Energy

Vermont Yankee buyer seeks ‘reasonable’ deal with state

Vermont Yankee
Vermont Yankee spent fuel pad. Photo courtesy of Vermont Yankee
VERNON – Last week wasn’t the best for NorthStar Group Services.

First, state officials filed a strongly worded criticism of the company’s plan to acquire and decommission the idled Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

Soon after that, the state Public Service Board issued a mixed ruling on NorthStar’s request to keep two key decommissioning documents “highly confidential” due to the company’s concerns about trade secrets and potential financial losses.

But NorthStar Chief Executive Officer Scott State on Friday said he remains committed to the Vermont Yankee project and is hoping to resolve differences with Vermont regulators.

He did not, however, make that commitment open-ended.

“We’ve engaged in the process,” State said. “We understood there would be these types of activities, and to date, we’re very committed to try to do this. We’ll need to see where a lot of this goes.”

Scott State
NorthStar Group Services CEO Scott State listens during a hearing in Vernon. File photo by Randolph T. Holhut/The Commons
Entergy stopped power production at Vermont Yankee at the end of 2014 and had been preparing the Vernon site for an extended period of dormancy under which decommissioning could take 60 years.

But in November, Entergy announced plans to sell the plant and its decommissioning trust fund to NorthStar. The New York company is promising to clean up most of the site by 2030 and possibly as early as 2026.

There have been many questions, however, about NorthStar’s planning and financial wherewithal. And that skepticism seems to have intensified in recent months as state and federal regulators review the proposed change of ownership.

On Tuesday, state officials told the federal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the NorthStar purchase poses “significant risk” to public health and safety.

The state’s biggest concern seems to be that NorthStar might run out of money, leaving Vermont with “a partially dismantled industrial site contaminated with radiological and nonradiological hazardous waste.”

In an interview the day after those filings came to light publicly, State declined to address the state’s specific contentions. He noted that Vermont officials filed their comments in the context of requesting to intervene in the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s review of the sale.

“We don’t see ourselves as a party to the intervention request,” State said.

But, as he has done in past public meetings, State emphasized the company’s expertise and detailed financial planning. And he said NorthStar was working on the Vermont Yankee project long before it was publicly disclosed.

“We’re approaching two years of direct activity,” State said. “We’ve got people on site on a regular basis now. We’re working on various activities that would benefit the accelerated (decommissioning) that we’ve proposed.”

State’s comments also came on the heels of a Public Service Board ruling that could be seen as both a win and a loss for NorthStar.

In the course of the board’s review of the Vermont Yankee sale, NorthStar had requested that two “highly confidential” decommissioning documents be subject to unusual protections that would greatly restrict public access.

The request drew scrutiny from several groups including the Conservation Law Foundation, where an attorney said NorthStar was trying to gain state approval of a “secret plan.”

On Thursday the board issued a split ruling that withheld special protections for one of the documents while finding that “further confidentiality protocols … are warranted” for the other. The board also rejected NorthStar’s plan to provide state entities and nongovernmental groups like the New England Coalition with differing levels of access to the documents.

The board told NorthStar and the interested parties to work together “to develop appropriate protocols” for review of the more confidential document. State said he is “confident that a reasonable determination will be agreed to.”

He used that same word – “reasonable” – several more times to describe ongoing interactions between his company and state regulators. That sentiment may be put to the test as the Vermont Yankee debate turns to sensitive topics like site restoration and NorthStar’s controversial plan to bury rubble on the property.

“We’re continuing to gather information and work on project planning today under the assumption that reasonable agreements can be reached to satisfy the state’s concerns,” State said.


If you read us, please support us.

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org 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

  • Edward Letourneau

    “…The state’s biggest concern seems to be that NorthStar might run out of money.” First the state drove the owners out of business, then they drove Entergy to shutdown and leave, and now they are hampering the clean up — when people who understood nuclear power have known since it first went into operation that there might not be enough money to clean up the site… Why is anyone surprised that business run by people with smarts are leaving or not coming to Vermont?

    • Dennis Works

      Sorry Edward Letourneau. But the state did not drive the owners of Vermont Yankee out of business or force them to leave. The economics of operating a nuclear power plant – especially one that is beyond it’s designed life expectancy – is what made Entergy decide to “pull the plug” on VY. Vermont’s power companies had more economical alternatives for purchasing power than from Entergy and VY.

      And on top of that you are saying what? That Vermont taxpayers should foot the bill for the clean-up – above and beyond the money already put into the decommissioning fund? A decommissioning fund that the owner’s of VY have exclusive power to manage?

      Personally, I’d say why would ANY state welcome ANY industry that expects to set up business, reap large profits from that state’s citizens, then when they’ve milked the proverbial cow for all it’s worth, just walk away with no responsibility to clean up the mess they left behind?

  • Martin Cross Tosswald

    Perhaps a “Reasonable Deal” would be for NorthStar Group Services to secure a bond , at their cost, to cover the costs of decommissioning should they go bankrupt or be unable to fulfill their obligations.

  • Jason Brisson

    A promising tech that should not have disappeared in the last 50-60 years!
    The military did manage to get a salt reactor to power an aircraft for testing. Being safer than conventional nuclear, I’ve never understood why this tech was never picked up and run to the finish line!

  • JohnGreenberg

    Large nukes are expected to have costs in the range of 13 cents per KWh, and smaller ones are more expensive (ca. 17c).. In both cases, that’s if costs don’t rise, which so far, they have consistently. //thinkprogress.org/the-nuclear-industry-prices-itself-out-of-market-for-new-power-plants-1421750327c3

    The most recent wind contract in Vermont was 8.8 cents (less 4 cents for sale of RECs = 4.8 cents fixed to ratepayers for 25 years). (Deerfield project contract between Avangrid and GMP) VT solar is currently a bit more expensive than wind, but the price continues to plummet, especially at utility scale.

    How much more are you willing to pay for your “smaller and relatively local reactors?” And once you’ve paid for them, where will you put their waste?