DOCSLIB.ORG

ACCIDENTS, LEAKS, FAILURES and OTHER INCIDENTS in the NUCLEAR INDUSTRIAL and MILITARY 1. 1947, October

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ACCIDENTS, LEAKS, FAILURES and OTHER INCIDENTS in the NUCLEAR INDUSTRIAL and MILITARY 1. 1947, October ACCIDENTS, LEAKS, FAILURES AND OTHER INCIDENTS IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY 1. 1947, October - U.S.A., ATLANTIC OCEAN A retired navy pilot Lieutenant-Commander George Earl IV has claimed that he dumped radioactive Waste off the Atlantic seaboard on three flights in 1947. Lt-Commander Earl said he disclosed the radioactive dumping because of the U.S. Government's apparent lack of concern over the possibility of the cannisters leaking. ("The West Australian" - 3rd January 1981) 2. 1950, 13th February - U.S.A., PACIFIC OCEAN A B-36 which developed serious mechanical difficulties on a simulated combat mission, dropped a nuclear weapon from 8,000 ft. over the Pacific Ocean before crashing. Luckily only the weapon's explosive material detonated. Nothing is known of attempts to recover the nuclear weapon and presumably it is still in the ocean. (The Defence Monitor Vol.X No.5 1981 Washington D.C. "The National Times" 15th March 1981) 3. 1950, 11th April - NEW MEXICO, U.S.A. A B-29 crashed into a mountain on Manzano Base approximately three minutes after take-off. The bomb case was demolished and some high explosive material burned. The nuclear components of the weapon were recovered and returned to the Atomic Energy Commission. (The Defence Monitor - Vol.X No.5 19981 Washington D.C. "The National Times" 15th March 1981) 4. 1950, 13th Jul. - OHIO, U.S.A. A B-50 on training mission crashed killing 16 crewmen. The high explosive portion of the weapon aboard detonated on impact. No nuclear capsule aboard the aircraft. (The Defence Monitor - Vol.X No.5 1981 Washington D.C. "The National Times" 15/3/1981) 5. 1950, 5th August - CALIFORNIA , U.S.A. A B-29 carrying a nuclear weapon crashed on take-off and the high explosive material detonated. (The Defence Monitor - Vol.X No.5 1981 Washington D.C. "The National Times" 15th March 1981) 6. 1950 - 10th November - U.S.A. Due to an in-flight aircraft emergency, a weapon containing a capsule of nuclear material was jettisoned over water from an altitude of 10,500 feet. A high-explosive detonation was observed. No specific location was reported. (The Defence Monitor Vol.X No.5 1981 Washington D.C.) 7. 1950, NORTH WEST AUSTRALIA A uranium mining disaster desolated an area in N.W. Australia when heavy rainfall breached the earth wall of a mine's tailings dam and radioactive material was released into surrounding water systems. To date details are still secret. The mine was connected with the British and U.S. Nuclear Weapons Programs. Safety standards were rudimentary. As a result Australia has become extremely cautious about uranium mining according to Dr. Charles Kerr of the Department of Preventative and Social Medicine, University of Sydney, when testifying to a Royal Commission on uranium mining in Vancouver. (Source: AAP-AP, "The West Australian" - 11th January, 1980). 8. 1950-1977 - WINDSCALE, U.K. Between 1950 and mid-1977, there were 194 accidents at Windscale, 11 involving fires and explosions, 45 release plutonium (Sources: Nucleus - 25th July, 1979, P.17; "The New Ecologists" March/April, 1978) 9. 1951-1963, RESIDENTS' REACTION TO THE NUCLEAR TESTS HELD AT NEVADA TEST SITE, U.S.A. Martha B. Laird's husband and son developed leukemia. Son died. Other children developed rashes. Sister reported burns to the eyes. "During this time, our cows got white spots on them and developed cancer eyes," Mrs. Laird wrote to the Government. "One letter came back saying I was Communistically inspired" Another said: "Persons in fallout path were a small sacrifice." (Source: The Herald. -Tuesday 24th April, 1979) 10. 1952, 12th December - NRX CHALK RIVER, CANADA First major reactor accident. Human error. Technician opened three or four valves and the resultant heat release melted some of the uranium fuel and boiled some of the coolant. The reactor core was nearly demolished by the explosions and much radioactivity was emitted. (Sources: Penelope Coleing for M.A.U.M./S. Novick. The Careless Atom, Delta books, NY 1969). 11. 1955, November - IDAHO FALLS EBR-1, U.S.A. The EBR-1 reactor had a partial core meltdown which destroyed it with ensuing low level contamination. (Sources: Eco, Atomic Reactor Safety Hearings, 1973 p. 56/Webb p.187) 12. 1956, 10TH March - U.S.A., MEDITERRANEAN SEA A B-47 carrying "two capsules of nuclear weapons material. from MacDill Air Force Base to an overseas bases, disappeared in clouds. "An extensive search failed to locate any traces of the missing aircraft or crew". A nuclear detonation was not possible. (The Defence Monitor - Vol.X No.5 1981 Washington D.C. "The National Times" - 15th March 1981). 13. 1956, 26th July - U.S.A., ENGLAND An American B-47 with weapons aboard crashed into a storage igloo containing several nuclear weapons. The bombs did not burn or detonate.- (The Defence Monitor - Vol.X No.5 1981 Washington D.C. "The National Times. 15th March 1981). This air crash at a United States Air Force base could have turned the area into a nuclear "desert" according to new details which have emerged in the U.S. The crash, occurred when a B-47 bomber skidded on the runway after a flight from Nebraska and burst into flames. Blazing jet fumes gushed towards a shelter housing three nuclear bombs, each containing eight tonnes of T.N.T. and a quantity of uranium, according to the new details. Had the fire ignited the T.N.T. it is possible a part of eastern England could have become a desert, while the uranium could have exposed the area to contamination. ("The Age" 10th August 1981) 14. 1957, 22nd May - NEW MEXICO, U.S.A. A B-36 ferrying a nuclear weapon from Biggs Air Force Base, Texas to Kirtland accidentally discharged a bomb in the New Mexico desert. The high explosive material detonated, completely destroying the weapon and making a crater approximately 25 ft in diameter and 12 ft deep. Radiological survey of the area disclosed no radioactivity beyond the lip of the crater at which point the level was 0.5 milliroentgens. Both the weapon and capsule were on board the aircraft but the capsule was not inserted for safety reasons. A nuclear detonation was not possible. (The Defence Monitor Vol.X No.5 1981 Washington D.C. "The National Times" 15th March 1981) 15. 1957, 28th July - U.S.A. , ATLANTIC OCEAN A C-124 aircraft en-route from Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, lost power in two engines and jettisoned two nuclear weapons over the ocean. "No detonation occurred from either weapon". The nuclear weapons were never found. (The Defence Monitor Vol.X No.6 1981 Washington D.C. "The National Times" 15th March 1981) 16. 1957, 11th October - FLORIDA, U.S.A. A B-47 crashed shortly after take-off with a nuclear weapon and a nuclear capsule on board. "Two low order detonations occurred during the burning." - ("The National Times" 15th March 1981) 17. 1957, October - WINDSCALE No 1, U.K. Fire caused by human error and defective procedures resulted in eleven tons of uranium being ablaze, relossing a vast cloud of radio-isotopes from the melted fuel. Milk from an area of more than 500 square kilometers (approx. 2 million litres) was poured into the rivers and sea as unsafe for human consumption. Farmers were compensated by the Government, but how many people living near Windscale were affected is not known. Nor is it known how much radioactivity descended over Westmoreland and Cumberland. Local inhabitants any there is a high incidence of cancer deaths in the area, but the Government did not carry out any medical or statistical checks. Both Windscale reactors have since been filled with concrete and entombed. The radioactive cloud reached up to Denmark. In London, 500 km from Windscale the radioactivity reached 20 times the normal level. Report of enquiries into safety was never published. (Sources s A. Gyorgy p.1198/S. Novick). However a previously classified report released in 1989, revealed that the Mc Millan Government invented large amounts of money to finance a concerted pro-nuclear campaign which included scientists traversing U.K., assuring people that the accident was insignificant. (W. Australian May 1989). SUPPLEMENTARY 1983, April - LONDON, U.K. 32 people died as a result of a fire at the Windscale Plant in 1957. The toll rose when the National Radiological Protection Board considered extra cases of cancer researched by a scientist who examined the effects of Polonium released in the accident. Polonium was used in atomic bombs at the time of the accident. ("West Australian" 1/4/1983) SUPPLEMENTARY 1987, December 1987 - U.K. Official documents about a fire at the Windscale reactor in 1957 were released. The accident was much more serious than was then admitted and it was due to defects in the organization of the British Atomic Energy Authority and in the instrumentation at Windscale. Information on the fire was ordered kept secret by Harold Mc Millan, the Conservative Prime Minister of Great Britain and has been published now under the 30-year Rule which allows formerly confidential government documents to be declassified. Windscale (later named Sellafield) was producing Plutonium for military use. The fire broke out at one of its atomic piles -primitive reactors in which containers of uranium were irradiated to produce the Plutonium. It raged for 16 hours. The Windscale cloud contaminated large areas of Britain and Ireland, and contained more than 600 times as much radioactive iodine as was released during the Three Mile Island accident. Authorities at the time decided not to evacuate local people even though they were exposed to radiation levels 10 times the allowed LIFETIME dose - within a matter hours.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • View Annual Report
    The Future is Nuclear 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Bridging the Gene Producing affordable, clean energy while achieving a sustainable balance between increasing electricity demand and environmental stewardship – this is the promise and potential of a future powered by nuclear energy. It’s why a new generation is opting for nuclear as a reliable and secure energy choice. Cameco is poised and ready to support the new generation. We are a company with the expertise and capacity to deliver the benefits of nuclear energy – starting right now. As the world’s largest uranium producer, Cameco already provides about 20% of global uranium production from the richest mines on the planet. We are also expanding our production by developing two new mines. The company is looking ration Gap to the long-term nuclear future, seeking new reserves OUR PROFILE through a global exploration program with emphasis Cameco, with its head office in in North America and Australia. In nuclear fuel Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, is the production, Cameco has 38% of the western world’s world’s largest uranium producer UF6 conversion capacity, and provides conversion as well as a significant supplier of services and fuel fabrication for Candu reactors. conversion services. The company’s Power production rounds out Cameco’s nuclear competitive position is based on its focus, with 1,000 MW of nuclear power in Ontario. controlling ownership of the world’s largest high-grade reserves and low- A new generation, attentive to the wisdom of cost operations. Cameco’s uranium scientists, environmentalists and consumers, products are used to generate clean understands the future is nuclear.
    [Show full text]
  • + 2020 Annual Information Form
    Denison Mines Corp. 2020 Annual Information Form March 26, 2021 ABOUT THIS ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM This annual information form (“AIF”) is dated March 26, Table of Contents 2021. Unless stated otherwise, all of the information in this AIF is stated as at December 31, 2020. About this AIF .................................... 1 About Denison ................................... 6 This AIF has been prepared in accordance with Canadian Developments over the Last Three securities laws and contains information regarding Years ................................................. 8 Denison’s history, business, mineral reserves and The Uranium Industry ........................ 17 resources, the regulatory environment in which Denison Mineral Resources and Reserves 24 does business, the risks that Denison faces and other Mineral Properties ............................. 27 important information for Shareholders. Athabasca Exploration: Sampling, Analysis and Data Verification ........... 102 This AIF incorporates by reference: Denison Operations ........................... 107 Manager of UPC ................................ 111 Denison’s management discussion and analysis (“MD&A”) for the year ended December 31, 2020, Denison Closed Mines Group ........... 112 Environmental, Health, Safety and Denison’s audited consolidated financial Sustainability Matters ........................ 112 statements for the year ended December 31, 2020, Government Regulation .................... 114 Risk Factors ...................................... 120 both of which
    [Show full text]
  • 20170828-Jason-Cameron-Nuclear-Infrastructure-Council-Eng.Pdf
    THE CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION PRESENTATION TO THE USNIC TRADE MISSION TO CANADA Jason Cameron, Vice-President Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission nuclearsafety.gc.ca August 28, 2017 – Ottawa, Ontario Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission • Regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security and the environment • Implements Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy • Disseminates objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public Canada’s nuclear watchdog We will never compromise safety! Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 2 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission • Established in May 2000, under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act • Replaced the Atomic Energy and Control Board (AECB) under the 1946 Atomic Energy Control Act More than 70 years of ensuring nuclear safety Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 3 CNSC Regulates All Nuclear-Related Facilities and Activities • Uranium mines and mills • Uranium fuel fabrication and processing • Nuclear power plants • Nuclear substance processing • Industrial and medical applications • Nuclear research and educational activities • Transportation of nuclear substances • Nuclear security and safeguards • Export/import control • Waste management facilities …From cradle to grave Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 4 Independent Commission • Quasi-judicial administrative tribunal • Agent of the Government of Canada (the Crown) • Reports to Parliament through Minister of Natural Resources • Commission members are independent and part-time • Commission hearings are public and Webcast • All presentations, including staff’s, are public • Decisions can only be reviewed by Federal Court Transparent, science-based decision-making Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 5 Our Commission Members Dr. Michael Binder President and Chief Executive Officer, CNSC (Term expires May 8, 2018) Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation to the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities
    CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION nuclearsafety.gc.ca Michael Binder President and Chief Executive Officer Presentation to the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities February 21, 2018 – Ottawa, Ontario nuclearsafety.gc.ca eDOCS: 5437640 The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Our Mandate Regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, and security and the environment Implements Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy Disseminates objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public We will never compromise safety 2 nuclearsafety.gc.ca The CNSC Regulates All Nuclear Facilities And Activities In Canada Uranium mines and mills Nuclear research and educational activities Uranium fuel fabrication and processing Transportation of nuclear substances Nuclear power plants Nuclear security and safeguards Nuclear substance processing Import and export controls Industrial and medical applications Waste management facilities 3 nuclearsafety.gc.ca CNSC Staff Located Across Canada Fiscal year 2017–18 Human resources: 857 full-time equivalents Financial resources: $148 million (~70% cost recovery; ~30% appropriation) Licensees: 1,700 Licences: 2,500 Headquarters (HQ) in Ottawa 4 site offices at power plants Saskatoon Calgary 1 site office at Chalk River 4 regional offices Chalk River HQ Point Lepreau Laval Bruce Darlington Mississauga Pickering 4 nuclearsafety.gc.ca Independent Commission • Quasi-judicial administrative tribunal • Agent of the Crown (duty to consult) • Reports to Parliament through Minister of Natural Resources • Commission members are independent and part-time • Commission hearings are public and Webcast • Staff presentations in public • Decisions are reviewable by Federal Court Transparent, science-based decision making 5 nuclearsafety.gc.ca Commission Members Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Life Cycle Analysis of Base Load Electricity in Ontario
    [Type text] Canadian Energy Research Institute Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Base Load Electricity Generation in Ontario Seyed Jazayeri Paul Kralovic Afshin Honarvar Abbas Naini Jon Rozhon Rami Shabaneh Thorn Walden Prepared for the Canadian Nuclear Association October 2008 Relevant • Independent • Objective COMPARATIVE LIFE CYLE ASESSMENT (LCA) OF BASE LOAD ELECTRICITY GENERATION IN ONTARIO ii Canadian Energy Research Institute v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................IX LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................XI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................................XIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................. XV ES1.1 Background .........................................................................................................xv ES1.2 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................xv ES1.3 Methodology........................................................................................................xv ES1.4 The Process LCA ................................................................................................. xvi ES2 Power Generation in Canada ................................................................................ xvi ES3
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
    CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION Jason K. Cameron Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, and Chief Communications Officer NARUC Summer Policy Summit – Committee on International Relations July 15, 2018 – Scottsdale, Arizona OUR MANDATE 2 Regulate the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, and security and the environment Implement Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy Disseminate objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – nuclearsafety.gc.ca THE CNSC REGULATES ALL NUCLEAR FACILITIES 3 AND ACTIVITIES IN CANADA Uranium mines Uranium fuel Nuclear power Nuclear substance Industrial and and mills fabrication and plants processing medical applications processing Nuclear research Transportation of Nuclear security Import and Waste management and educational nuclear substances and safeguards export controls facilities activities Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – nuclearsafety.gc.ca CNSC STAFF LOCATED ACROSS CANADA 4 Headquarters (HQ) in Ottawa Four site offices at power plants One site office at Chalk River Four regional offices Fiscal year 2017–18 • Human resources: 857 full-time equivalents • Financial resources: $148 million Saskatoon Calgary (~70% cost recovery; ~30% appropriation) • Licensees: 1,700 Chalk River HQ • Licences: 2,500 Point Lepreau Laval Bruce Darlington Mississauga Pickering Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – nuclearsafety.gc.ca INDEPENDENT COMMISSION 5 TRANSPARENT, SCIENCE-BASED DECISION MAKING • Quasi-judicial administrative tribunal • Agent of the Crown (duty to consult) • Reports to Parliament through Minister of Natural Resources • Commission members are independent and part time • Commission hearings are public and Webcast • Staff presentations in public • Decisions are reviewable by Federal Court Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – nuclearsafety.gc.ca THE CNSC’S NEW PRESIDENT 6 Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • AECL EACL AECL Research EACL Recherche
    AECL EACL AECL Research EACL Recherche AECL-10851, COG-93-147, SKB TR 94-04 Final Report of the AECL/SKB Cigar Lake Analog Study Rapport definitif d'etude de 1'analogue de Cigar Lake effectuee par EACL et SKB JJ. Cramer, J.A.T Smellie MEr Uranium Deposit Waterbury Lake _ "'-'••• i-'v:-vi;.:,'...-,:,/,J:.™ Weathered Sandstone • i / ' Bleached ' 7 /' Sandstone ' / ' / /, Sandstone /'. / ' .-../ / - Main Groundwater Flow 100 m VOL 27 Ns 17 July 1994juillet AECL Research FINAL REPORT OF THE AECL/SKB CIGAR LAKE ANALOG STUDY Edited by J.J. Cramer (AECL) and J.A.T. Smellie (SKB) Whiteshell Laboratories Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada ROE 1L0 1994 AECL-10851 COG-93-147 SKB TR 94-04 RAPPORT DEFINITIF D'ETUDE DE L'ANALOGUE DE CIGAR LAKE EFFECTUÉE PAR EACL ET SKB Révisé par J. Cramer (EACL) et J. Smellie (SKB) RÉSUMÉ Le gisement d'uranium de Cigar Lake est situé dans le nord de la Saskatchewan au Canada. Ce gisement de 1,3 milliard d'années se trouve à une profondeur d'environ 450 m, sous la surface, dans un grès saturé d'eau au contact de la discordance avec les roches métamorphi- ques Précambriennes du Bouclier canadien. Le minerai d'uranium, qui contient principale- ment de l'uraninite (UO2), est entouré d'un halo riche en argile aussi bien dans le grès que dans le socle, reste très bien conservé et intact. La teneur moyenne du minerai est d'environ 8 % en poids d'U; localement, la teneur peut atteindre d'environ 55 % en poids d'U. Le gisement de Cigar Lake comporte de nombreux éléments qui sont équivalents à ceux en cours d'examen dans le contexte du concept canadien de stockage permanent des déchets de combustible nucléaire.
    [Show full text]
  • CMD 20-M25.A – Presentation from CNSC Staff – Regulatory Oversight
    Regulatory Oversight Report for Uranium Mines and Mills in Canada: 2019 Commission Meeting December 10, 2020 CMD 20-M25.A CNSC Staff Presentation e-Doc 6334201 PPTX e-Doc 6367917 PDF Commission Meeting, December 10, 2020 CMD 20-M25.A – 2019 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills Presentation Outline • Overview • Uranium mine and mill facilities • CNSC regulatory efforts • CNSC staff assessments • Other matters of regulatory interest • Conclusions SAG mill used to grind ore at the McArthur River Operation. (Photo source: CNSC) 2 Commission Meeting, December 10, 2020 CMD 20-M25.A – 2019 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills CNSC Regulatory Oversight Reports - 2019 • November 4, 2020: Use of Nuclear Substances in Canada • December 8 to 10, 2020: Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Sites Uranium Processing and Nuclear Substance Processing Facilities Uranium Mines and Mills Canadian Nuclear Power Generating Sites 3 Commission Meeting, December 10, 2020 CMD 20-M25.A – 2019 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills OVERVIEW 4 Commission Meeting, December 10, 2020 CMD 20-M25.A – 2019 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills Improvements and Status of Previous Actions (1/3) • 2017 ROR: Plain language summary • 2018 ROR: Orano’s engagement strategy CNSC working agreements with Saskatchewan 5 Commission Meeting, December 10, 2020 CMD 20-M25.A – 2019 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills Improvements and Status of Previous Actions (2/3) • 2017 ROR: Plain language summary • 2018 ROR: Orano’s engagement strategy CNSC working agreements with Saskatchewan 6 Commission Meeting, December
    [Show full text]
  • The Safety of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
    Cov-Safety Nuclear FuelCyc 3588 10/10/05 16:04 Page 1 Nuclear Safety The Safety of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle NUCLEAR•ENERGY•AGENCY Nuclear Safety The Safety of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Third edition © OECD 2005 NEA No. 3588 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members. * * * This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Cameco CAMECOCORPORATION
    (c. Cameco CAMECO CORPORATION Corporate Office 2121 — 11th Street West Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7M 1i3 June 20, 2011 Tel 306.956.6200 Fax 306.956.6201 www.cameco.com VIA COURIER Jean LeClair Brian Torrie Director Director Uranium Mines and Mills Division Environmental Assessment Division Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 280 Slater Street 280 Slater Street P0 Box 1046, Station B P0 Box 1046, Station B Ottawa, ON K1P 5S9 Ottawa, ON K1P 5S9 Tim Moulding Tareq Al Zabet Manager Director Environmental Protection and Audit Division Environmental Protection and Audit Division Industrial Branch Environmental Assessment Branch Uranium Mines and Northern Operations Saskatchewan Ministry4th of Environment Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment 3211 Albert Street, Floor 112 Research Drive Regina, SK S4S 5W6 Saskatoon, SK S7K 2H6 Dear Sirs: Rabbit Lake Tailings North Pit Expansion Project - Project Description Cameco Corporation’s vision for the future of the Rabbit Lake Operation is continued safe, clean, economic and reliable production, with flexibility to adapt to emerging mining and milling opportunities in the region, while limiting the environmental footprint on the land and drainage systems. This approach of limiting the uranium mining and milling industry’s environmental footprint is consistent with previous joint federal-provincial panel recommendations. In keeping with this vision, please find enclosed a Project Description for the proposed Rabbit Lake Tailings North Pit Expansion. The discovery of additional ore at the Eagle Point mine has necessitated acquiring additional tailings capacity. Cameco believes that the expansion of the NUCLEAR. The Clean Air Energy. Messrs. Torrie, LeClair, Moulding and Zabet June 20, 2011 Page 2 current Rabbit Lake Tailings Management Facility (RLTMF, consisting of the existing Phase 1 Rabbit Lake In-Pit Tailings Management Facility and the existing Phase 2 Pit Crest Expansion) is the best alternative for tailings capacity at the Rabbit Lake Operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Rabbit Lake Uranium Mining A-Zone, D-Zone, Eagle Point
    Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process INIS-CA—0062 CA9800083 Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office RABBIT LAKE URANIUM MINING A-ZONE, D-ZONE, EAGLE POINT Canada Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office RABBIT LAKE URANIUM MINING A-ZONE, D-ZONE, EAGLE POINT Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel November 1993 Canada ©Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1993 Cat. No. En105-51/1993E ISBN 0-662-21162-6 RABBIT LAKE URANIUM MINE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PANEL The Honourable Sheila Copps Minister of the Environment House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 The Honourable Anne McLellan Minister of Natural Resources House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A0A6 Mr. J.G. McManus Secretary General Atomic Energy Control Board Ottawa, Ontario K1P5S9 In accordance with the terms of reference issued in November 1991, the Environmental Assessment Panel has completed its review of the proposed development of the uranium mining facility at Rabbit Lake in northern Saskatchewan. On behalf of the panel, I am pleased to submit this report for your consideration. Yours sincerely, K. Wayne Hindmarsh Chair Rabbit Lake Uranium Mine Environmental Assessment Panel TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Project Description 3 1.2 Review Process '. 3 2 OVERALL PROJECT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS 7 3 PROJECT ENGINEERING ISSUES 11 3.1 Waste-rock Management 11 3.2 Tailings Management 12 3.3 Decommissioning 13 3.4 Water Use 15 3.5 Safety of Eagle
    [Show full text]
  • A Simple Tool Kit for Citizen Activists How to Gather and Use Information to Effect Environmental Change Contents Introduction
    A Simple Tool Kit for Citizen Activists How to gather and use information to effect environmental change Contents Introduction ............................................................................. 3 When to Use These Tools and Why ................................. 4 Case Studies ......................................................................... 5 7 Steps to Work with City Hall ....................................... 10 The Tools ............................................................................... 11 #1 - Freedom of Information Requests ..................... 12 #2 - Drawing Media Attention ................................... 14 #3 - Taking Effective Video ......................................... 15 #4 - Taking Effective Photos ....................................... 16 #5 - Taking Notes .......................................................... 17 NOTE: This is an interactive PDF. #6 - Sampling (when, where and how) .................... 18 Click on the links and page numbers to jump to the areas that interest Taking a Water Sample .......................................... 19 you. If you click on the David Suzuki Taking a Soil Sample ...............................................20 Foundation’s logo in the top left Taking an Air Sample ................................................21 corner, it will take you back to this contents page. Or use the return Costs and Other Considerations .......................... 22 arrow at the bottom of each page Using Minnow traps ................................................
    [Show full text]