Half-tonne load of steel at nuclear
facility falls 20 meters from crane
Jun 29, 2009 04:30 AM
Robert Cribb, Toronto Star STAFF REPORTER
Nearly half a tonne of steel plummeted 20 meters to the ground from atop a
Bruce Power plant crane last month, narrowly missing workers below and raising
safety concerns at the nuclear facility, the Star has learned.
"The fact that this was a near-miss in human terms was mere luck," says a plant
safety briefing into the May 12 incident obtained by the Star.
The impact shook the floor of the giant plant, says one worker.
"I could feel it 100 feet away," says the man, who asked not to be named. "It
scared the hell out of us. You realize how close you came to death. Anyone
standing underneath would have been dead, dead, dead ... Nobody has ever
seen anything like this and I've been in the trade 20 years. It's a systemic failure,
a complete breakdown of procedural barriers."
A second plant worker who was there at the time and spoke with the Star on the
condition of anonymity said the load fell within 4.5 meters of some workers.
"The place is old. Things are falling apart. It does jeopardize safety at times. In a
nuclear plant, it's a huge thing."
Any major safety breach in a nuclear plant adds to its seriousness, said Frank
Greening, a former senior nuclear scientist with Ontario Power Generation.
"When it happens in a nuclear plant, it puts a different spin on it. It raises a lot of
questions. If there's a rickety old crane in there, what else have they got? You
expect a higher level of safety in a nuclear plant because you can't make mistakes.
It's lucky that this didn't smash into something."
The incident has not been publicly reported before now.
Duncan Hawthorne, chief executive of Bruce Power, called it a "significant failure"
but said no workers were in the vicinity of the fall and that the company has
conducted a thorough investigation. He said the incident, though it happened
in a nuclear plant, did not create any danger to the public.
"There was a manufacturing fault on one of the (crane) brakes," he said in an
interview. "There were 17 other cranes with similar types of brakes so we kept
them out of service until we could investigate."
He said a pending investigation report recommends a number of safety changes
including replacing all the brake shoes in the 30-year-old cranes and increased
crane inspections and training programs for crane operators.
Bruce Power is Canada's first private nuclear generating company, producing
more than 20 per cent of Ontario's electricity. Located about 250 kilometer
northwest of Toronto on Lake Huron, it is one of the largest private nuclear
generating stations in the world. Bruce Power's 930-hectare site includes six
reactor units.
The plant is currently working to get two more stations online. But the project
won't be completed until the end of next year. The final bill is expected to ring
in at between $3.1 billion and $3.4 billion ? well above the original $2.75 billion
budget, Hawthorne said.
David Mosey, a 30-year veteran of Canada's nuclear industry and author of
Reactor Accidents, called the load fall a very serious incident.
"That's something people in health and safety will have nightmares about. It
shouldn't happen if you've got an effective inspection process in place. Short
of getting hurt, they don't come any bigger."
Documents obtained by the Star show the accident -- and a second incident
five days later -- could have been avoided.
A day before the fall, a crane operator noted a problem with the equipment in a
logbook. But the crane was never inspected or put out of service, according to
internal reports obtained by the Star.
The logbook entry on May 11 says the hoist was "creeping down with 7,000 lbs.
on it," says a safety briefing. "The hoist should have come out of service as soon
as it was determined to be deficient in performance."
Putting the crane out of service would have triggered an internal brake inspection
that would have "prevented this serious incident," the briefing says.
An inspection of the crane after the accident showed one of the two brake shoes
was worn and "the lining had fallen out of the drum," it says. The opposite brake
had "loosened to the point that engineering estimates it may have only had
20 per cent of its designed holding strength."
A follow-up document says "workers expressed concern" about a "lack of
information and understanding in regards to the inspection" of the crane prior to
being put back into service .
Five days later, on May 17, another load of about 454 kilograms carried by a
separate Bruce Power crane began to "swing."
"You're in a tight spot and you've got load swinging, it could go banging into stuff,"
the second plant worker said.
An incident report says: "Upon review, it was discovered that this crane was not
released for service" because of a "work request to repair the cable on the 1-ton
aux hoist ... Crane not locked out or tagged to prevent use."
Bruce Power's Hawthorne dismissed the incident, saying an investigation found
no mechanical issue with the crane.
Ministry of Labor officials say they received calls following both incidents.
"We left it, as is often standard procedure, to the workplace's internal responsibility
system to pursue," said ministry spokesman Bruce Skeaff. "If there is no injury or
fatality, there is no requirement in law for them to let us know."
That's not good enough, said one of the plant workers.
"We all thought the Ministry of Labour would come in and do an outside investigation.
There should be third-party oversight."
Robert Cribb can be reached at 416-869-4411 or rcribb@thestar.ca. TOP
Deep Geological Repository Posts
Deep Geological Repository
A nuclear threat to the Great Lakes and surrounding Canadian-USEcosystem
New Reactors and Waste Dump for East Shore of Lake Huron
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission released draft guidelines on April 7th for the environmental review of two separate projects proposed for the Bruce Nuclear Station near Kincardine, on the eastern shore of Lake Huron.
Bruce Power Inc. and Ontario Power Generation are the proponents for the projects. Bruce Power is proposing the construction of up to four new nuclear reactors at the existing Bruce Nuclear Site, located on the eastern shore of Lake Huron, north of Kincardine. The project is expected to generate approximately 4,000 megawatts of electricity to the Ontario grid.
Ontario power Generation is proposing to construct and operate a deep-geologic disposal facility on the Bruce Nuclear Site to receive low and intermediate-level radioactive wastes, produced from the continued operation of OPG-owned nuclear generating stations at Bruce, Pickering and Darlington, Ontario. Low-level waste consists of industrial items that have become contaminated with low levels of radioactivity, during routine clean-up and maintenance activities at nuclear generating stations. Intermediate-level radioactive waste consists primarily of used nuclear reactor components - such as the ion-exchange resins and filters used to purify reactor water systems
Review participants, including Northwatch, have until June 18th to review and comment on draft guidelines for the Environmental Impact Statement. The guidelines identify the information needed to examine the potential environmental effects of the proposed project, as well as its requirements for a licence to prepare a site. A draft Joint Panel Review agreement is also available for public review. The JRP agreement deals with the establishment of an environmental review panel to perform an assessment of the project's environmental impact and of the application for a licence to prepare a site, which will be the first of a series of licences required by the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and its regulations. The documents are available at www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca
Northwatch News, Spring 2008
Nov 10, 2006 11:20 ET
Bruce Nuclear Deal Blocks Green Energy
Liberal deal could cost billions while blocking wind power and forcing transmission lines on communities
Attention: Environment Editor, Energy Editor, News Editor, Government/Political Affairs Editor
TORONTO/ONTARIO--(CCNMatthews - Nov. 10, 2006) - According to documents acquired by Greenpeace under Freedom of Information legislation and reported in today's Toronto Star, the McGuinty government's decision to sign a $4 billion contract with Bruce Power to restart ageing nuclear reactors may cost Ontarians billions of dollars in penalty charges. These costs will come into effect if the government is unable to build transmission lines from the Bruce station to Toronto for the increased electricity generation. In order to build additional transmission lines in time, the McGuinty government will need to bypass community consultations and environmental approvals.
"The documents we obtained indicate that additional nuclear capacity will use almost all the existing transmission capacity, and wind power in the Bruce region will be capped at 1000 MW," said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, Energy Campaigner with Greenpeace Canada. "The McGuinty government knowingly signed a deal with Bruce Power that will block the development of the clean wind power Ontarians want and could cost them hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The Liberal government gives lip-service to green energy, but when you follow the money it's all about nuclear power."
On October 17 2005, the McGuinty government signed a long-term contract with Bruce Power obligating the province to buy nuclear electricity from the restart and refurbishment of 4 reactors at the Bruce A nuclear station. Documents obtained by Greenpeace Canada indicate that the McGuinty government was aware when signing the deal that there was insufficient transmission capacity for the electricity produced by Bruce Power and that the province (through Hydro-One) would have to fast-track construction of new transmission lines.
The documents outline two transmission options - either a new $600 million transmission line, or an upgrade of the existing one. It is admitted that "either options does not guarantee new transmission will be in place by the 2009/2012 requirement." The documents indicate that to meet the deadlines of the Bruce deal, the construction of transmission lines "will require streamlining of approvals." The documents also make clear the huge economic risk to Ontarians if electricity is 'stranded' at the Bruce nuclear site with insufficient transmission capacity to send it to market, stating that "Under contract with Bruce, cost to Ontario for stranding one nuclear unit is $460 million per year."
"It's clear that the McGuinty government had already decided to opt for nuclear and block the development of green power well before the sham consultations on its electricity plan earlier this year," added Stensil. "Not only will the province be wasting money on nuclear power that won't be spent on renewables, but now municipalities will likely face a sham consultation process on the issue of increased transmission capacity. If the Liberals were to walk their green energy talk, they would allow the expensive Bruce reactors to shut down as they age and let wind power expand in the Bruce region, while developing conservation and local supply sources in the Great Toronto Area."
Bruce is known to be one of the best regions for wind development in Ontario. Without multi-billion dollar repairs the 8 reactors at the Bruce nuclear station would shut down over the next 10 to 15 years, freeing up transmission space for the full development of wind power in the Bruce region.
- 30 -
For more information:
Shawn-Patrick Stensil, Energy Campaigner Greenpeace Canada, 416-884-7053 (English, French)
Andrew Male, Communications Coordinator, 416-880-2757 (English, French) TOP
The Bruce Complex in Ontario, Yucca Mountain North? NO!
Expanded nuclear waste storage on Bruce Peninsula, on the shore of Lake Huron, raises transborder concerns
The Bruce Nuclear Complex
The Bruce nuclear facility is the largest nuclear plant in the world with nine reactors, four of which are operating and another two proposed to be restarted. Bruce is also the centralized storage site for so-called low-level radioactive waste from 20 of Canada’s 22 reactors. The complex is located on the Lake Huron shoreline southwest of Owen Sound in Ontario, Canada. It is 50 miles across Lake Huron from the Michigan shoreline and 150 miles northeast of Detroit. Ontario Power Generation owns the Bruce complex and leases the reactors to Bruce Power, a subsidiary of British Energy.
Nuclear Waste and More Nuclear Waste
In addition to "low-level" waste storage facilities, Bruce currently stores about 18,000 tons of irradiated nuclear fuel – or "high-level" nuclear waste – in giant cooling pools. Plans are now underway to construct nearly 2,000 dry storage casks, roughly doubling the plant’s waste storage capacity to 36,000 tons. These 12-foot high casks would sit above ground in a building, just 3 miles outside the hamlet of Inverhuron.
…and Even More Nuclear Waste?
In June 2002, the Canadian government created the Waste Management Organization, comprised of industry representatives charged with studying and recommending options for the long-term management of Canada's high-level nuclear waste. One option might be centralized above-ground storage at Bruce. Under this scenario, the Bruce facilities would be further expanded to store more than 77,000 tons of irradiated nuclear fuel.
Gambling with Health and Safety
Irradiated nuclear fuel is deadly and remains dangerously radioactive for tens of thousands of years. Expanding production and storage of nuclear waste at Bruce threatens health, safety and the environment on both sides of the border.
•
Health and Environmental Risks – According to studies commissioned by Canada’s nuclear regulator, childhood leukemia is 40 per cent above the provincial average within a 15.5 mile radius of the Bruce and nearby Pickering nuclear power plants, and existing nuclear waste facilities at Bruce have resulted in radioactively contaminated groundwater. Expanding operations at Bruce would increase these risks.
Health and Environmental Risks – According to studies commissioned by Canada’s nuclear regulator, childhood leukemia is 40 per cent above the provincial average within a 15.5 mile radius of the Bruce and nearby Pickering nuclear power plants, and existing nuclear waste facilities at Bruce have resulted in radioactively contaminated groundwater. Expanding operations at Bruce would increase these risks.•Safety Threatened – The two reactors now proposed for restart were originally closed in 1998 because of safety violations and corrosion. Numerous safety problems continue to plague the Bruce nuclear station.
Safety Threatened – The two reactors now proposed for restart were originally closed in 1998 because of safety violations and corrosion. Numerous safety problems continue to plague the Bruce nuclear station.•Terrorist Target – The tragic events of September 11th highlighted the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to terrorist attack. Two weeks later, holes in security at the Bruce complex were highlighted when a man whose boat had capsized on Lake Huron was able to squeeze through the gate, enter a building, and use the telephone to call for help without being detected. An attack on the Bruce nuclear power plant could have a devastating transborder impact on public health and the economy. Expanding operations at Bruce would increase the site’s radioactive inventory and the potential consequences of an attack.
Terrorist Target – The tragic events of September 11th highlighted the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to terrorist attack. Two weeks later, holes in security at the Bruce complex were highlighted when a man whose boat had capsized on Lake Huron was able to squeeze through the gate, enter a building, and use the telephone to call for help without being detected. An attack on the Bruce nuclear power plant could have a devastating transborder impact on public health and the economy. Expanding operations at Bruce would increase the site’s radioactive inventory and the potential consequences of an attack.•Public Liability – The Price-Anderson Act, which caps the liability of U.S. reactor operators for accidents, leaves the public vulnerable, and the Canadian equivalent is even worse! Because the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission designated the Bruce waste dump as a "separate nuclear facility" under Canada’s Nuclear Liability Act, Bruce Power would be exempt from any responsibility in case of accident or attack and Ontario Power Generation would have its liability limited to just $47.3 million ($75 million Canadian).
Public Liability – The Price-Anderson Act, which caps the liability of U.S. reactor operators for accidents, leaves the public vulnerable, and the Canadian equivalent is even worse! Because the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission designated the Bruce waste dump as a "separate nuclear facility" under Canada’s Nuclear Liability Act, Bruce Power would be exempt from any responsibility in case of accident or attack and Ontario Power Generation would have its liability limited to just $47.3 million ($75 million Canadian).•Financial Uncertainty – Financially troubled British Energy holds an 82% stake in Bruce Power, raising concerns that the company may cut corners on safety in order to save money and be unable to meet regulatory and financial commitments. In September, British Energy received bailout loans from the British government totaling more than $1 billion, and the financial viability of the company is still in question.
Financial Uncertainty – Financially troubled British Energy holds an 82% stake in Bruce Power, raising concerns that the company may cut corners on safety in order to save money and be unable to meet regulatory and financial commitments. In September, British Energy received bailout loans from the British government totaling more than $1 billion, and the financial viability of the company is still in question.•Our Great Lakes – These boundary waters shared by the U.S. and Canada, account for 20% of the world’s fresh surface water and are home to unique and diverse ecosystems. Millions of people downstream from Bruce depend on Lake Huron for drinking water. Yet, Canadian regulations allow Bruce Power to routinely discharge radioactive emissions into Lake Huron, contributing to the serious problem of pollution in the Lakes. A nuclear catastrophe at Bruce – or any of the 37 reactors in the Great Lakes basin – could have disastrous consequences on this environment and our precious water resources.
Our Great Lakes – These boundary waters shared by the U.S. and Canada, account for 20% of the world’s fresh surface water and are home to unique and diverse ecosystems. Millions of people downstream from Bruce depend on Lake Huron for drinking water. Yet, Canadian regulations allow Bruce Power to routinely discharge radioactive emissions into Lake Huron, contributing to the serious problem of pollution in the Lakes. A nuclear catastrophe at Bruce – or any of the 37 reactors in the Great Lakes basin – could have disastrous consequences on this environment and our precious water resources.Policy Recommendations
There is no "silver bullet" solution to the nuclear waste problem, but the current proposals to restart two Bruce reactors – and generate more waste – certainly point in the wrong direction. These reactors should remain closed and nuclear waste storage at Bruce should not be expanded. The Great Lakes shoreline should not be considered as a potential location for centralized high-level radioactive waste storage.1 Government energy policies should promote conservation, efficiency, and a transition towards safer, cleaner and more affordable sources of electricity.
Take Action!
OPPOSE THE RESTART OF BRUCE REACTORS. Contact the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (parallel in function to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) and urge the agency to conduct a full Environmental Assessment Review and public hearings on both sides of the border. Send comments to: Guy Riverin, Environmental Assessment Specialist, PFTS Division - CCNS, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5S9, Canada; fax 613-995-5086; e-mail ceaainfo@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca
OPPOSE "YUCCA MOUNTAIN NORTH." Contact your U.S. Senators and Representatives and urge Congressional attention to the dangerous prospect of centralized high-level radioactive waste storage on the shores of the Great Lakes’ international boundary waters. To find names and contact information for your federal representatives, click here.
For more information, click on…
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
Friends of Bruce
Great Lakes United
Sierra Club of Canada
___________________________
1This is not meant to imply endorsement of a repository in the Canadian Shield, another problematic option under consideration.
Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level
Radioactive Wastes
Final Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines and
Joint Review Panel Agreement Issued
OTTAWA, January 26, 2009 - The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) issued two documents today – the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines and the Joint Review Panel (JRP) Agreement – related to Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) proposed Deep Geologic Repository project, located in the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario.
The EIS Guidelines identify the information needed for OPG to prepare the EIS which will provide a detailed analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The EIS Guidelines also list the requirements for a licence to prepare the site and construct the Deep Geologic Repository.
The JRP Agreement establishes how the panel will function and the terms of reference for conducting the environmental assessment, and for considering the licence application to prepare a site and construct a facility.
The draft EIS Guidelines and the draft JRP Agreement were subject to public consultation from April 4 to June 18, 2008, and were amended following consideration of the comments received.
The final Guidelines and Agreement, along with more information on this project, are available at www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca , registry number 06-05-17520 and at www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca. The two documents are also available from the contact mentioned below:
Deep Geologic Repository Project
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
160 Elgin Street, Place Bell Canada
Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3
Tel.: 1-866-582-1884
E-mail: DGR.Review@ceaa-acee.gc.ca
The next steps will include the appointment of JRP members, the submission of OPG’s EIS for the Deep Geologic Repository and licensing documentation to the JRP, and a public consultation on the EIS.
About the Project
The project is a proposal by OPG to prepare a site, construct and operate a deep-geologic disposal facility on the Bruce Nuclear Site, within the Municipality of Kincardine. The Deep Geologic Repository would be designed to manage low and intermediate level radioactive wastes, produced from the continued operations of the nuclear generating stations at Bruce, Pickering and Darlington, Ontario. Low level waste consists of industrial items that have become contaminated with low levels of radioactivity during routine clean-up and maintenance activities at nuclear generating stations. Intermediate level radioactive waste consists primarily of used nuclear reactor components such as the ion-exchange resins and filters used to purify reactor water systems.
About the Agency
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency administers the federal environmental assessment process, which identifies the environmental effects of proposed projects, and the measures to address those effects, in support of sustainable development.
About CNSC
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect the health, safety, and security of Canadians and the environment; and to respect Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
- 30 -
For more information, media may contact:
Lucille Jamault
Senior Communications Advisor
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Tel.: 613-957-0434
Aurèle Gervais
Media and Community Relations
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Tel.: 613-996-6860
News Release
Fukushima is in the news. The most serious threat is the plutonium nuclear waste meltdown. Tell your elected officials you do not want nuclear energy. Stop the shipments of nuclear waste on the Great Lakes! Stop taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear industry!
Growing Concern in US over Bruce Nuclear Waste
The Bruce nuclear power complex on the eastern shore of Lake Huron in Ontario is, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, among the most concentrated single sites of nuclear risk in the world. There are 8 nuclear reactors at Bruce (plus another that is permanently closed down), all of the "low" and "intermediate" level radioactive waste from 20 reactors across Ontario is disposed of there, and its already large inventory of high-level radioactive waste is growing. Now, Ontario Power Generation's imminent loading of the first of 2,000 dry storage containers with high-level radioactive waste would add to that risk. The Bruce dry cask facility would be 100 times bigger than anything of its kind on the US side of the border on the Great Lakes.
The concentration of risk at Bruce renders it a potential terrorist target, which could have cataclysmic consequences. The latest al Qaida tape recorded threat, aired on the Arab satellite television network Al Jazeera on Nov. 12th, allegedly featuring Osama bin Laden's voice, explicitly names Canada as a potential target for future terrorist attack. As reported in the Sept. 9, 2002 UK Guardian (Sunday Times), al Qaida spokesmen have claimed that nuclear power reactors were among the original targets considered for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and that nuclear power plants have not been ruled out as targets in the future. In his January 2001 "State of the Union" address, George W. Bush mentioned that documents relating to US nuclear power plants had been seized by US personnel from al Qaida enclaves in Afghanistan.
Bruce is located upstream from the drinking water supplies of millions of Canadian and American citizens. The Michigan shoreline is just 50 miles across Lake Huron from Bruce, and Detroit is only 150 miles to the southwest (see Detroit News, "Nuke foes fight expansion of Canadian plant," July 24, 2002).
Security policies, procedures and personnel at nuclear reactors in both the US and Canada are strained to the breaking point (see New York Times, "Guards at Nuclear Plants Say They Feel Swamped by a Deluge of Overtime," Oct. 20, 2002, and New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal E-Brief, "Mounties protecting Lepreau burnt out," Nov. 6, 2002. See also the Project on Government Oversight report, "Nuclear Power Plant Security: Voices from Inside the Fences," Sept. 12, 2002).
Calling the proposal a "radioactive bull's eye in the heart of the Great Lakes," U.S. environmental and public interest organizations spoke out against the Bruce dry cask facility at a Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission hearing on Sept. 13, 2002 in Ottawa. Growing concern led US Senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin (Chairman, US Senate Armed Services Committee) from Michigan to express concern over the Bruce nuclear complex and its waste in an Oct. 17, 2002 letter to US Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Despite al Qaida's explicit threats against nuclear power plants, the unprecedented concentration of radioactive risk at the Bruce site, and the strained state of security at US and Canadian nuclear reactors, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Paul V. Kelly responded on Oct. 29 to Senators Levin and Stabenow that "intense collaboration" between US and Canadian agencies, "combined with other security measures," provided adequate "physical security of nuclear materials" and "protection of the Great Lakes" at Bruce. Whether or not Secretary Powell has discussed Bruce nuclear complex security concerns with Canadian Foreign Minister Graham, as requested by the US Senators from Michigan in their letter, is not yet clear.
"In addition, the US, Canadian, and Russian governments have not abandoned their consideration of using weapons-grade plutonium as fuel in Bruce reactors," said Michael Keegan of Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes in Monroe, Michigan. "Weapons-grade plutonium, whether being shipped on the Great Lakes, trucked or railed through Michigan to be used at Bruce, would be yet another terrorist target with catastrophic potential. This proposal should be officially cancelled once and for all."
A joint US/Canadian/Russian project to determine the feasibility of using weapons plutonium in Canadian reactors is still underway at the Chalk River Nuclear Lab in Canada, utilizing samples of US and Russian weapons plutonium in a Canadian research reactor. The Bruce nuclear complex has been considered as a host site for the use of such mixed oxide (MOX) uranium/plutonium fuel derived from US and Russian weapons plutonium.
"Given that half the electricity would be exported to the US, and profits would be exported to the UK, we oppose the restart of Bruce A units 3 and 4," said Dr. Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. "After all, the high-level radioactive waste and all its perpetual risks and liabilities would stay in Canada," he said.
British Energy, the nearly bankrupt UK utility, operates the Bruce reactors under a lease agreement with OPG. OPG is responsible for managing the high-level radioactive waste generated by British Energy's operation of the Bruce reactors.
(Documentation mentioned in this press release is available, upon request, from Kevin Kamps at NIRS, 202.328.0002) TOP
Pdf file about Bruce
*Great Lakes United Green Energy & Nuclear Free Task Force*
Public Participation Necessary in Proposal for Nuclear Waste Dump
Unprecedented underground site would store radioactive waste materials from all of Ontario’s nuclear reactors
May 23, 2008 (Toronto, ON) – Ontario Power Generation is planning to site an underground radioactive waste dump in Bruce County, Ontario, a mere one kilometre (half a mile) from the shore of Lake Huron. Environmental groups fear the independence of the environmental assessment panel will be compromised by the presence of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
“The Canadian government wants to build a nuclear waste dump on the shores of the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem. There are serious risks involved in doing this and we want to ensure a full and independent assessment of what the consequences will be, free of bias from the nuclear establishment,” said Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.
“An independent panel is one that has no conflict of interest because its members are not involved in promoting, defending, or licensing nuclear facilities,” Edwards continued.
The nuclear regulator has never had a seat on a panel for environmental assessments, and their role in this one could set a dangerous precedent, downplaying the dump’s radiological risks to health and the environment.
Great Lakes United’s Green Energy and Nuclear Free Task Force urges that a completely independent review board be established, without Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission presence. The Task Force also calls on Great Lakes residents on both sides of the border to speak out, given the potential hazards of the proposed dumpsite for the entire Great Lakes watershed.
After pressure from citizen groups and elected officials in both Canada and the United States, the Canadian government has committed to a Full Panel Review, but the presence of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission threatens to bias decision-making in favour of a pro-nuclear position, despite the risks.
“The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, like the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has all too often rubberstamped risky nuclear experiments. Given the grave radiological risks of this proposed dumpsite on the shore of the Great Lakes, they would have a conflict of interest and undermine an independent environmental assessment,” said Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear in Washington, D.C.
“Citizens from across the Great Lakes region will be living with the consequences of this decision for thousands of years. Their voices, and not only those in favour of nuclear power, must be heard,” said Michael Keegan of the Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes. “The public deserves an independent and accountable environmental assessment. It is crucial that citizens engage strongly today to ensure their voices are heard during the environmental assessment.”
The proposal involves building a deep repository beneath the Bruce Nuclear plant site near Kincardine, Ontario. The largest nuclear power plant in North America, it is looking to build new reactors which could make it the largest nuclear power plant in the world. The dump site would contain all radioactive wastes, except irradiated nuclear fuel, from Ontario’s twenty nuclear reactors. Waste to be stored includes transuranic radionuclides, such as plutonium, contaminated filters from irradiated fuel pools, thousands of highly radioactive metallic pipes and other contaminated items.
Last week the Macomb County Water Quality Board and the Macomb County Board of Commissioners in Michigan both passed resolutions opposing any underground radioactive waste dump in the Great Lakes region. Over the past two years, members of Congress have repeatedly spoken out against the proposed dump, including Energy Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak of northern Michigan, and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Detroit.
“Macomb County is saying very clearly that the actions of its neighbors have a huge impact on the health of its communities and environment,” said Kay Cumbow of Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination. “Siting a nuclear waste dump right next to the drinking water supply of over 30 million Canadians and Americans is a disaster waiting to happen.”
Take Action
The documents under review, and the comment process can be found online at:
Great Lakes United Green Energy and Nuclear Free Task Force
The Task Force is made up of concerned citizens and organizations promoting green energy solutions for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. It is part of the Great Lakes United coalition, an international voice dedicated to preserving and restoring the health of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence River ecosystem. Great Lakes United is made up of 170 member organizations representing environmentalists, conservationists, hunters and anglers, labor unions, community groups, and citizens of the United States, Canada, and First Nations and Tribes.
For More Information
Gordon Edwards, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility 514-839-7214
Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear, 240-462-3216
Michael Keegan, Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes, 734-770-1441
Kay Cumbow, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination 810-346-4513 TOP
###
____________________________________
Brent Gibson
Director, Communications
(613) 867-9861
bgibson@glu.org | www.glu.org
Kevin Kamps
Radioactive Waste Watchdog
Beyond Nuclear
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400
Takoma Park, Maryland 20912
Office phone: (301) 270-2209
Cell phone: (240) 462-3216
Fax: (301) 270-4000
kevin@beyondnuclear.org
DGR website © DGR webmaster
Bruce Nuclear Plant unsafe, workers say....
'No harm to workers or the public' says Hawthorne!
Ontario suspends nuclear power plans
Announcement marks a huge shift in policy for the McGuinty
government, which had planned to spend $26-billion expanding
and refurbishing its fleet of reactors.
"One real concern about the proposed deep geological repository for so-called "low" and "intermediate" levels of radioactive waste for the 20 Ontario reactors that is proposed to be built at the Bruce site, (which is located on a spit that sticks out into Lake Huron) is that it would provide a foot in the door for high level waste for all of Canada. However, there are MANY valid concerns about any deep geological repository for radioactive wastes and especially positioned near the shores of the Great Lakes. It is also a very grave concern that there are many reactors and other nuclear fuel/uranium cycle facilities located directly or on the watersheds of the Great Lakes."
Canada to dig deep for nuclear solution
More than six decades after joining the nuclear club, Canada has 22 nuclear reactors, 18 of them in operation, producing about 15 percent of the country's electricity. Canada also has 88 million pounds of radioactive waste and counting.
By ANNA MEHLER PAPERNY
Toronto Globe and Mail
Snip: Wanted: Friendly, open-minded community in need of jobs and infrastructure cash. Must be willing to play host to nuclear waste, perhaps until the end of time.
By Linda Nguyen, Canwest News Service February 17, 2010
At least 217 workers at the Bruce Power nuclear plant northwest
of Toronto were potentially exposed to a release of radiation last
November, possibly the largest radioactive contamination in
Canada, according to the country's national nuclear watchdog.
The estimate was revealed in a regulatory filing Tuesday in
Ottawa, ahead of a meeting scheduled later this week with board
members from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and
Bruce Power, which is the country's only private nuclear station
operator.
Initially, Bruce Power believed only 19 workers were potentially
affected by the radioactive release, but that figure jumped to
190 late last week. It's now being put at 217 people by the
commission.
And that number could still be expanded, said Bruce Power
spokesperson Steve Cannon.
"We have people who are being tested and the figure could be
more than that," he said. "We started with people who were
most directly involved in the work to see if they showed any
signs of exposure."
According to the report, the radioactive release was likely
caused by "corrosion" in the Bruce A Unit 1 reactor at the station
located on Lake Huron in Tiverton, Ont.
The alpha radiation was discovered during a restart of the
reactor by work crews on Nov. 26. Alpha radiation contamination
can cause sickness and lead to cancer risks if ingested or inhaled
in large amounts. Tests on affected workers are currently
underway.
Cannon said preliminary results show workers were only exposed
to "minimal" levels of radiation, much lower than regulatory limits.
"The tests have come back so low that some don't read or show
any exposure," he said, adding no workers have reported illness.
The company is continuing its investigation into the incident.
"Obviously, our workers are as concerned as we are," said
Cannon. "Our first concern at this company is the health and
safety of our workers. Anything unusual or unexpected that
comes up will be dealt with properly."
The Bruce A nuclear reactor continues to operate, but is currently
going through a $5.25-billion refurbishment.
The nuclear power station, which also operates a second reactor
called Bruce B, is located 250 kilometres northwest of Toronto.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
Recent Hearings are being held about the DGR.
There is growing opposition and many communities
are demanding and end to this ill fated project. The OPG however, plans on continuing and has spent money to buy the local community's approval, despite international criticism.
