The Brattleboro Reformer
February 24, 2005
CAROLYN LORIE
MONTPELIER -- When it comes to dry cask storage at Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, nobody seems to be getting what they want.
Entergy officials want an amendment, state legislators want a petition and both sides want the federal government to live up to its own mandate to store spent fuel.
Testimony on the issue continued at the Statehouse on Wednesday, this time before the joint committees on Energy and Natural Resources.
According to company officials, the spent fuel pool at Vermont Yankee will be full by 2007 or 2008, if the proposal to increase power production by 20 percent is approved. Unless they are able to move some of the spent fuel from the pool into specially made containers -- known as dry casks -- they claim the plant will have to shut down early.
While there is some debate about whether dry cask storage will be necessary before the plant's license expires in 2012, there is also disagreement about the approval process the company must go through to get it.
In 1977, the state Legislature passed a law that made legislative approval a requirement for the storage of radioactive material. Two year later, an amendment was passed granting Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. -- which owned the plant prior to Entergy -- an exemption to that law.
Entergy officials believe the intent of the law was to exempt the owners of the plant, whoever that may be.
At the end of the last legislative session, company lobbyists attempted to push through an amendment that would have expanded the 1979 exemption to the "Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, its successor or assigns."
The attempt failed.
Entergy officials are again seeking an amendment, this time they want the exemption to cover the "Vermont Yankee plant."
If such an amendment were passed, the company would still have to seek approval from the Public Service Board, which it says it is willing to do.
If the Legislature does not pass an amendment, which seems unlikely according to several lawmakers, Entergy could go to court claiming federal preemption. In other words, the company could charge that the state is imposing its authority in an area in which it does not have jurisdiction.
During Wednesday's testimony, Rep. Steve Darrow, D-Putney, pressed Vermont Yankee site Vice President Jay Thayer, about that possibility.
"I haven't spent any time thinking about federal preemption," replied Thayer. "We intend to pursue state processes."
Darrow pushed for a more concise answer, asking if company officials planned to file a petition with the Legislature -- a necessary step for getting its approval -- once it was clear Entergy would not get an exemption.
"I can't answer that," said Thayer, adding that he would need legal advice before commenting.
Afterwards, Thayer said the point of meeting with the legislative committees was to "ask for clarification of the exemption," and to educate lawmakers on the value of Vermont Yankee in the state.
The plant supplies one-third of the state's electricity and, because of the power purchase agreement made during the sale of the plant, does so at below-market rates.
According to Thayer, seeking legislative approval and then going through the process again before the Public Service Board would be too time consuming.
"We're simply out of time," he told committee members.
One House representative expressed frustration that the company -- which has owned the plant for almost three years -- did not bring up the matter sooner.
This point was expanded on by Arnold Gundersen, who testified as an expert witness for the nuclear power watchdog the New England Coalition.
"They have created this crisis," said Gundersen, a nuclear engineer who was once a senior vice president of an engineering firm in Connecticut.
Before becoming a whistleblower in the early 1990s, Gundersen headed a team of engineers that specialized in building spent fuel racks, like the one used in Vermont Yankee's fuel pool.
Gundersen testified that it would be possible to reorganize or redesign the rack in such a way that Vermont Yankee would not require dry cask storage.
But, he added, this would only get them to the end of their current license, which is 2012.
Many of Entergy's critics believe the company is pushing for dry cask storage to strengthen its chances of getting a 20-year license extension.
According to Gundersen, manipulating the racks to create more space would not necessarily be in Entergy's financial interest, especially if the company wants to keep the plant open until 2032.
Thayer, however, said that changing the configuration in the spent fuel pool would be complicated and time consuming and, in the end, may not even work.
But Gundersen charged that the company's resistance was based on economic concerns, not engineering obstacles.
"They solved serious problems when there was money to be made," said Gundersen.
Testimony on the issue is expected to continue.
Lawmakers said they were committed to gathering as much information as possible and that environmental and economic factors will be weighed before making a decision.
Vermont Yankee is taking steps to prepare for additional fuel storage options on the plant grounds. All spent nuclear fuel is currently stored in deep pool storage. At the current rate the spent fuel pool will be full by 2008. To continue to provide clean and reliable electricity Vermont Yankee is applying to store fuel in dry casks. Dry cask storage is a preferred technology of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, employed for the last 20 years and is currently used at 24 sites across the United States.
As the article states, Entergy is seeking the same rights and privileges as the former owners of Vermont Yankee. The Vermont Public Service Board was created to address this exact type of issue. As a group, their opinion is at the expert level and they are perfectly capable of making technical decisions, such as reviews for dry cask storage.
