Citizens For An Orderly Energy Policy, Inc. v. Suffolk County

Decision Date09 March 1987
Docket Number571,573,D,Nos. 570,s. 570
Citation813 F.2d 570
Parties17 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,534 CITIZENS FOR AN ORDERLY ENERGY POLICY, INC., Vance L. Sailor, Eena-Mai Franz, John J. Foley and Dorothy V. Sheehan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Long Island Lighting Company and the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District, Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The COUNTY OF SUFFOLK and Peter F. Cohalen, Defendants-Appellees. ocket 85-7321, 85-7323, 85-7325.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Lucinda Low Swartz, Kensington, Md. (Ronald A. Zumbrun, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, Cal., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, Inc.

K. Dennis Sisk, New York City (Adeeb Fadil, Hunton & Williams, New York City, W. Taylor Reveley, III, Kathy E.B. McCleskey, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Va., Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Long Island Lighting Co., Hicksville, N.Y., of counsel), for Intervenor-plaintiff-appellant Long Island Lighting Co.

J. Scott Greer, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Lou Lewis, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., of counsel), for Intervenor-plaintiff-appellant Shoreham-Wading River Central School Dist.

David A. Brownlee, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Michael J. Lynch, Kenneth M. Argentieri, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Pittsburgh, Pa., Herbert H. Brown, Lawrence C. Lanpher, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Washington, D.C., Martin B. Ashare, Suffolk County Dept. of Law, Hauppaug, N.Y., of counsel), for defendants-appellees.

Before TIMBERS, MESKILL and KEARSE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment entered March 21, 1986, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Altimari, J., dismissing the claims of plaintiff Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy (Citizens) and intervenors Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (District) under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). Citizens, LILCO and District allege that the County of Suffolk passed certain resolutions which violate and are preempted by the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2011 et seq. (1982). They also complain that Suffolk's resolutions violate We affirm the judgment below substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's opinion, 604 F.Supp. 1084 (E.D.N.Y.1985), and write solely to address appellants' contention that the district court based its decision on the erroneous assumption that LILCO would receive, without difficulty, an operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1982) on statutory, due process and equal protection grounds.

BACKGROUND

The events giving rise to the litigation in the district court are set forth in the district court opinion, 604 F.Supp. at 1087-89, and we assume familiarity with them. Less than one month after the district court issued its decision, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing board denied LILCO's application for an operating license on the ground that Suffolk's refusal to cooperate rendered LILCO's proposed radiological emergency plan inadequate. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) LBP-85-31, 22 N.R.C. 410 (August 26, 1985). On appeal, the Commission reversed the licensing board's decision and remanded, directing the board to assume that, in an actual emergency, Suffolk would act responsibly and would use LILCO's plan as the best source of information and options for its emergency response. Long Island Lighting Co. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Long Island Lighting Co. v. Cuomo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • 4 Agosto 1987
    ... ... See, e.g., Long Island Lighting Co. v. County of Suffolk, 628 F.Supp. 654 (E.D.N.Y.1986); izens for an Orderly Energy Policy, Inc. v. County of Suffolk, 604 ... power plant, and an evacuation plan for citizens who are within a ten mile radius of the plant at ... ...
  • County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 29 Junio 1990
    ... ... Daly, Jr., ... Custom Extruders, Inc., Susan Chase, Christopher ... S. George, Fred Harrison, ... only be charged for plants [currently producing energy]"; "[c]harges for plants not in operation are unusual." ... over a ten-year period; the creation of a Citizens Advisory Panel to aid in improving LILCO service; payment ... 23(b)(1)(B). Thus, while the policy concern advanced by LILCO is persuasive to the extent that ... , 856 F.2d 378 (1st Cir.1988); Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, Inc. v. County of Suffolk, 813 F.2d 570 (2d ... ...
  • Blue Sky Entertainment, Inc. v. Town of Gardiner
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • 19 Abril 1989
    ... ... Kohl Indus. Park Co. v. County of Rockland, 710 F.2d 895 (2d Cir.1983) (takings ... In Pesticide Public Policy Found. v. Village of Wauconda, 622 F.Supp. 423 ... See Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Energy Resources and Conservation Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190, ... of aircraft owned by, among others, citizens of the United States or "corporations ... clause); see also Citizens For An Orderly Energy Policy, Inc. v. Suffolk County, 604 ... ...
  • County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 14 Abril 1989
    ... ... Quinn, and Custom Extruders, Inc., Plaintiffs, ... LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, Stone & ... litigation have compounded the serious economic and energy problems facing millions of people in New York City, Nassau ... lower costs for nuclear fuel, Suffolk reversed its policy. Beginning in the early 1980's it became an implacable foe ... Citizens For An Orderly Energy Policy, Inc. v. County of Suffolk, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT