STOP THE GREAT LAKES NUCLEAR DUMP

[Oscar]

Keep Up-to-date - STOP THE GREAT LAKES NUCLEAR DUMP

[ http://www.stopthegreatlakesnucleardump.com/

Would you bury poison beside your well?

Ontario Power Generation is planning to bury radioactive nuclear waste beside Lake Huron

[Oscar]

Consensus eludes nuclear dump hearings

[ http://www.thestar.com/business/economy ... ings.html# ]

After lengthy public hearings, the debate over a proposed nuclear waste storage site moves to Ottawa when a federal panel submits its recommendations on the plan.

By: John Spears, Business reporter, Toronto Star, Fri Sep 19 2014

- - - -

QUOTE: ““We agree with the Canadian government of the 1980s that the permanent storage of nuclear waste has no place in the Great Lakes basin,” Pavlov said.”

- - - -


The public has had its final say on whether it’s a good idea in principle to bury half a century’s worth of nuclear waste at the Bruce nuclear plant on the shores of Lake Huron.

A federal panel wrapped up one last round of public hearings Thursday on Ontario Power Generation’s proposal for the waste site near Kincardine. [ http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/details- ... tion=17520 ]

The panel will recommend to the federal government whether to approve the plan as environmentally acceptable, or not. The panel can attach conditions to their verdict.

But if the three panel members were hoping for consensus to emerge at the end, they were disappointed.

OPG and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission insist the plan is sound, and have solid backing from Kincardine town council and local business groups.

First nations, environmental groups and many nearby residents remain unconvinced that the case has been proven.

As the panel packs up from the hearings to deliberate, here’s how the matter stands.

MORE:

[ http://www.thestar.com/business/economy ... ings.html# ]

[Oscar]

OPG tells federal review panel that the errors in calculations don’t alter the fact that the proposed waste site is safe.

[ http://www.thestar.com/business/tech_ne ... itude.html ]

By John Spears, Business reporter, Toronto Star, Wed Sep 10 2014
http://tinyurl.com/q28falo

QUOTE: "Anna Tilman of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health told the panel that Greening’s work raises questions about the quality of OPG’s over-all work in designing the waste site. “What other errors have they made in the inventory that haven’t been detected?” she asked.

A former OPG scientist accused the utility of estimating what materials, in what proportions, are contained in waste produced by their nuclear power stations — instead of taking samples. Estimating is cheaper, he told a federal review panel on Wednesday.

KINCARDINE—Ontario Power Generation has taken a “cavalier attitude” to the potential hazards of nuclear wastes it plans to bury near the Bruce nuclear station, says a former OPG scientist.

And Frank Greening says the company did it to save money.

But OPG and Canada’s nuclear regulator told a federal review panel that the errors in their calculations pointed out by Greening, don’t alter the fact that the proposed waste site is safe.

Greening gave a technically dense but often scathing assessment of the company’s plans to entomb low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste 680 metres below ground on the shore of Lake Huron.

Greening discovered major errors in OPG’s statements of the types of waste and the radioactivity of materials destined for the site.

Greening, who holds a PhD in chemistry, worked for OPG and Ontario Hydro from 1978 until 2000.

Greening’s critique sent OPG and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission back to re-do calculations, which were presented to the panel on Wednesday.

For example, the CNSC reported that when Greening’s corrections were made, the radiation dose to members of the public resulting from a terrorist bomb damaging a package of scrapped pressure tubes would be three times more than originally calculated.

- - - SNIP - - - -

Greening accused OPG of estimating what materials, in what proportions, are contained in waste produced by their nuclear power stations — instead of taking samples.

Estimating is cheaper, he said.

“OPG has chosen to skimp on the costs of properly characterizing these piles of radioactive waste, perhaps because the analysis of just one sample costs over a thousand dollars,” Greening said.

After Greening pointed out mistakes, OPG said that they resulted from OPG’s use of “available data” in 2010, when the information was prepared.

“This is simply not true,” Greening said. “OPG did not use available data, but used fabricated data instead.”

MORE:

[ http://www.thestar.com/business/tech_ne ... itude.html ]