Burton v. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
23 A.3d 1176
| Conn. | 2011Background
- Burton sued Dominion Nuclear Connecticut seeking to enjoin uprate at Millstone Unit 3 for alleged unreasonable pollution and thermal plume effects; NRC approved a 7% uprate Aug. 12, 2008 with power from 3411 to 3650 MWt and issued safety/environmental assessments finding no significant impact; plaintiff was denied intervention and later filed complaint Oct. 23, 2008 seeking injunctions, damages, and relief; trial court dismissed for lack of standing and on federal preemption, exhaustion, and primary jurisdiction grounds; uprate was implemented after the decision but appellate court ruled mootness insufficient to dismiss; court ultimately affirmed dismissal on standing and preemption grounds; issues concern CEPA standing, public nuisance standing, aggrievement, and CUTPA standing; court held federal preemption bars the radioactive waste claim and lack of standing bars the thermal plume temperature claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Radioactive waste claim preemption viability | Burton contends CEPA standing survives despite federal regulation | NRC/FEA exclusive federal control preempts state claims | Preemption bars state claim; no standing for radioactive waste |
| Standing under CEPA for thermal plume temperature | Burton claims statutory standing under CEPA § 22a-16 | Complaint lacks colorable claim of unreasonable pollution | Lacked standing under CEPA § 22a-16; claim dismissed |
| Public nuisance/classical aggrievement/CUTPA standing | Burton claims public nuisance, classical aggrievement, and CUTPA standing | Plaintiff lacks particularized injury and remoteness defeats standing | Claims dismissed for lack of standing; nuisance and aggrievement rejected; CUTPA standing lacking |
| Mootness of injunctive relief | Relief feasible; mootness not established | Relief moot since uprate implemented | Not moot; injunctive relief could be feasible; but standing/preemption determine outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission, 461 U.S. 190 (1983) (federal preemption where federal regulation dominates radiological safety and limits state actions)
- Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238 (1984) ( Silkwood exception narrow; preemption generally controls nuclear claims)
- Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003) (removal of Price-Anderson actions; federal forum preferred)
- El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473 (1999) (Price-Anderson Act governs federal jurisdiction/removal for nuclear incidents)
- Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Rocque, 267 Conn. 116 (2003) (standing under CEPA; regulatory scheme background for pollution claims)
- Burton v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 291 Conn. 789 (2009) (CEPA standing and regulatory scheme; environment-specific standing)
- Waterbury Hospital v. Connecticut Health Care Associates, 186 Conn. 247 (1982) (injunctive relief and mootness; context for standing)
- Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 258 Conn. 313 (2001) (standing standard; comprehending pleadings and record)
- Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (2009) (jurisdictional questions; record at motion to dismiss)
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. New London, 282 Conn. 791 (2007) (standing and CEPA context re environmental claims)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing generally; injury requisite)