Feds agree to review VY license renewal safety contentions

By Shay Totten | Vermont Guardian

Posted September 22, 2006

BRATTLEBORO — In a rare concession, a key federal panel has agreed to hear contentions filed by the state of Vermont and a citizen watchdog group as part of its review of Vermont Yankee’s bid to operate beyond 2012.

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) issued a 107-page ruling Friday allowing one of the state Department of Public Service’s three contentions, and four of the six contentions filed by the New England Coalition. It denied outright contentions from two other interested groups — the Massachusetts Attorney General and the Town of Marlboro.

Of these five allowed contentions, four relate to various safety aspects of operating the plant beyond its original 40-year license, while the fifth relates to the environmental impact its water discharges have on the Connecticut River.

The ASLB, which is a quasi-judicial panel of judges with in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), has only allowed several outside groups to contest license extensions.

Today’s ruling is separate from the ASLB’s review of the NRC’s uprate approval, which was handed down in March. The ASLB recently held two days of hearings in Newfane on two contentions from the NEC about the approval granted Vermont Yankee to boost its power output.

Vermont Yankee's 40-year license expires on March 21, 2012. Entergy, the plant’s owner, has formally asked to extend that term for 20 years. If approved, the extension — coupled with a 20 percent uprate that has been implemented at the plant — would increase the output of radioactive waste, and it may also add stress to the plant beyond its original design, critics contend.

Today’s ruling can be appealed by those denied contentions, as well as by NRC staff and the plant’s owner, Entergy, said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC’s Region 1 office.

“This ruling has established that environment and safety concerns can be addressed and what is important is that the burden of proof with these contentions is on the licensee,” said Ray Shadis, a technical advisor to the NEC. “They have the burden of proof to show that these contentions are not valid and that they have done what the contentions say they haven’t.”

The ASLB agreed to hear NEC’s concerns about Entergy’s plans to monitor key components as the plant ages and produces power at a higher rate than originally licensed.

The group contends that Entergy’s proposed plan to monitor for overall metal fatigue at the aging plant is inadequate, and specifically falls short in relation to two key components — the steam dryer and the pipes that carry the steam.

In addition, the group believes that Entergy has not adequately answered questions about the long-term impact on the Connecticut River that a rise in water temperature — by one degree over what is currently allowed in its permit — will have on various aquatic species.

Shadis said he is glad that these key safety issues will be addressed by the ASLB and taken into consideration as part of VY’s license extension.

“The NRC has not proven to be real strong on these questions,” said Shadis.

The ASLB also agreed to hear one contention by Vermont officials. They are questioning Entergy’s plan to monitor and manage the aging concrete that surrounds most of the reactor containment vessel, called a “drywell.”

“I am disappointed that the state’s contentions on the nuclear waste issue and land usage didn’t get any play because those are important issues when you think about the plant continuing to operate in the future — where that waste will be stored is a critical question,” said Shadis.

A recent federal court ruling said the NRC had to consider the waste question as part of a license renewal for a California reactor. The NRC has appealed that decision.

The board refused to hear NEC’s contentions about Entergy’s management plan for the reactor’s primary containment vessel or its steam condenser.

The board also refused to hear the Massachusetts Attorney General’s contention that Entergy did not adequately address concerns about problems with densely-packed spent fuel pools, or the Town of Marlboro’s argument that it was improperly left out of VY’s emergency planning zone.

In regards to the spent fuel pool contention, the ASLB said this issue has been well documented and debated since 1979. “The ground has been well trod,” the ruling stated.

The board also refused to hear Vermont officials’ contentions that Entergy has not provided an adequate plan to store spent fuel on site, as well as a contention about plans to monitor non-safety related systems and how their failure could impact the plant’s safe operation.

State officials were unavailable for comment late Friday, nor was a spokesman for Entergy.

Earlier this year state officials in Vermont and Massachusetts joined NEC in questioning the effects of a Entergy’s proposed 20-year license extension, which would keep the aging reactor operational until 2032, and could leave nuclear waste in Vernon for decades beyond that.

The parties maintained that Entergy has information on aging and environmental effects that it did not include in its application and supplemental filings with the NRC.

Entergy’s attorney, David Lewis, told the ASLB at the time that the company’s assessment of the plant included an examination of aging components and demonstrated that those components can be managed successfully. He said the environmental concerns have also been addressed, either specifically of through the agency’s generic environmental impact statement.

The ASLB process runs concurrently with NRC’s review of Entergy’s application to keep Vermont Yankee open beyond its current license, said Sheehan. Without ASLB contentions, the process takes about 22 months from start to finish, with those contentions allowed it may take as long as 30 months, he said, before the NRC makes a final determination.