From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
State of New York v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
589 F.3d 551 (2009)
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the commission) (defendant) divided the environmental impacts of the renewal of a license for a nuclear power plant into two categories, Category I and Category II. Category I impacts required preparation of a generic environmental-impact statement (EIS). Category II impacts required a site-specific EIS. The commission classified on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel in pools as a Category I impact. The commission found that such storage caused only a small environmental impact after reviewing numerous studies on the effectiveness of risk-mitigation measures for on-site storage. The commission mandated that the mitigation tactics it had reviewed be implemented at all nuclear-power plants. Massachusetts and California (plaintiffs) filed rulemaking petitions, seeking a determination by the commission that the environmental impacts of on-site storage should be considered a Category II impact and be evaluated on a plant-by-plant basis. The two states argued that there was a greater risk of fire from on-site storage than the commission previously accounted for based on one study that the commission had not previously considered. New York and Connecticut (plaintiffs) supported the petitions of Massachusetts and California. The commission considered these petitions together and denied them. The commission determined that the new study provided by Massachusetts and California was not as accurate as the studies on which the commission’s decision relied. The states appealed, arguing that the new information submitted by Massachusetts and California with their rulemaking petitions showed that the risk of fire was higher than originally determined. The states also argued that the commission’s decision to deny the rulemaking petitions was arbitrary because the generic EIS for all nuclear plants relied on information from specific, individual plants and risk varied from plant to plant.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
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.