Enviros respond to NRC, Constellation

Friday, Dec. 26, 2008

A coalition of environmental groups has filed a brief with a regulatory panel defending its challenges to a proposed expansion of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Lusby.

The groups are seeking a new round of public hearings on the project in response to legal and safety questions they say have not been properly addressed.

In the brief, a copy of which was provided Dec. 23 by Michael Mariotte, who is representing the four groups in the proceedings, Mariotte apologizes for procedural errors marring the first filing and submitted arguments that all four coalition members have standing to challenge the project.

Mariotte, who wrote the brief, is executive director of Takoma Park-based Nuclear Information Resource Service, one of the coalition members.

The brief was also signed by representatives of environmental groups Beyond Nuclear, So MD CARES and Public Citizen.

The brief responds to others filed last week by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and plant owner Constellation Energy before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board created by the NRC to adjudicate the groups' request. In those filings, NRC asserted that of the groups, only NIRS had full standing, and urged the board to reject the bases of the challenge. Constellation asserted that none of the groups had standing or a valid objection to the project.

Mariotte blasted NRC for delays in posting documents related to the project online. The groups' original filing did not include information in the latest revision of the plant's application for a Combined Operating License because they did not have access to it, a situation which "unfairly hampers intervenors," he wrote. On this basis, the groups asked the board to grant them an extension until 60 days after Revision 3 becomes available, to allow them to update their arguments and perhaps add new ones.

"Obviously, we cannot prepare contentions based on materials we cannot see," Mariotte wrote. "It is already an enormous burden on pro se intervenors like [us] to read and evaluate very lengthy licensing application documents and prepare relevant contentions in the 60-day period allotted by NRC regulations. We request a full 60-day extension of time, once Revision 3 is fully publicly available, to amend our petition based on information contained in Revision 3."

The brief also argues that all of the group's contentions are valid and should be considered by the board.

Mariotte dismissed NRC's and Constellation's rejection of their claim that the project, which involves French energy company EDF, would violate a federal law prohibiting American reactors from being "owned, dominated or controlled by foreign interests."

"On one level, this contention is not that difficult, it's high school math, and NRC's argument against its admissibility borders on the absurd," he wrote. "[Constellation] essentially argues against the contention, rather than its admissibility. The argument itself should be heard by the ASLB, and is itself evidence of a genuine dispute on a material issue."

Mariotte also defended the groups' other three contentions: that UniStar Nuclear, the energy consortium seeking the permit, must provide, in advance, all money necessary to eventually decommission the new reactor; and two contentions that the Environmental Report filed by UniStar is insufficient.

The filing stressed the groups' assertion that, in their opinion, many safety aspects of the proposal had not been addressed in the license application, including the potential for terrorism.

"The applicants have not attempted to quantify the risks of other types of events and accidents that could cause a large release of radioactive materials to the environment. These include acts of terrorism and sabotage," the brief says. "Given Calvert Cliffs-3's proximity to the seat of the federal government in Washington, D.C., a strong argument could be made that this proposed reactor — which would be at the time of its completion the largest single nuclear reactor in the United States — could also become the most tempting terrorist target in the United States. While applicants certainly will take steps — indeed, are required to take steps — to attempt to minimize these risks, the fact remains that a risk of terror attack and/or sabotage exist[s], and that such acts could cause a release of radioactivity. Applicants have not quantified these risks, if indeed they are even quantifiable. [We] submit that these risks should be seen as orders of magnitude larger than the risk of a more ‘normal' catastrophic accident."

A UniStar Nuclear spokeswoman did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

emitrano@somdnews.com