The Brattleboro Reformer
January 1, 2005
Carolyn Lorié

BRATTLEBORO -- The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has rejected the New England Coalition's request to stop the current Vermont Yankee hearings and reopen the process only after the company has completed the uprate application.

Officials at the nuclear power plant submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Sept. 10, 2003, to amend its operating license, allowing the plant to produce 20 percent more power. The application was initially deemed incomplete by the NRC staff, which requested more information. In January 2004, the application was completed and accepted by the federal regulator.

As required by law, the application was posted in the Federal Register in July 2004. Parties wishing to challenge the application had 60 days from that date to file a petition with the NRC. The nuclear power watchdog the New England Coalition and the Vermont Department of Public Service -- acting on behalf of the state -- both filed petitions challenging the safety of the uprate application.

As with all petitions to intervene, the matter was turned over the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. On Oct. 21 and 22, 2004, the board held hearings to decide whether the petitions would be accepted.

One day before the hearing was to begin, however, the coalition filed a motion arguing that the process should be stopped and the notice to intervene re-posted, as Vermont Yankee officials had submitted numerous supplements to their application.

The board chose to not stop the process at that point, so that plant officials and NRC staff could respond to the motion. Both did so in November 2004.

According to the coalition's motion, Vermont Yankee officials have filed 20 supplements many after July 1. Most of the supplements were submitted in response to questions posed by NRC staff.

In the motion, the coalition argued that the submission of new information constituted a "large transformation" of the application.

Raymond Shadis, technical adviser to the coalition, said that the numerous additions make it difficult for intervenors to remain up to date on the information.

"[The process] becomes completely incoherent when you have to run back and fourth between voluminous documents," said Shadis. "It puts a terrific burden on any reviewer or anyone trying to make sense of the totality of the process."

In their responses, staff from Vermont Yankee and the NRC opposed the coalition's motions. Among other things, they claim that NRC regulations allow intervenors to amend their petitions if new information comes to light. They also stated that the supplements do not change the scope of the application in any substantive manner.

The board agreed with these claims.

"The board ruled as we expected and we saw no reason for delay," said Rob Williams, the Vermont Yankee spokesman. "We look forward to the next phase in this proceeding."

In their order, issued on Dec. 27, 2004, the board said that the coalition failed to point to any "change in the basic nature or the scope of the proceeding that has occurred as a result of the filing of supplemental information."

The board also rejected the coalition's charge that the information filed after July 1 was out of the jurisdiction of the board, stating that the board had authority over the entire process.

In December, the board granted the state and the coalition what is known as a "subpart L" hearing, which is done primarily through the submission of documents. The hearing is already under way, but it is unclear when the process will be completed.