Overview

THE FACTS
  Re-licensing
   Security
   Radioactive Waste
   Structural Issues
   Health
   Environment
   Emissions
   Monitoring
   Emergency Planning
   Oversight
   Economics
   Energy Alternatives

   Contact

WHAT IS INVOLVED IN RE-LICENSING?

WHAT “SAY” DOES THE PUBLIC HAVE?

Re-licensing: The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issues licenses and renewals. Other parties can participate in the process, according to rules set down by the NRC.

Pilgrim is currently licensed to operate for 40 years. Its license will expire in 2012. Entergy, Pilgrim’s owner, announced that they plan to submit their re-licensing request in 2005. A nuclear power plant licensee may apply for a license renewal as early as 20 years or as late as 5 years before the expiration of its current license.

Review Time: Once an application is submitted, the process moves swiftly. Therefore the public must be educated beforehand and ready to go. The NRC staff completes its review of the application within 30 months from receipt if a hearing is required or within 22 months from receipt if no adjudicatory hearing is required. 

NRC Renewal Process:

Upon receipt of a license renewal application, the review is conducted, in general, according to the steps in the following table:

Process Proceeds Along Two Tracks: The license renewal process proceeds along two tracks: one for review of safety issues (Part 54) and another for environmental issues (Part 51). An applicant must provide NRC an evaluation that addresses the technical aspects of plant aging and describes the ways those effects will be managed. It must also prepare an evaluation of the potential impact on the environment if the plant operates for another 20 years. The NRC reviews the application and verifies evaluations through inspections.

Issues: NRC deals with most issues generically – not on a plant specific basis. However like snowflakes each reactor and site is unique. Many issues that the public is most concerned about are not dealt with at all in the review process. For example, and to site only a few: security to meet a terrorist attack; Pilgrim’s technical specifications compared to those required for a new plant; spent fuel generation and management.

Security: Pilgrim- like reactors throughout the country- is a terrorist target. The status of security to resist an attack from the air, water and land should be a primary focus. The NRC cannot continue to assume in its re-licensing process that September 11th never happened.

Safety Reviews: In the current re- licensing process, Entergy will submit information on their aging management programs - the methods they use to monitor the condition of important equipment and make repairs and replacements before safety margins are compromised.  

The process fails to verify that the margins in place today are acceptable. If a new nuclear power reactor were built to replace Pilgrim, it would have to meet today's, not yesterday’s, safety regulations. Pilgrim operates under a mix of regulations, some in effect when the plant was originally licensed and some that were adopted by NRC in the subsequent years.
 
The re-licensing process should be expanded to include a formal review of the differences between the safety regulations that Pilgrim is supposed to meet (i.e., the amalgamation of rules from the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s) and the safety regulations in effect today for a new reactor. Such a review is prudent because while each individual difference may be justifiable, it's possible that the combined effect could not be acceptable -by analogy, a single bee sting is generally not life threatening but 300 bee stings is another story.

The formal review of Pilgrim's safety regulations and today's safety regulations would verify that there were adequate safety margins today. This effort, coupled with the existing aging management review, is the only way to collectively verify that there are adequate safety margins now and into the future.

Nuclear Waste – Spent Fuel: Pilgrim, like most reactors, will generate about 20 tons of high-level radioactive waste each year. Re-licensing Pilgrim would add an additional 800 metric tons of this waste over 20 years. Analysis is needed to determine where/when this waste can be stored - safely and realistically.
Yucca Mountain is not a sure thing; and even if it were there is no requirement to send the waste to it and Yucca will not be able to accommodate the additional volume of waste from re-licensed reactors.

Environmental Reviews: All 90 some odd impacts listed in the Generic Impact Statement (GIS) should be evaluated for Pilgrim, specifically, to determine their impact through 2032.
 

Public Participation – public meetings and adjudicatory hearing:  Shortly after the NRC determines that an acceptable application has been submitted, a public meeting is normally held near the nuclear power plant to provide the public information about the license renewal process and opportunities for public involvement. Additional public meetings are held by the NRC during the review of the renewal application, and NRC evaluations, findings and recommendations are published when completed.

Concerns may be litigated in a formal adjudicatory hearing if any party that would be adversely affected requests a hearing. In addition, members of the public may petition the Commission for consideration of issues other than the management of the effects of aging during the period of extended operation of the plant.

More about adjudicatory hearings: Until February 2004, when the NRC modified its 10 C.F.R. Part 2 regulations, the public had the right to full, on-the-record hearings in all reactor licensing proceedings. These hearings were similar to federal court trials, and included discovery and cross-examination of witnesses.  Citizen groups challenged these new "Part 2" regulations in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, charging that they violate the Atomic Energy Act by eliminating the right to these formal hearings in most agency adjudicatory proceedings. Six Attorney Generals (MA, CT, NH, NY, WI) filed supporting amicus briefs. According to the court’s December 10, 2004 decision (USCA1 Opinion 04-11450) the NRC can hold informal public hearings during reactor licensing proceedings, but parties can file case-by-case challenges where such procedures fall short of ensuring a fair hearing. See: http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1839

Plant Applications for License Renewal 

Status, July 2006: (42) U.S. reactor’s applications have been approved, none denied.

NRC is currently reviewing applications for 9 reactors- Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee in New England.

Resources

The NRC license renewal webpage (see web link below) describes the re-licensing process, regulations, guidelines, Commission papers, and status current applications.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html

More about re-licensing