State steps up demand for details of Vermont Yankee spending

BRATTLEBORO – State officials are demanding more-detailed information about how Vermont Yankee owner Entergy is spending cash from the nuclear plant’s decommissioning trust fund.

In documents filed Friday, Vermont asked the federal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to require Entergy to “provide the state all supporting documentation for specific expenses” from the trust fund – a request that applies both to past and future expenditures.

Last month, Entergy agreed to continue providing notices to the federal government 30 days before making fund withdrawals. But state officials now say that’s not good enough, arguing that the company’s bare-bones notifications don’t provide details.

Allowing Entergy’s current practice to stand “would injure the public by preventing disclosure of the most basic information about how Entergy is actually spending money from the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund,” the state claims.

The issue arose as Entergy, which ceased power production at the Vernon plant Dec. 29, has sought to make several changes in its operations. One of those had been elimination of the 30-day notifications, which give the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a heads-up when Entergy intends to make withdrawals from the trust fund.

The plant’s trust fund is critical, as its size will determine how long Vermont Yankee decommissioning will take. The project is expected to take decades and cost $1.2 billion, and the fund currently holds about half that amount.

Entergy’s advance notices to the NRC consist of a short letter listing the maximum amount it intends to withdraw from the trust fund during a specific time period. While NRC staff had approved elimination of the advance-notice requirement, state officials had argued that such notices allow the government and the public to scrutinize fund spending and challenge any improper withdrawals.

Less than a month after the state had been granted a hearing on the matter, Entergy on Sept. 23 announced that it was dropping the request and would continue to provide the 30-day notice, labeling it a “manageable administrative burden.” Concurrently, the company asked the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for permission to withdraw its license-amendment request “without conditions, and to dismiss this proceeding without prejudice.”

State officials aren’t opposed to Entergy continuing its 30-day trust-fund notices. But in documents filed Friday, the Vermont Public Service Department and the state Attorney General’s Office say the matter shouldn’t be dismissed without the federal government first imposing some conditions.

First, the state wants the board to preserve portions of rulings already made in the case – specifically, the fact that the state had made two admissible arguments and had been granted a hearing.

Allowing Entergy to withdraw the matter unconditionally “is inappropriate here because it would allow Entergy to resubmit its (license-amendment request) next month, next year or even 59 years from now, and all parties and this tribunal would be starting over again from scratch, without the benefit of the large amount of resources expended in this proceeding,” state documents say.

Second, the state wants the licensing board to impose a condition requiring Entergy to hand over details of its trust-fund spending in the past “and continue to provide that information for future withdrawals.” Such information “is critical given that many of the state’s concerns over the (trust fund) relate to whether the fund will be solvent many decades from now,” Vermont’s filing says.

“The condition the state requests – providing information about what expenses Entergy is withdrawing from the (trust fund) – is nothing more than what Entergy should have been doing all along,” state officials argue.

Entergy already has argued that Vermont has no legal standing to request that any additional conditions be imposed as the license-amendment case is withdrawn. The state would need to show “legal injury” or even “bad faith on the part of the applicant,” and it cannot do so, Entergy argued last month in documents filed with the ASLB.

“The (license-amendment) withdrawal effectively imposes the very remedy that the state requested in this proceeding – that Entergy continues to be bound by its current license conditions regarding the decommissioning trust,” the company wrote. “Placing conditions on the withdrawal would be contrary to established commission precedent.”

If you read us, please support us.

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 harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer.

We moderate every comment. Please go to our FAQ for the full policy.

Mike Faher

Recent Stories

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "State steps up demand for details of Vermont Yankee spending"
  • Jacob Gregory

    The state has no right to see the proprietary information of a private company. A general accounting is required of publicly-traded companies but that doesn’t include detail down to the last penny on specific items. You want that kind of detail, maybe you should do the job yourself, and pay for it.

  • Tom Buchanan

    It’s unlikely the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will side with the state, and Entergy can drag that issue out at the federal level for a long while. Perhaps the state should launch a parallel request through the Vermont PSB, where it may be more likely to prevail. The docket 6545 MOU (the sale docket) includes a requirement for Board approval for use of the funds for other than decommissioning, payment of administrative expenses, or distribution upon completion of decommissioning (paragraph 7). The information provided thus far is insufficient to determine if the expenses are reasonable, and if they fall entirely within one of the three categories. The Department, (or any other party to docket 6545) should request a new docket be opened and a hearing officer appointed to review all past and future expenses in detail.

    • Jacob Gregory

      You know, that might not be all that bad of an idea. If the PSB objects to some item of spending, Entergy should just come back and say, well, fine, you don’t let us do such-and-such spending, that will simply delay completion of decommissioning. That will teach you that the sword cuts two ways, you play with fire and you might get burned. Something young children learn growing up that evidently Vermont officials haven’t learned yet. IOW, grow up, kids, and stop playing around. You got your way, you ran them out of town, now let them get on with the job or you’ll be stuck with it.