To address the storage problem, Entergy built the ISFSI and began moving waste from inside the reactor building to the outside ISFSI in 2014.
There were two issues in the case: whether the plaintiffs who live within 2 miles of Pilgrim had established legal standing; and whether the multimillion-dollar ISFSI is an "accessory" to Pilgrim or whether it's a new project requiring a new special permit.
Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit to protect the value of their homes from the negative impact of the ISFSI.
Three of the four plaintiffs testified at trial that the ISFSI decreased their property value in relation to other properties farther away from Pilgrim.
However, the court found that the plaintiffs didn't offer "credible evidence to support their claim that the presence of the ISFSI project, as opposed to the presence of Pilgrim generally, negatively affects their property values," according to its April 4 ruling.
On the second part of the case, whether the ISFSI required a new special permit, the court ruled that a 40-year-old permit issued by the town in 1967 to Entergy's predecessor, Boston Edison, for the construction of Pilgrim allowed Entergy to expand and add the multimillion-dollar ISFSI for outside storage.
The court acknowledged that ISFSI technology didn't exist in 1967 and that the industry plan was to ship all of Pilgrim's nuclear waste to a deep geologic repository offsite, or to reprocess it.
first use of the ISFSI developed by INER at Taiwan Power Company's Chinshan Nuclear Station, with rights to use the ISFSI at all nuclear stations in Taiwan
licensing to NAC of any enhancements to the UMS technology in developing ISFSIs for Taiwan.
reactor site ISFSIs, representing about 45 percent of the concrete MCS in storage in the United States.