Vermont AG William Sorrell, right, said his office lacked the evidence needed to bring criminal charges against Vermont Yankee Officials. At left is Asst. Attorney Gen. John Treadwell. VTD/Josh Larkin
Attorney General Bill Sorrell announced on Wednesday that he will not prosecute Entergy Corp. for misleading statements made by employees about underground pipes at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.
Sorrell said, “We lack the smoking gun evidence to prove to our satisfaction” that the misstatements constituted perjury.
“Perjury is a tough crime to prove,” Sorrell said.
Sorrell’s office issued an eight-page report on the criminal investigation that outlined the dozens of interviews and email searches conducted. Over the course of the investigation, which began in January of 2010, the attorney general’s office reviewed 2 million pages of documents from Entergy, the Department of Public Service, and several consultants. The probe, Sorrell said, cost $100,000.
At issue was the existence of underground radioactive pipes at Vermont Yankee. Entergy officials in May of 2009 told the Vermont Public Service Board there were no underground pipes at the plant. In January 2010, Entergy announced that tritium was leaking from pipes located under the subsurface of the plant compound.
The misleading statements boiled down to the definition of what an underground pipe is. Entergy and consultants that advised the state defined underground pipes as “buried piping” or pipe that is in direct contact with soil. Entergy claimed that the pipes at Vermont Yankee, which were in concrete chases, did not qualify as underground piping.
“For us to try to prove what was in the mind of the speaker when the speaker said no there are none (underground pipes carrying radioactive material), again is a tall order indeed,” Sorrell said. “Absent smoking gun evidence, we’re not going to make a charge.”
Sorrell couldn’t establish that there was a conspiracy to cover up the existence of underground pipes at Vermont Yankee.
“I did release a report and reached the conclusion this wasn’t just a misunderstanding,” Sorrell said.
Sorrell characterized statements made by Entergy officials at several Vermont Public Service Board hearings in 2009 as misleading.
Permalink |
I understand that it would cost Vermont many $$$$ to go to court against the BIG corporation Entergy.
That said , they did lie under oath about the pipes leaking underground.
Too bad Vermont is such a small state going up against the corporate giant!
Permalink |
I wish that vermont would. I cannot figure out why misleading about a letha pipe leak underground, whether in concrete casing or under the dirt, is not perjury
Permalink |
The Attorney General’s extensive investigation did not extend to interviewing eyewitnesses to Entergy’s BS’ing the VPSB. In the context of technical hearings in Docket 7440, there was no mistaking “below ground for buried”. Entergy witnesses testified under cross examination by DPS and New England Coalition not once, but twice, with long weekend in between each instance. In the first instance, Jay Thayer, former site VP brought back to Vermont specifically to shepard the VY license renewal through the legislature and the VPSB, testified imediately following Uldis Vanags, State Nuclear Engineer who claimed that Vermont Yankee’s projected decommissioning soil decontamination costs would be lower than those experienced at Maine Yankee because Vermont Yankee , remarkably and unlike Maine Yankee, ha no contamiated underground piping to speak of. New England Coalition’s attorney, Jared Margolis, aware of a VY rad/chemistry sink drain line link which radiologically contaminated a large volume of soil in the 1990′s, cross examined Entergy witnesses on the point sharply; only to have them insist that the chem sink line was the only instance of below ground piping carryiing radionuclides at VY and that that pipeline was permanently taken out of service. I was at the table with NEC Atorney Margolis when Entergy gave this false testimony. The Attorney General’s office did not interview us for their investigation, wherein they might have obtained eyewitness accounts of the
demeanor of Entergy witnesses (transparent “BS” mode)AND the context and timing of Entergy statements. We have not had an opportunity to review the AG’s report, but in our view the investigation is severely flawed for failure to seek eyewitness accounts. The Vermont Public Service Board, who heard the testimony, found the guilty of giving false and inaccurate testimony and sanctioned Entergy accordingly.
In recent filings with the VPSB, the Coalition has found that Entergy’s accounts of the hunt for a second tritiated water leak diverge sharpely from those of NRC. An excuse for this divergence may be forthcoming; in the meanwhile NEC has filed an FYI with the VPSB while observing that Entergy has a propensity for untruth (on principle one supposes) when truth would serve them better.
Raymond Shadis
Technical Advisor
New England Coalition
New England Coalition, headquartered in Brattleboro, VT since 1971, is the only NGO accepted as an intervenor before the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in both the Extended Power Uprate and License Renewal of Entergy Nuclear’s Vermont Yankee.
Permalink |
No matter what Sorrel’s final decision is (and yes – proving perjury without an in your face smoking gun statement can be tricky), the fact is Louisiana Entergy lied to the State of Vermont.
It is now common knowledge that Louisiana Entergy Yankee had a tritiated water leak in 2005 in those very same pipes that Louisiana Entergy Yankee said didn’t exist.
Lack of a court case does not change facts.
Permalink |
I believe it is about appearance. Sorel would not want his office to look like it is prosecuting a case, however righteous, as reprisal for Entergy’s suit against the state. I think these charges can be brought in the future, if the statute of limitations is not reached, but it may not be worthwhile. Nevertheless the fact is not in question that Entergy is not trustworthy.
Permalink |
Weak-kneed leadership isn’t leadership at all.
Entergy’s “explanation” is a wonderland concoction.
A reasonable Vermont jury would see through it immediately.
Sorrell sounds pretty disingenuous, raising motive questions.