DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: the Canadian Context

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: the Canadian Context Cov-Public Confidence Canadian 30/09/03 12:45 Page 1 Radioactive Waste Management Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian Context Workshop Proceedings Ottawa, Canada 14-18 October 2002 NUCLEAR•ENERGY•AGENCY Radioactive Waste Management Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian Context Workshop Proceedings Ottawa, Canada 14-18 October 2002 © OECD 2003 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: − to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; − to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and − to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14 December 2000). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention). NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1st February 1958 under the name of the OEEC European Nuclear Energy Agency. It received its present designation on 20th April 1972, when Japan became its first non-European full Member. NEA membership today consists of 28 OECD Member countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities also takes part in the work of the Agency. The mission of the NEA is: − to assist its Member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co-operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally friendly and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as well as − to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as input to government decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy analyses in areas such as energy and sustainable development. Specific areas of competence of the NEA include safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive waste management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and public information. The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for participating countries. In these and related tasks, the NEA works in close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, with which it has a Co-operation Agreement, as well as with other international organisations in the nuclear field. © OECD 2003 Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should be obtained through the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CCF), 20, rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris, France, Tel. (33-1) 44 07 47 70, Fax (33-1) 46 34 67 19, for every country except the United States. In the United States permission should be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, (508)750-8400, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, or CCC Online: http://www.copyright.com/. All other applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this book should be made to OECD Publications, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. FOREWORD Understanding the factors that influence confidence in the area of radioactive waste management is of strategic interest to the Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). The Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) is a working party of the RWMC and acts as a centre for the exchange of opinions and experiences across institutional and non-institutional boundaries. In order to distil the lessons that can be learnt, the FSC promotes open discussion across the entire spectrum of stakeholders in an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect. Workshops in national contexts are the preferred means for interaction with a broad range of stakeholders. The third workshop of the OECD/NEA Forum on Stakeholder Confidence took place in Ottawa on 14-18 October 2002. Public confidence is significantly affected by social considerations, such as the nature of decision-making processes, transparency of proponent and government activities, access to information, effective and appropriate mitigation measures, development opportunities and social justice issues. In order to increase public confidence, one must fully understand social concerns and how to address them. The workshop examined social concerns regarding radioactive waste management: what the concerns are, how they are identified, and how they can be addressed. The future enactment of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act in Canada1 and the agreement between the Government of Canada and the three local communities in southern Ontario provided the background for the discussions. The workshop was preceded by a one-day visit of the Port Hope area that included meetings with community representatives and project managers, and a tour of low-level waste management facilities. The workshop enabled the exploration and analysis of the Canadian programme, by and for the FSC, as well as by and for the Canadian stakeholders. Sixty-nine people attended the workshop from 14 countries and 45 organisations. They ranged from representatives of municipal governments, non-governmental organisations and private citizens to government policy makers, regulators, implementers, consultants and university, social and media researchers. They included stakeholders in large-scale industrial projects (both nuclear and non-nuclear) and stakeholders directly affected by nuclear projects. About one half came from FSC member organisations; the remainder were Canadian stakeholders. The Department of Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) was the local organiser and co-host with the NEA for the site visit and workshop. These proceedings are published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any member country or international organisation. 1. The Nuclear Fuel Waste Act came into force shortly after the workshop, on 15 November 2002. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Summary of site visit and workshop............................................................................................ 9 International perspective .............................................................................................................. 31 Background Session: The Canadian Context ............................................................................. 35 Chair: T. Seppälä P. Brown The Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Radioactive Waste and Canadian Policy ............................ 37 R. Ferch Regulating Nuclear Waste in Canada ......................................................................... 43 C. Létourneau The Nuclear Fuel Waste Act: Context, Public Confidence, Social Considerations.... 47 D. McCauley The Port Hope Area Initiative..................................................................................... 55 G.R.M. Anderson Message from the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources.......................................... 61 Session I: What Are the Social Concerns?............................................................................... 63 Chair: M. Fritschi, Moderator: C. Mays K. Storey Social Impact Assessment: Identification, Management and Follow-up of Community Concerns Associated with Construction of the Hibernia Offshore Platform.............. 65 B. Seaborn Criteria for Public Support for a Waste Management Concept: The Environmental Assessment Panel’s Recommendations ...................................................................... 71 P. Larcombe What Are the Social Concerns? Consultation and Respect for the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples...................................................................................................... 75 T. Wlodarczyk Understanding Community Traits – Understanding Public Concerns........................ 77 5 R. Zelmer Port Hope and Area Property Value Protection
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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ..........................................................
    [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]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]