Mar 23 - Patriot Ledger, The; Quincy, Mass.

The entire Massachusetts congressional delegation and a number of South Shore state legislators are urging federal regulators to force the Pilgrim nuclear power plant to address concerns about the safety of its waste-storage pool.

Comments from lawmakers, advocates and individuals were submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in support of Attorney General Martha Coakley's request for a rule change that would affect plants, such as Pilgrim, that are seeking to extend their operating life.

The comment period on Coakley's request, originally submitted by former Attorney General Thomas Reilly, ended yesterday. As of yesterday, about 40 comments had been submitted. Only Pilgrim owner Entergy Corp. and a coalition of nuclear plants opposed Coakley's request. Most of the comments were copies of a form letter.

Reilly had asked nuclear regulators to require a closer study of the pool as part of the process to extend Pilgrim's operating license past its current expiration in 2012, to 2032. So far, those efforts have been rejected. Reilly and Coakley have also tried to change the rules that govern relicensing procedures.

Changes to NRC rules can take years to enact, but Entergy has asked the commission to decide by November on Coakley's requested change. An NRC spokesman said the agency planned to respond in a timely manner but would not specify how long it could take.

The change would require Pilgrim and other plants looking to extend their life to file an environmental-impact statement if they plan to continue to keep spent-nuclear fuel in high-density storage pools. Environmental-impact statements are intensely researched documents and preparing one would likely delay a new license for Pilgrim.

When Pilgrim began operating in 1972, its spent-fuel pool was viewed as temporary storage for fuel that would be eventually kept in a federal repository. Efforts to build such a repository have been stalled for years, and Pilgrim has continued to store its own waste.

The density of fuel stored in a pool inside the plant's reactor building is higher than had been anticipated when the plant was built, but the plant's operators and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission insist the pool is safe.

Activists point to a study that says a fire in the pool would be more catastrophic than previously thought. They also say the pool's potential as a terrorist target means it should be examined more closely.

Sanford Lewis, an environmental attorney from Amherst, told the commission that rules for relicensing, approved in 1996, did not take into account the possibility that damage to a plant's fuel storage could be done on purpose.

"Today we cannot consider issues of spent-fuel storage without reflecting the concern that spent-fuel storage may be a target of intentional action by terrorists," Lewis wrote in comments to the NRC.

Pilgrim will have to build additional fuel storage on its property if it plans to operate past 2012 because even at its higher density, the pool will not be able to accommodate more waste. The company has not yet said what its plans are for additional storage, but most plants have built steel and concrete capsules known as "dry- cask storage" to house their waste.

David Tarantino, a spokesman for Pilgrim, said the company is frustrated that the federal government has not yet provided the waste-storage facility it said it would.

"We wish that instead of arguing over the effects of the spent- fuel pool, the Congress would take some action and actually move fuel out," he said.

Julie Jette may be reached at jjette@ledger.com.

(c) 2007 Patriot Ledger, The; Quincy, Mass.. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.