Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: the Canadian Context
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Washtenaw County Solid Waste Plan Amendment – Approved Draft
WASHTENAW COUNTY SOLID WASTE PLAN AMENDMENT – APPROVED DRAFT APPROVED DRAFT FOR 90-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AS OF APRIL 21, 2017 COMPILED DRAFT PREPARED BY RESOURCE RECYCLING SYSTEMS SUBMIT COMMENTS TO: [email protected] THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK How to Read this Document This draft Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment follows the format that is required by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) through enactment of Part 115, Solid Waste Management, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (Act 451). Much of the current solid waste law is focused on ensuring proper and adequate disposal capacity. However, the Washtenaw County Solid Waste Planning Committee embraced the environmental mindset that is prevalent in the community and strived to set goals and objectives to focus on reduction, reuse, and recycling. Required Sections The plan consists of three primary sections with appendices to provide supporting documents and materials, as required by the state. The three sections are: Introduction: describes the goals and objectives of the plan. Database: consists of background information to support the development and implementation of the plan. Selected Solid Waste Management System: describes the comprehensive approach to managing the County’s solid waste and recoverable materials. The appendices provide supporting documents and materials. Appendix A contains additional detail about the evaluation of current systems. Appendix B contains additional evaluation of alternatives not selected by the County. Appendix C contains documentation of public participation. Please note that this section will be completed prior to final submission to the MDEQ, as public participation is actively occurring. -
Lucas County Solid Waste Management 2010 Plan Update
Lucas County Solid Waste Management 2010 Plan Update Due to OEPA September 16, 2011 Lucas County Commissioners Pete Gerken, President Tina Skeldon Wozniak Carol Contrada Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 6 A. Plan Approval Date, Counties In District and Planning Period ......................................................................... 6 B. Reasons for Plan Submittal ............................................................................................................................... 6 C. Process to Determine Material Change in Circumstances ............................................................................... 6 D. District Formation and Certification Statement ............................................................................................... 8 E. Policy Committee Members ............................................................................................................................. 9 F. Board of County Commissioners ...................................................................................................................... 9 G. District Contact Information ............................................................................................................................. 9 H. Technical Advisory Committee and Other Subcommittees ............................................................................ 10 Section 2: Executive Summary ............................................................................................ -
History of Canada's Uranium Industry
6-Orono Weekly Times, Wednesday, August 24, 1983 to increase • "efficiency, pro cesses were unproved and the New Recreation Building for senior citizens ’ plant was enlarged from a random collection of buildings to a sophisticated complex. In 1954 the refinery Orono was overhauled and a new , system installed which enabl ed the company to obtain a Building purified metal product. Four -, years later its uranium metal Contractor plant began production of a ; fuel to be used in research Brick - Block - Concrete | reactors, such as those at Stone Work Chalk River, and in,reactors which created electrical Carpentry - Cabinet energy. Previously this fuel Work had had to be imported front the United States. Floors - Tile Eldorado also continued to play a dominant regulating Phbne 983-5444 ORONO role in the industry. Passage of the Atomic Energy Con trol Act in 1946 evidenced the Canadian government ’s in : ' terest in supervising the development, application and Clarke Public The new recreation Lodge in Orono now pro area in the basement for shuf pleted at a cost of $100,000 use of atomic energy. For building officially opened' on vides facilities of a banquet fle board, pool table, hand which money was supplied by . over a decade it used the firm LIBRARY and assembly hall, a kitchen, shuffle board and darts. the Durham County Senior as the producer-consumer in Monday night at the Durham Tuesday 1-8 p.m. a laundry and a recreational The new hall was com Citizen ’s Lodge. termediary in the marketing County Senior Citizen ’s Wednesday 1-5p.m. -
Statement of Claim, As Required by the Proceedings Against the Crown Act
Archived Content Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us. Contenu archivé L'information archivée sur le Web est disponible à des fins de consultation, de recherche ou de tenue de dossiers seulement. Elle n’a été ni modifiée ni mise à jour depuis sa date d’archivage. Les pages archivées sur le Web ne sont pas assujetties aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada. Conformément à la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada, vous pouvez obtenir cette information dans un format de rechange en communiquant avec nous. UNDER THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES AND SECTION B OF CHAPTER Ii OF TIlE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN: VITO G. GALLO Investor v GOVERNMENT OF CANADA (“Canada”) Party STATEMENT OF CLAIM A. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES CLAIMANT! INVESTOR: Vito G. GallooAc) ENTERPRISE: 1532382 Ontario Inc. 225 Duncan Mill Road Suite 101 Don Mills, Ontario M3B 3K9 Canada PARTY: GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada Justice Building 239 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0H8 Canada 1. The Investor alleges that the Government of Canada has breached, and continues to breach, its obligations under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA, including, but not limited to: (i) Article 1105, The Minimum Standard of Treatment (ii) Article 111 0, Expropriation and Compensation 2. -
Report on Solid Waste Landfilled in Michigan for 1996
REPORT OF SOLID WASTE LANDFILLED IN MICHIGAN October 1, 2019 - September 30, 2020 Prepared By: Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy Materials Management Division Solid Waste Section P.O. Box 30241 Lansing, Michigan 48909-7741 517-388-0293 February 11, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 WASTE DISPOSAL SUMMARY INFORMATION ........................................................... 2 TABLE 1 SOLID WASTE DISPOSED IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS .................................................................................. 4 TABLE 2 SOLID WASTE DISPOSED IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS BY PERCENTAGE ................................................... 4 FIGURE 1 OUT-OF-STATE WASTE AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DISPOSAL IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS ............................ 5 FIGURE 2 MICHIGAN AND OUT-OF-STATE WASTE AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DISPOSAL IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS ............................................................... 5 TABLE 3 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SOURCE SUMMARY ....................... 6 TABLE 3A INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL SOURCE SUMMARY……. ..... 7 WASTE IMPORTS ..................................................................................................... 8 TABLE 4 IMPORTED WASTE BY ORIGIN ................................................. 8 FIGURE 3 IMPORTED WASTE BY ORIGIN ................................................. 9 TABLE 5 IMPORTED WASTE BY COUNTY AND PLACE OF ORIGIN .......................................................... -
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. -
Selected Solid Waste Management System
III-4 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS Designated Solid Waste Disposal Areas in Oakland County – revised table – November 2013 Type II Landfill: Type A Transfer Facility: Collier Road Landfill Allied Waste Transfer Station – Southfield Eagle Valley Landfill Allied Waste Site – Pontiac Oakland Heights Landfill SOCRRA Transfer Station – Troy SOCRRA Landfill SOCRRA Transfer Station – Madison Heights City of Pontiac Site – Pontiac Waste Management Site – Pontiac Type III Landfill: FPT – Pontiac Division – Pontiac None Designated BP – Pontiac Processing Facility: SOCRRA MRF Site – Troy Incinerator: RRRASOC MRF Site – Southfield None Designated Allied Waste Site – Pontiac City of Pontiac Site – Pontiac Waste Management Site – Pontiac Waste-to-Energy Incinerator: FPT – Pontiac Division – Pontiac None Designated BP – Pontiac Other: Waste Piles: None Designated None Designated III-12 SELECTED SYSTEM FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS Facility Type: Waste Transfer Facility Name: BP-Pontiac County: Oakland Location: City of Pontiac Town: 3N Range: 10E Section(s) 17 and 20 Map Identifying location included in Attachment Section: ___X____ Yes _______ No If facility is an Incinerator or a Transfer Station, list the final disposal site and location for Incinerator ash or Transfer Station wastes: see list on reverse side Operating Status (check) Waste Types Received (check all that apply) ______ open __X___ residential ______ closed __X___ commercial ______ licensed __X___ industrial ______ unlicensed __X___ construction & demolition ______ construction permit __X___ contaminated -
September 1986
- TORONTO FIELD NATURALIST Number 381, September 1986 ,%:.;-• ~r / • f ' , / ' / /;/ ,-:-" I _',.."' / ',, l~ir.t~,.i, · .... .. ;~~IJ 1L :L___ ~_Ml j ': I , l '-,1., . ,'\-' '.. .v . ' I . ~ • .' . \. \' . '.~.,, \ COVER TO COVER: PRESIDENT'S REPORT 2 - SEPTEMBER OUTINGS 3 - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 5 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7 - PEOPLE 7 - HAIKU 8 - KEEPING IN TOUCH 9 - TODMORDEN MILLS REPORT 14 - IN EXCHANGE 16 - TORONTO REGION BIRD RECORDS 17 - PHANTOM FLYERS IN THE NIGHT 18 - OF SHREWS, MOLES, MICE, VOLES 20 - IN THE NEWS 21 - I SSUES 25 - THE WEATHER THIS TIME LAST YEAR 30 - POEM 30 - COURSES OF STUDY 31 - THIS MONTH'S COVER 32 - COMING EVENTS 33 - GRANTS AVAILABLE 34 - TFN MEETINGS 35 TFN 381 President's Report As there were no written nominations received, your directors for 1986/87 will be those listed on page 3 of the May newsletter. (See also page 7.) Little murmurs have indicated that some members think it is time the reins of the club passed to the men, Now it has happened! Your new President is Phil Joiner who will have Robin Powell as Vice President, Seven of this year's board are men. * A follow-up to the April mail problem. Helen Juhola has been in touch with the local postal authorities. I wrote to my Member of Parliament on behalf of the Toronto Field Naturalists. Although there has been a response from both, we have notyet received final answers to why there was such a breakdown in the mail service in April. Summer brings change in the TFN activities but our environmental concerns don't take a holiday. -
Eagle Point and Arrow Zone Analogy
EAGLE POINT AND ARROW ZONE ANALOGY By: Garrett Ainsworth, BSc, PGeo INTRODUCTION TO EAGLE POINT: . Eagle Point Uranium deposits are located on the eastern edge of the Athabasca Basin, and are part of the Rabbit Lake Uranium district, which also includes the Rabbit Lake and Collins Bay deposits. The Rabbit Lake Uranium District has produced more than 190 million pounds of uranium concentrates since production began in 1975 (http://www.cameco.com/businesses/uranium-operations/canada/rabbit-lake). In 1987, a historical (non 43-101 compliant) “total ore reserve” for the Eagle Point deposits comprised approximately 140 Million pounds (64,000 tonnes) at an average grade of about 2.0% U3O8*. Production commenced in 1994. The Eagle Point underground mine is in production today, and as of December 31, 2013 has: estimated proven and probable reserves of 1,642,100 tonnes at 0.56% U3O8 (20.3 Million pounds U3O8); estimated indicated resource of 1,152,600 tonnes at 0.80% U3O8 (20.2 Million pounds U3O8); estimated inferred resource of 708,500 tonnes at 0.58% U3O8 (9.0 Million pounds U3O8). Reference: http://www.cameco.com/businesses/uranium- operations/canada/rabbit-lake/reserves-resources . Eagle Point was initially discovered in 1980 by Gulf Minerals Canada Ltd. while drill testing geophysical and geochemical anomalies northeast along strike from the Collins Bay Uranium deposits. The Eagle Point deposits are a series of moderately to steeply dipping tabular veins and lenses, which are concordant and discordant to variably graphitic Wollaston Group metasediments and underlying Archean granitoid gneiss. EAGLE POINT AND ARROW ZONE SIMILARITIES: THE STRUCTURE . -
Small and Mid-Cap Resources March 2017 Review
Small and Mid-Cap Resources March 2017 Review The Momentum Continues - 2017 to be a Good Year WHO IS IIR? Independent Investment Research, “IIR”, is an independent investment research house based in Australia and the United States. IIR specialises in the analysis of high quality commissioned research for Brokers, Family Offices and Fund Managers. IIR distributes its research in Asia, United States and the Americas. IIR does not participate in any corporate or capital raising activity and therefore it does not have any inherent bias that may result from research that is linked to any corporate/ capital raising activity. IIR was established in 2004 under Aegis Equities Research Group of companies to provide investment research to a select group of retail and wholesale clients. Since March 2010, IIR (the Aegis Equities business was sold to Morningstar) has operated independently from Aegis by former Aegis senior executives/shareholders to provide clients with unparalleled research that covers listed and unlisted managed investments, listed companies, structured products, and IPOs. IIR takes great pride in the quality and independence of our analysis, underpinned by high caliber staff and a transparent, proven and rigorous research methodology. INDEPENDENCE OF RESEARCH ANALYSTS Research analysts are not directly supervised by personnel from other areas of the Firm whose interests or functions may conflict with those of the research analysts. The evaluation and appraisal of research analysts for purposes of career advancement, remuneration and promotion is structured so that non-research personnel do not exert inappropriate influence over analysts. Supervision and reporting lines: Analysts who publish research reports are supervised by, and report to, Research Management. -
Download 3697.Pdf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION __________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ) STATE OF OHIO; ) STATE OF ARIZONA; ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA; ) STATE OF COLORADO; ) STATE OF FLORIDA; ) COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; ) STATE OF MARYLAND; ) STATE OF MICHIGAN; ) STATE OF NEW YORK; ) Civil No.: 1:98 CV 1616 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; ) STATE OF TEXAS; ) STATE OF WASHINGTON; and ) STATE OF WISCONSIN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Filed: ) v. ) ) USA WASTE SERVICES, INC.; ) DOME MERGER SUBSIDIARY; and ) WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) MODIFIED FINAL JUDGMENT WHEREAS, plaintiffs, the United States of America, the State of Ohio, the State of Arizona, the State of California, the State of Colorado, the State of Florida, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the State of Maryland, the State of Michigan, the State of New York, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of Texas, the State of Washington, and the State of Wisconsin, and defendants USA Waste Services, Inc. ("USA Waste") and Waste Management, Inc. (“WMI”), by their respective attorneys, having consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law herein, and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or an admission by any party with respect to any issue of law or fact herein; AND WHEREAS, defendants have agreed to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court; AND WHEREAS, the essence -
Monroe County Solid Waste Management Plan
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY LANSING DEii\ RICK SNYDER C. HEIDI GRETHER GOVERNOR DIRECTOR June 1, 2017 Mr. J. Henry Lievens, Chairperson Monroe County Board of Commissioners 125 East Second Street Monroe, Michigan 48161-2197 Dear Mr. Lievens: The locally approved amendment to the Monroe County Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan Amendment) received by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on February 18, 2016, is hereby approved with modifications. The Plan Amendment required modifications that were sent to the Monroe County Designated Planning Agency contact, Mr. Daniel Rock1 on December 1, 2016, and a follow-up modification letter on February 17, 2017. The approval of the modifications, dated April 21, 2017, was received from the Monroe County Board of Commissioners (BOC). Upon approval by the DEQ, the Plan Amendment revises the entire Plan and should be viewed as a stand-alone document. The following modifications were made to the Plan Amendment: Throughout the Plan Amendment, the phrase "Mixed Waste Processing" has been used; however, this term is not defined. Based on our conversations, Monroe County is actually referring to a Solid Waste Processing Facility. Therefore, the term "Mixed Waste Processing Facility" throughout the Plan Amendment shall be replaced with the ,, term "Solid Waste Processing Facility. Page 10, FACILITY DESCRIPTION, Arbor Hills Landfill, the Operating Status check box for "Construction Permit" shall be marked as this facility has a construction permit. This same item shall be changed on page 47 of the Plan Amendment. Page 16, FACILITY DESCRIPTION, Adrian Landfill, Inc., the Operating Status check box for "Open, but closure pending" shall be marked instead of "Open" as this is the current status of this facility.