Raymond Shadis
Post Office Box 98
Edgecomb, Maine 04556
Consulting on Nuclear Policy & Environmental Issues
For
New England Coalition – On Nuclear Pollution
November 4, 2013
Susan Hudson
Clerk of the Board
Vermont Public Service Board
112 State Street,
Montpelier, Vermont 05602-2710
RE: Docket 7862 -NEW ENGLAND COALITION
Dear Mrs. Hudson,
New England Coalition ("NEC"), intervener, submitted its Objections to Entergy’s Request for
Extension of Time by Letter Filing in the above captioned matter electronically on November 4,
2013 in MsWord format. NEC will, in addition, service by e-mail provide the Board and the
parties in the above captioned matter with service via First Class Mail on
November 5, 2013.
Thank you for your kind assistance in filing this letter-response,
Raymond Shadis
Pro Se Representative
New England Coalition
[email protected]
207-882-7801/ cell-207-380-5994
Cc: Service List
Raymond Shadis
Post Office Box 98
Edgecomb, Maine 04556
Consulting on Nuclear Policy & Environmental Issues
For
New England Coalition – On Nuclear Pollution
November 4, 2013
Susan Hudson
Clerk of the Board
Vermont Public Service Board
112 State Street,
Montpelier, Vermont 05602-2710
RE: Docket 7862 - Re: Docket No. 7862: Amended Petition of Entergy Nuclear Vermont
Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., for amendment of their Certificate of
Public Good and other approvals required under 30 V.S.A. § 231(a) for authority to continue after
March 21, 2012, operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, including the storage
of spent-nuclear fuel -NEW ENGLAND COALITION REPLY to Entergy Nuclear Vermont
Yankee, LLC And Entergy Nuclear Operation's Inc's
("Entergy") REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME.
Dear Mrs. Hudson,
New England Coalition ("NEC") registers herein its strong objection to granting
Entergy's November 1, 2013 Request for Extension of Time before the Board has examined the
plausibility and applicability of Entergy's claims that (1) Certificate of Public Good " conditions"
requested by the parties [presumably for the first time in their Reply Briefs] require two weeks of
additional time (beyond the eight days already accorded) for Entergy's review and response, and
(2) Entergy's "lead attorney" is occupied with other legal proceedings.
(1) With respect to surprise and volume, Entergy wrote,
We respectfully write with respect to the Board’s order, issued October 30, 2013, inviting
the parties to file further briefs addressing conditions that certain parties asked in their
October 25 reply briefs be imposed on Entergy VY. Those conditions include, inter alia,
the Department’s proposed conditions that Entergy VY make a $60 million deposit for site
restoration and commit to provide transitional economic assistance, as well as numerous
conditions proposed by the Windham Regional Commission related to
2
decommissioning, spent fuel storage, and the payment of at least $40 million to replace the
value of a power purchase agreement.
Given the seriousness of these newly proposed conditions, we respectfully request a twoweek extension, until November 22, 2013, of the due date for further briefs so that Entergy
VY and its counsel have a fair opportunity to evaluate the proposed conditions and
present Entergy VY responses to them.1 While the Board's order permits a response from each party
to the various proposed conditions, Entergy VY bears the primary burden of response because the
conditions are proposed to be placed on Entergy VY, not on any other party.
The CPG conditions that Entergy cites can hardly be credibly claimed to be a surprise nor can Entergy
credibly claim that the request for such conditions could not have been anticipated. The proposed conditions
address concerns raised by the parties, openly, often, and at length, throughout these proceedings. They are
similar in nature to conditions proposed and granted in previous Vermont Yankee-related proceedings. And
the possibility of CPG conditions affecting decommissioning and spent fuel storage was addressed by a
treatise on federal preemption in Entergy's Reply Brief. So, while, per the Board's Order of October 30th
additional comments may be warranted, Entergy has not made a showing that the applicant was wholly
unprepared for the volume and nature of the CPG proposals, such that two full additional weeks are required to
prepare a response.
Entergy's claim of the need for two additional weeks to address " newly proposed conditions,"
"[g]iven [their] seriousness," is simply not plausible for the reasons of surprise (as to topic) and volume that
Entergy has given.
(2) Entergy gives second reason that it needs two additional weeks: Its "lead attorney" is
busy with other important matters with conflicting deadlines. And that may be.
As Entergy has it,
In addition, the current November 8 due date will be extremely difficult for Entergy VY's counsel to meet
given the undersigned [Sanford Weisburst] lead attorney's other responsibilities in connection with : (1) a
reply brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Moldex-Metric, Inc. v. McKeon
Prods., Inc., No. 13-55446, which is due on November 8; and (2) an opposition to a motion to consolidate in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple Inc., No. 20131620, which is due on November 12.
However, Entergy's Brief (to which the parties are making Reply) is signed by ten (10) Entergy
attorneys:
Kathleen M. Sullivan, Sanford I. Weisburst, Robert Juman, and Ellyde R. Thompson of Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Llp, a Madison Avenue law firm, which addressed Entergy's preemption issues
in the Federal District and Appeals Courts John H. Marshall and Nancy S. Malmquist of Downs Rachlin
Martin Pllc, who have represented Entergy in this and numerous other dockets, Elise N. Zoli , a water-use
specialist eminently capable of addressing once-through cooling issues , and Christopher C. Land of the
3
venerable Boston law firm of GOODWIN PROCTER LLP and finally, by Robert B. Hemley and Matthew
B. Byrne of GRAVEL & SHEA PC.
Thus Entergy is well-resourced with representation and capable of filing its comments with lessthan a two-week extension, "lead attorney" or no.
NEC notes that on October 1st and October 8th, Entergy did not consider necessary the addition of
an abbreviated round of fact-finding and one-day hearing in response to its Second Amended Petition as
NEC then proposed.
In Sum, NEC finds, as should the Board, that Entergy's proffered reasons for seeking an extension
are not supported by the observed circumstances and because they are implausible after the briefest
analysis, the Board and the parties may freely assume that Entergy's reasons are a pretext for something
other.
NEC notes, upon information and belief, that Entergy and the Department of Public Service (DPS)
have been negotiating over the question of whether the Board is to deny a CPG or issue one, and that
unconditional or conditioned. If the DPS abrupt change of position, as spelled -out in its Reply Brief is an
artifact of those discussions, as much as it is a response to Entergy's Second Amended Petition, then
Entergy should feign no surprise as to the number and content of the DPS proposed CPG conditions.
Rather Entergy should be asking time to complete negotiations and the drafting of a Memorandum
of Understanding or other such settlement document for the Board's approval.
If this is the case, and NEC can see no other plausible reason for Entergy's behavior, then the
Board as a matter of caution should warn Entergy that if a settlement should now pop up, sanctions for
misrepresentation of the reasons for the request for extension of time may be in order. This warning and
sanction should especially be considered if the Board is expected to give deferential treatment to any
emergent Entergy-DPS agreement, as compared to the issues of concern for the remaining parties.
If negotiation and settlement is what Entergy is really seeking time to complete, then the Board
can readily offset the prejudice that a one-on-one settlement would have for the remaining parties by simply
ordering that the Board will not review any settlement that is not global in character, that is one that does
not involve all of the parties.1
NEC would respectfully urge the Board to consider that an important qualification for intervener
party status is that the intervener's interests are not already represented. This consideration should not be
severed or even clouded upon structuring of a final order. If the Board, as a matter of simple fairness, will
1
NEC's Pro Se Representative represented Friends of the Coast in a matter before the Maine Public Utilities
Commission ( Iberdrola, S.A. acquisition/merger of Energy East and Central Maine Power) in which the presiding
officer order an attempt (successful as it happened) at global settlement.
4
address NEC's concerns regarding what are potentially the underlying motives for Entergy's Request for
Time, NEC will gladly lift its objection
Thank you for your kind assistance in filing this letter,
Raymond Shadis
Pro Se Representative
New England Coalition
[email protected]
207-882-7801/ cell-207-380-5994
Cc: Service List
5