New York Law Review

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. v. New York State Department of State, 27 N.Y.3d 283 (2016): CMP Consistency Review and Nuclear Plant License Renewals

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. v. New York State Department of State, 27 N.Y.3d 283 (2016)

A state’s interpretation of its coastal management program (CMP) regulations is entitled to deference, and federal license renewals for nuclear facilities are subject to CMP consistency review unless specifically exempt.

Summary

The New York State Department of State (Department) determined that Entergy’s application to renew its federal operating licenses for the Indian Point nuclear reactors was subject to review for consistency with the state’s Coastal Management Program (CMP). Entergy argued that the renewals were exempt from this review. The court held that the Department’s interpretation of the CMP exemptions was rational and that the license renewals were not exempt. The court emphasized that agency interpretations of their own regulations are generally upheld unless irrational, and that license renewals constitute a new federal action triggering the need for consistency review.

Facts

Entergy operates the Indian Point nuclear facility with two reactors. The original operating licenses, issued by the Atomic Energy Commission (predecessor to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or NRC), were for 40 years. Entergy applied to the NRC for 20-year license renewals. New York’s Coastal Management Program (CMP), administered by the Department of State, requires consistency review for federal actions affecting coastal resources, including nuclear facility licenses. The CMP has specific exemptions for certain projects. Entergy sought a declaratory ruling from the Department of State arguing the license renewals fell under the CMP’s exemptions.

Procedural History

Entergy sought a declaratory ruling from the Department of State. The Department determined that the license renewals were not exempt and subject to consistency review. Entergy initiated an Article 78 proceeding/declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court, which upheld the Department’s determination. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that the Indian Point reactors qualified for an exemption. The Department of State appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

  1. Whether the Department of State’s interpretation of the CMP’s grandfathering exemption under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) was rational.
  2. Whether the Department of State’s interpretation of the CMP exemption for projects with a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared before the effective date of the Department’s regulations was rational.
  3. Whether Entergy’s application to renew its operating licenses for the Indian Point nuclear reactors is subject to the New York Coastal Management Program consistency review.

Holding

  1. No, because the Department’s interpretation of the SEQRA grandfathering exemption, requiring specific identification on a list, was reasonable.
  2. No, because the Department’s interpretation of the exemption, requiring the EIS to have been prepared in accordance with SEQRA, was rational.
  3. Yes, because license renewals constitute a new federal action, thus subject to consistency review as determined by the Department of State.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized the deference given to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations, stating that it should be upheld unless irrational or unreasonable. Regarding the SEQRA exemption, the court found the Department rationally interpreted the word

More ARTICLES