In three days of hearings before the Vermont Public Service Board, Entergy Corp. described itself as an “industry leader” in the inspection, detection and repair of tritium leaks at its nuclear power plants around the country.
Environmental groups countered that the Louisiana-based nuclear power company’s response to leaks found at Vermont Yankee in Vernon were insufficient.
The hearings were part of an investigation started last February by the Public Service Board in response to requests by the New England Coalition (NEC) and the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) that the Board shut down Vermont Yankee or take other actions to stop releases of radioactive or other harmful materials into the environment. The tritium leaks at Vermont Yankee were discovered a year ago; the source was underground piping at the plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the release of tritium, a low-level radioactive waste product, was not a hazard to public health.
Entergy ran the plant until a scheduled refueling in the spring, at which time it excavated pipes in the area of the leaks and declared that it had found and fixed the leaks.
Timothy Trask, chief engineer for Entergy Nuclear, came from corporate headquarters in Jackson, Miss., this week to report on Entergy’s response to the leaks. He said the corporation heightened its scrutiny of piping systems, both at Vermont Yankee and in the nuclear industry as a whole, in the wake of the leaks.
Two of the underground pipes at Vermont Yankee carrying radioactive water that developed holes had not been inspected in the previous 10 years, he said, and prior to the leaks they would have been on a low priority list for inspection, based on risk. He said Entergy is developing a plan to assess all of the pipes at the plant. The company also plans to reroute five underground pipes to areas that are more accessible for inspection.
Critics want Entergy to do more quickly and to provide more specificity about how the inspections are conducted.
Jared Margolis; “They’re saying they want to be an industry leader. Well then, inspect a higher percentage (of pipes), and use the best technology possible.”
Jared Margolis, attorney for the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, repeatedly asked Trask about whether the company would be visually inspecting the pipes or using some other method. The engineer for Entergy would not commit to a schedule for inspections or explain what percentage of the pipes would be examined.
After the hearings, Margolis said: “We want to see it done right, in terms of the percentage of pipes inspected, where pipes are inspected, what systems are inspected, and we want to see it done in a timely manner. We want to see it done now. We want to see it have already been done, considering it’s been a year since the leaks occurred, and it’s not been done.”
While a witness for the NEC was not confident that all the leaks had been found and fixed, the NEC has withdrawn its request that the plant be closed before its scheduled closing date in March 2012, according to Margolis. NEC now is concentrating on obtaining a Board order for accelerated and adequate pipe and tank inspections, he says. Sandy Levine, attorney for the CLF, says that while CLF also wants faster and better inspections, it holds fast to its request to shut down the plant immediately.
Larry Smith, spokesperson for Vermont Yankee, disputed the idea that Entergy is not inspecting piping.
“That is absolutely not the case,” Smith said. “There are 68 corrective actions as a result of the root cause analysis [of the leak], and many of them deal with inspections of piping. We’ve already inspected 81 of 119 pipes for leakage, and in our upcoming refueling outage in October, we’re going to reroute another five lines so we can monitor them. We’re taking it very seriously.” He also cited completed inspections of tanks and pipe tunnels.
When asked how Entergy inspected the 81 pipes, Smith said he didn’t know.
That’s precisely the problem, Margolis said.
“The word ‘inspection’ in and of itself doesn’t mean much,” Margolis said. “They’re not looking at enough percentage of the things. You can look at 10% of the pipe and say you’ve inspected it.”
Margolis pointed to the company inspection program’s focus on exterior corrosion; he said the pipes responsible for the tritium leaks corroded from the inside.
“We’re saying do a little more, don’t just do the bare minimum,” Margolis said. “They’re saying they want to be an industry leader. Well then, inspect a higher percentage, and use the best technology possible.”
NEC witness Ray Shadis, a nuclear industry expert, testified that the operators of Seabrook nuclear power plant inspected 25% of all systems visually or by some other means, and he asked that Entergy commit to the same percentage and rigor of testing.
The hearings took place in spite of arguments by Entergy that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) authority pre-empts any state action on the questions at hand. The Public Service Board opened the investigation with the reminder that there is dual federal and state jurisdiction over nuclear power plants. The Board cited a Supreme Court opinion that said that while NRC regulates radiological safety, states handle “questions of need, reliability, cost and other related state concerns.” However, the Board wanted to hear a more specific case that the questions surrounding the tritium leaks actually do constitute grounds for state actions. The Board has made no ruling on Entergy’s brief that the docket be closed because of NRC pre-emption.
Regardless of how the Board rules on its authority in the case, CLF attorney Levine questions the state’s commitment to regulating Vermont Yankee. During the hearings, state nuclear engineer Uldis Vanags was flummoxed by questions from Board member John Burke about what action he would take if Entergy did not address the leaks in a way he viewed as sufficient.
Later, after Department of Public Service Public Advocacy Director Sarah Hofmann whispered in his ear, Vanags replied that he would ask for NRC action on questions of radiological safety and Public Service Board action on questions of reliability.
“It’s troubling,” commented Levine. “The Agency of Natural Resource and the Public Service Department are regulators; they have a responsibility to oversee what’s happening at this facility. Yet they don’t seem to feel comfortable requiring responsible action from them.”
It’s unclear what effect the plant’s scheduled closing in March 2012 will have on inspection and maintenance after that time. Vermont Yankee’s NRC license and state certificate of public good expire in March 2012, and the Legislature has blocked extension of the state certificate. Both the NEC and the CLF said they expect that the pipes will be in place after closure and that inspecting them will continue to be important.
Smith declined to comment on the effect of what he called a “hypothetical” closing in 2012.
The parties in the case are scheduled to submit legal briefs to the Board in February, and to reply to each others’ briefs later the same month. No date has been set for a Board ruling.
