Entergy: Cask monitoring overlooked
|
|
Toolbox
By Susan Smallheer STAFF REPORT - Published: August 4, 2009
MONTPELIER – The Public Service Board is reviewing evidence that Entergy Nuclear says it forgot a condition of its 2006 permit until six weeks ago — that it monitor radiation coming from its casks containing high-level radioactive waste.
Susan Hudson, clerk of the board, said Entergy had filed information with the board about the problem late Friday afternoon.
"They're going to look at it right off," Hudson said.
Hudson, and regulators at the Department of Public Service, which acts as the ratepayer advocate, said they both relied on the state's utilities and power companies to comply with state orders and the state didn't have the manpower to inspect for compliance with rulings.
"When the board issues an order, those conditions are expected to be met," Hudson said, referring to the board's general expectations. "We don't have an inspection team."
Entergy Nuclear late Friday afternoon disclosed what it had known for six weeks – that it wasn't in compliance with a condition of its 2006 state permit to build a dry-cask storage facility.
Entergy first opened the facility in June 2008, and to date there are five of the concrete-and-steel casks, located on a concrete pad, just north of the reactor.
Robert Williams, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear, said the lack of monitoring was "due to an oversight." He said the problem was discovered on June 23 by an engineer, preparing the plans for the next round of casks.
"We are a self-critical organization and we found this could have been prevented with better checking within several departments," said Williams.
Exactly how much radiation is coming from the casks, and adding to the total radiation coming out of the plant is still unknown, because the Department of Health still hasn't released its 2008 annual report on radiation releases at Yankee. William Irwin, the radiological health chief, didn't return a call for comment.
But Richard Smith, the deputy commissioner of the Department of Public Service, said that the radiation, even with the increase from the casks, was within state limits and that tests showed that the temperature of the casks had decreased from June 2008 to June 2009.
Smith said the temperature is actually the key way of monitoring the effectiveness of the casks, and temperature monitoring is required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Entergy did do the temperature monitoring but forgot to do the radioactivity measurement, Smith noted.
"My understanding is this is not serious in terms of the actual impact of health and safety, but they should have complied," Smith said.
The condition for the additional radioactivity monitoring was contained in both Entergy's permit from the Public Service Board and a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Public Service.
Hudson said that the board does hear requests for variances of state permits or modifications of the board's orders. "The expectation is that the conditions will be met," she said.
Smith said that the state nuclear engineer asked for the results of the high-level waste casks in January, and was told by Entergy that he could review the results at the Vernon plant.
But in June, Entergy Nuclear informed the state that the results didn't exist because it hadn't started the monitoring process.
Smith said that the problem with the radioactive monitoring naturally raises another question – is there anything else Entergy hasn't done that it's supposed to be doing?
He said that Entergy had launched a review of all the conditions of its memoranda of understanding with the state on its various permits to make sure it is in compliance.
susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com
31