State, Vermont Yankee enter homestretch in relicensing process

Vermont Yankee, photo from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Vermont Yankee, photo from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Public Service Board last week held its final day of hearings on whether the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant’s continued operation is in the best interest of the public and therefore merits a new license.

The two weeks of rebuttal hearings roamed in topic from decommissioning to the plant’s economic status to thermal discharge into the Connecticut River to the trustworthiness of the plant’s operator — Louisiana-based Entergy Corp.

Parties to the case are slated to file briefs to the board by mid-August and reply briefs by Sept. 12.

Geoff Commons is director of public advocacy for the Public Service Department and is overseeing the case for the executive branch.

“The board has a huge record in front of it,” he said. “I’m sure they’ll issue a strongly considered and tightly worded order. I would expect them to take six weeks to two months from the end of the reply briefs, but there is no deadline for them to rule.”

The Public Service Department is charged, in part, with representing the interests of the public in Public Service Board proceedings and argued against Vermont Yankee’s continued operation. Vermont Yankee officials believe the plant’s record substantiates its relicensing for another 20 years.

The final witness the board heard from was Peter Bradford, a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission officer and a former chair of Maine and New York’s utility regulatory commissions.

In the final testimony, the board and Bradford focused on the importance of accurate information in the regulatory process and how the board should determine whether to permit the plant.

“Does there come a point … where a board would reasonably say enough is enough?”

June Tierney, general counsel for the board


June Tierney, general counsel for the board, alluded to past “discovery disputes” with Entergy and referenced an incident in which Entergy Vice President Jay Thayer testified under oath in 2009 that he didn’t “believe there is active piping in service today carrying radionuclides underground.”

As Thayer told VPR’s John Dillon at the time, he erred on two fronts: The plant does have underground pipes in use, and Thayer failed to correct the record.

During this time, the plant was grappling with leaks of the radioactive isotope tritium, and its 40-year operating permit was due to expire. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission renewed the plant’s federal license in 2011, and a subsequent federal court decision in 2012 barred the Legislature from shutting down the plant — a decision that the state is appealing. The plant has been operating under an extension of its previous state permit, and the Public Service Board’s decision is expected to determine the future of the plant.

In light of the plant’s history and Thayer’s inaccurate testimony, Tierney asked Bradford: “Does there come a point … where a board would reasonably say enough is enough? We’ve been trying to get a message across to you and you’re not getting it. And no, we’re not going to find that it’s in the public good for you to continue to operate. Is that a reasonable thing for a board like this to conclude?”

“It’s conceivable,” Bradford responded. “But the granting or withholding of a certificate rarely comes down to one area of misconduct.”

Bradford reminded the board that they are “entitled to” regulate based on the plant’s economic impacts, rates, land-use impacts and decommissioning issues. Safety falls under federal jurisdiction, and federal preemption was the basis of Entergy’s successful lawsuit against the state.

“I would be most drawn to the economic impact issues, the overall economic well-being of the state and how it’s affected by whether the plant is operating, not operating, operating under different management,” Bradford said.

Bradford also said that the board should consider whether Entergy is a fair partner.

“Can you count on them to do their part constructively and in a trustworthy way in Board proceedings?” he asked. “Beyond that (being a fair partner) does include the representation of other parties in terms of their interactions with Entergy, and whether they have been denied in terms of the state interests.”

Environmental groups, who were parties to the case, raised a red flag during the recent hearings, saying that Entergy provided relatively inaccessible data about the plant’s effects on the temperature of the Connecticut River.

“It was a large amount of data,” Commons said. “To be useful, it has to be in a form that another expert can manipulate it, analyze it, use it, and that means providing it as a live working spreadsheet. Instead of providing it in that form, Entergy provided it in PDF format, which is essentially screenshots of the pages in Excel.”

As VPR reported, board Chair James Volz said Entergy “ambushed” the groups by handing over the data right before the hearings.

The one element of Vermont Yankee’s arguments that caught Commons a bit off guard, he said, was the breadth of Entergy’s federal preemption claims, or the range of regulatory arenas that the company argued the state was preempted from controlling based on federal jurisdiction. Bradford, too, was indignant about this tactic.

“I would be beside myself over … the ways in which preemption arguments are being used before the board today,” he said.

Bradford reminded the board that renewing a license, which has expired, is different from taking one away.

“It’s not quite the same as a revocation situation,” he said. “There are a lot of situations in utility regulation in which a certificate or a franchise expires and has to be renewed. And it’s a good time to take a look at whether this owner is the right owner even if the franchise continues, and whether this management is the right management.”

Correction: The NRC renewed Vermont Yankee’s federal license in 2011.

Andrew Stein

Leave a Reply

12 Comments on "State, Vermont Yankee enter homestretch in relicensing process"


Comment Policy requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Bob Orleck
3 years 6 months ago
Sure sounds like the deck is stacked against Entergy. I am more concerned about the over effects on our wonderful Vermont when I think about the Governor wanting to see wind turbines on all the ridgelines. Talk about environmental and economic destruction. And what will we get out of it. Higher taxes, an ugly state, pockets of special interests padded and so many beholden to our misdirected politicians that they will be elected again to make things get even worse for our children in the future. I sure wish people would open their eyes and see what this liberal establishment… Read more »
gary sachs
3 years 6 months ago

Firstly Mr. Stein,
ENVY received their NRC relicense within 1 week of the March 11, 2011,
the ongoing Fukushima Nuclear Disaster. Not in 2012 as you say.

Secondly Entergy has handed over massive amounts of Discovery
information in horrible formats back in the sale and uprate cases too.

Howard Shaffer
3 years 6 months ago
As a supporter of Vermont Yankee, I suggest that they have been a very good partner, overall, to the state and the region. I believe they will be a better partner in the future, whether they are operating or not. If not operating, they will be there for at least six years for decommissioning in the minimum physically possible time, and probably much more because of lack of political solutions. The article focuses on one communication mistake-the tritium leak, and what was said about piping just a few months before that. The mistake was not using enough words to describe… Read more »
John Greenberg
3 years 6 months ago
Howard, You are, of course, entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts, insinuations, and misleading inferences. 1) “… they will be there for at least six years for decommissioning in the minimum physically possible time, and probably much more BECAUSE OF LACK OF POLITICAL SOLUTIONS.” (emphasis added) Aren’t you forgetting a little something? Entergy’s own decommissioning estimate is roughly $1 billion. The funds available in the Decommissioning Fund are roughly ½ of that right now. Unless you believe that during the 6 years following closure, the costs of decommissioning will remain totally unchanged, while the money in… Read more »
Bob Stannard
3 years 6 months ago

Many thanks to John Greenberg whose response to Shaffer’s comments included much more thoughtful accuracy. Then again we’ve come to expect accuracy from John. We’ve also come to expect the words of Mr Shaffer to be little more than cheerleading for the industry as well as for this company and its aged plant.

Bob Stannard
3 years 6 months ago
No Mr. Shaffer. Once again you are wrong. The “mistake” was that Entergy knew if provided misleading testimony and had more than a dozen opportunities to correct the record, yet did not do so. That, sir, is not a mistake. Now, why would they do this? The obvious answer is that they knew they were going for relicensing both with the NRC and the State of Vermont. Admitting that they had underground pipes that might leak would cause some concern. Remember, Oyster Creek had just been granted a 20 yr extension by the NRC and leaked a week later. Entergy… Read more »
Jim Barrett
3 years 6 months ago

The PSB is owned lock, stock and barrell by the political left (Shumlin) and therfore should render a big no on everything. Another lwasuit will follow and Vermont taxpayers get to pay for another frivolous lawsuit.

John Greenberg
3 years 6 months ago

“The PSB is owned lock, stock and barrell by the political left (Shumlin) and therfore should render a big no on everything.”

This is a serious allegation, which cries out for at least SOME evidence.

In the meantime, however, it is worth noting that all 3 members of the PSB were appointed by Jim Douglas (“political left?”) before Peter Shumlin became governor, some after having been originally appointed by Howard Dean. Just one, Chairman Volz, was re-appointed by Peter Shumlin.

Bob Stannard
3 years 6 months ago

Mr. Barrett, with all due respect your comments prove that you have no idea what you’re talking about. You would be well advised to either keep your thoughts to yourself or learn more about the PSB.

Mike Kerin
3 years 6 months ago

To all the pro nuclear people; what are you going to do with all the nuclear waste? Why do you want to raise the temp. of the river? What good will it do for Vermont and those folks down river?

Mike Kerin
3 years 6 months ago

Andrew, are there any updates to this story?

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "State, Vermont Yankee enter homestretch in relicensing process"