incident,” in turn, is defined as “any occurrence ... within the United States causing ... bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death, or loss of or damage to property, or loss of use of property, arising out of or resulting from the radioactive, toxic, explosive, or other hazardous properties of source, special nuclear, or byproduct material.” Id. at § 2014(q). Without question, the claims asserted here fall squarely within the statutory language of the Act. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ suit asserts “legal liability” for soil and groundwater contamination due to the releases of radioactive substances including neptunium, technicium, and plutonium. As such, Price-Anderson effectively preempts Plaintiffs’ state law tort claims. See Nieman v. NLO, Inc., 108 F.3d 1546, 1553 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Even so, Kentucky law still provides the
holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that state law claim regarding breach of settlement agreement was preempted by federal labor law holding that the state law contract claim alleged the same conduct as in the erisa claim and was therefore preempted holding that priceanderson preempted state law trespass claim such that plaintiff could sue under the priceanderson act as amended or not at all holding the state law claims were not preempted