Skip to main content

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

By
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.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more