VERNON — State regulators say they won’t reconsider their dismissal of an anti-nuclear group’s objections to Vermont Yankee’s fuel storage plans.
The state Public Service Board last month approved construction of a new concrete pad for storage of the shut-down plant’s spent nuclear fuel. Before that, however, the Brattleboro-based New England Coalition had asked for reconsideration of its questions about the storage facility’s safety and visibility.
The board already had dismissed the coalition’s arguments in a June 1 order. In another order Wednesday, the board reaffirmed that decision.
“While we acknowledge NEC’s disagreement with the conclusions of that (June 1) order, NEC has not presented a clear argument that the board erred in its judgment,” Public Service Board members wrote.
Vermont Yankee stopped producing power in December 2014, but most of the Vernon plant’s radioactive spent fuel remains in a cooling pool in the reactor building. Plant owner Entergy has pledged to move all of that fuel into sealed casks by the end of 2020.
The company needed state approval to build a second concrete pad to hold those casks. After much debate about Entergy’s plans, the Public Service Board on June 17 granted a certificate of public good for the project.
The New England Coalition has raised concerns about the project, including whether the spent fuel might be better stored underground. The coalition also disputed the truthfulness of Entergy’s testimony about the fuel storage facility’s visibility.
But the Public Service Board, which held a technical hearing on the project in February, ruled June 1 that the coalition’s arguments came too late and did not show “good cause” for reopening the record in the case.
The coalition appealed for reconsideration. The PSB’s new order denies that motion and responds to the coalition’s complaint that board members had used “accusatory and disparaging language” in the June order.
That language “was not intended to impugn NEC’s conduct as an intervenor in this proceeding, but rather to articulate the reasons for which the board concluded that it would be inappropriate to admit the evidence that NEC sought to introduce in light of its prejudicial impact on other parties,” the order says.
