Vernon New Hampshire?

A few days ago my friend Bob Hargraves wrote a letter suggesting that Vernon secede from Vermont and join New Hampshire. The letter was published in the Brattleboro reformer, and I quote it here:

Saturday May 29, 2010

Vernon could secede to N.H.

Editor of the Reformer:

The people of Vernon are being ostracized by misguided Vermonters who have turned public concern about global warming into an anti-Vermont Yankee theme. Vernon is home to many good people who work at Entergy’s nuclear power station there. The legislature’s current plan is to turn this power producing, tax revenue producing asset into a mothball in a ghost town.

New Hampshire’s Connecticut River waters border Vernon and lap at the edge of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. New Hampshire waters cool the plant. New Hampshire is not seeking to shutter its nuclear plants such as Seabrook.

Vermont Yankee could be in New Hampshire if Vernon seceded from Vermont and joined New Hampshire. The Vermont Legislature would have no say in the relicensing of the New Hampshire plant. Vermont Yankee could continue to provide tax revenues and jobs to Vernon residents for another twenty years. Citizens and businesses in both states would continue the economic benefits of low electric power costs, maintaining good jobs and industry on both sides of the Connecticut River. Vernon would be a vibrant community, not a ghost town.

Robert Hargraves

Hanover, N.H., May 26

You may remember Bob as the person who prepared the excellent Rotary Slide Show about Vermont Yankee, which I described in my post on Summing It Up. Here's a link directly to his presentation.

Vernon, Vermont

Let's acknowledge that VY is still in Vermont, and it just ended a refueling outage that included many upgrades. Various start-up issues (small new leak, problem in the switchyard) have the anti-Yankee folks viewing-with-alarm, and Arnie Gundersen explaining that these problems are typical of Yankee, and probably indicative of the End of the World as We Know It.

Arnie hasn't noticed a slightly bigger leak somewhat south of here, I guess.

Singing Millirems

In honor of the outage, here's a video from about three years ago. Fifty Ways to Save A Millirem. I particularly like the percussion. You don't see drums like that everywhere. Well, you can see drums like that everywhere under some circumstances. But you don't see them in most bands.

P.S. A quick thank you to Rod Adams for linking to my post in his post

Who Says Nukes Have No Sense of Humor Or Rhythm?

And yet another link! I was on the Rod's Atomic Show Podcast last night. Among other things, we spoke about public meetings held by the NRC in Vermont and Maryland. Very different audiences, to put it mildly.

More bad news for Vernon: Guest Post by Guy Page

Vermont Yankee
Vernon Dam in foreground
(picture from back when VY was operating)

The loss of Vermont Yankee’s 1000-plus jobs and millions of dollars of tax revenue has been followed by more discouraging energy-related financial news for Vernon and other Connecticut River towns.

When Vermont Yankee closed in December, 2014, “glass half full” people could at least point to the Vernon Dam’s $400,000 in annual tax payments and the hope that another power plant might be built near the Vermont Yankee site to take advantage of the new, nearby switchyard.

Now, the town has almost certainly lost the “bird in the bush” proposed power plant. And the “bird in the hand” Vernon dam may be wrenched from its grasp by the State of Vermont.

Last week's surprise announcement that the Kinder-Morgan natural gas pipeline would not be built has forced the shelving of plans for a natural gas-fired power plant near the Vermont Yankee site in Vernon. The KM line would have brought large new quantities of natural gas from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts and New Hampshire. But developers cited insufficient demand.

The pipeline cancellation may lead to more interest in power from north of the border. That's good news for the Clean Link power line proposed to run from Quebec beneath Lake Champlain, and then across Vermont to the Vernon switchyard. A similar power line from New York across Lake Champlain is also in the works. Furthermore Hydro Quebec recently announced a major marketing initiative for New England customers.

For Vernon, of course, the decision is a tough blow for backers who hoped the town could recoup some of the jobs and taxes lost when VY closed.

Furthermore, the proposed state purchase of 13 TransCanada Corp. dams on the Connecticut and Deerfield rivers includes the Vernon dam. The proposal, now under preliminary review led by a high-level “working group” appointed by Gov. Peter Shumlin, could lead to the dam becoming state property and therefore property-tax exempt. The state could offer Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), which typically offers about 10 cents on the dollar, one Vernon official said.

A State of Vermont purchase of the TC Hydro dams, totally 567 megawatts and reportedly valued at about $800 million, is very far from a “done deal.” If the dams are instead sold to another corporation, Vernon and other revenue-challenged towns with Connecticut River TransCanada hydro assets can still keep collecting taxes.

 -------

Guy Page is the Communications Director for Vermont Energy Partnership, and a frequent guest blogger at this blog.

Vermont Utilities Buy Nuclear Capacity from New Hampshire: Guest post by Bruce Parker

Utilities buy nuclear capacity from New Hampshire as Vermont dismantles nuke plant

By Bruce Parker  /   July 8, 2015  / Vermont Watchdog

DECOMMISSIONED: Vermont Yankee, an electric generating nuclear power plant located in Vernon, Vt., generated 620 megawatts of electricity and provided 71 percent of the state’s electric generation before lawmakers and environmentalists pressured it to cease operations.caption

Utility companies in Vermont are buying nuclear capacity from New Hampshire while Vermont dismantles its former electricity-generating nuclear powerhouse.

“We got a 20-year contract with NextEra, which is not very typical,” David Hallquist, CEO of Vermont Electric Cooperative, said of his company’s move to stock up on low-cost nuclear generation.

“The generators who are going to be around a long time, such as a nuclear plant, are going to sell long-term contracts. And with the volatility of the forward capacity market … we expect upward pressure (on prices) to continue,” he said.

Hallquist said his company filed a petition with the Public Service Board the last week of June to get approval of the long-range contract with NextEra, a Florida-based energy company that operates a nuclear power plant in Seabrook, New Hampshire. The nuclear plant is attracting business as officials in the Green Mountain State work to decommission Vermont Yankee, a nuclear plant that formerly supplied 70 percent of all electricity generated in Vermont.

Vermont Electric Cooperative, the state’s largest locally-owned electric utility, seeks up to 10 megawatts of capacity from the Seabrook nuclear plant. Hallquist says locking in a long-term rate on nuclear capacity makes sense due to nuclear power’s affordability relative to other power sources.

“Capacity in New England used to be fairly inexpensive relative to today — and that was just two years ago that it was relatively inexpensive. The capacity charge was just $3 a megawatt-month back two years ago. Today it’s $10 a megawatt-month,” he said.

To keep the lights on and prevent blackouts, electric utilities purchase both energy and capacity. Energy, measured in megawatt hours, is the electricity currently being consumed. Capacity, in contrast, is stable backup power that utilities use to manage peak loads that draw upon the grid. The amount of capacity utilities need is determined by ISO standards set by 13 independent system operators across the country. Those operators monitor grid use and provide oversight to keep the grid stable.

Since Vermont Yankee closed in 2013 — in part due to hot pressure from Gov. Peter Shumlin and the state’s renewables-minded Legislature — utility companies in the Green Mountain State have scrambled to find reliable sources for their forward-capacity needs. According to Hallquist, wind and solar power are useless as sources of capacity.

“The problem is when you’re doing capacity you’ve got to make sure it’s there when you need it. So solar and wind, because it’s an intermittent resource, you can’t purchase it as a capacity tool. You can only purchase (it for) energy,” he said. “ISO New England has to make sure the generation is available when the load is there, and you can’t necessarily count on solar and wind for capacity, because it’s weather dependent.”

NEW HAMPSHIRE STRONG: Vermont utility companies are planning to purchase nuclear power capacity from New Hampshire’s Seabrook Station Nuclear Plant due to the plant’s stable generation and highly affordable rates.

Halquist’s company isn’t the only utility stocking up on next-door nuclear. In January, Green Mountain Power petitioned the Public Service Board for a 16-year, 150-megawatt contract purchase of nuclear from Seabrook.

“What we have filed for is a purchase that is mostly capacity and a little bit energy. We need that to help with our capacity obligations,” Dorothy Schnure, spokesperson for Green Mountain Power, told Vermont Watchdog.

Schnure said the company’s nuclear request underwent Public Service Board hearings in early June and now awaits approval.

“We went out to bid because we needed more capacity to help stabilize prices, and this was the lowest of the bids,” she said.

“Vermont at its peak uses about 1,100 megawatts of electricity. So you have to have enough generation, or capacity, available to satisfy that peak.”

Green Mountain Power uses nuclear generation for energy use as well as capacity, which is why its petition includes both. According to Schnure, the company hoped to reduce the nuclear energy in its portfolio but now intends to increase it.

“Originally, it was set to decrease to 50 (megawatts) and then decrease again to 40 megawatts. (As) part of this recent filing we slow the energy ramp down. Instead of going from 60 to 50 to 40, it goes from 60 to 50 to 55. So, going out into the future, we get a little bit more energy from Seabrook than we originally were getting in the original contract,“ she said.

In 2013, Entergy announced it was closing Vermont Yankee due to financial considerations. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission extended the plant’s operating license 20 years starting in 2011, and in 2012 Entergy won a court battle preventing the Vermont Legislature from shutting down its operations, which lawmakers attempted in 2010.

At the plant’s scheduled closing last December, Shumlin said he “long advocated for the closing of this plant.”

“I believe the ceasing of operations … after nearly 43 years represents a positive step for our state and our energy future. (T)hanks to investments in renewable energy such as solar, Vermont’s energy future is on a different, more sustainable path that is creating jobs, reducing energy costs for Vermonters and slowing climate change,” Shumlin said in a statement.

But Guy Page, communications director for the Vermont Energy Partnership, a coalition that advocates for clean, low-cost electricity solutions, said recent nuclear purchases tell a different story.

“There is a very sad irony to this situation. The source of power that had been demonized by Vermont’s energy leaders is now being embraced because it’s a decent, clean, low-cost solution to their energy problem,” he said.

“While it’s true it’s a good deal and it’s low carbon, Vermont is not getting the jobs. Vermont is not getting the tax revenue. Vermont is not getting the incredible donor benefit of having a large generous employer in their backyard.”

Page said Vermont Yankee, in addition to offering clean low-cost power, provided Winham County with good-paying jobs, money and volunteers for homeless shelters, and public safety emergency responders.

“That free infrastructure that was there because of the generosity of these people, they won’t be getting that from Seabrook.”

Page claims the situation in Vermont compares with Germany, which closed nuclear plants after the Fukushima disaster in Japan, but had to install coal plants to make up for the lost electricity generation.

“We’ve lost Vermont Yankee, and who knows what else we’re going to lose. What they’re saying is let’s double down on natural gas, let’s build more pipelines, let’s build more renewables,” Page said. “No one in power is talking about, gosh, maybe we ought to keep our existing nuke plants around. … It’s so easy to say no and wave a flag and feel good. But what are you going to do in its place?”

Contact Bruce Parker at bparker@watchdog.org


Bruce Parker is a reporter for Watchdog.org. Contact him at bparker@watchdog.org and follow him on Twitter @WatchdogVT

Sign-up for our Vermont Watchdog email list to receive the latest news and in-depth coverage.

COPYRIGHT
© 2015 Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity

-------

This article originally appeared at Vermont Watchdog Org on July 8, 2015, and is used with permission.

Guy Page of Vermont Energy Partnership is quoted near the end of this post. Page is a frequent guest blogger at this blog.  David Hallquist, CEO of Vermont Electric Co-Op, is quoted near the beginning of this post.  Mr. Hallquist has published a guest post on this blog.

Meredith Angwin sends her appreciation to Bruce Parker, Guy Page and David Hallquist for their appearance on this blog.

Martingale Reveals Design for Mass-Produced Nuclear Power Plants

ThorCon Nuclear Island
Entire structure is underground
Thorcon graphic used with permission

Martingale reveals a bold approach to solving the global issues of poverty, pollution, energy security, and climate. The ThorCon liquid-fuel nuclear reactor design is detailed at thorconpower.com.

ThorCon is a complete system of power generation modules, interchange maintenance, and liquid fuel service that produces energy cheaper than coal. Principal engineer Jack Devanney led a four-year skunkworks project that has created a new kind of nuclear power plant, integrating proven technologies with breakthrough approaches to manufacturing and licensing. Production can start by 2020. Today Martingale is publishing its design for cheap, reliable, CO2-free electricity at thorconpower.com.

Former MIT professor Devanney’s background in shipbuilding created respect for low-cost, high-precision, block-unit manufacturing at Korean shipyards. He saw how such prefabricated blocks could enable production of enough nuclear power plants to make a global difference, a hundred a year.

Author Robert Hargraves writes that selling so many power plants requires clear, simple economics, cheaper than coal. Coal is today’s energy choice of developing nations, now planning to build over 1400 gigawatt-size coal power plants to enable their economic development.

Lawrence Livermore Lab veteran nuclear scientist Ralph Moir says that today’s nuclear power industry is wedded to expensive solid-fuel nuclear reactors, even though the simplicity of liquid fuels was demonstrated at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Moir and Devanney modernized that design for mass production. ThorCon uses uranium and thorium fuel dissolved in molten salt to create a power plant that makes electricity cheaper than coal.

Stanford engineering alums Chris Uhlik and Lars Jorgensen contributed to the design of passive safety functions that operate without mechanical or electronic controls, even with no power. The reactor is 30 meters underground. Overheating drains the fuel salt from the reactor. There are four barriers between the fuel salt and the atmosphere. ThorCon is walk-away safe.

Taking another lesson from Oak Ridge, Martingale advocates a return to staged testing of physical prototypes for new nuclear reactor designs. This made the US the world standard for nuclear designs in the 1960s. Martingale supports adoption of the same license-by-test model that has enabled US leadership in aviation and drug discovery.

Martingale is designing ThorCon in the US while targeting its first installations in forward-looking countries that support technology-neutral nuclear regulations and see the benefits of the license-by-test process. ThorCon opens up a practically limitless supply of low-cost, reliable, carbon-free power by 2020.

--------

My contact for this announcement is Dr. Robert Hargraves, a member of the ThorCon design team. Hargraves has been a strong supporter of Vermont Yankee (I love his blog post Vernon New Hampshire about why Vernon should secede from Vermont.) He has many other posts at this blog, such as The Politics of Fear.  I also strongly encourage you to look at his website: Radiation, the Facts.

While supporting existing nuclear facilities, Hargraves has continued to work on developing the next generation of nuclear plants.  His book, THORIUM, Energy cheaper than coal, is a review of world-wide energy issues....and a proposed solution.

Discussion note.  There's a great discussion of this technology at Rod Adams Atomic Insights blog post about the ThorCon announcement. Here's the link to the post:  ThorCon --Demonstrated Molten Salt Tech Packaged with Modern Construction Techniques.   Adams himself is the inventor of the Adams Engines (tm) which can use nuclear heat sources for a gas turbine.

There are more than sixty comments on Adams' ThorCon blog post: many of the comments are from engineers and material scientists.   Much as I love to have comments on my blog, I think my readers will enjoy a better discussion by commenting on Adams blog.

All of Vermont Wins When Vermont Yankee Operates

Vermont Yankee in March, 2012

When Vermont Yankee was built, its 40-year Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license was standard for new plants at that time. Although a new 20-year license was granted last year, the original license expires March 21. That day has become a rallying cry for plant opponents, who insist the plant must "shut down safely."

Many opponents speak as if it will be a personal defeat if the plant operates for a day past the 21st. They don't actually claim that on the 22nd, the plant will have safety problems that it didn't have on the 21st. Instead, whether the plant operates past the 21st has become a matter of "who wins...me or them?"

Safety is essential. To discredit Vermont Yankee, opponents make three standard safety-related claims. This article will answer these claims with facts, not win-lose rhetorical statements. The claims are:

1) Vermont Yankee is an old plant.

2) It could have an accident like Fukushima.

3) It puts nuclear waste on the banks of the Connecticut River.

1) Age and Vermont Yankee

Vermont Yankee is a steam-electric plant. It heats water to raise steam to turn turbines and make electricity. Coal plants are also steam-electric plants. Requirements for maintaining plant integrity are similar for nuclear and for coal. The median age of operating coal plants in this country is 46 years, and thirty coal plants have been running for more than 60 years.

I was a corrosion specialist in my working life. There are corrosion issues special to nuclear plants, and there are corrosion issues special to coal plants. These problems are different, but one is not worse than the other. If anything, coal plants have the harder time with corrosion, scaling, and other operating problems because they have to move so much material (coal) through the plant.

The power uprate made several years ago helps contribute to Vermont Yankee's reliability and safety. Opponents imagine that the power uprate is merely a matter of pushing an old plant too hard. Actually, the NRC only grants uprates when significant improvements have been made to the plant. At Vermont Yankee, Entergy in the last decade has installed $400 million dollars worth of new equipment. Much of this equipment was required for the power uprate.

In the nuclear industry, it is conventional wisdom that a power uprate is a good way to prepare for a license extension review. The plant replaces key equipment for the uprate, and the new equipment helps the plant achieve its license extension.

2) It could have an accident like Fukushima

On March 11, 2011, a massive earthquake and tsunami struck Japan. Schools collapsed, villages were swept out to sea, and an estimated 20,000 people died.

Five nuclear stations containing fifteen reactors were affected by the tsunami. All the reactors survived the earthquake, but transmission lines failed and diesel generators were flooded. At one site, three reactors lost power for too long, resulting in fuel damage, hydrogen explosions and radiation release. In accordance with emergency plans, population evacuations began almost immediately.

Japan is an industrial powerhouse and technically astute country. The question arises: Could it happen here? Shortly after Fukushima, a prominent anti-nuclear activist worried that a meltdown could happen to Vermont Yankee if a big hurricane came to the Connecticut River Valley.

A few months later, Hurricane Irene flooded whole towns and washed out roads in Vermont. Vermont Yankee still made power at full capacity. Nuclear plants are among the sturdiest structures on the planet. Vermont Yankee is designed for a 500-year-flood, 360 mph tornado winds, and severe earthquakes. Worldwide, plants have operated through hurricanes, floods and tornados, as well as earthquakes.

To operate safely, a nuclear plant needs adequate cooling water and electricity. Vermont Yankee has resilient cooling systems, appropriate for its site. The plant draws water from Vernon Pond and also stores millions of gallons on-site. It has several types of electrical backup. Its diesel generators are above the 500-year-flood level, and it also has a direct power line to Vernon Dam. River water can be pumped directly into the reactor, if necessary. Vermont Yankee is well-engineered for its location.

3) Nuclear Waste on the Banks of the Connecticut River

The storage of spent nuclear fuel is another hot-button for nuclear opponents. They delight in saying how some of this material has a half life of thousands, millions, or billions of years. They speak of the half-life in terms that imply it is terrifying that something will be radioactive for so long.

Actually, as a general rule, the longer the half-life, the less dangerous the material.

Let's look at what a "long half-life" means. Say I had a hundred atoms of an isotope with a ten-minute half-life. By the definition of “half-life”, fifty of those atoms would release radioactivity in a ten-minute period. That would be a comparatively high radioactivity release in a short time.

Now imagine I have a hundred atoms of an isotope with a ten year half life. Again by the definition of half-life, fifty atoms would release radioactivity over a period of ten years. In other words, every few months, one atom would release some radioactivity, and a few months later, another atom would. The isotope with a ten-year half-life is far less radioactive than the isotope with the ten-minute half-life.

The low radiation level of long-half-life elements is the reason we can walk in the hills, despite the presence of radioactive elements in the native rocks. These elements have long half-lives. An isotope with a million year half-life is not a very radioactive isotope!

In the near term, the dry casks can hold the fuel in great safety for hundreds of years. In the long term, "radioactive for millions of years" is a scary sound-byte but...it does not indicate high levels of danger, now or in the future.

On March 22

When the plant operates on March 22, some plant opponents will feel they have "lost.” The plant, however, will operate as safely as it had on March 21. Plant opponents may feel that they have “lost” but Vermont will have won a future of abundant power and jobs in the southern part of the state. Safely.

---------

This article was one of a group published by the Burlington Free Press on March 18, shortly before the Vermont Yankee "license-expiration" date of March 21, 2012. You can read the article in the Free Press here. If you do, be sure to read the comments! The article was also reprinted in other local newspapers, such at The Commons.

--------

Photos include the Capitol Power Plant in Washington D.C, a coal-burning plant that was built in 1910 and continued to burn all coal until 2009, when environmental protests caused a switch to partial natural-gas firing. It is there as an example of how long power plants can operate, if people want them to operate.

Another picture is Hurricane Irene, from Wikipedia, and an image of happy people at Granite Gorge. Granite contains elements that are radioactive, with very long half-lives. Despite this radioactivity, New Hampshire has nick-named itself the Granite State and promotes tourism to the mountains. As it should! If you don't get a chance to visit Vermont, visit New Hampshire!

Where Vermont Power Will Come From After Vermont Yankee

Rainfall in U S during ice storm
Does not include rainfall Jan 4 and 5

On Sunday, the Valley News published my op-ed Yankee's Closing Will Hurt Vermont. 

I always enjoy having an op-ed in the my local Sunday paper.  I hope you read it. It's about the probable effects on Vermont when Vermont Yankee closes.

Factors Affecting Vermont Electricity 

As I wrote in the op-ed:

Vermont Yankee’s closing will affect everyone in Vermont. It will make our electricity more expensive, more fossil-fuel based and less reliable.

I explained the factors that will affect our power supply and pricing after Vermont Yankee closes.  Specifically:

• The plant will not be replaced by renewables.  Wind turbine construction in Vermont is practically at a standstill, for example.
• Our power will come from outside Vermont, and be subject to various sorts of interruption, including too few natural gas supply lines, ice storms, and HydroQuebec needing to use its electricity in Quebec during a cold snap.
• The electricity price will follow the grid price of natural gas.  According to FERC, the New England price of natural gas is set to rise substantially (from $6.60 MMBTU to $11.75 MMBTU).  In the rest of the country, the price of natural gas is set to remain stable.
• Grid payments of $75 million to oil-burning plants (the ISO-NE Winter Reliability Program) will be rolled into our electricity costs.

What About the People at Vermont Yankee?

Realtor map of my area
Map shows town boundaries
Dartmouth is in Hanover
My home is in Hartford

Several people asked me why I didn't mention the people at Vermont Yankee, the effect of the plant closing on the local economy, the effect on the state economy, the effect on the state taxes?  

There's a simple reason.  I live about sixty miles north of the plant, and I think people in this area don't care very much about southern Vermont.  People here generally commute across the bridge to New Hampshire, where they work at Dartmouth College, Dartmouth Medical Center, and many high-tech industries spawned by Dartmouth (for example, HyperTherm).  

People here care where their electricity comes from. They care about reliability and about environmental impact.  They care somewhat about their electric bills.  My own feeling is people here don't care that much about what happens to Brattleboro or Vernon. They are insulated from many aspects of the Vermont economy through their jobs in New Hampshire.

Therefore, for my local paper, I wrote about things that affect all of Vermont: where our electricity comes from, how reliable it is, how fossil fuels will be used to produce our electricity, and how expensive electricity may become.

The Op-Ed

For an op-ed, Yankee's Closing Will Hurt Vermont was  very data-dense!  Sometimes I wondered--where was the "opinion" part?  Why did I write it this way?

Still, it was fun to write, and I plan to reprint it on this blog in a week or so.  

However, I always like to have people access the op-ed at the newspaper for a few days before I begin putting it on my own blog.  I hope you enjoy the article.

----

P.S.  Just came across an article in a Boston business journal which says that Boston should expect a 20% percent price rise in electricity this winter, for some of the same reasons I discussed for expecting price rises in Vermont.

Video Views about the Vermont Yankee Injunction Ruling

Some recent local news videos explain a lot about the injunction ruling in a short time-frame.

Jobs

The first is a two-minute clip from WMUR in Hinsdale, New Hampshire, across the Connecticut River from the power plant at Vernon. The video gives a neighbor's view of the potential Vermont Yankee closing.

Potential VT Yankee Shutdown Raises Jobs Anxiety - Project Economy News Story - WMUR New Hampshire

Legal Implications

The second is a five minute clip of Cheryl Hanna of Vermont Law School, sharing her view of Judge Murtha's ruling. In summary, Hanna says that Entergy has lost this battle, but not lost the war. She also recommends that people read the footnotes in Murtha's ruling.

No injunction: Will Vermont Yankee keep operating? - WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-

The River and the Rhetoric--Who Speaks for the River

Protests On the Water

Connecticut River.  View from near my house.
My river runs through it.  It's not just their river.

The Sage Alliance is planning an anti-Vermont Yankee flotilla tomorrow on the Connecticut River.  The title of their rally is Our River Runs Through It: Flotilla and Rally to Stop VT Yankee Pollution   The opponents continue to assert, in word and action, that Vermont Yankee thermal pollution is killing the fish in the Connecticut River.

As a matter of fact, Arnie Gundersen has stated that there are only sixteen shad left in the Connecticut River.  My blog post about this statement: Hot Climate and Cold Fish: Gundersen's Debate Misstatements received over thirty comments.  Most of the comments told me that Gundersen was right and who was I to say that he was wrong?

Let's start with "Who am I to say Gundersen is wrong?" Well, I live a hop and skip from the river, which is more than Gundersen can say. More particularly, let's look at the people who claim to care about the Connecticut River.

Graphic from Watershed Council website

The Connecticut River Watershed Council

David Deen, a Vermont Legislator and river guide, is River Steward for the Upper Valley of the Connecticut River Watershed Council.  Deen will be one of the key speakers at the anti-Vermont Yankee flotilla.  The Connecticut River Watershed Council paid for reports that claim that Vermont Yankee is "baking" the wildlife.  A report issued in August received much media attention. This article in the Brattleboro Reformer describes Deen going to Entergy offices with cookies, and trying to hand them the report.

Interestingly, only one media outlet, WCAX, included this quote from Deen about the report: "We are not saying that Entergy is in violation of their permit. But what we are saying is that the formula that the permit is based on, ANR is not collecting a critical piece of data," said David Deen of the Connecticut River Watershed Council.

I thank Adam Sullivan and WCAX for putting the Watershed Council's cookie-baking in context.  Entergy is not in violation of their permit.  The Watershed people just don't like the permit.

Who is the Connecticut River Watershed Council?

When I first heard of the Watershed Council, I thought it was a consortium of government entities that are affected by Connecticut River watershed issues. After all, watersheds cross county lines, township lines, state lines.  A council of government agencies is usually required to manage a watershed properly.  The title of this organization would lead a person toward that conclusion.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  This is an advocacy organization, like the Sierra Club or VPIRG.  Its name is as clever as VPIRG's name: Vermont Public Interest Research Group.  How many headlines have I read saying "Research Group says VY should close" (or words to that effect).  The "research group" was VPIRG, of course.  Naming an organization well can be a great advantage.

I should have guessed the Watershed Council was an advocacy group.  Deen is a River Steward with the group. Most government programs have "chairpersons" or "planning specialists."  They don't have River Stewards.  That's a title from Merry Olde England,  or maybe from Tolkien.

The Connecticut River Joint Commissions

Map of the Connecticut
From the Connecticut River Joint Commissions

In contrast, there is an official body concerned with Connecticut River watershed issues.  The Connecticut River Joint Commissions consists of legislative advisory bodies concerned with the Connecticut River. The Joint Commissions were set up by the New Hampshire and Vermont legislatures.  Fifty three Towns (in Vermont and New Hampshire) border on the Connecticut.

River management is divided into Local Committees, each responsible for understanding and advising on a section of the river. The selectmen of each town appoint up to two members of the Local Committee.  It is truly a citizen's advisory body, and does a great deal of planning.  For example, the Water Resources Management Plan provides significant guidance for many topics along the river.

The Connecticut River Join Commission holds meetings and work weekends.  It advises on permitting, boat safety, and non-point-source discharge concerns.



Who Speaks for the River?

The Watershed Council claims to speak for the Connecticut River. To some extent, it may.  It has paid staff, but it is also a volunteer group, and volunteer groups are important.  However, in this case, the group has become self-important, constantly attacking Vermont Yankee.  For example, the group claims that that the thermal plume from Vermont Yankee can be detected fifty miles downstream to Holyoke, Massachusetts. Considering that the river flows through Vernon Dam and is diverted to the Northfield Pumped Storage plant before getting to Holyoke, a thermal plume visible that far downstream is improbable, to say the least.

 The Watershed people paid for a study that claimed the plume was visible and the delta-T (temperature change) remained in the river fifty miles downstream. I find this study unconvincing, as it mixes critiques of computer models, dye-tests in the river, and measurements. It seems to claim the only thing that could be heating anything downriver is...the thermal plume from Vermont Yankee.  I admit, however, that I am not a hydrologist.

To me, the study looks like a mish-mash with an agenda. The only thing the study considers is the thermal plume from Vermont Yankee.  Any temperature change is because of the thermal plume from Vermont Yankee.  Pumped storage...not mentioned.  Evaporative cooling from the river...not mentioned. Sunny days, rainy days...not mentioned. Mt. Tom coal-fired plant upriver of Holyoke...not mentioned.  Vermont Yankee controls all. Or at least, it controls the entire hypothesis.  No alternate explanations need apply.

On the basis of this work, the group now acts as if it is a fact that thermal plumes can survive dams, pumping stations, pumped storage reservoirs, and fifty miles of river.  This is advocacy gone mad, in my opinion.

The Commission Speaks For Most of Us

In my opinion, the Watershed Council  group and its Stewards have their own agenda, which seems to have very little to do with what happens on the  Connecticut River.  On the other hand, the Connecticut River Joint Commissions are made up of local people who do not hold archaic titles. These people are far more likely to speak for the river, in my opinion.

And they speak for me.  After all, it's my river, too.

The Politics of Fear. Guest Post by Robert Hargraves

Fear sells. Fear for child safety lets Verizon Wireless sell tracking of kids’ cellphone locations, though child abductions have not increased. Fear of household invasion is raising sales of household alarms and security devices, though crime rates have fallen. Fear of disease sells unnecessary full body CT scans, discovering pseudo diseases that raise health care costs.

Frank Furedi, at the University of Kent, cites fear of genetically modified crops, mobile phones, global warming, and foot-and-mouth disease. He argues that perceptions of risk, ideas about safety, and controversies over health, the environment and technology have little to do with science or empirical evidence.

Politicians use fear. Bush used fear of Hussein’s atomic bomb development to rally support to invade Iraq. Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski argued that the use of the term War on Terror was intended to deliberately generate a culture of fear, because it “obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue.” Furedi continues, “Politics has internalized the culture of fear. So political disagreements are often over which risk the public should worry about the most.”

Vermont politicians have used fear this way. Arousing fears of Vermont Yankee has enabled politicians to posture themselves as public saviors, focus on a single topic, and get elected. Yet this power plant is the safest, carbon-free, least expensive source of electricity Vermonters can have.

Yet fear causes flight — back to nature — back to the forest and the Tree of Souls in Pandora in Avatar. Producer David Cameron knew his audiences’ emotions when he designed this best selling film grossing over $2.7 billion.

Frightened people think of natural power — from windmills, waterfalls, sunlight, and wood-burning — will save us. The arousal of fear and the flight to renewable energy obscures the facts about their risks, costs, and environmental impacts. If we accept green, renewable, natural energy as the ultimate goal, then we also thoughtlessly accept the proffered stepping stone of natural gas, even if it does emit more CO2.

This is an emotional conflict — fear vs nature. Einstein said we can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. So let’s try another level of consciousness — rationality. Listen to fear messages and consider their sources and content. Do they come from scientists, engineers, regulators, or radiation oncologists? Do they have numbers? What are the costs? What risks are acceptable? One in 77 people end their lives in traffic accidents, yet we accept this death rate as the price for driving. Can we be rational about the risks, costs, and environmental impacts of Vermont Yankee?

-------------

Dr. Robert Hargraves teaches Rethinking Nuclear Power at Dartmouth ILEAD. Hargraves and I co-taught Energy Safari at Ilead. Hargraves promotes the development of thorium reactors through his book, Aim High, and through videos.

In terms of this blog, he is perhaps most famous for his video Vermont Yankee Explained, and for his post, Vernon, New Hampshire. In that post, he suggests that the town of Vernon should secede from Vermont.

This op-ed has also been published by True North Reports.

The illustration is The Scream by Edvard Munch, from Wikipedia

Songs for the Outage: Save a Millirem, and Don't Stand So Close

Songs for the Outage

Vermont Yankee is in the middle of the much-discussed refueling outage: Would they or wouldn't they load fuel? Nobody knew for sure.

Vermont Yankee is loading fuel. They are doing it. Hundreds of people are working hundreds of hours. Sometimes it feels like each individual person is working hundreds of hours. I decided to honor everyone working the outage at Vermont Yankee with Songs for An Outage.

Fifty Ways to Save a Millirem

The first song: Fifty Ways to Save a Millirem, was on my blog before, on the post, Vernon, New Hampshire? (That post suggested that Vernon secede from Vermont.) Here's the song again.

Don't Stand So Close

Here's another song, Don't Stand So Close, this time by the Rad Police (as opposed to The Police). I can't make out some of the lyrics, so if someone can hear them more clearly, please send the lyrics as a comment to this blog.



Have a great Refueling, Vermont Yankee!

Members of the Decommissioning Advisory Panel: Guest Post by Guy Page

Introducing the Vermont Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel
 Guest post by Guy Page of Vermont Energy Partnership

The newly appointed, 19-member Vermont Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel (CAP) reflects many of the policy and advocacy positions on all sides of the ongoing Vermont Yankee discussion. CAP’s first meeting is this Thursday, September 25, from 6:00-9:00 p.m. in the multi-purpose room of Brattleboro Union High School. All meetings are open to the public.

The CAP will serve a similar role in decommissioning Vermont Yankee that the disbanded Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel (VSNAP) served for the operational plant: providing a question and comment forum for members and the concerned public. However, the new panel, unlike VSNAP, includes two seats reserved for Entergy, owner of Vermont Yankee.

Kate O’Connor and Martin Langeveld were appointed by Gov. Peter Shumlin. Ms. O’Connor is a longtime Democratic operative, having mainly worked for governors Madeleine Kunin, Howard Dean, and Peter Shumlin. Most recently she lost the August, 2014 Democratic primary for the Brattleboro House seat. Mr. Langeveld is a Vernon planning commissioner and former Brattleboro Reformer publisher who has expressed, at local post-closure hearings, a strong interest in leveraging the closing of Vermont Yankee for the economic benefit of the local economy.

Senate Pro Tem John Campbell appointed Jim Matteau. During his tenure on VSNAP, Mr. Matteau often took an aggressive posture against Vermont Yankee. Campbell also appointed James Tonkovich of Wilder, Windham County. He is an employee of Vermont 2-1-1, a United Way of Vermont program that helps people in emergencies find the assistance they need. In this capacity, Tonkovich has participated in mock emergency drills at Vermont Yankee.

Speaker of the House Shap Smith appointed Rep. David Deen (D-Westminster), chair of the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee, and River Steward for the Connecticut River Watershed Council, an environmental advocacy group that is a frequent critic and legal challenger of the plant’s use of river water for cooling. Mr. Smith also appointed Derrick Jordan of Putney, a past member of the Citizens Awareness Network.

Besides Matteau, appointments from VSNAP include Chair Chris Recchia, commissioner of the Department of Public Service, Sen. Mark MacDonald (D-Orange), and Mike Hebert (R-Vernon). Labor representative, Vermont Yankee employee, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers official David Andrews has been a strong Vermont Yankee supporter.

Representing Entergy Nuclear on the panel are T. Michael Twomey, vice president of external affairs of Entergy Wholesale Commodities, and site vice-president Christopher Wamser. Other panelists include Human Services representative designee William Irwin, state officials David Mears and Pat Moulton, and Windham Regional Commission executive director Chris Campany. Planning Commissioner Stephen Skibniowski will represent the Town of Vernon.

State Sen. Molly Kelly of Keene, N.H., will represent five nearby New Hampshire towns. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has yet to name a panel member.

--------

Guy Page of VTEP has frequent guest posts on this blog.  His most recent post was Reasons the Public Service Board Should Approve the CPG for Vermont Yankee.

I also have a recent post on the topic of the panel membership, Decommissioning Panel Appointments: Good, Bad and Ugly  However, I did not describe the complete membership of the panel.  Page's post is a valuable reference for understanding the panel.

Doing the Numbers on Solarizing: Guest Post by Dr. Robert Hargraves

Dr. Robert Hargraves

I attended Solarize Hanover at the high school Thursday evening, an event put on by many well-intended neighbors. To fight global warming from CO2 emissions they recommend rooftop PV solar panels for electricity that our utility company, Liberty, would otherwise generate from natural gas. An investment of $20,000 for a 5 kilowatt-peak-power PV system would “net" 6000 kilowatt-hours per year of electricity. At about 15 cents/kWh otherwise paid to Liberty this saves the homeowner $900. Solarize Hanover claims an investment payback of 7-12 years. This is only possible through extensive subsidies. Almost half of the $20,000 is recovered by tax credits, placing that cost on other citizen taxpayers.

Other Liberty utility customers also provide a subsidy because of “net” metering. On sunny days the PV solar panels indeed generate 5 kW of power for a few mid-day hours, but the average household consumption is only about 1 kW, so roughly 4 kW of the power (80%) is sent back to Liberty, which is required to buy it at the 15 cents/kWh rate. This raises Liberty’s costs, because it would normally buy cheaper electricity from hydro, nuclear, or natural gas generators at about 5 cents/kWh. This raises rates Liberty must charge other customers. This other-customer subsidy is roughly 80% x (15-5) cents/kWh x 6000 kWh = $480 per year.

CO2 emissions saved by avoiding burning natural gas for electricity are 333 grams/kWh, so each such Solarize Hanover home reduces emissions by 6000 x 333 grams = 2 tonnes of CO2 per year. World CO2 emissions from coal-fired generation of electricity are 10 billion tonnes/year and are expected to double as developing nations prosper.

-------

Dr. Robert Hargraves is the author of Thorium, Energy Cheaper than Coal and an occasional guest blogger on this blog.  I have always been particularly fond of his humorous post: Vernon, New Hampshire?  He is also the author of many more scholarly works, and I recommend his website on radiation safety limits. Exposure limits for radiation should be set a lot higher than they are currently set.

This post appeared as a letter to the editor in the Valley News, October 28. However, the Valley News edited out the sentence on the calculation of other-customer subsidies.  This is the complete letter.

Vermont Yankee Explained by Robert Hargraves

My friend Dr. Robert Hargraves has a Ph.D. in physics, teaches Rethinking Nuclear Power at ILEAD, and co-founded the Coalition for Energy Solutions (I am a member). Many people who read this blog may also remember his post: Vernon New Hampshire? He also presented the history of Vermont Yankee at the first Ethan Allen Energy Education Project meeting. I also gave him a Blue Ribbon on this blog for all the work he does for nuclear power, including thorium reactors.

Yesterday he posted this six-minute video, Vermont Yankee Explained. I love it.

Send it to your friends, too! Here's the link, as well as the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR_tg8338_c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Three Views of the Outage

The First View: Business is Booming in Brattleboro

Vermont Yankee is on a refueling outage, and business is booming in Brattleboro. This video shows people in Brattleboro who own small businesses, and are happy with the lively days and free-flowing money of the nuclear workers coming into town for the outage. They are happy with the plant, too.

This is a group that doesn't go to Vermont Yankee hearings in the evenings. This is a group you seldom see on TV.




(If you can't access the embedded video, you should be able to link to it here.)

The Second View: Hatred of the Plant and Its People

Not everyone in Brattleboro likes the plant or its people.

On the "Save Vermont Yankee" group page in Facebook, Entergy employee Theresa Derting had this post:

Went to a local hardware store today and bought some last-minute supplies for the outage, used my company credit card, and got sneered at by the guy taking my money. Guess who won't go back there?

(I have Ms. Dertling's permission to use this post in my blog.)

I would like to think that being sneered at because you work for Entergy is an unusual occurrence in Brattleboro, but it isn't. Brattleboro votes against Vermont Yankee. Brattleboro sent two of the most fervent anti-VY people (Rep. Sarah Edwards and Pro Temp Peter Shumlin) to the Statehouse. A constant stream of anti-VY letters-to-the-editor in the Brattleboro paper serve to infuriate or depress plant employees in Vernon. The people at the plant call the Brattleboro paper the Mis-Informer and many of them refuse to read it.

Emails

Plant employees are often treated like pariahs. My evidence comes from emails that I have received, and postings on the Save Vermont Yankee page of Facebook.

• One Entergy employee said that when the employees went to Montpelier last May, senators and representatives "seemed to be avoiding us."
• Another employee emailed me that she frequently feels like crying, because her family is from the area and she feels so many of the locals hate the employees.
• An employee of nuclear plant in the South visited VY to do some benchmarking. She emailed me that felt she didn't want to admit that she worked at the plant while she was in downtown Brattleboro. She felt very uncomfortable.

I have more examples, but in the interest of length, I will stop here.

In an earlier post, I talked about the two cultures, and people at the plant and anti-nuclear people were unlikely to see eye to eye. In the VPR article about the two cultures, people at the plant talked of their jobs, church and families. Some spoke of feeling unwelcome. In contrast, anti-nuclear people spoke of their fears that something would go wrong at the plant and hurt them. Different issues for the different groups. The article on two cultures is well worth reading.

Brattleboro is Southern Vermont

This is hard to write, because most people (at the plant, in Brattleboro) are good people and treat each other well. Yet there is a significant minority in Brattleboro who are happy to marginalize plant employees and temporary workers. Some of these people treat VY employees as non-people who have no feelings, and generally act as if the people of Brattleboro are the ruling class and the people of Vernon are.....

Hey, I'll go further. I'll say what I mean. Some anti-nuclear people in Brattleboro act as if they are the whites in the pre-integration South.

The whites in the pre-integration South were top dogs. They were defending their way of life from interlopers and frightening possibilities. The whites of the Old South were sure they were right, and they were highly self-righteous. They weren't shy about keeping the "others" in their place with interruptions and other methods of showing that the words and actions of the marginalized people didn't count for much. They were proud of these actions.

It sounds familiar.

This attitude is not universal among the anti-nuclear people in Brattleboro, and most people on both sides of the fence are basically good-hearted. But I would be lying if I said that scorn of plant workers is uncommon in Brattleboro.

The Third View: The View from Montpelier

Outages are scheduled, plant project charts are prepared, but Montpelier goes right ahead with its agenda.

If you remember, in a post about Old Tritium and New Problems, I described how the Conservation Law Foundation had persuaded (or maybe forced) the Public Service Board to open up a whole new docket about Vermont Yankee, docket 7600. This docket is not about license renewal; it's about shutting the plant down early due to the leak of tritiated water. In my February 27 post, I suggested that the leak would be found and fixed before the new docket could get underway.

I was right, but mere facts can't stop a docket. There's been all sorts of flapping around because the various intervenor consultants on that docket want to visit VY and see the holes and the remediation. They want to come, outage or no outage. The consultants can't re-arrange their schedules. Also, it is possible that the remediation work could finish during the outage and the consultants wouldn't get to see it. The consultants will visit Thursday, April 29, during the outage. The Burlington Free Press blogged about this. The Public Service Board interviewed all stakeholders and issued a Board Order. The visit will happen despite the outage.

Parking on site will be a problem, due to hundreds of extra workers. Security may also be a problem. The visitors will have to carpool from an off-site parking lot. I am sure this will work out fine, with only minimum inconvenience to the intervenors.

End Note:

Tamar Cerafici has an excellent post today about the communications issues at Vermont Yankee. My friend Tamar is a lawyer who lives in New Hampshire.

Protests Grow in Southern Vermont. About Biomass.

The Biomass Facility

Pownal Vermont is the proposed home of a 29 MW biomass plant and wood pellet facility. Like Vernon, home of Vermont Yankee, Pownal is in southern Vermont, close to the Massachusetts border. Pownal is in the western half of Vermont, near New York State, while Vernon is in the eastern half, near New Hampshire.

People in Pownal and neighboring Massachusetts are vigorously protesting the biomass plant. About eighteen protesters recently lined the road to the proposed plant (there's a great picture in that link). At meetings in local churches, groups against biomass have described many possible hazards, including:

• biomass plants used as incinerators
• biomass plants starting fires in neighboring areas
• particulate from biomass escaping the very best scrubbers, and lodging in people's lungs

A biomass opposition website contains extensive information about the hazards of biomass, along with specific ideas on how to fight this plant. Plant opponents also attack the safety record of the company proposing to build the plant.

If the company breaks ground for the plant before the end of the year, the developers may be eligible for $50 to $80 million in federal grants. Naturally, plant opponents are eager to slow them down. As Vermont Digger reports: Pownal resident Doreen Forney said she wants to see the process slowed. “At least be thorough with your investigation of this company,” she said. However, it is not just this company that is the problem. Vermont Digger reports that Rachel Smolker of Biofuel Watch Group states that “Big oil sees this (biomass) as a way out of their oil dilemma...There are a lot of powers at play here,””

Still, some local residents want the plant. Others feel that biomass money should be used for solar and wind power instead.

Thanksgiving

Why does this all sound so very familiar?

I give thanks that I don't plan to investigate the pros and cons of this biomass plant.

It is interesting to observe yet more excitement about power plants on the Vermont/Massachusetts border. That is why I decided to blog about this protest. But I'm not going any further with this.

For electric power production, I prefer heat engines based on nuclear fission. I'm going to leave it at that.

Woodpile image from Wikimedia

Meeting about Decomm and Important Posts about Closing Vermont Yankee

Marlboro College
Graduate School Building
graphic from Wikipedia

The Meeting and the Comments

Yesterday, I posted about ways to comment about Vermont Yankee's decommissioning plans. The comment period is only open until Tuesday.

Tonight, there is a meeting in Brattleboro of the Vermont Nuclear Decommissioning Citizen Advisory Panel (NDCAP).  The meeting starts at 6 p.m. at Marlboro College on Vernon Street.  Here's a link to the agenda. Regrettably, I still have a rather bad cold, and I will not be attending.

Did I say "regrettably"? Hmm....I try to be more honest than that!  These meetings can be very hard to attend because the nuclear opponents tend to dominate the conversation.  However, I have heard that this NDCAP meetings have been far more civilized than the earlier VSNAP meetings.  I encourage people to attend and support Vermont Yankee's continued operation and careful closing.

The 165 Layoffs and the Pain

As Vermont Digger posted yesterday, Entergy has announced that 165 Vermont Yankee workers will be laid off on January 19. According to an Entergy press release, 69 of these workers live in Vermont, 48 live in New Hampshire and 39 live in Massachusetts.  (I linked to the Digger article rather than the press release because you can comment on the Digger article.)

Evan Twarog at the left
Speaking at Rotary Day  at the U N

Today, I have a guest blog post at NEI Nuclear Notes about the spreading pain of Vermont Yankee closing. I attempt to cover layoffs, taxes, the grid, and my opinion that the Entergy payments for Windham County development won't help Vermont Yankee employees that much. I hope you read it and comment on it.  Pain from Vermont Yankee Closing Spreads Far and Wide.

Evan Twarog about the pain on the grid

Evan Twarog, the son of a Vermont Yankee employee, is now a blogger at Atomic Insights.  Today he has a very well-researched and thoughtful post about the price rises on the grid.  Power in New England: Why are Prices Increasing So Rapidly?  As usual, at Atomic Insights, the comment stream is also worth reading.

Those of you who follow this blog may remember that Twarog has been a frequent guest blogger, and was a summer intern at the Ethan Allen Institute Energy Education Project, two summers ago.

NEI Report on Vermont Yankee

This week, the Nuclear Energy Institute has written an excellent multi-faceted report on Vermont Yankee.  My blog post (linked above) was the final step in this report.  I encourage you to read the entire report, bookmark it, and use it!

Blog posts:

Closing Vermont Yankee, and All That It Means (overview and market problems)
Vermont Yankee and the Looming Energy Crisis (the energy market shortfalls)
Vermont Yankee and All That It Does Not Produce (effect of closing on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative)
Pain From Vermont Yankee Closing Spreads Far and Wide  (my post, referenced above)

The report itself (Permanent at the NEI site, not blog posts):

Closing Vermont Yankee (overview and links to other pages, including great links about the energy markets, nationwide)
Nuclear Plant Shutdowns Reveal Market Problems
New England's Looming Energy Crisis
Vermont Yankee Closing Will Challenge Region's Emission Goals

What is the Real Impact? Richard Schmidt on Strontium, Mercury and Potassium in Fish

This opinion piece by Richard Schmidt ran as an editorial in the Brattleboro Reformer on August 26, 2011. Mr. Schmidt was kind enough to allow me to post it on my blog.

-------------------

Recently, the Vermont Department of Health (DOH) received a routine test report on one fish that was caught in the Connecticut River nine miles upstream from Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon. The edible portion of this fish contained a very low but surprising level of radioactive strontium-90.

The DOH regularly monitors the environment for many such "radionuclides" to detect possible leakage from Yankee. This analysis of fish is part of that program.

Strontium-90 is a fission product that has spread throughout our environment predominately from pre-1964 nuclear bomb atmospheric testing, and is dissipating slowly with a 29 year half-life. Because strontium-90 is "hard to detect" and was detected in only one sample of fish flesh, a scientist will term such a result to be an "outlier." It lies outside of the norm. This subjects the sample and test process to scrutiny, and the result is held until further review. This is exactly what DOH has done by calling for more fish samples.

DOH said that they cannot associate low levels of strontium-90 with Yankee without supporting evidence. The DOH website also states that the result is "within the range of background strontium-90 in edible portions of fish reported in a 1971 study," prior to Yankee's startup.

Also, according to U.S. Department of Health "strontium-90 is a fairly constant part of the U.S. diet," and New York State has found similar strontium-90 levels in fish.

By taking more samples, DOH is doing a professional job and maintaining a scientific perspective on the matter.

But in a press conference found on YouTube, Governor Peter Shumlin blew this matter out of perspective when he called the strontium-90 level "high," attributed it to Yankee, and said that he would not eat fish from the river, although he did so as a boy.

He said this despite contrary information from his health department, and despite unwarranted damage to tourism. It appeared that his only purpose was to discredit Yankee.

Strontium and Mercury

This brings up two questions. The first is about strontium-90 levels over time. According to the DOH and other sources, the strontium-90 levels in fish that Gov. Shumlin ate as a boy were up to 20 times greater than the levels in this fish because radioactive decay and dispersion have since reduced the radioactivity.

The more significant question is about highly toxic mercury in our fish. Mercury in our environment is primarily due to coal-burning power plants, as coal contains mercury that is released from coal plant stacks.

Vermont and New Hampshire and most states issue advisories to limit the eating of locally caught fish due to mercury. For example, the N.H. Fish and Game Department warns against eating more than four wild-fish meals per month, restricted further to one meal per month for children and pregnant women. Children and the unborn are particularly sensitive to this neurotoxin. There is no direct connection between mercury and Yankee because the plant releases none. But if Yankee is shut down, its power will be largely replaced by low-cost coal power.

Unfortunately for us, most coal plants are to the west of us; New York has 48. The prevailing winds will carry more mercury, cadmium, arsenic, particulates and other pollutants to our environment, to the detriment of our health.

The Environmental Protection Agency wants stronger pollution controls on coal plants. It estimates such controls would reduce deaths in the U.S. by 17,000 per year and reduce related illnesses.

Radioactivity in Fish

Before making public statements about the fish, the governor should have asked "Is this strontium-90 significant?"

Let's compare the fish's strontium-90 radioactivity to the natural radioactivity that we ingest with fish and other foods, which contain the essential nutrient potassium and its inseparable radioactive isotope potassium-40.

A person eating the DOH fish sample would ingest about 2 percent of the radioactivity (6 percent of the radiation risk) from the strontium-90 relative to the natural potassium-40 in the same fish. Interestingly, natural potassium-40 makes our bodies about as radioactive as that fish in the news.

What is the Real Impact?

In truth, neither the strontium nor the potassium are significant hazards at all.

The question "Is this material significant to my health?" was completely lacking in this case. The real health impact of Gov. Shumlin's statements is to encourage the burning of more coal and the continued mercury pollution of our fish, our bodies, and our biosphere.

Richard Schmidt is a chemical and nuclear engineer and energy consultant who is not associated with Vermont Yankee. He lives in Westmoreland, N.H.

Fish shield image is the coat of arms of Narva, Estonia.

Mercury image from Wikipedia.

The Shumlin press conference video is also on one of my earlier blog posts.