Haldimand "Bruce Power pulls the Plug"

BRUCE POWER PULLS PLUG ON NUCLEAR PROJECT;

The Dunnville Chronicle
Wed Jul 29 2009
Page: A3
Section: News
Byline: DONNA PITCHER , CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER;

Bruce Power has withdrawn its application to build Nuclear reactors in Nanticoke and Bruce County; blaming Ontario's declining electricity demand according to a news release on July 23.

Bruce Power has notified the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency that it will withdraw its site license applications and suspend its Environmental Assessments in Bruce County and Nanticoke.

Haldimand County Mayor Marie Trainer says this news is "unfortunate" for Haldimand County. Bruce Power had recently informed Trainer, that everything that has been done to date was more favourable than expected.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is still slated to close in 2014 and Trainer is hopeful that OPG will convert to natural gas.

"This is part of our tax base," she said.

When asked about renewable energy options Trainer remarked, "Going Green is Expensive," people don't realize that their hydro bills could double."

"No Nukes in Nanticoke. It's not just a slogan anymore. It's a statement of fact," said Jim Elve of Waterford in an interview with The Chronicle on Friday morning.

Elve is a member of the Grand River Energy Quest, a grass roots group that was formed when Bruce Power announced their plans to build a Nuclear Plant in Haldimand County.

"I suggest there is a bit more to it than that," Elve speculated.

He believes there are underlying reasons why Bruce Power pulled the plug. Elve wondered whether the public opposition played a role in the recent decision.

Both Haldimand and Norfolk counties had passed resolutions supporting Bruce Powers environmental assessment, and stated that they would be "willing hosts."

Elve has always accused that both communities made Bruce Power believe they were willing hosts without any communications from residents.

Grand Erie Energy Quest has a petition, signed by over 1,500 residents in the Nanticoke area, against the nuclear build.

"Rather than putting all of our eggs in one basket and hoping a white knight will ride into town with a mega project, our councils should take this opportunity to encourage economic activity that doesn't rely on billion dollar investors. Renewable energy is the way of the future," said Elve.

Haldimand "Threat of Nuclear Plant is Hurting Local Economy"

Threat of Nuclear Plant is Hurting Local Economy
by Jim Elve of Waterford

On June 28, the Ontario government suspended plans to deploy two new nuclear reactors at Darlington. Even with a bottomless public purse, the costs were deemed too high.

On July 1, the largest energy company in the US, Exelon, dropped plans to build a two-reactor plant in Victoria, Texas. The costs were too high.

In April, another large American energy company, St. Louis-based AmerenUE suspended work on a reactor in Missouri. Costs were too high.

On July 2, New Brunswick revealed that the refurbishment project at the Point Lepreau nuclear station was eight months behind schedule and more than $100 million over budget.

On June 8, secret papers left at a CTV studio revealed that the refurbishment of reactors at Bruce Power’s Kincardine plant is over a year behind schedule and between $300 and $600 million over budget.

On June 11, Prime Minister Harper's chief spokesman, Kory Teneycke, said Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is a "dysfunctional," $30-billion "sinkhole" that will not get any more federal funding.

As of July 1, Areva’s Olkiluoto nuclear energy project in Finland was 42 months behind schedule and 60% over budget.

The new generation of nuclear development is proving to be a lot like the previous generation: too costly to deserve either private or public investment. The much-touted “nuclear renaissance” is proving to be just so much hype from a highly polished and well-heeled sales force intent on lobbying for a dubious, if not absurd, new round of fruitless investment.

Here in Haldimand-Norfolk, we are being lured with the same empty hook. Bruce Power’s bid to build a two-reactor plant with private capital is every bit as financially ill-advised as the aforementioned projects. The pie-in-the-sky promise of 1000 high paid jobs is as believable as the promises that the new generation of reactors would be built on time and on budget.

About three weeks ago, Ontario Energy Minister George Smitherman reiterated in no uncertain terms that Ontario is not supporting Bruce’s Nanticoke proposal and that the province has no intention of purchasing any electricity that might be created at a possible Nanticoke nuclear plant. We simply do not need it. Ontario already has a surplus of baseload nuclear energy and on over 200 occasions in 2009, we’ve actually paid industrial customers to use it… after we paid the nuclear plants to produce it.

Last week, a Bruce Power spokesperson told Saskatchewan residents that a nuclear plant could not be built in their province without the support and stability offered by a firm provincial government commitment. Indeed, no nuclear project has ever been built without massive taxpayer support.

Despite the lack of financial backing and the strong probability that no plant will ever be built at Nanticoke, Bruce Power continues to press on with the Environmental Assessment it began last November. The nuclear Sword of Damocles continues to damage our local economy by scaring away potential new residents and driving away long time citizens.

Surveys taken by MPP Toby Barrett over a three year period indicate that 76% of H-N residents are opposed to a new nuclear plant. New residents echo the same sentiment over and over; if they’d been aware that a nuclear plant was being proposed 6 km from downtown Port Dover, they would have bought their retirement homes elsewhere. Instead of helping our local economy with future jobs, jobs, jobs, the threat of a nuclear plant is stifling growth and curtailing employment for our existing local tradesmen and businesses.

Both Bruce Power and Premier McGuinty have assured us that they will not pursue nuclear development in anything but a “willing host community”. We can permanently remove the growth-inhibiting threat of a nuclear plant by urging our municipality, through resolutions by Norfolk and Haldimand County Councils declaring that we are not a willing host.

Haldimand and Norfolk residents can contact their democratic representatives on county councils and tell them to remove this threat that is already damaging our local economy. The hollow promise of future jobs relies on nuclear investors being hoodwinked into investing here when they are dropping the nuclear hot potato everywhere else. If it won’t happen, let’s make it clear to real investors that were driving unprecedented growth in Port Dover before the spectre of a nuclear plant loomed on the horizon.

Haldimand "New Nuclear Power Plant Project goes to Review Panel"

Environment Minister Refers Nanticoke New Nuclear Power Plant Project to a Review Panel

OTTAWA, June 24 /CNW Telbec/ - Canada's Environment Minister Jim Prentice
announced today that the proposed Nanticoke New Nuclear Power Plant Project in
Haldimand County, Ontario will undergo an environmental assessment by an
independent review panel.

"I am confident that an independent review panel will fully consider the
environmental issues related to the proposed project and make sound
recommendations to the federal government," said Minister Prentice. "This will
be the best means of addressing public concerns pertaining to this major
nuclear project."

The Minister's decision is based on a recommendation made by the Canadian
Nuclear Safety Commission.

The project is a proposal by Bruce Power Erie Inc. to construct and
operate up to two new nuclear reactors and associated facilities, in the
former municipality of Nanticoke, Ontario, for the generation of 2200 to 3200
megawatts of electricity. The proposed site is located on the north shore of
Lake Erie in Haldimand County.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) is making
available up to $100,000 in participant funding to assist individuals or
groups to take part in the environmental assessment process. This funding will
help successful applicants in Phase I of the process to review and comment on
the draft guidelines for the environmental impact statement (EIS) and draft
joint review panel agreement. In Phase II, additional funds will be made
available to help applicants review the EIS and prepare for and participate in
the public hearings. Funding applications for Phase I received by July 27,
2009 will be considered.

Information on the funding program, the proposed project and on the
environmental assessment process is available on the Agency's Web site at
www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca, under registry number 08-03-43757.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency administers the federal
environmental assessment process, which identifies the environmental effects
of proposed projects and measures to address those effects, in support of
sustainable development.

For further information: Media: Annie Roy, Senior Communications
Advisor, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, (613) 957-0396

Haldimand "Nanticoke Nuclear Bid goes to Review Panel"

Nanticoke nuclear bid goes to review panel

Bruce Power Erie wants to build two reactors

May 07, 2009 NANTICOKE – The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has asked the Minister of Environment to refer the environmental assessment of Bruce Power’s proposal to build two nuclear reactors in the industrial area of Haldimand County to a review panel.

The commission says in a statement late Wednesday an assessment is required before it can consider Bruce Power’s licence application and has concluded that public and stakeholder concerns warrant that a request be made to the minister for an early referral to a review panel.

Bruce Power, which operates a nuclear power plant on Lake Huron near Port Elgin is seeking to build the reactors beside the coal-fired Nanticoke generating Station which is set to be closed in 2014.

The province is not endorsing the proposal, but it has support of Haldimand and Norfolk council’s, local MPs and federal cabinet minister Diane Finley.

A review panel is a group of experts selected and appointed by the minister of the environment.The commission said it has considered Bruce Power Erie's project description, the views already expressed by the public, interest groups, Aboriginal groups and in media reports on previous major nuclear projects, as well as its own experience with consultation on major nuclear projects and decided “…public and stakeholder concerns warrant that a request be made to the minister for an early referral to a review panel.”

A group calling itself Grand Erie Energy Quest has launched a petition requesting a moratorium on nuclear development in Nanticoke because its members feel there has not been sufficient public discussion of contamination, cost and security issues.

Jim Elve, spokesperson for the group, said today the commission decision comes as no surprise. “its the next step,” he said.Grand Erie Energy Quest, which expects its petition to gain momentum with better canvassing in good weather, wants the questions of contamination , cost and most importantly disposal of nuclear waste generated by the plant given a full airing, he said.

“We want to know just where you’re going to put it ... forever,” said Elve.

Elve said the group’s visibility in Haldimand and Norfolk rising as more and more of its dandelion yellow signs are popping up on lawns.

Bruce Power Erie applied in October 2008 for a licence to prepare a site for the future construction and operation of two nuclear reactors to potentially generate between 2,200 and 3,200 megawatts of electricity to the Ontario grid.

The application for a licence to prepare a site is the first in a series of applications to build and operate a new nuclear power plant, as part of the CNSC licensing process.

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/561949

Haldimand "Bruce Power Update"

From Bruce Power;

You're invited to our Community Information Sessions for the Nanticoke Nuclear Power Plant Project Environmental Assessment


For more information please contact Peter Brown at Golder Associates 1-800-414-8314 or Nanticoke_EA@golder.com.


We were pleased to meet so many of you at our Community Information Sessions held last December and January. A summary of these sessions is available at http://www.brucepower.com/ and at the municipal libraries in Haldimand-Norfolk.


We are making progress on our environmental assessment studies and want to share the results with you.


Please drop in to one of our upcoming Community Information Sessions to get an update and let us know what you think.

Monday to Thursday from 3 to 8 p.m.: A light lunch will be served from 5 to 7 p.m.

March 30, Dunnville, Dunnville Optimist Hall, CORNER OF MAIN ST. & CEDAR ST., DUNNVILLE, ON

March 31, Cayuga, Cayuga Kinsmen Community Centre, 15 THORBURN STREET,CAYUGA, ON

April 1 Port Dover, Port Dover Lions Community Centre, 801 ST. GEORGE STREET, PORT DOVER, ON

April 2 Jarvis, Jarvis Community Centre, 18 JAMES STREET, JARVIS, ON

Saturday from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.: A light lunch will be served from 12 to 2 p.m. April 4 Simcoe, Simcoe Recreation Centre 182 SOUTH DRIVE, SIMCOE, ON

For more information please contact Peter Brown at Golder Associates1-800-414-8314 or Nanticoke_EA@golder.com.

Monday to Thursday from 3 to 8 p.m.:

A light lunch will be served from 5 to 7 p.m.

A light lunch will be served from 12 to 2 p.m.

Haldimand "Keep Alberta Nuclear Free"

This is a good read.

Response to response on nuclear plants

Tuesday February 24, 2009
Letter to the Editor,
An earlier letter from Elaine Nowak-Wheeler seems to have really irked Bruce Power, to warrant a rebuttal from their Manager of Media Relations.

I’d like to elaborate on what Elaine said about plans for several nuclear plants in Alberta – though they were not specifically proposed by Bruce Power. It is common knowledge from the Internet that a “White Paper” was put forward to a group of “influential conservatives” in October 2006.

This recommendation was authored by one Cosmos Voutsinos, a mechanical engineer who has worked in the nuclear industry in Canada, the USA and Taiwan. It suggested that the tar sands could best be exploited by construction of a nuclear reactor by the year 2013, with an option for 10 more nuclear reactors between 2019 and 2023, and spaced about 40 kilometres apart across northern Alberta. The report said these could be financed privately or by the government, with the option later for the oil industry to purchase such.

It should be noted that when Bruce Power states it only has plans for one nuclear plant in the Peace Country, such a plant would include four nuclear reactors. Hence the idea that northern Alberta could become home to about 14 nuclear reactors.

The Alberta Government is awaiting the overdue final report of its Expert Nuclear Panel to decide if nuclear power will become part of the provincial energy mix. Given that this panel had no representation from the human health or environmental sectors, we can expect the recommendations will be based on economic criteria, and the need to distract the world from looking at our “dirty tar sands”.

We are all aware that the nuclear industry is conducting an elaborate and expensive propaganda campaign to make us believe that nuclear power will be a “good mix” in our electricity supply in a “bid to combat climate change”, just like the Media Manager says.

If one considers the full nuclear cycle from mining, refining and processing, to construction of nuclear facilities – a plant must operate for 10 years just to break even on its production of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Canadian Nuclear Association is like the Chamber of Commerce of the nuclear world – promoting business for its members. For a nuclear company such as Bruce Power, with over 1,000 employees, the annual fee in CNA is $350,000 which would help pay for big promotional projects.

The Alberta Electric Systems Operator (AESO) has told the public of the 20 year plan in place for this province, to provide electricity from a variety of better alternate forms of energy – there is no need whatsoever to introduce nuclear power to our “mix” of energy.

Nuclear power has had no improvements in its 50 years in Canada so common sense says to let it die a natural death.

Let’s look to modern technology like solar, wind, or small hydro projects, and let’s make an effort to conserve energy so we don’t require immense increases in power generation.

To clarify a second point made by Elaine about there being seven attempts to develop nuclear power in Saskatchewan – it is accurate that these attempts were not by the fledgling Bruce Power – but by various other segments of the nuclear industry.

Saskatchewan people rejected the following: 1965 – a heavy water plant at Estevan; 1971 – a uranium enrichment plant for Estevan; 1973 – another attempt at a heavy water plant in Estevan; 1980 – proposal for a uranium refinery at Warman; 1985 – a Slowpoke reactor at the University of Saskatchewan; 1989 – proposal for a Candu-3 reactor; and 1991 – proposal by Cameco to build a nuclear waste site. (Cameco is now a major shareholder in Bruce Power – who incidentally, is only the operator of the nuclear plants at Kincardine in Ontario. Bruce Power has not built and does not own any nuclear facility anywhere.)

This factual information is from “Canada’s Deadly Secret – Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear system” by Dr. Jim Harding of Saskatchewan.

None of the above proposed phases of the nuclear cycle have succeeded in Saskatchewan so it makes one wonder how Bruce Power managed to win favor there – as their study suggests. If it was like their survey last year of residents of the Peace Country, I would question whether it truly represents the people’s opinion.

During the Ipsos Reid survey in the Peace, conducted for Bruce Power, I was contacted seven times for my input – so much for random sampling of the population. And … the results of this survey have not been publicized. To enlarge on the claim by Bruce Power’s Media Manager that there has never been a fatality or an injury to the public due to reactor operations, let us not forget these incidents involving workers at nuclear sites:

1961 – Idaho Falls, USA – 3 killed; 1974- Leningrad, Russia – 3 killed; 1976 – Bohunice plant, Slovakia – 2 killed; 1985 – Balakova, Russia – 14 killed; 1986 – Surrey, USA – 4 killed; 1986 – Chernobyl, Ukraine – 47 workers died, plus thousands of “the public” were afflicted with thyroid cancer; and there are numerous statistics on workers who have been exposed to radiation on site at nuclear plants. (This Info is from Greenpeace International’s website – Switzerland).

I believe most of us who are against nuclear development have a greater fear of the long term health effects like cancer and leukemia, for our children and grandchildren and what will happen to the radioactive waste in the future.

Such concern is not based on rhetoric but on historical data. Good for Elaine Nowak-Wheeler for having the fortitude to speak up to Keep Alberta Nuclear Free! Adele Boucher Rymhs Secretary, Citizens Against Nuclear Development (CAND)President, Coalition for Nuclear Free Alberta (CNFA)

http://www.centralpeacesignal.com/story.php?id=203588

Haldimand "Nuclear Lies, Green Truths"

March 4th, 7:30pm Sky Dragon Co-op (27 King William St., Hamilton)

*Nuclear lies, green truths - An evening on climate solutions*

What is the quickest way to stop a wind turbine? Build a nuclear reactor.

The Hamilton Peace Cafe and Sky Dragon Community Development Cooperative present Greenpeace Executive Director Bruce Cox on climate change solutions and how nuclear power threatens to put the brakes on green energy in Ontario.

The presentation and discussion will take place on Wednesday, March 4th at 7:30pm at the Sky Dragon Community Development Cooperative (Bread & Roses Cafe, 27 King William St, Hamilton, 1 block north of King & James).

Right now, Ontario is at a crossroads in terms of how electricity is going to be supplied to customers like you and me. In the next few weeks the Ontario government will release their Green Energy Act, and decide whether or not to rebuild the Pickering "B" nuclear reactor and potentially launch massive spending on new nuclear stations.

Pouring millions into new nukes is not only a bad decision for our economy and environment, it will effectively stop Ontario's renewable energy potential and fundamentally undermine Canada's ability to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Come out for an interesting evening of presentations and discussion on climate solutions and how nuclear power stands in their way.

We need your help to tell the McGuinty government to say 'No' to $40 billion in new nuclear projects and 'Yes' to green power.

Admission is free. For more information or how you can help, call Kathryn Wrong, Greenpeace Manager(Hamilton) at 905-481-1239 or visit www.skydragon.org and check out the events section.

For more about alternative energy: http://www.renewableisdoable.ca.

Haldimand "Ontario's Green Energy Act"

Ontario’s Energy and Infrastructure Minister, George Smitherman, publicly released his proposed Green Energy Act today.

The proposed Green Energy Act is a very positive step forward on Ontario’s road to a renewable electricity future. But the Government needs to do much more to promote energy conservation and efficiency.

In addition, the proposed Green Energy Act needs to be amended to make it illegal for nuclear power companies to pass their capital cost overruns on to Ontario’s long-suffering electricity consumers and taxpayers.

In this bulletin we will highlight some of the key features of the Green Energy Act and outline the additional actions that are needed to green Ontario’s economy and protect Ontario’s electricity consumers and taxpayers.

Key Features of the Green Energy Act

The Act will create a feed-in-tariff or fixed price for all renewable power projects in Ontario.
The Act will streamline the approvals process for renewable energy projects.
The Act will create mandatory electricity conservation targets for Ontario’s municipal electric utilities (e.g., Newmarket Hydro, Toronto Hydro).

Additional actions that are needed to green Ontario’s economy and protect Ontario’s electricity consumers and taxpayers.

Minister Smitherman must direct the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) to dramatically increase its funding for our municipal electric utilities’ energy conservation and efficiency programmes. To date for every dollar that the OPA has spent on energy conservation, it has contracted for $60 of new electricity generation capacity.

Ontario must stop wasting natural gas. Virtually every residential, commercial, institutional and industrial natural gas consumer in Ontario uses natural gas to provide only one service, namely heating. It is much more efficient to use these same molecules of natural gas to simultaneously produce heat and power. Combined heat and power (CHP) plants can have energy efficiencies of 80 to 90% versus the 33% energy efficiency of a nuclear reactor.

By reducing the demand for grid-supplied electricity, CHP plants can make it easier for Ontario to move to a future where all of our grid-supplied electricity comes from renewable sources. Minister Smitherman should direct the OPA to immediately establish a feed-in-tariff for all CHP projects in Ontario. That is, a feed-in-tariff which will pay homeowners, institutions and businesses to self-generate some or all of their electricity requirements.

To date the OPA has signed over 450 contracts for renewable energy with individuals, co-ops, First Nations communities and private sector developers. None of these contracts allow the renewable energy suppliers to pass their capital cost overruns on to Ontario’s electricity consumers or taxpayers.

On the other hand, Minister Smitherman is planning to give the nuclear industry a blank cheque to build two new nuclear reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Station despite the fact that every nuclear project in Ontario’s history has gone over budget. The Green Energy Act should make it illegal for nuclear power companies to pass their cost overruns on to Ontario’s long-suffering electricity consumers and taxpayers.

Please pass this message on to your friends.
Thank you.
Jack Gibbons,
Chair Ontario Clean Air Alliance
402-625 Church St,
Toronto
M4Y 2G1

Phone: 416-926-1907 ext. 240
Fax: 416-926-1601
Email: jack@cleanairalliance.org
Website: www.cleanairalliance.org
Website: www.OntariosGreenFuture.ca

Haldimand "Time to Review the Standards of Small Radioactive Leaks"

The following is an update into the "small" leaks into the Chalk River in December 2008.

My personal opinion is these "small" leaks are not acceptable at all. In the "real world" these industrial leaks are dealt with in a very heavy manner by many levels of government!

Just imagine if where you take your car for an oil change every three months they leak just a "small" amount of oil into the sewer system every time an oil change is done. Or just imagine if for those of us that live here on the Lakeshore have a "small" leak every time we flush our toilets and it runs into the Lake. Well I can tell you that these "small leaks" are unacceptable by "Law"! The Nuclear Industry should be held accountable the same as all other industries. If there is a "leak" or what I would call an "accident", you are shut down, fined heavily if convicted and an investigation will take place!

Halt flow of heavy water: MPs

The Ottawa Sun
Friday, February 6, 2009
Page: 7
Section: News

Byline: BY ELIZABETH THOMPSON, SUN MEDIA

The government should rethink how much radioactive material it allows the Chalk River nuclear plant to release into the Ottawa River, opposition critics said yesterday, after a report said water containing small amounts of radioactive material is being dumped in the waterway.

"My concern is what is the proper threshold," said Paul Dewar, NDP MP for Ottawa Centre. "Quite frankly, most people think zero would be a good level."

The comments came after Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt tabled internal reports yesterday about a heavy water leak at the Chalk River plant in December.

In the 17 pages tabled yesterday, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. says it all started Dec. 4 when the research reactor was shut down "as a result of unanticipated technical problems unrelated to isotope production." A day later, AECL discovered a small heavy water leak.

Serge Dupont, associate deputy minister of Natural Resources Canada, in a memo to Raitt says AECL promptly informed Canada's nuclear watchdog of the leak.

Officials said the water that leaked from the reactor was contained and "will be treated at Chalk River's Waste Treatment Centre to reduce contamination. Prior to any release of water to the river, water is treated to remove the majority of radio nuclides."

"In the case of water containing tritium, which is not removed in the treatment process, concentration levels dictate whether the water will be stored or released," the report said, adding that the releases are carefully monitored and released at a controlled rate, subject to provincial and federal regulatory limits.

However, Dewar and Liberal MP David McGuinty question whether water containing radioactive material should be released into the Ottawa River at all.

"That's a concern of mine around standards and thresholds," said Dewar. "I think it's time we review that."

ELIZABETH.THOMPSON

Haldimand "Nanticoke Nuclear Update"

I am on the mailing list for any updates from Bruce Power but have not received this update yet. I am also on slo mo dialup so I cannot download the video, so for those that can, please share your thoughts.

So in the meantime here is an update from Karen Best of the Dunnville Chronicle;

Nanticoke Nuclear plant updates mailed out
Posted By KAREN BEST, CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER
Feb. 6, 2009

Recipients of a Nanticoke nuclear plant update learned a 170 metre bore hole will be drilled into rock under a key building site.

If constructed, the power block will contain two nuclear reactors, turbines and generators capable of producing up to 3,200 megawatts of power.

Another part of the environmental assessment (EA), background radioactivity measurement will continue this month.

An EA is a federally mandated investigation into the state of physical, biological and human components of the environment and surrounding area.

This month, Bruce Power anticipates the EA will be referred by the Federal Minister of Environment to the Joint Review Panel. Over several months beginning in October, a draft environment impact statement will be reviewed by experts and will be presented to the public, aboriginal groups and stakeholders.

Joint Review Panel hearings for the public will be held next summer.

So far engineering consulting firm Golder Associates has completed a phase II EA that includes an archeological assessment and bird migration study. Air, lake water and surface water quality and surface water flow was also documented.

Of 50,000 comment cards mailed to area residents, 1,000 were returned indicating a strong interest in the EA according to Bruce Power.

About 600 people attended December information sessions and a second round will be held in March in five locations including Dunnville.

Last month, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission posted an environmental assessment schedule at http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/.

Further information is available on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency website http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/ where the project's registry number is 08-03-43757.

To view a video presentation on the Nanticoke project go to http://www.brucepower.com//flash/GMS/ nanticoke/nanticoke. html

http://www.dunnvillechronicle.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1422649&auth=KAREN%20BEST,%20CHRONICLE%20STAFF%20WRITER

Haldimand "What's wrong with a Little Leak Here and There?"

Should we be concerned about a few leaks here and there? Radioactive Leaks that is!

There seems to be some concern over Nuclear in Alberta. The following is a letter to the editor in regards to Bruce Powers bid to build a Nuclear Plant in Alberta. This letter talked about a radioactive leak at the Chalk River Nuclear Plant in December. Following the letter to the editor are some news articles about the radioactive leaks.

I could not attend any of the open houses that Bruce Power held in Haldimand County. Were these concerns addressed? Was the public told that a leak here and there is normal?

One of my concerns in regards to Nuclear has been the storing of the waste, and the decommissioning of a Nuclear Plant.

Should we worry about environmental problems 60 or 70 years from now?


No nuclear
Posted 10 hours ago

Dear Editor,

I have read with dismay the continuing attempts by Bruce Power to sway public opinion in favor of its attempt to build a nuclear-generating power plant downstream from Peace River.

A presentation in Fairview last year was attended by over 200 concerned citizens. Many concerns were expressed, but few assurances were convincingly offered. The location of a nuclear plant on the north side of Lac Cardinal was unacceptable to the majority because of the risk of contamination of Grimshaw Gravels. The meeting ended in complete disarray, and most of those in attendance simply turned their backs on Bruce Power’s presenter and walked out. Now Bruce Power has quietly changed their strongly-held position that Lac Cardinal was safe, and have switched to the present site proposal. They haven’t had another public meeting in Fairview.

At the Fairview meeting, Bruce Power held that wind, solar or other "green" power-generating methods were inferior to nuclear. However in a recent half page ad in the Edmonton Journal, Bruce Power included wind, solar and other green electrical-generating methods to be part of their future agenda.

An extensive article also appeared in the Journal reporting the concerns of farmers whose land will be near the proposed site on the river, and the expressions of a few in the "pro" nuclear camp. The latter group, led by messers Pimm and Johnson, has no qualifications to assess the broader concerns about nuclear power, and I suspect that their supporters don’t either. Their only support for this project stems from their stated desire to obtain economic gain and employment for young people. Naturally, Bruce Power will "massage" the egos of these people and hold them up as the desire by the populace to support nuclear power, yet nothing could be farther from the truth.

Bruce Power is a private company, seeking the massive profits to be obtained from the sale of electricity. Their representatives in the Peace, trying to gain our favor, are not altruistic. They could care less about the long-term effects of nuclear power on this or other communities in the north. And you can bet that they are not giving up their homes and lifestyles in Ontario.

Today, the national news sources have disclosed that there was leakage of radioactive water into the Ottawa River in early December from the Chalk River nuclear plant, but was not reported for nine days. Downriver towns and cities, including Ottawa, are now trying to assess the danger to their water supplies. I wonder how Bruce Power will defend the industry next week?

Uranium sources are considered to be available on our planet for only the next 40 or 50 years. Yet nuclear plants turn out deadly radioactive waste with life spans of thousands and hundred of thousands of years. Short term gain for long term pain is the ultimate irresponsible and stupid act in my opinion.

Maybe the worldwide economic crisis will be the most beneficial thing to happen to us. Dangerous business ventures like Bruce Power’s may be stopped in their tracks.

Yours truly,
Trevor Jones, Fairview
http://www.fairviewpost.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1419998

Feb 3, 2009 3:26:00 PM MST
Small leaks at Chalk River nuclear facility part of normal operations: AECL head (AECL-Chalk-River)

CALGARY _ The head of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. says a small radioactive leak at the Chalk River nuclear facility in Ontario was part of normal operations, and was dealt with appropriately.

CEO Hugh MacDiarmid says there´s no way to completely prevent leaks.

He says the company instead has plans to make sure they can deal with them quickly, and that´s what happened.

AECL has confirmed the leak at Chalk River occurred in early December.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission says the leak did not put the public or environment at risk. MacDiarmid says the Chalk River facility shuts down for five days every three weeks, and that repairs to the leak will be done during one of those periods.
http://www.oilweek.com/news.asp?ID=20999

Chalk River reactor can't be scrapped overnight
Posted By GREG WESTON
Posted 1 day ago

Amid growing political fallout from a recent radioactive spill at the antiquated Chalk River nuclear facility west of Ottawa, the Conservative government is desperately trying to wash its hands of the whole leaky reactor.

Senior government sources say Stephen Harper's administration is actively considering options to get rid of the nightmare nuke built in 1957, and operated by the country's perpetually money-burning nuclear agency, Atomic Energy of Canada.

However worthy the idea, it is a lot easier said than done.

First, the government can't just pull the plug on the Chalk River reactor tomorrow and sell it for scrap.

Despite its leaks, the reactor is currently running at double its normal capacity in order to produce up to 70 per cent of the world's supply of radioactive isotopes used in critical medical scans and treatments for millions of heart and cancer patients.

A shutdown of only a few weeks a year ago forced the cancellation of thousands of critical cancer treatments across Canada, the U. S. and parts of Europe.

Hitting the off-switch for good would cause an international health crisis.

Second, there aren't a lot of buyers for a leaky 52-year-old reactor on a site so contaminated that the auditor general has warned a clean-up could cost billions.

Insiders say an international consortium wanting a piece of the isotope biz put an offer on the table last year to run the existing facility while they were building a whole new reactor.

Taxpayers, of course, get to keep the contaminated site.

A senior government official hinted last week that the offer may still be alive.

It may be too late. Last month, one of the largest multinational distributors of medical isotopes, Covidien, announced a U. S. joint-venture to build the first American production reactor.
The move would likely wipe out the vast majority of the current isotope market for the Chalk River reactor that already loses millions of dollars a year, and make a Canadian replacement facility equally uneconomical.

No matter. Canadian taxpayers are already funding preliminary work on a project that might be able to produce medical isotopes with light beams and no nuclear reactors at all.

The problem is the proposed technology is still on the drafting board, and could take more years to design and build than the Chalk River facility will reasonably last.

However great the challenges of nuking Chalk River, no one could blame the Harper government for trying.

The reactor is now decades past its best-before date, and has long been an accident waiting to happen. The nuclear leak on Dec. 5 released radioactive tritium into the air, and spewed out an estimated 800 litres of contaminated water, most of which was contained.

Another unrelated crack in the reactor has been leaking 7,000 litres of very low-level radioactive water a day for over six weeks.

Most of that water, according a spokesman for Atomic Energy, ultimately ends up in the Ottawa River.

Officials at Atomic Energy and the Nuclear Safety Commission claim there was never any danger to humans or the surrounding environment from the leaks. But that doesn't explain why both agencies went to great lengths to keep the incident under wraps until we reported it last week, or why their subsequent explanations have been full of contradictions.

Even the Prime Minister's Office was furious at being kept in the dark about the spill, having been told (like everyone else) only that the reactor had some "unanticipated technical challenges."

That said, the Harper government isn't being entirely forthcoming, either.

The recent federal budget gives Atomic Energy a whopping $351 million this year, but no one is saying exactly how the money will be spent.

Far from fixing radioactive leaks, a tonne of that money may well be going towards the dismantling of the infamous Maple reactors.

Last year, the Harper government wisely pulled the plug on the two so-called Maples built to replace the Chalk River clunker.

The project was years late, more than $400 million over budget, and worst of all, the reactors don't work.

Last week, the office of Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt issued a written statement saying: "Clearly, there is no quick or easy solution to guaranteeing the long-term global supply of medical isotopes."

Until one is found, the government -- and the public -- will continue to be caught between a leaky reactor and a medical crisis.

Article ID# 1416903
http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1416903

No link between radioactive sludge and reactor leak: minister
8 hours ago

OTTAWA — The federal minister of Natural Resources says there is almost certainly no connection between radioactive sludge in Ottawa and a reactor leak at Chalk River some 200 kilometres upriver.

Lisa Raitt accused Liberal MPs of "fear-mongering" in the Commons after they asked her to clarify whether any link existed.

Raitt says the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has assured her the low-level radiation found in sludge from a sewage plant is likely residue from a medical device.

Two truckloads of sludge were turned back at the United States border last week after radioactivity was detected.

City officials in Ottawa have found no contamination at the waste-water facility and say repeated tests of both the Ottawa River and city drinking water have turned up no unusual radiation levels.

A leak in December at the aging research reactor at Chalk River, Ont., has sparked renewed calls for government action to safeguard the public and to ensure a continued supply of medical isotopes produced at the facility.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gzJHMz3u4HrkXfmzbOTMbzZWh9YA

Haldimand "Bruce Power Holds Open House in Dunnville"

OOPs forgot to post this article;

Bruce Power dished up relevant information at open house
Posted By KAREN BEST, CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER

Frank Collins and Mike Ramsey called Bruce Power asking for a presentation in Dunnville after the town was left off a list of information sessions on a proposed nuclear power facility.

On Jan. 20, Ramsey completed a circuit of displays set up by consulting firm Golder Associates in St. Michael's Parish Hall. He was one of about 100 who attended that evening.

He said he asked Bruce Power to bring information to town because it was the biggest community in Haldimand County. When Collins called, Bruce Power acknowledged that leaving Dunnville out of the meeting schedule was an error.

For the rest of the environmental assessment process, Dunnville will be included. The next round of meetings is scheduled for March.

For Ramsey, the economy and safety were concerns as it was for some when the Nanticoke coal fired power generation plant was proposed in the 1970s.

After learning more about nuclear power generation, he said everything was well explained and his concerns were spent fuel rod storage and the downwind impact on Dunnville.

Economics was on his mind too. "We need a shot in the arm of the economy and this might be what we need," said Ramsey.

"If we lose Nanticoke, Haldimand County will be a ghost town," pointed out Collins. "We need to replace that. In many countries, power is generated at nuclear facilities."

He would like to see a nuclear power plant and a clean coal conversion at the Nanticoke OPG plant.

Like most people that evening, Anne Marie Flatt attended to become informed. She learned that many of her questions will be addressed through the environmental assessment on the property beside the U. S. Steel plant in the industrial park by Lake Erie.

Flatt wanted to know where spent fuel will be housed and if an earthquake fault existed in the vicinity of the site. For Flatt and her mother, Sylvia Weaver, an increase in the property tax base and 1,000 new jobs were benefits that will will come from the project.

"I'm also concerned about the yellow plume that drifts across the lake (from the coal plant)," said Weaver.

Councillors Lorne Boyko, Don Ricker and Leroy Bartlett attended as well that evening. Boyko said the event was non-confrontational but a few people expected protesters picketing outside with signs.

Standing near information exhibits, Bartlett said he attended all but the Simcoe information session to find out what people are thinking.

At the end of the day, Haldimand County council will make a decision on this one way or the other, he pointed out. Under the City of Nanticoke official plan, the plant would not be permitted and a planning application will be required, he explained.

Under the Haldimand County official plan, that has not been approved by the provincial government, the plant would be allowed, he added.

Bartlett also pointed out that the federal and provincial governments will also have to determine if this is the site for a nuclear power plant.

At the radiation exhibit, Dr. Doug Boreman, a Bruce Power scientist, answered questions as Doctors Reza and Barb Kazemi raised concerns. He told them Three Mile Island was a success story because the reactor meltdown was contained and no radiation was released.

In the design proposal for Bruce Power's Nanticoke plant, reactors will be housed in a concrete building lined with steel and encased in steel. "You can never break through the inside," said Boreman.

Within 200 years, radiation levels in spent fuel rods will fall to the same level as a CT scan, he noted.

After listening to Boreman, Dr. Scott Reid said he attended because he was interested in hearing about nuclear power.

"I think it would be a good thing for Haldimand County and the province," he said as he prepared to go home. "I have a lot of confidence in safety measures," he added.

In 1981, he attended the grand opening of the first Ontario nuclear plant in Bruce County. Scott said a relative, who is a tool and dye operator, works in the facility and has told him how safe operations were. Employees are given top-notch high quality tools to maintain the facility at the utmost quality, he added.

Reid said it was vital that people get questions answered because there is always a lot of fear about nuclear power plants.

Both Reza and Barb Kazemi went away with concerns for people and the environment so they wanted alternate power sources reviewed.

Reza pointed out that power consumption dropped 2.5 per cent a year over the past two years. If that wonderful trend of conservation here might be not be a need for more nuclear power plants, he added.

During his presentations, Boreman told people that new nuclear plants will have to be built over the next few decades to replace old structures that will be decommissioned.

After the session ended, Duncan Moffett, a principle with Golder Associates, commented on the terrific community interest displayed in Dunnville. People raised similar concerns and questions as at other sessions. The vast majority wanted to find out more information before making up their minds, he noted.

"We love that. That's part of the environmental assessment," said Moffett.

Article ID# 1400881
http://www.dunnvillechronicle.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1400881

Haldimand "Saskatchewan Party decided on Nuclear Power"

Sask. Party decided on nuclear power: NDP
James Wood, The StarPhoenix
Published: Friday, November 28, 2008

REGINA -- Bruce Power's pitch for a potential nuclear power plant in the province has found a receptive audience -- at the least -- in the Saskatchewan Party government, say some observers.

On Thursday, the Ontario-based private nuclear operator released in Saskatoon a feasibility study that sees nuclear power playing a role in Saskatchewan in 2020.

"I think there's a lot of desire in the part of the current government to proceed down that way," said Ken Rasmussen of the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy.

"It's something big, it's something bold, it's something that will fundamentally alter the nature of politics in this province in a pretty fundamental way."

Rasmussen said the roots of Sask. Party interest in nuclear power likely stem from a view that it will spur economic development by boosting the province's uranium industry and potentially leading to power exports.

But as a type of energy that does not emit greenhouse-gas emissions, it is also seen increasingly as a solution to Saskatchewan's woeful climate change record.

That connection to the climate change issue has also seemingly translated into increased public support for the nuclear concept, which past governments were lacking, said Rasmussen.

But the NDP said the government has crossed the line by taking an active role in the sales pitch to the public.

Opposition Leader Lorne Calvert said the government is clearly following a strategy to normalize the concept and smooth the way for nuclear power in Saskatchewan.

That's included Premier Brad Wall's increasing portrayal of the Sask. Party's campaign promise to explore "value-added opportunities" for uranium as a mandate for nuclear power in the province, the appointment of a nuclear industry-heavy panel to explore the development of uranium resources and a private member's motion by Meadow Lake MLA Jeremy Harrison for the legislature to consider value-added opportunities, including nuclear power generation.

Also potentially connected is Wall's recent musings about streamlining federal environmental rules where they overlap with provincial regulations, which could affect the nuclear approval process.

"(They) have a strategy in place to bring us to a decision that is already made. I believe the Sask. Party as the government of the day has taken the position that the province ought to move to the generation of electricity through nuclear power," said Calvert in an interview Thursday.

The former premier said there may be a case for nuclear power in the province but the government is taking the wrong approach.

"If it were a burning desire of mine to see a reactor built, I would want to be absolutely sure that from the very beginning this had deep public consultation so you can build a base of understanding and support because this project . . . if everything was announced tomorrow, we'd still be years away," he said.

Sask. Party Crown Corporations Minister Ken Cheveldayoff said the government has made no secret of its interest in nuclear power, especially given a growing power demand -- estimated at an additional 800 to 2,000 megawatts in the next 12 years.

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/story.html?id=a1d5e03e-2ad2-4666-830b-9b25c5b4443d

Haldimand "The Once and Future Kennedy"

An excellent read! Thanks www.energyquest4nanticoke.ca



The Once and Future Kennedy

by: Suzanne Elston



The whole world is watching. Since President-Elect Obama’s victory on November 4th, there has been much debate about how the 44th president of the United States will live up to his many election promises. While his inauguration won’t take place until January 20, 2009, the pundits are already trying to figure out whom Obama will choose to serve in his cabinet.


High among the list of potentials is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – a seasoned environmental lawyer and advocate who carries the legacy of his uncle, President John Kennedy, and his father, Senator Bobby Kennedy. Despite his remarkable family pedigree and considerable personal accomplishments, it’s Kennedy passion for the health of his children and for the health of this planet that are his greatest strengths.


I had the opportunity to hear Kennedy at the Sustainable Operations Summit in Vancouver a few days before the U.S. election. He challenged the public to question the implied position of the energy industry that economic and environmental policies are mutually exclusive.”The environment and the economy are intertwined,” said Kennedy. “Nature is the infrastructure of our community.


We need to protect this infrastructure, which is the common wealth of our community, so that our children have the same opportunities that we had.”“If we can resolve those issues, then everything else will fall into place,” he said.


“We are not protecting the environment for the sake of the fishes. We are protecting it for us.


The economy is the wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.”Contrary to what the oil industry would have everyone believe, reducing carbon emissions would not kill the already faltering U.S. economy.


Kennedy cited U.S. public opinion during the debate over the abolition of slavery, when 25 percent of the energy used by industry was provided by slave labor.


”Rather than collapsing the US economy, abolition forced the economy to move much more quickly,” said Kennedy. “The fear was that the economy would crater. Instead it exploded exponentially during a period we now call the industrial revolution.


”Kennedy sees the U.S. addiction to carbon fuels as a principle drag on the economy. “We are borrowing a billion dollars a day to feed the addiction to foreign oil from countries that are hostile. We are hemorrhaging our wealth.”


In addition, the U.S. is providing $ 1.5 trillion in subsidies to the oil industry, money that could be much better spent developing local, sustainable energy.


Kennedy cited several examples of nations that have decarbonized their economies with tremendous success. In 1970, Iceland was the poorest country in Europe, importing 100 percent of its energy in the form of coal and oil. The government decided to shift to harvesting local geothermal energy. It took just 15 years to become 4th richest country in Europe (by GDP) with 90 percent of its energy coming from geothermal.


Sweden decided to not only decarbonize, but also to phase out nuclear power in 1996. Harvesting wind, tidal, geothermal and waste energy has made Sweden the 6th richest country in Europe (by GDP) according to Kennedy.Brazil, once a “have not” country, now exports its energy surpluses because it switched from oil to renewable ethanol derived from biomass left over from harvesting sugar cane.


Kennedy dismissed the argument that solar and other renewable power sources can be very harmful to the environment.“The environmental damage caused by building solar farms is a fraction of the damage done every year by coal farming in the Appalachians,” said Kennedy.


The only barrier to creating a sustainable energy economy is subsidies to the incumbents.“We need to create a marketplace where people can sell their energy back to the grid,” said Kennedy.


“We need an economy based on American ingenuity rather than Saudi oil.


”Kennedy pointed to his own experience. Four years ago he was spending $ 2200 a year to fuel his mini-van. Today his Prius costs about $ 1000.“That’s $ 1200 a year in my pocket,” he said. “What would it do to the US economy if everybody had an extra $ 1200 to spend on other things?


Good environmental policy is the same as good economic policy. It creates good jobs and preserves the assets of the community.”


In addition, Kennedy estimates the U.S. could save $ 600 billion a year in avoided costs because of reduced air pollution.


“Am I going to watch my children gasping for air because some lobbyist gave money to the US government?” he said.


“This is not just about the destruction of the environment. This is about the subversion of American society.”Kennedy concluded by citing our moral responsibility to future generations.


“We are part of the continuum, part of something bigger than ourselves. Our environment connects us to the 10,000 generations who were here before laptops,” he said. “We can do well by doing good.”


Suzanne Elstonhttp://www.yourearth.ca/

Haldimand "Let's all Stay Plugged In"

Energy generation -- let's stay plugged in
Simcoe Reformer: Toby Barrett - November 26, 2008

When it comes to energy generation and environment, last week's Jarvis symposium proves one thing -- Haldimand and Norfolk residents are plugged in.

A standing-room-only energized crowd of 250 joined a town hall open to all, featuring objective, information-intensive facts from all sides of the energy/environment spectrum. Invitations were sent to stakeholders from all energy and environmental sectors to ensure all views were represented.

Much has changed since the last symposium -- a regulation now to close coal production by 2014, an announcement from Bruce Power to option 1,760 acres from U.S. Steel for two nuclear reactors, natural gas and wind initiatives.

The obvious elephants in the room were coal and nuclear.

Exhibits set up before the speeches featured the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, CAE Alliance, Grand Erie Energy Quest, Canadian Nuclear Workers Association, TCI Renewables, and M2 Fuel Saver and Bruce Power.

Duncan McEachern was first up to discuss Competitive Power Ventures' combined cycle natural gas proposal north of Nanticoke plus wind power plans.

David Shier of the Canadian Nuclear Workers' Council wanted those assembled to understand that, "nuclear power plants are safe," "nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gases," and "waste is safely managed." Further details can be accessed at www.cnwc-cctn.ca.

Clean and Affordable Energy (CAE) Alliance spokesperson Paul Surreys reminded us, "the Nanticoke plant is economy of scale" -- suggesting the OPG coal plant's emissions should be considered on a per megawatt basis, as one Nanticoke equals four coal plants. He added the "biggest crime" is that government has spent eight years without cleaning coal plants --
www.caealliance.com has more on the "clean coal" story.

OPG Nanticoke's former plant manager, Chris Young, presented information on pilot tests of biomass. The minister of energy has recently directed that a review of the Integrated Power System Plan should "include the potential for converting existing coal fired assets to biomass." The OPG website is at www.opg.com.

Mark Bannister of Diverse Green Solutions -- representing OMNIwatt ( www.omniwatt.com ) -- spoke about the potential for wind, energy from waste, and possibility of green tobacco to make biodiesel.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture's Ted Cowan provided levity addressing the benefits to struggling farmers from biomass production, adding that "radioactive waste from corn cobs will be gone in 15 minutes." The OFA's information can be found at www.ofa.on.ca.

Richard Goodlet of Port Ryerse filled in as a speaker on carbon sequestration citing there are studies that suggest this area would have potential for injecting coal carbon emissions into underlying geological layers, adding that more funding was needed for research. The website www.energyquest4nanticoke.ca/options.htm has links to carbon sequestration links.

Grant Church of Cayuga made an impassioned plea to "clean up coal plants, and keep them open, as with the rest of the world," stating that because of rising energy prices from other forms of electricity generation "Ontario, once a place to stand and grow, is now a place to run from."

Janet Fraser and Stephana Johnston of Grand Erie Energy Quest concluded the evening indicating, "conservation efforts could eliminate the need for more nuclear plants" and that the energy discussion must continue to ensure the right power versus environment decisions are made for this and future generations. They directed people to www.energyquest4nanticoke.ca.

There's lots to discuss -- let's all stay plugged in.
Toby Barrett is MPP for the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk
Article ID# 1316531

Haldimand "Bruce Power Hires Radiation Specialist"

I find it interesting that this Specialist that was hired by Bruce Power seems to think that the issue that most people are talking about is radiation. What I have heard is a bit different.

Some of the concerns I have heard are the storage of nuclear waste, water usage and what has come up recently is the mining of uranium. Now that in itself is a whole new ball game! I am working on that one.

What I find interesting is that this specialist states "Nuclear" power is the way to go if you want to minimize our carbon footprint! So what is a "carbon footprint"? I'm not quite sure, but I do think it is more than "radiation" from a nuclear plant!

Nuclear experts hired to answer residents' questions
Posted By MONTE SONNENBERG, SUN MEDIA
November 25, 2008

A radiation specialist will be a key player in a series of open houses related to the proposed construction of two nuclear reactors in Nanticoke.

Bruce Power recently hired Doug Boreham, a former professor at Mc-Master University in Hamilton, as its senior environmental scientist. He will answer questions about nuclear power at upcoming open houses in Simcoe, Jarvis, Port Dover and Cayuga.

"One of the biggest obstacles we have to overcome on these projects are people's fears of radiation," Boreham said Monday. "What is the effect on me? What is the effect on my children? What are the effects on future generations? One of my main functions in this process is to dispel the fears people have about radiation."

Boreham and Duncan Moffett, of Golder Associates, gave Haldimand council an overview Monday of the environmental assessment now underway regarding a possible nuclear installation in Nanticoke. The pair are expected to make the same presentation tonight at Norfolk council.

The open houses scheduled for Dec. 1 to 4 will provide Bruce Power with an opportunity to introduce itself to the community. Experts on nuclear power will be on hand to address residents' questions and concerns.

An issue that has dogged the nuclear industry from the outset is the belief that nuclear waste remains highly toxic for as long as 250,000 years.

That, Boreham said, is not true. After 200 years, he said, a person would have to stand in the presence of a spent fuel rod for one hour to absorb as much radioactivity as is delivered by a standard CT scan.

Boreham and Moffett heard Monday that a plant in Nanticoke may be an issue for Dunnville. The town is down stream from the proposed site and draws its drinking water from Lake Erie.

Nuclear reactors use large amounts of water and discharge trace amounts of radioactive tritium in their effluent. The International Congress on Radiation Protection has set the safe limit for these emissions at 7,500 becquerels.

The amount of tritium released into Lake Huron at Bruce Power's plant in Tiverton averages about 50 becquerels. Moffett said Bruce Power is considering a design for the Nanticoke project that discharges no effluent into Lake Erie.

Moffett added that nuclear power should be the choice of those who wish to minimize their carbon footprint.

"If you were to get all your electricity from one of these reactors, your share of waste over a lifetime would fit in a pop can," he said. "If you got all of your electricity over your lifetime from coal, your waste would fit into four dump trucks."

Moffett said, "Nanticoke looks like one of the best possible sites for a power plant" because it is remote, close to a large body of water and located at the entry point of a major transmission corridor.

The first open house will be held at the Lions Community Centre in Port Dover Dec. 1. The Lions Community Centre in Jarvis is up next Dec. 2. On Dec. 3, the Simcoe Recreation Centre plays host. On Dec. 4, the event moves to the Kinsmen Centre in downtown Cayuga. Each event starts at 3 p. m. and ends at 8 p. m.

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1313706

Haldimand "Bruce Power Runs into Opposition in Alberta"

News for Tuesday, November 25th, 2008
Bruce Power runs into opposition
Written by Kevin Bernard and the Canadian Press

It is not going to be smooth sailing for Bruce Power, as the Lake Huron based company tries to expand into Alberta.

The NDP plans to table petitions in the Alberta legislature that bear the names of 25 hundred people opposed to nuclear power in the province.

Opponents of the plant say the government should release a promised report on nuclear power to kick-start public consultations.

The petitions were circulated in northwestern Alberta's Peace Country where Ontario-based Bruce Power is looking at two potential sites for a nuclear reactor.

Bruce Power spokesperson John Peevers, says provincial government and community support is crucial to their plans.

He says they won't proceed with the plant unless they have a willing host, both at the government and community level.

Bruce Power predicts a nuclear plant in the Peace River region would contribute 12 billion dollars to the province's economy during the construction period.

A preliminary report from Bruce Power also shows a nuclear plant would generate 27 hundred long term jobs.

Brenda Brochu, the President of the Peace River Environmental Society, and other opponents of the proposed project came to the Alberta legislature Monday to press their concerns.

Energy Minister Mel Knight says a panel looking at the nuclear question is still working on its report and he doesn't have it yet.

http://www.radioowensound.com/news.php?id=16436

Haldimand "Something Seems Wrong with This One"

Let's take a step back in time to February of 2007, this is when the problem seems to have started for Haldimand County Council. The problem I am referring to is that some residents feel they were shut out of a very important decision that council made on their behalf.

Haldimand County council took a vote in regards to sending a letter to Premier Dalton McGuinty asking for his endorsement of a "proposed nuclear" plant in Nanticoke. The vote was 4-3 in "favour" of sending this letter. The problem I see is that Councillor Delmonte "voted" on this, and in fact voted in "favour".

Councillor Delmonte works for US steel (formerly known as Stelco) and in the past when any issue came up at council regarding US steel, Delmonte "always" proclaimed a "Conflict of Interest" and therefore refrained from influencing or voting on any issues in relation to US Steel no matter how small! One particular issue was the "proposed ferry" across Lake Erie. This was a venture that involved US steel and Delmonte refrained from voting.

This is what I found on the Haldimand County website;

1) PED-GM-01-2007 Re; Nuclear Power Plant

a) Frank Harrison PHD Corporate Manager-Environment & Engineering, Stelco Inc, regarding potential use of Stelco Inc. lands for the location of a Nuclear Power Facility.

Recommendation #19
Moved by Councillor Boyko
Seconded by Councillor Ricker

1) That report PED-GM-01-2007 Re Nuclear Power Plant dated November 29th, 2006 be received.

Carried (Unanimously) 7-0

Recommendation 20 (tabled motion)
Moved by Councillor Boyko
Seconded by Councillor Grice

That the Ministry of Energy be advised that Haldimand County is interested in looking at alternative energy generation options, including Nuclear within Haldimand County.

And that this position be conveyed to the Minister during meetings at the ROMA Conference in February.

Carried (Unanimously) 7-0

Now in this case Delmonte has been "fully engaged" on the issue, even though Bruce Power is working with US Steel in a possible land deal. As far as I know this is the first time that he has not proclaimed a "Conflict of Interest" when it comes to US Steel.

The reason why the three council members voted "against" this letter of endorsement was the lack of public input! So what would have happened if Delmonte had taken his usual stand? Well that answer is pretty simple, the letter would not have been sent until the "public" was notified!

Now this brings to an interesting thing that Mayor Trainer told me on the phone the other day. She stated that Councillor Delmonte was now going to proclaim a "Conflict" in regards to this whole Nuclear issue. I said Pardon me? to Mayor Trainer, and she repeated her statement! I said isn't he too late to back out now? He has already voted and been fully involved in the whole process.

I personally see this as a very serious problem. Now I don't know what Delmonte does for US Steel, but I do know that he has always refrained from voting on any issues regarding US Steel.

What Delmonte has done according to Mayor Trainer makes no sense to me. Delmonte votes, seconds, is fully involved in the process and now he is going to refrain and back down? This cannot be legal even for a Council member!

Haldimand "Tracking and Monitoring Bruce Powers EA"

I put some links at the top left hand corner for anyone who wants to track and monitor Bruce Powers EA progress.

Major Projects Management Office
http://www.mpmo-bggp.gc.ca/

This link is for Nanitcoke; http://www2.mpmo-bggp.gc.ca/MPTracker/projectsummary-resumedeprojet.aspx?pid=91

Welcome to the newly released Major Projects Management Office’s tracking and monitoring system, MPMO Tracker.

The MPMO Tracker is a public web-based system designed to track and monitor the progress of major resource projects through the federal regulatory system.

Please be advised that the MPMO Tracker is not designed to capture information in real time nor is it intended to be the official source for all regulatory information relating to major resource projects.

For example, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (the Act), the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry is the official source of public information and records related to environmental assessments (EA) conducted under the Act.

It also provides timely notice about the start of an EA and opportunities for public participation.

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources (NRCan), makes no representations or warranties about the suitability for any purpose of the information and documents obtained by using the MPMO Tracker (Information), including but not limited to, effectiveness, completeness, accuracy or fitness for a particular purpose.

NRCan does not assume any liability in respect of any damage or loss incurred or suffered as a result of the use of the MPMO Tracker or any Information.

In no event shall NRCan be liable in any way for loss of revenue or contracts, or any other consequential loss of any kind resulting from the use of the MPMO Tracker or any Information.
We invite you to explore the MPMO Tracker. Click here to begin

Haldimand "Here is One Alternative to Nuclear"

OPG had a table at Toby's Energy Symposium last week and it was quite interesting. I picked up their CD called "Generating Power from Biomass". You can go online and view this video at www.opg.com I didn't check out the site but I am sure that you can contact someone and get a copy of the CD sent to you if you are on slo-mo dial up like I am.

I would have written an article about this alternative clean technology but I wouldn't have done a great job explaining it to you. So view the CD or request a copy of your own. Below is an excellent read on what has been going on in the testing of burning biomass instead of coal.

It would be interesting to find out if Haldimand County Council was aware of what has been going on at OPG in Nanticoke, and if they sent a letter off to Premier Dalton McGuinty in "support" of this clean technology. If this technology is developed and is put in place in Nanticoke that would secure "600" jobs and create many more jobs.


OPG testing biomass fuel in coal-fired power plants
RENÉ JOHNSTON/TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO
Coal is piled for storage at the Nanticoke station on Lake Erie. Up to four of its eight units could be converted to burn wood pellets instead of dirty coal.

Nov 24, 2008
Tyler Hamilton
Energy Reporter

Nanticoke generating station in Haldimand County is the largest coal-fired power plant in North America and as the workhorse for Ontario's electricity system, shutting it down by 2014 won't be easy.

It employs 600 people. It's an anchor for the provincial power grid, providing the voltage support needed to push electricity around southern Ontario. It's capable of supplying 4,000 megawatts of power, or enough to supply 15 per cent of the province's electricity needs.

It's why Duncan Hawthorne, chief executive of nuclear operator Bruce Power, wants to build a new nuclear plant beside Nanticoke. It will create jobs and stimulate the economy, he argues. It will provide voltage support for the grid and more than replace the power lost when Nanticoke is mothballed (though we all know he wouldn't be able to build a new nuclear plant before 2014).

When Hawthorne proposed the new plant three weeks ago, Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman was quick to shoot him down. Smitherman has different plans for Nanticoke, and said in an interview last week he's "cautiously optimistic" it will work. The idea: burn biomass instead of coal.

"It's an exciting option," says Smitherman, who in September directed the Ontario Power Authority to look at ways to add more renewables to the grid. He specifically asked the power authority to explore the potential of burning biomass in coal-fired plants. "I think it's going to be about 18 months before we have enough information to know what is possible."

Figuring out how to burn biomass such as wood or switchgrass pellets could solve many problems at once. The government could make good on its commitment to phase out coal. It could keep a sizeable amount of electricity generation in the area without having to build new transmission lines or plants, whether nuclear or natural gas.

It could continue to provide some much-needed voltage support for the grid, meaning less need to install expensive gear to compensate for the voltage losses.

It could keep local jobs and potentially create even more. That's because instead of importing coal, which is a flow of capital out of the province, OPG's need for biomass would stimulate a local industry for collecting wood or agricultural waste and turning it into fuel pellets. If an energy crop like switchgrass or poplar is chosen, it would also create opportunities for farmers that have seen markets for tobacco and ginseng disappear.

Most of all, it would lead to much cleaner power. Sulphur dioxide from biomass, particularly wood, only exists in trace amounts. There's no mercury. There are nitrogen oxides emissions, but far less than burning coal and some units at Nanticoke have selective catalytic reduction systems that can remove much of those emissions. Pollution-control equipment at Nanticoke that keeps soot and other particulates from entering the air can also be used for biomass.

That leaves greenhouse gases. When you burn wood or agricultural waste it releases the same amount of carbon dioxide as burning coal. The difference is that the CO2 that enters the air is theoretically carbon-neutral – that is, it gets reabsorbed in new plant growth. I say theoretically because it assumes biomass harvested is plant life that's replaced.

Coal, which contains CO2 absorbed by plant life millions of year ago, releases "new" CO2 when it is dug up and burned. So, from a climate-change perspective, burning biomass is better than burning coal because it doesn't increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, wood and agricultural waste ends up decaying anyway, and this releases methane – a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Dozens of Scandinavian power plants in burn biomass as fuel. In August, Atlanta-based Georgia Power asked its local electricity regulator if it could convert one of its 100-megawatt coal plants to wood.

Some jurisdictions are looking at burning coal together with biomass, but Chunbao Xu, a professor of chemical engineering at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay who is working on OPG's biomass program, says it makes sense to burn 100 per cent biomass rather than blend it.
The ash that results from burning coal is currently sold to the cement industry as an additive, says Xu, and blending it with biomass contaminates that ash. While the ash from pure biomass can't be used in cement, it can be used for waste treatment or as a sodium- and potassium-rich fertilizer for agriculture. "There are many different uses," he says.

Xu and OPG are working together to solve some technical issues with burning biomass. The ash can build up on boilers and heat-transfer units, potentially reducing operating life and requiring more maintenance, at an added cost.

OPG is testing biomass on all four of its coal plants. Grain screenings have been burned at Thunder Bay generating station and Lambton station will soon be testing dried distillers grain, a by-product of ethanol production.

The Atikokan plant successfully burned only wood pellets in July for one day. A three-day test will be conducted in early December.

Chris Young, vice-president of business development for OPG's fossil fuels division, is confident in the potential of biomass. "We don't believe there will be insurmountable technical issues, particularly around Atikokan."

Atikokan will likely be the first plant converted to biomass. Its boilers are better suited to burning biomass, it can receive fuel by railcar and wood supply from forest slash and sawmill residue is plentiful in northern Ontario.

But Young admits that Nanticoke is the "big prize" for Ontario and OPG is working toward the longer-term goal of converting as many as four of Nanticoke's eight units.

Coal can be stored outside, exposed to the weather, but biomass can't. That means large enclosed storage areas would be necessary. The biggest challenge, however, would be making sure there is adequate supply of biomass fuel.

Young says OPG is talking with forest-product companies about supply issues. "What we intend to do is work through a competitive supply process with the forest and agriculture industry," he says.

The company has made clear it will not use food crops and it doesn't want to compete with other industrial users of biomass and drive up the market price of the fuel. Instead, it envisions signing a long-term contract for biomass supply that assures stable pricing, secure supply and the economies of scale that can turn niche markets into massive industry.

"We're talking about a different paradigm," he says. "It's a good equation for Ontario, but the economics of it all still have to be tested."

Getting the same amount of power from biomass as that provided from burning coal does cost more. But given the savings that would come from using an existing plant and the stability of signing a long-term contract for fuel, it may be a premium worth paying.

Factor in the benefits to the climate, the environment and the local economy and it could very well be a bargain.
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/542152