DOCSLIB.ORG

1S T INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE on .HEALTH EFFECTS OF

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

AECL 6958 Atomic Energy of L'Energie Atomique Canada Limited Du Canada Limitee 1st INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON .HEALTH EFFECTS OF ENERGY PRODUCTION. 1ere Conference Internationale sur les Effets sur la Sante de la Production d'Energie Edited by NORMAN E. GENTNER and PAUL UNRAU CHALK RIVER NUCLEAR LABORATORIES, ONTARIO, CANADA 12-14 SEPTEMBER 1979 PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HEALTH EFFECTS OF ENERGY PRODUCTION HELD AT CHALK RIVER NUCLEAR LABORATORIES, ONTARIO, CANADA 1979 SEPTEMBER 12-14 Edited by NORMAN E. GENTNER and PAUL UNRAU Published by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Chalk River, Ontario AECL-6958 11 Foreword A conference on Health Effects of Energy Production was held at the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories on 1979 September 12-14. This conference was organized at the time of the retirement of Dr. H.B. Newcombe after 32 years of service with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. A brief summary of Dr. Newcombe's distinguished career and a list of his publications has been appended to the end of the Proceedings of this conference. Financial support and facilities for this conference were provided by the Atomic Energy of Canada Research Company, of which the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories form a part. The conference was intended to help clarify the risks and benefits not only of nuclear power but of other energy options as well. This area is of scientific concarn to Atomic Energy of Canada Research Company as well as to many other organizations and individual persons; Dr. Newcombe had of course been directly involved in research on this topic for many years. In order to provide a wide coverage of viewpoints on the health effects of energy production, invited speakers included a wide spectrum of research scientists as well as representatives from various organizations with a direct interest in the topic. The conference organizers are indebted to many persons at the Chalk River Laboratories for their assistance with this conference. In addition to the conference speakers, the chairpersons of each session and the editors of the Proceedings, particular thanks are due to H.C. Birnboim, F.P. Blackstein, J.D. Childs, L. Evans, G.C. Hanna, A.M. Marko, R.E.J. Mitchel, D.P. Morrison, D.K. Myers, M. Myers, C. Nagy, and P.J. Smith. Much of the work involved in preparations for the conference, in arranging practical details of the conference and in preparation of the Proceedings was carried out by Colleen Walters, whose unfailing assistance is gratefully acknowledged. EDITORS' MESSAGE Humans are becoming increasingly aware that all their activities entail some measure of risk to the environment and to their being. The production of energy entails both quantifiable risk and measurable benefit. The risks include detrimental effects on human health, and it is perhaps a sign of our times (and prosperity) that some people put a disproportionate emphasis on these aspects to the exclusion of the benefits. Higher levels of energy production and the increased standard of living which accrue have led to pronounced improvements in general health, well-being and longevity. The appreciation of this point, amongst those charged with evaluating detrimental effects of energy production, is evident in these Proceedings. The calculation of potential detrimental effects by one analysis, however, and the results from similar exercises by others, are not fully comparable. The differences between the relative risks assigned by various analyses reflect differences in underlying assumptions, methodological approaches, and other, perhaps unconscious, biases. The recognition of sources of bias is one of our most pressing concerns if a common basis of risk accounting is to be agreed upon and used. Perhaps a key benefit of this conference was the communication itself; concerned people talked in one room about all kinds of risk, in an attempt to reach common ground. If we have succeeded, this first conference on health effects of energy production should lead to more cogent views and rational approaches in the future- Norman E. Gentner, Ph.D. Paul Unrau, Ph.D. Paul Unrau, Colleen Walters, Norman Gentner CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS VI NAMES and ADDRESSES Akhtar, P., Atomic Energy of Canada Engineering Company, Sheridan Park Research Community, 2251 Speakman Ave., Mississauga, Ontario L5!< 1B2, Canada. Andon, B., Genetic Toxicology Group, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A. Armstrong, B., Energy Pathways Policy Research, P.O. Box 272, Kill aloe, Ontario KOJ 2A0, Canada. Barr, N., U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20545, U.S.A. Bech-Hansen, N.T., Radiation Biology Branch, Atomic Energy of Canada Research Company, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1J0, Canada. Bieber, C, Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, Ontario Hydro, 700 University Ave., Rm. H2-C27, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X6, Canada. Birnboim, H.C., Radiation Biology Branch, Atomic Energy of Canada Research Company, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1J0, Canada. Blackstein, F.P., Atomic Energy of Canada Research Company, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1J0, Canada. Burling, D., Health S Safety Division, Ontario Hydro, 700 University Ave., Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X6, Canada. Butler, G.C., Division of Biological Sciences, National Research Council of Canada, 3111 Sussex Dr., Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6, Canada. Chatterjee, R.M., Atomic Energy Control Board, 270 Albert St., P.O. Box 1046, Ottawa, Ontario KIP 5S9, Canada. Chi Ids, J.D., Radiation Biology Branch, Atomic Energy of Canada Research Company, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1J0, Canada. Clarke, T.R., Ontario Hydro, 700 University Avc, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X6, Canada. Clayton, G.K., Representative of the United Church of Canada, Deep River Community Church, Deep River, Ontario KOJ IPO, Canada. Cohen, B.L., Physics Department, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, U.S.A. Collins, J.H., Atomic Energy of Canada Research Company, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1J0, Canada. Conway, C., Energy Probe, 43 Queen's Park Cres. E., Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C3, Canada. Cowper, G., Health Physics Branch, Atomic Energy of Canada Research Company, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1J0, Canada. Critoph, E., Atomic Energy of Canada Research Company, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1J0, Canada. Devaney, J.J., Laser Division, Mail Stop 529, Los Alamos, NM 87545, U.S.A. Dinner, P., Ontario Hydro, 700 University Ave., Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X6, Canada. VI 1 Dixon, R.S., Atomic Energy of Canada Research Company, Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment, Pinawa, Manitoba ROE 1L0, Canada. Este, S.G., Energy Pathways Policy Research, P.O. Box 272, Killaloe, Ontario KOJ 2A0, Canada. Evans, D., Ontario Hydro, Bruce Generating Station, P.O. Box 3000, Tiverton, Ontario NOG 2T0, Canada. Evans, L.E., Atomic Energy of Canada Research Company, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1J0, Canada. Finkelstein, M., Ontario Ministry of Labour, 400 University Ave., 8th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1S5, Canada. Foster, D., Energy Pathways Policy Research, P.O. Box 272, Killaloe, Ontario KOJ 2A0, Canada. Frost, S., Eldorado Nuclear Limited, Suite 400, 255 Albert St., Ottawa, Ontario KIP 6A9, Canada. Gentner, N.E., Radiation Biology Branch, Atomic Energy of Canada Research Company, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1J0, Canada. Gerdingh, R.F., Safety Analysis Branch, Atomic Energy of Canada Engineering Company, Sheridan Park Research Community, 2251 Speakman Ave., Mississauga, Ontario L5K 1B2, Canada. Good, L.M., Special Studies, Economic & Policy Analysis Sector, Department of Energy, Mines & Resources, 580 Booth St., Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E4, Canada. Gorman, D., Ontario Hydro, Central Safety Services, 757 McKay Rd., Pickering, Ontario L1W 3C8, Canada. Hamilton, L.D., Medical Research Centre, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973, U.S.A. Han, A., Division of Biological & Medical Research, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Ave., Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Hanna, G.C., Atomic Energy of Canada Research Company, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1J0, Canada. Hart, R.G., Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Research Company, Head office, 275 Slater St., Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1E5, Canada. Hewitt, J.S., Department of Preventive Medicine & Biostatistics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Inhaber, H., Technology Impact Division, Atomic Energy Control Board, P.O. Box 1046, Ottawa, Ontario KIP 5S9, Canada. James, A., Ministry of Environment, 135 St. Clair Ave. W., Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Jensen, K.B., Atomic Energy of Canada Chemical Company, P.O. Box 3504, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4G1, Canada. Joliansen, K., Ontario Hydro, 700 University Ave., Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X6, Canada. Johnson, J.R., Biomedical Branch, Atomic Energy of Canada Research Company, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1J0, Canada. Vlll Kaden, D.A., Genetic Toxicology Group, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A. Kimel, W.R., College of Engineering, University of Missouri at Columbia, Columbia, MO, U.S.A. Laurence, G.C. (Retired President, Atomic Energy Control Board), 1 Beach Ave., Deep River, Ontario KOJ IPO, Canada. Lewis, W.B., Department of Physics, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada. Lidstone, R., Atomic Energy 01" Canada Research
Recommended publications
  • Tering Distributions Using MCNP Simulations of Critical Measurements and Simplified Calculation Benchmarks K.S

    Tering Distributions Using MCNP Simulations of Critical Measurements and Simplified Calculation Benchmarks K.S

    International Conference on Nuclear Data for Science and Technology 2007 DOI: Assessment of evaluated (n,d) energy-angle elastic scat- tering distributions using MCNP simulations of critical measurements and simplified calculation benchmarks K.S. Kozier Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Chalk River Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario, Canada, K0J 1J0 Abstract. Different evaluated (n,d) energy-angle elastic scattering distributions produce k-effective differences in MCNP5 simulations of critical experiments involving heavy water (D2O) of sufficient magnitude to suggest a need for new (n,d) scattering measurements and/or distributions derived from modern theoretical nuclear models, especially at neutron energies below a few MeV. The present work focuses on the small reactivity change of <1 mk that is observed in the MCNP5 D2O coolant-void-reactivity calculation bias for simulations of two pairs of critical experiments performed in the ZED-2 reactor at the Chalk River Laboratories when different nuclear data libraries are used for deuterium. The deuterium data libraries tested include ENDF/B-VII.0, ENDF/B-VI.4, JENDL-3.3 and a new evaluation, labelled Bonn-B, which is based on recent theoretical nuclear-model calculations. Comparison calculations were also performed for a simplified, two-region, spherical model having an inner, 250-cm radius, homogeneous sphere of UO2, without and with deuterium, and an outer 20-cm-thick deuterium reflector. 1 Introduction The present work focuses on the sensitivity of the ZED-2 MCNP5 CVR calculation bias to
  • 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 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.
  • The AECL Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) Was Established in 1944 In

    The AECL Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) Was Established in 1944 In

    WM’05 Conference, February 27 – March 3, 2005, Tucson, AZ STORED LIQUID WASTE REMEDIATION PROGRAM, PHASE 1, AT CHALK RIVER LABORATORIES R.P. Denault, P. Heeney, E. Plaice, K. Schruder, Waste Remediation & Enhancement Projects Division D. Wilder, Site Engineering & Project Management Division W. Graham, Components & Systems Division AECL, Chalk River Laboratories, MS #E4 Chalk River, ON, Canada K0J 1J0 [email protected] ABSTRACT Liquid intermediate- and high-level radioactive wastes presently stored in 21 tanks at the Chalk River Laboratories are being retrieved, conditioned and consolidated into a new storage system. The Liquid Waste Transfer and Storage project is responsible for designing, constructing and commissioning the storage system, specifying and procuring retrieval and transfer equipment and developing operating, maintenance and training procedures and materials. The project has characterized the existing wastes and completed an inspection of the present storage tanks and vaults. The conceptual design has progressed to include a criticality safety assessment, a safeguards analysis, selection of retrieval and transfer technologies and conceptual design of the new storage system. The transfer and collection of wastes from these 21 tanks will be a step forward in the goal of achieving a long-term management solution for the wastes. This paper provides an overview of the development of the conceptual design, including the new storage system, the retrieval system and the transfer systems, the laboratory program that supports the blending sequence and waste conditioning and the tank and vault inspection. INTRODUCTION Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) is a Federal Crown Corporation charged with leading the development of peaceful applications of nuclear technology in Canada.
  • Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change - Forbes Page 1 of 6

    Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change - Forbes Page 1 of 6

    Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change - Forbes Page 1 of 6 Larry Bell, Contributor I write about climate, energy, environmental and space policy issues. OP/ED | 1/10/2012 @ 4:12PM | 3,332 views Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change An extensively peer-reviewed study published last December in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics indicates that observed climate changes since 1850 are linked to cyclical, predictable, naturally occurring events in Earth’s solar system with little or no help from us. The research was conducted by Nicola Scafetta, a scientist at Duke University and at the Active Cavity Radiometer Solar Irradiance Monitor Lab (ACRIM), which is associated with the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. It takes issue with methodologies applied by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) using “general circulation climate models” (GCMs) that, by ignoring these important influences, are found to fail to reproduce the observed decadal and multi-decadal climatic cycles. As noted in the paper, the IPCC models also fail to incorporate climate modulating effects of solar changes such as cloud-forming influences of cosmic rays throughout periods of reduced sunspot activity. More clouds tend to make conditions cooler, while fewer often cause warming. At least 50-70% of observed 20th century warming might be associated with increased solar activity witnessed since the “Maunder Minimum” of the last 17th century. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/01/10/global-warming-no-natural-predictable-c... 1/13/2012 Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change - Forbes Page 2 of 6 Dr.
  • Investing in a Prosperous Green Future Investing in a Prosperous

    Investing in a Prosperous Green Future Investing in a Prosperous

    Recommendations for Budget 2010 InvestingInvesting inin aa ProsperousProsperous GreenGreen FutureFuture Bird Studies Canada • Canadian Environmental Law Association Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society • Centre for Integral Economics David Suzuki Foundation • Ducks Unlimited Canada • Ecojustice Environmental Defence • Équiterre • Friends of the Earth Greenpeace Canada • International Institute for Sustainable Development MiningWatch Canada • Nature Canada • Nature Conservancy of Canada Pembina Institute • Pollution Probe • Sierra Club Canada Social Investment Organization • Wildlife Habitat Canada • WWF–Canada Dan Sokolowski Executive Summary “We need to take action, we owe it to future generations.” Prime Minister Stephen Harper1 Budget 2010 is a prime opportunity to create enduring economic and environmental benefi ts for Canadians. The Green Budget Coalition’s priority recommendations for Budget 2010 are: 1) Protecting Ecosystems and Biodiversity: A Necessity in the Face of Climate Change, 2) Investing in Canada’s Freshwater Future: Beginning with the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Basin, and 3) Renewable Energy: Attracting Investment, Creating Jobs. Adopting these three recommendations alone would stimulate over eight thousand new jobs in renewable energy, ensure a clean source of drinking water for millions of Canadians, and protect key elements of our marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Investing in renewable energy and a national water is perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of strategy will expedite the transformation of
  • Chalk River Laboratories

    Chalk River Laboratories

    Canada’s Nuclear Sacrifice Area Considerations related to the relicensing of the Chalk River Laboratories a brief submitted to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission by the Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County prepared by Gordon Edwards Ph.D. September 6, 2011 Considerations related to the relicensing of the Chalk River Laboratories Table of Contents List of Recommendations 3 Introduction 5 The Licence Application 6 Plan of the Present Submission 9 Importance of the NRU Reactor 10 The Reason for the 2007 Shutdown 11 The NRX Accident 12 The Nuclear Safety Culture 14 The Authority and Independence of the CNSC 15 The MAPLE Reactors 17 The NRU Reactor Vessel Leak of 2009 18 A Caveat on the Continued Operation of NRU 20 Mitigating Radioactive Releases at CRL 22 Case 1: The Rod Bay Leak (onsite) Case 2: Tritium Effluents into the Ottawa River (offsite) Reporting Radioactive Emissions from CRL 26 The Hazards of Isotope Production 28 Deterioration of the FISST 30 Eliminating Weapons Grade Uranium 32 Repatriation of Irradiated HEU to the USA 33 Map and Inventory of Radioactive Wastes at CRL 35 The Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program 36 Appendix: Towards a Healthy Regulatory Culture 39 2 Considerations related to the relicensing of the Chalk River Laboratories List of Recommendations: 1. That the CRL licence application be split into several: one for the NRU reactor (and perhaps the Z-2 reactor as well), one for the isotope production operation (including FISST and HEU), one for the radioactive waste storage tanks and dumps (including the remediation work affecting degraded irradiated fuel elements, underground plumes and radioactive sediments in the Ottawa River), and one for the multitude of buildings, radioisotope laboratories, defunct facilities and other activities at CRL.
  • Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada 2016 Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada 2016 Ix X 1.0 INVENTORY of RADIOACTIVE WASTE in CANADA OVERVIEW

    Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada 2016 Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada 2016 Ix X 1.0 INVENTORY of RADIOACTIVE WASTE in CANADA OVERVIEW

    Inventory of RADIOACTIVE WASTE in CANADA 2016 Inventory of RADIOACTIVE WASTE in CANADA 2016 Photograph contributors: Cameco Corp.: page ix OPG: page 34 Orano Canada: page x Cameco Corp.: page 47 BWX Technologies, Inc.: page 2 Cameco Corp.: page 48 OPG: page 14 OPG: page 50 OPG: page 23 Cameco Corp.: page 53 OPG: page 24 Cameco Corp.: page 54 BWX Technologies, Inc.: page 33 Cameco Corp.: page 62 For information regarding reproduction rights, contact Natural Resources Canada at [email protected]. Aussi disponible en français sous le titre : Inventaire des déchets radioactifs au Canada 2016. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources, 2018 Cat. No. M134-48/2016E-PDF (Online) ISBN 978-0-660-26339-7 CONTENTS 1.0 INVENTORY OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN CANADA OVERVIEW ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 1�1 Radioactive waste definitions and categories �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3 1�1�1 Processes that generate radioactive waste in canada ����������������������������� 3 1�1�2 Disused radioactive sealed sources ����������������������������������������� 6 1�2 Responsibility for radioactive waste �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6 1�2�1 Regulation of radioactive
  • Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

    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.
  • Energy Forum Third Quarter 2008 International Association for Energy Economics

    Energy Forum Third Quarter 2008 International Association for Energy Economics

    Energy Forum Third Quarter 2008 International Association for Energy Economics President’s Message n the month of June 2008 two historical records have been achieved: the price of Ioil and the extraordinary attendance at the 31st IAEE International Conference in Istanbul. Let me start with the latter: the Conference has undoubtedly been the most important event of our Association in the first part of the year. We had a record number of attendees (525) and a magnificent organisation up by the local Turkish Association (TRAEE). The quality of the papers presented during the parallel sessions was very high and this shows the vitality and the intellectual richness of our Association. Let me also mention to our international colleagues that for the first time IAEE is organising a joint session with AEA (American Economic Association) at the Annual ASSA Meeting, which will take place in January 2009 in San Francisco. This is a very important achievement for us, because the AEA has a very strict policy and very high internal standards for session organisation. The issues to be discussed include the mac- roeconomic and financial consequences of the oil price increase. Two more regional Conferences will take place this year: one in Asia, hosted by Australian Association, in Perth in November and the other in the U.S., organised by the USAEE in New Orleans in December. So, there are ample opportunities to meet and discuss crucial energy issues! CONTENTS I now turn to global world problems: in the month of July, on a Tuesday the G8 lead- ers set a long term objective of curbing emissions by 50% by the year 2050.
  • Trip Report from Acr Reactor Physics and Candu Fuel Channels Workshop at Chalk River Laboratories, Ontario, Canada

    Trip Report from Acr Reactor Physics and Candu Fuel Channels Workshop at Chalk River Laboratories, Ontario, Canada

    February 14, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: James E. Lyons, Director New Reactor Licensing Project Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation THRU: Marsha Gamberoni, Deputy Director /RA/ New Reactor Licensing Project Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Belkys Sosa, ACR-700 Project Manager New Reactor Licensing Project Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation SUBJECT: TRIP REPORT FROM ACR REACTOR PHYSICS AND CANDU FUEL CHANNELS WORKSHOP AT CHALK RIVER LABORATORIES, ONTARIO, CANADA On December 4-5, 2002, Anthony Attard, Ralph Caruso, Kenneth Heck, Walton Jensen, Mark Kowal, Samuel Miranda, Robert Pascarelli, Undine Shoop, Edmund Sullivan, Summer Sun, and Belkys Sosa of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and David Bessette, Donald Carlson, Charles Greene, and Joseph Muscara of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) participated in a meeting with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited (AECL). The purpose of the meeting was to provide an introduction of CANDU fuel channels and discuss the Advanced CANDU Reactor (ACR) core physics as well as the Quality Assurance (QA) program for the ACR-700. Attached is the trip report from this activity. cc: M. Cullingford, NRR J. Dunn Lee, OIP F. Eltawila, RES J. Lieberman, OIP K. Burke, OIP T. Rothschild, OGC T. Bergman, OEDO Project No. 722 Attachment: As stated February 14, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: James E. Lyons, Director New Reactor Licensing Project Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation THRU: Marsha Gamberoni, Deputy Director
  • Decommissioning Projects at the Chalk River Laboratories Over the Next 5 Years and the Challenges with Delivery

    Decommissioning Projects at the Chalk River Laboratories Over the Next 5 Years and the Challenges with Delivery

    Waste Management, Decommissioning and Environmental Restoration for Canada’s Nuclear Activities September 11-14, 2011 CW -508300-CONF-003 UNRESTRICTED DECOMMISSIONING PROJECTS AT THE CHALK RIVER LABORATORIES OVER THE NEXT 5 YEARS AND THE CHALLENGES WITH DELIVERY K. Schruder, J. McKenna and A. Winter Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Chalk River Laboratories Chalk River, Ontario, Canada ABSTRACT Nuclear research and development carried out on behalf of the Government of Canada have resulted in 60 years of nuclear legacy liabilities at the Chalk River Laboratories. The liabilities consist of shutdown reactors, research facilities and supporting infrastructure. The Government of Canada in 2006 initiated a five-year, $520 million start-up phase and in April 2011 entered the next 5-year program of decommissioning as part of the long term strategy to address the legacy liabilities. A number of planned projects in Facilities Decommissioning, at the Chalk River Laboratories, have been defined for the next 3 years and will be described in this paper in combination with operational lessons learned for future decommissioning project work. 1. INTRODUCTION The Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) is the Canadian nuclear research facility located near Chalk River, Ontario, approximately 180 km north-west of Ottawa, on the Trans-Canada Highway. CRL is a site of major research and development to support and advance nuclear technology. CRL has expertise in physics, metallurgy, chemistry, biology, and engineering and consists of both operating and shutdown unique research facilities. CRL was conceived in 1942 from collaboration between British and Canadian nuclear researchers, where a research laboratory established in Montreal under the National Research Council of Canada (NRC).
  • Ontario Nuclear Collaboration

    Ontario Nuclear Collaboration

    Ontario Nuclear Collaboration Report 2020 2 Ontario Nuclear Collaboration Report 2020 Ontario Nuclear Collaboration 1 Report 2020 Table of Contents We’re all in this Together .............................2 By the Numbers ..............................................4 Ontario’s Nuclear Fleet .................................6 Bruce Power .........................................................................6 Major Component Replacement Program ...........6 Ontario Power Generation ............................................8 Darlington Refurbishment Project ...........................8 Areas of Nuclear Collaboration ................ 10 Pandemic Response Alignment ..............................10 Bruce Power and OPG Collaborate on new Dosimetry Tool .................................................10 Improved efficiencies through document and information sharing .......................10 Sharing Assets .................................................................... 11 Supply Chain .......................................................................12 Waste Management ........................................................12 Labour, Training and Schedules ............................... 13 The Future of Ontario .................................. 14 Innovations.......................................................................... 15 Labour, Training and Schedules ............................... 15 2 Ontario Nuclear Collaboration Report 2020 We’re all in this Together More than a decade ago, when Bruce Power and OPG began