Karl Herchenroeder
RW Monitor
12/18/2015
Entergy announced Wednesday that it plans to transfer its spent nuclear fuel at the shuttered Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant from wet to dry storage starting in 2017, two years earlier than expected.
The $145 million project, under which nearly 3,000 spent fuel assemblies would be transferred into 45 dry casks by the end of 2020, will depend on the issuance of a certificate of public good from the Vermont Public Service Board. Entergy said it will fund the project through external credit lines rather than from its decommissioning trust fund, describing it as the most cost-effective option.
Entergy spokesman Marty Cohn said the decision to expedite the process was driven by increased personnel and technological capabilities from storage vendor Holtec International. He added that the announcement “demonstrates our commitment to safely and efficiently decommission Vermont Yankee.”
Public Service Department Commissioner Christopher Recchia welcomed Wednesday’s announcement as “good news.” : “We appreciate the effort, and I think this helps the position for continuing to move forward with the restoration of the site.”
The project will include the construction of a second independent spent fuel storage installation pad at the site, procurement of dry fuel storage systems, and transfer of the fuel from the spent fuel pool to dry storage.
Commissioner: NRC is Missing a Step
Speaking on behalf of the Vermont Public Service Department, Recchia said he believes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission missed a step in granting Entergy’s request to alter its emergency preparedness as the plant moves into decommissioning.
The NRC last week granted the exemption, allowing the facility that closed in December 2014 to adhere to reduced safety requirements starting on April 15, 2016. The change includes removal of the plant’s 10-mile emergency planning zone, and staff at the plant is expected to decrease from 300 to 150, reflecting the reduced emergency management requirements. The NRC issued this exemption on the basis that risks for a closed plant are significantly lower than those at an operating plant.
Recchia said that while his department understands the need for the staffing reduction, it believes the bar needs to be set higher for emergency preparedness.
“Clearly there’s a reduction in risk (when a plant shuts down), but it’s not as low-level risk as moving the fuel into dry casks and storing it,” Recchia said. “We think that there’s an interim step here that the NRC is missing.”
He added that his department is evaluating options for requesting action from the NRC. The exemption alters the emergency requirement to only on-site preparedness. State and local governments surrounding the plant will now rely on a comprehensive emergency management system for events at Vermont Yankee, instead of having a dedicated off-site radiological emergency response plan approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
“Vermont citizens still expect us to be able to monitor and respond to any on-site emergencies that even have the potential to cause off-site impact, or to ensure that any on-site emergencies don’t cause off-site impact,” Recchia said.
Dispute Continues Over Vermont Yankee Trust Fund
A dispute between Vermont officials, the NRC, and Entergy over the energy provider’s proposed use of the Vermont Yankee decommissioning trust fund continued this week.
On Thursday, the Vermont Attorney General’s Office joined former plant owner Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. and the state Public Service Department in filing a response to NRC staff’s recommendation that the commission deny Vermont’s request for a comprehensive review of the trust fund. Vermont has financial interest in the fund because 55 percent of funds left over from decommissioning will be returned to the facility’s original Vermont ratepayers.
Attorney general offices in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts also submitted a document to the commission Thursday in support of the Vermont filing.
In November, Vermont and the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. filed the petition questioning Entergy’s use of the estimated $600 million trust fund. The petitioners argued that Entergy should not be allowed to use excess decommissioning money to pay for spent fuel management expenses, among other claims.
In a 70-page response submitted Dec. 7, NRC staff recommended the commission deny the request, concluding that Vermont’s petition suffers from numerous procedural defects and is not entitled to an adjudicatory hearing. Petitioners still have the option to pursue the matter via an enforcement or rulemaking petition.
Entergy also filed a response on Dec. 7, calling the petition “procedurally and jurisdictionally deficient.” The 44-page response points out that in June 1994, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. had similar intended purposes for its decommissioning funds. That year, according to the response, the company filed a wholesale rate application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission seeking to increase its authorized schedule of decommissioning charges based on an updated decommissioning cost estimate. That estimate included some of the same items the petitioners now challenge, the response states, including spent fuel management costs.
“We are and will remain fully compliant with NRC guidelines,” Entergy spokesman Cohn said Monday. “Until such time that the NRC tells us anything different, we’re proceeding (with defueling as planned).”
In its latest filing, Vermont raises two questions. First, it asks whether decommissioning costs should include fees associated with property taxes, insurance, and legal fees, which do not “reduce radiological contamination.” Second, it raises the issue of using the decommissioning fund for spent fuel management expenses. It also suggests that the NRC should consider the safety impact on area residents if the trust fund is insufficient in carrying out decommissioning.
“The Commission should reject Entergy and Staff’s argument that the public, interested parties, and even the Commissioners themselves, should have no voice in the use of funds that were collected from ratepayers for the purpose of safely decommissioning Vermont Yankee,” the filing concludes. “Staff and Entergy assert that they alone can decide whether the Decommissioning Fund is so substantial that more than a third of it can be diverted to non-decommissioning purposes — despite the prohibition against such a diversion in NRC Regulations — and still provide assurance of full and safe decommissioning of Vermont Yankee 60 years from now.”
