The Brattleboro Reformer
November 23, 2004
Carolyn Lorié
BRATTLEBORO -- On Monday, the panel charged with granting hearings in the Vermont Yankee uprate case accepted two legal challenges from the state and two from the New England Coalition.
Both parties are challenging the application of Vermont Yankee, which is owned by Louisiana-based Entergy Nuclear, to increase power by 20 percent. The application is currently under review by the Nuclear Regulator Commission.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel, which is part of the NRC but independent of its staff, held hearings on the challenges on Oct. 21 and 22 in Brattleboro. The Vermont Department of Public Service originally submitted five contentions, while the coalition submitted seven.
By accepting the challenges, the panel is declaring that they have legal merit and must now decide what kind of hearing procedure it will hold to resolve them. There are two options.
One is for a formal hearing that is run like a court trial, with witnesses giving testimony under oath and lawyers cross-examining them. The other is a process that is done entirely in writing, with the exchange of information done through the submission of documents.
Both the state and the coalition requested full court-like hearings.
The panel will issue a separate order on the type of hearing it will conduct, but did not indicate when the order will be issued.
Any decision made by the panel can be overturned by the five-member commission that heads the NRC. Decisions by the commission can be appealed in federal court.
Representatives from Entergy and the coalition declined to comment on Monday, stating that more time was needed to review the document.
A phone call to David O'Brien, commissioner of the Department of Public Service, was not immediately returned.
All five of the state's contentions focused on Entergy's proposal to take credit for containment overpressure.
If the plant increases power by 20 percent, the water in the containment tank will be hotter. This presents a problem if there were to be a loss of coolant accident -- that is, if the system that carries water into the core to keep it cool were somehow damaged.
Under such conditions, the emergency pumps would need to take over by circulating water out of the containment tank into a storage water tank and back in.
But the hotter water in the containment tank would form bubbles, as it does when steam forms, and the bubbles would interfere with the ability of the emergency pumps to work. If the emergency pumps cannot circulate the water, the core becomes exposed, resulting in a meltdown.
Engineers at Entergy, however, contend that there will be enough pressure in the containment tank to prevent the bubbles from forming. This is known as taking credit for containment overpressure.
Although there is an NRC regulatory guide against this practice, guides do not have the same weight as regulations and do not have to be followed.
Because of this, the panel rejected most of the state's contentions.
It did, however, agree with the state's argument that taking credit for containment overpressure would violate two design criteria and that Entergy has not shown that the pressure needed will be available for the pumps to work.
Of the seven challenges submitted by the coalition, the panel agreed to hear one dealing with the need for large transient testing and one on the seismic and structural integrity of the cooling towers.
Large transient testing is checking how systems react to significant changes in conditions such as pressure, water flow and temperature. In Entergy's application, the company requested exemption for testing the system under uprate conditions.
The panel agreed with the coalition that the issue of whether the test is necessary warrants a hearing.
The panel also agreed to hear the coalition's arguments about whether the cooling towers have been sufficiently analyzed for their ability to withstand an earthquake.
Monday's order also addressed the state's request that amendments to the petition be allowed without having to meet the NRC's late filing criteria.
The state included this request so that it could file more contentions based on information from the NRC's engineering inspection of Vermont Yankee. The inspection was completed in September, but the final report is not expected until January.
The panel rejected this request, saying that the activity of the NRC staff does not change the filing regulations. While the state, and the coalition, are free to submit amendments, both parties must meet all the stringent NRC criteria for late filings.
Earlier in the month, the NRC released the preliminary findings of the inspection which found that the plant could withstand the uprate. This does not, however, mean that the staff will ultimately approve the uprate as the inspection is just one of many criteria considered in the review process.
A decision on the uprate was originally expected in early 2005, but was pushed back by several months by the NRC due to ongoing concerns about cracking in the steam dryers and other issues related to increased power generation.
Although the NRC has approved many other uprates, this is the first time that one has been challenged.
If a formal hearing is granted, it is not clear if it will be held in the area or closer to the NRC's office in Rockville, Md. The state argued for a local venue.
Vermont Yankee is working to ensure Vermont’s energy future by supplying the state with clean, low cost electricity. Throughout this process Vermont Yankee will be working in concert with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety Licensing Board, and the Vermont Public Service Board to ensure that all concerns are met and properly addressed.
Vermont Yankee passed the NRC inspection to determine if the plant could support a power uprate, the results were presented to the public December 16, 2004 by Wayne Lanning of the NRC.
Currently Vermont Yankee is working with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to address concerns raised by the New England Coalition and the Vermont Department of Public Service. The parties are engaged in a “Subpart L” hearing to settle disputes over the 20% increase in power.
