Hearings start on Yankee uprate

By SUSAN SMALLHEER Southern Vermont Bureau MONTPELIER — Members of the Vermont Public Service Board questioned the head of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee Monday about whether there should be an independent analysis of his company’s plan to increase power production by 20 percent, or 110 megawatts, at the 31-year-old reactor.

And many of their questions seemed to come back to the lack of detailed information about the $60 million-plus plan, and whether the increased power production would make the plant more vulnerable to problems.

The board at one time asked whether it should wait for the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission before it tackles the issues of economics and the environmental effects of the project, which include the discharge of slightly hotter water into the Connecticut River .

The review of the project is split between state and federal authorities, with the federal regulators handling issues of safety and engineering.

Entergy Nuclear has not submitted its NRC application yet, and won’t until September, which will detail exactly how it plans to get more power out of the 510-megawatt Vernon reactor.

Jay Thayer, site vice president at Entergy Nuclear, said the internal temperature of the plant would increase significantly, and radiation levels outside the plant would also increase, while at the same time remain within state standards.

“We expect an increase in the dose rate, but we still expect to be within the 20 millirem (per year),” he said.

The exact cost of the project remains a secret. Entergy Nuclear attorney Victoria Brown objected to a question from Sarah Hofmann, the attorney for the Department of Public Service, asking exactly how much the uprate would cost the company.

Brown said the cost wasn’t relevant, because the cost was being borne entirely by Entergy. She also labeled the costs as proprietary information.

The company had earlier this year estimated the capital costs of the project at $60 million, but it became clear during the hearing that wasn’t the total price.

Thayer testified for most of the day, but several times he deferred answering questions from either Chairman Michael Dworkin, board members David Coen or John Burke, or parties to the case, or labeled the questions as “overly simplistic.”

Dworkin asked Thayer point-blank why Entergy wasn’t interested in an outside opinion about the safety ramifications of putting additional pressure on the internal components of the relatively old plant.

“Why don’t you seek a peer review or an independent review? Why not ask for an outside reality check?” Dworkin asked Thayer.

Dworkin said the board had received many requests that the state ask for such a review.

Thayer said the Entergy Northeast nuclear “fleet,” which includes plants in New York and the Pilgrim nuclear reactor in Plymouth , Mass. , had internal reviews. And, he said, the company was also putting its faith in the NRC review process.

“We may come back to this question,” Dworkin said.

Raymond Shadis, of the New England Coalition, an anti-nuclear group, asked many of the questions. The Connecticut River Watershed Council and the Windham Regional Commission also have concerns about the plan.

Thayer admitted that the company was re-evaluating its long-term policy of allowing enough storage capacity in its spent fuel pool that it could empty the entire reactor of fuel in the event of an emergency.

Thayer said Entergy Nuclear was thinking of changing its policy of leaving space for a full core off-load, in order to free up more space for old fuel that would be needed if the plant started producing more power.

Lack of storage space for spent fuel could shorten the effective operating life of the plant by 18 months, he said.

Entergy Nuclear also announced Monday that it was changing one portion of the plan that it had made public — that it wasn’t going to install higher-powered fans in the cooling towers to help dissipate the additional heat generated by the new power production.

The plant had said it was going to install 200-horsepower fans at the top of the towers, which are using in hot weather when the temperature of the Connecticut River warms. Instead, Thayer said, the company would install new motors in the existing 125-horsepower fans, as well as put in more modern and efficient blades.

One side effect of the smaller motors would be a larger steam plume coming out of the cooling towers, he said

The hearings continue today in Montpelier .

Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com.