FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 1, 2014
NEC’s Statement in response by Raymond Shadis – NEC Trustee since 1982/NEC Technical Advisor –207-380-5994.
The Board’s Ten Page Order was entirely predictable …and not unexpected, except for its nuanced directions that the concerns we raised may still be raised again in proceedings going forward and the very strong claims that the public service board may withdraw its CPG or impose other penalties and conditions on Entergy if the company proves to be an unfair partner for Vermont or in other ways misbehaves going forward.
New England Coalition filed its Motion To Amend (April 7th) and Amended Motion (April 10th) not to “reopen the hearing” nor “to put another nail in the coffin” as the solitary news report at the time had it, but to give the Board the opportunity to consider the possibilities of amending its Final Order (March 28th) so as to offset (without disturbing) provisions in the Docket_7862_MOU that effectively surrender all operation and maintenance of Vermont Yankee through 2014 and all determination of the vital details of decommissioning and site restoration to the discretion and “good faith” attempts at compliance of Entergy VY and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Since the Board’s Order of March 28th, Entergy has demonstrated its new, open, and improved self by stonewalling the Agency for Natural resources by refusing to consider one last season without the environmental insult of once-through-cooling. It has unilaterally decided to apply to NRC for a reduction in the radius of its Emergency Planning Zone and its has been furtive and disingenuous about its steam/tritium providing no public information about the exact source, duration, flow-rate, and cause of the leak, the quantity of condensed tritiated water leaked before a catchment was put in place, or the concentrations of tritium in the leak. All of this so much like the old unfair partner than the newly baptized fair partner.” And, sad to say, Entergy has state agencies, with rare exception (like ANR) walking on eggshells for fear that Entergy will exercise its discretion and dump the MOU before, at least handing over the cash. We expect that keeping its options open is likely the primary reason that Entergy structured its payments over time, well into the shutdown period, and beyond the anticipated conclusion of its heated litigation over relicensing and once-through-cooling with the State of New York. In any case our advice to the public service over the years has proven to be sound and in some instances prescient- In 2002, we advised the Board that approving the sale of VY to Entergy would like to preemption roadblocks to state regulation, in 2012 we warned in sworn testimony that Entergy had not provided a business plan that could show how VY was to be restored to profitability during the proposed period of extended operation, hence their application was simply not a viable proposition.
What we are saying now is, trust if you must, but trust and verify.”
END