Feb 26 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Bob Audette Brattleboro Reformer, Vt.


Could nuclear waste generated by Vermont Yankee power plant be stored for an indefinite period on the banks of the Connecticut River?

State legislators, area activists and the attorneys general of Vermont, Massachusetts and New York say a close reading of a proposed change to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Waste Confidence Decision could mean Vermont will be stuck with spent nuclear fuel for a long time.

"If this rule is adopted it confirms our greatest fear as Vermonters," said Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham. "We will be stuck with high-level nuclear waste for the long-term future. It would be a disaster for the state."

On Oct. 6, the NRC submitted its proposed rule change to the Federal Register. On Feb. 6, the attorneys general submitted a joint filing contesting the change is unsupported by science and history and violates the National Environmental Protection Act.

The NRC hopes to adopt a general finding that spent nuclear fuel generated by any reactor "can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts until a disposal facility can reasonably be expected to be available," according to the Federal Register.

If the proposed rule is accepted, said Bill Griffin, assistant attorney general for Vermont, nuclear waste could be in Vermont close to the end of the century.

"We're reading that as open ended," said Griffin, because a proposed waste repository in Nevada might not open until 2025, if at all.

"The NRC has realized how unsubstantiated its estimated dates are ... (and) now proposes deleting any reference to dates ... asking the public to believe that despite decades of incomplete attempts to secure a repository location, one will nevertheless be chosen at some unknown date, and that until then -- until that unknown date -- spent nuclear fuel will be safe either on-site ..." according to the document submitted by the attorneys general.

"It's conjecture at this point that waste would have to be stored indefinitely at a site," said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "However, we believe spent fuel can be safely stored at these locations, as it has been since the units first came online, until a repository opens or another disposal option, such as reprocessing, becomes a reality."

When a disposal facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was proposed, in the mid-1980s, it was estimated that it would be opened between 2007 and 2009. Legal and environmental challenges have slowed the process, pushing out the potential opening date.

In addition, the facility faces opposition from Nevada legislators.

Just this week, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced he wanted to trim more than $100 million this year from the budget of Yucca Mountain, which would slow down the approval process.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., has made perfectly clear where she stands.

"This $100 billion boondoggle in the Nevada desert is a dinosaur whose days are numbered," she said.

Last year, the Department of Energy, which will operate Yucca Mountain, submitted an application to the NRC, one of the final steps to getting the facility open.

It could take three to four years to review the application, said Sheehan.

The DOE must also receive approval from the Environmental Protection Agency, the federal Department of Transportation and the federal Railroad Administration to go ahead with shipping and storing the waste in Nevada.

In Vermont, Entergy, which owns and operates Yankee, applied to the NRC in 2006 to extend the operating license of the powerplant in Vernon from 2012 to 2032. In addition to NRC approval, Entergy must receive a certificate of public good from the Vermont Public Service Board and approval from the state Legislature.

Shumlin said plans for spent fuel storage could influence how the Legislature votes.

"It would be irresponsible to consider relicensing Yankee without facing the music on waste. I don't see any scenario where the plant gets relicensed if SAFSTOR remains an option for decommissioning."

If the plant closes in 2012, it would be mothballed, or put into SAFSTOR, until its decommissioning fund reaches the level necessary to clean up the site, which could take up to 60 years.

The Vermont Senate is debating a bill that would require Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee to fully fund its decommissioning fund prior to receiving approval to keep operating past 2012.

This week, Entergy told the Legislature it would offer Vermont a power purchase agreement, which would supply electricity to Vermonters at a below-market price, but could not do so if it is forced to completely fund decommissioning costs by 2012.

"Sixty years is already too long," said Bob Stannard, spokesman for Citizen Awareness Network, which opposes Yankee's relicensing. He thinks Vermont will be stuck with the waste for a long time.

"I have no confidence that Yucca Mountain will ever open."

Other anti-nuclear activists were also concerned over the proposed change.

Jake Stewart, the president of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, said the change is illegal and should be withdrawn from consideration.

"There is little doubt to most people that there is no place safe to store this stuff," said Stewart.

The big issue, said another activist, is the industry that creates the waste is not responsible for its disposal.

"The nuclear industry makes the waste but they have no place to keep it safe for the hundreds of thousands of years it will be deadly," said Ed Anthes of Nuclear Free Vermont by 2012.

But Sheehan said current storage methods are adequate.

"Dry cask storage is in use at dozens of sites around the country and has been used safely since the 1980s."

That's not enough for the state, said Griffin. What the NRC has filed in support of its proposed change is "inadequate to support their conclusion," he said.

"This is about confidence and questioning whether science and history supports this. If it doesn't, they should allow these questions to be decided when they extend or renew a license."

"The proposed rule is arbitrary, grounded in neither science nor law," states the document submitted by the attorneys general. "(It) ignores numerous instances of environmental harm from leaking spent fuel pools around the country. The NRC lacks a reasonable basis to reasonably assure that radioactive wastes ... can be safely disposed of, especially for an indefinite period of time on-site."

The attorneys general also contend that the proposed changes are illegal because no "thorough, supported and well-documented safety findings" have been submitted by the NRC. The changes also require that the NRC conduct an environmental impact statement that reviews the environmental and health effects of storing waste long-term on site.

"The NRC's proposed Waste Confidence Decision Update, which relies on speculation instead of science, does not comply with there requirements," wrote the attorneys general.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2008The McClatchy Company