Vermont’s attorney general joins VY complaint
From The Vermont Guardian
MONTPELIER - Vermont has joined six other states in a petition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking them to assess the vulnerability of spent nuclear fuel storage at reactors before they are allowed to extend their operating licenses.
The request is made in support of a petition before the NRC filed by the Massachusetts attorney general, asking them to set new national rules for how reactor safeguards are evaluated.
In recent weeks, anti-nuclear activists, a number of Windham County lawmakers - along with the entire Progressive Caucus - have been urging Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell to jump into the fight surrounding Entergy’s request to extend the operating license of Vermont Yankee beyond 2012.
“We’d love to see him actively involved as I think he’s a good advocate for the state’s positions and this is an issue of central importance to the people of Vermont,” said Rep. Dick Marek, D-Newfane, who penne the original letter that went from a number of county lawmakers.
“I don’t see a reason why the NRC would be unwilling to look at it this issue in a broader context, as it seems to me that it’s a set of fundamental questions that deserve answers,” added Marek.
Without any urging however, Sorrell had given the OK in December to join a multi-state letter of support to a petition filed by the Massachusetts attorney general.
None of the lawmakers, nor the activists urging Sorrell’s involvement, were made aware of this by the attorney general’s office.
While Sorrell considered sending a letter solely from Vermont, he opted for a multi-state effort.
“We often work with other states and the thought was if you get several states it’s not just a backyard argument, it’s a national issue and an issue based on the merits and not just the concerns of one state,” said Bill Griffin, chief assistant attorney general.
The Massachusetts Attorney General argued in a petition before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board - an advisory panel to the NRC -that officials needed to weigh the power station’s vulnerability to a terrorist attack due to the increased onsite storage of nuclear waste as a result of its recent power uprate and the additional storage needed to accommodate the proposed license extension.
The ALSB, and the NRC, rejected those arguments, with the final denial coming March 15.
Massachusetts then separately requested to have the NRC embark on a national rulemaking change. The deadline to file comments in support of their petition was March 19.
Sorrell joined six other attorneys general in a show of support. The letter had been circulated to all 50 attorneys general, but only Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont signed on.
“As you know, every nuclear power plant in the United States hosts a high-density fuel storage pool, and the inventory of spent fuel continues to mount without any clear prospect for removal and permanent disposal. Recent reports by the National Academy of Sciences, the NRC’s own technical staff and independent experts contradict the NRC’s assertion that high-density fuel storage pools pose no significant environmental risk,” the letter states. “Instead, these studies show that fuel storage pools are susceptible to fire and radiological release from a wide range of conditions, including natural phenomena, operator error, equipment failure, or intentional attack.”
The attorneys general contend in their letter that the environmental impacts of a fire in a spent fuel pool may extend over a larger area than a single state boundary, and may have an impact for decades.
“In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and other new and significant information, the NRC’s outdated conclusion - that fuel pool storage risks are insignificant - is no longer defensible,” the letter adds.
Late last year, the Ninth Circuit U.S Court of Appeals ruled that the NRC was responsible for addressing the impacts of an intentional attack. The ruling -which stems from a California case involving Pacific Gas & Electric - was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was rebuffed.
NRC officials disagree with the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation, and have said it does not apply in the Vermont Yankee case. That is what prompted Massachusetts to request a rulemaking change.
The NRC has refused to suspend the relicensure hearings while it takes up the rulemaking change. However, if the NRC were to change rules they could apply to the Vermont Yankee application and its generic environmental impact statement (GEIS).