Court Opinion

ID: 9429411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:26:42.800453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:19.479108
License: Public Domain

Justice Blackmun,
with whom Justice Marshall joins,
dissenting.
I join Justice Powell’s opinion in dissent and add comments of my own that, I believe, demonstrate (a) the incompatibility between the Court’s opinion last Term in Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Comm’n, 461 U. S. 190 (1983), *259and its opinion in the present case, and (b) the fact that the Court is by no means compelled to reach the result it espouses today.
Justice Powell’s dissent well explains the fundamental incongruity of the Court’s result. The Court acknowledges that Congress pre-empted state regulation of safety aspects of nuclear operations largely out of concern that States were without the technological expertise necessary to regulate them. Ante, at 250-251. Yet the Court concludes that Congress intended to allow a jury to impose substantial penalties upon a nuclear licensee for failure to follow what the jury regards as adequate safety procedures. The Court recognizes the paradox of its disposition, but blames the irrationality on Congress. Then, with humility, the Court explains that it is duty-bound to follow the dictates of Congress. But such institutional modesty cannot transfer the blame for the tension that today’s decision injects into the regulation of nuclear power. The Court, in my view, tortures its earlier decisions and, more importantly, wreaks havoc with the regulatory structure that Congress carefully created.
The Court recognizes that the analytic framework for this case was established less than a year ago in Pacific Gas. The precise issue in that case was whether the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, 68 Stat. 921, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2011 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. V), pre-empted California’s authority to condition the construction of a nuclear facility in California on the State’s finding that adequate means of disposal were available for the plant’s nuclear wastes. Two aspects of that decision control the proper disposition of the case today.
First, the Court concluded that federal pre-emption of nuclear safety regulation was fall and complete:
“State safety regulation is not pre-empted only when it conflicts with federal law. Rather, the Federal Govern*260ment has occupied the entire field of nuclear safety concerns, except the limited powers expressly ceded to the States. When the Federal Government completely occupies a given field or an identifiable portion of it, as it has done here, the test of pre-emption is whether ‘the matter on which the State asserts the right to act is in any way regulated by the Federal Act,’” 461 U. S., at 212-213 (footnote omitted).
The second important aspect of Pacific Gas was its analysis of the California statute. Despite the broad federal preemption of nuclear safety concerns, the Court upheld the state statute. The Court recognized that the statute clearly had an effect on the safety of nuclear plant operations, id., at 196-197, but it upheld the statute because its purpose was economic. The Court concluded that the State had adopted the regulation to prevent investments in powerplants that were likely to become white elephants due to inadequate nuclear waste storage facilities. Ibid. Because Congress had not meant the Atomic Energy Act to deprive States of the right to make economic decisions concerning nuclear power, the Court concluded that the regulation was not pre-empted. Thus, the fundamental teaching of Pacific Gas is that state regulation of nuclear power is pre-empted to the extent that its purpose is to regulate safety.
The principles set forth in Pacific Gas compel the conclusion that the punitive damages awarded in this case, and now upheld, are pre-empted. The prospect of paying a large fine — in this case a potential $10 million — for failure to operate a nuclear facility in a particular manner has an obvious effect on the safety precautions that nuclear licensees will follow. The Court does not dispute, moreover, that punitive damages are expressly designed for this purpose. Punitive damages are “private fines levied by civil juries.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 350 (1974). See Smith v. Wade, 461 U. S. 30, 49 (1983) (“[Deterrence of future egre*261gious conduct is a primary purpose ... of punitive damages”). The trial court’s instructions to the jury in this case explained the purpose of punitive damages:
“The basis for allowance of punitive damages rests upon the principle that they are allowed as a punishment to the offender for the general benefit of society, both as a restraint upon the transgressor and as a warning and example to deter the commission of like offenses in the future.” App. to Juris. Statement 112a.
The conduct that the jury’s punitive damages award sought to regulate was the day-to-day safety procedures of nuclear licensees. There was no factual finding as to how the contamination of Karen Silkwood occurred; the trial judge expressly refused to give an instruction on intentional infliction, and the jury rejected Kerr-McGee’s suggestion that Silkwood intentionally contaminated herself. See ante, at 243; 667 F. 2d 908, 915 (CA10 1981). It is abundantly clear, therefore, that the punitive damages award in this case deters a nuclear facility from operating in the same manner as Kerr-McGee. Authority for a State to do so, however, is precisely what the Court held to be pre-empted in Pacific Gas.1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations covered virtually every aspect of the incident in which Silkwood was contaminated.2 The *262Atomic Energy Act provides a full enforcement arsenal — including criminal sanctions — to police compliance with federal standards.3 Indeed, the Commission conducted a complete investigation into the Silkwood contamination, and found no material violation of federal regulations that could justify imposing a fine.4 The District Court nevertheless instructed the jury to fashion a fine to encourage Kerr-McGee and other nuclear licensees to meet in the future whatever safety standard the jury considered appropriate for plutonium.5
*263The $10 million fine that the jury imposed is 100 times greater than the maximum fine that may be imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a single violation of federal standards. The fine apparently is more than 10 times greater than the largest single fine that the Commission has ever imposed.6 The complete federal occupation of safety regulation compels the conclusion that such an award is preempted.
It is to be noted, of course, that the same pre-emption analysis produces the opposite conclusion when applied to an award of compensatory damages. It is true that the prospect of compensating victims of nuclear accidents will affect a licensee’s safety calculus. Compensatory damages therefore have an indirect impact on daily operations of a nuclear facility. But so did the state statute upheld in Pacific Gas. The crucial distinction between compensatory and punitive damages is that the purpose of punitive damages is to regulate safety, whereas the purpose of compensatory damages is to compensate victims. Because the Federal Government does not regulate the compensation of victims, and because it is inconceivable that Congress intended to leave victims with no remedy at all,7 the pre-emption analysis established by *264Pacific Gas comfortably accommodates — indeed it compels— the conclusion that compensatory damages are not preempted whereas punitive damages are.
Differences in the means of calculating compensatory and punitive damages further distinguish the two, and highlight the fundamental incompatibility of punitive damages and federal standards. When a victim is determined to be eligible for a compensatory award, that award is calculated by reference to the victim’s injury. Whatever compensation standard a State imposes, whether it be negligence or strict liability, a licensee remains free to continue operating under federal standards and to pay for the injury that results. This presumably is what Congress had in mind when it preempted state authority to set administrative regulatory standards but left state compensatory schemes intact. Congress intended to rely solely on federal expertise in setting safety standards, and to rely on States and juries to remedy whatever injury takes place under the exclusive federal regulatory scheme. Compensatory damages therefore complement the federal regulatory standards, and are an implicit part of the federal regulatory scheme.
Punitive damages, in contrast, are calculated to compel adherence to a particular standard of safety — and it need not be a federal standard. In setting the punitive damages award in this case, the court instructed the jury to consider “the financial worth of the defendant” and award an “amount of ex*265emplary damages . . . consistent with the general purpose of such an award in deterring the defendant, and others like it, from committing similar acts in the future.” 485 F. Supp. 566, 603 (WD Okla. 1979). The punitive damages award therefore enables a State to enforce a standard that is more exacting than the federal standard. Were Kerr-McGee to continue adherence only to the federal standard, it would presumably be in continuous violation of state law — an indication that the jury award in this case was too small to serve its purpose. A licensee that continues to meet only the federal standard therefore presumably will receive increasingly large punitive sanctions in subsequent personal injury suits, until compliance with the state-imposed safety standard is obtained. At that point, of course, the federal safety standard wall have been entirely supplanted. It is incredible to suggest that Congress intended the Federal Government to have the sole authority to set safety regulations, but left intact the authority of States to require adherence to a different state standard through the imposition of jury fines. The obvious conflict shows that punitive damages are preempted.
This pre-emption analysis eliminates the “tension” that the Court concedes its disposition creates. It remains faithful to the Federal Government’s expressed desire to balance the conflict between promoting nuclear power and ensuring safe operation of nuclear plants. See Power Reactor Co. v. Electricians, 367 U. S. 396, 404 (1961) (“the responsibility for safeguarding [public] health and safety belongs under the statute to the Commission”). It preserves the ability of States to provide compensation to their citizens for injuries caused by radiation hazards. Finally, it avoids the anomaly of a jury’s imposing a fine to regulate activity considered too complicated for state regulatory experts. See H. R. Rep. No. 1125, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1959) (“the technical safety considerations are of such complexity that it is not *266likely that any State would be prepared to deal with them during the foreseeable future”).
h-H h — l
For reasons never expressed m its opinion, the Court rejects the analysis outlined above and opts instead for one that it admits creates “tension between the conclusion that safety regulation is the exclusive concern of the federal law and the conclusion that a State may nevertheless award damages based on its own law of liability.” Ante, at 256. But, with all respect, in struggling to reach its result, the Court never focuses on the issue in this case. Without explanation, the analysis proceeds as though the issue is whether a victim in a nuclear accident can seek judicial recourse for her injuries. That issue is not in dispute. The issue in this case is not whether a victim of radiation hazards can be compensated under state law. The issue is whether the jury can impose a fine on a nuclear operator in addition to whatever compensatory award is given.
The Court’s obfuscation of the issue appears at the outset of its pre-emption analysis, where it states rhetorically:
“[T]here is no indication that Congress even seriously considered precluding the use of [state-law] remedies either when it enacted the Atomic Energy Act in 1954 and or when it amended it in 1959. This silence takes on added significance in light of Congress’ failure to provide any federal remedy for persons injured by such conduct. It is difficult to believe that Congress would, without comment, remove all means of judicial recourse for those injured by illegal conduct.” Ante, at 251 (emphasis supplied).
In this passage, the Court responds to an argument that has not been made. Respondents have not attributed to Congress a callous intent to deprive injured victims of compen*267sation. Pacific Gas does not imply anything so heartless. Yet the Court’s analysis never focuses on the real issue; its entire analysis proceeds as if pre-emption of punitive damages would require pre-emption of compensatory damages as well.
The source of the confusion appears to be an argument by petitioner (formerly appellant) that a pre-emption analysis of punitive damages and compensatory damages must lead to the same result on the ground that both have a regulatory effect.8 Petitioner thus placed before the Court the bleak— though contrived — choice either to allow punitive damages or to deprive injured victims of “all judicial recourse” for their injuries. As pointed out above, there is no reason that similar treatment of punitive and compensatory damages is required; indeed, Pacific Gas requires that a distinction between the two be drawn.
The irony of the Court’s approach is that Pacific Gas, decided less than a year ago, drew precisely the line that the Court today is unable to find. Pacific Gas made clear that the purpose of a statute is critical in a pre-emption analysis under the Atomic Energy Act. In that case, moreover, the parties were in serious dispute over whether the statute in question was motivated out of safety or nonsafety concerns. In this case, in contrast, there is no disagreement on the dis-positive issue; the Court does not dispute that punitive damages are intended to make a nuclear operator adopt better safety procedures.
Petitioner seems also to have obscured the distinction between compensatory and punitive damages by focusing on the role of a jury in awarding compensatory damages in a State, such as Oklahoma, where compensation is allowed only on a showing of negligence.9 Because a determination of negligence requires a jury to determine a licensee’s duty of *268care, petitioner argued that Congress has demonstrated a willingness to allow a jury to set a standard for licensee conduct. That being the case, petitioner suggested that there is no evidence that Congress intended not to allow a jury to impose a punitive award based on that standard.
It is not at all surprising, however, that Congress would tolerate a jury-imposed negligence standard for awarding compensation. In its desire to promote nuclear power, Congress has never expressed an intention to allow a nuclear licensee to avoid paying for any injury it causes. Indeed, where Congress has determined the liability standard for licensees, it has imposed strict liability.10 Congress thus has demonstrated its willingness to hold a nuclear licensee liable for all injury that it causes, regardless of whether it is at fault. When a State chooses to impose a more relaxed liability standard on a licensee — such as negligence — the State simply eliminates part of the burden that the Federal Government is willing to have the nuclear industry bear. In effect, a State that uses a negligence standard simply subsidizes the industry at the expense of those numbers of its citizenry that are victims of radiation hazards. The fact that Congress was willing to let States reduce the compensatory liability of licensees is hardly support for the notion that Congress would also allow States to set — either through administrative regulation or tort law — standards of care *269higher than the federal standard, and impose fines to secure compliance with them.
Having focused on the wrong issue, the Court seeks to support its wrong result by focusing on the legislative history of the wrong statute. The Court relies heavily on comments made during consideration of the Price-Anderson Act, Pub. L. 85-256, 71 Stat. 576. Congress enacted that statute in 1957 out of concern that the potential liability arising from a nuclear occurrence exceeded the amount of insurance a licensee could obtain. Congress perceived that the unavailability of unlimited insurance was deterring private investment in nuclear energy projects. Price-Anderson therefore established a liability system to compensate victims in the event of an “extraordinary nuclear occurrence.” The system has three major components: (1) it empowers the Commission to require a licensee to have financial protection up to $60 million of liability; (2) it provides for federal indemnification for the next $500 million; and (3) it sets the $560 million thus aggregated as the limit of liability for any one nuclear incident (with a procedure for apportioning that amount should claims arising from the incident exceed $560 million). After that limit, any additional compensation to victims would require further action by Congress. Price-Anderson also requires a licensee to waive certain defenses that, most importantly, make clear that in the event of an “extraordinary nuclear occurrence,” the licensee will be strictly liable for the injuries it causes.
Price-Anderson’s legislative history plainly demonstrates that except in the event of an extraordinary nuclear occurrence, Price-Anderson does not interfere with state tort law. For example, the Joint Committee Report on the bill that later became Price-Anderson explained:
“The basic principles underlying the bill are two:
“1. Since the rights of third parties who are injured are established by State law, there is no interference *270with the State law until there is a likelihood that the damages exceed the amount of financial responsibility required together with the amount of the indemnity [■i. e., $560 million]. At that point the Federal interference is limited to the prohibition of making payments through the State courts and to prorating the proceeds available.
“2.” S. Rep. No. 296, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1957) (emphasis added).
The Court relies on this passage to demonstrate, in its view, that the entire corpus of “state tort law” is available for application in any suit arising out of a nuclear incident. Ante, at 252-254. Such an interpretation simply ignores the context of the statement, and produces a variety of incongruities that the Court fails to address.
The Court’s opinion omits from its quotation the first line of the passage. That line makes clear that the passage describes only the underlying principles of the Price-Anderson Act; it does not purport to be a description of the relationship between all federal nuclear regulation and state tort law. The passage demonstrates that Price-Anderson interferes with state tort law only in certain limited situations. But the question in this case is not whether Price-Anderson preempted punitive damages; the issue is whether the Atomic Energy Act pre-empted punitive damages in 1954. Thus, the legislative history on which the Court bases its argument simply begs the question of how much state tort law remained in place before Price-Anderson was enacted.
It is hardly surprising, moreover, that proponents of Price-Anderson emphasized how little their proposed legislation would interfere with state tort law. As with any federal legislation that pre-empts the powers of the States, Price-Anderson undoubtedly prompted concern about federal intrusiveness. To assuage such concerns, proponents of Price-Anderson and later federal statutes regulating nuclear power *271emphasized the minimal federal intrusion of the proposed legislation.11 But such statements provide a most uncertain basis on which to interpret the pre-emption that resulted from earlier federal statutes. On the relevant issue — the pre-emption of state law accomplished by the Atomic Energy Act in 1954 — this Court already has concluded that the preemption of nuclear safety concerns was complete.
By using Price-Anderson’s legislative history in 1957 to conclude that the 1954 Act leaves all of state tort law intact, the Court implicitly proves too much. Surely the Court would concede that Congress did not intend, for example, to allow a state court to entertain a nuisance action and enjoin the operation of a nuclear powerplant on the ground that the plant was unsafe. Similarly, the Court must agree that a state court could not enjoin in a trespass action the release of effluents from a plant that was in compliance with Commission standards. Yet the Court’s position rests on the notion that state tort law must be treated as an undifferentiated body of law, and that all tort remedies have been left intact.
The Court’s interpretation of Price-Anderson’s legislative history produces even greater incongruities in the operation of Price-Anderson itself. As explained above, the Price-Anderson liability scheme provides federal indemnification for liability above $60 million and below $560 million. The purpose of the indemnification is to provide compensation for victims and to minimize the exposure of nuclear licensees. But the Court’s inconsonant holding leads to the anomalous result that in the event of a nuclear accident in which liability exceeds $60 million, the Federal Government might well have to pay punitive damages to the victims of the accident. By definition, such payments would not serve a compensatory purpose; nor would they have the deterrent effect on licens*272ees that justifies imposing them. Congress could not have intended so paradoxical a result.
Once again, the logical way out of this paradox is a conclusion that Congress assumed that punitive damages would not be awarded under Price-Anderson.12 But such an assumption is now unavailable to the Court: the same passages the Court uses to demonstrate that “there is no interference with . . . State law” except in the event of a nuclear occurrence also make clear that even then the “Federal interference is limited to the prohibition of making payments through the state courts and to prorating the proceeds available.” Accordingly, it is clear that Price-Anderson itself would not preempt punitive damages, and the Court’s position puts the Federal Government in the absurd position of paying them.
The Court’s holding produces similar incongruities in the application of Price-Anderson to an accident in which liability exceeds the $560 million limit. In that situation, Price-Anderson provides for the prorating of claims. If punitive damages are allowed, victims with large punitive awards would receive awards greatly in excess of compensation, while other victims would receive less than full compensation. Such a result would be grossly inequitable, and in clear conflict with Price-Anderson’s goal of compensating victims of a nuclear accident. Once again, the obvious implication of this result is that Congress assumed that punitive damages would not be available. Yet the Court rejects this assumption by insisting that references to “state tort law” in the legislative history demonstrate that punitive damages have never been pre-empted.
*273J — I H-i I — i
The Court’s analysis ends where it began, still focused on the wrong issue. In the last paragraph of its analysis,13 the opinion once again acknowledges the anomaly of its disposition, but explains:
“Congress did not believe that it was inconsistent to vest the NRC with exclusive regulatory authority over the safety aspects of nuclear development while at the same time allowing plaintiffs like Mr. Silkwood to recover for injuries caused by nuclear hazards. We are not authorized to second-guess that conclusion” (emphasis supplied). Ante, at 258.
Not only are we not authorized to second-guess Congress’ conclusion, but also we have not been asked to do so. At the risk of repetition, this case is not about whether Karen Silkwood’s administrator can recover for her injury; it is about whether a person injured by radiation can be awarded an amount in excess of the injury sustained in order to encourage all nuclear operators to spend more on safety. On that issue, the Court’s position is plainly inconsistent with its *274earlier holding in Pacific Gas that “the Federal Government has occupied the entire field of nuclear safety concerns.” 461 U. S., at 212. The Court’s insistence on obfuscating the issue in this case cannot change the will of Congress on the issue that is truly before us.

 The Court’s opinion in Pacific Gas seemed to contemplate even the precise issue in the case today. The Court explained:
“It would clearly be impermissible for California to attempt to [regulate the construction or operation of a nuclear powerplant], for such regulation, even if enacted out of nonsafety concerns, would nevertheless directly conflict with the [Commission’s] exclusive authority over plant construction and operation.” 461 U. S., at 212.

 See, e. g., 10 CFR § 19.12 (1974) (requiring education of workers concerning hazards of radiation); §§20.101-20.108 and Appendix B (radiation dose standards for individuals both in and outside restricted areas); §20.202 (use of personnel-monitoring equipment); §20.203 (posting of warnings around radiation areas); §20.402 (notification of the Commission in the event of loss or theft of nuclear materials); § 403 (notification in the *262event of exposure to radiation). Part 70 of the Regulations sets forth certain terms and conditions imposed on nuclear licenses. See, e.g., §§ 70.23, 70.24, 73.1 (license applicants must be determined to have qualified personnel, equipment, and procedures adequate to protect health and safety and to protect the plant against theft or sabotage of nuclear materials); §§ 70.51, 70.53 (nuclear balance inventory and recordkeeping for special nuclear materials).

 42 U. S. C. §§ 2271-2284 (1976 ed. and Supp. V). Criminal conviction for willful violations of various provisions of the Act may result in substantial fines and imprisonment. §§ 2272-2278b, 2284. The Attorney General may seek injunctive relief to prevent or stop violations of the Act or the Commission regulations or orders. § 2280. The Commission itself can impose civil penalties for violations of specific licensing provisions of the Act. § 2282. In 1980, Congress increased the maximum civil penalty to $100,000 per violation; if the violation is a continuing one, each day constitutes a separate violation. § 2282(a). Finally, the Commission can initiate proceedings to modify, suspend, or revoke any license issued under the Act, and, in an emergency, can make such action effective immediately. 10 CFR §§70.61-70.62 (1974).

 The only violations of regulations revealed by the investigation were Kerr-McGee’s failure to record the voiding dates for two bioassay samples provided by Silkwood. App. to Motion to Dismiss or Affirm A17.

 The regulatory nature of the punitive damages award is evidenced by the jury instruction explaining how punitive damages were to be calculated:
“You may consider the financial worth of the defendant against whom such damages are awarded in determining the size of such an award that is proper under the facts of this case. That is, you may consider the wealth of defendant Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation in determining what amount of exemplary damages, if you find them appropriate, is consistent *263with the general purpose of such an award in deterring the defendant, and others like it, from committing similar acts in the future, and for punishment of the defendant for such acts.” App. to Juris. Statement 113a. The jury was instructed further that compliance with federal standards was not a complete defense to the award of punitive damages:
“You are instructed, however, that you are not bound by these standards. Your duty is to determine what constitutes the exercise of reasonable care in handling plutonium, or the existence of reckless and wanton conduct, in light of the physical characteristics of that material and the risks associated with it.” Id., at 102a.

 See N. Y. Times, Oct. 22, 1983, p. 26, col. 5 (largest' fine imposed to date is $850,000).

 In Pacific Gas, the Court relied on the fact that there was no federal regulation of the economic considerations of nuclear power as clear evi*264dence that Congress intended to leave such concerns to consideration of the States:
“The Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . does not purport to exercise its authority based on economic considerations .... It is almost inconceivable that Congress would have left a regulatory vacuum; the only reasonable inference is that Congress intended the States to make these judgments.” 461 U. S., at 207-208.
The absence of federal regulation governing the compensation of victims of nuclear accidents is strong evidence that Congress intended the matter to be left to the States.

 See Brief for Appellant 42-43; Reply Brief for Appellant 6-9.

 See id.. at 11-12.

 The Price-Anderson Act, Pub. L. 85-256, 71 Stat. 576, was amended in 1966 to remedy what Congress perceived to be state tort law inadequacies in administering compensation for a victim of a major nuclear incident. Pub. L. 89-645, 80 Stat. 891. Those amendments require licensees, as a condition of their receiving approval of financial protection and the indemnity afforded by Price-Anderson, to waive certain state-law defenses in the event of a major nuclear incident. See 42 U. S. C. §2210(n)(l). The waivers assure, inter alia, that a victim’s entitlement to compensation will be determined under a strict-Iiability standard rather than negligence. Congress required such waivers out of concern that state laws, such as the negligence standard of liability, were ill-suited to the problems of nuclear hazards. See S. Rep. No. 1605, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess., 13 (1966).

 See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 435, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1957); S. Rep. No. 1605, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1966).

 Such an assumption is fully consistent with the legislative history of the Act which, when read in context, makes clear that its objective is to provide compensation to persons that suffer injuries. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 296, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (1957) (Price-Anderson offers “a practical approach to the necessity of providing adequate protection against liability arising from atomic hazards as well as a sound basis for compensating the public for any possible injury or damage arising from such hazards”) (emphasis supplied).

 The next to last paragraph of the analysis seems to reflect similar confusion. The paragraph is an attempt to respond to respondents’ argument that punitive damages conflict with the desire of Congress to promote nuclear power. The Court explains:
“Congress . . . disclaimed any interest in promoting the development and utilization of atomic energy by means that fail to provide adequate remedies for those who are injured by exposure to hazardous nuclear materials. Thus, the award of punitive damages in this ease does not hinder the accomplishment of the [congressional] purpose . . . .” Ante, at 257 (emphasis supplied).
There is no claim in this case that Congress pre-empted remedies to compensate those who are injured by exposure to hazardous nuclear materials. Unless the statement is meant to suggest that remedies are not “adequate” unless they include punitive damages — an argument which the Court does not put forward and which would be difficult to make, given that some States do not allow punitive damages — then the statement has little relevance to the issue in this case.