Decision allowing Transport of Radioactive Waste Condemned
Media Release – For Immediate Release February 5, 2011
The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, the Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes, the Mouvement Sortons le Québec du Nucléaire, and many affiliated groups, join together in condemning the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s decision to allow Bruce Power (BP) to ship 16 used steam generations – amounting to 1600 tonnes of radioactive waste – through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River halfway around the world to Sweden.
This shipment contains more than 6 times – and arguably more than 50 times – the maximum amount of radioactivity allowed by IAEA regulations. Because of this, the CNSC had to make a “Special Arrangement” exempting Bruce Power from those IAEA regulations.
“By bending the rules, the CNSC has demonstrated that they are champions of the nuclear industry rather than defenders of the public interest – for there is no public benefit to be served by allowing these shipments,” said Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.
“This is a dark day for communities around the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, and for the 40 million people whose drinking water is derived from these sources, for this shipment of radioactive waste is just the beginning – it will be followed by many other such shipments,” said
Michael Keegan, Chair of the Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes.
“Radioactive contamination of our lakes and rivers is inevitable if they are to be routinely subjected to the transport of radioactive debris from defunct nuclear reactors,” said Dr. Michel Duguay, Coordinator of the Mouvement sortons le Québec du nucléaire.
Mayors, aboriginal communities and NGOs will continue to oppose these shipments both nationally and internationally, and they will continue to bring this controversial issue to the attention of political decision makers at all levels of government. “Politicians have to wake up and pass laws to protect the public and the environment from the deliberate dissemination of radioactive waste materials,” said Marc Chénier of the Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire.
During a 2006 Environmental Assessment, Bruce Power and the CNSC declared that the used steam generators are “radioactive wastes” and therefore not able to be recycled for safety reasons, promising that they will be stored as waste on site at OPG’s Western Waste Management Facility -- in a surface facility until 2043, and underground thereafter.
OPG, the owner of the Bruce reactors, is fully prepared to store all used steam generators from all Ontario reactors in a special facility adjacent to the Bruce site, with plans for a “segmentation facility” to disassemble the radioactive hulks later on. This arrangement is laid out in a 2007 contractual document between OPG and Bruce Power.
But in October 2009 Bruce Power pressured OPG to transfer ownership of the steam generators to them so that they could save money on waste storage charges by using a Swedish company to disperse much of the radioactive metal into the world’s scrap metal supply – thereby contaminating an otherwise “clean” source of recycled material.
“The practice of contaminating scrap metal supplies by mixing in radioactive waste materials has been condemned by many bodies, including the United Nations, the Steel Manufacturer’s Association, and the International Recycling Bureau,” said Kay Cumbow of the Michigan-based
group, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination.
Contacts:
English: Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., CCNR President, (514) 489 2665 or (514) 839 7214
Mike Keegan, M.A., Chair, Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes, (734) 770 1441
Kay Cumbow, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination (CACC), (810) 346-4513
French/English: Michel Duguay, Ph.D., MSQN Coordinator, (418) 802 2740
Marc Chénier, B.Sc., RSN Board Member, (514) 527 2712
Stop the shipment of dangerous nuclear waste
22 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Decision allowing Transport of Radioactive Waste Condemned
by Oscar » Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:54 pm
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
An appeal to Parliamentarians - plus - A Resolution on Radio
by Oscar » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:32 am
An appeal to Parliamentarians - plus - A Resolution on Radioactive Steam Generators
From: Gordon Edwards
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 6:58 PM
Montreal, February 14, 2010.
An appeal to Members of Parliament
Re: the lack of a policy on radioactive wastes from nuclear reactors (excluding irradiated nuclear fuel)
Dear Sir or Madam:
In the interests of good governance, we are asking you to take action now to prevent the possibility of several dangerous precedents about radioactive wastes becoming established in a policy vacuum.
We are writing in reference to Bruce Power’s current plan to ship 16 radioactive steam generators through the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway and across the Atlantic Ocean to Sweden.
The purpose of this shipment is to reduce the volume of Bruce Power’s radioactive waste by shipping to a facility in Sweden that will melt most of the contaminated metal, mix it with non-contaminated metal and then sell it as scrap for unrestricted use in commercial products.
The most radioactive portions of the steam generators – about 450 tonnes of the original 1600 tonnes – will be shipped back to Halifax and then trucked back to Bruce Power for permanent storage as radioactive waste.
If this shipment goes ahead, it will establish three precedents, each having far-reaching political implications:
PRECEDENT ONE:
It will be the first time that Canada has exported or imported radioactive wastes from a refurbished or decommissioned nuclear reactor.
PRECEDENT TWO:
It will also be the first time radioactive wastes from nuclear reactors have been shipped through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway.
PRECEDENT THREE:
It will be the first time that radioactive waste materials from Canadian reactors have been introduced into the world’s scrap metal market.
In addition, the proposed shipment would contradict explicit assurances given during a 2005-2007 Environmental Assessment in which Bruce Power and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) staff declared that the steam generators are radioactive wastes, which cannot be recycled “for safety and environmental reasons.” The steam generators were to be sent to the Western Waste Management Facility for storage in perpetuity.
The proposed shipment has raised a great deal of public concern. More than 200 municipalities along the transport route – including 120 in Quebec – oppose the shipment. First Nations and other aboriginal communities have identified the lack of consultation in this matter as a breach of the government’s duty to consult. Dozens of NGOs from North America and abroad have stated their opposition to the plan.
The CNSC, originally intending to have one of their staff members issue a license without any form of public consultation at all, responded to this outpouring of concern by agreeing to set aside two days to hear the views of 80 interveners. Moreover, in a ruling rare for this body, the CNSC extended the comment period for an additional 30 days. On February 4, however, they granted a licence for the transport of the steam generators.
But we believe this matter is far more than a mere licensing question – it is an important policy issue. The Parliament and the Government of Canada need to formulate a policy framework to address the challenges associated with the disposition of all radioactive wastes from nuclear reactors other than irradiated nuclear fuel (for which a policy framework does exist).
Such a policy framework would address the following questions:
What should Canada’s policy be with regard to the export/import of these wastes? Should Canada allow the transport of such wastes through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River? Should Canada condone the dispersal of radioactive wastes into scrap used to manufacture consumer products? And should Bruce Power or any proponent be allowed to promise one course of action during an environmental assessment and then do the opposite after the assessment has been completed?
Today we are asking you to sign a resolution [below] calling on the Minister of Natural Resources to ensure that Bruce Power is not permitted to transport the steam generators until such time as Parliament and the Government of Canada have established a policy framework that addresses these larger issues raised by the proposed shipment. There is no urgency for Bruce Power to ship the steam generators; Ontario Power Generation (OPG) planned to store them on the surface until 2043, and then underground thereafter.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.
Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., Canadian co-chair,
Great Lakes United Task Force.
53 Dufferin, Hampstead QC, H3X 2X8;
(514) 489 2665 / ccnr@web.ca
==========================
For a pdf version of this letter:
http://ccnr.org/Letter_MP_e_final.pdf
For a pdf version of this resolution:
http://ccnr.org/Resolution_MP_Senators.pdf
==========================
RESOLUTION ON NUCLEAR WASTES
To: The Honourable M. Christian Paradis, Minister of Natural Resources.
From: The undersigned Members of the House of Commons and the Senate.
GIVEN that Canada has no declared policy regarding the export or import of radioactive wastes from decommissioned or refurbished nuclear reactors to or from any other country;
GIVEN that Canada has no declared policy regarding the transportation of reactor wastes through the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence Seaway;
GIVEN that Canada has no declared policy regarding the radioactive contamination of the world’s scrap metal supply caused by the deliberate or inadvertent admixture of radioactive waste materials;
GIVEN that Bruce Power has applied for a license from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to transport 16 radioactive steam generators through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway and across the Atlantic to Sweden, for the purpose of having most of the contaminated metal melted, then blended with non-radioactive metals and sold on the open market as scrap intended for unrestricted use;
GIVEN that the proposed shipment to Sweden would exceed the international limit for the maximum amount of radioactive material normally allowed in any single shipment;
GIVEN that the mayors and town councils of over 100 cities bordering the Great Lakes and the St- Lawrence River have expressed grave concerns about the proposed shipment;
GIVEN that many First Nations and other aboriginal communities have expressed displeasure at not being consulted or even notified about the proposed shipment;
GIVEN that dozens of Non-Governmental Organizations from Canada, the USA and overseas have also expressed strong opposition to the shipment;
GIVEN that Bruce Power has previously committed itself to an alternative plan to store the steam generators on site – on the surface until 2043, and undergound thereafter – and that this plan has already received prior approval from the CNSC;
GIVEN that Bruce Power and the CNSC staff have stated in the past that the old steam generators cannot be recycled because of their radioactive contamination;
THEREFORE the undersigned Members of the House of Commons and the Senate urge that no approval be given for the shipment of the steam generators until a proper policy framework has been formulated and debated by representative government bodies on the aspects of export-import, transport, and “recycling” of radioactive wastes from decommissioned or refurbished nuclear reactors.
==============================
Please send a copy of your endorsement of this resolution to
ccnr@web.ca
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
c.p. 236 Station Snowdon,
Montreal H3X 3T4
From: Gordon Edwards
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 6:58 PM
Montreal, February 14, 2010.
An appeal to Members of Parliament
Re: the lack of a policy on radioactive wastes from nuclear reactors (excluding irradiated nuclear fuel)
Dear Sir or Madam:
In the interests of good governance, we are asking you to take action now to prevent the possibility of several dangerous precedents about radioactive wastes becoming established in a policy vacuum.
We are writing in reference to Bruce Power’s current plan to ship 16 radioactive steam generators through the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway and across the Atlantic Ocean to Sweden.
The purpose of this shipment is to reduce the volume of Bruce Power’s radioactive waste by shipping to a facility in Sweden that will melt most of the contaminated metal, mix it with non-contaminated metal and then sell it as scrap for unrestricted use in commercial products.
The most radioactive portions of the steam generators – about 450 tonnes of the original 1600 tonnes – will be shipped back to Halifax and then trucked back to Bruce Power for permanent storage as radioactive waste.
If this shipment goes ahead, it will establish three precedents, each having far-reaching political implications:
PRECEDENT ONE:
It will be the first time that Canada has exported or imported radioactive wastes from a refurbished or decommissioned nuclear reactor.
PRECEDENT TWO:
It will also be the first time radioactive wastes from nuclear reactors have been shipped through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway.
PRECEDENT THREE:
It will be the first time that radioactive waste materials from Canadian reactors have been introduced into the world’s scrap metal market.
In addition, the proposed shipment would contradict explicit assurances given during a 2005-2007 Environmental Assessment in which Bruce Power and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) staff declared that the steam generators are radioactive wastes, which cannot be recycled “for safety and environmental reasons.” The steam generators were to be sent to the Western Waste Management Facility for storage in perpetuity.
The proposed shipment has raised a great deal of public concern. More than 200 municipalities along the transport route – including 120 in Quebec – oppose the shipment. First Nations and other aboriginal communities have identified the lack of consultation in this matter as a breach of the government’s duty to consult. Dozens of NGOs from North America and abroad have stated their opposition to the plan.
The CNSC, originally intending to have one of their staff members issue a license without any form of public consultation at all, responded to this outpouring of concern by agreeing to set aside two days to hear the views of 80 interveners. Moreover, in a ruling rare for this body, the CNSC extended the comment period for an additional 30 days. On February 4, however, they granted a licence for the transport of the steam generators.
But we believe this matter is far more than a mere licensing question – it is an important policy issue. The Parliament and the Government of Canada need to formulate a policy framework to address the challenges associated with the disposition of all radioactive wastes from nuclear reactors other than irradiated nuclear fuel (for which a policy framework does exist).
Such a policy framework would address the following questions:
What should Canada’s policy be with regard to the export/import of these wastes? Should Canada allow the transport of such wastes through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River? Should Canada condone the dispersal of radioactive wastes into scrap used to manufacture consumer products? And should Bruce Power or any proponent be allowed to promise one course of action during an environmental assessment and then do the opposite after the assessment has been completed?
Today we are asking you to sign a resolution [below] calling on the Minister of Natural Resources to ensure that Bruce Power is not permitted to transport the steam generators until such time as Parliament and the Government of Canada have established a policy framework that addresses these larger issues raised by the proposed shipment. There is no urgency for Bruce Power to ship the steam generators; Ontario Power Generation (OPG) planned to store them on the surface until 2043, and then underground thereafter.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.
Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., Canadian co-chair,
Great Lakes United Task Force.
53 Dufferin, Hampstead QC, H3X 2X8;
(514) 489 2665 / ccnr@web.ca
==========================
For a pdf version of this letter:
http://ccnr.org/Letter_MP_e_final.pdf
For a pdf version of this resolution:
http://ccnr.org/Resolution_MP_Senators.pdf
==========================
RESOLUTION ON NUCLEAR WASTES
To: The Honourable M. Christian Paradis, Minister of Natural Resources.
From: The undersigned Members of the House of Commons and the Senate.
GIVEN that Canada has no declared policy regarding the export or import of radioactive wastes from decommissioned or refurbished nuclear reactors to or from any other country;
GIVEN that Canada has no declared policy regarding the transportation of reactor wastes through the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence Seaway;
GIVEN that Canada has no declared policy regarding the radioactive contamination of the world’s scrap metal supply caused by the deliberate or inadvertent admixture of radioactive waste materials;
GIVEN that Bruce Power has applied for a license from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to transport 16 radioactive steam generators through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway and across the Atlantic to Sweden, for the purpose of having most of the contaminated metal melted, then blended with non-radioactive metals and sold on the open market as scrap intended for unrestricted use;
GIVEN that the proposed shipment to Sweden would exceed the international limit for the maximum amount of radioactive material normally allowed in any single shipment;
GIVEN that the mayors and town councils of over 100 cities bordering the Great Lakes and the St- Lawrence River have expressed grave concerns about the proposed shipment;
GIVEN that many First Nations and other aboriginal communities have expressed displeasure at not being consulted or even notified about the proposed shipment;
GIVEN that dozens of Non-Governmental Organizations from Canada, the USA and overseas have also expressed strong opposition to the shipment;
GIVEN that Bruce Power has previously committed itself to an alternative plan to store the steam generators on site – on the surface until 2043, and undergound thereafter – and that this plan has already received prior approval from the CNSC;
GIVEN that Bruce Power and the CNSC staff have stated in the past that the old steam generators cannot be recycled because of their radioactive contamination;
THEREFORE the undersigned Members of the House of Commons and the Senate urge that no approval be given for the shipment of the steam generators until a proper policy framework has been formulated and debated by representative government bodies on the aspects of export-import, transport, and “recycling” of radioactive wastes from decommissioned or refurbished nuclear reactors.
==============================
Please send a copy of your endorsement of this resolution to
ccnr@web.ca
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
c.p. 236 Station Snowdon,
Montreal H3X 3T4
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
CNSC approves radioactive shipments on the Great Lakes
by Oscar » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:02 am
CNSC approves radioactive shipments on the Great Lakes
http://www.canadians.org/campaignblog/?p=6278
February 4, 2011
The Canadian Press reports late today that, "Bruce Power has been given the go-ahead to transport 16 decommissioned steam generators from southwestern Ontario (across the Great Lakes and then on) to Sweden for recycling."
"On Friday, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission issued Bruce Power a transport licence that will be valid until Feb. 3, 2012. ...The commission
says it's satisfied that Bruce Power's application meets Canadian and
international regulations for the transport of nuclear substances."
The Council of Canadians has consistently opposed the application for these shipments on the Great Lakes and will be responding with an action plan shortly.
The Canadian Press report is at
http://www.trurodaily.com/News/Canada%20-%20World/
Society/2011-02-04/article-2200041/Bruce-Power-gets-OK-to-ship-16-radioactive-generators-through-Great-Lakes/1.
http://www.canadians.org/campaignblog/?p=6278
February 4, 2011
The Canadian Press reports late today that, "Bruce Power has been given the go-ahead to transport 16 decommissioned steam generators from southwestern Ontario (across the Great Lakes and then on) to Sweden for recycling."
"On Friday, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission issued Bruce Power a transport licence that will be valid until Feb. 3, 2012. ...The commission
says it's satisfied that Bruce Power's application meets Canadian and
international regulations for the transport of nuclear substances."
The Council of Canadians has consistently opposed the application for these shipments on the Great Lakes and will be responding with an action plan shortly.
The Canadian Press report is at
http://www.trurodaily.com/News/Canada%20-%20World/
Society/2011-02-04/article-2200041/Bruce-Power-gets-OK-to-ship-16-radioactive-generators-through-Great-Lakes/1.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Decision allowing Transport of Radioactive Waste Condemned
by Oscar » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:06 am
Decision allowing Transport of Radioactive Waste Condemned
http://www.pej.org/html/
modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=8611&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Media Release – For Immediate Release February 5, 2011
The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, the Coalition for a
Nuclear Free Great Lakes, the Mouvement Sortons le Québec du Nucléaire, and many affiliated groups, join together in condemning the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s decision to allow Bruce Power (BP) to ship 16 used steam generations – amounting to 1600 tonnes of radioactive waste – through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River halfway around the world to Sweden.
This shipment contains more than 6 times – and arguably more than 50 times – the maximum amount of radioactivity allowed by IAEA regulations. Because of this, the CNSC had to make a “Special Arrangement” exempting Bruce Power from those IAEA regulations.
“By bending the rules, the CNSC has demonstrated that they are champions of the nuclear industry rather than defenders of the public interest – for there is no public benefit to be served by allowing these shipments,” said Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.
“This is a dark day for communities around the Great Lakes and the St.
Lawrence River, and for the 40 million people whose drinking water is
derived from these sources, for this shipment of radioactive waste is just
the beginning – it will be followed by many other such shipments,” said
Michael Keegan, Chair of the Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes.
“Radioactive contamination of our lakes and rivers is inevitable if they are
to be routinely subjected to the transport of radioactive debris from
defunct nuclear reactors,” said Dr. Michel Duguay, Coordinator of the
Mouvement sortons le Québec du nucléaire.
Mayors, aboriginal communities and NGOs will continue to oppose these
shipments both nationally and internationally, and they will continue to bring this controversial issue to t the attention of political decision makers at all levels of government. “Politicians have to wake up and pass laws to protect the public and the environment from the deliberate dissemination of radioactive waste materials,” said Marc Chénier of the Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire.
During a 2006 Environmental Assessment, Bruce Power and the CNSC declared that the used steam generators are “radioactive wastes” and therefore not able to be recycled for safety reasons, promising that they will be stored as waste on site at OPG’s Western Waste Management Facility -- in a surface facility until 2043, and underground thereafter.
OPG, the owner of the Bruce reactors, is fully prepared to store all used
steam generators from all Ontario reactors in a special facility adjacent to
the Bruce site, with plans for a “segmentation facility” to disassemble the
radioactive hulks later on. This arrangement is laid out in a 2007
contractual document between OPG and Bruce Power.
But in October 2009 Bruce Power pressured OPG to transfer ownership of the steam generators to them so that they could save money on waste storage charges by using a Swedish company to disperse much of the radioactive metal into the world’s scrap metal supply – thereby contaminating an otherwise “clean” source of recycled material.
“The practice of contaminating scrap metal supplies by mixing in radioactive waste materials has been condemned by many bodies, including the United Nations, the Steel Manufacturer’s Association, and the International Recycling Bureau,” said Kay Cumbow of the Michigan-based group, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination.
Contacts:
English: Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., CCNR President, (514) 489 2665 or (514) 839 7214
Mike Keegan, M.A., Chair, Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes, (734)
770 1441
Kay Cumbow, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination (CACC), (810) 346-4513
French/English: Michel Duguay, Ph.D., MSQN Coordinator, (418) 802 2740
Marc Chénier, B.Sc., RSN Board Member, (514) 527 2712
http://www.pej.org/html/
modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=8611&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Media Release – For Immediate Release February 5, 2011
The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, the Coalition for a
Nuclear Free Great Lakes, the Mouvement Sortons le Québec du Nucléaire, and many affiliated groups, join together in condemning the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s decision to allow Bruce Power (BP) to ship 16 used steam generations – amounting to 1600 tonnes of radioactive waste – through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River halfway around the world to Sweden.
This shipment contains more than 6 times – and arguably more than 50 times – the maximum amount of radioactivity allowed by IAEA regulations. Because of this, the CNSC had to make a “Special Arrangement” exempting Bruce Power from those IAEA regulations.
“By bending the rules, the CNSC has demonstrated that they are champions of the nuclear industry rather than defenders of the public interest – for there is no public benefit to be served by allowing these shipments,” said Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.
“This is a dark day for communities around the Great Lakes and the St.
Lawrence River, and for the 40 million people whose drinking water is
derived from these sources, for this shipment of radioactive waste is just
the beginning – it will be followed by many other such shipments,” said
Michael Keegan, Chair of the Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes.
“Radioactive contamination of our lakes and rivers is inevitable if they are
to be routinely subjected to the transport of radioactive debris from
defunct nuclear reactors,” said Dr. Michel Duguay, Coordinator of the
Mouvement sortons le Québec du nucléaire.
Mayors, aboriginal communities and NGOs will continue to oppose these
shipments both nationally and internationally, and they will continue to bring this controversial issue to t the attention of political decision makers at all levels of government. “Politicians have to wake up and pass laws to protect the public and the environment from the deliberate dissemination of radioactive waste materials,” said Marc Chénier of the Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire.
During a 2006 Environmental Assessment, Bruce Power and the CNSC declared that the used steam generators are “radioactive wastes” and therefore not able to be recycled for safety reasons, promising that they will be stored as waste on site at OPG’s Western Waste Management Facility -- in a surface facility until 2043, and underground thereafter.
OPG, the owner of the Bruce reactors, is fully prepared to store all used
steam generators from all Ontario reactors in a special facility adjacent to
the Bruce site, with plans for a “segmentation facility” to disassemble the
radioactive hulks later on. This arrangement is laid out in a 2007
contractual document between OPG and Bruce Power.
But in October 2009 Bruce Power pressured OPG to transfer ownership of the steam generators to them so that they could save money on waste storage charges by using a Swedish company to disperse much of the radioactive metal into the world’s scrap metal supply – thereby contaminating an otherwise “clean” source of recycled material.
“The practice of contaminating scrap metal supplies by mixing in radioactive waste materials has been condemned by many bodies, including the United Nations, the Steel Manufacturer’s Association, and the International Recycling Bureau,” said Kay Cumbow of the Michigan-based group, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination.
Contacts:
English: Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., CCNR President, (514) 489 2665 or (514) 839 7214
Mike Keegan, M.A., Chair, Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes, (734)
770 1441
Kay Cumbow, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination (CACC), (810) 346-4513
French/English: Michel Duguay, Ph.D., MSQN Coordinator, (418) 802 2740
Marc Chénier, B.Sc., RSN Board Member, (514) 527 2712
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Opposition to radioactive shipment through Great Lakes growi
by Oscar » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:09 am
Opposition to radioactive shipment through Great Lakes growing
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/making-waves/2011/02/
opposition-grows-radioactive-shipment-through-great-lakes
Emma Lui February 15, 2011
On February 4, 2011, the Canadian Nuclear safety Commission (CNSC) approved Bruce Power’s plan to ship 16 bus-size radioactive steam generators from Owen Sound to Nyköping, Sweden. Bruce Power has contracted Swedish company Studsvik to transport and decontaminate 90% of the steam generators. The scrap metal will be free released into the consumer market. This is the first of several shipments since Bruce Power has 64 steam generators that it plans to ship to Sweden. The decision, which had been expected in December, was released at 4:30 p.m. on a Friday afternoon. The timing of the release speaks to the controversy and opposition to the decision that the CNSC had expected.
Since the decision, opposition to the shipment has grown. The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and Mouvement Sortons le Québec du Nucléaire immediately issued statements condemning the decision. The Mohawks of Akwasesne, Kahnawake and Tyendinaga released a joint statement
[ http://www.kahnawake.com/news/pr/pr02092011c.pdf ]
last week expressing their opposition to the shipment. The mayors of Sarnia and Montreal have reiterated their resolve to stop the shipment in the media.
The shipment will pass by municipalities along the Great Lakes, Lake St. Clair, Detroit River, Niagara River, St. Lawrence Seaway and Gulf of St. Lawrence. The CNSC’s decision noted that Bruce Power must obtain permits from municipalities along the travel route, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Transport Canada and the US Department of Transport. Bruce Power must also obtain approval from the UK, Denmark and Norway to pass through their waters. There is no clear shipping date. Last year, the St. Lawrence Seaway began its shipping season on March 25. There are estimates that the shipment will begin in April.
Concern about the shipments is also growing overseas. Organizations in Europe have expressed opposition including the Swedish Environmental Movement’s Nuclear Waste Secretariat, Nuclear Free Local Authorities (UK and Ireland),
[http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/
Canadian_radwaste_shipments.pdf ]
Green World (Russia), Naturvernforbund/Friends of the Earth (Norway) and Sortie du nucléaire (France). Many European organizations are monitoring developments related to the shipment. The Scottish government has expressed concerns
[ http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/
Canadian_radwaste_shipments.pdf ]
about the shipment’s passage through Scottish waters.
The CNSC held a technical briefing last Friday (February 11) “to correct misinformation on the safety and environmental impact of this shipment.” The CNSC is also holding a technical briefing today for Members of Parliament. The media briefing included questions on public consultation, opposition to the shipment and contents of the steam generators.
Akwesasne Grand Chief Mike Kanentakeron Mitchell has decried the lack of consultation stating, “We were never consulted even though the shipment is planned to pass through our territorial waters.” When a reporter at the media briefing asked about public consultation with the Mohawks of Akwasesne, CNSC’s Executive Vice President and Chief Regulatory Officer,Ramzi Jamal quickly noted that the CNSC had conducted consultations with the City of Montreal and the Mohawks of Akwasesne. Although the Mohawks of Akwasesne had requested a consultation with the CNSC, the CNSC’s presentation does not replace Bruce Power’s obligation to consult with communities. There is a need for CNSC and Bruce Power to consult with communities but these are not one and the same. However, the CNSC seems to think so.
The CNSC presentation
[http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/pdfs/Presentations/
VP/2010/Nov_30_2010_Ramzi_Jammal_to_Mohawk_Government_e.pdf ]
assures audiences of the safety of radioactive shipments on the Great Lakes and fails to examine possible risks or public concerns. The CNSC presentation advocates for Bruce Power’s plan, even though the CNSC has stated that the presentation was not about the Bruce Power shipment but rather about nuclear shipments in general.
The CNSC’s decision also calls into question what it means to consult with a community or with the public. The CNSC held a public hearing in September 2010. Nearly 80 groups and individuals made written submissions to the CNSC with the majority of them opposing the shipments. Half of the groups spoke at the CNSC's public hearing. 32 of the interveners made supplementary submissions in November raising further concerns and questions that were not addressed at the hearing. Despite this opposition, the CNSC has approved the plan. This disregard for public concern raises the question of how much input communities have in the consultation process.
Although the purpose of technical brief was to address “misinformation” about the shipments, the CNSC staff side-stepped a key concern about the shipment. In April 2010, Bruce Power applied for a special licence with the CNSC because the shipment failed to meet packaging requirements set out in the CNSC’s Packaging and Transport of Nuclear Substances Regulations (PTNSR). The radioactive levels of the steam generators also exceed legal limits set out by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material by 50 times.
However, Mr. Jammal failed to mention the latter point at the technical briefing. He emphatically stated that “Those generators, if they would fit into an existing approved package, I’ll be very honest with you, we would not be here. The size of the generator is the issue.” Apparently that is not the only issue. The CNSC staff report (Document 10-H19, page 7) noted that “Bruce Power has applied for a licence to transport under special arrangement for the transport of the steam generators because the size of the steam generators makes it impractical to package them, the interior cannot be accessed which does not allow direct confirmation of the estimated internal surface contamination levels, and the total activity in the shipment is estimated to exceed the limits of the regulations for Surface Contaminated Objects material transported onboard a single ship.” (italics added)
There is debate between the CNSC and interveners about how many times the radioactive levels exceed IAEA guidelines. The CNSC has affirmed that the radioactivity of the shipment exceeds IAEA guidelines by 6 times, which is true for limits of ocean-going shipments. However, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiatives (GLSLCI) noted that radioactivity of a single ship exceeds IAEA guidelines for inland-water shipments (lakes and rivers) by 50 times (or “60 times with revised and increased estimates of radioactivity”). The GLSLCI has noted it is not clear whether the 10 A2 limit applies to inland waterway or inland watercraft. The GLSLCI also noted that an accident with only one generator in Owen Sound Harbour has the potential to exceed Health Canada’s Drinking Water Action Levels by 6 times (if release rate is 100%).
In any case, this shipment sets a dangerous precedent for shipping radioactive waste that exceeds international standards across the Great Lakes. This precedent may influence decisions about highly radioactive waste currently stored on site at the Bruce, Pickering and Darlington nuclear power plants. The government is considering a disposal site in Saskatchewan. This would mean the waste would be transported through the most densely populated areas of Southern Ontario and across thousands of kilometres of Northern Ontario’s highways or shipped by water to Lake Superior. Naturvernforbund (Friends of the Earth Norway) has noted that this shipment is setting a precedent for increasing radioactive metal from Russia to Ecomet S near St. Petersburg.
In response to the CNSC decision, Grand Chief of the Mohawks of Tyendinaga Don Maracle pointed out, “We have an obligation to protect Mother Earth and her inhabitants. We would be derelict in our duties if we turned a blind eye to this dangerous plan.” Although the purported mission of the CNSC is to regulate “the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians and the environment,” it appears the Mohawks of Tyendinaga and other groups are doing a better job with the CNSC's mission than the CNSC commissioners are.
Emma Lui is the National Water Campaigner for the Council of Canadians
= = = = = =
Not through our backyard - A plan to ship worn-out nuclear generators
from Canada to Sweden through British waters has many local officials in Scotland fuming
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/
story_print.html?id=4291521&sponsor=
writes Randy Boswell, Ottawa Citizen, Wed Feb 16 2011
It's been approved for a Great Lakes crossing by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, but a radioactive shipload of decommissioned steam generators from Ontario's Bruce Power plant is now headed for a rough ride overseas.
A coalition of British municipalities is urging the U.K. government to prevent the atomic cargo from passing close to Ireland and Scotland.
MORE:
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/making-waves/2011/02/
opposition-grows-radioactive-shipment-through-great-lakes
Emma Lui February 15, 2011
On February 4, 2011, the Canadian Nuclear safety Commission (CNSC) approved Bruce Power’s plan to ship 16 bus-size radioactive steam generators from Owen Sound to Nyköping, Sweden. Bruce Power has contracted Swedish company Studsvik to transport and decontaminate 90% of the steam generators. The scrap metal will be free released into the consumer market. This is the first of several shipments since Bruce Power has 64 steam generators that it plans to ship to Sweden. The decision, which had been expected in December, was released at 4:30 p.m. on a Friday afternoon. The timing of the release speaks to the controversy and opposition to the decision that the CNSC had expected.
Since the decision, opposition to the shipment has grown. The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and Mouvement Sortons le Québec du Nucléaire immediately issued statements condemning the decision. The Mohawks of Akwasesne, Kahnawake and Tyendinaga released a joint statement
[ http://www.kahnawake.com/news/pr/pr02092011c.pdf ]
last week expressing their opposition to the shipment. The mayors of Sarnia and Montreal have reiterated their resolve to stop the shipment in the media.
The shipment will pass by municipalities along the Great Lakes, Lake St. Clair, Detroit River, Niagara River, St. Lawrence Seaway and Gulf of St. Lawrence. The CNSC’s decision noted that Bruce Power must obtain permits from municipalities along the travel route, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Transport Canada and the US Department of Transport. Bruce Power must also obtain approval from the UK, Denmark and Norway to pass through their waters. There is no clear shipping date. Last year, the St. Lawrence Seaway began its shipping season on March 25. There are estimates that the shipment will begin in April.
Concern about the shipments is also growing overseas. Organizations in Europe have expressed opposition including the Swedish Environmental Movement’s Nuclear Waste Secretariat, Nuclear Free Local Authorities (UK and Ireland),
[http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/
Canadian_radwaste_shipments.pdf ]
Green World (Russia), Naturvernforbund/Friends of the Earth (Norway) and Sortie du nucléaire (France). Many European organizations are monitoring developments related to the shipment. The Scottish government has expressed concerns
[ http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/
Canadian_radwaste_shipments.pdf ]
about the shipment’s passage through Scottish waters.
The CNSC held a technical briefing last Friday (February 11) “to correct misinformation on the safety and environmental impact of this shipment.” The CNSC is also holding a technical briefing today for Members of Parliament. The media briefing included questions on public consultation, opposition to the shipment and contents of the steam generators.
Akwesasne Grand Chief Mike Kanentakeron Mitchell has decried the lack of consultation stating, “We were never consulted even though the shipment is planned to pass through our territorial waters.” When a reporter at the media briefing asked about public consultation with the Mohawks of Akwasesne, CNSC’s Executive Vice President and Chief Regulatory Officer,Ramzi Jamal quickly noted that the CNSC had conducted consultations with the City of Montreal and the Mohawks of Akwasesne. Although the Mohawks of Akwasesne had requested a consultation with the CNSC, the CNSC’s presentation does not replace Bruce Power’s obligation to consult with communities. There is a need for CNSC and Bruce Power to consult with communities but these are not one and the same. However, the CNSC seems to think so.
The CNSC presentation
[http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/pdfs/Presentations/
VP/2010/Nov_30_2010_Ramzi_Jammal_to_Mohawk_Government_e.pdf ]
assures audiences of the safety of radioactive shipments on the Great Lakes and fails to examine possible risks or public concerns. The CNSC presentation advocates for Bruce Power’s plan, even though the CNSC has stated that the presentation was not about the Bruce Power shipment but rather about nuclear shipments in general.
The CNSC’s decision also calls into question what it means to consult with a community or with the public. The CNSC held a public hearing in September 2010. Nearly 80 groups and individuals made written submissions to the CNSC with the majority of them opposing the shipments. Half of the groups spoke at the CNSC's public hearing. 32 of the interveners made supplementary submissions in November raising further concerns and questions that were not addressed at the hearing. Despite this opposition, the CNSC has approved the plan. This disregard for public concern raises the question of how much input communities have in the consultation process.
Although the purpose of technical brief was to address “misinformation” about the shipments, the CNSC staff side-stepped a key concern about the shipment. In April 2010, Bruce Power applied for a special licence with the CNSC because the shipment failed to meet packaging requirements set out in the CNSC’s Packaging and Transport of Nuclear Substances Regulations (PTNSR). The radioactive levels of the steam generators also exceed legal limits set out by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material by 50 times.
However, Mr. Jammal failed to mention the latter point at the technical briefing. He emphatically stated that “Those generators, if they would fit into an existing approved package, I’ll be very honest with you, we would not be here. The size of the generator is the issue.” Apparently that is not the only issue. The CNSC staff report (Document 10-H19, page 7) noted that “Bruce Power has applied for a licence to transport under special arrangement for the transport of the steam generators because the size of the steam generators makes it impractical to package them, the interior cannot be accessed which does not allow direct confirmation of the estimated internal surface contamination levels, and the total activity in the shipment is estimated to exceed the limits of the regulations for Surface Contaminated Objects material transported onboard a single ship.” (italics added)
There is debate between the CNSC and interveners about how many times the radioactive levels exceed IAEA guidelines. The CNSC has affirmed that the radioactivity of the shipment exceeds IAEA guidelines by 6 times, which is true for limits of ocean-going shipments. However, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiatives (GLSLCI) noted that radioactivity of a single ship exceeds IAEA guidelines for inland-water shipments (lakes and rivers) by 50 times (or “60 times with revised and increased estimates of radioactivity”). The GLSLCI has noted it is not clear whether the 10 A2 limit applies to inland waterway or inland watercraft. The GLSLCI also noted that an accident with only one generator in Owen Sound Harbour has the potential to exceed Health Canada’s Drinking Water Action Levels by 6 times (if release rate is 100%).
In any case, this shipment sets a dangerous precedent for shipping radioactive waste that exceeds international standards across the Great Lakes. This precedent may influence decisions about highly radioactive waste currently stored on site at the Bruce, Pickering and Darlington nuclear power plants. The government is considering a disposal site in Saskatchewan. This would mean the waste would be transported through the most densely populated areas of Southern Ontario and across thousands of kilometres of Northern Ontario’s highways or shipped by water to Lake Superior. Naturvernforbund (Friends of the Earth Norway) has noted that this shipment is setting a precedent for increasing radioactive metal from Russia to Ecomet S near St. Petersburg.
In response to the CNSC decision, Grand Chief of the Mohawks of Tyendinaga Don Maracle pointed out, “We have an obligation to protect Mother Earth and her inhabitants. We would be derelict in our duties if we turned a blind eye to this dangerous plan.” Although the purported mission of the CNSC is to regulate “the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians and the environment,” it appears the Mohawks of Tyendinaga and other groups are doing a better job with the CNSC's mission than the CNSC commissioners are.
Emma Lui is the National Water Campaigner for the Council of Canadians
= = = = = =
Not through our backyard - A plan to ship worn-out nuclear generators
from Canada to Sweden through British waters has many local officials in Scotland fuming
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/
story_print.html?id=4291521&sponsor=
writes Randy Boswell, Ottawa Citizen, Wed Feb 16 2011
It's been approved for a Great Lakes crossing by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, but a radioactive shipload of decommissioned steam generators from Ontario's Bruce Power plant is now headed for a rough ride overseas.
A coalition of British municipalities is urging the U.K. government to prevent the atomic cargo from passing close to Ireland and Scotland.
MORE:
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
ADAMSON: LETTER: RE: Shipping Defunct Radioactive Steam G
by Oscar » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:48 am
ADAMSON: LETTER: RE: Shipping Defunct Radioactive Steam Generators to Sweden
From: Bill Adamson
To: mnr@parl.gc.ca ; Benoit.L@parl.gc.ca ; Allen.M@parl.gc.ca ; Anderson.D@parl.gc.ca ; Andrews.S@parl.gc.ca ; Brunelle.P@parl.gc.ca ; Coderre.D@parl.gc ; Cullen.N@parl.gc.ca ; Harris.R@parl.gc.ca ; Hoback.R@parl.gc.ca ; Pomerleau.R@parl.gc.ca ; Shory.D@parl.gc.ca ; Tonks.A@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 2:45 PM
LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Re: Shipping Defunct Radioactive Steam Generators to Sweden
You may have noticed there is a controversy ongoing about shipping to Sweden some 16 huge, discarded nuclear steam generators, each the size of a city bus, and weighing 100 tonnes each. Bruce Power made the plan and filed an application for a licence to transport, in order to salvage the two-inch steel cover shell.
Some argue that the shipments would be 6 times the amount of radiation which the IAEA specifies for transport, others argue that it would amount to 50 times the specified amount. Some say that the radioactive residue in the 5200 narrow pipes of some 920 kilometres in total length would be the size of a tennis ball. Others say there would be enough plutonium –239 to give several million workers their maximum allowable dose of radiation for life.
The truth of the matter is that no one really knows how much radioactive residue is in the pipes of each generator! Early in the game, a staff member of the CNSC stated clearly and honestly: “the interior cannot be accessed which does not allow direct confirmation of the estimated internal surface contamination levels. . . “ (Commission Member Document 10:H19, pp. 7,11—March 2006)
However, Bruce Power and later on, CNSC, took a radioactive reading on the outside of some of the pipes, and using some fancy formulas and mysterious math, concluded that the amount of radioactive residue in the pipes would be negligible. The huge steel two-inch shells on the outside of the generators were welded shut on both ends.
The staff members of Bruce Power and CNSC do not have the guts to don protective gear and use robotic machines to cut open one of the steam boilers, and take an actual, close-at-hand measurement of the radioactive chemicals on the interior of the pipes in these steam boilers. They are afraid of what they will find, and hence resort to various kinds of guestimates and hypothetical calculations.
Meanwhile, 103 interveners, 200 municipalities, 32 cities, many First Nations groups, USA Senators, and hundreds of citizens along the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Waterway are very alarmed and protesting about the radioactive risk of a potential disaster along their shores, and about the source of their many water systems. The CNSC ignores all these public expressions and does what it pleases!
It is informative, frequently, to review the legislative mandate of the CNSC:
“9. The objects of the Commission are to regulate the development , production and use of nuclear energy, and production, possession and use of nuclear substances, prescribed equipment and prescribed information in order to . . .to disseminate objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public concerning the activities of the Commission and the effects, on the environment and on the health and safety of persons, of the development, production and use referred to in paragraph (a).” (Nuclear Safety, Control Act (1997,c.9) )
The President, Commissioners, and Staff have overreached and extended their activities beyond their mandate. Instead of “regulating” the uranium/nuclear industry, they are actively “promoting” it, and have become “salesmen” for the industry. Note the 16 promotional presentations of the President during 2009, including to your own Standing Committee, all listed on the CNSC website. This leads to underlying assumptions and motivations for all the Commissioners and Staff in carrying out their activities.
The CNSC through Memos of Understanding, and Order-in-Council, without any parliamentary debate, have taken over most of the environmental regulations regarding uranium mining, in order to facilitate mining projects with the least possible environmental assessment. They have taken away considerable oversight and control from the CEAA.
An example of this is the new Midwest Mine Project in northern Saskatchewan. Plans were prepared and circulated for public perusal. Money from the CEAA was used to bring in Consultants like Dr. Chris Busby of Liverpool , England and Dr. Gordon Edwards of Montreal, who raised serious problems with the proposed open-pit mining project. These reports were never made public, were given to Regulatory Authorities, but held in suspension till the company made a statement—which was never forthcoming. Consequently, manipulations were undertaken whereby the proposed Midwest Mine is now to be considered a sub-unit of McClean Lake mine, so that it does not need an assessment process—even though it is 14 km distant from McClean Lake mine!
In Canada we have a rather unusual system for “regulating” nuclear affairs. For public hearings, we have a President and 4 to 7 Commissioners, sometimes referred to as a “Tribunal” (like the Roman army system), sitting on a dais, listening to proposed plans and projects.
So, there they sit, PLAYING GOD, making decisions about radioactive chemicals which will be dangerous to humans and environment for thousands of years. They know some facts about nuclear materials, but not a lot. Mostly, they turn to staff members for details. The recent public “webcasts” have been very revealing about the type of questions and comments which these Commissioners raise, and the ones they do not raise.
With a “façade” of consultation, citizens and groups are allowed to make interventions. If questions or dangers are raised by citizens, the Commissioners turn to the CNSC staff for detail. The response of staff is taken as authoritative and the final answer. There is no cross-examination, or stiff debate. Unlike other scientists, the staff rarely refer to other sources of corroboration for their views, or to peer-reviewed documents about nuclear complexities.
It is interesting to note that in the “Record of Proceedings, Including Reasons for Decision” (Application of Bruce Power -Feb. 4, 2011), the record states that for several dangers and concerns “CNSC staff concurred with Bruce Power“ (No.16); “CNSC staff stated that Bruce Power methodology to estimate the activity was acceptable.” (No. 17) It is intriguing to note that on at least 58 troubling concerns raised by the interveners, CNSC staff concurred with or accepted the specifics proposed by the industry, and that was the final decision maker! In many statements it was simply “The Commission is satisfied. . . “
So, you have an infallible staff, always giving correct answers to 7 Commissioners, who have ultimate authority—like God! There are no procedures for appeal. It seems so “un-Canadian” not to have any checks and balances!
We have here with us a neat and fully controlled “tautology,” a “self-contained system,” a “closed-circuit,” impervious to the influence of other agencies. ONLY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT can overturn or modify the CNSC decision to grant a licence for transporting used, radioactive steam generators to Sweden.
Back in the 1950’s, the Nobel Prize winner, chemist and economist, Michael Polanyi in his 1958 book, Personal Knowledge warned of the need to check underlying assumptions and motives beneath structures of logic and scientific theories. He cautioned that scientific theories could be absolutely wrong. He wrote: “For the stability of the naturalistic system we currently accept, instead, rests on the same logical structure as Azande witchcraft beliefs. Any contradiction between a particular scientific notion and the facts of experience will be explained by other scientific notions. There is a ready reserve of possible scientific hypotheses available to explain any conceivable event. Secured by its circularity and defended by its epicyclical reserves, science may deny or at least cast aside as of no scientific interest, whole ranges of experience which to the unscientific mind appear both massive and vital.”
We have here in Canada, a very dangerous situation. It is imperative that MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT do a thorough investigation, and then act to protect the Canadian Public.
Dr. Bill Adamson,
304-1735 McKercher Dr.,
Saskatoon, SK. S7H 5N6
adamson.bl@shaw.ca
From: Bill Adamson
To: mnr@parl.gc.ca ; Benoit.L@parl.gc.ca ; Allen.M@parl.gc.ca ; Anderson.D@parl.gc.ca ; Andrews.S@parl.gc.ca ; Brunelle.P@parl.gc.ca ; Coderre.D@parl.gc ; Cullen.N@parl.gc.ca ; Harris.R@parl.gc.ca ; Hoback.R@parl.gc.ca ; Pomerleau.R@parl.gc.ca ; Shory.D@parl.gc.ca ; Tonks.A@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 2:45 PM
LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Re: Shipping Defunct Radioactive Steam Generators to Sweden
You may have noticed there is a controversy ongoing about shipping to Sweden some 16 huge, discarded nuclear steam generators, each the size of a city bus, and weighing 100 tonnes each. Bruce Power made the plan and filed an application for a licence to transport, in order to salvage the two-inch steel cover shell.
Some argue that the shipments would be 6 times the amount of radiation which the IAEA specifies for transport, others argue that it would amount to 50 times the specified amount. Some say that the radioactive residue in the 5200 narrow pipes of some 920 kilometres in total length would be the size of a tennis ball. Others say there would be enough plutonium –239 to give several million workers their maximum allowable dose of radiation for life.
The truth of the matter is that no one really knows how much radioactive residue is in the pipes of each generator! Early in the game, a staff member of the CNSC stated clearly and honestly: “the interior cannot be accessed which does not allow direct confirmation of the estimated internal surface contamination levels. . . “ (Commission Member Document 10:H19, pp. 7,11—March 2006)
However, Bruce Power and later on, CNSC, took a radioactive reading on the outside of some of the pipes, and using some fancy formulas and mysterious math, concluded that the amount of radioactive residue in the pipes would be negligible. The huge steel two-inch shells on the outside of the generators were welded shut on both ends.
The staff members of Bruce Power and CNSC do not have the guts to don protective gear and use robotic machines to cut open one of the steam boilers, and take an actual, close-at-hand measurement of the radioactive chemicals on the interior of the pipes in these steam boilers. They are afraid of what they will find, and hence resort to various kinds of guestimates and hypothetical calculations.
Meanwhile, 103 interveners, 200 municipalities, 32 cities, many First Nations groups, USA Senators, and hundreds of citizens along the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Waterway are very alarmed and protesting about the radioactive risk of a potential disaster along their shores, and about the source of their many water systems. The CNSC ignores all these public expressions and does what it pleases!
It is informative, frequently, to review the legislative mandate of the CNSC:
“9. The objects of the Commission are to regulate the development , production and use of nuclear energy, and production, possession and use of nuclear substances, prescribed equipment and prescribed information in order to . . .to disseminate objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public concerning the activities of the Commission and the effects, on the environment and on the health and safety of persons, of the development, production and use referred to in paragraph (a).” (Nuclear Safety, Control Act (1997,c.9) )
The President, Commissioners, and Staff have overreached and extended their activities beyond their mandate. Instead of “regulating” the uranium/nuclear industry, they are actively “promoting” it, and have become “salesmen” for the industry. Note the 16 promotional presentations of the President during 2009, including to your own Standing Committee, all listed on the CNSC website. This leads to underlying assumptions and motivations for all the Commissioners and Staff in carrying out their activities.
The CNSC through Memos of Understanding, and Order-in-Council, without any parliamentary debate, have taken over most of the environmental regulations regarding uranium mining, in order to facilitate mining projects with the least possible environmental assessment. They have taken away considerable oversight and control from the CEAA.
An example of this is the new Midwest Mine Project in northern Saskatchewan. Plans were prepared and circulated for public perusal. Money from the CEAA was used to bring in Consultants like Dr. Chris Busby of Liverpool , England and Dr. Gordon Edwards of Montreal, who raised serious problems with the proposed open-pit mining project. These reports were never made public, were given to Regulatory Authorities, but held in suspension till the company made a statement—which was never forthcoming. Consequently, manipulations were undertaken whereby the proposed Midwest Mine is now to be considered a sub-unit of McClean Lake mine, so that it does not need an assessment process—even though it is 14 km distant from McClean Lake mine!
In Canada we have a rather unusual system for “regulating” nuclear affairs. For public hearings, we have a President and 4 to 7 Commissioners, sometimes referred to as a “Tribunal” (like the Roman army system), sitting on a dais, listening to proposed plans and projects.
So, there they sit, PLAYING GOD, making decisions about radioactive chemicals which will be dangerous to humans and environment for thousands of years. They know some facts about nuclear materials, but not a lot. Mostly, they turn to staff members for details. The recent public “webcasts” have been very revealing about the type of questions and comments which these Commissioners raise, and the ones they do not raise.
With a “façade” of consultation, citizens and groups are allowed to make interventions. If questions or dangers are raised by citizens, the Commissioners turn to the CNSC staff for detail. The response of staff is taken as authoritative and the final answer. There is no cross-examination, or stiff debate. Unlike other scientists, the staff rarely refer to other sources of corroboration for their views, or to peer-reviewed documents about nuclear complexities.
It is interesting to note that in the “Record of Proceedings, Including Reasons for Decision” (Application of Bruce Power -Feb. 4, 2011), the record states that for several dangers and concerns “CNSC staff concurred with Bruce Power“ (No.16); “CNSC staff stated that Bruce Power methodology to estimate the activity was acceptable.” (No. 17) It is intriguing to note that on at least 58 troubling concerns raised by the interveners, CNSC staff concurred with or accepted the specifics proposed by the industry, and that was the final decision maker! In many statements it was simply “The Commission is satisfied. . . “
So, you have an infallible staff, always giving correct answers to 7 Commissioners, who have ultimate authority—like God! There are no procedures for appeal. It seems so “un-Canadian” not to have any checks and balances!
We have here with us a neat and fully controlled “tautology,” a “self-contained system,” a “closed-circuit,” impervious to the influence of other agencies. ONLY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT can overturn or modify the CNSC decision to grant a licence for transporting used, radioactive steam generators to Sweden.
Back in the 1950’s, the Nobel Prize winner, chemist and economist, Michael Polanyi in his 1958 book, Personal Knowledge warned of the need to check underlying assumptions and motives beneath structures of logic and scientific theories. He cautioned that scientific theories could be absolutely wrong. He wrote: “For the stability of the naturalistic system we currently accept, instead, rests on the same logical structure as Azande witchcraft beliefs. Any contradiction between a particular scientific notion and the facts of experience will be explained by other scientific notions. There is a ready reserve of possible scientific hypotheses available to explain any conceivable event. Secured by its circularity and defended by its epicyclical reserves, science may deny or at least cast aside as of no scientific interest, whole ranges of experience which to the unscientific mind appear both massive and vital.”
We have here in Canada, a very dangerous situation. It is imperative that MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT do a thorough investigation, and then act to protect the Canadian Public.
Dr. Bill Adamson,
304-1735 McKercher Dr.,
Saskatoon, SK. S7H 5N6
adamson.bl@shaw.ca
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
VICTORY: Plan to ship radioactive waste cancelled . . .
by Oscar » Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:47 am
VICTORY: Plan to ship radioactive material [steam generators] to Sweden for recycling cancelled
----- Original Message -----
From: Gordon Edwards
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 1:42 PM
Subject: VICTORY: Plan to ship radioactive material [steam generators] to Sweden for recycling cancelled
Background (July 27 2013)
Concerted efforts by an unusually diverse and powerful movement of ordinary citizens has led to an unequivocal victory.
Bruce Power's contract to ship 16 huge radioactively contaminated steam generators, each weighing 100 tonnes, from Owen Sound Ontario
to the Studsvik facility in Sweden for "recycling", has been officially scrapped.
This outcome is entirely due to public opposition, since Bruce Power had received all the necessary authorizations -- including a CNSC
(Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) licence -- to proceed with the shipments.
The plan was fiercely opposed by many hundreds of environmental groups, by first nations communities, and by almost 300 municipalities.
The idea of shipping 1600 tonnes of nuclear waste through the Great Lakes and along the St. Lawrence River was the main rallying point for most people. A resolution opposing the shipping of any nuclear waste through these precious waterways was one of the main organizing tools used to alert and educate people.
But the idea of blending man-made nuclear waste materials into scrap metal for general commercial use, without even any labelling to indicate that the "recycled"metal contains nuclear waste, was another powerful motivator driving many to oppose the Bruce Power plan.
Increasingly, the nuclear industry is seeking permission from governments to be allowed to freely release radioactive waste materials into the environment and into commercial products. Citizens from all walks of life must be alert to this dangerous trend which will result in irreversible contamination of unregulated sites and manufactured goods.
Special thanks for this victory go to the organizing efforts of the CCNR (Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility), GLU (the late lamented Great Lakes United), the Great Lakes Cities Initiative, the First Nations (especially the Mohawks), the Sierra Club of Canada, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Council of Canadians, le Mouvement Sortons le Quebec du Nucléaire, and the organization of Mayors of Quebec municipalities that passed a great many resolutions against the shipments in French.
Gordon Edwards, President
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
www.ccnr.org
= = = = = =
Studsvik's Interim Report for January - June 2013
< http://news.cision.com/studsvik-ab/r/st ... 3,c9443471 >
The order for treatment of steam generators for Bruce Power in Canada, signed in 2009, was annulled. The agreement had a positive effect on second quarter earnings of SEK 11.2 million
======================================
QUOTE: "But for opponents to the plan like Maude Barlow, national chairwoman of the Council of Canadians, the cancellation of the plan is good news.
"This is a huge victory for communities around the Great Lakes," she wrote in an email. "The Great Lakes belong to everyone and communities have a right to say 'no' to any projects that will harm them.""
Plan to ship radioactive material to Sweden for recycling cancelled
< http://www.ottawacitizen.com/mobile/sto ... id=8715633 >
By Joshua Learn, The Canadian Press July 27, 2013
< http://tinyurl.com/nsmaptv >
A plan to ship 16 radioactive steam generators through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River for recycling in Sweden has been cancelled after delays caused by public opposition.
An agreement was reached in 2009 between Bruce Power in Tiverton, Ont., and Swedish company Studsvik but company president Duncan Hawthorne said they delayed the plans to allow further discussion with First Nations, Metis and other groups.
The move has been strongly opposed by aboriginal groups, the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP and a number of community organizations over the past two years.
Emma Lui of the Council of Canadians says there are many concerns but the "big one" is the possible threat to the Great Lakes if something went wrong with the shipment.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission had issued a transport licence and certificate to Bruce Power after determining the risk to the health and safety of the public and the environment was negligible.
Bruce Power spokesman James Scongack said the nuclear facility "did not seek to renew" the licence after it expired early in 2012 but that the company remains committed to finding a way to recycle its waste.
"This is by no means an indication that our position has changed on the importance of the reduce, reuse and recycle principle related to managing our waste," he said.
Back in 2011, Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said shipping the used generators through the Great Lakes was not the right thing to do.
"We think it's an unnecessary environmental and health risk to transport them,'' she said at the time.
Lui says she would prefer for the radioactive material to stay on site so it could be monitored instead of shipping it overseas.
Bruce Power has said about 90 per cent of the metal in the steam generators can be decontaminated, melted down and sold back into the scrap metal market.
The rest will be returned to the Bruce Power site for long-term storage. Each steam generator contains 100 tonnes of steel but less than four grams of radioactive substances.
But Lui says there was concern "about whether or not the radioactivity could actually be removed from the material." [ . . . ]
----- Original Message -----
From: Gordon Edwards
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 1:42 PM
Subject: VICTORY: Plan to ship radioactive material [steam generators] to Sweden for recycling cancelled
Background (July 27 2013)
Concerted efforts by an unusually diverse and powerful movement of ordinary citizens has led to an unequivocal victory.
Bruce Power's contract to ship 16 huge radioactively contaminated steam generators, each weighing 100 tonnes, from Owen Sound Ontario
to the Studsvik facility in Sweden for "recycling", has been officially scrapped.
This outcome is entirely due to public opposition, since Bruce Power had received all the necessary authorizations -- including a CNSC
(Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) licence -- to proceed with the shipments.
The plan was fiercely opposed by many hundreds of environmental groups, by first nations communities, and by almost 300 municipalities.
The idea of shipping 1600 tonnes of nuclear waste through the Great Lakes and along the St. Lawrence River was the main rallying point for most people. A resolution opposing the shipping of any nuclear waste through these precious waterways was one of the main organizing tools used to alert and educate people.
But the idea of blending man-made nuclear waste materials into scrap metal for general commercial use, without even any labelling to indicate that the "recycled"metal contains nuclear waste, was another powerful motivator driving many to oppose the Bruce Power plan.
Increasingly, the nuclear industry is seeking permission from governments to be allowed to freely release radioactive waste materials into the environment and into commercial products. Citizens from all walks of life must be alert to this dangerous trend which will result in irreversible contamination of unregulated sites and manufactured goods.
Special thanks for this victory go to the organizing efforts of the CCNR (Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility), GLU (the late lamented Great Lakes United), the Great Lakes Cities Initiative, the First Nations (especially the Mohawks), the Sierra Club of Canada, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Council of Canadians, le Mouvement Sortons le Quebec du Nucléaire, and the organization of Mayors of Quebec municipalities that passed a great many resolutions against the shipments in French.
Gordon Edwards, President
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
www.ccnr.org
= = = = = =
Studsvik's Interim Report for January - June 2013
< http://news.cision.com/studsvik-ab/r/st ... 3,c9443471 >
The order for treatment of steam generators for Bruce Power in Canada, signed in 2009, was annulled. The agreement had a positive effect on second quarter earnings of SEK 11.2 million
======================================
QUOTE: "But for opponents to the plan like Maude Barlow, national chairwoman of the Council of Canadians, the cancellation of the plan is good news.
"This is a huge victory for communities around the Great Lakes," she wrote in an email. "The Great Lakes belong to everyone and communities have a right to say 'no' to any projects that will harm them.""
Plan to ship radioactive material to Sweden for recycling cancelled
< http://www.ottawacitizen.com/mobile/sto ... id=8715633 >
By Joshua Learn, The Canadian Press July 27, 2013
< http://tinyurl.com/nsmaptv >
A plan to ship 16 radioactive steam generators through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River for recycling in Sweden has been cancelled after delays caused by public opposition.
An agreement was reached in 2009 between Bruce Power in Tiverton, Ont., and Swedish company Studsvik but company president Duncan Hawthorne said they delayed the plans to allow further discussion with First Nations, Metis and other groups.
The move has been strongly opposed by aboriginal groups, the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP and a number of community organizations over the past two years.
Emma Lui of the Council of Canadians says there are many concerns but the "big one" is the possible threat to the Great Lakes if something went wrong with the shipment.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission had issued a transport licence and certificate to Bruce Power after determining the risk to the health and safety of the public and the environment was negligible.
Bruce Power spokesman James Scongack said the nuclear facility "did not seek to renew" the licence after it expired early in 2012 but that the company remains committed to finding a way to recycle its waste.
"This is by no means an indication that our position has changed on the importance of the reduce, reuse and recycle principle related to managing our waste," he said.
Back in 2011, Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said shipping the used generators through the Great Lakes was not the right thing to do.
"We think it's an unnecessary environmental and health risk to transport them,'' she said at the time.
Lui says she would prefer for the radioactive material to stay on site so it could be monitored instead of shipping it overseas.
Bruce Power has said about 90 per cent of the metal in the steam generators can be decontaminated, melted down and sold back into the scrap metal market.
The rest will be returned to the Bruce Power site for long-term storage. Each steam generator contains 100 tonnes of steel but less than four grams of radioactive substances.
But Lui says there was concern "about whether or not the radioactivity could actually be removed from the material." [ . . . ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
22 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Uranium/Nuclear/Waste
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests