$683M Indian Point Trust Fund: Panel Tosses Objections to Transfer

CORTLANDT, NY — A three-judge panel has rejected a petition filed on behalf of foes of Indian Point nuclear power plant seeking a hearing on Entergy's request to transfer the money in the Master Decommissioning Trust for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 and the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant in upstate New York.

The trust fund for Indian Point contained about $683 million at the end of 2015.

Entergy asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in August to OK transferring the decommissioning trust funds from the New York Power Authority. Even though the plants were sold to Entergy in 2000, the Power Authority maintained ownership of the trusts. Entergy, which is seeking approval by Dec. 31, is selling FitzPatrick to Exelon Generation.

The petitioners seeking a hearing on the subject were the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Council on Intelligent Energy and Conservation Policy, Sierra Club Hudson Valley, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Alliance for Green Economy, and Radiation and Public Health Project.

A study for Riverkeeper published in 2002 warned about the risks of privatizing and consolidating in the nuclear industry in an era of lax regulation, saying that "the consolidation of nuclear ownership – although probably a positive development if carried out wisely – now risks the shifting of accident and decommissioning costs from the plant owners to the general public because the relatively secure financial backing of substantial utility companies has in many cases been replaced by a limited liability subsidiary whose only asset is an individual nuclear power plant."

The judges in a ruling published yesterday said that the groups failed to demonstrate that they have standing or set forth any contention that the panel could consider for admissibility.

Entergy spokesman Jerry Nappi said, “We are pleased with the decision.”

First, the panel said, the petition failed to show how any of the organizations were affected by the proposed action.

"For example, if Petitioners’ brief reference to residency within 50 miles of Indian Point or FitzPatrick is intended to trigger the proximity presumption, then Petitioners’ failure to provide physical addresses precludes the Board from evaluating the proximity presumption’s potential applicability. Similarly, Petitioners’ failure to identify their interests in this proceeding or the possible effect of any decision on their interests prevents the Board from evaluating any possible 'discrete institutional injury' to the listed organizations," the panel wrote.

Therefore, the judges said, they didn't have to rule on whether the group's contentions were admissible. But they sharply criticized the petition on those grounds as well.

Just as they have failed to attempt to satisfy standing requirements, Petitioners do not even acknowledge the Commission’s contention admissibility requirements. They do not identify, much less “set forth with particularity,” any contention. Tellingly, Entergy and the NRC Staff do not even agree on the number of proffered “contentions” to which they are responding. That is not surprising. Absent any guidance from Petitioners, reasonable persons might struggle to identify any number of “contentions” among Petitioners’ various objections. We decline to undertake the task of creating “contentions” out of Petitioners’ various conclusory and unsupported objections, and then determining whether the “contentions” we have created satisfy the contention admissibility requirements.

SEE: Entergy Seeks Control of Indian Point Decommissioning Fund

Patch file photo