ML041040332

Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing

ML041040332
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	02/12/2004
From:	Burton N Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Byrdsong A T
References
+adjud/rulemjr200506, 50-336-LR, 50-423-LR, ASLBP 04-824-01-LR, RAS 7548
Download: ML041040332 (13)

Text

DOCKETED RAS 7548 USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA March 22, 2004 (9: 17AM)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGSAND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF in the Matter of Docket No. 50-336, 50-423 DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, INC.

(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2 and Unit 3) February 12,2004 PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone (CCAM) petitions herewith to intervene and request a hearing in proceedings concerning the application of Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. ("DNC") to extend the Operating Licenses for Units 2 and Unit 3.

The current operating license of Millstone Unit 2 is due to expire on July 31, 2015; the application proposes to extend the license 20 years to the year 2035.

The current operating license of Millstone Unit 3 is due to expire on November 25,2025; the application proposes to extend the license 20 years to the year 2045.

The petitioner, of P.O. Box 415, Niantic, Connecticut, is an organization of environmental advocacy and safe-energy groups, former employees of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station and families and individuals who reside within and beyond the five-mile emergency evacuation zone of Millstone.

CCAM petitions to intervene in these proceedings and requests a hearing because of its concerns of adverse health and safety risks to its membership, as 1

well as the health and safety of Millstone workers and the surrounding community, should the amendment be granted.

CCAM petitions to participate in these proceedings to raise contentions that the application should be rejected because of technical, environmental and other issues.

CCAM will elaborate upon the basis for this petition in its formal submission of contentions. Furthermore, it reserves the right to expand upon and supplement the contentions submitted herein.

Contentions

1. The operafions of MilMone Units 2 and 3 have caused death, disease, biological and genetic harm and human sufFering on a vast scale.

A. Factual or Legal Basis of the Contention The routine and unplanned releases of radionuclides and toxic chemicals into the air, soil and water have caused death, disease, biological and genetic harm and human suffering on a vast scale. The pubk was misled when the facility was initially licensed. The licenses must be imrnedi;Itely revoked, not extended.

B. Statement of Facts When the Millstone nuclear reactors were cxigiixL] licensed, the licensee and the Government withheld from the public Pie prospact that the host community, its men, women and children living and working dowrwind of the nuclear facility, would die, or would suffer disease m d o'ther health effects as wall as suffer genetic damage.

Yet, such horrors have occurred on a vast scale.

2

Since the Millstone reactors went online, cancer clusters have been identified in many areas close to Millstone. The cancers are scientifically and medically linked to the routine and unplanned emissions of Millstone.

C. Sources and Documents on Which Petitioner Intends to Rely The petitioner intends to rely on the following documents and sources to establish the facts alleged:

I.Records and documents maintained by the Connecticut Department of Health;

2. Such additional medical and scientific and other sources and documents as are a matter of public record and as may be disclosed in discovery in these proceedings.

D. A genuine dispute exists on a material issue of law or fact, the resolution of which will make a difference in the outcome of the licensing proceeding.

It is anticipated that the applicant will dispute that Millstone operations are responsible for the loss of human life and the high incidence of disease and human suffering asserted by the Petitioner. h?iilstonesrole in causing death and illness to men, women and children is a material issue of fact. 1:s resolution will make a difference in the outcome of the licensing proceeding.

E. The contention, if proven, would be sf consequence in the proceeding because it will entitle the peijtioner to sp&iic relief.

Petitioners contention, if proven, would er?,titlethe petitioner to the specific relief sought, namely, denial of the license renewal application. There is no precedent in American law that permits continued operation ob an identified 3

privately-owned, for-profit killing machine that triggers cancer, disease, genetic damage and human suffering in the civilian population on a vast scale.

II. Millstone Units 2 and 3 Are Terrorist Targets of Choice A.Factua1 or Legal Basis of the Contention The federal Office of Homeland Security has identified the Millstone Nuclear Power Station as a primary terrorist target. It is an unprotected nuclear weapon awaiting detonation. As long as Units 2 and 3 generate electricity, the facility is a key element of the regions infrastructure and all the more appealing as a terrorist target. As a nuclear weapon, Millstone possesses the explosive force of thousands of Nagasaki and Hiroshima-size bombs. While it is operating, Millstone cannot be protected against a malevolent attack.

6. Statement of Facts Neither Millstone Unit 2 nOr Unit 3 was constructed to withstand, nor would it, the force of a terrorist attack, which is credible.

C. Sources and Documents ow Which Petitioner Intends to Rely The petitioner intends to rely on the following documents and sources to establish the facts alleged:

1 The Licensees license amendment application and attachments and references contained therein;

2. Records and documents maintained b j stake, federal and local agencies; and

3. Such additional somes and documents as are a matter of public record and as may be disclosed in discovery in these proceedings.

4

6). A genuine dispute exists on a material issue of law or fact, the resolution of which will make a difference in the outcome of the licensing proceeding.

The Petitioner contemplates that the applicant will attempt to refute such contention, which is material to the issues of public health and safety.

The contention, if proven, will be of consequence in the proceeding because it will entitle the petitioner to specific relief.

E. The contention, if proven, would be of consequence in the proceeding because it would entitle the petitioner to specific relief, A terrorist threat to a nuclear facility is credible, Without significant modifications to the facility to protect against a terror attack, the facility poses too great a peril to the public to be allowed to operate. The applicant cannot prove the contrary. The contention will be of consequence in the proceeding because it will compel denial of the application.

ill. Millstone Units I and 2 operations require the unintempted flow through intake and discharge strwdwres of cooling water, which conduct requires a vaiic %ation&f k # u h - iDischarge Elimination System permit and the facility lacks such a valid permit A. Factual or Legal Basis of the Co,.tfention In order to avoid a reactor core meltdown, the ?dWoneUnit 2 and Unit 3 reactors require the continuous flmv of cooling water, <Ihroughintakes and discharge structures, Such water flow requires a valid tbtiohal Pollution Discharge Elimination System (DES) permit pursuant to the fzderal Clean Water Act. The applicant lacks such a permit. Without the lawdul abXy to cool the reactors and prevent core meltdown, the applicant cannot safety cperate the

facility. Moreover, given past practices involving criminal misconduct at Millstone, it is doubtful that the applicant will be able to obtain a lawful NPDES permit.

B. Statement of Facts The applicant does not presently hold a valid NPDES permit. Nor does the applicant hold a valid NPDES perm it authorizing operation of the water cooling system during the years 2015 through 2035 for Unit 2 nor the years 2025 through 2045 in the case of Unit 3.

C. Sources and Documents on Which Petitioner Intends to Rely The petitioner intends to rely on the following documents and sources to establish the facts alleged:

1 The Licensees license amendment application and attachments and references contained therein;

2. Records and documents maintained by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and other state, federal and lacaf agencies;

3. Such additional sources and documents as are a matier of public record and as may be disclosed in discovery in these procesdings.

8. A genuine dispute exists on a materid h u e of law or fact, the resolution of which will make a d E ~ ~ n in e outcome ofthe c the licensing proceeding.

It is anticipated that the applicant will dispute whether it possesses a valid MPDES permit. Whether the facility possesses a valid NPDES permit is a material issue of fact. The resojution of this fact will make a difference in the outcome of the licensing proceeding in that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission cannot license a nuclear power plant which lacks cooling capacity.

6

E. The contention, if proven, would be of consequence in the proceeding because it will entitle the petitioner to specific relief.

Petitioner's contention, if proven, will entitle the petitioner to the specific relie;'

sought, namely, denial of the license renewal application.

SV. The operations of Millstone Units 2 and 3 have caused irreversible h a m to the environment.

A. Factwal or Legal Basis of the Contention The operations of Millstone Units 2 and 3 have caused devastating losses to the indigenous Niantic winter flounder population. The operations of Millstone Units 2 and 3 have caused irreversible damage to the marine environment.

Continued operations will increase the severity of the environmental damage.

B. Statement of Facts The operations of Millstone Units 2 and 3 have caused devastating losses to the indigenous Niantic winter flounder population. The operations of Millstone Units 2 and 3 have caused irreversible damage to the marine environment.

Continued operations will increase the severii] of the environmental damage.

C. Sources and Documents on Which Pemoner I n h - d s to Rely The petitioner intends to rely on tkz folf.~*~Ang documents and sources to establish the facts alleged:

1 The Licensee's license amendment appliliiation and attachments and references contained therein;

2. Records and documents maintained by the Connecticut Depxtment of Environmental Protection and other state, federal ad local agencies; 7

4.Such additional sources and documents as are a matter of public record and as may be disclosed in discovery in these proceedings.

D. A genuine dispute exists on a material issue of law or fact, the resolution of which will make a difference in the outcome of the licensing proceeding.

The Petitioner contemplates that the applicant will dispute this contention, which is material to the application. To the extent that the Petitioner proves this contention to be valid, it will make a difference in the outcome of the proceeding.

E. The contention, if proven, would be of consequence in the proceeding because it will entjtle the petitioner to specific relief.

To the extent that the Petitioner proves this contention to be valid, it will entitle .'Z the Petitioner to the relief sought, namely, denial of the application.

V. Millstone Units 2 and 3 Suffer Technical and Operational Defects Which Preclude Safe Qperation A. Factual or Legal Basis of Contention Both Units 2 and 3 suffer technical and operational defects which preclude safe operation.

B. Statement of Facts Both Units 2 and 3 suffer technical and operational defects which preclude safe operation. System malfunctions and failures recur without adequate correction, Both units have suffered excessive occasions of unplanned emergency shutdowns. Both units suffer from premature aging.

C. Sources and Documents on Which Petitioner Intends to Rely The petitioner intends to rely on the following documents and sources to establish the facts alleged:

8

1 The Licensees license amendment application and attachments and references contained therein;

2. Records and documents maintained by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and other state, federal and local agencies;

3. Such additional sources and documents as are a matter of public record and as may be disclosed in discovery in these proceedings.

D. A genuine dispute exists on a material issue of law or fact, the resolution ob which will make a difference in the outcome of the licensing proceeding.

The Petitioner contemplates that the applicant will dispute this contention. To the extent that the Contention is established, its resolution will make a difference in the outcome of the proceeding.

E.The contention, if proven, will be of consequence in the proceeding because it will entitle the Petitioner to specific relief.

To the extent that the Petitioner establishes that Units 2 and 3 suffer technical and operational defects which preclude safe operation, the contention will be of Consequence in the proceeding because it will compel denial of the application.

VI. Connecticut and Long Island Csnnot Be Evacuated A. Factual or Le@ Bask 3f&eConkniiora In the event of a serious nuclear accident at Millstone Unit Iandlor 2, which is credible, parts or all of Connecticut and Long Island will be required to be evacuated and these areas canndt as a facfual matter be evacuated. A nuclear reactor cannot be licensed without an evacuation plan which will work.

5. Statement of Facts 9

The cities of New Haven and Harfford and all of Suffolk County are located within 50 miles of Millstone. (Similarly, the metropolitan area of Providence R1 and the city of Newport RI are located within 50 miles of Millstone.)

Depending on the direction of the winds, in the event of a serious nuclear accident at Millstone, the endangered population must be evacuated.

There is no evacuation plan in effect that will work. Moreover, none has ever been put to a true test involving the civilian population.

The infrastructure surrounding Millstone - e.g., 1-95 and the Arntrak Northeast Corridor rail line - are ineffective for this purpose. Present evacuation plans do not account for the explosive population growth which has occurred in the area due to casino operations and economic development and other factors.

C. Sources and Documents on Which Petitioner Intends to Rely The petitioner intends to rely on the following documents and sources to establish the facts alleged:

1 The Licensees license amendment application and attachments and references contained therein;

2. Records and documents maintained by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and other state, federal and local agencies;

3. Such additional sources and documents as are a matter of public record and a5 may be disclosed in discovery in these proseedings.

D. A genuine dispute exists 010a material issue of law or fact, the resolution of which will make a difference im the outcome of the licensing proceeding.

10

The Petitioner contemplates that the applicant will dispute this contention. To the extent that the Contention is established, its resolution will make a difference in the outcome of the proceeding.

E.The contention, if proven, will be of consequence in the proceeding because it will entitle the Petitioner to specific relief.

To the extent that the Petitioner establishes that Connecticut and Long Island cannot be evacuated, the contention will be of consequence in the proceeding because it will compel denial of the application.

The Petitioner reserves the right to supplement the foregoing as appropriate.

THE PETITIONER CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST MILLSTONE By:

147 Cr&Highway Redding Ridge CT 06876 Tel. 203-938-3952/Fax 203-938-3168 Ernail: nancvburtonesq@DaoI.com Fed. Bar No. 10836 11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of Docket No.

DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, INC.

(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2 and Unit 3) February 12,2004 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearinglof Petitioner, Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone, was sent via U.S.

Mail, postage pre-paid on February 12, 2004 to the following and emailed to the addresses below indicated:

Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 (Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudication Staff)

(Original + 2) hearinndocket@nrc.qov JMC3@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 David A. Repka, Esq.

Brooke D. Poole, Esq.

1400 IStreet NW Washington DC 20005 DREPKA@winston.com BPOOLE@winSton.com Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq.

Millstone Nuclear Power Station Building 47515 1

Rope Ferry Road Waterford CT 06385 Lillian-Cuoco@dorn.com Tel. 2G3-938-39521Fax 203438-3168 nancyburtonesq@aol.com Fed. Bar No. 10836 2