DOCSLIB.ORG

Proceedings of the Topical Session of the Rwmc 40Th Meeting On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proceedings of the Topical Session of the Rwmc 40Th Meeting On Unclassified NEA/RWM(2007)9 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 18-Jun-2007 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ English - Or. English NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Unclassified NEA/RWM(2007)9 PROCEEDINGS OF THE TOPICAL SESSION OF THE RWMC 40TH MEETING ON: APPROACHES AND PRACTICES IN DECOMMISSIONING OF FACILITIES AND MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE FROM NON-NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Held at the NEA Offices in Issy-les-Moulineaux, France on 14 March 2007 English - Or. English JT03229237 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format NEA/RWM(2007)9 2 NEA/RWM(2007)9 FOREWORD Many activities in modern society involve the use of radioactive materials necessitating dedicated facilities for their production, application, and storage. This applies universally and, regardless of whether or not they are involved in nuclear fuel cycle related activities, all countries need frameworks for decommissioning of contaminated facilities and the construction of facilities for radioactive waste management in a manner that does not impact unduly on society in terms of safety and costs. Countries with nuclear power programmes are perhaps more likely to have in place the necessary infrastructure for dealing with non-power wastes. Nevertheless, a general concern exists about whether enough attention has been paid to small users and/or producers of radioactive materials, whether in academia, in medicine or in industry. Legacy waste is also an important issue in some countries. The exchange of the information about experiences of member countries in this area may thus be expected to have widespread benefits. The OECD/NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) organised a Topical Session to discuss these issues on 15 March 2007 in Paris, during its 40th meeting. The aim of this topical session was to explore waste management approaches and practices in decommissioning of facilities and management of radioactive waste in relation to small users and/or producers of radioactive materials from non-fuel cycle activities for educational, medical or industrial purposes. Legacy facilities and waste will be covered in a separate topical session to be organised as part of the future programme of work of the committee. Information was exchanged on: • How countries have organized themselves (legislation, institutional arrangements etc.)? • What approaches and practices are being implemented? • What are the lessons to be learnt in terms of successful outcomes and difficulties experienced? Mr. Georg Arens, BMU (German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety) served as Chair of the Topical Session. 3 NEA/RWM(2007)9 4 NEA/RWM(2007)9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Topical Session was devoted to the management of waste and the decommissioning of facilities associated with non nuclear fuel cycle activities, i.e. those typically in the fields of education, research, medicine and industry. National approaches in six member countries were presented orally, together with a short overview of relevant IAEA activities, after which an open discussion on relevant issues took place. In the coming months the RWMC Bureau intends to reflect on the various issues raised during the session, in order to consider what further items are appropriate for inclusion in future work programmes. It is apparent that a variety of waste management approaches are followed in different member countries. These normally include separation of short-lived waste, which, after decay, can be managed as conventional waste. In many countries long-lived wastes are kept in storage pending the development of suitable storage facilities, though some are proceeding with development of near surface disposal facilities for certain wastes, or are planning the refurbishment of existing facilities in line with present-day regulatory standards. Some countries with waste from both power and non- power applications choose to keep separate the management routes for the two categories of waste. Highly active waste including disused sealed sources cannot usually be emplaced in near-surface disposal facilities and therefore must be kept in storage, with an associated need for security measures, e.g. to protect against terrorist activity. This is therefore a high priority issue, at both national and international levels. Amongst the issues arising during the open discussion at the end of the session was the need to develop comprehensive waste management strategies for non-power waste, especially in member countries where no disposal route is currently available. This should include the provision of equipment properly to characterise the waste. It was noted that, in some countries, the costs of disposal of waste from small users is subsidised by the State, in recognition of the fact there is an overriding societal benefit to ensuring that such wastes are collected and safety managed. Similar considerations may apply to the costs of cleaning up sites contaminated as a result of historic practices such as radium production. As regards decommissioning, the operators of larger nuclear facilities such as research reactors or cyclotrons are normally required to prepare (and update regularly) decommissioning plans, including providing an estimate of decommissioning costs. The funding of decommissioning of larger facilities is often borne directly by the State - with funds provided on an as-needed basis - reflecting the fact that research and educational establishments are often State-owned. In the case of smaller facilities such as laboratories the regulatory approach is more typically to require that, after closure, these are decontaminated against pre-established standards and that waste is adequately managed. The costs are normally borne directly by the facility owner. In all cases, the availability and sufficiency of funds for decommissioning and management of the resulting waste is an important consideration that could inhibit progress in this area. 5 NEA/RWM(2007)9 6 NEA/RWM(2007)9 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ......................................................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 5 OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATIONS AND MODERATED DISCUSSIONS...................................... 9 APPENDIX 1: AGENDA................................................................................................................. 15 APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................................................................. 19 APPENDIX 3: CONTRIBUTED PAPERS: AUSTRALIA ......................................................................................... 25 BELGIUM ............................................................................................ 43 CANADA .............................................................................................. 55 CZECH REPUBLIC ............................................................................. 65 DENMARK .......................................................................................... 69 FRANCE .............................................................................................. 71 HUNGARY ........................................................................................... 75 IAEA ..................................................................................................... 77 ITALY ................................................................................................... 83 JAPAN .................................................................................................. 89 NETHERLANDS .................................................................................. 93 NORWAY ............................................................................................. 99 SLOVAK REPUBLIC ......................................................................... 107 SPAIN ................................................................................................ 109 APPENDIX 4: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS .................................................................................... 119 7 NEA/RWM(2007)9 8 NEA/RWM(2007)9 OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATIONS AND MODERATED DISCUSSIONS The Topical Session was opened by Mr. G. Arens (BMU1 , Germany), Session Chair, who welcomed the participants. He noted that the scheduled presentations reflected a range of national situations and covered a variety of issues including, for example, funding considerations and the definition of responsibilities. On that basis, he anticipated a fruitful exchange of views. In the first presentation Mrs. M-C. Dupuis (ANDRA) noted that the French national waste management agency (ANDRA) was responsible for the long-term management of waste both from the nuclear power generating sector and from smaller producers (including hospitals, universities and research institutes). In the latter case, ANDRA takes over control of about 200 cubic metres of waste each year. ANDRA’s statutory responsibilities include waste collection, characterisation, conditioning, processing and ultimate disposal. It was noted that adapted systems were in place for the management of two specific
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CHAPTER 13 Reactor Safety Design and Safety Analysis Prepared by Dr
    1 CHAPTER 13 Reactor Safety Design and Safety Analysis prepared by Dr. Victor G. Snell Summary: The chapter covers safety design and safety analysis of nuclear reactors. Topics include concepts of risk, probability tools and techniques, safety criteria, design basis accidents, risk assessment, safety analysis, safety-system design, general safety policy and principles, and future trends. It makes heavy use of case studies of actual accidents both in the text and in the exercises. Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Learning Outcomes............................................................................................................. 8 1.3 Risk ...................................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Hazards from a Nuclear Power Plant ................................................................................ 10 1.5 Types of Radiation in a Nuclear Power Plant.................................................................... 12 1.6 Effects of Radiation ........................................................................................................... 12 1.7 Sources of Radiation ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CMD19-H100-8.Pdf
    CMD 19-H100.8 File/dossier : 6.01.07 Date : 2019-08-30 Edocs pdf : 5983279 Oral Presentation Exposé oral Submission from Nuclear Waste Mémoire d’Action Déchets Nucléaires et Watch and Inter-Church Uranium Inter-Church Uranium Committee Committee Educational Cooperative Educational Cooperative In the Matter of À l’égard de Saskatchewan Research Council, Saskatchewan Research Council SLOWPOKE-2 Reactor Installation nucléaire SLOWPOKE-2 Request by the Saskatchewan Research Demande du Saskatchewan Research Council Council to authorize the decommissioning of afin d’autoriser le déclassement du réacteur the SLOWPOKE-2 reactor SLOWPOKE-2 Commission Public Hearing Audience publique de la Commission September 26, 2019 Le 26 septembre 2019 This page was intentionally Cette page a été intentionnellement left blank laissée en blanc Decommissioning of Saskatchewan Research Council SLOWPOKE-2 Reactor (Ref. 2019-H-100) Nuclear Waste Watch and Inter-Church Uranium Committee Educational Cooperative’s Submission to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Prepared by: Jessica Karban Legal Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association August 30, 2019 ISBN: 978-1-77189-996-3 Publication No. 1290 Report from NWW & ICUCEC | 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: In order to facilitate public participation, all Commission Member Documents (CMDs) and accompanying references should be made available on the CNSC’s website at least 60 days in advance of intervention deadlines and remain on the website for future public use. Recommendation 2: Based on our review of applicable requirements governing decommissioning in Canada, we request that the CNSC: 1. Develop a principled overall policy framework underpinning a robust, clear, and enforceable regulatory regime for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities as well as the waste that arises from nuclear and decommissioning activities; 2.
    [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]
  • A Comprehensive Approach to Elimination of Highly-Enriched
    Science and Global Security, 12:137–164, 2004 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Inc. ISSN: 0892-9882 print DOI: 10.1080/08929880490518045 AComprehensive Approach to Elimination of Highly-Enriched-Uranium From All Nuclear-Reactor Fuel Cycles Frank von Hippel “I would be prepared to submit to the Congress of the United States, and with every expectation of approval, [a] plan that would ... encourage world-wide investigation into the most effective peacetime uses of fissionable material...with the certainty that the investigators had all the material needed for the conducting of all experiments that were appropriate.” –President Dwight D. Eisenhower at the United Nations, Dec. 8, 1953, Over a period of about a decade after President Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” speech, the U.S. and Soviet Union exported research reactors to about 40 countries. By the mid-1970s, most of these reactors were fueled with weapon-useable highly-enriched uranium (HEU), and most of those with weapon-grade uranium. In 1978, because of heightened concern about nuclear proliferation, both countries launched programs to develop low-enriched uranium (LEU) replacement fuel containing less than 20 percent 235U for foreign research reactors that they were supplying with HEU fuel. By the time the Soviet Union collapsed, most of the Soviet-supplied research reactors outside the USSR had been converted to 36% enriched uranium but the program then stalled because of lack of funding. By the end of 2003, the U.S. program had converted 31 reactors to LEU, including 11 within the U.S. If the development of very high density LEU fuel is successful, it appears that conversion of virtually all remaining research Received 12 January 2004; accepted 23 February 2004.
    [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]
  • Bibliography on Saskatchewan Uranium Inquiries and the Northern and Global Impact of the Uranium Industry
    University of Regina iNis-mf—13125 __ CA9200098 Prairie Justice Research Bibliography on Saskatchewan Uranium Inquiries and The Northern and Global Impact of the Uranium Industry :• IN THF PimhlC INTEREST BIBLIOGRAPHY ON SASKATCHEWAN URANIUM INQUIRIES AND THE NORTHERN AND GLOBAL IMPACT OF THE URANIUM INDUSTRY Jim Harding, B.A. (Hons.), M.A., Ph.D. Director, Prairie Justice Research Beryl Forgay, B.Ed., B.HE., M.A. Research Officer, Prairie Justice Research Mary Gianoli, B.Ed. Research Co-ordinator, Prairie Justice Research Cover Design: Rick Coffin Published by PRAIRIE JUSTICE RESEARCH 1988 SERIES: IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST (Research Report No. 1) Published by: Prairie Justice Research Room 515 Library Building University of Regina Regina, Saskatchewan Canada S4S OA2 Cataloguing in Publication Data Harding, Jim, 1941- Bibliography on Saskatchewan uranium inquiries and the northern and global impact of the uranium industry ISBN 0-7731-0052-0 I. Uranium mines and mining - Environmental aspects - Saskatchewan - Bibliography. 2. Uranium industry - Environmental aspects - Saskatchewan - Bibliography. 3. Uranium industry - Government policy - Saskatchewan - Bibliography. I. Forgay. Beryl, 1926- II. University of Regina. Prairie Justice Research. III. Title. Z6738.U7H37 1986 016.3637'384 C86-091166-: ISBN 0-7731-0135 (Set) This is a publication of Prairie Justice Research at the University of Regina. Prairie Justice Research is funded by an operating contract with the Ministry of the Solicitor General and has the capacity to conduct socio-legal research for a diverse range of constituencies. For further informaiton contact: Dr. Jim Harding Director Prairie Justice Research Library Building University of Regina Regina, Saskatchewan Canada S4S 0A2 (306) 584-4064 NOTE: This research project was funded through "Human Context of Science and Technology" strategic grants of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Mining in Saskatchewan
    History of Mining In Saskatchewan Early Mining in Saskatchewan The earliest mining occurred when earth’s inhabitants started using various stones for tools or certain clays for cooking vessels. The earliest recorded occupation in Saskatchewan was around 9000 B.C. at the Niska site in the southern part of the province. Ample evidence of the use of stone tools, arrow heads, and spear heads, etc. has been found in the area. Much of the material used by these early inhabitants was imported or traded from other regions of North America. The study of the stone tools provides us with information about the people’s work, their history, their religion, their travels and their relationships with other groups or nations. Stone is readily available throughout most of Saskatchewan. This was especially important for Saskatchewan’s First Nations people who moved their camps frequently in search for food. The stones available were not all suitable for tools and they needed a constant supply of stone material that broke cleanly or was hard enough for pounding. Consequently, they made regular trips to the source areas or traded with people who lived near the sources. For these early residents of our province, the exchange of goods was more than just a means of acquiring things. Bartering and gift exchange was a means of creating and reinforcing relationships between individuals, families and nations. For thousands of years, goods have been exchanged through networks that extended across North America. Although perishable goods were also traded, our records are in the form of shell or stone artefacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript of May 15, 2019 Public Hearing on Application by Orano
    Canadian uclear Commission canadienne de Safety Commission sûreté nucléaire Public hearing Audience publique May 15th, 2019 Le 15 mai 2019 Publi Hearing Room Salle des audien es publiques 14th floor 14e étage 280 Slater Street 280, rue Slater Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa (Ontario) Commission Members present Commissaires présents me Ms Rumina Velshi M Rumina Velshi r Dr. Sandor Demeter D Sandor Demeter Mr. Timothy Berube M. Timothy Berube me Ms Kathy Penney M Kathy Penney Dr. Mar el La roix M. Mar el La roix Assistant Secretary: Secrétaire-adjointe: e Ms. Kelly M Gee M Kelly M Gee Senior General Counsel: Avocate-générale principale : e Ms. Lisa Thiele M Lisa Thiele 613-521-0703 StenoTran www.stenotran.com ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CMD 19-H1.B 3 Adoption of Agenda CMD 19-H3.1/19-H3.1A 6 Oral presentation by Orano Canada Inc. CMD 19-H3/19-H3.A 28 Oral presentation by CNSC staff CMD 19-H3.4 80 Oral presentation by the Saskatchewan Environmental Society CMD 19-H3.6 99 Oral presentation by Rodney Gardiner CMD 19-H3.7 116 Oral presentation by Val Drummond CMD 19-H3.9 133 Oral presentation by the Northern Saskatchewan Environmental Quality Committee CMD 19-H3.12 142 Oral Presentation by the Clearwater River Dene Nation CMD 19-H3.5/19-H3.5A 166 Oral presentation by the Ya'thi Néné Land and Resource Office CMD 19-H3.13 183 Oral presentation by the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation CMD 19-H3.10 199 Oral presentation by the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CMD 19-H3.11 208 Written submission from Emile Burnouf CMD 19-H3.3 208 Written submission from Cameco Corporation CMD 19-H3.8 208 Written submission from the Saskatchewan Mining Association 1 Ottawa, Ontario / Ottawa (Ontario) --- Upon commencing on Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 10:37 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • The Slowpoke Licensing Model
    AECL—9981 CA9200276 AECL-9981 ATOMIC ENERGY ENERGIEATOMIQUE OF CANADA LIMITED DU CANADA LIMITEE THE SLOWPOKE LICENSING MODEL LE MODELE D'AUTORISATION DE CONSTRUIRE DE SLOWPOKE V.G. SNELL, F. TAKATS and K. SZIVOS Prepared for presentation at the Post-Conference Seminar on Small- and Medium-Sized Nuclear Reactors San Diego, California, U S A. 1989 August 21-23 Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Laboratoires nucleates de Chalk River Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1J0 August 1989 aout ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED THE SLOWPOKE LICENSING MODEL by V.G. Snell, F. Takats and K. Szivos Prepared for presentation at the Post-Conference Seminar on Small- and Medium-Sized Nuclear Reactors San Diego, California, U.S.A. 1989 August 21-23 Local Energy Systems Business Unit Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1JO 1989 August ENERGIE ATOMIQUE DU CANADA LIMITED LE MODELS D'AUTORISATION DE CONSTRUIRE DE SLOWPOKE par V.G. Snell, F. Takats et K. Szivos Resume Le Systeme Energetique SLOWPOKE (SES-10) est un reacteur de chauffage de 10 MW realise au Canada. II pent fonctionner sans la presence continue d'un operateur autorise et etre implante dans des zones urbaines. II a des caracteristiques de surete indulgentes dont des echelles de temps transitoires de l'ordre d'heures. On a developpe, au Canada, un precede appele autorisation de construire "d'avance" pour identifier et resoudre les questions reglementaires au debut du processus. Du fait du marche possible, en Hongrie, pour le chauffage nucleaire urbain, on a etabli un plan d'autorisation de construire qui comporte 1'experience canadienne en autorisation de construire, identifie les besoins particuliers de la Hongrie et reduit le risque de retard d'autorisation de construire en cherchant 1'accord de toutes les parties au debut du programme.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Environmental and Health Impacts of Uranium Mining
    Nuclear Development 2014 Managing Environmental and Health Impacts of Uranium Mining Managing Environmental Managing Environmental and Health Impacts of Uranium Mining NEA Nuclear Development Managing Environmental and Health Impacts of Uranium Mining © OECD 2014 NEA No. 7062 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 34 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, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission 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]
  • Mineral Resource Map of Saskatchewan
    Saskatchewan Geological Survey Miscellaneous Report 2018-1 RESOURCE MAP OF SASKATCHEWAN KEY TO NUMBERED MINERAL DEPOSITS† 2018 Edition # URANIUM # GOLD NOLAN # # 1. Laird Island prospect 1. Box mine (closed), Athona deposit and Tazin Lake 1 Scott 4 2. Nesbitt Lake prospect Frontier Adit prospect # 2 Lake 3. 2. ELA prospect TALTSON 1 # Arty Lake deposit 2# 4. Pitch-ore mine (closed) 3. Pine Channel prospects # #3 3 TRAIN ZEMLAK 1 7 6 # DODGE ENNADAI 5. Beta Gamma mine (closed) 4. Nirdac Creek prospect 5# # #2 4# # # 8 4# 6. Eldorado HAB mine (closed) and Baska prospect 5. Ithingo Lake deposit # # # 9 BEAVERLODGE 7. 6. Twin Zone and Wedge Lake deposits URANIUM 11 # # # 6 Eldorado Eagle mine (closed) and ABC deposit CITY 13 #19# 8. National Explorations and Eldorado Dubyna mines 7. Golden Heart deposit # 15# 12 ### # 5 22 18 16 # TANTATO # (closed) and Strike deposit 8. EP and Komis mines (closed) 14 1 20 #23 # 10 1 4# 24 # 9. Eldorado Verna, Ace-Fay, Nesbitt Labine (Eagle-Ace) 9. Corner Lake deposit 2 # 5 26 # 10. Tower East and Memorial deposits 17 # ###3 # 25 and Beaverlodge mines and Bolger open pit (closed) Lake Athabasca 21 3 2 10. Martin Lake mine (closed) 11. Birch Crossing deposits Fond du Lac # Black STONY Lake 11. Rix-Athabasca, Smitty, Leonard, Cinch and Cayzor 12. Jojay deposit RAPIDS MUDJATIK Athabasca mines (closed); St. Michael prospect 13. Star Lake mine (closed) # 27 53 12. Lorado mine (closed) 14. Jolu and Decade mines (closed) 13. Black Bay/Murmac Bay mine (closed) 15. Jasper mine (closed) Fond du Lac River 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Workshop on Proposed Amendments to the Nuclear Security Regulations
    Workshop on Proposed Amendments to the Nuclear Security Regulations Michael Beaudette Director Nuclear Security Division October 12, 2016 e-Doc: 5054938 nuclearsafety.gc.ca Focus of Today’s Workshop • Licensees currently listed in Schedule 2 of the Nuclear Security Regulations – Cameco, GE-Hitachi, Nordion, SRB Technologies • Licensees who process, use and store Category III nuclear material – examples include Slowpoke Reactors, McMaster Nuclear Reactor • Licensees and stakeholders who transport or arrange for the transport of nuclear material – examples include RSB Logistic, TAM International, Laurentide Forwarders Inc. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 2 Today’s Goals • Provide an overview of several proposed amendments that CNSC staff is considering making to the Nuclear Security Regulations (NSR) and receive preliminary feedback from stakeholders • Provide an opportunity for stakeholders to suggest additional areas for potential amendments to the NSR Please note that this is a CNSC staff assessment for prompting early discussion Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 3 Objectives of Amendments • Ensure that the regulations continue to fulfill their role in effectively addressing Canada’s nuclear security • Ensure that Canada continues to fulfill its international obligations for the security of nuclear and radioactive materials Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 4 Overview of the Regulatory Amendment process Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 5 Context: Changes Since Last Amendments • Last major amendments to NSR published in 2006 •
    [Show full text]