589 F.3d 551 (2nd Cir. 2009), 08-3903-ag L, New York v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com'n
|Docket Nº:||08-3903-ag(L), 08-4833-ag(con), 08-5571-ag(con).|
|Citation:||589 F.3d 551|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||The State of NEW YORK; Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut; and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; and the United States of America, Respondents, and The State of Vermont and the Vermont Department of Public Services, Intervenor-Petitioners, and Entergy Nuclear Operations|
|Attorney:||John J. Sipos (Monica Wagner, Andrew M. Cuomo, Barbara D. Underwood, Benjamin N. Gutman, Katherine Kennedy, Janice A. Dean on the brief), State of New York, Albany, NY; Matthew Brock, Martha Coakley, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, MA; Richard Blumenthal, Robert D. Snook, State of Connecti...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge, KEARSE, Circuit Judge, and GARDEPHE, [*] District Judge.|
|Case Date:||December 21, 2009|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
Argued: Oct. 23, 2009.
The States of New York and Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
(collectively the " States") petition for review of a decision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (" NRC") denying rulemaking petitions filed by Massachusetts and California. As the NRC has given due consideration to the relevant studies, we must defer to their expertise in determining the proper risk level associated with the storage of nuclear material in spent fuel pools, and therefore deny the petition for review.
Two States filed rulemaking petitions (Massachusetts in 2006, and California in 2007) asking the NRC to reverse its 1996 Generic Environmental Impact Statement, which found (among other things) that spent fuel pools at nuclear power plants do not create a significant environmental impact within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. The NRC consolidated and denied the rulemaking petitions in a 2008 decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 2239(a)(1)(A). United States Courts of Appeal have jurisdiction to review such final orders of the NRC. 28 U.S.C. § 2342(4). The States petitioning for review here...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP