Skip to main content

Entergy Responds to Rep. Markey on Sr-90 Found in Fish

Beauty shot of Vermont Yankee.Two weeks ago, I blogged about Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) accusing Entergy of not being truthful when it came to Strontium-90 (Sr-90) emissions from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. I just found out that Entergy’s Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer Roderick West responded to Rep. Markey’s accusations in a letter to the congressman last week.
Entergy’s overall position remains the same:
While some may speculate as to the source of the Sr-90, the scientific evidence does not support any connection between the operations of Vermont Yankee and the June 2010 fish sample.
In the letter, West quotes an Aug. 2 post written by Bill Irwin, radiological health chief at the Vermont Department of Health, who provides detailed information and data on the types of fish sampling conducted and compares that to previous research. However, without further evidence, Irwin says it is impossible to draw a clear conclusion that the Sr-90 that was found in the fish could be a result of the plant’s operations.
Sr-90 is found throughout our environment and in our diet. All humans have Sr-90 within their bodies. Given that Sr-90 is detected in fish collected from various locations, as well as many other media in the environment, we cannot associate low levels of Sr-90 in fish in the Connecticut River with Vermont Yankee-related radioactive materials without other supporting evidence.
That last part is especially important, he continues, in proving the source of the Sr-90 found in the fish:
Other supporting evidence would include measuring Sr-90 in groundwater samples as well as measuring other nuclear power plant-related radionuclides in both fish and groundwater samples. To date, the Health Department Laboratory has not measured other nuclear power plant-related radionuclides in fish or groundwater samples.
Irwin concurs with the company’s position and said he doesn’t believe the Sr-90 found in the fish was from Vermont Yankee.
We would need to see a pathway between the source and the fish, he said. Such a pathway isn’t apparent.
West outlines very clearly at the end of the letter that “all available evidence suggests that there is no such pathway.”

Given this conclusion, West also points out that Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin, who late this summer accused Entergy of “putting their shareholders’ profits above the welfare of Vermonters” because of the incident, changed his opinion.
We don’t know exactly where [the Strontium-90] came from.
Barring further evidence, I think Gov. Shumlin’s comment sums it up.
The full text of the letter can be downloaded here.
Photo: Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…