P.O. Box 415 Niantic CT 06357 www.mothballmillstone.org
ANTI-MILLSTONE GROUP
ASKS COURT TO HALT WORK
ON NUKE WASTE DUMP
For Immediate Release September 2, 2004
Contact: Attorney Paulann Sheets 860-536-2152
Nancy Burton 203-938-3952/cell 203-545-9252
Waterford ¯ The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone sought a court order today to halt work on a nuclear waste storage facility on grounds it was not designed to withstand a terrorist attack and the consequences could dwarf the 1986 Chernobyl accident
“National authorities have warned that an attack on a nuclear power station is a realistic possibility,” declared Dr. Gordon Thompson, executive director of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Yet, storage facilities for high-level nuclear waste are not designed to resist terror attacks, Thompson said, adding that such an attack could create a radioactive plume releasing intense gamma radiation on a scale many times greater than the Chernobyl accident.
Thompson calculated that a single storage module of the 49 approved by the Siting Council - designed to contain 32 spent-fuel assemblies from Millstone spent fuel pools may contain 1.8 million Curies of cesium-137, the radioisotope which accounted for most of the offsite radiation exposure attributable to the Chernobyl reactor explosion of 1986. A total of about 120 million Curies of cesium-135 is present in Millstone spent fuel, according to Thompson.
For comparison, the Chernobyl accident released about 2.4 million Curies of cesium-137 to the atmosphere.
The inventory of cesium-137 which would be released in a terrorist attack on the storage modules would depend on the nature of the attack.
Thus, the entire inventory could be released if the attack caused sustained burning of fuel assemblies, Thompson asserted.
Thompson faulted the Siting Council for approving a dense configuration of spent fuel storage modules laid out side-by-side in long rows.
“With that configuration, a single, determined attack on the [Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation of ISFSI] could cause a substantial atmospheric release of cesium-137 from several modules,” Thompson declared.
Thompson, an expert on nuclear waste and security issues, provided a 39-page affidavit in support of the Coalition’s application to a Superior Court judge to impose a stay of a decision by the Connecticut Siting Council on May 27, 2004 allowing construction of the nuclear waste facility.
The Coalition and Thompson contend that risks inherent in the approval can be significantly reduced if the proposal is redesigned to allow for an immediate reduction in the high density of the spent fuel now stored in pools adjacent to the three Millstone reactors as well as a reconfiguration and “hardening” of the dry storage modules so they are widely separated and potentially partially buried.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., owner of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Waterford, sought approval for the above-ground dry storage facility because, it claimed, the Unit 2 nuclear reactor will run out of space to store its spent fuel in a tightly-packed pool adjacent to the reactor following a scheduled refueling outage in the spring of 2005. Without additional storage capacity, Unit 2 would have to shut down.
The Coalition argued that the 870 megawatts of electricity generated by Millstone Unit 2 constitute excess capacity not needed in Connecticut. The Coalition cited the Siting Council’s most recent report of electric power supply and demand, the 2003 “Review of the Connecticut Electric Utilities’ Ten-Year Forecasts of Loads and Resources.”
That report shows that Connecticut’s expected peak electricity demand in 2005 is 6,716 megawatts, while the expected supply of electricity is 10,310 megawatts. The difference ¯ even after subtracting Unit 2’s 870 megawatts - represents 30 per cent excess capacity.
“Accordingly, it is likely that Connecticut’s peak demand in 2005 could be met with a prudent margin of supply if Millstone Unit 2 were unavailable,” Thompson’s affidavit stated.
"Letting Millstone 2 remain inactive after its refuelling in Spring 2005 is a small risk to take compared with the potential calamitous consequences to the coastal communities of southeastern Connecticut and nearby states of not doing so,” said Attorney Paulann Sheets, who represents the Coalition in its appeal of the Siting Council decision.
“Connecticut has plenty of power to run without Millstone 2,” said Sheets. “We survived when Millstone Units 1, 2 and 3 were all shut down for two years!”
Sheets, who served on the Siting Council from 1988 to 1994, added, “ We must frankly discuss in public about the great hazards from the continued production and storage of waste nuclear fuel in over-packed ‘cooling pools’ at Millstone Power Station. Letting  densely packed spent nuclear fuel storage continue to grow without addressing the threat of terrorist or insane attack  is, in a word, nuts.”
“Moving the excess into outdoor concentrations of concrete casks which are sitting ducks for attack makes no sense,” Sheets said. “Let Millstone 2 stay cool until we have figured out what to do next, like disperse the casks over Millstone's 520 acres, or ‘harden’ the casks so they are not so vulnerable.”
The Coalition asked the Court to stay the Siting Council order so that other safer storage options can be considered before the company commits to an unsafe plan.
The dry cask storage components are licensed for a maximum term of 20 years by the federal government; however, Thompson declared that for planning purposes it should be assumed that the fuel will remain onsite for a century or more before other facilities are available for permanent storage.
Note to Editors: Dr. Thompson’s Affidavit may be viewed on the Coalition’s website,  HYPERLINK "http://www.mothballmillstone.org"
www.mothballmillstone.org.

Coalition Asks For Halt To Millstone Storage Work
Group cites concerns of possible terrorism
  Print This Article E-mail This Article
Special Reports Most Popular
  Tim Cook
Dr. Gordon Thompson secures a banner Thursday in Waterford before a press conference given by the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone to discuss the group's lawsuit to stop Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, parent company of Millstone Power Station, from constructing storage for spent nuclear material at the power plant.

Published on 9/3/2004
Waterford –– The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone called Thursday for a halt to the building of spent-fuel storage at Millstone Power Station, citing the “realistic” potential for terrorist attacks.
Against the backdrop of the Pleasure Beach boat launch across from the nuclear complex, coalition leader Nancy Burton supplied reporters with copies of attorney Paulann Sheets' motion to stop construction, which was to be filed today in New Britain Superior Court.
The motion is part of an appeal the coalition filed July 16 against the Connecticut Siting Council, which in May granted Millstone owner Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc. permission to build a concrete pad for 49 concrete bunkers, or modules, that would contain metal casks of spent-fuel assemblies.
An affidavit attached to the coalition's motion for a stay of construction was written by security expert Gordon Thompson, executive director of the nonprofit Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Cambridge, Mass. Thompson said his testimony neither affirms nor rejects the coalition's long-standing call to permanently shut down Millstone. Right now, he said, he and the coalition would rather see steps taken to better protect spent fuel.
“I and the coalition are not fundamentally opposed to this (storage) project,” Thompson said. “We just think it is not being done correctly. ... We want them to stop and do it right.... We believe that delay is worth making.”
Dominion officials said they needed to build the storage facility, in part, to free up space in the Millstone 2 pool where spent fuel now is stored. The two-acre storage facility will be used to store assemblies of pencil-thin rods filled with spent fuel. After cooling for five years or more in pools at each reactor, an assembly of 32 rods would be transferred to a metal cask. Each cask would be placed in a concrete bunker, or module. The bunkers would be lined up side by side in two rows on a concrete pad east of the power plants.
Thompson said terrorist threats are more likely today than ever and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is keeping the latest reports on the subject classified. In light of the plausibility of attacks on the nation's 65 nuclear power stations, available options “for substantially reducing the level of risk” should be pursued, he said.
Thompson recommended increasing the thickness of the metal canisters to more than six-tenths of an inch and building a bigger facility on Millstone's 520 acres. Instead of putting bunkers close together in rows, Dominion should spread them out in pairs and buttress them on four sides with gravel, he said.
Reached by phone Thursday, Dominion spokesman Pete Hyde said the siting council decided not to explore the topic of terrorist threats and underlying security issues because legal counsel deemed it to be beyond the council's jurisdiction.
“That doesn't mean it hasn't been considered,” Hyde said. “The modules we've selected are among the most robust in the industry. We're talking about five feet of steel reinforced on top and two feet thick on every side. They provide the best long-term safe storage solution there is. We have engineered this very, very carefully to ensure that the fuel is safely stored.
“We met all the requirements that were put out and we intend to go forward,” he said.
p.daddona@theday.com