BREAKING: 5TH CIRCUIT COURT VACATES NRC's TEXAS CISF LICENSE

BREAKING: 5TH CIRCUIT COURT VACATES NRC LICENSE ISSUED TO TEXAS SITE FOR NATIONAL SNF STORAGE FACILITY & CONCLUDES NRC DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SNF STORAGE LICENSES.

The historic decision published today by the US Fifth Circuit Court can be found here.

You will find that my arguments against the NRC’s flawed actions were similar to the weaknesses the Court found in its opinion. See previous reporting on this story here.

• This case involved a challenge to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's issuance of a license to Interim Storage Partners to construct and operate a consolidated interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in Andrews County, Texas.
• The State of Texas and others petitioned for review, arguing the NRC lacked statutory authority under the Atomic Energy Act to issue such a license.
• The 5th Circuit agreed with the petitioners. It held the Atomic Energy Act does not confer authority on the NRC to license private away-from-reactor storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel.
• The court examined the text of the Atomic Energy Act provisions on licensing and found they authorize licenses for the possession of nuclear materials for research, medical, and industrial purposes - not spent fuel storage.
• The 5th Circuit also held that the license contradicts the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which provides a comprehensive scheme for nuclear waste storage and disposal. The NWPA prioritizes permanent disposal and limits interim storage options.
• The court found that the NWPA clearly contemplates that spent fuel will be stored at reactor sites or federal facilities until a permanent repository is available. The NRC license directly conflicts with this scheme.
• The 5th Circuit held that the NRC exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the license. It granted the petitions for review and vacated the license.

In summary, the 5th Circuit ruled that the NRC lacks authority under existing statutes to license a private interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel away from reactor sites, vacating the license issued to Interim Storage Partners in Texas.

Based on the Court's decision, a legal argument could be made that the 5th Circuit concluded the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not have authority under the Atomic Energy Act to license the storage of spent nuclear fuel, based on the court's analysis in this decision:

• The court examined the text of the AEA provisions on licensing and found they only authorize licenses for the possession of nuclear materials for research, medical, and industrial purposes - not spent fuel storage.
• The opinion states that the AEA provisions "do not support the Commission’s claim of authority" to issue licenses for spent fuel storage. 
• The court rejected the NRC's argument that because it can license possession of constituent radioactive materials like source material and special nuclear material, that means it can license spent fuel storage. 
• The 5th Circuit found that the AEA licensing provisions are limited to the enumerated purposes and types of materials, which do not encompass spent fuel storage.
• The court concluded that "the Atomic Energy Act doesn’t authorize the Commission to license a private, away-from-reactor storage facility for spent nuclear fuel."
• So, a reasonable legal argument can be made that the 5th Circuit interpreted the Atomic Energy Act to not confer authority on the NRC to license private storage of spent nuclear fuel, based on the court's textual analysis of the statute.

What impact does this decision have on SNF storage at NRC-licensed facilities throughout the country? One should expect legal challenges to follow this historic decision.

STORY DEVELOPING.