See what it looks like and understand that some forms of radiation can penetrate your body with harmful impacts. And it can kill!!
**********************************************************
Showing posts with label Nuclear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear. Show all posts
Friday, October 25, 2019
ISSUES: Nuclear Radiation ... you can't see it, smell it or taste it ... why worry?
It's true. You generally can't see, taste, or smell nuclear radiation and folks really, really don't seem to worry about it.
See what it looks like and understand that some forms of radiation can penetrate your body with harmful impacts. And it can kill!!
See what it looks like and understand that some forms of radiation can penetrate your body with harmful impacts. And it can kill!!
Wednesday, October 2, 2019
RADIATION FOR DINNER? Tritium Bioaccumulates in Blue Mussels – But what about scallops, clams and quahogs
 |
| Image of a blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) shell. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Originally published June 8, 2015 bayoffundy.ca/archives/
Although tritium has been continuously released for years from the Point Lepreau Nuclear Power Station into the Bay of Fundy, we have been told repeatedly that it is within the accepted limits and that it is not a hazard to humans since skin penetration does not occur.
The potential for bioaccumulation has been well understood and the concern has always been that organically bound tritium would enter the food chain … this concern has been expressed by many citizens and professionals alike. Generally, the response has been platitudinous at best.
The research outlined below, has established the initial pathway for bioaccumulation from
phytoplankton to blue mussels an abundant shellfish in the Bay of Fundy.
The Blue Mussel is a filter-feeder that funnels water through its body to extract plankton for its nourishment. It is during this process that it takes in phytoplankton that have organically bound tritium. This tritium becomes locked into the mussels body and, as organically bound tritium, its life is increased many times … estimated to be 50 times by some researchers. Essentially this means it can be passed on to any human or animal consuming these affected bivalves.
This should be of major concern to seafood producers since scallops, clams, and quahogs are also filter-feeders and should be expected to bioaccumulate tritium in the same manner as blue mussels.
My take today. Art MacKay
References:
https://www.nirs.org/radiation/tritium/tritium06122007gphazardreport.pdf
http://www.ccnr.org/Media_Release_2012_02.pdf
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/pubs_catalogue/uploads/CNSC_Release_and_Dose_eng_rev2.pdf
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/261283.pdf
******************************************
KEY RESEARCH
Bioaccumulation of tritiated water in phytoplankton and trophic transfer of organically
bound tritium to the blue mussel, “Mytilus edulis.”
by dunrenard, July 2012
Highlights
► Tritium was bioaccumulated into organic tritium in phytoplankton cells. ► Green algae
incorporated more tritium than the cyanobacteria. ► Organic tritium was transferred from
phytoplankton to blue mussels when ingested. ► Linear uptake of tritium into mussels
indicates a potential for biomagnification. ► Current legislation may underestimate
accumulation of tritium in the environment.
Large releases of tritium are currently permitted in coastal areas due to assumptions that it
rapidly disperses in the water and has a low toxicity due to its low energy emissions. This
paper presents a laboratory experiment developed to identify previously untested scenarios
where tritium may concentrate or transfer in biota relevant to Baltic coastal communities.
Phytoplankton populations of Dunaliella tertiolecta and Nodularia spumigena were exposed at
different growth-stages, to tritiated water (HTO; 10 MBq l−1). Tritiated D. tertiolecta was then
fed to mussels, Mytilus edulis, regularly over a period of three weeks. Activity concentrations
of phytoplankton and various tissues from the mussel were determined.
Both phytoplankton species transformed HTO into organically-bound tritium (OBT) in their
tissues. D. tertiolecta accumulated significantly more tritium when allowed to grow
exponentially in HTO than if it had already reached the stationary growth phase; both
treatments accumulated significantly more than the corresponding treatments of
N. spumigena. No effect of growth phase on bioaccumulation of tritium was detectable in
N. spumigena following exposure.
After mussels were given 3 feeds of tritiated D. tertiolecta, significant levels of tritium were
detected in the tissues. Incorporation into most mussel tissues appeared to follow a linear
relationship with number of tritiated phytoplankton feeds with no equilibrium, highlighting the
potential for biomagnification.
Different rates of incorporation in species from a similar functional group highlight the
difficulties in using a ‘representative’ species for modelling the transfer and impact of tritium.
Accumulations of organic tritium into the mussel tissues from tritiated-phytoplankton
demonstrate an environmentally relevant transfer pathway of tritium even when waterconcentrations
are reduced, adding weight to the assertion that organically bound tritium acts
as a persistent organic pollutant.
The persistence, potential for biomagnification and the increased toxicity of organic tritium
increases the potential impact on the environment following a release of HTO; current
legislation does not adequately take into account the nature of organic forms of tritium and
therefore may be underestimating accumulation and toxic effect of tritium in the environment.
Such information is necessary to accurately assess the distribution of tritium following routine
releases, and to adequately protect the environment and humans.
Source :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X12001890
ISSUES: Cracks form in foundation of NH nuclear power plant
Just a short distance south of the Bay of Fundy this old nuclear plant, like Point Lepreau Nuclear Power Plant, this plant recently had its operating license extended.
________________________________________________________________________
Jim Richmond via Wikimedia Commons | BDN
The Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in New Hampshire.
The Associated Press • September 25, 2019 11:32 am
SEABROOK, New Hampshire — Neighbors of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant have told a federal panel that they want more transparent, independent monitoring of cracks that have formed in the plant’s concrete foundation.
New Hampshire Public Radio reports they spoke Monday before a panel of administrative judges for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They are weighing whether Seabrook’s owner, NextEra, adequately studied the cracks.
The hearing was granted to a watchdog group C-10, which cites an independent expert in contending that NextEra didn’t properly study the cracks in order to write their monitoring plan.
NextEra based its monitoring plan for Seabrook’s concrete on a study, and regulators approved that plan.
Regulators extended Seabrook’s operating license through 2050 earlier this year, despite calls to delay that decision until after the hearing.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
NUCLEAR: Unanswered questions about Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station.
Dateline: Bay of Fundy, November 10, 2011.
As the 7 natural wonders hype about the Bay of Fundy begins to die down with the closing of the 7 wonders contest, it is time for all Canadian citizens to address the darker issues of the Bay of Fundy and to move towards greater protection of Canada's number 1 natural treasure. Among those darker concerns is the Bay of Fundy's nuclear presence.
As the refurbishment of the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Stations continues to plod along while sucking up millions more of the taxpayers money, the media seems strangely quiet even while the lobby for decommissioning of this facility continues ... unfortunately with little apparent public support. It is odd indeed that the most sinister development in the Bay of Fundy draws little or no concern from the average citizen.
With the continuing nuclear disaster in Japan and the horrendous impacts globally to our air, earth, and water, don't Maritimers have the slightest concern about the refurbishment of a rickety old Candu reactor that sits right on friable shale on the Fundy fault block? Do we not, at least, have questions that need to be answered?
Well, Willi Nolan of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health (IICPH) has been asking these questions for some time now. Addressed to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) during a “CNSC 101 Information Session for Stakeholders” which was held on June 23, 2011 at the Hilton Convention Centre in St. John, New Brunswick, the questions were sent to the CNSC Directorate of Nuclear Cycle and Facilities Regulation in July, 2011. CNSC responded to some of these and other questions on November 9, 2011. They are all listed at http://nb.referata.com/wiki/FAQ_Canadian_Nuclear_Safety_Commission . You will note with interest I am sure, that many answers remain pending.
IICPH provides information about the dangers of Point Lepreau and is fighting for the decommissioning of this old and dangerous plant. You can learn more at: http://iicph.org/tag/lepreau
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Areva suspends some uranium production after Japan quake
Image by Sterneck via FlickrPARIS — French nuclear giant Areva is suspending uranium production at two plants because of low demand from Japanese power stations in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, a spokeswoman said Thursday.
Production at subsidiary Comhurex's Malvesi and Tricastin sites will be suspended for two months because of the devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan and swamped a nuclear site six months ago, the spokeswoman said.
"This decision is based on the events in Japan, which today has led to a drop in deliveries to Japanese power producers and short term downward pressure on prices in this market," Areva said in a statement.
"A certain number of orders placed by the Japanese have been cancelled," Areva chief executive Luc Oursel told AFP from New York.
Comurhex, which is 100 percent owned by Areva, uses a two-stage process to transform mined uranium into uranium hexafluoride, the raw material for the enrichment process that eventually produces reactor-grade fuel.
Areva said there were no plans to suspend or lay off the less than 600 workers from the plants, who will be asked to attend training sessions or use up holiday allowances while their plants are taken off-line.
Before the March 11 earthquake and tsunami -- and the ensuing disaster at the flooded Fukushima Daiichi power plant -- Japan was planning to use nuclear power to generate around 50 percent of its energy needs by 2030.
But opinion shifted after the disaster crippled the plant's cooling systems, sparking reactor meltdowns that spewed radiation into the environment, forcing tens of thousands to evacuate from a 20 kilometre (12 mile) radius.
A number of other plants were shut down following the Fukushima accident and currently on 11 of 54 are currently operating.
"You have seen that Japan is in a particular situation as a certain number of plants have stopped" but "I think that... most of them will be restarted and will allow us to reestablish normal commercial relations," said Oursel.
On Tuesday, Japan's new Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda pledged to draw up a new energy policy and to reduce Japan's reliance on atomic power, threatening a major export market for France's world-leading nuclear industry.
However, he did not rule out future use of nuclear power -- something his unpopular predecessor Naoto Kan had aimed to do -- and said reactors that are currently offline for maintenance would be restarted.
Some other countries have re-examined their nuclear policies in the wake of the Japanese disaster, but France -- which relies on atomic energy for 75 percent of its power -- has vowed to stick by and support the industry.
Areva is majority state-owned and Paris has long considered nuclear power a strategic asset, despite power shortages last winter caused by labour disputes and delayed refuelling in some power stations.
On Monday, an explosion at nuclear waste reprocessing site in southern France killed one worker and injured four more, but regulators said there was no danger of a radiation leak and the area was declared safe within hours.
Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved. More »
Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com
Thursday, April 21, 2011
NUCLEAR: Harper makes no mention of Lepreau on N.B. visit
Image via WikipediaCBC News Posted: Apr 21, 2011 8:28 AM AT
Last Updated: Apr 21, 2011 8:28 AM AT
N.B. Premier David Alward said Stephen Harper privately promised him that if re-elected, he would talk about compensating the province for delays at Point Lepreau. (CBC)
Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff both campaigned in New Brunswick on Wednesday, but only Ignatieff was talking about compensation for refurbishment delays at the Point Lepreau generating station.
Atlantic Canada's only nuclear reactor was supposed to be back generating power by September 2009 after the $1.4-billion refurbishment project was completed. The project is now $1 billion over budget according to N.B. Power officials, who hope the plant will be generating power by the fall of 2012.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said he supports nuclear power and on Wednesday he repeated his promise that if he wins the election, he will negotiate some kind of settlement for the Lepreau delays by Atomic Energy of Canada.
"The government of Canada has responsibilities in respect of AECL and we have to shoulder our responsibilities," said Ignatieff.
Harper quiet on Lepreau
During his visits to Fredericton and Edmundston, Conservative leader Stephen Harper talked about government funding for a new Fredericton YMCA and the Beaverbrook Art Gallery, but made no public mention of Point Lepreau.
'You know you just can't, carte blanche, snap your fingers and say 'we're going to do this' before you know what the hell you're doing.'—Keith Ashfield, Conservative candidate
However Premier David Alward said Harper told him in a private conversation on his campaign bus that he is prepared to look at a full costing of the delays and talk about the issue.
"We are looking to be able to provide him with that information," said Alward. "He realizes that and he is open to discussing, and we will be getting that information to him."
Conservative candidate Keith Ashfield said voters shouldn't expect his leader to make any promises about Point Lepreau during the election campaign.
"You know you just can't, carte blanche, snap your fingers and say `wer'e going to do this' before you know what the hell you're doing," said Ashfield. "So we have to have all the information, and we'll see what happens after the process has taken place."
Alward said in his view, Harper's private promise matches Ignatieff's public commitment to do the same.
Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com
NUCLEAR: NB: Liberals support nuclear power: Ignatieff
Image via WikipediaNB: Nuclear power will provide energy baseload, but more renewable needed: IgnatieffPublished on April 21, 2011Staff ~ The Canadian Press 
[SAINT JOHN, NB] - Michael Ignatieff says he supports nuclear power, but a Liberal government would do more to harness renewable energy, including New Brunswick tides.
Speaking in Saint John, N.B., Ignatieff was asked about nuclear power as a protester wearing a white, papier-mache elephant head stood behind him.
The protester wore a sign reading, “Pointless Lepreau,” referring to Point Lepreau, Atlantic Canada's only nuclear power plant, where a refurbishment project is three years behind schedule and $1 billion over budget.
Ignatieff says the crisis in Japan has people waking up to the risks of nuclear power, but he adds that it has helped keep the lights on safely in Canada for 50 years.
He says he would like to see it continue to provide some of the baseload of energy generation, but with a greater focus on renewables such as solar, wind and tidal power.
Ignatieff says he would also talk with premiers about improved interprovincial energy-sharing.
Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com
Sunday, March 27, 2011
ENERGY: Get to know your neighbourhood radionuclides.
Image via WikipediaCommonly Encountered Radionuclides
Reference Information
Approximately 2,300 nuclides have been identified; most of them are radioactive.
Which nuclides are radioactive?
Unstable nuclides of any element can exist. However, almost all elements that are heavier than bismuth, which has 83 protons, have an unstable nucleus; they are radioactive and are known as "heavy nuclides." Nuclides with fewer than 83 protons are known as "light nuclides."
While there are hundreds of radionuclides, many of them are rarely encountered. People are much more likely to encounter a few that are used routinely for medical, military, or commercial purposes. The list below and accompanying fact sheets discuss twelve radionuclides. They are the ones most commonly used and most commonly found in Superfund Sites.
Please note: Where an element is listed rather than an individual radionuclide, the element has several radioactive isotopes of interest:
| Fact Sheets on Commonly Encountered Radionuclides | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radiation Type | ||||
| Name | Atomic Number | Alpha | Beta | Gamma |
| americium-241 | 95 |  | | |
| cesium-137 | 55 | | | |
| cobalt-60 | 27 | | | |
| iodine-129 &-131 | 53 | | | |
| plutonium | 94 | | | |
| radium | 88 | | | |
| radon | 86 | | ||
| strontium-90 | 38 | | ||
| technetium-99 | 43 | | | |
| tritium * | 1 | | ||
| thorium | 90 | | | |
| uranium | 92 | | | |
| * tritium is a specific isotope, H-3. | ||||
Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com
Saturday, March 19, 2011
ENERGY: Ralph Nader on our Nuclear Nightmare ... who will pay and why.
Published on Saturday, March 19, 2011 by CommonDreams.org
Nuclear Nightmare
The unfolding multiple nuclear reactor catastrophe in Japan is prompting overdue attention to the 104 nuclear plants in the United States—many of them aging, many of them near earthquake faults, some on the west coast exposed to potential tsunamis.
Nuclear power plants boil water to produce steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. Nuclear power’s overly complex fuel cycle begins with uranium mines and ends with deadly radioactive wastes for which there still are no permanent storage facilities to contain them for tens of thousands of years.
Atomic power plants generate 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. Over forty years ago, the industry’s promoter and regulator, the Atomic Energy Commission estimated that a full nuclear meltdown could contaminate an area “the size of Pennsylvania” and cause massive casualties. You, the taxpayers, have heavily subsidized nuclear power research, development, and promotion from day one with tens of billions of dollars.
Because of many costs, perils, close calls at various reactors, and the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, there has not been a nuclear power plant built in the United States since 1974.
Now the industry is coming back “on your back” claiming it will help reduce global warming from fossil fuel emitted greenhouse gases.
Pushed aggressively by President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu, who refuses to meet with longtime nuclear industry critics, here is what “on your back” means:
1. Wall Street will not finance new nuclear plants without a 100% taxpayer loan guarantee. Too risky. That’s a lot
Nuclear power plants boil water to produce steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. Nuclear power’s overly complex fuel cycle begins with uranium mines and ends with deadly radioactive wastes for which there still are no permanent storage facilities to contain them for tens of thousands of years.
Atomic power plants generate 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. Over forty years ago, the industry’s promoter and regulator, the Atomic Energy Commission estimated that a full nuclear meltdown could contaminate an area “the size of Pennsylvania” and cause massive casualties. You, the taxpayers, have heavily subsidized nuclear power research, development, and promotion from day one with tens of billions of dollars.
Because of many costs, perils, close calls at various reactors, and the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, there has not been a nuclear power plant built in the United States since 1974.
Now the industry is coming back “on your back” claiming it will help reduce global warming from fossil fuel emitted greenhouse gases.
Pushed aggressively by President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu, who refuses to meet with longtime nuclear industry critics, here is what “on your back” means:
1. Wall Street will not finance new nuclear plants without a 100% taxpayer loan guarantee. Too risky. That’s a lot
Thursday, March 17, 2011
ENERGY:Nuclear Power Plants in Canada.
For the record. Here is a list of all Canadian nuclear reactors.
Courtesy Canadian Nuclear Society
On the map, circles represent research reactors, triangles represent commercial facilities. Please refer to CNS' site map for more detail.
Research 1-Univ Alberta, Edmonton (S), 2-Saskatchewan Research Council, Saskatoon (S), 3-AECL Whiteshell (WR-1, S Demo), 4-McMaster Univ, Hamilton (P), 5-Univ. Toronto (S), 6-Royal Military College, Kingston (S), 7-AECL Chalk River Laboratories (NRU, NRX, PTR, ZED-2, ZEEP), 8-Nordion, Kanata (S), 9-Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal (S), 10-Dalhousie Univ., Halifax (S). S=Slowpoke II (20 kw); P=Swimming Pool (5 MW). AECL's Whiteshell reactors and Chalk River NRX and ZEEP reactors are shutdown.
Commercial 1-Bruce and Douglas Point, 2-Pickering, 3-Darlington, 4-Gentilly, 5-Point Lepreau, 6-NPD. Douglas Point, Gentilly 1, and NPD have been decommissioned; Bruce A2 is mothballed.
Canada has focused on the CANDU (Canadian Deuterium-Uranium) design, which uses heavy water as the moderator and coolant and natural uranium as the fuel. Canadian companies operating the reactors are - Ontario Power Generation (Nuclear division), Bruce Power, and Quebec Hydro - and the New Brunswick Power Commission operate the commercial facilities.
Canadian nuclear reactors are regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the successor to the former Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB)
More information here.
Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com
Courtesy Canadian Nuclear Society
On the map, circles represent research reactors, triangles represent commercial facilities. Please refer to CNS' site map for more detail.
Research 1-Univ Alberta, Edmonton (S), 2-Saskatchewan Research Council, Saskatoon (S), 3-AECL Whiteshell (WR-1, S Demo), 4-McMaster Univ, Hamilton (P), 5-Univ. Toronto (S), 6-Royal Military College, Kingston (S), 7-AECL Chalk River Laboratories (NRU, NRX, PTR, ZED-2, ZEEP), 8-Nordion, Kanata (S), 9-Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal (S), 10-Dalhousie Univ., Halifax (S). S=Slowpoke II (20 kw); P=Swimming Pool (5 MW). AECL's Whiteshell reactors and Chalk River NRX and ZEEP reactors are shutdown.
Commercial 1-Bruce and Douglas Point, 2-Pickering, 3-Darlington, 4-Gentilly, 5-Point Lepreau, 6-NPD. Douglas Point, Gentilly 1, and NPD have been decommissioned; Bruce A2 is mothballed.
Canada has focused on the CANDU (Canadian Deuterium-Uranium) design, which uses heavy water as the moderator and coolant and natural uranium as the fuel. Canadian companies operating the reactors are - Ontario Power Generation (Nuclear division), Bruce Power, and Quebec Hydro - and the New Brunswick Power Commission operate the commercial facilities.
Canadian nuclear reactors are regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the successor to the former Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB)
More information here.
Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com
ENERGY: LePage administration still eyeing nuclear, despite Japan crisis
Image via WikipediaBy Kevin Miller, BDN StaffPosted March 16, 2011, at 8:54 p.m.
AUGUSTA, Maine — Maine Gov. Paul LePage still regards nuclear power as a potential option for Maine’s future energy mix despite the unfolding crisis in Japan, according to his spokesman.
“What is happening in Japan is tragic,” Dan Demeritt, the governor’s communications director, said Wednesday. “But we are not changing our position that we need to consider all energy options going forward.”
Meanwhile, officials with the decommissioned Maine Yankee nuclear power plant, say the events taking place in Japan could not happen at the Wiscasset site due to differences between an operating plant and a non-working facility.
“It’s just not comparable,” said Maine Yankee spokesman Eric Howes.
Not long ago, nuclear was part of Maine’s energy mix, and LePage has said that he supports keeping nuclear power on the table as Maine seeks to reduce energy costs and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
Demeritt said Wednesday the governor continues to support exploring “any option that would safely reduce the costs for Maine businesses and families” as the state seeks a broader energy mix.
That said, Demeritt said, to his knowledge, the administration is “not having those conversations at this point” with any potential developers.
The situation in Japan appears to be cooling the appetite for nuclear energy elsewhere in New England and across the country, however. In Vermont, the trouble-plagued Vermont Yankee nuclear plant likely faces even more opposition in the legislature to its request for a 20-year license extension after the nuclear disaster in Japan.
“I don’t think they had a pulse last week, but we’ve picked out the casket now,” Rep. Tony Klein, chairman of the Vermont House committee that oversees Vermont Yankee, said of the plant’s political prospects in the state.
When Maine Yankee was operating in Wiscasset, it generated nearly 120 billion kilowatts of electricity between 1972 and 1996. The plant was shut down and gradually dismantled beginning in 1997.
Today, all that is left of the Maine Yankee plant on Bailey Point is 64 “dry cask canisters” that hold the spent nuclear fuel rods and other radioactive materials. Those dry canisters are different from the spent fuel pools formerly used in Wiscasset and still used at the Japanese plants facing potential meltdowns, Howes said
The spent fuel in Wiscasset is encapsulated in thick, sealed stainless steel canisters which are then encased in a 2 ½-inch thick steel liner plus 28-inch thick concrete cylinders reinforced with steel.
Howes did not have specific numbers handy on Wednesday but said that, as part of Maine Yankee’s safety permit with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the facility was designed to withstand an earthquake bigger than the largest recorded ever for that region. Maine Yankee’s fuel storage facility is also designed to withstand tornadoes and hurricanes of historic proportions for that area, he said.
In fact, the 300,000-pound concrete canisters are designed so that even if they toppled over they would stay sealed, he said.
Additionally, unlike at an operating nuclear plant, there are no high-pressure pipes or other mechanical systems that would propel radiation into the atmosphere if there was a leak.
As a result, the “emergency planning zone” or exclusion zone is restricted to the 300-meter site around the storage facility, whereas during Maine Yankee’s operating days the zone surrounded the plant for 10 miles.
Instead, the storage canisters use a passive system of air to cool the rods.
“It’s a passive system that doesn’t require any electricity or pumps,” Howes said. The facility is nonetheless monitored around the clock.
The federal government was supposed to remove the spent fuel from Wiscasset and other plants across the country. But that never happened amid the political battles over where to site a large storage facility. As a result, Maine Yankee and ratepayers pick up the estimated $6 million to $8 million annual tab to store and monitor the radioactive fuel.
Across the country, the nuclear industry is coming under new scrutiny with questions being raised about whether a big dose of bad news about the technology might cool the ardor for a renaissance in the industry.
“The timing could not be worse,” said Richard Levick, CEO of Levick Strategic Communications, a Washington-based firm that advises companies on how to handle public-relations crises. “We saw the American nuclear industry really starting to reposition itself for growth. At best this is a short-term setback.”
As the crisis in Japan worsened, U.S. nuclear industry officials were scrambling to reassure the public. New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., which owns Vermont Yankee and other plants, issued a statement saying “lessons will be learned and translated to even greater safety and effectiveness to meet the challenges of the most adverse and unexpected events, creating stronger public confidence in U.S. nuclear programs.”
The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced last week that it would grant the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant a 20-year extension on its operating license. However, in Vermont, the state legislature must also sign off on granting an extension, and legislative leaders suggested they have no interest in bringing the issue up for a vote.
Vermont Yankee is a General Electric boiling-water reactor with a GE Mark 1 containment dating from the early 1970s — the same as the Fukushima reactors in Japan. Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith said the plant was designed to withstand a magnitude-6.2 earthquake, slightly larger than the strongest recorded earthquake to hit the region, a magnitude-6 temblor centered in East Haddam, Conn., in 1791.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)