[T]hough a recent settlement deal quieted criticism of Vermont Yankee’s proposed sale, at least one group is maintaining staunch opposition.
In recent documents filed with the state, the Conservation Law Foundation raises financial, liability and transparency questions about Entergy’s sale of the idled Vernon nuclear plant to New York-based NorthStar.
Three state agencies and several other groups signed a memorandum of understanding endorsing the sale last month. But the law foundation, an environmental advocacy group, now is providing details about why it continues to hold out.
“I believe that the transfer proposed here has at least four significant problems, and none of those four is sufficiently mitigated by the MOU, and at least one problem appears to have increased,” said Michael O. Hill, an attorney and insurance broker retained as an expert by the law foundation.
Entergy stopped producing power at Vermont Yankee more than three years ago, and the company has been following an extended decommissioning plan under which cleanup could take six decades.
In contrast, NorthStar has pledged to decommission and restore most of the site by 2030 and possibly as early as 2026.
The sale, which the companies hope to close by the end of this year, is under review by the Vermont Public Utility Commission and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The state’s review has at times been contentious as critics questioned NorthStar’s ability to deliver on its promises. But the March 2 memorandum of understanding — which includes more financial backing, stronger cleanup standards and new reporting requirements — has dramatically boosted support for the sale.
The Conservation Law Foundation was not nearly as impressed. In new testimony, Hill questions four aspects of the sale:
Release of liability
Hill, who said he has worked with environmental liability issues for almost two decades, argues that Entergy should retain some liability for Vermont Yankee even after the sale to NorthStar.
Entergy says that won’t happen. In testimony filed last month, the company noted that entities selling nuclear plants — including the former owners of Vermont Yankee — have not been forced to remain liable for those sites.
But Hill says this situation is much different.
“The protection of the public requires here … that the public not be left with a contaminated and unusable site if — as could very easily happen under the transfer mechanisms proposed here — the site is abandoned by the transferee and the state has no recourse against any currently liable transferor,” he testified.
Financial incentives, capital for decommissioning
Hill says he hasn’t been able to review the contract between Entergy and NorthStar because the companies “have refused to release even a page of the contract to the public.”
He acknowledges that the law foundation could have accessed the contract by signing a non-disclosure agreement. But that agreement is onerous and unnecessary, he argues.
“Any harm that might be shown (by releasing the contract) is far outweighed by the public’s need to know of the risks surrounding the proposed transfer,” Hill testified.
Hill also says he’s not convinced that the settlement agreement will force NorthStar to retain enough of its early profits from the Vermont Yankee job in order to cover future cost overruns. And he complains of a lack of clarity about various NorthStar entities and their assets.
Insurance
Hill says NorthStar should have “clear, integrated and otherwise robust” insurance for the Vermont Yankee job. The memorandum of understanding, he says, doesn’t satisfy that request.
In the settlement deal with the state, NorthStar agreed to obtain a $30 million insurance policy “to address previously unknown or not fully characterized non-radiological environmental conditions” at Vermont Yankee.
But at this point, NorthStar has produced only a short proposal for such a policy, Hill says.
“Accepting it as supporting a transfer that is in the public good would be akin to accepting a jacket cover as evidence of a good textbook to use for an important medical procedure,” Hill said.
In a related matter, NorthStar has agreed that a contractor on the Vermont Yankee job — Orano USA LLC — will “provide $25 million of funding to complete decommissioning and/or site restoration activities” if other funding sources run out.
But Hill says the “Orano guarantee” remains “in a merely draft and nonbinding form.” He also says there is no evidence that state officials “have reviewed or even seen” the guarantee.
Transparency
Hill cites his concerns about redacted and undisclosed documents as evidence of a lack of transparency.
“Petitioners continue to withhold excess amounts of information,” Hill testified.
Entergy, NorthStar and state officials have painted a much different picture, saying the memorandum of understanding was crafted in part to address concerns and questions raised by the public.
And NorthStar Chief Executive Officer Scott State has pledged a “fully transparent and public process” if his company gets the decommissioning job.
Both Entergy and NorthStar, however, are taking hard stances on the Conservation Law Foundation’s requests.
Mike Twomey, external affairs vice president for Entergy Wholesale Commodities, said in testimony filed last month that any attempts to impose ongoing liabilities on Entergy would “constitute a material change to the MOU and would permit Entergy to withdraw from the MOU and terminate the proposed transaction.”
“In that event, the status quo would remain and the site would not be decommissioned or restored for several decades,” Twomey said.
State also is objecting to Vermont imposing any of the law foundation’s “additional demands” on NorthStar. That “would cause NorthStar to invoke its right to withdraw from the MOU … and not to close the proposed transaction,” State testified soon after the memorandum of understanding was filed.
