Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Supreme Court to consider Virginia uranium case that divides a rural county
ICYMI #scotus agenda today includes what to do about nation’s largest untapped deposit of uranium, which sits below an old Virginia plantation
Link to tweet
Virginia Politics
Supreme Court to consider Virginia uranium case that divides a rural county
By Gregory S. Schneider and Robert Barnes
November 4 at 1:20 PM
CHATHAM, Va. — Members of the Coles family have worked the land here for more than 200 years, and on Monday the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether they can dig up what’s underneath.
Coles Hill, a handsome Federal-style manor built about 1817, presides over the largest untapped deposit of uranium in the United States and one of the largest in the world.
When the Coles family explored mining the uranium in the 1980s, the Virginia legislature imposed a moratorium, citing fears of an unsightly mine and radioactive waste.
A few years ago, as the market for uranium picked up, Walter Coles formed a company to revive the project. But the state stood firmly opposed. So he challenged the moratorium in court, and after lower courts ruled against him, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider the case.
....
Greg Schneider covers Virginia from the Richmond bureau. He was The Washington Post's business editor for more than seven years, and before that served stints as deputy business editor, national security editor and technology editor. He has also covered aviation security, the auto industry and the defense industry for The Post. Follow https://twitter.com/SchneiderG
Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Follow https://twitter.com/scotusreporter
Supreme Court to consider Virginia uranium case that divides a rural county
By Gregory S. Schneider and Robert Barnes
November 4 at 1:20 PM
CHATHAM, Va. — Members of the Coles family have worked the land here for more than 200 years, and on Monday the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether they can dig up what’s underneath.
Coles Hill, a handsome Federal-style manor built about 1817, presides over the largest untapped deposit of uranium in the United States and one of the largest in the world.
When the Coles family explored mining the uranium in the 1980s, the Virginia legislature imposed a moratorium, citing fears of an unsightly mine and radioactive waste.
A few years ago, as the market for uranium picked up, Walter Coles formed a company to revive the project. But the state stood firmly opposed. So he challenged the moratorium in court, and after lower courts ruled against him, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider the case.
....
Greg Schneider covers Virginia from the Richmond bureau. He was The Washington Post's business editor for more than seven years, and before that served stints as deputy business editor, national security editor and technology editor. He has also covered aviation security, the auto industry and the defense industry for The Post. Follow https://twitter.com/SchneiderG
Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Follow https://twitter.com/scotusreporter
Emily Hammond Guest
Posted Mon, October 29th, 2018 1:02 pm
Argument preview: Justices may consider role of legislative motive in pre-emption analysis
On November 5, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, which could test the extent to which a court will explore a state legislature’s motives when evaluating whether a state statute is pre-empted by federal law. The facts concern the largest uranium deposit in the United States, located in south-central Virginia. The petitioners are owners of the deposit who wish to mine uranium, and they are challenging a 1983 statute by which the Virginia General Assembly passed a moratorium on uranium mining:
Virginia Uranium argues that the Virginia moratorium is pre-empted by the Atomic Energy Act, which generally precludes states from regulating matters of radiation safety that come within the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This argument — invoking what is known as field pre-emption — involves the thorniest issues to watch for at oral argument and is the primary focus of this preview. In addition, Virginia Uranium contends that the moratorium should fall because it conflicts with the AEA’s purpose of promoting nuclear development in the United States.
A few words about uranium development are necessary to understand the nuances of the case. Uranium development begins with three steps: the physical mining of uranium ore; milling the ore to produce “yellowcake,” which is a concentrated uranium powder; and managing and disposing of the mill tailings, a sandy, radioactive waste left behind after producing yellowcake. Of these steps, there is no question that the NRC does not have jurisdiction to regulate uranium mining on private lands — regulating that activity has always been the states’ domain. By contrast, the AEA requires uranium mills and tailings-disposal facilities to hold NRC licenses designed to protect the public health and safety. Under certain conditions, states may apply for and be granted authority to take over this regulatory function, but Virginia has not done so for these activities. Otherwise, the statute provides that nothing in the relevant section affects states’ authority to “regulate activities for purposes other than protection against radiation hazards.”
The inference from this language is that the AEA pre-empts state efforts to regulate radiation safety for uranium milling and tailings management — like commercial reactor operation and the management of spent nuclear fuel, among many other things. In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission, the Supreme Court upheld a California statute that imposed a moratorium on new nuclear power plants in the state until the United States developed a means of disposing of spent nuclear fuel. Although the challengers contended that the state was motivated by safety concerns, the Supreme Court accepted the state’s economic rationale and refused to evaluate the state’s “true motive.” By contrast, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit rejected a Utah law that established a licensing scheme for private storage of spent nuclear fuel because its clear purpose was to regulate radiation safety.
....
Posted in Virginia Uranium v. Warren, Featured, Merits Cases
Recommended Citation: Emily Hammond, Argument preview: Justices may consider role of legislative motive in pre-emption analysis, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 29, 2018, 1:02 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/argument-preview-justices-may-consider-role-of-legislative-motive-in-pre-emption-analysis/
Posted Mon, October 29th, 2018 1:02 pm
Argument preview: Justices may consider role of legislative motive in pre-emption analysis
On November 5, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, which could test the extent to which a court will explore a state legislature’s motives when evaluating whether a state statute is pre-empted by federal law. The facts concern the largest uranium deposit in the United States, located in south-central Virginia. The petitioners are owners of the deposit who wish to mine uranium, and they are challenging a 1983 statute by which the Virginia General Assembly passed a moratorium on uranium mining:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, permit applications for uranium mining shall not be accepted by any agency of the Commonwealth prior to July 1, 1984, and until a program for permitting uranium mining is established by statute.
Virginia Uranium argues that the Virginia moratorium is pre-empted by the Atomic Energy Act, which generally precludes states from regulating matters of radiation safety that come within the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This argument — invoking what is known as field pre-emption — involves the thorniest issues to watch for at oral argument and is the primary focus of this preview. In addition, Virginia Uranium contends that the moratorium should fall because it conflicts with the AEA’s purpose of promoting nuclear development in the United States.
A few words about uranium development are necessary to understand the nuances of the case. Uranium development begins with three steps: the physical mining of uranium ore; milling the ore to produce “yellowcake,” which is a concentrated uranium powder; and managing and disposing of the mill tailings, a sandy, radioactive waste left behind after producing yellowcake. Of these steps, there is no question that the NRC does not have jurisdiction to regulate uranium mining on private lands — regulating that activity has always been the states’ domain. By contrast, the AEA requires uranium mills and tailings-disposal facilities to hold NRC licenses designed to protect the public health and safety. Under certain conditions, states may apply for and be granted authority to take over this regulatory function, but Virginia has not done so for these activities. Otherwise, the statute provides that nothing in the relevant section affects states’ authority to “regulate activities for purposes other than protection against radiation hazards.”
The inference from this language is that the AEA pre-empts state efforts to regulate radiation safety for uranium milling and tailings management — like commercial reactor operation and the management of spent nuclear fuel, among many other things. In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission, the Supreme Court upheld a California statute that imposed a moratorium on new nuclear power plants in the state until the United States developed a means of disposing of spent nuclear fuel. Although the challengers contended that the state was motivated by safety concerns, the Supreme Court accepted the state’s economic rationale and refused to evaluate the state’s “true motive.” By contrast, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit rejected a Utah law that established a licensing scheme for private storage of spent nuclear fuel because its clear purpose was to regulate radiation safety.
....
Posted in Virginia Uranium v. Warren, Featured, Merits Cases
Recommended Citation: Emily Hammond, Argument preview: Justices may consider role of legislative motive in pre-emption analysis, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 29, 2018, 1:02 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/argument-preview-justices-may-consider-role-of-legislative-motive-in-pre-emption-analysis/