In a 24-page brief to the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) April 30, 2010, Entergy and Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY) claim that their information belongs to them and to the NRC. Vermont and its intervenors do not have the right to look at information requested by intervenors, the PSB and the Department of Public Service, according to ENVY & Entergy attorneys.
“Entergy VY takes the position that the investigation itself is preempted by the NRC’s federal jurisdiction,”
wrote Downs Rachlin Martin Attorney John Marshall in his MOTION TO MODIFY THE PREHEARING CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM AND TO ENLARGE THE TIME FOR ENTERGY VY TO RESPOND TO PENDING DISCOVERY REQUESTS. See the entire document below the fold.
According to Bob Audette in today’s Brattleboro Reformer:
“Discovery is needed to address the issue of preemption,” wrote Sandy Levine, CLF’s senior counsel, who also rejected Marshall’s claim that Yankee’s employees were too busy with the outage to respond to the requests.
“A company as large and well-funded as Entergy should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time,” she wrote. “To the extent it is not able to do both, it should not be allowed to operate a nuclear facility in the state of Vermont.”
Nowhere does federal preemption exclude Entergy and ENVY’s obligation to meet NRC General Design Criteria 60 that states:
Criterion 60–Control of releases of radioactive materials to the environment. The nuclear power unit design shall include means to control suitably the release of radioactive materials in gaseous and liquid effluents and to handle radioactive solid wastes produced during normal reactor operation, including anticipated operational occurrences. Sufficient holdup capacity shall be provided for retention of gaseous and liquid effluents containing radioactive materials, particularly where unfavorable site environmental conditions can be expected to impose unusual operational limitations upon the release of such effluents to the environment.
Non-existent buried underground pipes that have leaked tritium into the Connecticut River, are none of our business according to Entergy’s attorneys.
Writing for CLF, Levine stated that Entergy’s request “perpetuates the continuing efforts … to hide important information … They are refusing to provide factual information that is necessary for the board to determine the scope of its authority.”
Personally, I find it curious that Entergy and ENVY, which have taken such efforts to separate themselves as entities in order to obfuscate Entergy’s responsibility to fully fund ENVY’s decommissioning fund, have the same attorney pushing their authority over any state intervention. You will note that Attorney John Marshall of the Burlington law firm DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC is the attorney representing both Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee,LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. of Louisiana. How convenient.
See Attorney John Marshall’s argument against Vermont’s right to intervene on Page 18. Certainly it is the preliminary volley in a long anticipated wider attack on Vermont’s authority over anything Entergy wishes or chooses to do.
Looks like Entergy,VY etc. wants a line in the sand for now and the future regarding Vermont’s regulatory status over them.
They want to dance with the ones that brought them ,the NRC.
One can only hope that those who would still argue for license renewal take note of this and see the writing on the wall.
But it sure smells like corruption to me…
The presumptuousness of this motion is astounding and tactics Entergy Yankee Envy are employing are the only transparent aspect of their reckless corporate behavior.
Entergy/Yankee/Envy make assertions about the number of requests but give no reason why the number itself is problematic, why they cannot partially comply, or which questions and requests are objectionable as opposed to the ones that fall under the board’s prior order requiring them to produce the documents and other evidence.
Next Entergy Yankee Envy harps on an irrelevant legal argument that there may not be jurisdiction over PARTS of the case. SO what. That’s a post-discovery legal matter the way they have explained the issue.
The point of discovery is learn facts and review documents that could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Entergy Yankee Envy seem to be arguing that facts and evidence the other parties are asking to see will be the actual exhibits admitted at a hearing. That is not the purpose of discovery. The purpose of discovery is to educate all parties to the factual landscape of matters relevant to issues in the dispute and/or exchange evidence that will help the parties, that is lead the parties, to the discovery of admissible evidence. I think that is one of the reasons why they call the process “discovery.” The process is not “admissible evidence” the process is learning process about facts needed to educated the parties about what should come before the board and what is unnecessary.
Everything about this motion is a request to break out, extend, compartmentalize and confuse and push the relevant issues down the road. The advantage to this approach is that it gives Entergy Yankee Envy a chance to make new and separate arguments at each next stage of the compartmentalized legal proceedings it is requesting as those different matters pop up later. This process only serves to delay the proceedings and confuse and complicate what should be a much simpler process.
Entergy Envy Yankee is complaining about burdens and complications. It is doing everything in its power to make this process as confusing and burdensome as absolutely possible.