Entergy Corporation is a multinational, multi-billion dollar corporation that owns the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon, VT. In an effort to squeeze an extra 20 million per year in profit out of the 31-year old plant, Entergy has requested Vermont approval for a 20% "power uprate" that would increase power output to 120% of the plant's original design capacity.
The citizens of Vermont are supposed to be represented in this matter by a "Director for Public Advocacy" within the Department of Public Service (DPS). However, the DPS, without reviewing or even asking for documents from Entergy relating to the uprate, has already said it will advocate to the VT Public Service Board (an independent, 3 person regulatory body) on behalf of Entergy's proposal. (The DPS has even signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" in which DPS
approval is granted as a quid pro quo for certain financial considerations desired by Governor Douglas.)
Clearly, the DPS has abandoned even the appearance of acting as an "advocate" for the citizens of Vermont. The only full "intervenor" on behalf of the health and safety of the people and environment of Vermont therefore, is the Brattleboro-based New England Coalition (NEC), a poorly funded and minimally staffed non-profit group.
As an "intervenor" NEC filed requests many months ago for Entergy documents pertaining to the uprate. Entergy, however, acted in such a delaying, obstructive, and manipulative fashion that in October 2003 the PSB imposed monetary sanctions and extended by several months the timeline for discovery,hearings, and final PSB ruling on the uprate. Entergy promised it would not introduce any additional requests into the uprate proceedings.
However, one month later Entergy went back on its promise, saying it wanted to rewind its main rotor on-site instead of shipping it to Schenectady, NY. In order to accomplish this task Entergy proposed to install two "temporary"buildings, for which they had already begun extensive site-work at the Vernon facility. Specifically, Entergy acted without permission and without permits to excavate between 120 and 500 cubic yards of dirt from their site, none of which was tested for radiation, and much of which was dumped at a gravel pit either in Vernon or Guilford. Entergy then installed at the site of the "temporary" buildings approximately 1,500 cubic yards of gravel, piping, and other materials in preparation for erecting their buildings.
When NEC asked for permission to take soil samples from the site to be tested for radioactivity, Entergy lawyers filed an injunction, claiming that only the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington DC had jurisdiction.
Angered by Entergy's deceptive and manipulative tactics, the PSB ruled against Entergy's injunction and has asked NEC and the general public to provide recommendations for further sanctions to be imposed against Entergy. Public comment will be taken by the PSB on January 8 at the Vernon Elementary School cafeteria at 7:00 PM.
Key to understanding this process is the absurdly short amount of time that has been given for review of documents. NEC is now in possession of thousands of Entergy documents in hard copy, and over 200,000 pages in electronic form. The job of simply opening and cataloging the general contents of these documents would take over 3,000 hours of staff time (one and a half years for a normal person working a 9-5 job). Yet NEC was given only three months to hire experts, complete a review of the documents, and file written testimony (January 2, 2004 was the filing deadline). In the middle of this three-month period Entergy added its "temporary" building proposal and illegally excavated its site, an issue that has now consumed nearly two months of NEC staff time. In spite of this time-consuming diversion, created entirely by Entergy's outrageous behavior, the PSB has not altered or extended the timeline.
The stated purpose of the hearing scheduled for January 8th is for the public to ask questions and make suggestions regarding the "temporary" buildings. However, this hearing is also the LAST local opportunity for people in southern Vermont to address the issue of the uprate as a whole.
Following is an outline of a number of Entergy's abuses specific to its "temporary" buildings request, and a list of ideas and recommendations for sanctions that have been made by various people. This letter does not serve as an official "position paper" of the New England Coalition, but is intended to educate the public and increase awareness and participation in the meeting scheduled for January 8.
Entergy's Abuses:
1) Entergy has demonstrated a continuous pattern of deception, manipulation, and abuse of process.
a. During sale proceedings Entergy claimed it would likely seek a 13% uprate. It is now seeking 20%.
b. Entergy promised VT Public Service Board (PSB) that they would introduce no additional modifications to uprate request prior to PSB ruling in March 2004.
Entergy broke that promise by changing location for rewinding of main rotor, originally projected to take place in NY, to an on-site "temporary" building (in order to save money).
c. Entergy carefully planned and carried out the
excavation and site reparation work for "temporary" buildings in defiance of its agreements with the PSB.
d.Entergy claimed its excavation of soil and site preparation work was an"honest mistake" when all indications point to an intentional deception.
e. Entergy claimed "attorney-client privilege" to prevent content of secret meetings about excavation plans from being brought to PSB's and New England Coalition's (NEC) attention.
f. Entergy redacted (blacked out) relevant information from internal memos and other documents to prevent exposure of its true intentions and actions.
g. Entergy lawyers filed a frivolous injunction in an attempt to legally block NEC from taking soil samplesat site of "temporary" building.
h. After the PSB ruled that NEC could take soil
samples at the excavation site and test them for radioactivity, Entergy officials tried to physically prevent NEC consultants Marvin Resnikoff and Christopher Covel from taking at
least one sample adjacent to the excavation site(12/29/03).
i. Entergy changed its story about the excavated dirtseveral times:
i. First report in papers said average 2' deep
excavation of 150'x70' hole(equals 780 cubic yards)
ii. Second report said 460 cubic yards removed to
site in Guilford
iii. Third report said only 120 cubic yards taken to Vernon, not Guilford.
iv. Fourth report claimed "100% of the soil" was brought back to VY on Sunday,Dec. 14.
v. Jay Thayer's editorial of 12/22/04 (Reformer) claims that "Vermont Yankee's radiation protection and chemistry departments reviewed and approved the removal of the materials before they left the site in accordance with established federal nuclear safety procedures." Yet Entergy had no
evidence whatsoever that the soil was not
contaminated, for they had never tested it!
j. Entergy has willfully deceived the PSB and the public by calling the proposed buildings "temporary."
According to Entergy's stated purpose, the buildings would be needed for only three weeks-yet Entergy's own documents show
that they would be used for at least 3 years. Entergy appears to even thumb its nose at the PSB by putting the word "temporary" in quotes in its own internal documents, indicating that Entergy staff knew very well that the word was a false depiction of reality.
k. Entergy officials have repeatedly lied and
prevaricated under oath and have intentionally acted to obstruct discovery and obscure the truth. A few examples follow, as related by Ray Shadis, staff advisor to NEC:
i. One Entergy engineer declared under oath that he has routinely destroyed hand-written notes taken at staff meetings regarding the "temporary" buildings. (Destruction of evidence is a crime.)
ii. An Entergy offical denied under oath that he had any knowledge of the"design life" of the Vermont Yankee plant, even though documents under his signature show VY's "design life" to be 40 years.
iii. Asked under oath if he was familiar with theNRC's "most recent"inspection report, an Entergy official pretended not to know what document was being referred to.
iv. In sworn testimony an Entergy official tried to mislead the board by depicting the NRC uprate review process as an independent safety
assessment.
(In fact, the NRC process is a document review.)
SANCTIONS OVERVIEW
This "temporary" buildings incident should not be regarded by PSB in an isolated fashion, but should be ruled on in the context of Entergy's continuous pattern of willful abuse, manipulation, and deception.
Sanctions should be made meaningful and relevant not just to the issue of the "temporary" buildings, but also to the larger issue of Entergy's Uprate request.
Sanctions should also be made on a scale that is appropriate and meaningful when weighed against the vast financial and political power enjoyed by Entergy.
Possible considerations for Sanctions
1) NEC staff has been distracted from its main work(on the uprate request) for nearly two months by Entergy's dishonest behavior around the "temporary" buildings. But the PSB's timeline for filing of testimony has not changed. This has placed Entergy at an advantageous position. The most meaningful sanction against Entergy, therefore, (in addition to monetary sanctions) would be for PSB to restructure the time-line for the Uprate request.
The entire process should be started over from scratch and adequate time given to NEC to properly review and comment on the documents now in its possession. As a matter of policy, PSB should delay its final ruling on Entergy's uprate request until the US
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has ruled on it.
2) PSB should require that Entergy remove all gravel, pipe, straw, and any other improvements and preparations for their proposed temporary buildings, and that Entergy replace and re-compact the excavated
dirt--returning the entire site to its original condition.
3) As a result of its dishonesty, Entergy should be made to post a $60 million bond with the stipulation that it would be forfeited immediately and irrevocably should Entergy take any further actions in defiance of
PSB orders. (There is precedent for this type of bond: PSB made a VT homeowner post a $5,000 bond because he had defied
board orders concerning the installation of a
wind generator.)
4) PSB should award financial damages to the fullest extent allowed by law to New England Coalition, to pay
for NEC's out of pocket costs caused by Entergy's behavior concerning the "temporary" buildings, and to compensate for NEC staff time that would otherwise have been directed
to the main issue of the uprate request.
5) PSB should impose sanctions against Entergy's attorneys for filing a frivolous injunction whose apparent intention was solely to delay the process and cost NEC additional time and money.
6) PSB should appoint an independent "Public Advocate" endowed with sufficient funding, staff, and authority to properly research and address on the public's behalf the many issues surrounding Entergy's uprate request.
7) PSB should find the "Memorandum of Understanding" between Entergy and the VT
Department of Public Service to be illegal, and render it null and void.
If you cannot attend the meeting on January 8 pleasewrite a letter or
send a fax to:
VT Public Service Board
Michael Dworkin, Chair
John D. Burke
David Coen
112 State St. Drawer 20
Montpelier, VT 05620-2701
Voice:(802) 828-2358
fax: (802) 828-3351
or email to clerk@psb.state.vt.us
Looking forward to seeing you in Vernon on January 8.