CCAM PRESS RELEASES

CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST MILLSTONE

COALITION CALLS ON CONGRESS
TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR NEW
CHERNOBYL SARCOPHAGUS
TO HONOR ORANGE REVOLUTION HEROES

For Immediate Release: April 12, 2005
Contact: Nancy Burton Tel. 203-938-3952
Clarence O. Reynolds Tel. 860-848-1748


....The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone today called on Congress to accede to new Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko’s urgent request for funding to build a new sarcophagus over the ruins of the Chernobyl reactor which exploded on April 26, 1986, causing the worst nuclear disaster in history.
....Yushchenko, hailed as a hero of the Orange Revolution which overturned a corrupt Russian-dominated regime in December, made the request during his historic appearance before a joint session of Congress on April 6, 2005.

....The Coalition urged Congress to enact emergency legislation to replace a cracking concrete sarcophagus which is vulnerable to collapse.
....Immediate action is required to avert a secondary tragedy which may occur if the shielding collapses and massive amounts of intensely radioactive debris are released into the environment, the Coalition said.
....A 1996 study put the cost of building a new sarcophagus at $1 to $1.5 billion.
“In November and December, Ukraine’s children of Chernobyl thronged to the streets of Kiev in the hundreds of thousands,” said Nancy Burton, a Coalition leader.
....“They put their lives at risk in the Orange Revolution to forge a new nation, dedicated to the welfare of its people and purged of government corruption. Their sacrifice has inspired millions across the globe and has unsettled corrupt regimes everywhere,” Burton said.
....“We honor Viktor Yushchenko and all the heroes and heroines of the Orange Revolution,” said Clarence O. Reynolds, a Coalition member. “We hail their courage and example.”
“What more fitting gift can we as Americans bestow upon them on the upcoming 19th anniversary of Chernobyl on April 26 than to begin work without delay to construct a new sarcophagus at Chernobyl,” Reynolds said.
....When the Chernobyl Unit 4 reactor exploded 19 years ago, it released radiation estimated to be 100 times greater than the radiation released by the Hiroshima bomb.
The consequences were staggering.
....The accident killed 30 plant operators and first responders in its immediate aftermath. Ninety per cent of the 135,000 people permanently evacuated from a 20-mile zone surrounding Chernobyl have been diagnosed with illnesses related to high radiation exposures. Of the 600,000 people involved in the clean-up (“liquidators”), all are dead or considered ill, according to the Ukrainian Ministry of Health. It is estimated that 15 million people or more were victimized by Chernobyl, requiring health care costing $60 billion, according to the Coalition.
....In Ukraine alone, more than 2.32 million people, including 452,000 children, have been treated for radiation-linked illnesses, including thyroid and blood cancer and cancerous growths, according to

eye protection

Ukrainian health officials. Hundreds of square miles of land have been permanently contaminated. Plutonium, cesium, strontium and other deadly materials drained into the Dnieper River system, a major source of drinking water. A deadly cloud of radiation blanketed the earth for more than 10 days.
Authorities in the then-governing Soviet regime - who thought they could conceal the accident itself from the Ukrainian people and the world - covered up the reactor with a makeshift concrete sarcophagus to contain radiation dispersal.
....The temporary sarcophagus is now cracking and leaking, allowing radioactive particles to escape. Structural supports are vulnerable to collapse. It is feared that if the degraded conditions are not addressed soon, a second tragedy may occur on a large scale, according to the Coalition.
During the corrupt Leonid Kuchma regime, the newly independent Ukraine ignored these problems. The people of Ukraine and the whole world were put at grave risk.
....“The truth is we are all children of Chernobyl,” Burton said.
....“The principles espoused in the Orange Revolution are timeless and apply universally,” said Burton.
....“As the 19th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster approaches, let us take action in the common interest of humanity,” Burton said.
- 30 -
....Note to Editors: Attached is The New York Times account of President Yushchenko’s appearance before the Joint Session of Congress on April 6, 2005.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 7, 2005
Ukraine President Visits Congress a Hero and Asks for More Help
By BRIAN KNOWLTON

International Herald Tribune
....WASHINGTON, April 6 - President Viktor A. Yushchenko of Ukraine pressed Congress on Wednesday for assistance to help the country deepen its integration with the West and to allow Ukraine to "live in peace and accord with all of its neighbors, whether in the East or in the West."
But with a face still ravaged by a poisoning he has ascribed to political rivals, Mr. Yushchenko also vowed to bring to account all those behind the past killings of politicians and journalists, as well as those behind the country's recent election crisis.
...."We wish to discover the truth about all tragedies that have occurred in the past years," he said. He cited in particular the 2000 assassination of a journalist investigating governmental corruption.
...."Not only the perpetrators, but those who contracted those crimes will be held responsible," he said.
To cheers and even chants of "Yushchenko, Yushchenko" like those that filled Kiev streets last year, he thanked the lawmakers for "clear and unambiguous" American support in the weeks between a presidential election marred by accusations of fraud and the election in which he prevailed.
....Mr. Yushchenko has become a symbol among many lawmakers and with the administration for the sort of promotion of democracy that President Bush has made a central objective. On Wednesday he became the first leader of a former Soviet republic other than Russia to address a joint meeting of Congress. On Monday, Mr. Bush welcomed him warmly to the White House.
....In both places, he sought support as Ukraine seeks membership in the World Trade Organization, NATO and the European Union.
....More immediately, he presented lawmakers with an eight-point wish list that focused on lowering trade and travel barriers and sought help in replacing the deteriorating concrete cover over the Chernobyl destroyed nuclear power reactor.
....Ukraine has significantly opened its markets, he said, adding, "In return, we expect the United States to cancel the restrictions that apply to Ukrainian goods in the U.S. market."
....Some of his remarks hinted at the pressures felt during the turmoil over the Ukrainian presidential election, when, he suggested, antidemocratic forces had raised fears of manipulation by the United States. He said Ukraine wanted to establish a new and "genuinely strategic partnership" with the United States.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

STOP THE MILLSTONE NUKE WASTE DUMP


On Thursday, October 16, 2003, the Connecticut Siting Council will conduct a public hearing in Waterford, Connecticut to consider the application of Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. to expand its nuclear storage capacity to enable it to keep generating nuclear power ¯ and tons more nuclear waste - at its Unit 2 nuclear reactor.
This application is really a plan to build a long-term nuclear waste dump which may become permanent.
The Town of Waterford zoning regulations prohibit the construction of a long-term nuclear waste dump within the town.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. has not designed the facility to maintain the high-level radioactive waste in a safe condition for the thousands of years it will remain deadly.
The Town of Waterford could require Dominion to do so, to protect the health and safety of its citizens.
The State of Connecticut will do so, IF YOU MAKE IT DO SO!
The Town of Waterford squelched a citizen’s request that it conduct a public hearing before it gave its approval for the nuclear waste facility. State law encourages a town in Waterford’s position to conduct a public hearing.


THE TOWN OF WATERFORD REJECTED THE CITIZEN’S PETITION AND GAVE ITS GO-AHEAD TO DOMINION!
THERE IS STILL TIME TO MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD AND STOP THIS DANGEROUS PLAN!
CONNECTICUT SITING COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY OCTOBER 16, 2003
TWO SESSIONS ¯ 3 p.m. AND 7 p.m.
WATERFORD TOWN HALL AUDITORIUM - BE THERE!


 

COALITION CALLS ON STATE TO REVOKE GRANT
TO PROMOTE MILLSTONE TOURISM
AND TO PULL TOURISM HANDOUTS

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 29, 2001
Contact: Nancy Burton 203-938-3952
Joseph H. Besade 860-442-7016

Mystic - The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone today called on the state Office of Tourism to remove handouts from its highway rest areas that promote family visits to the Millstone Nuclear Power Station - or else attach "fact sheets" to the picture postcards which identify some of the dangers of nuclear power.

The Coalition also called upon Helen Muniz, director of tourism, to revoke a $7,500 state grant to assist Millstone's tourism promotion next summer.

The Coalition claims that the Millstone handout violates the Office of Tourism's written standards, which preclude the free distribution of literature which is commerically-oriented or has political content.

The Coalition drew attention to full-color picture postcards promoting tourism at the Millstone "Discovery Center" and the Millstone Nuclear Power Station.

The postcards are handed out at tourist rest areas along state highways in North Stonington, Westbrook, Danbury, Darien, Hartford, Greenwich, Bradley Airport and West Willington.

They promote visits along a "Family Fun Trail" consisting of six southeastern Connecticut "attractions." The five other attractions are legitimate tourist stops, the Florence Griswold Museum, Mystic Art Association, Children's Museum of Southeastern Connecticut, Science Center of Eastern Connecticut and Denison Pequotsepos Nature Center.

"The Millstone pictorial shows a barefoot footprint, the sun and waves and an electron," said Nancy Burton, the Coalition's attorney. "It does not identify Millstone as the Millstone Nuclear Power Station nor do the words 'radiation' or 'radioactive waste' or 'cancer' appear."

Burton said the postcard promotes Millstone's nuclear power generation, a profit-oriented business, and promotes a political message: that nuclear power is safe, economical and energy-efficient.

The promotion includes inviting families to tour the nuclear facility, including the "protected area," which is subject to radiation contamination.

"This promotion is a sinister public relations gimmick," said Joseph H. Besade, a Coalition member. "That it targets families with children is truly sick."

The Coalition asked the Office of Tourism to remove the postcards from the tourist rest areas in time for the Labor Day weekend.

The office of Tourism recently awarded a $7,500 grant to the "Family Fun Trail" consortium consisting of the southeastern Connecticut attractions, including Millstone. The grant will help pay for development of a "passport" to each facility and a gift for those who establish they have visited all six "attractions."

The Coalition stated that the State of Connecticut should not be associated with the promotion of Millstone as a tourist destination.

The Coalition stated that it would refer the matter to the Office of the Attorney General for investigation if the postcards were not removed from state tourist facilities and if the grant were not revoked.

 

 Nuclear Family Fun Trail

 

August 29, 2001

 

Helen Muniz
Director
Office of Tourism
505 Hudson Street
Hartford CT 06106

Dear Ms. Muniz:

On behalf of the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone, this is to request that the Connecticut Office of Tourism remove the "Family Fun Trail" promotion from its tourist information facilities along the state's highways because it promotes the Millstone Nuclear Power Station in violation of Office of Tourism standards.

In the alternative, the Coalition requests that the Tourism Office attach to the post cards for free distribution the enclosed fact sheet prepared by the Coalition to acquaint tourists and area families with the dangers of Millstone to children and the environment.

This is to further request that your office revoke its state grant in the amount of $7,500 for development of new materials promoting the Millstone "Discovery Center" targeting the summer 2002 tourist season.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of the full-color "Family Fun Trail" post card now on display at tourist information facilities operated by the State of Connecticut in North Stonington, Westbrook, Danbury, Darien, Hartford, Greenwich, Bradley Airport and West Willington.

The promotion features the Millstone "Discovery Center" as one of six southeastern Connecticut "top attractions." Five of the attractions are legitimate tourist destinations: the Florence Griswold Museum, Mystic Art Association, Children's Museum of Southeastern Connecticut, Science Center of Eastern Connecticut and Denison Pequotsepos Nature Center.

The Millstone pictorial shows a barefoot footprint, the sun and waves and an electron. It does not identify Millstone as the "Millstone Nuclear Power Station," nor do the words "radiation" or "radioactive waste" or "cancer" appear.

As you know, the Office of Tourism policy is to prohibit literature at the tourist rest stops that promotes commerce or has political content.

Your office's brochure distribution guidelines list "literature with political content" and "literature designed for commercial purposes" as literature which "would not be approved."

The "Family Fun Trail" postcard both promotes Millstone's nuclear power generation - a profit-oriented private business - and promotes a political message: that nuclear power is safe, economical and energy-efficient.

A visitor to the Millstone Discovery Center at 278 Main Street in Niantic, directly across the Niantic Bay from Millstone, is subject to a commercial message and false and deceptive information.

The Millstone Discovery Center has displays and exhibits expounding the virtues of nuclear energy. It offers brochures produced by the nuclear industry's lobbying arm, the Nuclear Energy Institute, with such titles as "Nuclear energy: It's all about clean living"; "Nuclear energy: What has it done for us lately?" and "Safety in motion: Transportation of radioactive materials." Each of these pamphlets promotes nuclear energy and carries a political message.

One brochure states that the nuclear industry is "properly storing used fuel." We know this is not the case with Millstone, which has lost track of two highly radioactive spent fuel rods. The rods in question were not properly stored.

Another brochure states that nuclear power does not create greenhouse gases. That is a false statement. Nuclear fission is an end product of many processes, including uranium processing, which are big contributors to global warming. The brochure omits mention of routine releases of ionizing radiation - which is associated with heightened risk of cancer and other diseases - into the air and water from nuclear power plants.

A visitor to the Millstone Discovery Center may view a film by pressing a button that says "Millstone Tour." In the film, a Millstone fish biologist describes the work being done to evaluate the effects of Millstone operations on the surrounding marine environment.

The biologist states: "We haven't seen any changes that we can relate to power plant operations."

Her statement contradicts Millstone's own environmental laboratory's published reports of its annual destruction of hundreds of millions of indigenous fish larvae.

At the Millstone Discovery Center, all are invited to tour Millstone - regardless of age. Infants are welcome to accompany their parents within the nuclear station's "protected area" - near the reactors where radiation levels are measurable - as long as they have a photo identification and wear a hardhat. Dominion's tour sheet, entitled "A Powerful Friend to the Environment," makes no mention of radiation or radiation risk.

Clearly, the "Family Fun Trail" literature constitutes commercial promotion, advocacy of a political message and false and deceptive advertising. The State of Connecticut should not be a participant in such deception.

In advance of this Labor Day weekend, therefore, we trust that you will order the Millstone literature removed from the tourist information facilities or require their display with the enclosed fact sheet.

If for any reason you are unable to comply with this request, the Coalition will immediately refer this matter to the Office of the Attorney General.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

 

Nancy Burton, Esq.

 

ANTI-MILLSTONE COALITION CELEBRATES 20 MONTHS IN MYSTIC;
SAYS FAREWELL TO STOREFRONT

June 18, 2001

Contact: Nancy Burton 203-938-3952
Joseph Besade 860-442-7016

Mystic - The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone will have a public celebration and farewell ceremony on Saturday, June 23, to mark its 20 months of operations at 13 Water Street in downtown Mystic.
The historic building occupied by the Coalition since October 2000 has been sold and the new owner will occupy the storefront.
The Coalition will temporarily relocate to 161 Park Street in New Haven, the headquarters of the Connecticut Green Party, while it looks for new quarters in the New London area. The Coalition will continue to maintain its telephone number - 860-572-7551 and its website, HYPERLINK http://www.mothballmillstone.org www.mothballmillstone.org . The telephone number at the New Haven office is 203-777-0627.
The public is invited to an all-day Open House beginning at 12 noon on June 23. The Coalition will play videotapes of highlights of its activities while at the Mystic storefront and invite visitors to sign petitions to close the Millstone Nuclear Power Station permanently.
At 6 P.M., there will be a celebration and farewell ceremony. Awards will be presented to outstanding "nukebusters."
The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone was formed in October 2000 to permanently close Millstone and to work toward achieving a clean and sustainable energy economy in Connecticut. Its first campaign was to intervene in proceedings before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to block plans to double the storage capacity of the Unit 3 spent fuel pool. While the proceedings were underway, the Coalition broke the news to the world that Northeast Utilities had lost track of two highly radioactive spent fuel rods. The case remains pending.
The Coalition brought suit to protect the Niantic winter flounder population from the effects of Millstone's giant intake structures and to enjoin Millstone operations because its Clean Water Act permit - permitting thermal, chemical and radioactive waste discharges to the Long Island Sound - expired in 1997. The Coalition intervened in Department of Public Utility Control proceedings involving the sale of Millstone to Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. It broke the news of nine worker deaths at Dominion's nuclear plants in Virginia and other dismal aspects of Dominion's safety record. The Coalition brought suit to block the transfer of Millstone's expired Clean Water Act permit to Dominion. The cases are pending in the Superior Court or on appeal.
The temporary move to New Haven will not interrupt the Coalition's activities.
"In the coming days, we and our friends at STAR Foundation on Long Island will have a major announcement concerning a powerful new legal initiative against Millstone," said Nancy Burton, the Coalition's attorney.
"We will follow that up with other significant initiatives concerning public health and safety issues which derive from the important work we have carried out at Mystic during the past 20 months," she said.
The Coalition's membership includes families residing within the 10-mile emergency evacuation zone of Millstone, Millstone whistleblowers and statewide safe-energy groups, including the Connecticut Green Party, PACE (People's Action for Clean Energy), CAN (Citizens Awareness Network), Don't Waste Connecticut and TAC (Toxics Action Center).


 ANTI-MILLSTONE COALITION APPLAUDS DASCHLE:
SENATOR SAYS NO NEW NUKES NOW;
COALITION HAILS 'RETURN TO SANITY'

 

For Immediate Release
May 28, 2001
Contact: Nancy Burton 203-938-3952

Mystic - The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone today applauded Sen. Tom Daschle's resolve to block the Bush Administration's plans to energize the nuclear power industry.

Daschle (D-S.D.), the incoming Senate majority leader, cited concerns about the lack of a disposal facility for the thousands of tons of radioactive waste that have built up onsite at the nation's 103 nuclear power plants.

"Until we deal with how we're going to confront nuclear waste, I think it'd be impossible for us to expand nuclear power," Daschle said, speaking on "Meet the Press" on May 27.

"Senator Dashcle's message reflects a return to sanity from the insane, corporate-sponsored push to expand nuclear power espoused by the Bush Administration," said Joseph Besade, a member of the Coalition, which is campaigning for the permanent closure of Millstone.

The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone membership includes families within the five-mile emergency evacuation zone of Millstone, former Millstone employees and statewide safe-energy organizations.

Each 1000 megawatt nuclear power plant produces about 500 pounds of plutonium a year and about 30 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste, according to Nancy Burton, the Coalition's attorney. Millstone Unit 3 is a 1150-megawatt reactor; Millstone Unit is a 870-megawatt reactor. Unit 1, a 660-megawatt reactor, was permanently closed in 1996.

"The nuclear industry can't even find two missing spent fuel rods at Millstone after seven months of searching under the watchful gaze of NRC inspectors and the media spotlight," said Besade.

"The continuing 'mystery at Millstone' shows the folly and the madness of expanding nuclear power rather than investing in safe renewable forms of energy," Besade said.

Millstone Station employees have spent 22,000 staff hours to date in their so far futile search for the missing rods, according to Millstone's owner, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. The rods were declared missing last November during a review of plant records.

22,000 man-hours translates to 10.2 man-years.

"If ten Millstone employees had spent the past year installing windmills and solar panels instead of looking for missing fuel rods, their time would have been well spent," said Pete Reynolds, a Coalition member and former Millstone employee.

 


CV 01 0805868 : SUPREME COURT
: STATE OF CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT COALITION :
AGAINST MILLSTONE, ET AL. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT
: OF HARTFORD
:

ARTHUR J. ROCQUE, JR., :
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT:
OF ENVIRONMENTAL :
PROTECTION, ET AL. : MARCH 30, 2001

PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION ON DIRECT APPEAL ON QUESTIONS
INVOLVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY

The plaintiffs petition the Supreme Court for direct appeal on a question involving the public interest pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-265a and they hereby seek an emergency stay.

Questions Presented for Review:

The plaintiffs present the following issue and question of law:

Whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiffs'
emergency application for a temporary restraining order
to enjoin the transfer of an expired environmental discharge
permit and an illegally issued emergency authorization to
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., a company without assets,
to operate the Millstone Nuclear Power Station.

Basis for Certification:

This petition involves the knowing and wilful discharge into the waters of the state of significant quantities of radioactive isotopes known to cause genetic damage and chemical carcinogens known to cause cancer in all living things.
This petition involves the health and safety of the community residing in
immediate proximity of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Waterford, Connecticut, where clusters of cancer incidence, illness and human mortality have been identified along the shoreline within a one-mile range of the facility.
This petition involves the protection of the public trust in the environment of the Long Island Sound.
This petition involves the issuance and transfer of permits for such deadly discharges in wilful and knowing violation of the law of the State of Connecticut by the defendant, Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection ("the Commissioner").
This petition involves the Commissioner's issuance of a transfer of expired and illegal permits for operations of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, the most dangerous and trouble-plagued nuclear facility in the Northeast, to a recently formed limited liability company without assets which has no experience in operating a nuclear facility and which as a direct result of such transfer will have potential to contaminate and devastate a wide area of the State of Connecticut forever.
This petition involves the improper conduct of the defendant, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ("NNECO"), in conjunction with a judge of the Superior Court, resulting in an ex parte order vacating an emergency hearing on such issues for the purpose of facilitating a transfer of such permits to promote the economic advantage of NNECO and DNC to the clear immediate and long-term detriment of the public.
This petition involves the conduct of a Superior Court judge in (a) denying the plaintiffs their offer into evidence of a map prepared by a long-time resident identifying a ring of cancer clusters lining Niantic Bay within a one-mile range of Millstone; (b) denying the plaintiffs the opportunity to call the Commissioner, a subpoenaed witness, to present evidence of his knowing, wilful and ongoing violation of the law in this matter; (c) denying the plaintiffs the opportunity to present argument as a penalty for moving for mistrial based on such evidentiary rulings, in consequence of which the trial court relied on erroneous factual and legal assertions advanced by the defendants.
The public interest compels immediate emergency review of the trial court decision denying the plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order and a stay of the transfer pending further adjudication of this case on its merits.

Summary of the Case

The plaintiffs brought this action on March 7, 2001 to enjoin the defendants from discharging deadly waste generated by the Millstone nuclear reactors, consisting of a wide range of radioisotopes, known to cause genetic damage, and carcinogenic chemicals, known to cause cancer in all living things, into the Long Island Sound.
The complaint alleges that the discharge of such poisons is causing irreparable harm for which the plaintiffs lack an adequate remedy at law.
The complaint alleges that the Commissioner is about to issue an order transferring the expired Millstone discharge permit and associated emergency permit waivers from NNECO to DNC pursuant to DNC's request for such permit transfer filed with the Commissioner on February 1, 2001.
On March 19, 2001, the trial court (Schuman, J.) twice on the record before the assembled parties ordered a hearing to take place prior to March 30 on the plaintiffs' application for temporary restraining order, given what the court considered to be the "important" nature of the case.
Thereupon, all parties and their counsel agreed to March 27 as a suitable date for a hearing on the TRO application and it was accordingly set down for hearing by the caseflow office for March 27.
Notwithstanding such order entered on the record in their presence, Attorney Elizabeth C. Barton, representing NNECO, and other defendants' counsel, met ex parte on March 19, 2001 with Hon. John Langenbach regarding this case without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiffs or their counsel.
On March 20, 2001, the caseflow office of the Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, served notice upon the plaintiffs that, per order of Judge Langenbach, the hearing scheduled for March 27 would not take place. Following receipt of a letter addressed to Judge Langenbach by the plaintiffs per the suggestion of the caseflow office, the hearing was ordered reinstated.
At hearing before Judge Schuman on March 27, the trial court suggested that the plaintiffs begin their presentation of evidence by calling their two experts. The plaintiffs did so.
The plaintiffs first called Dr. Christopher C. Busby, of Wales, UK, a chemical physicist who has been engaged by the Irish Government to assess cancer clusters in the human population residing in coastal communities near nuclear facilities in England and who has prior experience in such matters.
Dr. Busby testified that records maintained by the United Nations establish that for major representative releases of radionuclides, Millstone has the worst record of all pressurized water reactors in the United States. For example, Millstone releases 30 per cent of the total cobalt-60 released by all similar reactors in the country. For example, Millstone releases 26 percent of the total cesium-137 discharges from the 57 similar U.S. reactors.
Dr. Busby testified that the Millstone radioactive and toxic discharges are known to cause genetic damage and cancer mortality in all living things exposed to them and that risk models of health effects from exposure to low level ionizing radiation such as is released by Millstone understate the risk 100 fold according to his studies and the researches of others. He further testified as to his opinion, based on pertinent data regarding Millstone discharges and tidal flows and currents in the Niantic Bay area, that Millstone discharges are strongly associated with evidence of cancer clusters along the Niantic Bay shoreline facing Millstone. He further testified that synergies between radioactive isotopes and carcinogenic chemicals may exacerbate the harm to living cells which would occur from exposure to either in isolation from the other. Finally, Dr. Busby testified that genetic damage to living cells constitutes a form of irreparable harm.
The plaintiffs next presented Dr. John Harshbarger, Director of the Tumor Registry of Lower Animals at the George Washington University Medical Center and formerly with the Smithsonian Institution. For more than thirty-five (35) years, Dr. Harshbarger has evaluated tumors in fish and other species. He has testified as a renowned expert before the United States Congress about cancer epidemics in fish populations exposed to toxic chemicals. Dr. Harshbarger testified that chemicals associated with Millstone discharges are known cancer-causing agents in fish. He testified about the phenomenon whereby bottom-feeding fish consume worms inhabiting muddy sediment where such chemicals are deposited and how the poisons ascend the food chain to the point of human consumption.
The plaintiffs offered the testimony of Billie Staub, a mother and longtime resident of Niantic, to establish that clusters of cancer incidences are well known to exist along the Niantic Bay shoreline within a mile range of Millstone. The plaintiffs offered into evidence a map upon which Mrs. Staub had placed colored stickers to denote the locations along the Niantic shoreline where more than twenty (20) members of her family and friends have suffered from cancers and associated illnesses, many of whom have succumbed to such illness, including children.
The trial court precluded such evidence from being presented at the hearing. The plaintiffs thereupon moved for mistrial, which was denied.
The plaintiffs then offered the testimony of the Commissioner to establish his knowing and wilful violation of the law in issuing emergency authorizations on an ongoing and routine basis for Millstone operations and to establish his recognition that he lacked authority to transfer emergency authorizations to DNC. The Commissioner was subpoenaed in part to address his hand-written notation on a document authorizing an annual renewal of an emergency authorization issued for Millstone Unit 3 operations.
The notation appears as follows:

I really hate these. Statutes are very limited in what the [sic] define as "emergency." Continuing emergency is not even contemplated." [Emphasis in original]

Despite several offers, the trial court precluded the Commissioner's testimony.
The plaintiffs moved for mistrial on grounds that the Commissioner's testimony was critical to their proof. The motion was denied.
In the face of such motion for mistrial, the trial court deemed the plaintiffs had waived their right to present argument on their TRO application. The trial court permitted argument by the defendants' counsel and in the remaining time before adjournment the trial court permitted the plaintiffs to provide a responsive argument.
In their responsive argument, the plaintiffs requested the opportunity to call the Commissioner to testify in accordance with the trial court's statement at the outset of the proceedings that it would consider permitting additional testimony if such appeared appropriate during discussion of the legal issues. The plaintiffs also requested the opportunity to call additional DEP witnesses to testify about the nature of the discharges and NNECO's history of admitted criminal violation of the permit. The trial court limited additional evidence to correspondence between the plaintiffs and Commissioner Rocque, in which the Commissioner denied the plaintiffs the availability of any administrative proceedings with respect to the DNC transfer application.
During argument, the plaintiffs asked the court to issue an order to enjoin the discharge of pollutants from Millstone known to cause genetic damage and cancers. The plaintiffs argued that the Environmental Protection Act provides the court with such authority, even if the court determined it lacked authority to enjoin transfer of illegal permits or considered that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the transfer of illegal permits.
On March 20, 2001, the trial court issued a decision denying the plaintiff's application for temporary restraining order. The court declined to issue an order enjoining any radioactive or chemical discharges.

Argument

The plaintiffs established clear entitlement to a temporary restraining order as requested.

Probability of success on the merits.
This action was brought pursuant to the Connecticut Environmental
Protection Act, which was enacted in 1973 because of a perception by the Legislature that governmental regulators of polluting industries were captive to the polluting industries they were charged with regulating, and, in consequence, the environment and human health were endangered.
CEPA gives broad powers to a judicial authority in cases where a
plaintiff can establish that pollution is harming the environment.
The pollution alleged here is killing people. It is introducing genetic damage to all living things in the vicinity on a routine, ongoing basis. The chemicals discharged by Millstone settle into intertidal sediments where they are consumed by worms and other life at the bottom of the food chain. The pollutants are known to cause cancer in fish.
Millstone pollutes far more than comparable nuclear reactors.
The facts alleged in the plaintiffs' verified complaint are true and undisputed.
The legal issues are equally clear.
By statute, the Commissioner lacks any statutory authority to transfer an emergency authorization which, by its very nature, must be of finite and short duration. The emergency authorization at issue is itself illegal. It operates as a permit which never went through a permit process and for which the public never received notice. Issuance and transfer of the emergency authorization violate the Clean Water Act as alleged in the complaint.
The plaintiffs have established that they will succeed on the merits of this case.

Irreparable Harm
The plaintiffs established that Millstone spreads more radioactive cobalt
-60 and cesium-137 into the environment than all other similar reactors in the United States. Moreover, the plaintiffs established that Millstone accounts for one-third of the total radioactive discharges of those radionuclides by the 57 similar reactors.
The radionuclides released by Millstone into the waters of the Niantic Bay and Long Island Sound cause genetic damage at a cellular level, for which no dose has been established to be safe from harm, according to plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Busby.
Moreover, Millstone discharges quantities of toxic chemicals known to cause cancer in all living things, according to the expert testimony presented by the plaintiffs, which testimony was completely unchallenged by the defendants.
Known synergies in the interaction between radionuclides and carcinogens produce far more harmful effects than either alone, according to the plaintiffs' experts.
Cancer clusters in people ring Niantic Bay within a one-mile range of Millstone.
In its decision, the trial court makes only passing reference to evidence of the effects of Millstone radioactive discharges to humans and animals, and does not even mention the chemical discharges for which Millstone has been notorious and which, even the company's finance officer conceded, had brought NNECO into conflict with the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division. The decision makes no reference to the testimony of Dr. John Harshbarger, the eminent scientist long associated with the Tumor Registry of Lower Animals, linking Millstone discharges to cancer in fish and other living things.
It is undisputed that, should DNC take over the expired and illegal Millstone discharge permits, it will continue to discharge radionuclides and toxic chemicals into the waters of the state.
It is undisputed that DNC will do so without regard for the health, safety or security of the nearly populated residential community. As Niantic resident Billie Staub testified, when a local mother recently asked DNC's chief executive to pledge that the company would inform the community prior to planned releases of built-up radioactive gases so that mothers with young children could take special precautions, the company man simply said no.
It is also undisputed that DNC proved to the court that it has no assets. It did not present any evidence that, without assets, it would be able to comply with the standards of Millstone's expired and illegal permits in releasing poisons to the sea.
Nor did DNC present any evidence to overcome the presumption that it will lack financing to take over for NNECO in proceedings involving renewal of the permit. Without assets, the company cannot be presumed to be able to carry out environmental monitoring which will protect the public and the environment from unnecessary and excessive releases. Since it is known that DEP carries out virtually no independent monitoring of Millstone discharges, nor does it independenly test Millstone discharges for toxity, the trial court could only conclude from the assessment of evidence that the risk to the public health and safety from increased, unmonitored and deadly discharges of radiation and toxic waste will result from the permit transfer.
Although DNC's financial representative was invited during cross-examination to divulge what considerations DNC has given to protect the community, he did not understand the question and fell back on his testimony that his company is looking out for its shareholders.
Evidence before the court established that DEP is not contemplating commencing a hearing on a renewal application prior to June 31, 2002, that is, five years after NNECO applied for the renewal. The Commissioner's attorney explained that the Millstone discharge permit is the most complex permit the DEP has to deal with and its complexity is responsible for the 5-year lapse of time to convene a hearing following the filing of an application for renewal in June 1997.
However, the Commissioner offered no evidence to establish how the Commissioner could be deemed legally capable of analyzing the qualifications of DNC to take over the permit and proceed through permit renewal proceedings within the two-month period commencing on February 1, 2001, when DNC applied for transfer of the permit, if the permit issues are so complex. The Commissioner's hasty review process invites grave doubt about the depth of the Commissioner's efforts to determine whether DNC is qualified to assume the responsibilities of the permit. The issue is particularly troubling, in that DNC is a paper company only, has no assets, and has never operated a nuclear power plant, and its parent company has never operated a nuclear power plant which relies on seawater for cooling.
In contrast with the plaintiffs' proof of irreparable harm to human health, the defendants only offered to prove that their companies' financial health would suffer if the TRO were granted and that the TRO would defeat the purpose of the deregulation law.
The defendants' proofs proved hollow.

Balance of the Equities
The trial court did not perform a balancing of the true equities: the trial
court adopted the defendants' arguments without scrutiny, accepted the companies' arguments as to financial losses and deemed the financial health of the companies to be of paramount importance.
Thus, the trial court accepted the defendants' implicit argument that
the deregulation law supersedes and negates the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act. However, the deregulation law requires that electric generators provide services which are safe and reliable and not harmful to the environment. The generation of unsafe and environmentally harmful electricity is not permitted by the deregulation law.
Similarly, the trial court adopted the defendants' argument that issuance of a TRO would by itself jeopardize the sale. Yet, if the Commissioner were
to deny the transfer, DNC would be free to apply for a discharge permit or an emergency authorization on its own. Indeed, the Commissioner has authority to deny a transfer application such as that submitted by DNC and require the applicant to make an application. Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, section 22a-430-6(o). ("In lieu of denial of the transfer, the commissioner may require the transferee to submit an application for a new permit or a modified permit.")
Moreover, approval of other aspects of the sale by other agencies has no relevance to the present proceedings.
Because the defendant companies knew from the outset of their transaction that Millstone operations require a valid water discharge permit, their argument of irreparable harm and assertion that equity must spare them from complying with the environmental protection laws of Connecticut is not credible. At arm's length, DRI entered into a purchase and sale agreement on August 1, 2000 that expressly made the sale contingent on DNC's ability to obtain a valid water discharge permit. DNC did not explain why it waited until February 1, 2001, six months later, to apply for a transfer of the Millstone permit, nor why it did not apply for its own permit. It may be that the Commissioner's agency enjoys a reputation as a pushover for the nuclear industry. Should the Commissioner transfer the permit to DNC in accordance with DNC's time demand, to the extent that such a reputation exists, it will be enhanced.
The trial court adopted the defendants' specious argument that ratepayers will suffer if the TRO is granted. The defendants offered no facts in support of their argument. Although they asserted that ratepayers would have to assume stranded costs if the TRO were granted, they incorrectly assumed the discharge permit issue is a deal-breaker. Even if so, a better sale price could well be structured by the year 2003, the deadline set by the legislature for completion of electricity generation divestiture. In the worst case scenario, ratepayers will continue to pay less than $.03 per day for the stranded costs, according to NNECO's witness.
While NNECO's witness expressed dire predictions that approval of the TRO would require NNECO (or its parent, CL&P) to assume costs for decommissioning, the same witness failed to truthfully state that DNC lacks assets to cover the costs of decommissioning and its failure to have sufficient assets to cover the costs will flip the costs to Connecticut ratepayers.
The trial court accepted the defendant companies's argument that their assumption of costs in the sale transaction outweigh the public interest factor. However, the flaw of that argument is that the defendants voluntarily assumed the risk of obtaining a valid discharge permit necessary for Millstone operations. The trial court has simply by a bold strike obliterated the public interest from its balancing-of-equities exercise.
Although the trial court found that a TRO would "risk harm to legislative goals," there was no evidence to support such a finding other than specious arguments offered by the defendants. The trial court found that granting a TRO would risk harm to "many Connecticut consumers of electric power," without saying how.
In contrast, the trial court concluded that the proposed transfer "does not create any new harm to the plaintiffs."
The new harm to the plaintiffs from the proposed transfer will be the certainty of continued discharges of cancer-causing chemicals and radionuclides by a company which is financially unable to control them or to limit them. Human health is at a heightened risk as a consequence.
In balancing the equities, the court must inspect the hands of those before it. The plaintiffs offered to prove that the Commissioner has issued emergency authorizations for Millstone operations in knowing and wilful violation of the law.
The defendants asked the trial court to perpetuate the Commissioner's
illegal practice.
A proper balancing of the equities in this case reduces itself to a simple concept: the equities demand that the court not perpetuate the Commissioner's illegal conduct.
The public interest in avoiding great and lasting harm to the health of the environment and the health of the citizens of the state clearly outweighs the short-term financial objectives of the company defendants.

Conclusion

For the reasons above, stated, the plaintiffs seek permission for a direct appeal and the entry of an emergency order staying the trial court's decision.


THE PLAINTIFFS

 

By: _________________________
Nancy Burton, Esq.
147 Cross Highway
Redding Ridge CT 06876
Tel. 203-938-3952
Fax 203-938-3168

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed on March 30, 2001 to the following via U.S. Mail, postage pre-aid:

Judith Merrill, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street
Hartford CT 06106
Tel. 860-808-5250
Fax 860-808-5386

Elizabeth C. Barton, Esq.
Updike Kelly & Spellacy
One State Street
P.O. Box 231277
Hartford CT 061230-1277
Tel. 860-548-2600
Fax 860-548-2680

David Bogan, Esq.
Robinson & Cole
695 East Main Street
Stamford CT 06904-2305
Tel. 203-462-7500
Fax 203-359-8576

 

The plaintiffs are: Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone, STAR Foundation, North Fork Environmental Council and New York State Assemblyman Fred Thiele.
One such chemical expressly allowed in the contested emergency authorization is hydrazine, which is a carcinogen in fish. The emergency authorization which is the subject of this petition contains no limitation on the frequency nor amount nor concentration nor location of such discharge. On September 27, 1999, NNECO pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court to criminal felonies involving illegal discharges of hydrazine into the Long Island Sound at Millstone in violation of the permit at issue.
The defendants are the Commissioner, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, present owner and operator of Millstone, and Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
A copy of the complaint, application for temporary restraining order and supporting documents appears annexed hereto.
A copy of the permit, issued on December 15, 1992 for a five-year term, is annexed hereto.
A copy of the emergency authorization issued on October 20, 2000 is annexed hereto.
On March 19, 2001, when Judge Schuman twice entered such hearing orders, the defendants represented that the prospective sale of Millstone from NNECO to DNC was scheduled to take place on April 2. On March 27, 2001, DNC's corporate representative stated that the closing date had been changed to March 30. Apparently, the date of closing was accelerated following the defendants' ex parte session with Judge Langenbach.
A copy of the letter is annexed hereto.
The most deadly, tested in fish and known to be carcinogenic, were identified as trichloroethylene, benzopyrene, nitrosodimethylamine and DDT. Dr. Harshbarger testified about a study of the rebound of a fish population near a polluter, which had discharged one of these chemicals, once the plant shut down.
The Commissioner presented no evidence at hearing. NNECO presented the company's corporate finance executive who testified that if the TRO were granted it would negatively impact the financial health of the company. Although he testified that Millstone employees opposed the TRO, upon cross-examination he admitted that he had not discussed the TRO with any employees, he had only discussed the Millstone sale with six management-level employees, and he was unaware that the 200-member Millstone Station Employees Association - consisting of present Millstone employees who were not subject to the recent layoff of one third of the workforce - had brought suit to block the Millstone sale to Dominion. DNC presented a senior vice president for finance of Dominion Resources, Inc., who testified that it was important to the company's credibility on Wall Street that the court permit transfer of the discharge permits, regardless of the legality of such an act. He acknowledged that as of March 29, 2001, the prospective permit transferee, DNC, had no assets. ("It has nothing.")
The plaintiffs also stated that a professor of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies was prepared to testify as to sediment studies he has carried out at Jordan Cove, adjacent to Millstone on the eastern shore, where he discovered deposits of radioactive cobalt-60 in the intertidal mud. His published report concludes that such radioactive contamination could only have come from Millstone.

A copy of the correspondence is annexed hereto.
A copy of the decision is annexed hereto.
Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 221-6k provides as follows:
Sec. 22a-6k. Emergency authorization for regulated activity. Temporary authorization for regulated activity.

(a) The Commissioner of Environmental Protection may issue an emergency authorization for any activity regulated by the commissioner under section 22a-32, subsection (h) of section 22a-39, 22a-54, 22a-66, 22a-174, 22a-208a, 22a-342, 22a-368, 22a-403, 22a-430, 22a-449 or 22a-454 provided he finds that (1) such authorization is necessary to prevent, abate or mitigate an imminent threat to human health or the environment; and (2) such authorization is not inconsistent with the federal Water Pollution Control Act, the federal Rivers and Harbors Act, the federal Clean Air Act or the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Such emergency authorization shall be limited by any conditions the commissioner deems necessary to adequately protect human health and the environment. Summary suspension of an emergency authorization may be ordered in accordance with subsection (c) of section 4-182. The commissioner may assess a fee for an emergency authorization issued pursuant to this subsection. Such fee shall be of an amount equal to the equivalent existing permit fee for the activity authorized. The commissioner may reduce or waive the fee required pursuant to this subsection if good cause is shown. The fee required pursuant to this subsection shall be paid no later than ten days after the issuance of the emergency authorization.

(b) The commissioner may issue a temporary authorization for any activity for which the commissioner has authority to issue a general permit under section 22a-174, 22a-208a, 22a-361, 22a-368, 22a-430b or 22a-454 provided he finds that (1) such activity will not continue for more than thirty days; (2) such activity does not pose a significant threat to human health or the environment; (3) such authorization is necessary to protect human health or the environment or is otherwise necessary to protect the public interest; and (4) such authorization is not inconsistent with the federal Water Pollution Control Act, the federal Rivers and Harbors Act, the federal Clean Air Act or the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. No temporary authorization shall be renewed more than once, and no such authorization shall be issued for an activity which has been authorized by a temporary authorization during the previous twelve months. Any person seeking a temporary authorization shall submit to the commissioner sufficient information to allow the commissioner to make the determination set forth herein. A temporary authorization shall be limited by any conditions the commissioner deems necessary to adequately protect human health and the environment. Summary suspension of a temporary authorization may be ordered in accordance with subsection (c) of section 4-182. The commissioner may assess a fee for a temporary authorization issued pursuant to this subsection. Such fee shall be of an amount equal to the equivalent existing permit fee for the activity authorized. The commissioner may reduce the fee required pursuant to this subsection if good cause is shown. The fee required pursuant to this subsection shall be paid before the issuance of the temporary authorization. The commissioner may, if good cause is shown, allow late payment of the fee required by this subsection provided such fee shall be paid no later than ten days after the issuance of the temporary authorization

 

The decision states that the plaintiffs "have not advanced any principled basis to conclude that Fish II is not controlling. Thus the express holding of Fish II appears to foreclose the plaintiffs' challenge to the discharge permit itself." Circumstances have changed since the Fish II decision was issued. An appearance of collusion between DEP and the company defendants has gained clarity. In Fish II, the Supreme Court was not asked to address the issue of a transfer of an expired permit. Under the unusual circumstances presented, it would be unlikely that the Supreme Court would countenance an infinite extension of a permit
allowing discharges of deadly poisons, nor allow a transfer of such a permit to a company without assets and without a demonstrable ability to comply with the permit.
The trial court swallowed uncritically the misleading testimony of DNC's financial representative. Although the vice president for finances boasted about the wealth of the parent company, Dominion Resources, Inc., the boast provided only illusory assurances that the parent would share its wealth with DNC. Had the trial court examined the pre-filed testimony presented to the DPUC by DNC's representative in the DPUC proceedings, a full exhibit in the case, the trial court would have realized that DNC is being launched by DRI in a pea boat without oars or anchor. Similarly, the trial court swallowed the defendants' mischaracterization of plaintiffs' witnesses' testimony about whether a transfer of the illegal permits to DNC will affect the Millstone discharges. Decision page 4. Dr. Busby clearly testified that economic considerations can be expected to give rise to cutbacks in health and safety protections. Dr. Harshbarger testified that he had no knowledge of the Connecticut deregulation law under which the Millstone sale is contemplated. Therefore, his response to defendants' question had no meaning.
On this point, the trial court seriously erred in concluding that DNC's parent company, Dominion Resources, Inc., would provide necessary financial backing. There is no such guarantee of financial backing, nor did DNC offer any evidence that the parent company would be legally bound to provide the necessary financing to assure that the greatly reduced workforce at Millstone will be able to comply with the standards of the discharge permit. DNC's reliance on the support of the remaining Millstone workforce to establish it qualifies for a permit transfer pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 22a-60 is illusory. Although representations were repeatedly made in proceedings before the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control in the divestiture docket that DNC would benefit from retention of Millstone's experienced workforce to assure continuity and safe operations, NNECO's chief nuclear officer, Lee Olivier, announced on March 29 - the day of issuance of Judge Schuman's decision - that he was leaving Millstone.

 

 


ACTIVISTS ATTACK COURT DECISION ON MILLSTONE

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MARCH 29, 2001

Contact: Nancy Burton 203-938-3952

Scott Cullen 631-324-0655

Mystic - A coalition of Connecticut and New York activists issued the following statement concerning the decision of
Superior Court Judge Carl Schuman on March 29, 2001 denying their application for a temporary restraining order to
block the transfer of the Millstone waste discharge permit from Northeast Utilities to Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc.:

This decision allows the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to transfer illegal and expired permits and
emergency waivers to a newly created paper company without assets. It permits Dominion to operate the most dangerous
nuclear facility in the Northeast without having to apply for the permit and face public scrutiny. It makes a mockery of the
state's environmental laws.

This decision perpetuates a history of illegal operations at Millstone and disregard for the law and for the health and safety
of the neighboring community by governmental authorities.

The court disregarded the expert testimony of eminent scientists that the Millstone discharges of radioactive waste and toxic
chemicals are responsible for a cancer epidemic along the shoreline of Niantic Bay facing Millstone. The poisonous
discharges are known to cause tumors and genetic damage in all living things.

The plaintiffs in the action are Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone, STAR Foundation, North Fork Environmental
Council and New York State Assemblyman Fred Thiele. They will seek an immediate stay of the decision.


MILLSTONE ON TRIAL: COALITION TO OFFER EVIDENCE OF CANCER EPIDEMIC AND DEP COMMISSIONER'S WILFUL VIOLATION OF LAW

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MARCH 28, 2001

Contact: Nancy Burton 203-938-3952

Scott Cullen 631-324-0655

Mystic - Residents of the community surrounding the Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Waterford will
present evidence in a court proceeding today of an epidemic of cancer along the surrounding shoreline.

They will also offer the testimony of Arthur J. Rocque, Commissioner of the Department of
Environmental Protection, to establish his wilful violation of the law in issuing emergency permits for
Millstone discharges of chemicals known to cause cancer in people and animals.

On March 27, Connecticut and Long Island activists presented the testimony of two experts who
established a correlation between Millstone radioactive and toxic chemical discharges into the Long Island
Sound and an epidemic of cancer in the shoreline communities of Niantic and Waterford.

Dr. Christopher C. Busby, a chemical physicist, testified that sufficient evidence exists that the operations
of the Millstone reactors have caused increases in cancers in local populations.

Dr. John Harshbarger, director of the Tumor Registry for Lower Animals in Washington, D.C., testified
that chemical discharges by Millstone are known to cause cancer in fish and other living things, including
people.

Superior Court Judge Carl Schuman is hearing an application for a temporary restraining order by the
coalition to bar the DEP from transferring a discharge permit from Northeast Utilities to Dominion Nuclear
Connecticut, Inc.

The coalition charges that the discharge permit expired three years ago and that emergency authorizations
routinely issued by Commissioner Rocque are illegal.

During yesterday's proceedings, a Dominion vice president for finances testified that the prospective
owner and operator of Millstone has no assets. That company has applied for a transfer of the expired
discharge permit, rather than apply for its own permit.

"This proceeding provides a critical moment of truth for Connecticut," said Joseph H. Besade, a member
of the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone, one of the plaintiffs.

"The credibility of the DEP and our judicial system are on trial," said Besade. "If the DEP is permitted to
perform the illegal act of transferring an expired and illegal permit to a profit-driven paper company, the
Constitution State will become known as the as the Pushover State by the nuclear profiteers.

"The public interest demands that the court block this permit transfer," Besade said.

The proceedings resume at 2 P.M. today at the Superior Court, 95 Washington Street in Hartford.


MILLSTONE CAUSES CANCER IN HUMANS AND FISH, EXPERTS WILL TESTIFY

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MARCH 27, 2001

Contact: Nancy Burton 203-938-3952

Scott Cullen 631-324-0655

Mystic - The Millstone Nuclear Power Station has caused increases in cancer in the surrounding
human population, according to testimony of a Welsh expert who has correlated high cancer rates
near English nuclear facilities.

"Sufficient evidence exists for me to believe that the operation of the Millstone plant has caused
increases in cancer in local populations," said Dr. Christopher C. Busby, a chemical physicist
from Wales who is an expert in low level ionizing radiation.

"The Millstone reactors are licensed to release radioisotopes on the basis of erroneous models for
radiation risk which significantly understate their true risk," Busby said.

Busy's testimony was prepared for a court proceeding at the Hartford Superior Court at which a
coalition of Connecticut and Long Island activists is seeking to stop the transfer of Millstone's
license to discharge radioactive and toxic waste into the Long Island Sound to a prospective
purchaser, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

The coalitions claim that the permit expired three years, has been illegally expanded and extended
and that the Commissioner of DEP has no legal right to transfer an expired permit of this nature.

The coalitions also will present the testimony of Dr. John Harshbarger, a zoologist who has
studied epidemics of fish cancers for more than 30 years as Director of the Tumor Registry of
Lower Animals at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.

"Chemicals discharged by the Millstone reactors are known to cause cancer in fish and other
living things, including people," Harshbarger said.

" In my personal opinion, discharge of chemicals such as are identified with Millstone are
causing irreparable harm to the marine environment," Harshbarger said. "A company should not
be able to destroy someone else's environment.

Support for the experts' testimony was provided by Christie Brinkley, a member of STAR
Foundation, a Long Island organization which is a plaintiff in the suit.

Dr. Busby and Dr. Harshbarger will be available to discuss their findings at a press conference
on March 27, 2001 at 9:30 on the steps of the Hartford Superior Court, 95 Washington Street,
Hartford. Their testimony is scheduled to begin at 10 A.M. They will be available for interviews
throughout the day.




JUDGE TO DECIDE WHETHER TO DELAY MILLSTONE SALE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 6, 2001
CONTACT: Nancy Burton 203-938-3952

Mystic - A Superior Court judge will conduct a hearing on March 12 to decide whether the Millstone Nuclear Power Station sale to a Virginia company should be delayed.
The hearing is scheduled for 10 A.M. at the Superior Court in New Britain.
The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone sought the show-cause order to block the sale while its appeal of the January 24 decision of the state Department of Public Utility Control approving the sale is pending.
The DPUC approved the sale of the three-reactor station to Dominion Resources, Inc., a utility company based in Richmond, Virginia for $1.3 billion.
Dominion plans to turn Millstone over to a recently created limited liability company, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
The Coalition appealed the approval on February 20 on grounds that the subsidiary lacks assets to assure the reactors can be safely operated and maintained.
"Dominion's paper company has no assets and no business running a flea market, let alone three trouble-plagued reactors which have potential to cause catastrophic accidents," said Joseph H. Besade, a Coalition member who resides in Waterford near Millstone.
Besade said the $150 million the parent company pledged to back the subsidiary is a trifling amount for operating nuclear reactors and, besides, Dominion has reserved the right to revoke the pledge at any time.
"When Dominion had to replace steam generators at one of its reactors in Virginia ten years ago, the cost was $185 million, $30 million more than the maximum amount Dominion has pledged to keep Millstone operating safely." Besade said.
Northeast Utilities, owner and operator of Millstone, announced this week that it had discovered major cracks in the Unit 3 giant turbine which will keep the plant shut down at a cost of $1.2 million per day and delay restart following a refueling outage by two weeks.
NU also announced it has a backlog of 9,000 maintenance tasks to perform before the plant can restart.
"Dominion Resources, Inc. has made a business decision to be able to cut its losses and run back to Virginia if Millstone proves to be the nuclear lemon that NU knows it is," Besade said.
"If Dominion is unwilling to back its own subsidiary in a sufficient amount to operate Millstone safely, and NU doesnít want to run Millstone because it can't generate a profit, how can the public have confidence in this sale?" Besade asked.

 

Note to Editors: The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone Complaint, Motion for Stay, Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion for Stay and Application for Show Cause Order are posted at www.mothballmillstone.org


CV 01 0506963 : SUPERIOR COURT

CONNECTICUT COALITION : JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AGAINST MILLSTONE : OF NEW BRITAIN

v. :

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT :
OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL; :
CONNECTICUT LIGHT & :
POWER COMPANY; :
UNITED ILLUMINATING :
COMPANY; :
DOMINION RESOURCES, INC.; :
DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, :
INC.; :
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC. : MARCH 2, 2001

APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The plaintiff herewith makes application for an order to show cause why a stay should not enter in these proceedings to preserve the status quo during the pendency of the proceedings and until further order of the Court.
This case is an appeal of a final decision of the defendant, Department of Public Utility Control ("DPUC") on January 24, 2001 approving the sale of the Millstone Nuclear Power Generating Station ("Millstone") to the defendant, Dominion Resources, Inc.
The verified complaint alleges that the DPUC approval was contrary to law in numerous respects, most particularly in that DPUC failed to properly screen the prospective owner to ensure it is qualified to operate Millstone safely, as required in its order of divestiture on April 19, 2000.
The verified complaint alleges that a recently formed limited liability company without assets has been set up to own and operate Millstone with only an illusory and revocable guarantee of financial backing.
The verified complaint alleges that the prospective owner and operator of Millstone lacks qualifications to operate Millstone safely.
The plaintiff membership includes families with young children who reside within the five-mile emergency evacuation zone of Millstone and who are directly at risk from unsafe operations of Millstone, which unsafe operations may result from economic considerations attributable to matters involved in the proceedings on appeal, including the decision on appeal.
The plaintiff and its membership will be irreparably harmed if a stay is not issued as requested.
The plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at law.
Wherefore, the plaintiff makes application for an order to show cause why such stay should not issue.
THE PLAINTIFF
CONNECTICUT COALITION
AGAINST MILLSTONE

 

By: _________________________
Nancy Burton, Esq.
147 Cross Highway
Redding Ridge CT 06876
Tel. 203-938-3952


RETURN DATE: MARCH 13, 2001 : SUPERIOR COURT

CONNECTICUT COALITION : JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AGAINST MILLSTONE : OF NEW BRITAIN

v. :

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT :
OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL; :
CONNECTICUT LIGHT & :
POWER COMPANY; :
UNITED ILLUMINATING :
COMPANY; :
DOMINION RESOURCES, INC.; :
DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, :
INC.; :
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC. : FEBRUARY 20, 2001

COMPLAINT

The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone ("CCAM") is an organization of
statewide groups and individuals devoted to safe and sustainable energy. CCAM's membership includes Connecticut Citizens Awareness Network ("CAN"), Don't Waste Connecticut, the Connecticut Green Party and People's Action for Clean Energy ("PACE"). CCAM's membership also includes families with children who reside within the five-mile emergency evacuation zone of the Millstone Nuclear Power Generating Station ("Millstone") in Waterford, Connecticut. CCAM is based at 13 Water Street, Mystic, Connecticut.
The Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control ("DPUC") is a state
agency charged, inter alia, with implementing Public Act 98- 28, entitled An Act Concerning Electricity Restructuring, Conn. Gen. Stat. 16-244-245y ("the Act").
3. Section 16-244g(b) of the Act provides that no later than January 1, 2004, each electric distribution company shall either submit its nuclear generation assets to public auction or transfer its nuclear generation assets to a legally separate affiliate at their book value.
Connecticut Light & Power Company ("CL&P") and United Illuminating
Company ("UI") are electric distribution companies which are majority owners of Millstone.
5. Millstone is deemed a nuclear generation asset within the meaning of the
Act.
6. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 26-244g, CL&P and UI submitted a
divestiture plan on November 5, 1999 to the DPUC.
7. DPUC approved the divestiture plan with certain requirements and conditions on April 19, 2000.
8. In its order approving the divestiture plan on April 19, 2000, DPUC
ordered, inter alia, that the auction consultant "screen bidders to ensure they have the proper qualifications to operate [Millstone] safely. The Department will consider these qualifications its final approval of the sale."
9. In private proceedings from which the public and CCAM were excluded, DPUC selected J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. ("J.P. Morgan") as auction consultant.
Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 16-244(g)(b)(2) provides as follows:
The department [DPUC] shall not approve a sale [of a nuclear generating
asset] unless (A) the sale price equals or exceeds the minimum bid
established by the department for the asset, (B) the department
determines the bidder meets all applicable qualifications established
by federal law and regulation, (C) the sale is conducted in accordance
with the divestiture plan as approved by the department, (D) the bidder
proves to the satisfaction of the department that the bidder will preserve
labor agreements in effect at the time of the sale, and (E) the sale will
result in a net benefit to ratepayers, as determined by the department.

An auction was conducted by J.P. Morgan, at the conclusion of which J.P.
Morgan selected Dominion Resources, Inc. ("DRI") as the successful bidder.
12. DRI is a Virginia corporation engaged in natural gas and electric power generation.
13. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut ("DNC") was created by DRI after the
conclusion of the auction and after DRI was selected as the successful bidder.
14. DNC, a limited liability company, has no assets and has never owned nor
operated a commercial nuclear power facility, nor is it presently licensed to operate a nuclear power facility.
DRI owns and operates four nuclear power plants in Virginia where it has
established a poor safety performance record; it has paid fines assessed for providing false information to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"); it has engaged in successive waves of worker layoffs in safety-sensitive positions; it has frequently been assessed fines and penalties by the NRC for nuclear safety violations; upon information and belief, DRI has set a nuclear industry record in the number of accident fatalities at a single nuclear power station (nine).
By letter dated August 18, 2000, CL&P and UI requested that DPUC
Conduct proceedings to consider approval of the "results of the Millstone auction process." The letter states in pertinent part as follows:
"The Applicants [CL&P and UI] hereby provide notice of their intent
to file with the Department a joint petition for approval of the auction
results, including the sale of the other participating owners' Millstone
interests. Accordingly, the Applicants respectfully request that the
Department reopen the instant proceeding for the limited purpose
of approving the sale under Public Act 98-28 and C.G.S. Section
16-43, as appropriate." (Emphasis added.)

17. On September 6, 2000, DPUC issued an order pursuant to the CL&P/UI
application. Such order states in its entirety as follows:
"The Department hereby grants the Applicants' [CL&P and UI] request
[dated August 18, 2000] and reopens the instant docket for the purpose
of approving the auction results and the sale of Millstone Station
pursuant to Section 16-244g of the General Statutes of Connecticut.
The reopened docket is hereby designated as Docket No. 99-09-12REO1, Application of The Connecticut Light and Power Company and
The United Illuminating Company for Approval of Their Millstone
Nuclear Generation Assets Divestiture Plan - Sale of Millstone
Station to Dominion Resources, Inc." (Emphasis added.)

18. By joint application dated September 8, 2000, CL&P, UI, J.P. Morgan,
Dominion Resources, Inc. ("DRI") and Dominion Nuclear Connecticut ("DNC") requested that DPUC approve the sale of Millstone.
19. The application submitted to DPUC requests DPUC approval of DNC as the
owner and operator of Millstone, rather than DRI, the successful bidder.
20. The application proposed that DRI's financial backing of DNC's
Millstone operations be limited to $150 million, a sum which may be withdrawn by vote of DRI's Board of Directors. Under the terms of the sale application, DNC's assets will be confined to (a) revenues generated from the production and sale of electricity at Millstone and (b) DRI's commitment to provide a maximum contribution of $150 million, provided DRI does not withdraw its limited financial commitment.
21. By notice of hearing dated October 11, 2000, DPUC conducted a public hearing as a contested case on November 6, 7, 8, 27 and December 6, 2000.
22. The "public hearing" session on December 6, 2000 was closed to the public.
DPUC recognized the following as parties to the proceeding: CL&P, UI, J.P.
Morgan, DRI, DNC and the Office of Consumer Counsel ("OCC").
CCAM petitioned to be designated a party to the proceedings by application
dated October 30, 2000, pursuant to Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies Section 16-1-17.
Conn. Gen. Stat. 16-9a provides as follows:
Party status in proceedings before department. In a proceeding before the department of Public Utility Control the department shall give special consideration to a request for party status from a person whose interests are not otherwise adequately represented by another party to the proceeding and shall not unreasonably deny such request.

26. CCAM's interests were not otherwise represented by another party to the proceeding.
27. Commissioners Donald W. Downes (Chairman), Jack R. Goldberg, and John
W. Betkoski III were assigned as the public hearing panelists. Commissioners Downes and Goldberg alternated in attendance at the public hearing. Commissioner Betkoski attended no portion of the public hearing. DPUC's legal counsel in the proceedings, Kenneth L. Braffman, was designated a "hearing officer" for purposes of presiding over the public hearing conducted on November 27, 000, at which he rendered substantive rulings on evidence and party status.
28. On November 6, 2000, DPUC Chairman Downes denied CCAM party status;
however, DPUC permitted CCAM to participate as an intervenor pursuant to Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies Section 16-1-18.
29. In addition to CCAM, DPUC designated the following as intervenors to the proceeding: Nuclear Energy Advisory Council, Connecticut Industrial Energy Council, Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative, Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company, Office of the Attorney General and the Town of Waterford.
30. CCAM participated in the proceedings by conducting cross examination, presenting the testimony of five witnesses and submitting documentary evidence.
31. During the public hearing, CCAM requested that DPUC order DRI to submit its complete record of safety compliance at its four Virginia nuclear reactors; such evidence was not otherwise before the DPUC; the DPUC denied the request.
On January 9, 2001, DPUC issued a draft decision approving the sale.
On January 16, 2001, CCAM filed formal exceptions and requested a hearing
for oral argument.
DPUC conducted a proceeding on January 23, 2001 to hear oral argument.
On three occasions during the proceedings, CCAM moved to reopen the
Public hearing for further development of the record; DPUC denied each request.
On January 18, 2001, CCAM moved to reopen the proceedings for further
development of the evidence in light of (a) CL&P's recent disclosure through its subsidiary, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, that it could not account for two13-foot-3-inch-long irradiated spent fuel rods which belong in the Millstone Unit 1 spent fuel pool and (b) a decision issued on January 17, 2001 by the NRC granting an appeal by CCAM of a decision allowing expansion of storage capacity of the Millstone Unit 3 spent fuel pool. CCAM's motion asserted that such developments impacted the issues before the DPUC, including the issue of DRI's decommissioning refinancing plan. DPUC summarily denied the motion to reopen.
On January 23, 2001, CCAM moved the reopen the proceedings for further
development of the record on issues of worker protection and a safety conscious work environment in light of (a) a submission by the Millstone Station Employees Association on January 18, 2001, which was not distributed to CCAM, asserting that the proposed sale provides the Millstone workforce with insufficient protection; and (b) an incident which occurred at Millstone on January 18, 2001 in which workers left a job site without completing a modification to a critical safety system which thereby rendered the safety system inoperable. CCAM asserted that such developments impacted the issues before the DPUC, including whether the proposed sale promotes a safety conscious work environment at Millstone and whether the proposed sale complies with the requirement of Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 16-244(8) and (9) in assuring that the public be provided with safe and reliable generation of electricity. DPUC summarily denied the motion to reopen.
38. On January 24, 2001, CCAM moved to reopen the proceedings for further development of the record regarding a safety conscious work environment, workers' concerns and the technical and managerial qualification of DRI to operate nuclear facilities safely in light of (a) comments published in the New London Day newspaper on January 24, 2001 suggesting deep disaffection among some of the Millstone workforce regarding the terms of the proposed sale as it affects their interests; and (b) the NRC's reluctance to investigate the cause of the January 18, 2001 incident at Millstone if it involved an economic issue; and (c) the loss of function of all 700 control room annunciators (light-and-sound alarms) in the control room of DRI's North Anna I nuclear reactor on January 23, 2001 and the report of a January 19, 2001 ten-gallon-per-minute leak of radioactive fluid at North Anna II. CCAM asserted that such developments impacted the issues before DPUC, including whether the proposed sale promotes a safety conscious work environment at Millstone and adequately protects the Millstone workforce and whether DRI is qualified to operate nuclear facilities. DPUC summarily denied the motion.
On January 24, DPUC convened at 9:30 A.M. and unanimously adopted the
Draft Decision dated January 9, 2001 without discussion and without revision.
Subsequently, on January 24, 2001, DPUC posted two identical versions of its
Decision on its website entitled respectively "Final Decision" and "Revised Draft Decision." Each contained modifications to the Draft Decision requested by Dominion's legal counsel in exceptions it filed on January 16, 2001 and which it argued on January 23, 2001. Neither the Final Decision nor the Revised Draft Decision conforms with
the text of the Draft Decision dated January 9, 2001 which DPUC unanimously approved and adopted on January 24, 2001. The "Revised Draft Decision" contains the following statement:
This draft decision is being distributed to the parties in this
proceeding for comment. The proposed decision is not a final
decision of the Department. The Department will consider the
parties' arguments and exceptions before reaching a final decision.
The final Decision may differ from the proposed Decision.
Therefore, this draft Decision does not establish any precedent
and does not necessarily represent the Department's
final conclusion.

CCAM is aggrieved by the DPUC's decision.
CCAM and its members possess specific personal and legal rights and interests
in the subject matter of the proceedings and their specific personal and legal interests have been specially and injuriously affected by the decision which is the subject of this appeal in that:
CCAM's membership includes families with children who own property and reside
within the five-mile emergency evacuation zone of Millstone and who, by virtue of their propinquity to Millstone, are at great risk of harm to their health and safety from unsafe operations of Millstone, including unsafe operations resulting from business decisions dictated by the economic considerations at issue in these proceedings;
(2) CCAM's membership includes organizations whose memberships include families with children who reside near Millstone and are thereby at risk of harm to their health and safety from unsafe operations of Millstone, including unsafe operations resulting from business decisions dictated by the economic considerations at issue in these proceedings;
CCAM's headquarters, at 13 Water Street, Mystic, Connecticut, are located ten
(10) miles downwind of Millstone and within the 10 mile evacuation zone of Millstone; those who participate in its activities at such location, by virtue of its propinquity to Millstone, do so at risk to their health and safety from unsafe operations of Millstone, including unsafe operations resulting from business decisions dictated by the economic considerations at issue in these proceedings;
The decision which is the subject of this appeal permits the ownership and
operation of Millstone - a nuclear facility long plagued by operational and managerial failures and illegal misconduct - by a limited liability company without assets and without adequate capitalization. Thereby, the decision promotes reckless cost-cutting and job insecurity; jeopardizes a safety conscious work environment; illegally defers clean- up of the radiologically and chemically contaminated site for decades; fails to require adequate financing for decommissioning of the site; fails to require adequate financing to protect the public and its workforce during routine operations and from accidents; and directly endangers the public health and safety, most particularly those members of the public closest to Millstone, including CCAM and its membership.
In the above-described proceedings, DPUC acted illegally, arbitrarily and
capriciously and in abuse of its discretion as follows:
The decision violates Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 16-244(g)(b)(2) in that:
DRI does not meet all applicable qualifications established by federal law and regulations;
DNC does not meet all applicable qualifications established by federal law and regulation;
The sale was not conducted in accordance with the divestiture plan as approved by DPUC;
Neither DRI nor DNC established that it would preserve labor agreements in effect at the time of the sale;
The sale will not result in a net benefit to ratepayers.
(2) DPUC approved its Draft Decision dated January 9, 2001 without modification or revision; its apparent effort to adopt the "Revised Draft Decision" after the unanimous vote to approve the Draft Decision on January 24, 2001 was a legal nullity;
(3) DPUC approved a decommissioning refinancing plan submitted by DRI without providing notice and without conducting a public hearing as required by Conn.Gen. Stat. 16-19o;
(4) DPUC had no authority to consider the decommissioning refinancing plan in that the governing statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 16-19n, expressly limits an applicant to a licensed operator of a nuclear power generating facility within the state of Connecticut; at the time of submission of the application and at all times pertinent to the application proceedings, neither DRI nor DNC was licensed to operate a nuclear power generating facility in the state of Connecticut;
(5) The decommissioning refinancing plan is inadequate and legally deficient in that it fails to provide sufficient plans and options for insuring against or otherwise financing premature closing of the facility as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. Section16-19n(b)(7);
(6) The decommissioning refinancing plan is inadequate and legally deficient in that it fails to provide reasonable assurance of responsibility in the event of insufficient assets to fund the decommissioning as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 16-19n(b)(8);
(7) The decommissioning refinancing plan is inadequate and legally deficient in that it fails to adequately describe the stages by which decommissioning is intended to be accomplished, as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 16-19n(b)(9);
(8) The decommissioning refinancing plan is inadequate and legally deficient in that it did not include a fully executed decommissioning financing agreement between the licensee and each owner, evidencing each owner's acceptance of its respective share of the ultimate responsibility for decommissioning, as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 16-19n(b)(10);
(9) DPUC erroneously approved the decommissioning refinancing plan in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 16-19o without evidence in the record that the estimated time of closing of the nuclear power generating facility and the estimated cost of decommissioning are reasonable; the licensee and the owners of the facility can adequately fund the decommissioning; the share of the estimated cost of decommissioning for each owner of the facility is reasonable; the plans and options for insuring against or otherwise financing any shortfall in decommissioning funds resulting from a premature closing are adequate and reasonable; the owners are legally bound to accept their respective shares of the ultimate financial responsibility for decommissioning as provided under section 16-19q; thereby, DPUC was legally bound to reject the decommissioning refinancing plan because it fails to meet the statutory criteria of Conn. Gen. Stat. 16-19(b), as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 16-19(c);
(10) DPUC failed to require that its consultant adequately screen prospective bidders to ensure that they have proper qualifications to operate Millstone safely, as required by its order on April 19, 2000 approving the divestiture plan;
(11) J.P. Morgan failed to adequately screen DRI to insure that it has proper qualifications to operate Millstone safely;
(12) DRI lacks adequate managerial and and technical qualifications to operate Millstone safely, contrary to DPUC's finding; nevertheless, DPUC's finding was legally irrelevant in that DRI will not own or operate Millstone;
(13) DPUC failed to screen DNC to insure it has adequate qualifications to operate Millstone safely;
(14) DNC lacks adequate managerial and technical qualifications to operate Millstone safely;
(15) DPUC accurately stated in the Draft Decision that it had not evaluated DNC; however, at the specific request of DRI and DNC, DPUC altered the Draft Decision to state the opposite - that it had evaluated DNC - which was not correct;
(16) DPUC erred in denying CCAM party status in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. Section16-9a and such denial was unreasonable;
(17) DPUC failed to require that a public auction be conducted;
(18) DPUC wrongfully permitted the parties to withhold from public scrutiny documents and evidence critical to the public hearing process, including J.P. Morgan's confidential offering statement and the winning bid submitted by DRI;
(19) DPUC wrongfully withheld from public scrutiny the bids submitted by other bidders;
(20) The record before DPUC establishes that DRI is not qualified to operate Millstone safely, in violation of the divestiture plan;
(21) The record before DPUC establishes that DNC is not qualified to operate Millstone safely, in violation of the divestiture plan;
(22) DPUC erred in awarding to DNC the benefit of excess decommissioning funds rather than to the ratepayers who have contributed to the fund;
(23) DPUC erred in failing to require DRI to submit its records of safety compliance at its four nuclear reactors in Virginia and thereby deprived itself of meaningful review of the application;
(24) DPUC failed to protect worker security;
(25) DPUC conducted a sham proceeding which was a product of bias, prejudice and pre-judgment; none of the three DPUC Commissioners who comprised the hearing panel attended the entire public hearing; one was absent from the entire public proceeding prior to argument; the three Commissioners failed to state on the record that they had reviewed the entire record and all exhibits prior to voting; their rulings on party status, participation and evidentiary issues manifested clear bias and prejudgment.
(26) DPUC erred in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 16-( c ) in assigning its legal counsel to preside over a portion of the public hearing and render substantive decisions in lieu of the absent DPUC Commissioners;
(27) DPUC erred in denying CCAM's motions to reopen the public hearing for further development of the record;
(28) In so acting, DPUC failed to properly discharge its legal mandate to assure safe generation of electricity for Connecticut ratepayers;
(29) In so acting, DPUC failed to properly discharge its legal mandate to assure reliable generation of electricity for Connecticut customers;
(30) DPUC failed to obtain commitment from DRI that it would provide financial backing to DNC sufficient to protect the public health and safety;
(31) Because of DPUC's failure to act in compliance with the letter and spirit of the Act, the decision will endanger the public health and safety;
(32) The DPUC's actions were undertaken without any substantial justification within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 4-184a(b


 

Wherefore, CCAM requests that the Court award the following relief:
Sustain this appeal;
Reverse and vacate the decision of the DPUC approving the Millstone sale;
Find that the DPUC's actions were undertaken without any substantial justification, within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 4-184a(b); and
Award costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

CONNECTICUT COALITION
AGAINST MILLSTONE

By: ________________________
Nancy Burton, Esq.
147 Cross Highway
Redding Ridge CT 06876
Tel. 203-938-3952

CV 01 0506963 : SUPERIOR COURT

CONNECTICUT COALITION : JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AGAINST MILLSTONE : OF NEW BRITAIN

v. :

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT :
OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL; :
CONNECTICUT LIGHT & :
POWER COMPANY; :
UNITED ILLUMINATING :
COMPANY; :
DOMINION RESOURCES, INC.; :
DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, :
INC.; :
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC. : MARCH 2, 2001

VERIFICATION

I, Joseph H. Besade, having been duly sworn, do hereby depose as follows:
I am above the age of eighteen (18) years and I believe in he obligation of an oath.
I reside with my family within two (2) miles of the Millstone Nuclear Power Generating Station.
I am a member of the plaintiff.
I am personally familiar with the facts alleged in the foregoing Application for Order to Show Cause.
Such facts are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

_________________________
Joseph H. Besade

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
ss:
COUNTY OF

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 2nd day of March, 2001.

_______________________________________
Commissioner of the Superior Court

CV 01 0506963 : SUPERIOR COURT

CONNECTICUT COALITION : JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AGAINST MILLSTONE : OF NEW BRITAIN

v. :

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT :
OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL; :
CONNECTICUT LIGHT & :
POWER COMPANY; :
UNITED ILLUMINATING :
COMPANY; :
DOMINION RESOURCES, INC.; :
DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, :
INC.; :
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC. : MARCH 2, 2001

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Whereas, the foregoing complaint, duly verified, motion for stay, with supporting memorandum of law, and verified application for order to show cause having been presented to the Court, and
Whereas, upon application of the plaintiff it appears that an order should, be issued directing the defendants in this action to appear before the Court to show cause why a stay should not issue as requested,
Now therefore it is ordered that the defendants be summoned to appear before the Superior Court for the Judicial, District of New Britain. 20 Franklin Square, New Britain, Connecticut, in Courtroom on , then and there to show cause why a stay should not enter as prayed for in the foregoing motion.

Dated at

 

 

BY THE COURT

 

_________________________
JUDGE/CLERK

 

CV 01 0506963 : SUPERIOR COURT

CONNECTICUT COALITION : JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AGAINST MILLSTONE : OF NEW BRITAIN

v. :

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT :
OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL; :
CONNECTICUT LIGHT & :
POWER COMPANY; :
UNITED ILLUMINATING :
COMPANY; :
DOMINION RESOURCES, INC.; :
DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, :
INC.; :
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC. : MARCH 2, 2001

ORDER

The plaintiff's verified complaint and motion for stay having come before the Court pursuant to an order to show cause why a stay should not issue as prayed for and the parties having been fully heard, and it appearing to the Court that a stay ought to issue and that, for good cause shown, the Court is of the opinion that the stay ought to issue without bond,
These are therefore, by authority of the State of Connecticut, to stay the final decision issued in this matter by the defendant, Department of Public Utility Control, and to preserve the status quo, pending further order of the Court.

Dated at

BY THE COURT

 

_________________________
JUDGE/CLERK

CV 01 0506963 : SUPERIOR COURT

CONNECTICUT COALITION : JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AGAINST MILLSTONE : OF NEW BRITAIN

v. :

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT :
OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL; :
CONNECTICUT LIGHT & :
POWER COMPANY; :
UNITED ILLUMINATING :
COMPANY; :
DOMINION RESOURCES, INC.; :
DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, :
INC.; :
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC. : MARCH 2, 2001

SUMMONS

To any Proper Officer:

BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby commanded to serve a true and attested copy of the foregoing Application for Order to Show Cause, Verification, Order to Show Cause, proposed unsigned Order and of this Summons upon the defendants on or before in the manner provided by law for the service of civil process.

 

________________________________
Commissioner of the Superior Court

 

Dated at Redding, Connecticut
This 2nd day of March, 2001

 

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed on March 2, 2001 to all counsel and parties of record, as follows:

Robert S. Golden, Esq.
Robert L. Marconi, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General
10 Franklin Square
New Britain CT 06051