From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
New York v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (New York II)
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
824 F.3d 1012 (2016)
In an earlier case involving the State of New York (plaintiff) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the commission) (defendant), referred to as New York I, the court of appeals vacated the commission’s 2010 update to its Waste Confidence Decision and its Temporary Storage Rule. These issuances by the commission were intended to deal with the environmental effects of the storage of spent nuclear fuel. The commission prepared an environmental assessment with a finding of no significant impact to support the 2010 update and rule. However, the court of appeals held that the commission’s analysis failed to examine the environmental impact of not establishing a waste repository, the risk of storage-pool leaks, and the consequences of storage-pool fires. As a result, the commission modified its approach to the storage of spent nuclear fuel. The commission revisited the risks associated with spent-fuel storage. It conducted new analysis of the risks of pool fires, pool leaks, seismic events, and the lack of a permanent repository for spent fuel. It also examined the potential effects of short-term, high-volume leaks. The commission prepared a generic environmental-impact statement (generic EIS) and proposed the Continued Storage Rule (new rule) based on its review of the storage issue. This new rule provided that the generic EIS was to be incorporated into all future nuclear-reactor licensing proceedings. Reconsideration of the findings of the generic EIS were precluded absent a waiver that would permit a site-specific challenge to a licensing proceeding. New York and several other states and groups (plaintiffs) filed petitions for review of the generic EIS and the new rule. They claimed that the commission’s decisions were arbitrary and capricious because the commission failed to consider alternatives, miscalculated the risks involved, and made unreasonable assumptions.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Sentelle, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.