been increasing, and in late 2024, the federal government announced plans to triple nuclear power production by 2050. Many states, including Texas, welcome the financial rewards of nuclear investment and see it as an industry that could stimulate their economies for years. However, this does not mean that nuclear waste storage has ceased to be an issue. In Texas, eight-year-old plans to create interim waste storage facilities came to the forefront while the debate over long-term facility options continued. The State of Texas opposed the planned use of the site in West Texas shortly after it was publicized in 2016, leading to a lengthy court battle that has now reached the Supreme Court.
The ramifications of this case could determine the American nuclear industry's approach to waste storage for the foreseeable future. If the court sides against the NRC and prevents the licensing of the facility, the legitimacy of any future sites can immediately be called into question.
At a time when nuclear energy is an increasingly pressing need, uncertainty about waste storage could hamper the expansion of the industry. Ruling against the NRC would also change how complaints can be brought against federal agencies and the reach that those agencies and other licensing bodies have in America.
Should the decision go the other way and the NRC prevail, the path forward will be smoother for nuclear power and the tech firms backing it. However, it will also hand more power to federal regulatory agencies at the expense of the states and localities affected by their decisions.
It is all about NIMBY (not in my backyard). Fears surrounding the dangers of transporting and storing radioactive material have led local governments to conclude that they do not want nuclear waste storage in their backyards. Nevertheless, the issue cannot remain unresolved if the U.S. is to capitalize on the growing demand for nuclear energy. America possesses the technical expertise and land necessary to store spent fuel safely, securely, and affordably.
The Supreme Court's final decision, expected in June, will significantly impact technology corporations, the nuclear energy industry, and federal agencies. At stake is nothing less than the future of America's nuclear power industry.
