RIVERKEEPER, INC. v. COLLINS, 03-4313
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decision denying plaintiff's request that the licensing of the two Indian Point nuclear power plants be made conditional on the implementation of a permanent no-fly zone over the plants, a defense system to protect this no-fly zone, and conversion of the spent-fuel storage at the plants to a dry-cask system.
- Decided 02/24/2004
- Published 02/24/2004
SACK, Circuit Judge., Before: VAN GRAAFEILAND, SACK, and RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
United States Second Circuit
Karl S. Coplan,Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic, Inc. (Nicolette Witcher, Paula Butler, and Jason C. D'Ambrosio, on the brief), White Plains, NY, for Petitioner., Robert D. Snook, Assistant Attorney General of Connecticut (Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut, on the brief), Hartford, CT, for Amicus Curiae Richard Blumenthal.
Jared K. Heck, Attorney, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Karen D. Cyr, General Counsel, John F. Cordes, Jr., Solicitor, E. Leo Slaggie, Deputy Solicitor, Thomas L. Sansonetti, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, and John T. Stahr, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, on the brief), Washington, DC, for Respondents Samuel J. Collins, Dr. William Travers, and United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission., Jay E. Silberg, Shaw Pittman LLP (Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Blake J. Nelson, and John M. Fulton, on the brief), Washington, DC, for Respondents Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.