[{"_1":2,"_84":-5,"_85":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":71,"_73":71},"mediaId",6069071,"mediaKeyId","3075696-571cd40c55fb8f7dd2fe301a5405b5e7","parentId",3075696,"title","High Court Weighs Whether NRC May License Private Off-Site Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel","audioSeconds",3014,"startMs",36620,"endMs",3050860,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3075696-571cd40c55fb8f7dd2fe301a5405b5e7&start=36&end=3050","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6069071/High-Court-Weighs-Whether-NRC-May-License-Private-Off-Site-Storage-of-Spent-Nuclear-Fuel","mediaUrl","author","Supreme Court of the United States","date","2025-03-05T00:00:00Z","article","The Supreme Court considered whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has statutory authority to license private, off-site interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and whether the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) limits that authority.

Counsel for the NRC told the justices the Atomic Energy Act authorizes the agency to license possession and storage of the three constituent materials that make up spent nuclear fuel—source material, special nuclear material and byproduct material—and that the commission historically has used those provisions, together with implementing rules (notably 10 CFR part 72), to license both on-site and off-site storage since 1980. Petitioners urging reversal argued that the NWPA, enacted in 1982, shows Congress intended to encourage on-site storage and to exclude private off-site facilities from the federal program.

Why it matters: the court's decision will determine whether private companies can obtain NRC permission to centralize and store reactor waste at standalone, privately owned facilities and whether states can limit that move by relying on NWPA language and congressional purpose.

Key points from argument and factual clarifications:
- Statutory text and structure: advocates for NRC relied on multiple Atomic Energy Act provisions (cited at argument using section numbers from Title 42) that ban unlicensed possession but also authorize the commission to issue licenses for possession; counsel argued the licensing provisions do not contain a geographic limitation and that Congress left the existing licensing regime intact when it enacted the NWPA.
- NWPA and section 10155(h): challengers pointed to language in the NWPA (discussed at argument as section 10155(h)) that counseled against authorizing storage \"away from the site of any civilian nuclear reactor and not owned by the federal government,\" asserting that choice reflects a congressional judgment favoring on-site or federal storage.
- Administrative practice and chronology: petitioners and several justices noted that the NRC promulgated 10 CFR part 72 in 1980 after notice-and-comment rulemaking and that Congress enacted the NWPA two years later with knowledge of the NRC's rules; supporters of NRC argued that congressional silence on a categorical bar to off-site storage supports the agency's continued licensing practice. Counsel cited the DC Circuit's Bull Creek decision as an earlier rejection of the contention that NWPA superseded Atomic Energy Act licensing.
- Security, permanence and renewals: justices pressed counsel on whether a 40-year license term (referred to repeatedly at argument) that is renewable (licenses discussed at argument ranged up to 40 years and could be renewed, producing hypothetical 80-year or longer outcomes) could be treated as \"interim.\" Counsel for challengers and some justices voiced concern that multi-decade renewals could amount to de facto permanence and create security risks in locations such as the Permian Basin. Counsel for NRC and supporters responded that renewal and subsequent adjudication would allow regulatory review of changed circumstances.
- Practical constraints: several participants observed that state and local objections cite proximity to oil-and-gas infrastructure and potential security exposure; counsel for proponents of private storage said private contracts and market incentives drive consolidation proposals and that volume of waste would not increase if storage were licensed at different locations.

What the court did not decide: after extensive questioning on statutory text, congressional purpose, and prior administrative practice, the justices submitted the case for decision. No ruling was announced at argument.

Next steps: the court's forthcoming opinion will govern the NRC's ability to license private off-site storage facilities and likely shape congressional or regulatory responses if the ruling narrows agency authority or validates agency practice.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","NRC v. Texas \t03/05/25","oneSentenceSummary","In oral argument over NRC v. Texas, justices questioned whether the Atomic Energy Act and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private, off-site interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and probed safety, permanence and statutory text.","taxTitle","Oral Arguments, Supreme Court Cases, Judiciary, Federal","taxId",40460,"location","","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":50,"_51":81,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":82,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":83,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":71,"_73":71},6069075,"Justices Press Limits on Who May Challenge NRC Licenses; Debate Centers on Hobbs Act and Intervention",4207,9440,4217330,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3075696-571cd40c55fb8f7dd2fe301a5405b5e7&start=9&end=4217","/articles/6069075/Justices-Press-Limits-on-Who-May-Challenge-NRC-Licenses-Debate-Centers-on-Hobbs-Act-and-Intervention","The Supreme Court heard arguments over whether Texas and private intervenor groups properly may invoke court review of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license without having been admitted as parties in the agency proceedings.

The question presented to the court was procedural: does the Hobbs Act's requirement that review be brought by a \"party aggrieved\" bar Texas and other challengers from seeking review in an appellate court when they did not obtain party status (or timely appeal a denial of intervention) in the NRC's licensing process? Petitioners urged the court to dismiss the petitions because they were not parties in the NRC adjudication; challengers countered that the Hobbs Act should be read to include different forms of participation and that collateral challenges may be needed where agency rules prevent meaningful review.

Why it matters: the court's answer will determine who may seek judicial review of NRC licensing actions and under what procedural route. If the court narrows the class of litigants who can invoke the Hobbs Act, states or private groups that did not secure intervention before the agency may be required to bring different types of suits (for example, in district court under the Administrative Procedure Act) or to pursue agency rulemaking petitions before seeking judicial relief.

Counsel for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its supporters told justices that standard administrative practice requires timely appeals from denials of intervention and that permitting collateral challenges would let participants \"come in at any point\" and disrupt finality. Counsel for Texas and other challengers said the proceedings at issue were a hybrid of adjudication and notice-and-comment processes that the NRC itself solicited, and that the Hobbs Act's single-word definition of \"party\" should accommodate that variety.

Several justices probed whether the Fifth Circuit's approach to permitting review on an ultra vires basis (permitting courts to hear challenges asserting that an agency acted beyond statutory authority) had adequate limits. Some justices expressed sympathy with the notion that agency rules should not be allowed to insulate government actions from judicial review; others emphasized the potential for unlimited relitigation if intervenor status could be supplied after the fact.

Article context and specifics drawn from arguments:
- The debate focused on statutory text (the Hobbs Act), agency intervention rules (NRC rules 2.309 and 2.335 were discussed at argument), and appellate practice (timeliness of appeals from denials of intervention). Counsel and several justices noted the DC Circuit decision in Bull Creek as the most directly relevant precedent on the interplay of the Atomic Energy Act and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
- Counsel for challengers emphasized that the NRC solicited comments and gave parties an opportunity to participate in an atypical licensing proceeding that mixed adjudication and NEPA-style comment; challengers argued that the state's participation in that solicitation supports treating it as a party for Hobbs Act purposes.

What the court did not decide at argument: the justices did not issue rulings; the argument concluded with the case submitted for decision.

Looking ahead: the court's decision will clarify the procedural pathway for states and private parties seeking to contest agency licensing decisions and could affect whether litigation over agency authority is litigated first in agency forums or in federal courts of appeals.","At oral arguments in NRC v. Texas, the Supreme Court fielded competing views on whether Texas and private groups were proper \"parties\" under the Hobbs Act for challenging Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing decisions and whether prior agency and court rulings preclude later collateral challenges.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

High Court Weighs Whether NRC May License Private Off-Site Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Justices Press Limits on Who May Challenge NRC Licenses; Debate Centers on Hobbs Act and Intervention