Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. John Warren
848 F.3d 590
4th Cir.2017Background
- Coles Hill (Pittsylvania County, VA) contains the largest known U.S. uranium deposit; Virginia imposed a moratorium/ban on conventional uranium mining in the 1980s and it remains in effect.
- Virginia Uranium and related entities sued Virginia officials, seeking a declaration that the state ban is preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and an injunction to require permitting.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, holding the AEA does not regulate conventional uranium mining on nonfederal lands and therefore does not preempt Virginia’s ban.
- Key factual/legal contentions: Virginia Uranium argued (1) conventional mining is an AEA-regulated “activity”; (2) even if mining itself is not regulated, the ban effectively prohibits NRC‑regulated milling and tailings activities; (3) the ban obstructs AEA objectives. Virginia (defendant) maintained the AEA does not reach conventional mining on nonfederal lands and the statute’s text does not regulate milling/tailings.
- The Fourth Circuit majority affirmed, reasoning the NRC reasonably interprets the AEA not to regulate conventional mining on nonfederal lands, so Section 2021(k)’s state‑preservation for non‑radiological regulation applies; the ban’s text does not regulate milling/tailings and Congress’s objectives are not materially obstructed.
- A dissent (Traxler, J.) argued the ban is grounded in radiological safety concerns about milling/tailings, placing it within the federally occupied field (per Pacific Gas), and that the ban frustrates the AEA’s objectives and the statutory cooperative scheme for state assumption of NRC authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Virginia Uranium) | Defendant's Argument (Virginia/Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conventional uranium mining is an AEA‑regulated "activity" under §2021(k) so states cannot regulate it for radiological safety reasons | Mining falls within activities regulated by the AEA (or is functionally covered) and thus states cannot ban it for safety reasons | AEA does not regulate conventional mining on nonfederal lands; §2021(k) bars only regulation of activities that are regulated by the NRC | Held: No. Conventional mining on nonfederal lands is outside the NRC’s regulatory ambit and thus not an "activity" under §2021(k) for preemption purposes |
| Whether the ban is preempted because it effectively prohibits NRC‑regulated milling and tailings storage | Even if mining itself is not regulated, the ban prevents milling/tailings (AEA‑regulated) and is therefore preempted | The statute’s plain text bans mining and does not mention milling/tailings; courts should not probe legislative motive to invalidate a facially lawful exercise of state police power | Held: No. The ban’s text does not regulate milling/tailings; motive inquiry is disfavored under Pacific Gas and the statute stands |
| Whether the ban is preempted as an obstacle to Congress’s objectives in the AEA (conflict preemption) | The ban frustrates the AEA’s objective to promote safe development of nuclear energy by preventing federally regulated activities from occurring | The AEA’s objectives are not materially impaired (most uranium is imported; some domestic recovery is licensed and beyond state reach; federal acquisition powers exist) | Held: No. The ban does not stand as an obstacle to the AEA’s objectives in a way that mandates preemption |
| Standard of deference where NRC interprets its jurisdiction under the AEA | Agency construction of ambiguous statutory reach (NRC view that conventional mining is outside its jurisdiction) merits deference | Same; Commonwealth relies on NRC interpretation to show AEA silence on conventional mining | Held: The court accepts the NRC’s reasonable reading that the AEA does not cover conventional mining on nonfederal lands and defers accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, 461 U.S. 190 (Sup. Ct.) (establishes scope of AEA preemption: federal occupation of nuclear safety field and Pacific Gas test for non‑safety rationale)
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (Sup. Ct.) (conflict preemption: state law invalid if it is an obstacle to federal objectives)
- English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72 (Sup. Ct.) (discusses AEA federal licensing scheme and limits of preempted field)
- Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88 (Sup. Ct.) (state regulation that circumvents federally conditioned state assumption of authority can frustrate federal scheme)
- Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians v. Nielson, 376 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir.) (state measures aimed at preventing NRC‑regulated activities are preempted despite addressing traditionally local subjects)
- Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC v. Shumlin, 733 F.3d 393 (2d Cir.) (applies Pacific Gas to invalidate state law whose primary purpose was radiological safety regulation)
- Silkwood v. Kerr‑McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238 (Sup. Ct.) (states’ tort remedies are not categorically preempted by AEA; distinguishable where statute is enacted to regulate radiological safety)