DOCSLIB.ORG

Second Canadian National Report for the Joint Convention

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Second Canadian National Report for the Joint Convention Canadian National Report for the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Second Report October 2005 Canadian National Report for the Joint Convention for the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management — Second Report ©Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada 2005 Catalogue number CC172-23/2005E-PDF ISBN 0-662-41873-5 Published by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission CNSC Catalogue number INFO-0755E Extracts from this document may be reproduced for individual use without permission provided the source is fully acknowledged. However, reproduction in whole or in part for purposes of resale or redistribution requires prior written permission from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 280 Slater Street P.O. Box 1046, Station B Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5S9 CANADA Tel.: (613) 995-5894 or 1-800-668-5284 Facsimile: (613) 995-5086 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca Canadian National Report for the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Second Report October 2005 Canadian National Report for the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Second Report In conformance with Article 32(1) of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 Introduction This is Canada’s Second National Report and it demonstrates how Canada continues to meet its obligations under the terms of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. The main aspect addressed in this report is the progress on initiatives for the long-term management of spent fuel and radioactive waste in Canada. This report also includes information on Canada’s systematic monitoring programs and their implementation and addresses specific topics raised at the First Review Meeting. Canada’s Second National Report is the joint effort of government, industry and the Canadian regulator. 2.0 Key features of the Second National Report Canada’s Second National Report includes two significant changes from the First Report: comparison of Canada’s programs with international standards, and; the status of decommissioning activities in Canada. In addition, it contains revisions and updates to Canada’s First National Report (which can be viewed on www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca) and includes comments and issues raised at the First Review Meeting. International Standards In this, the Second National Report, Canada demonstrates that its policies, programs, standards and legislative and regulatory structures meet and in some instances exceed the requirements of applicable IAEA standards. In accordance with the Summary report of the First Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties, a Contracting Party may refer to the IAEA Standards to demonstrate implementation of the obligations set forth in the Joint Convention and this is what Canada has done. Decommissioning Activities Canada has several facilities under active decommissioning and preliminary decommissioning plans (PDP) are on file with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for all other major and high risk facilities. In conjunction with the PDP, each licensee has in place a financial guarantee, based on the PDP, ensuring that sufficient funds will be available to carry out any required decommissioning. iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3.0 Progress since First Review Meeting Regulatory Document Improvement Program Since the First Review Meeting in 2003, the CNSC has continued its document improvement initiative which has produced additional regulatory policies, standards and guides. Regulatory Policy P-290 Managing Radioactive Waste was issued in July 2004. Regulatory Policy P-299 Regulatory Fundamentals, which promotes consistency and clarity in the way the CNSC achieves its regulatory objectives, was issued in April 2005. And, Draft Regulatory Guide G-320 Assessing the Long-Term Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, which was issued for public comment in April 2005, is expected to be issued by the time of the Joint Convention review meeting in May 2006. Long-term Management of Spent Fuel Canada is committed to ensuring a responsible approach for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. In 2002, the Canadian Parliament enacted the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act. Under this legislation, the nuclear industry was required to form a not-for-profit organization, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), which would develop options for a general approach for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste and submit a recommendation to the federal Minister of Natural Resources by November15, 2005. In the spring of 2005, the NWMO released the draft study entitled “Choosing a Way Forward” for public comment, in which it describes four options and presents its preferred option for a general approach for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. After receipt of the study, a ministerial recommendation will be developed and presented to the Governor in Council. Under government oversight, the NWMO will implement the approved general approach, including starting the site selection process. Long-term Management of Low-and Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste Low-and intermediate-level waste is presently well handled and stored in regulated facilities, well suited to short to mid-term time frames. Integrated approaches to storage or disposal are being discussed by licensees and industry. The following are some key initiatives: In 2004, Ontario Power Generation (OPG), by far the largest producer of Low-and Intermediate- Level Radioactive Waste (LIRW), announced its intention to develop a long-term approach for its LIRW waste to ensure its isolation from the environment in the long-term, without burdening future generations with its caretaking. Work is proceeding on this undertaking which, if successful, would result in a deep geological repository being built to accommodate the waste. At the time of this report, OPG has signed an agreement with the host municipality and has commenced preliminary engineering work. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) initiated in 2004 the Liquid Waste Transfer Storage Project. This project will provide long-term storage for approximately 280 m3 of intermediate- and high-level liquid waste currently in storage at the Chalk River Laboratories site. AECL’s iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY long-term strategy is to convert the liquid into a solid form suitable for long-term management in a storage or disposal facility. Port Hope Area Initiative The Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI) is a project, initiated by the Government of Canada and local municipalities to address the long-term management of roughly 1.5 million cubic metres of radioactive waste contamination in the Port Hope area. As reported in the First National Report, the Initiative began on March 29, 2001. The PHAI consists of two waste management projects; the Port Hope Project and the Port Granby Project. At this time, the environmental assessment and regulatory review phase of the Initiative is well advanced. At the time of writing this report, an Environmental Assessment Study Report (EASR) has been submitted to federal decision- makers on the Port Hope Project. The EASR on Port Granby is expected prior to the end of 2005. With the submission of the EASR the federal environmental review of the projects has begun and should be completed, for both projects, by the end of 2006. Licensing decisions are expected in 2007. Conclusion Spent fuel and radioactive waste in Canada are currently managed in storage facilities that are safe, secure and environmentally sound. Canada recognizes that enhanced long-term management approaches for its spent fuel and radioactive waste will be required. Canada’s Second National Report identifies several key initiatives demonstrating Canada’s commitment to identifying long-term management approaches. Canada’s long-term management approaches will ensure that spent fuel and radioactive waste are stored or disposed in a manner that does not pose undue burden on future generations. v TTThhhiiissspppaaagggeeeiiinnnttteeennntttiiiooonnnaaallllllyyyllleeeffftttbbblllaaannnkkk TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A ................................................................................................................................1 A. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................1 A.1 Scope of the Section.......................................................................................................................................1 A.2 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................1 A.3 Nuclear Substances .......................................................................................................................................2 A.4 Canadian Philosophy and Approach to Safety...........................................................................................3 A.5 Fundamental Principles................................................................................................................................3 A.6 Main Safety
Load more

Recommended publications
  • F I N a L P Ro G Ra M
    F i n a l P r o g r a m September 11 to 14, 2011 Marriott Toronto Downtown Eaton Centre Hotel Toronto, Ontario The conference is organized by The Canadian Nuclear Society The Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS), is a technical the Canadian Nuclear Society in society dedicated to the exchange of information on all aspects of nuclear science and technology cooperation with the International which supports conferences, courses and specialty programs. For membership contact the CNS offi ce Atomic Energy Agency, and is co- at www.cns-snc.ca sponsored by the American Nuclear Society, the Argentina Nuclear Technology Association, the Atomic Energy Society of Japan, the Chinese Nuclear Society, the Indian Nuclear Society, the Korean Nuclear Society, the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD and the Romanian Nuclear Energy Association. Table of Contents Conference Organizers . 2 Copyright . 2 Audio/Video Recording Policy . 2 Conference at a Glance . 3 Post-Conference Technical Tours . 4 Sessions at a Glance . 5 MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12 Opening Plenary Session . 7 OPG’s Deep Geologic Repository for Low- and Intermediate-level Waste – 1 . 8 OPG’s Deep Geologic Repository for Low- and Intermediate-level Waste – 2 . 9 Stakeholder Interactions – 1 . 10 Stakeholder Interactions – 2 . 12 Decommissioning Projects – 1 . 14 Decommissioning Projects – 2 . 14 Uranium Mine Waste Management – 1 . 16 Uranium Mine Waste Management – 2 . 17 Used Fuel Repository – Design and Safety Assessment . 18 Used Fuel Repository – Design and Modelling . 19 Federal Policies, Programs and Oversight . 21 Port Hope Area Initiative – 1 . 22 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13 Low- and Intermediate-level Waste Panel . 24 OPG’s Deep Geologic Repository for Low- and Intermediate-level Waste – 3 .
    [Show full text]
  • Heu Repatriation Project
    HEU REPATRIATION PROJECT RATIONALE In April 2010, the governments of Canada and the United States (U.S.) committed to work cooperatively to repatriate spent highly- enriched uranium (HEU) fuel currently stored at the Chalk River Laboratories in Ontario to the U.S. as part of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, a broad international effort to consolidate HEU inventories in fewer locations around the world. This initiative PROJECT BACKGROUND promotes non-proliferation This HEU is the result of two decades of nuclear fuel use at the by removing existing weapons Chalk River Laboratories for Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) grade material from Canada research reactors, the National Research Experimental (NRX) and and transferring it to the National Research Universal (NRU), and for the production of U.S., which has the capability medical isotopes in the NRU, which has benefitted generations of to reprocess it for peaceful Canadians. Returning this material to the U.S. in its existing solid purposes. In March 2012, and liquid forms ensures that this material is stored safely in a Prime Minister Harper secure highly guarded location, or is reprocessed into other forms announced that Canada and that can be used for peaceful purposes. the U.S. were expanding their efforts to return additional Alternative approaches have been carefully considered and inventories of HEU materials, repatriation provides the safest, most secure, and fastest solution including those in liquid form. for the permanent disposition of these materials, thereby eliminating a liability for future generations of Canadians. For more information on this project contact: Email: [email protected] Canadian Nuclear Laboratories 1-866-886-2325 or visit: www.cnl.ca persons who have a legitimate need to PROJECT GOAL know, such as police or emergency response To repatriate highly-enriched uranium forces.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Oversight Report for Uranium Mines and Mills in Canada: 2018
    Regulatory Oversight Report for Uranium Mines and Mills in Canada: 2018 Commission Meeting December 12, 2019 CMD 19-M36.A CNSC Staff Presentation e-Doc 5970530 PPTX e-Doc 6018833 PDF Commission Meeting, December 12, 2019 CMD 19-M36.A – 2018 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills CNSC Regulatory Oversight Reports for 2018 • November 6, 2019: Canadian Nuclear Power Generating Sites: 2018 • November 7, 2019: Use of Nuclear Substances in Canada: 2018 • November 7, 2019: Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Sites: 2018 • December 11, 2019: Uranium and Nuclear Substance Processing Facilities in Canada: 2018 • December 12, 2019: Uranium Mines and Mills in Canada: 2018 Reporting on licensee performance based on CNSC oversight nuclearsafety.gc.ca 2 Commission Meeting, December 12, 2019 CMD 19-M36.A – 2018 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills Presentation Outline • Errata • CNSC’s regulatory oversight activities • Uranium mine and mill facilities • Performance of uranium mines and mills • Interventions • Conclusions SAG mill used to grind ore at the McArthur River Operation. (Photo source: CNSC) nuclearsafety.gc.ca 3 Commission Meeting, December 12, 2019 CMD 19-M36.A – 2018 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills Errata – to be corrected before the report is published Appendix B, Table B1, corrected information Facility Safety and control area Date report issued Fitness for Service, Conventional Health and Safety, March 20, 2018 Environmental Protection, Human Performance Management Environmental Protection, Radiation Protection, October 31, 2018 McArthur Conventional Health and Safety River Physical Design, Environmental Protection, Radiation August 8, 2018 Operation Protection, Conventional Health and Safety Environmental Protection October 2, 2018 Emergency Management and Fire Protection January 16, 2019 nuclearsafety.gc.ca 4 Commission Meeting, December 12, 2019 CMD 19-M36.A – 2018 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills Errata – to be corrected before the report is published Appendix J: Environmental Action Level and Regulatory Exceedances Reported to CNSC.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear in Canada NUCLEAR ENERGY a KEY PART of CANADA’S CLEAN and LOW-CARBON ENERGY MIX Uranium Mining & Milling
    Nuclear in Canada NUCLEAR ENERGY A KEY PART OF CANADA’S CLEAN AND LOW-CARBON ENERGY MIX Uranium Mining & Milling . Nuclear electricity in Canada displaces over 50 million tonnes of GHG emissions annually. Electricity from Canadian uranium offsets more than 300 million tonnes of GHG emissions worldwide. Uranium Processing – Re ning, Conversion, and Fuel Fabrication Yellowcake is re ned at Blind River, Ontario, PELLETS to produce uranium trioxide. At Port Hope, Ontario, Nuclear Power Generation and Nuclear Science & uranium trioxide is At plants in southern Technology TUBES converted. URANIUM DIOXIDE Ontario, fuel pellets are UO2 is used to fuel CANDU loaded into tubes and U O UO URANIUM Waste Management & Long-term Management 3 8 3 nuclear reactors. assembled into fuel YUKON TRIOXIDE UO2 Port Radium YELLOWCAKE REFINING URANIUM bundles for FUEL BUNDLE Shutdown or Decommissioned Sites TRIOXIDE UF is exported for 6 CANDU reactors. UO enrichment and use Rayrock NUNAVUT 3 CONVERSION UF Inactive or Decommissioned Uranium Mines and 6 in foreign light water NORTHWEST TERRITORIES Tailings Sites URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE reactors. 25 cents 400 kg of COAL Beaverlodge, 2.6 barrels of OIL Gunnar, Lorado NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR McClean Lake = 3 Cluff Lake FUEL PELLET Rabbit Lake of the world’s 350 m of GAS BRITISH COLUMBIA Cigar Lake 20% McArthur River production of uranium is NVERSION Key Lake QUEBEC CO mined and milled in northern FU EL ALBERTA SASKATCHEWAN MANITOBA F Saskatchewan. AB G R University of IN IC ONTARIO P.E.I. IN A Saskatchewan The uranium mining F T E IO 19 CANDU reactors at Saskatchewan industry is the largest R N TRIUMF NEW BRUNSWICK Research Council NOVA SCOTIA private employer of Gentilly-1 & -2 Whiteshell Point Lepreau 4 nuclear power generating stations Rophton NPD Laboratories Indigenous people in CANDU REACTOR Chalk River Laboratories Saskatchewan.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
    Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Performance Report For the period ending March 31, 2007 ________________________ ________________________ The Honourable Gary Lunn Linda J. Keen, M.Sc. Minister President and Chief Executive Officer Natural Resources Canada Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Table of Contents SECTION I: OVERVIEW........................................................................................................... 1 Message from the President and Chief Executive Officer...................................................................3 Management Representation Statement ...............................................................................................4 Summary Information..................................................................................................................... 5 Mission.................................................................................................................................... 5 Governance ............................................................................................................................. 5 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................... 5 Funding of CNSC Operations................................................................................................. 6 Additional Funding Resources Received for 2006-07............................................................ 6 Financial Resources ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript of Commission Meeting of December 14, 2016
    Canadian Nuclear Commission canadienne de Safety Commission sûreté nucléaire Public meeting Réunion publique December 14th, 2016 Le 14 décembre 2016 Public Hearing Room Salle des audiences publiques 14th floor 14e étage 280 Slater Street 280, rue Slater Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa (Ontario) Commission Members present Commissaires présents Dr. Michael Binder M. Michael Binder Dr. Sandy McEwan Dr Sandy McEwan Ms Rumina Velshi Mme Rumina Velshi Secretary: Secrétaire: Mr. Marc Leblanc M. Marc Leblanc General Counsel: Avocate générale : Ms Lisa Thiele Me Lisa Thiele 613-521-0703 StenoTran www.stenotran.com ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Opening Remarks 1 CMD 16-M66.C 3 Approval of Agenda CMD 16-M68 3 Status Report on Power Reactors CMD 16-M64 13 Written submission from CNSC staff CMD 16-M50/16-M50.A 18 Oral presentation by CNSC staff CMD 16-M50.1 46 Written submission by Canadian Nuclear Workers' Council CMD 16-M50.2 48 Written submission from Northwatch CMD 16-M70/16-M70.A 155 Oral presentation by CNSC staff CMD 16-M70.1 179 Submission from Énergie NB Power CMD 16-M70.2 180 Submission from Canadian Nuclear Laboratories CMD 16-M49/16-M49.A 245 Oral presentation by CNSC staff CMD 16-M49.5/16-M49.5A 270 Presentation by Cameco Corporation CMD 16-M49.3 298 Submission from the Canadian Nuclear Workers' Council iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CMD 16-M49.4/16-M49.4A/16-M49.4B 348 Presentation by AREVA Resources Canada Inc. CMD 16 M49.1 363 Submission from the Saskatchewan Environmental Society and the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation CMD 16-M69 397 Submission from CNSC staff CMD 16-M72 411 Written submission from CNSC staff 1 Ottawa, Ontario / Ottawa (Ontario) --- Upon commencing on Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 8:34 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Information Written Submission from Lake Ontario
    CMD 19-M24.7A Date: 2019-10-30 File / dossier : 6.02.04 Edocs pdf : 6032342 Supplementary Information Renseignements supplémentaires Written submission from Mémoire de Lake Ontario Waterkeeper Lake Ontario Waterkeeper et and Ottawa Riverkeeper Sentinelle Outaouais Regulatory Oversight Report for Rapport de surveillance réglementaire Canadian Nuclear Laboratories des sites des Laboratoires Nucléaires (CNL) sites: 2018 Canadiens (LNC) : 2018 Commission Meeting Réunion de la Commission November 7, 2019 Le 7 novembre 2019 This page was intentionally Cette page a été intentionnellement left blank laissée en blanc Amendments have been made to these submissions to reflect additional information that has been received by Ottawa Riverkeeper and Lake Ontario Waterkeeper since October 7. In addition to some typographical corrections, the following changes were made to these previously submitted main report: 1) Recommendation #20 no longer requires that CNL confirm whether a DFO permit has been issued for any Chalk River facilities. This recommendation still requests that any assessments accompanying the permit application be provided. Now it also requests a timeline for CNSC staff consideration of the permit; 2) Recommendation #21 no longer requires that CNL confirm whether there are any ECAs for the Chalk River site. This recommendation still requests any assessments that were undertaken to determine whether one was necessary; 3) Discussions of issues concerning DFO permits and ECAs on page 20 have been updated to reflect the fact that Ottawa Riverkeeper is no longer waiting for confirmation of whether there are any DFO permits or ECAs for the Chalk River site. However, formal access to information requests are still ongoing to provide more background information on both DFO and ECA assessments, and CNL has still been asked to provide this information as well; and 4) Discussions of the Port Hope Harbour wall collapse on page 26 have been amended to reflect additional disclosures received since October 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the Joint Review Panel for the Public Hearing of Ontario
    Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel Commission d’examen conjoint du projet de stockage dans des couches géologiques profondes PMD 13-P1.119 File / dossier : 8.01.07 Date: 2013-08-13 Edocs: 4185110 Oral intervention from Intervention orale par Northwatch Northwatch In the Matter of À l’égard de Ontario Power Generation Inc. Ontario Power Generation Inc. Proposed Environmental Impact Statement Étude proposée pour l’énoncé des incidences for OPG’s Deep Geological Repository environnementales pour l’Installation de (DGR) Project for Low and Intermediate stockage de déchets radioactifs à faible et Level Waste moyenne activité dans des couches géologiques profondes Joint Review Panel Commission d’examen conjoint September 16 to October 12, 2013 16 septembre au 12 octobre 2013 Joint Federal Review of Ontario Power Generation's Proposed Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Wastes DGR Joint Review Panel Hearing Written Submission in Support of an Oral Intervention General Submission on Behalf of Northwatch Prepared by Brennain Lloyd August 13, 2013 DGR Joint Review Panel Hearing Written Submission in Support of an Oral Intervention Submission to the Joint Review Panel for the Public Hearing of Ontario Power Generation’s Proposed Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste at the Bruce Nuclear Site CEAA Reference number: 17520 General Submission on Behalf of Northwatch Prepared by Brennain Lloyd August 13, 2013 Northwatch General Submission – Review of Ontario Power Generation’s Proposed Deep Geologic Repository for Radioactive Waste 1. Introduction / Overview: Northwatch’s Interests and History of Participation 1 Northwatch is a public interest organization concerned with environmental protection and social development in northeastern Ontario1.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries
    Mycle Schneider Consulting Independent Analysis on Energy and Nuclear Policy 45, allée des deux cèdres Tél: 01 69 83 23 79 91210 Draveil (Paris) Fax: 01 69 40 98 75 France e-mail: [email protected] Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries Mycle Schneider International Consultant on Energy and Nuclear Policy Paris, May 2009 This research was carried out with the support of The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www.cigionline.org) V5 About the Author Mycle Schneider works as independent international energy nuclear policy consultant. Between 1983 and April 2003 Mycle Schneider was executive director of the energy information service WISE-Paris. Since 2000 he has been an advisor to the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety. Since 2004 he has also been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies Lecture of the International Master of Science for Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes, France. In 2007 he was appointed as a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), based at Princeton University, USA (www.fissilematerials.org). In 2006-2007 Mycle Schneider was part of a consultants’ consortium that assessed nuclear decommissioning and waste management funding issues on behalf of the European Commission. In 2005 he was appointed as nuclear security specialist to advise the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). Mycle Schneider has given evidence and held briefings at Parliaments in Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, UK and at the European Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • NUCLEAR ENERGY and RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT in CANADA Publication No
    NUCLEAR ENERGY AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT IN CANADA Publication No. 2019-41-E 4 February 2020 Xavier Deschênes-Philion Sophie Leduc Economics, Resources and International Affairs Division Parliamentary Information and Research Service Library of Parliament Background Papers provide in-depth studies of policy issues. They feature historical background, current information and references, and many anticipate the emergence of the issues they examine. They are prepared by the Parliamentary Information and Research Service, which carries out research for and provides information and analysis to parliamentarians and Senate and House of Commons committees and parliamentary associations in an objective, impartial manner. © Library of Parliament, Ottawa, Canada, 2020 Nuclear Energy and Radioactive Waste Management in Canada (Background Paper) Publication No. 2019-41-E Ce document est également publié en français. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 2 NUCLEAR ENERGY WORLDWIDE AND IN CANADA ..........................................................1 3 RADIOACTIVE WASTE ..........................................................................................................4 3.1 Low-Level Radioactive Waste .................................................................................................4 3.2 Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste ....................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Deposits of Ontario- Their Distribution and Classification
    Ontario Geological Survey Miscellaneous Paper 86 The Uranium Deposits of Ontario- Their Distribution and Classification By James A. Robertson 1981 lanWPope Ministry of !^st£ Natural ...__ W.T. Foster Deputy Minister Ontario ®OMNR-OGS 1981 ISSN 0704-2752 Printed in Canada ISBN 0-7743-602627 Publications of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and price list are available through the Ministry of Natural Resources, Public Service Centre Room 1640, Whitney Block, Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario, M7A 1W3 (personal shopping and mail orders). and reports only from the Ontario Government Bookstore, Main Floor 880 Bay St., Toronto for per- sonal shopping. Out-of-Town customers write to Ministry of Government Services, Publica- tions Services Section, 5th Floor, 880 Bay St., Toronto. Ontario. M7A 1N8. Telephone 965-6015. Toll free long distance 1 •800-268-7540, in Area Code 807 dial 0-Zenith 67200. Orders for publications should be accompanied by cheque or money order payable to the Treasurer of Ontario. Every possible effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the information con- tained in this report, but the Ministry of Natural Resources does not assume any liability for errors that may occur. Source references are included in the report and users may wish to verify critical information. Parts of this publication may be quoted if credit is given. It is recommended that reference to this report be made in the following form: Robertson, James A. 1981: The Uranium Deposits ol Ontario-Their Distribution and Classifica- tion; Ontario Geological
    [Show full text]
  • Graham Simpson 2007
    Presentation to the Nunavut Planning Commission Discussion on Uranium Mining Graham Simpson, Saskatoon (June 5th 2007) A. I wish to thank the Commission for inviting me to bring some experiences of the Inter-Church Uranium Committee Educational Co-operative (ICUCEC) of Saskatoon. B. I am a retired Prof. of Plant Sciences at the University of Saskatchewan where I taught and did research for 40 years in the field of plant physiology. I am particularly concerned about the deterioration in the environment and biosphere by radioactive pollution that can have long-term genetic effects in all living things. I have been a member of ICUCEC since it began. C. I will give you a brief history of ICUCEC that has been in existence now for 27 years. Following the Cluff Lake Enquiry in Saskatchewan in 1978 the Provincial Government decided to permit new uranium mines in the Wollaston Lake basin in the far north of the Province. The nuclear industry decided to quietly buy up land owned by Mennonite dairy farmers close to Saskatoon, with the object of building a uranium refinery to avoid sending yellowcake all the way to Port Hope in Ontario. The farmers were angry at the deceit and called on local churches of different denominations to oppose a refinery when hearings were held by the Saskatchewan Government. The United Church, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Mennonite churches banded together in an organisation initially called the Inter-Church Uranium Committee (ICUC) that made a convincing case to the hearings against having a refinery(1). The committee then focussed on the expanding uranium mines and for ethical reasons opposed them on the grounds that uranium was going from Saskatchewan to atom bombs (The Cold War was on) also to nuclear reactors that created huge amounts of radioactive waste posing a threat to the environment and humans for ages to come.
    [Show full text]