ENERGYSOLUTIONS, LLC v. Utah
625 F.3d 1261
10th Cir.2010Background
- EnergySolutions owns the Clive LLRW disposal facility in Utah and sought to import Italian LLRW; the Northwest Compact denied authorization for the import.
- Utah is a Northwest Compact member and the Northwest Committee denied out-of-region waste and limited disposal authority.
- Clive Facility license conditioned on Northwest Committee approval to receive out-of-region waste; Committee sometimes granted and sometimes denied such imports.
- EnergySolutions sued, asserting Northwest Compact lacked authority over Clive Facility and that federal law preempts or conflicts with the Compact; district court ruled for EnergySolutions on authority only.
- The Tenth Circuit rejects the district court’s view, holds the Compact and Congress’s consent authorize exclusionary authority over the Clive Facility, and reverses for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
- The opinion frames Congress’s consent as transforming the Northwest Compact into federal law, with the 1980 Act repealed by the 1985 Act and the Consent Act validating the Compact’s authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Northwest Compact grant exclusionary authority over Clive Facility? | EnergySolutions argues no broad exclusionary power. | Northwest asserts explicit exclusionary authority under the Compact. | Yes; Northwest Compact has authority to exclude such waste. |
| Do the Consent Act and 1985 Act limit the Compact’s exclusionary power? | Saving clauses restrict the Compact’s authority. | Consent Act and the 1985 Act do not constrict the grant. | No; saving clauses do not limit the Compact’s express grant. |
| Does the Dormant Commerce Clause constrain the Compact after congressional consent? | Dormant Commerce Clause objections remain valid. | Consent Act waives Dormant Commerce Clause concerns for this compact. | Dormant Commerce Clause concerns are waived by congressional consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (Supreme Court 1992) (LLRW disposal and dormant Commerce Clause framework cited)
- City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (Supreme Court 1978) (dormant Commerce Clause blocking of interstate flow)
- Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554 (Supreme Court 1983) (guidance on compacts and construction)
- Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (Supreme Court 2004) (starting point is existing statutory text)
- Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433 (Supreme Court 1981) (consent to interstate compact can be through enabling statute or approval of agreement)
- Alabama v. North Carolina, 130 S. Ct. 2295 (Supreme Court 2010) (compact terms control; consent under Southeast Compact context)