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

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.

Entergy Rejects Reports SR-90 Found In Connecticut River Is From Vermont Yankee

Late on Friday afternoon, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) sent a letter to NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko accusing Entergy, the owner of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, of being less than truthful when it came to emissions of Strontium-90 (Sr-90) from the plant.

The following comes from the Associated Press:

Rep. Edward Markey, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, wrote Friday to NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko to complain that a spokesman for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant had made statements “at odds with the factual history of the plant,’’ and that the “NRC had not appropriately responded to concerns raised about this issue.’’

Markey’s letter came nearly three months after the incident in question. On Aug. 2, the Vermont Health Department announced that the radioactive isotope strontium-90 had been found in the flesh of small-mouth bass caught in the Connecticut River about 9 miles upstream from the reactor in Vernon. The plant is about three miles from the Massachusetts line; the river flows through Massachusetts and Connecticut before emptying into Long Island Sound.

Markey took issue with a statement issued by Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith saying that “There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Vermont Yankee is the source for the strontium-90’’ in the fish.

We should note that well before Rep. Markey sent his letter to the NRC, that Entergy had already communicated with Vermont officials twice regarding the test results in question. On August 19, 2011, Vermont Yankee Site Vice President Michael Colomb sent a letter to Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin denying that the sample found in the Connecticut River could have come from the plant:

None of our groundwater monitoring samples has ever shown the presence of any plant-generated radionuclide other than tritium. As such, we believe there is no connection between the Sr-90 detected in the recent fish sample from the Connecticut River and the water passing through the grounds of Vermont Yankee.

Later in the letter, Colomb explains that strontium has never been present in any liquid releases from the plant:

Vermont Yankee routinely monitors the environment for Sr-90. Test results of our gaseous releases from the last 10 years show that Vermont Yankee has had three gaseous releases which included some Sr-90. These releases were extremely small, were all well within allowable NRC limits, and were reported as required to the NRC.

Colomb notes, however, that 99 percent of all Sr-90 found throughout the world comes from former atomic weapons testing programs, followed by a large dispersal after the 1986 Chernobyl accident.

As numerous studies demonstrate, the existence of trace amounts of Sr-90 in fish is not a new or unexpected occurrence, but has been recognized and studied for decades.

A full copy of the letter is below:

Just a few weeks ago, Colomb sent another letter to Vermont Department of Health Commissioner Harry Chen to follow-up on his request for the plant to increase fish sampling near the plant as a result of the incident. He reiterated that the Sr-90 found in the fish sample is unlikely to be attributed to Vermont Yankee as opposed to other sources.

In fact, according to the NRC and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, approximately 16.8 million curies of Sr-90 were dispersed into the atmosphere from nuclear testing through 1980. … In comparison, the total annual release of Sr-90 by all U.S. nuclear plants is typically only 1/1000th of a curie.

He continues:

I want to reaffirm that we meet or exceed all environmental monitoring requirements of the NRC, which has exclusive authority to regulate radiological safety and any radiological discharges by Vermont Yankee.

That letter can be read in full by clicking the below image:

The fact remains that Vermont Yankee has never had Sr-90 in any of its liquid releases and has not detected elevated levels of Sr-90 in any of its NRC-required environmental samples of ground water, fish, surface water, soil or vegetation around the Vermont Yankee site. Given these facts, Colomb reconfirmed in his letters that the presence of Sr-90 in the fish sample cannot be attributed to the plant.

As far as we know, Chairman Jaczko has yet to respond to Rep. Markey's letter. When he does, we'll be sure to share it with you.

NEI Responds to Markey Letter on Nuclear Power Plant Loan Guarantee Program

Earlier today, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) sent a letter to Representatives Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) demanding that they hold hearings into the implementation of the nuclear power plant loan guarantee program.

The following statement concerning Rep. Markey's letter is from NEI's Rapid Response Team:

In a Sept. 23, 2011, letter, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) raises questions about the nuclear energy industry’s role in the process of developing the regulations that govern the clean energy loan guarantee program authorized by the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

Specifically, Mr. Markey raises questions about the issue of subordination, and the nuclear energy industry’s position on this issue. NEI has never suggested that the U.S. Department of Energy should accept a subordinate position with respect to any other lender under the DOE loan guarantee program.

Mr. Markey’s letter demonstrates convincingly that he does not understand financing or the rules governing the loan guarantee program. Here are the facts:

• Many of the clean energy projects eligible for DOE loan guarantees have multiple sources of debt financing—some debt guaranteed by the Department of Energy, some from other sources. In the case of certain nuclear power projects, for example, it was expected that other countries’ export credit agencies would provide debt financing side-by-side with the DOE-guaranteed debt.

• The original rule promulgated by the Department of Energy in 2007 reflected a flawed interpretation of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, and asserted that DOE must have a “superior right” (i.e., the department must be in a first lien position) on the entire project, whether or not it was the only provider of debt financing. Under the 2007 rule, other lenders would have been forced to accept a subordinate position to DOE. This runs counter to standard financing protocols and made financing impossible.

• The nuclear energy industry drew DOE’s attention to this flaw in the rule, as did the other clean energy technologies eligible for DOE loan guarantees.

• In a March 2, 2009, letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the American Wind Energy Association urged DOE to change the 2007 rule to “allow DOE to share collateral pari-passu (i.e., equally and without preference) with all non-guaranteed project lenders.”

• In a May 19, 2009, letter to President Obama, seven clean energy trade associations (representing the wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, combined heat and power, nuclear energy, biomass energy and hydropower industries) urged DOE to “[c]orrect the current requirement under the 2007 regulations that DOE must have a first lien on all project assets … and permit DOE discretion as to the scope of a given project’s collateral package. The regulations must allow for more flexible collateral-sharing arrangements, including pari passu treatment of the collateral shared among co-lenders.”

In brief, the change to the rule governing the DOE loan guarantee program referenced by Mr. Markey was advocated by all the clean energy industries eligible for loan guarantees. This was not a nuclear energy industry initiative, but a broad-based effort to make the loan guarantee program workable.

Earlier this week, NEI President and CEO Marv Fertel wrote a piece in the National Journal concerning the importance of the DOE loan guarantee program. For an NEI issues brief on the federal loan guarantee program authorized under the 2005 Energy Policy Act, click here.