[B]RATTLEBORO — State regulators have rejected an anti-nuclear group’s last-minute objections to plans for handling spent fuel at Vermont Yankee.
The state Public Service Board still is considering Entergy’s plans to build a new storage facility for radioactive spent fuel at the Vernon plant. But in an order issued Wednesday, the board declined to admit new evidence offered by the New England Coalition.
The Brattleboro-based coalition had asked the board to consider information about the proposed fuel facility’s visibility and its potential to be built underground. But the board ruled that the coalition’s motions were too little, too late.
The New England Coalition “appears to be seeking an additional post-hearing opportunity to litigate matters that could and should have been explored through discovery and cross-examination much earlier in this case,” board members wrote.
Though Vermont Yankee is no longer producing power, its spent fuel remains on the site due to the lack of a federal repository for such material. Some of that fuel is stored in 13 sealed dry casks on a concrete pad, but the majority remains in a cooling pool inside the plant’s reactor building.
Entergy has pledged to move all of Vermont Yankee’s spent fuel into dry casks by the end of 2020; eventually, the site will host a total of 58 casks. So the company is seeking PSB permission to construct a second spent fuel pad adjacent to the first.
There has been extensive debate about Entergy’s plans, given that the structure will hold radioactive material on the banks of the Connecticut River for decades to come.
The PSB held an evidentiary hearing Feb. 23. The New England Coalition participated in that hearing, but in the following months the group also asked the state to consider several new arguments.
The coalition argued that underground storage might be safer than the above-ground casks. It also disputed Entergy’s testimony regarding the limited visibility of the planned fuel storage facility.
The board ruled Wednesday that “all of the evidence that NEC now seeks to present was available to it prior to hearings.”
The coalition could have used this information in cross-examining witnesses at the hearing, or it could have asked for a delay during the hearing to allow more time to prepare its arguments.
“NEC elected not to pursue any of these avenues and has not shown any good cause for the board to now allow it to change its tactical decisions,” the board wrote. “Moreover, admitting the evidence now would place other parties at a disadvantage because they would not be able to offer further rebuttal or explanation of the material.”
The New England Coalition additionally had argued that the testimony of two Entergy witnesses was “misleading, inaccurate and less than the whole truth.” But the board said the coalition has not shown that Entergy’s testimony “raises sufficient questions as to warrant further investigation.”
