New England Coalition
Vermont Public Interest Research Group
Joint News Release – June 7, 2010
For Immediate Release:
VT Pub Service Board Levies Sanctions for Entergy Misinformation
Order Confirms that Entergy Witnesses Gave False Testimony
Contact: NEC President Robert (Jake) Stewart – 802-276-3095
NEC Consultant Raymond Shadis – 207-882-7801
Attorney for NEC, Jared M. Margolis – 802-310-4054
VPIRG Clean Energy Program Dir. – James Moore -802-505-8698
In an Order issued late Friday, the Vermont Public Service Board decided that misinformation provided under oath by Entergy witnesses was sufficiently damaging to merit severe sanctions. During hearings on the proposed extension of Vermont Yankee’s operation beyond its scheduled closing in 2012, Entergy witnesses, Jay Thayer, former VY site vice-president, and Michael Colomb, his successor, repeatedly testified over a period of several days that Vermont Yankee has no underground piping that carries radionuclides; a statement contradicted by recent radionuclide leak events at the troubled plant.
Download the PDF:PSB orders Entergy to pay attorneys’ fees for environmental groups
The Board wrote, “Although we cannot yet determine the extent to which additional proceedings will be required as a result of Entergy VY’s failure to provide accurate information regarding underground pipes, it is likely that the parties and the Board will need to revisit a number of significant issues in this proceeding, including but not necessarily limited to decommissioning costs and reliability, all the direct result of Entergy VY’s misrepresentations as to the existence of underground piping at Vermont Yankee.”
The Board’s Order was in response to a Joint Motion filed by intervenor’s New England Coalition (NEC) and Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG).
In its Order the Vermont Public Service Board decreed that Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY) will have to reimburse costs to parties that resulted from the flawed testimony of Entergy witnesses in the Vermont Yankee license extension case and costs going forward as the tribunal once again takes up the subject of underground piping.
James Moore, Clean Energy Program Director for VPIRG said, “We appreciate that the Vermont Public Service Board is standing up for Vermonters by protecting our regulatory process from corporations like Entergy, which seem to think that it is ok to provide false information under oath. Just as we’ve seen BP lie about the seriousness of the oil spill in the Gulf, Entergy has twisted the facts time and time again about the worsening condition of the old Vermont Yankee reactor. Ultimately, to protect Vermonters we need to make sure that the reactor is not allowed to push beyond its retirement date.”
Attorney Jared M. Margolis, of Jericho, VT (802-310-4054) representing NEC in the matter said, “The Board’s Order supports our arguments that Entergy VY did in fact provide incorrect information to the parties and the Board, and the decision to award fees evidences the materiality of the incorrect information. The Board recognizes that the work we did on behalf of our members and the public, and the arguments we made, were hampered by Entergy VY’s failure to provide correct information on an important aspect of plant operations (underground piping) that effects the plant’s reliability as well as decommissioning costs. We will now have the opportunity to revisit those issues, and provide even more compelling evidence that the VY plant cannot be reliably operated for another 20 years.”
NEC Consultant Raymond Shadis said, “ This is not the first time that Entergy has been sanctioned by the Board. In 2004, Entergy was slapped with record sanctions for tampering with discovery information; adding more than three months of litigation and a record $51,000 in fees to Entergy’s costs. Their apparent refusal to be completely and honestly forthcoming, signals in my mind, a profound disrespect for the process and for the State of Vermont.”
NEC is also currently engaged in legal battles with ENVY on nuclear safety before the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission; among them, a precedent setting judicial struggle over NRC approval of license renewal now in its 57th month of litigation.
