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
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 551

589 F.3d 551 (2nd Cir. 2009)

The State of NEW YORK; Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut; and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Petitioners,

and

The State of Vermont and the Vermont Department of Public Services, Intervenor-Petitioners,

v.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; and the United States of America, Respondents,

and

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc., et al., Intervenor-Respondents.

Nos. 08-3903-ag(L), 08-4833-ag(con), 08-5571-ag(con).

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

December 21, 2009

Argued: Oct. 23, 2009.

Page 552

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 Connecticut, Hartford, CT, for Petitioners.

James E. Adler (Stephen G. Burns, John F. Cordes, Jr., Sean D. Croston on the brief), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC; John E. Arbab, John C. Cruden, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

David R. Lewis, Pillsbury Winthrop, Washington, DC; Catherine E. Stetson (Jessica L. Ellsworth on the brief), Hogan & Hartson LLP, Washington, DC; William C. Dennis, Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc., White Plains, NY, for Intervenor-Respondents.

Jerry Bonanno, Ellen C. Ginsberg, Michael A. Bauser, Anne W. Cottingham, Counsel for Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc., Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. in support of Federal Respondents, Intervenor-Respondents, and Affirmance.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Ken Alex, Gordon Burns, Susan Durbin, Brian W. Hembacher, Attorneys for State of California, Los Angeles, CA, for Amicus Curiae State of California, ex rel. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, in support of Petitioners.

Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge, KEARSE, Circuit Judge, and GARDEPHE, [*] District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The States of New York and Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Page 553

(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.

I

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 reading

FREE SIGN UP