원자력법에 따른 연방 우선권 (Federal Preemption Under the Atomic Energy Act(AEA))
본 보고서는 AEA법에 따른 연방 우선권에 적용된 일반적 헌법 원칙, 관련 판례 등 법원의 해석을 분석합니다.
As some state governments explore nuclear power’s role in a transition away from fossil fuels, state legislatures continue to debate questions of safety and waste storage. Although safety concerns may prompt states to assert authority over nuclear power, federal law severely limits the extent to which states can regulate nuclear power. The Supreme Court has expressly held that, while states retain authority over “questions of need, reliability, cost, and other related State concerns,” federal preemption prevents states from regulating radiological safety aspects of nuclear power production. Whether a state law may regulate a part of the nuclear power lifecycle will depend principally on whether the state law or regulation in question is preempted by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). Although there is “no one crystal clear distinctly marked formula” for determining whether a state law is preempted by federal law, the Supreme Court has established three general classes of preemption: express preemption, conflict preemption, and field preemption. In each instance, “the question of preemption is one of determining Congressional intent.” Many legal disputes surrounding federal preemption of state regulation of nuclear power have centered on field preemption. Under existing Supreme Court precedent, an analysis of whether a state law is preempted under the AEA requires a consideration of both the purpose and the effect of the state law in question. Thus, any state law that is grounded in radiological safety concerns or has a “direct and substantial” effect on the safety of nuclear plant “construction and operation” falls within the field exclusively occupied by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and therefore would be preempted. This report covers general constitutional principles of preemption and analyzes the courts’ interpretation of the scope of federal preemption under the AEA, including some significant opinions in the courts of appeals applying Supreme Court precedent.