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

Haldimand "Nuclear EA Official Start Date November 10th, 2008"

I thought I would do a bit of searching in regards to Bruce Powers EA application, to see if it was in fact official. And bingo there you have it the EA is official. I must have fallen a sleep at the wheel!

Actually it is "old news today". That was like driving through a small town, don't blink, you know the rest!

Bruce Power applied for an EA and "10" days later it is official!

So here is the information regarding the application. This includes Bruce Power's letter and Application details.

News Releases
CNSC Receives Application for Licence to Prepare Site for a New Nuclear Plant Project in Haldimand-Norfolk
08-30
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 7, 2008

Ottawa – On October 31, 2008, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) received an application for a licence to prepare a site and a project description from Bruce Power Erie Inc. for a proposed new nuclear power plant in the Haldimand-Norfolk region of southern Ontario.

The submission mentioned that two nuclear reactors would be built at the future plant 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.

"Canada is at the forefront of nuclear regulation in the world, thanks to the development of a rigorous and efficient system for licensing new nuclear power plants. This system, combined with CNSC’s extensive experience in regulating a wide range of nuclear activities, can assure Canadians that we strive for the highest standards of health, safety, security and environmental protection," said Michael Binder, President and CEO of the CNSC. "

At the same time, we proceed in an open and transparent manner, which includes significant public participation throughout the entire process, starting with the environmental assessment," Mr. Binder added.

Next, the CNSC will be reviewing the project description to ensure that its documentation is complete. If necessary, the nuclear regulator will request Bruce Power Erie to provide any missing or additional information.When the project description is deemed to be adequate, the CNSC will initiate the environmental assessment process under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The environmental assessment (EA) process is a pre-requisite for the licensing of a new nuclear power plant. An EA identifies whether a specific project is likely to cause significant environmental effects, and determines if those effects can be avoided or mitigated.

No licence decision can be made before an EA has been completed. While carrying out an EA, the CNSC works closely with other provincial and federal agencies and consults the public and aboriginal groups.

Further developments in the proposed project — starting with the application for a licence to prepare site and the project description — will also be tracked through the Government of Canada’s recently created Major Projects Management Office.

About the CNSC:The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians and the environment; and to respect Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

- 30 -

Related documents

Covering letter and application for a licence to prepare site received from Bruce Power Erie Inc. (CNSC has not reviewed the application for its completeness)

INFO-0756 (Revision 1): Licensing Process for New Nuclear Power Plants in Canada

For more information, media may contact:Aurèle GervaisMedia and Community RelationsCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionTel.: 613-996-6860


Ontario
Bruce Power Erie - Proposal to Construct and Operate New Nuclear Power Plant
Environmental assessment start date: November 10, 2008
Type: Comprehensive Study
CEAR Reference Number: 08-03-43757
Proponent: Bruce Power Erie
Location: Nanticoke , Haldimand County , Ontario

Latest Updates

November 17, 2008: The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is required to ensure that a comprehensive study is conducted commencing on November 10, 2008 in relation to the project: Proposal by Bruce Power Erie to Construct and Operate a new nuclear power plant at Nanticoke, in Haldimand County.

The CNSC has been determined to be a Responsible Authority (RA). Other RA's and expert federal authorities will be identified pursuant to the Federal Coordination Regulations.

November 7, 2008: CNSC Receives Application for Licence to Prepare Site for a New Nuclear Power Plant Project in Haldimand-Norfolk

Project Description The CNSC has received a project description from Bruce Power Erie for the construction and operation of up to two new nuclear reactors at the Lake Erie Industrial Park at Nanticoke for the production of approximately 2,200 to 3,200 MWe of electrical generating capacity for supply to the Ontario grid. The proposed site is located on the north shore of Lake Erie in Haldimand County .

The scope of Bruce Power Erie's proposal includes preparation of the site, construction, operation, refurbishment if required, and eventual decommissioning and abandonment of the two new nuclear power reactors. Operations would involve activities required to operate and maintain the new reactor units, including management of conventional and radioactive waste. Bruce Power Erie is considering a range of reactor designs, but has not yet decided on a specific technology.

Under section 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act , an environmental assessment is required in relation to this project because the CNSC may issue a permit or licence under subsection 24(2) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act .

For further information on this Environmental Assessment, please refer to CEAR Number 08-03-43757 and contact:

John Clarke Environmental Assessment Specialist Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission P.O. Box 1046 , Station B 280 Slater St. Ottawa ON K1P 5S9 Telephone: 613-943-9919 or 1-800-668-5284 Fax: 613-995-5086
Email: ceaainfo@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca
http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/ea/ealist/ongoing/ontario/EA_08_03_43757.cfm

Haldimand "Nuclear Claims and Commercial Contradictions"

The following article was sent to me today, although it is a few months old it is a very good read;

Nuclear claims and commercial contradictions
Toby Barrett: June, 2008
http://www.tobybarrett.com/publication/nr/jun08coal-e.html

The signs of summer in Ontario: the sun is shining, the grass is growing and the birds are singing, declared smog-days are beginning to add-up and along with them, the related debate regarding the best route to meeting energy demands while achieving environmental goals begins to heat up once more.

Of course here in Haldimand and Norfolk Counties this debate takes on even greater significance, as local governments, workers, entrepreneurs and residents brace for the new energy reality that the McGuinty Government continues to promise, but fails to deliver.

And as we sit under the cloud of coal-closure deadlines and then new deadlines (now slated for 2014?) it is incumbent on all of us to consider the potential and drawbacks of different energy sources that may be counted on in the future to provide power and jobs in this area for years to come.

As I've written in the past, I have worked to ensure that science, research and information is provided to the people of our communities to allow for educated input from those future local energy decisions will affect the most before putting our eggs into any basket.

It was now over a year ago, following a McGuinty announcement for a $40 billion nuclear program for Ontario and the promise of consultation that I wrote the Premier for answers to local energy questions. My correspondence requested that 1. government hold public hearings on the future of electricity generation in our area; and 2. provide a cost comparison between nuclear generation and coal-fired generation that includes carbon capture and clean-air technology. I continue to await a response - or action - on either front.

As I feel it is essential that the people of Haldimand and Norfolk are given the information to influence important energy - and related economic and environmental - decisions for the future I have not stood still while I wait for government to come forward with answers.

A year ago, I held an energy symposium in Jarvis - a symposium that included stakeholders representing many perspectives on the generation of energy. Further, I have continued to meet with stakeholders both at Queens Park and at our home offices in Simcoe and Dunnville - while attending, or sending representatives to local energy meetings.

Recently a number of area meetings have again concentrated on the issue of the potential for nuclear energy in Nanticoke - one of the main focuses has been the relative "green"-ness, of nuclear compared to other energy sources. Given some of the claims being made I thought I would take this opportunity to report some recent findings.

Many will recall the ads run by the Canadian Nuclear Association - a $1.7 million ad campaign in fact - touting nuclear as, "clean, reliable and affordable." What many may not recall is the subsequent false advertising complaint filed by environmental, church and health groups submitted to the Competition Bureau amid renewed debate about the nuclear option as an alternative to fossil fuels.

The coalition filing the claim given a number of findings from a report of the Pembina Institute, titled, "Nuclear Power in Canada: An Examination of Risks, Impacts and Sustainability."

A Pembina report found that the Canadian nuclear sector produces:

-An estimated 575,000 tonnes of acidic tailings each year from the mining of uranium fuel. These contain a range of acids, long-lived radioactive material, heavy metals and other contaminants.

-Approximately 85,000 waste-fuel bundles annually. As of 2003, 1.7 million radioactive bundles were in storage at reactor sites. It's estimated these wastes will have to be secured for approximately a million years.

-Uranium mining and milling operations are found to be significant sources of releases of sulphur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Releases of NOx, particulate matter (PM) and sulphuric acid arise from refining and conversion activities.

-Total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with uranium mining, milling, refining, conversion and fuel fabrication in Canada are estimated at between 240,000 and 366,000 tonnes of CO2 per year.

Add to this the fact that, Health Canada and Environment Canada have determined that the discharge from nuclear plants meets the criteria to be categorized as toxic under the Canada Environmental Protection Act.

As both the local and provincial energy debate moves forward, I will continue to advocate for comprehensive communication and public consultation. It is incumbent on decision-makers to consider the local economy, environment and the informed wishes of the residents before jumping to conclusions that will impact our own and future generations.

Haldimand "It is Up to You to Get Involved and Have your Say"

Bruce Power will be appearing as a delegation at the Council in Committee meeting Monday November 24th at 1:00pm. They will also be in Norfolk on Tuesday November 25th. My understanding is that Bruce Power will update council on some open houses that will take place the first week of December.

I went onto the Bruce Power website (I have a link to the left under Nuclear) to get the information and post it here, but I had problems downloading the file. There is a section that is dedicated to Haldimand/Norfolk.

Bruce Power has one section that is called "your voice counts", you can send them any questions or comments that you have. Please visit their site often. It is up to you to stay informed and be involved!

I was trying to find a news release by Bruce Power in regards to the EA. It seems that from the article below the EA process has officially started, but I could not confirm this.

Thanks to one of my posters here is a link to the following information from Bruce Power;

Haldimand County :
Month One of Energy Assessment Down - Much More To Come Says Bruce Power
http://www.cd989.com/modules/news/

As the first month of Bruce Power's energy assessment is coming to an end, an EA Public Participation Coordinator says there's much more to come.

Peter Brown says so far the assessment has started a process to understanding the community and environment, marrying the technology of nuclear with the environment and determining if its feasible .

He says that already one advantage of the Nanticoke site is transmission and exploring possibilities.

He also says that Bruce wants to enable the community to understand the process and to make up their own mind about nuclear in Haldimand-Norfolk.

The group will be hosting several open houses and community information sessions from 3-8pm:

December 1 - Port Dover Lions Community Centre

December 2 - Jarvis Community Centre

December 3 - Simcoe Recreation Centre

December 4 - Cayuga Kinsmen Community Centre

Please attend at least one of the open houses, it is up to all of us to be involved in the process!

Haldimand "Haldimand County News Release Welcomes EA"

A little late getting this one posted, but I just found this news release on the Haldimand County Website. I don't recall this being in any of our local newspapers.

NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
Dated: October 31, 2008

Haldimand County Council welcomes the announcement from Bruce Power of its intention to commence the initiation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of its proposal to establish a nuclear generation station within the Lake Erie Industrial Park near Nanticoke. This proposal complements existing generation in this area and with other proposed generation facilities takes advantage of significant transmission capability.

Mayor Marie Trainer indicated that, in 2007, Haldimand County Council passed resolutions supporting the initiation of an environmental assessment. The public consultation process will apprise the public of all the issues associated with a nuclear power facility and to determine the willingness of the community to host such a facility.

“Council unanimously supports the initiation of the environmental assessment process and the extensive community and stakeholder engagement requirements that is associated with this step. Many opportunities will be provided over the nearly three years it will take to complete it so our citizens and businesses can provide their input” she said.

The Environmental Assessment process is a planning decision making process that will allow a complete and comprehensive assessment of the proposal through the requirement of rigorous supporting studies and the open and full engagement of all stakeholders.

Should this project proceed to construction, information provided by Bruce Power and independent research conducted by the County indicates that a nuclear generation facility would provide significant economic benefit to the County economy. The project has the potential to create a thousand long term stable jobs, significant construction employment and new assessment.

Haldimand County, through its Official Plan, has designated and protected a significant amount of land for large scale industrial and employment uses near Nanticoke. The County is interested to learn that this proposal envisions the nuclear generating facility as being part of a larger clean energy hub for the Province by partnering with other organizations to develop hydrogen, solar and wind generation. As a result the ‘Lake Erie Industrial Park’ has significant potential to help meet the electricity needs of the Province for the coming decades.

Haldimand County is excited about today’s announcement and is committed to ensuring that the community is kept informed and involved throughout this process and has established a special purpose committee to assist in this regard.

Further information please contact: Councillor Buck Sloat – Chair – Nanticoke Area Power Generation Committee (905) 961-3270 Don Boyle – CAO Haldimand County – (905) 318-5932

Haldimand "Is Nuclear Power Right for Haldimand County?"

Petition Seeks Moratorium on Nanticoke Nuclear Proposal
For immediate release: November 18, 2008

Grand Erie Energy Quest, a grassroots group of concerned residents of Haldimand and Norfolk Counties, is launching a petition requesting a moratorium on nuclear development in Nanticoke, Ontario.

Without any formal public consultation, the Municipal Councils of Haldimand and Norfolk Counties have endorsed a Bruce Power proposal for an Environmental Assessment. Resolutions passed by both councils in the spring of 2007 have supported the first stage in Bruce’s proposal to build two nuclear reactors at Nanticoke.

The group’s petition requests that there be a complete moratorium on nuclear development until the issues of contamination, costs, security, and public consultation are adequately addressed.

The lack of public consultation by local municipalities is one of the main points addressed by the petition. Haldimand Council has refused three times to approve a citizen’s delegation regarding concerns about the nuclear proposal.

In addition to the problem of a lack of public input, citizens’ worries revolve around issues such as radioactive waste, cost overruns, social and biotic impact. Some residents feel that competitive alternatives to nuclear power have not been adequately addressed or explored by local political leaders.

“A big concern is that we feel that we’ve been completely left out of a decision-making process that will affect not only our own lives but the lives of our grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren,” said Jim Elve, one of the authors of the petition. “Now that Bruce Power has committed $30 million to the first stage of construction, the snowball is rolling downhill and it won’t be easy to stop.”

Copies of the petition will be available for signing at MPP Toby Barrett’s Energy Symposium in Jarvis this Thursday evening, November 20th.

Grand Erie Energy Quest Jim Elve - 519-443-8085 - P.O. Box 490, Waterford, ON N0E 1Y0 - email: jelve@jelve.comhttp://www.energyquest4nanticoke.ca/

download the petition from the GEEQ website

Nuclear Nanticoke? Not so fast.

To: Norfolk County Council, Haldimand County Council, Legislature of Ontario, the Honourable Diane Finley and the Honourable Toby Barrett.

Without any formal public consultation, County Councils in both Haldimand and Norfolk have unanimously endorsed the first step in building two nuclear reactors.

The nuclear power industry has failed to address public concern over the issues of safety and security in the storage and handling of hazardous radioactive spent fuel.

Nuclear power is not emissions-free with its pollution intensive activities in uranium mining, transportation and refining.

No nuclear project has ever come in on budget or on time with the taxpayer and the utility customer paying for cost overruns that typically range in the billions of dollars.

We, the undersigned citizens, demand a complete moratorium on nuclear development until the issues of contamination, costs, security, and public consultation are adequately addressed.

Second anti-nuclear petition emerges
Posted By Monte Sonnenberg, SIMCOE REFORMER

A second petition is in circulation opposing the idea of nuclear reactors in Nanticoke.

Titled "Nuclear Nanticoke? Not so fast," the petition calls on Norfolk council, Haldimand council, Queen's Park and Ottawa to declare a moratorium on new nuclear generating stations until a host of issues related to the industry are addressed. These include the safe disposal of nuclear waste and the huge cost overruns that plague the industry.

Grand Erie Energy Quest -- sponsor of the petition -- also wants Bruce Power to suspend plans for an environmental assessment in Nanticoke until Norfolk council and Haldimand council fully air the issue in public. GEEQ is angry that Norfolk council and Haldimand council passed resolutions favourable to Bruce Power last year without entertaining public input.

"What Norfolk and Haldimand councils have done is declare Norfolk and Haldimand as willing host communities," says GEEQ spokesperson Jim Elve of Waterford, an environmental activist and member of the Green Party. "We seem to have more of a discussion about where to put a dog park than a nuclear facility."

Dunnville Coun. Lorne Boyko doesn't understand GEEQ's complaint. An environmental assessment, he said yesterday, is the proper means of airing concerns and fielding public input on an issue of this magnitude. Municipal councils, he added, are ill-equipped for the job.

"Is nuclear power right for Haldimand County?" Boyko said. "I don't know. But I know I'll have a pretty good idea after the environmental assessment. It's almost like they are petitioning against themselves. They are getting what they want."

In a news release yesterday, GEEQ described itself as "a grassroots group of concerned residents of Haldimand and Norfolk counties." The group doesn't believe Bruce Power will conduct an environmental assessment. Rather, it describes the $30-million, three-year study as "the first stage of construction."

"The snowball is rolling down hill and it won't be easy to stop," Elve said in his release.

Bruce Power spokesman James Scongack says initiatives like this are to be expected wherever nuclear reactors are proposed.

"There will always be a group of people who -- no matter how adequate the process -- will oppose it," he said. "I don't think anyone at this point is asking anyone to oppose or support anything. I don't put a lot of weight on this. The public consultation -- the public dialogue -- is only beginning."

Scongack plans to make a presentation at Norfolk council Nov. 25. During that presentation, he is expected to announce a series of open houses where Bruce Power will field questions and comments from the public.

Oct. 31, Bruce Power announced it is interested in constructing two nuclear reactors on 2,000 acres of vacant land in the Nanticoke Industrial Park. If the project gets the green light, the reactors will come on line around 2018.

Earlier this month, Donna Pitcher of South Cayuga said she will circulate a petition asking that the issue of nuclear reactors in Nanticoke be included as a question on 2010 municipal ballots in Norfolk, Haldimand, Hamilton and Brant County.

Those interested in downloading a copy of the GEEQ petition can do so by sending an e-mail to petition@energyquest4nanticoke.ca.

519-426-3528 ext. 150
msonnenberg@bowesnet.com

The Hamilton Spectator
NANTICOKE (Nov 19, 2008)

A community group has sprung up to fight a proposal to build two nuclear reactors in the industrial area of Haldimand County.

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 close in 2014.

The province is not endorsing the idea, but it has support from both Haldimand and Norfolk councils, plus local MP and cabinet minister Diane Finley.

A group calling itself Grand Erie Energy Quest announced yesterday it has launched a petition requesting a moratorium on nuclear development in Nanticoke.

It will be asking residents to sign it tomorrow night at MPP Toby Barrett's energy symposium at the Jarvis Community Centre.

The group asks that a moratorium be put in place until the issues of contamination, costs, security and public consultation are adequately addressed. Bruce is seeking approval from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to conduct an environmental assessment.

It could take three years and cost the company $30 million.

Haldimand Mayor Marie Trainer, who has encouraged the province to support the nuclear option for Nanticoke, said she's heard both pro and con from residents, but "the majority have been for it."

Haldimand "We Were Never Asked"

I have been asked by a few people to explain why I am attempting to stop "progress" here in Haldimand County. This is in regards to a petition that I am working on about the Environmental Assessment by Bruce Power for a possible Nuclear Power Plant in Haldimand (Nanticoke).

I want to make myself perfectly clear that my problem is with the process and the path that our Council members have taken on our behalf. And it is just that simple! I am not trying to stop "progress".

I have not decided 100% whether I am in favour of a Nuclear Power Plant in Nanticoke, and I am sure that there are many that feel the same way I do. Each of us will have our own opinions and thoughts on this issue, but what is missing for me personally is I have not had say!

Our elected Council members in Haldimand County have made that decision on our behalf. This was just plain wrong!

I don’t have a problem with council making regular every day decisions on how to run this county, but this decision was way behind their scope of "responsibilities". How much do they really know about Nuclear Power?

So that brings me to a few concerns and questions that if we were involved in the process with our Council maybe we would today have some answers;

Bruce Power has published the economic impact that this would have on the community, and has obviously shared this with our Council members.

Where did this information come from, and what back up documentation is there? Where are the Staff reports from Haldimand County?

The Environmental Assessment Process;

What are all the steps?
What role does the public play in this process?
Does the public get to vote on this?
What role does the County play in this process?
Is the process Fair?

I would like to see all the related information and all Staff Reports that relate to this question. In particular the background information that staff would have provided to our Council members.

Used Fuel and Waste Management;

Does staff and Council have the knowledge and the background related to this issue. Have they "fully" investigated and understand the scope of Waste management at this level? Again all staff reports and Council’s thoughts on this would have been appreciated.

Security and Safety;

Other then the information from Bruce Power, what other documentation and expert consultation has Haldimand County done. Again staff reports to back this up.

Environmental Effects;

Again other then the information provided by Bruce Power what information can staff provide on the effects? Has staff hired and consulted with experts in this field?

Other Alternatives;

What other alternatives were investigated? Meetings and reports from staff in relation to this are also critical. Has Haldimand County requested from the Provincial government funds be spent on the upgrades to the Coal Plant? If so, what response have they received?

I could go on and I am sure that many of you have even more questions.

My problem…We Were Never Asked…..

As I stated earlier this was a decision that Haldimand County Councillors should never have taken on without our input! They have certainly taken enough time in the last two years to speak to Bruce Power, but wouldn't speak to residents as they stated it was premature.

It looks like our Council has put us on a road where there is no turning around. As Councillor Sloat so eloquently put it….."The county will have an opportunity for giving input but will have no "decision making role".

Why on earth would our "elected officials" start a process that they themselves can not vote on or have a final say?

Is this "Responsible Government?"

There were many simple ways that Haldimand County Council could have engaged the community, but they once again decided that our "Voices" did not need to be heard!

Now maybe if we had been involved in the process from the beginning, and we took part in the decision to say, "We Are A Willing Host" I would feel differently today!