You are here: / / NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROPERLY DETERMINED ENTERGY’S APPLICATION ...

NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROPERLY DETERMINED ENTERGY’S APPLICATION TO RENEW LICENSES TO OPERATE NUCLEAR REACTORS AT INDIAN POINT FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS WAS SUBJECT TO A CONSISTENCY REVIEW UNDER THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the New York Department of State’s ruling that Entergy was required to undergo a Coastal Management Plan (CMP) consistency review of its application to renew licenses to operate nuclear reactors at Indian Point for another 20 years was rational:

… [A]side from Department of State’s interpretation of the specific language of the exemptions (to a CMP review), it is plain that these narrow exemptions for projects that had final environmental impact statements completed prior to the adoption of the CMP do not apply to re-licensing. Entergy’s current application for a license to operate the Indian Point nuclear reactors for an additional 20 years is a new federal action, involving a new project, with different impacts and concerns than were present when the initial environmental impact statements were issued over 40 years ago. Thus, just as renewal of a license to operate a nuclear power plant triggers the requirement that the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] produce a supplemental environmental impact statement (see 10 CFR § 51.20), both the Coastal Zone Management Act and the CMP require consistency review for re-licensing of nuclear facilities. The Department’s position that the Indian Point reactors are not forever exempt from consistency review under the CMP, is reasonable.

In sum, the Department of State’s interpretation of the exemptions in the Coastal Management Program, and its conclusion that Entergy’s application to re-license the nuclear reactors at Indian Point is subject to consistency review are rational, and must be sustained.  Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. v New York State Dept. of State, 2016 NY Slip Op 07821, CtApp 11-21-16

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (NY YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROPERLY DETERMINED ENTERGY’S APPLICATION TO RENEW LICENSES TO OPERATE NUCLEAR REACTORS AT INDIAN POINT FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS WAS SUBJECT TO A CONSISTENCY REVIEW UNDER THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN)/INDAN POINT (NY YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROPERLY DETERMINED ENTERGY’S APPLICATION TO RENEW LICENSES TO OPERATE NUCLEAR REACTORS AT INDIAN POINT FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS WAS SUBJECT TO A CONSISTENCY REVIEW UNDER THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN) /COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (NY YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROPERLY DETERMINED ENTERGY’S APPLICATION TO RENEW LICENSES TO OPERATE NUCLEAR REACTORS AT INDIAN POINT FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS WAS SUBJECT TO A CONSISTENCY REVIEW UNDER THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN)

You might also like
Defective Acknowledgment Rendered Prenuptial Agreement Invalid
MANUFACTURER’S DUTY TO WARN EXTENDS TO JOINT USE OF ITS PRODUCT AND A PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY A THIRD PARTY.
DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 111 GIVES A COURT THE DISCRETION TO DISPENSE WITH AN ADULT ADOPTEE’S CONSENT TO ADOPTION; HERE PETITIONERS WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO ADOPT MARION T., A 66-YEAR-OLD NON-VERBAL WOMAN WITH A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY (CT APP).
No “Exigent Circumstances”/Warrantless Search of Defendant’s Purse Incident to Arrest for Trespassing Not Justified
PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP VIOLATED THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFFS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES, GOODWILL REDUCTION SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MINORITY DISCOUNT APPLIED (CT APP).
UNAMBIGUOUS POLICY LANGUAGE REQUIRED A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL INSURED, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WRITTEN CONTRACT, THERE WAS NO COVERAGE (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGE TO CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS FIRST RAISED IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS; THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE SORA CERTIFICATION IS NOT PART OF THE SENTENCE (CT APP).
FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY. STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SYRACUSE NOISE ORDINANCE PROHIBITING MUSIC LOUD ENOUGH TO BE HEARD 50 FEET FROM... PLAINTIFF WHO FELL FROM A-FRAME LADDER AFTER AN ELECTRICAL SHOCK NOT ENTITLED...