Will Texas Become America’s Nuclear Dump?
It Can Be Stopped
Hi friends,
I received the summary of the Supreme Court case, Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, and it is very concerning. (I’ve included a brief summary at the end of this post.) The bottom line is a Texas agency failed to take the appropriate action that gave it rights to argue against the licensing of a non-government entity for this project, so Texas had no standing and SCOTUS ruled the licensing is valid; however, what they've proposed, and gotten a license for, is against the law.
Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:
“By law, spent nuclear fuel may be stored on an interim basis in only two places: at a nuclear reactor or a federally owned facility. Disregarding those instructions, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an interim storage license to a private company . . . The agency’s decision was unlawful. Still, the Court says, there is nothing we can do about it. Why? Because neither of the respondents before us is a ‘party aggrieved’ by the agency’s decision.”
I don't think Andrews County, Texas (the Permian Basin) (or anywhere in Texas) should have a potentially 40,000+ metric tons of nuclear waste 'storage faculty'. It says 'temporary', but the new facility planned in Lea County, near Carlsbad, NM has a 40‑year initial license with possible 40‑year renewal reinforcing this is far from temporary. I would bet the Texas license is the same (same company, same plans).
"And let’s be honest — it’s not like the federal government has a track record of moving nuclear waste once it’s parked. Just look at Nevada: they stopped the Yucca Mountain project, but the waste still hasn’t been moved from reactor sites. What makes us think Texas will be different?"
Texas: AG Ken Paxton submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in opposition to the project, and Gov. Greg Abbott has voiced support for state laws aimed at protecting Texas from becoming a dumping ground. However, to date, no new permits have been denied by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).
New Mexico: The state has taken more assertive steps. The New Mexico Attorney General and Environment Department have filed legal challenges, and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed SB 53 into law. This legislation explicitly prohibits the storage of high-level nuclear waste in New Mexico without the state’s consent.
Here are some concerns and facts about the nuclear waste storage facility.
West Texas communities and state leaders (including Gov. Abbott) have long opposed nuclear waste storage in the region. Their concerns include:
Groundwater contamination
Earthquake risk
Lack of consent from local communities or the state legislature.
Roughly 100,000 tons of spent fuel, some of it dating from the 1980s, is piling up at 77 current and former nuclear plant sites nationwide (across 35 states) and growing by more than 2,000 tons a year. The waste was meant to be kept there temporarily before being deposited deep underground. (Note that 100,000 number and know that the proposed 40,000+ could be a drop in the bucket.)
A plan to build a national storage facility northwest of Las Vegas at Yucca Mountain has been mothballed because of staunch opposition from most Nevada residents and officials.
Thousands of shipments of spent nuclear fuel travel through highly populated areas (Routes include 44 states)
Terrorist risk - “enticing target for terrorists” and argues it's too risky to build the facility atop the Permian Basin, the giant oil and natural gas region that straddles Texas and New Mexico. (Fires, explosions?)
Groundwater incl oil and gas contamination
Fuel is now stranded at dozens of U.S. nuclear plants, often poorly secured. So, ISP becomes a de facto national storage site — with no end date.
Terrorism & Transit Corridors - Union Pacific and BNSF railway maps, I-20, I-10, I-40 – possible truck shipment corridors. Need to engage emergency responders in those counties (fire, EMS, HAZMAT)
Political opposition is bipartisan
Republicans and Democrats, environmental groups, and the oil and gas industry all oppose the sites.
More nuclear waste is being created at the rate of 2,000 tons. That's 20 million pounds.
Dry casks are multi-layered (steel + concrete shields). Risks include: leakage, aging, and human error, as well as the fact that dry casks aren’t inspected thoroughly for cracks once licensed; concrete shielding may degrade over decades.
Federal studies (DOE, EWG) estimate 100 accident scenarios in long-haul transport, with at least 50–100 incidents over decades. (That's from 2002 about Yucca Mountain. It could be different in this circumstance. Research on that is needed.)
Tribal lands
National-level site
Groundwater, seismic & air particulate risks
“Enticing target for terrorists” — national security angle
Foreign ownership via Orano (French government)
Supreme Court procedural win — not substantive approval
Legal statute conflict: 1954 Atomic Energy Act vs. 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act
Yucca Mountain precedent: Nevada’s political & legal resistance
Additional concerns:
Fasken Land and Minerals Ltd., a private company with mineral and land interests nearby, feared the storage site would:
Lower land value
Disrupt oil and gas development
Risk liability exposure for radioactive releases
Why did Fasken and Texas want in on the licensing process? Fasken tried to “intervene” in the official NRC proceedings (which would have given them legal standing to challenge the result), but their request was denied.
Texas submitted comments during the environmental review but did not formally become a party to the proceedings.
Earlier this month the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal license allowing Interim Storage Partners (ISP) to build a massive nuclear waste storage facility in Andrews County, Permian Basin — but it did so on a procedural technicality, not on the merits. Texas and landowner Fasken Land and Minerals lost not because the project was safe, but because they weren’t “parties” to the NRC licensing process and had no legal standing. The ruling is not a victory for safety — it’s a loophole.
Who Can Still Stop This
TCEQ – Can block permits, demand environmental reviews, assert state safety authority.
Attorney General Paxton – Could sue under Texas law (environmental, nuisance, property).
Governor Abbott – Can direct agencies, legislate, declare state-level emergency.
Texas Legislature – Can ban private nuclear storage without explicit state consent.
Andrews County / Oil & Gas Groups – Should pass local resolutions, seek legal buffer zones, and defend mineral interests.
Railroad Commission & TXOGA – Must alert members to liability, insurance risk, and operational interference.
What We Must Do Now
a) Write or Call TCEQ and State Leaders — insist on a full permit review, groundwater testing, and safety analysis.
b) Ask TCEQ to deny permits or require new safety and groundwater assessments.Demand that no nuclear waste storage facilities be permitted without explicit legislative approval.
Reach out to local government — commissioners, councils, emergency response officials to raise awareness and block or complicate transport, zoning.
Use Public Pressure — Reach out to local media, op-eds, social media — emphasize procedural failure = public endangerment.
Alert Oil & Gas Stakeholders — Nuclear waste storage could threaten groundwater integrity, reduce land value, disrupt drilling permits, and drive up liability insurance. This isn’t just an environmental issue — it’s a direct economic and operational risk to one of America’s most vital energy regions.
The Supreme Court ruled for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Interim Storage Partners (ISP). The license to store spent nuclear fuel in West Texas was upheld on procedural grounds, not on the merits of the project.
Texas and Fasken Land and Minerals lost because the Court ruled that, under the Hobbs Act, they had no legal standing to challenge the license—they were not “parties” to the NRC’s licensing proceeding, so they could not appeal the final decision.
What Does It Mean?
What does the NRC license authorize?
The license allows Interim Storage Partners (ISP) to construct and operate a private facility in West Texas for the potentially long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel—radioactive waste from nuclear reactors.
It is likely a permanent repository (like Yucca Mountain was intended to be) for the thousands of tons of waste piling up across the U.S. The license says ‘temporary’, but it’s renewable and expandable. No nuclear waste has ever been moved from the other storage sites.
The site is meant to hold up to 5,000 metric tons of fuel initially, expandable to 40,000+ metric tons. Again, renewable and up to 40,000+ metric tons again. No sunset date.
Why is this license controversial?
West Texas communities and state leaders (including Gov. Abbott) have long opposed nuclear waste storage in the region. Their concerns include:
Groundwater contamination
Earthquake risk
Lack of consent from local communities or the state legislature
Fasken Land and Minerals Ltd., a private company with mineral and land interests nearby, feared the storage site would:
Lower land value
Disrupt oil and gas development
Risk liability exposure for radioactive releases
Why did Fasken and Texas want in on the licensing process?
Fasken tried to “intervene” in the official NRC proceedings (which would have given them legal standing to challenge the result), but their request was denied.
Texas submitted comments during the environmental review but did not formally become a party to the proceedings.
This matters because only “parties” to the licensing hearing can seek judicial review under the Hobbs Act—a law that governs appeals of agency decisions like this one.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit, ruling that:
Texas and Fasken were not legally “parties” to the NRC’s licensing proceeding.
Therefore, they had no right to challenge the NRC’s decision in court.
“The Hobbs Act... permits judicial review only by a ‘party aggrieved.’ The plain meaning of ‘party’ refers to one who has formally participated in the agency proceeding,” — Justice Kavanaugh
LEGAL AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS
For the NRC and ISP:
Clear win. The license stands (for now), and challenges from non-parties can’t stop the project on procedural grounds.
It sets a tight standard for standing in future environmental and nuclear challenges.
For Texas and Fasken:
They lost their case, not because their concerns were wrong, but because they failed to secure legal standing at the outset.
This is a procedural loss with real-world consequences—the waste storage can proceed unless Congress or future litigation changes the playing field.
Broader Impacts:
Could limit states' ability to challenge federal licenses in energy, transportation, and environmental sectors unless they proactively intervene in the agency process.
May trigger legislative efforts (especially in red states) to assert more power over waste storage or similar federal-state projects.
Here is the summary of the Supreme Court case.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas
Docket: 23-1300
Opinion Date: June 18, 2025
Judge: Brett Kavanaugh
Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law
Interim Storage Partners (ISP) applied for a license to build a facility in West Texas to store spent nuclear fuel. During the licensing process, a Texas government agency and Fasken Land and Minerals, a private business, submitted comments on the draft environmental impact statement prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Fasken also sought to intervene in the licensing proceeding but was denied by the NRC. Fasken challenged this denial before the full Commission and the D.C. Circuit but was unsuccessful.
In September 2021, the NRC granted ISP a license to build and operate the storage facility. Texas and Fasken sought review of the NRC's licensing decision in the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit vacated ISP's license, allowing Texas and Fasken to challenge the NRC's decision despite not being parties to the licensing proceeding.
The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Texas and Fasken were not entitled to judicial review of the NRC's licensing decision because they were not parties to the Commission's licensing proceeding. The Court emphasized that under the Hobbs Act, only a "party aggrieved" by a licensing order of the Commission may seek judicial review. To qualify as a party, one must be the license applicant or have successfully intervened in the proceeding. Since Texas and Fasken did not meet these criteria, they could not obtain judicial review. The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded the case with instructions to deny or dismiss the petitions for review.
Subscribe at RationalAmerican.org for more facts, insights, and uncensored commentary.
As always, do your own research; make up your own mind.
This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims are based on publicly available sources and are presented as political analysis, not legal conclusions. No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual or organization unless supported by formal public record.
The views expressed reflect my personal perspective on current events. While I strive for accuracy, readers are encouraged to verify details using the official sources linked above. References to third-party material are included for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.
If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to ensure appropriate context and clarity.
(AI may have been used in this article.)
God bless you, God bless President Trump and team, and God bless America!
Stay calm - President Trump is a businessman who operates strategically, and not everything will make sense at first. His plan to shrink government and Make America Great Again is a process, not an overnight fix. Trust the long game, not just the headlines.
United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.
VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html
Until next time…
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?
Some housekeeping…
Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.
You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.
Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!