In Entergy attorney Victoria Brown’s 11/26/03 letter to this Public Board, she states the following,
“Entergy VY would like to inform the Board that there has been some limited site preparation work where the temporary facilities are proposed to be constructed. This work was limited to removing topsoil and adding gravel, leaving the grade of the site essentially unchanged. The work was undertaken… on October 27, 2003.
The work was performed in conjunction with supplemental work needed to upgrade and strengthen the existing rail line that travels through the proposed building site.
Once it was identified that the work went beyond the restoration of the rail line and into the beginning of site preparation of the temporary building, Entergy VY halted all work at the site and requested immediate review of the site by the …”
Mr Meyer of the Board as well as others did a site walk through on 12/12/03. Clearly Ms. Brown had intent to mislead the Board by misrepresenting the extent of the work that had occurred.
What actually happened.
A 7” thick sub slab was dug 150 feet long by 70 feet wide surrounded by a 2’ deep perimeter trench
Over 50 of the largest dumptrucks loaded with gravel, 1000 yards were driven to the site, plus nearly as many loads of crushed stone.
The gravel had been pounded in to the perimeter trench and the sub slab then the crushed stone was added to fortify it and it too was compacted.
We are talking about a building 150’ x70’ area that extends quite far away from the railroad bed.
They layed a very long trench to the center of the subslab area that includes water pipes, conduit, and electric pipes.
Then they smoothed it all over to make it seem as though maybe nothing had happened, and re seeded it.
This is what the skilled Atty Victoria Brown calls “limited site preparation work in conjunction with supplemental work needed to upgrade and strengthen the existing rail line that travels through the proposed building site.”
This letter is from a skilled practiced attorney who has practiced before the VT bar and who has served Entergy and or VY before this Public Service Board for more than 2 + years.
She has taken oaths a) to be an officer of the court as well as the oath she took to serve before this Public Board in this case. Like all attorneys her dealings with the Board are presumed to be under oath.
For her to so structure her language as she did above is clearly an offense against rule 11.
Ms Brown, as an officer of the court, knows the rules of nuance. She clearly misrepresented her client in this case, or she did their bidding and the client was misrepresenting themselves before the Board. I believe she had intent to mislead the Board or Entergy had intent to mislead the Board.
I believe Attorney Brown has earned herself personal sanctions for intent to mislead the Board. Misrepresenting the full nature of the activities of her client which themselves were in violation of Entergy’s agreements with this PSB.
This Public Service Board may be legally bound with the duty to bring a complaint against Ms Brown to the Vermont Bar.
Certainly based on the above information I believe an appropriate sanction against Entergy would be for the Board to make Entergy remove and unpack all the site preparations,,, force them to actually choose a different site so as to keep them honest, and for the Board to begin the entire uprate proceedings from the start, this time with honest actions on the part of Entergy lawyers and Entergy corporation.
An “Honest Mistake” based on a “ misunderstanding”
Entergy’s PR team says this.
I believe it was July 2, 2002 before this PSB when these Entergy Lawyers stated on the record something to the effect that their client would not make any changes to the Vermont Yankee site without first seeking a Certificate of Public Good.
Entergy has violated this now.
Is it for this Entergy deserves sanctions?
Was it an honest mistake that numerous agreements made with the Public Service Board have been repeatedly violated?
Is it for this entergy deserves sanctions?
Can you, I, or anyone believe Entergy when they call this building “ temporary”?
Can any of us know for certain how much soil was moved or to where it was moved ?
Can we trust the site Vice President and his words to this Board in a technical hearing Dec. 12,2003 or the words of the head of Entergy’s Public relations team “ mopping up” a few days later? We the public can’t know.
Is it for this Entergy deserves sanctions?
There is something wrong with Entergy not being true to their words spoken under oath to this Public Service Board.
Is it for this Entergy deserves sanctions?
There is something wrong with their continuing to attempt to take advantage of the state’s regulatory process by not doing as they are told.
Is it for this Entergy deserves sanctions?
There is something wrong with them confusing the proceedings at every turn.
Is it for this Entergy deserves sanctions?
I believe their lawyers’ repeated disrespectful behavior before this Board, and the corporate “honest mistakes” involving 75 dumptrucks and at least one earth mover show that the company is not to be as trustworthy as they self-proclaimed before this same Board back in the 6545 sale docket in July of 2002.
Is it for this Entergy deserves sanctions?
There is something wrong with Entergy’s lawyers not following procedure before filing a protective order to prevent having their illegally removed soil tested.
Aah Yes It is for this Entergy deserves sanctions!
There is something wrong with their attempt to buy state approval of the uprate through a 20 million dollar dangle of money that can be explained away as yet one more “misunderstanding”
It looks like 20 million dollars. But it may not be…
There is the $4.5 million indemnification/ratepayer protection with the stipulation that the state must then make the case that a post uprate outage is uprate-related. What are the criteria for this determination? Who determines it? This indemnification only occurs in the first three years after uprate.
After that as the nuclear station is run harder than it was ever designed, we the local public are to understand that if the station needs repairs we shall be forced to buy power on the expensive “spot” market.
The longer the nuclear station remains open the more expensive decommissioning will become.
The less money comes back to the ratepayers.
The more power produced by the nuclear station, the more irradiated the equipment will become, thus costing the ratepayers unreturned excess decommissioning trust fund money.
Again the less money comes back to ratepayers.
3 extra dry cask storage units at one million dollars per to maintain the extra generated waste resulting from the proposed uprate.
Again the less money comes back to ratepayers.
Might those casks too go on yet another concrete slab which too might become contaminated and require a million dollars to dispose of upon decommissioning.
Again the less money comes back to ratepayers.
As you can see- quickly the $20 million dollars that won the Department of Public Service’s support and advocacy dwindles down to maybe a couple of million to the Governor’s pet project. And it means nothing to those of us living in risk of Entergy’s shady shadow.
If an uprate related outage occurs during the heat of summer and the station is off line for an extended period of time, the 4.5 million insurance plan could disappear quickly.
Entergy said the work was begun on these temporary buildings due to a “misunderstanding”.
I propose that a few years from now when that concrete slab is irradiated and costs us VT ratepayers much more to decommission, the very notion of the buildings ever having been temporary may then be considered one more “misunderstanding”.
ENVY does not have the equipment with which to high speed balance the rewound rotor of the roughly 230 ton main generator on site.
Send it to Schnectady where General Electric has the experience and the equipment to do it correctly.
This is a matter of public health and safety and is within 30VSA 248 criteria.
Entergy has a reputation for cutting corners.
Entergy is doing a fine job of earning a reputation of not being able to honor its word to regulatory boards.
These temporary buildings should be stopped.
The uprate is a manipulative attempt by Entergy to make as much profit as they can off their investment approved by this board in 2002.
There is nothing wrong with Entergy seeking to maximize profit off their investment.
The truth is simple. They made a bad investment here with VY. They counted on steamrolling our state regulatory board, even with members of our PSB serving on advisory boards for organizations of which Entergy is a member.
This PSB wrote in its 10/07/03 previous sanctions order
“Entergy has not acted consistent with its obligations under Board rules.”
Excuse me for disagreeing but I am beginning to believe that Entergy is consistent in their disregard for appropriate morally responsible behavior.
The Board wrote,
“Quite obviously, there is no room for further extensions to the schedule. Therefore, it is incumbent that all parties adhere to the dates set out therein.”
This is the just above the signatures of all three PSB members on October 7,2003 in last year’s sanctions ruling against Entergy in this docket.
Less than one month later Entergy was back before the Board seeking yet one more hearing (this one) on the issue of these temporary buildings.
The Board had already announced how its docket schedule was busy and they needed to attend to the other issues they had put off to invest so much time to the Entergy first the sale and now uprate.
Did Entergy and its lawyers not read this line from the Board? Should they be held responsible for not reading the Board’s order fully? Yes
Is it for this Entergy deserves sanctions?
In the October 2003 sanctions order, this PSB said it would send “a request to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") for a thorough and independent evaluation of the safety of Vermont Yankee, and a provision making any Certificate from this proceeding conditional upon an affirmative response from the NRC to such a request.”
What is “a thorough and independent evaluation of the safety of Vermont Yankee”?
Does this differ from a top to bottom vertical slice of a number of safety related systems --- the elements of a peer reviewed Independent Safety Assessment?
I repeat now my question to the PSB, Did your invitation of a “thorough and independent evaluation of the safety of Vermont Yankee” by the NRC have any weight other than just to sound tough.
It sounds like the Board ordered the condition that before they may approve any Certificate they would want to hear the NRC say “ yes” to do a thorough and independent evaluation of safety of Vermont Yankee,” whatever that means? And seemingly regardless of the outcome of the NRC “ thorough and independent evaluation of the safety of Vermont Yankee, a CPG could still be issued.
Entergy has continued to act irresponsibly in these proceedings even after having been sanctioned. The next sanctions need be more severe. Perhaps Entergy will learn.
Please now call for none less than the NRC to do a complete and full Independent Safety Assessment with peer review.
In a sense, with Entergy’s long awaited MOU and the sucker punch that the Department jumped into, I like to imagine that Entergy has played their last trump card in this round, and that the PSB will show the courage to reshuffle the deck and begin the entire uprate proceedings anew.
gfv Brattleboro